I don't know what "posting anything constructive" has to do with anything in this context, nevermind that it is disingenuous for you to claim that you are interested in a discussion instead of "immature responses" when your posts are filled with them (eg. "head cannon [sic] to the max," "cutely insult," "post stupid stuff and not get called out").
There is largely little value in getting into an argument with the "ME2's plot was stupid!" crowd. But if you want me to deconstruct your previous post, I suppose I will oblige you this once.
"Objectively, everything is in the eyes of the beholder."
You start off with this statement, which is interesting until you consider the definition of objective and subjective.
"As scientists say, each person sees a "different colour" when pointed at the same one."
Scientists don't actually say this. And it would not be a particularly meaningful statement if they did. Whether or not one person perceives a color exactly the same as another person may be interesting to think about physiologically, but is not a lesson in objectivity whatsoever. It is even less material considering the fact that one person can never experience another person's consciousness to see a different shade of blue, for example. In any case, this did end the amusing part of your previous post.
"That doesn't however mean that one should say stupid stuff without being called out."
So this must be the part where you go with an immature response, despite the fact that you do not want to receive them.
"1st mistake... etc"
Posting in this form makes your reply appear condescending. Although I am of course not naive enough to believe that this was not the tone you wanted to present. But it does hurt the credibility of future claims that you are interested in "talking constructively."
"Mass effect 2, without the Arrival DLC shows the reapers bypassing the Citadel relay plot, by showing them outside of our galaxy, closing in."
You are of course referring to the final couple of seconds showing Reapers outside of the Milky Way.
That's actually all it shows, Reapers at a significant distance from the Milky Way. Considering that Harbinger is 2km long and the Milky Way is 9.46x10^17 km across who knows if they would make it into the MWG in any current character's lifetime.
Of course if you want to criticize the scene for taking too much dramatic license with relative sizes or distances than I am sure you could do so.
Any invalidation of ME1's plot occurred when they planned to make the Reaper's present in the galaxy in ME3, which was a plan they hatched before Arrival came out, and perhaps during ME2's development. Although I would imagine it would have been extremely late in development of ME2 since the main game has nothing to do with the Reapers attempting to bypass the Citadel relay plot by flying into the MWG.
Where there was a failing was elucidating the purpose of the human reaper, and kicking the can down the road to ME3. That is a valid criticism, but this is actually a small part of the narrative. However, it could be explained in many different ways, some of which may have been more satisfying than the explanations we got in ME3, or EDI's speculations in ME2.
"The collector mission wasn't worth doing because, putting it next to the annihilation of all advanced organic life means absolutely nothing. The handling of the reaper threat in ME1 is something that doesn't leave time for huge extra side quests."
All advanced organic life is not at risk for imminent annihilation in the time frame of ME2, unless you are criticizing with knowledge you gained from Arrival to ME3. if they are then the plot of ME1, by and large, is immediately invalidated. At least using the same logic as most ME2 critics use.
In any case, I fail to see how you can draw the conclusion from ME1 that there wasn't time for huge extra sidequests. In that game or afterwards. For all you know in ME1 the Reapers are trapped in dark-space, and they are still trapped in dark-space in the time of ME2... except that they had different proxies (the Collectors) who were not known to the player in ME1.
This is usually the part of the discussion where the "vague outline for a grand fetch quest plot" is introduced by those that did not like ME2's plot. Nevermind that the grand fetch quest plot would have even lower in game stakes than the actual Collector plot. It would come down to the Reaper menace in the background.
These proposals did get a lot of bandwagon support from other players who did not like the plot of ME2, despite the fact that they aren't fleshed out and are the barest of outlines. This is likely because people imagine whatever scenarios to fill in the blanks that would fit their own personal rule of cool, and so obviously that sort of story would have been superior to the shipped game.
"The collector mission wasn't worth doing because you can destroy the collector base, effectively excluding it as a way stop the reapers, and the inability to acquire it for the alliance/good guys and improve technology, as we did with javelin cannons. You remember? Those that destroyed the collector ship no sweat in 2 shots in the most climactic moment in the game? Greatest threat in the galaxy yo."
You can choose to save the base. Saying it wasn't worth doing because you have the choice to destroy the base is an odd way of looking at it. In either case, the Collectors will cease to be a threat, which is why you can do either and complete the game.
I don't remember the javelin cannons because there is no such thing in Mass Effect 1, 2 or 3. The Thanix upgrade was largely a game mechanic rather than a plot point in ME2.
"A game's story should be complete on its own. Just because you like mass effect 2 but it did a poor job in the plot/story, doesn't mean you should point out fingers at the next game for not salvaging it somehow. Nothing like that in ME1 happened and it shouldn't have happened here."
The first statement is accurate, the game should be able to stand on its own. ME2 does stand on its own, but you were really responding to a section about the motivation for constructing a human reaper, which isn't fully explained in ME2. Of course, many things were not remotely explained in ME1, and critics like yourself seem to conveniently ignore this fact when making statements of this kind.
You also seem to be confusing a response about one thing that was unexplained in ME2 and not satisfactorily explained in ME3 as me making a statement that ME2 needed ME3 to fix it. I never made any statement of the kind.
"Even if the human reaper was relevant, the handling of the plot makes it so that it won't be completed without striking earth. I shouldn't explain why this is retarded."
This is essentially head canon on your part, taking speculation of random crew members as fact. I agree that the notion of attacking Earth by themselves seems silly. Unfortunately we do not actually have any real information on how many people it will actually take to complete the reaper, nor do we have information on the total population of the Alliance, or more specifically the number of colonists in lightly defended areas. The codex only indirectly makes a comment about total population in the entry about the low percentage that serve in the military. They may not have needed to "target Earth," and in any case this is not a central plot point to ME2.
"Its always in the execution. And ME2 was as worse as it could get. As it stands, ME2 holds the most irrelevant, nonexistent plot in the trilogy."
Part opinion, then statement that is demonstrably false. ME2's plot isn't any more irrelevant than ME1's. If they could have flown to the galaxy by the time of ME3, there was little point in risking failure and discovery with the Saren and Geth plot.
"In order for it to work everyone becomes an idiot. The council, the squadmates, shepard, TIM, the collectors, the alliance, council fleets, etc"
I hesitate to even label this bit as a criticism, but whatever it happens to be, it is invalid.
For all the ire the council draws in ME2, it is more logically consistent with the council from ME1 that they do not believe in the Reaper threat given the extreme lack of evidence. The "Reaper trap" only works because there is basically no evidence to find.
What do you mean scientists don't say this? Color vision is the ability of humans to perceive frequencies of the light that reflects on pbjects. This IS a subjective process. Scientifically proven.
People say stupid things, you know this, I know this. There is nothing wrong with calling them out, otherwise, how will they ever know? I've realized I was stupid before, and I'm sure at sometime in your life, so did you. In case you misunderstood, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was just denying your statement that we should base this on the "eyes of the beholder". This method leads to nowhere.
Ok since our posts get really big I'm gonna generally adress things I see across all of your arguments.
First of all the Reapers flying into the milky way. You attemped to use math to support your argument, a thing that even the devs don't use to make these scenes.
When they showed that last scene, they didn't have in mind "Ok, the person is now going to freeze the frame, search up the wiki for Harbingers length, compare that to the length appearing in front, do the math according to the speed with which reapers move, which they don't have and figure out when the reapers will strike".
The devs also said themselves in the documentary that mass effect was designed as a trilogy. Unless you have a statement made that the devs opposed this idea and wanted to remove the reaper thread to lengthen the games after mass effect 2, I would be interested to know.
But if this isn't the case, and they show the reapers closing in, and we have a trilogy in our hands, pure common sense says they're gonna be here in the third installment.
Regarding the human reaper, I agree with you ME3 didn't do much to make the situation better and that ME2 didn't handle it right. But the sillyness of it lies in the sillyness of the collector threats.
EDI says significantly more humans will be required to finish the Reaper, accompanied with what your teammates say about the amount of pods in the base and that they are going to attack Earth. Characters in games, don't speculate, they are computer generated and don't have real personalities. Writers decide what they want to say, to achieve a purpose. So what is the purpose of teammates saying they have so much room for humans they need to attack Earth to fill them all up?
Character development or exposition? The never ever bring it up again. If we know that the collectors are so weak they can't attack Earth, why don't the teammates know this?
Also you seem to forget what importance the Citadel has in defeating each cycle.
It's about speed and the surprise attack tactic. Since for whatever reason each cycle has all the important stuff on the Citadel, a strike at the heart of the cycle will cripple it and make it ezpz to conquer. Without this tactic the Reapers struggle more, lose more units, its a better tactic than just running in. So ME2 reapers closing in MWG or the arrival, or even ME3 doesn't make ME1 invalid.
ME2's plot is completely irrelevant because:
Nothing important changes if we don't destroy the collectors. The reapers still arrive in ME3 and kick our ass. We don't get any advantage in ME2 (not including the character missions)
ME1's plot is completely important because:
Without the knowledge of the reapers and the citadel trap, the cycle would have already lost.
Collector base.
The problem with this is that we destroy it. As ME1 shepard says, "I'm gonna find a way to stop them" . So naturally shepard , doesn't.
"BUT CPTfalconPunch, we have the option to save the collector base!"
Yes, FOR CERBERUS NOT US. Not the alliance and certainly not the alien races. Just get someone to research it. Contact the alliance, contact the council I'm a spectre, contact Liara godammit.
You've got some rights and wrongs here and there in the rest of your post but I think the meat of it is what we should focus in.
Retour en haut
