Has it occurred to you that you're blowing the issues way out of proportion?
Sorry, I can't just turn my brain off and enjoy the awesome.
If we're going to Andromeda, I want to know why we couldn't leave sooner. Why we don't explode or cook on the way there. Why the Reapers couldn't follow us. Or why they aren't there to greet us. I'll want to know why Andromeda isn't ruled by omnicidal synthetics, or organics so advanced and powerful they make Space Cthulhu look like cuttlefish.
And this is why I kept saying ME2 and ME3 could have built upon the contrived stuff making it not-so-contrived. Build on the Cipher and find out more about how it works so it's not such mystical mumbo-jumbo (might have been a perfect reason for TIM to take an interest in Shep, rather than "You're a symbol" nonsense. Actually acknowledge missteps and try to correct them and improve upon the series as a whole.
Heck that's part of what makes me so down on the franchise, the complete unwillingness to recognise the flaws and work to improve them
As opposed to just piling more nonsensical cr*p on top of the cr*p that already exists.
How come?
if there is a shortcut the ark takes, the problems conventional crossings would face are still there. Ok, there is still the question why the Rapers didn´t build a shortcut too, but well the cuttlefishs are really set in their line of thinking anyways. The Leviathan are just a bunch of lazy nutjobs who got decadent and were on decline anyways.
Sorry, I can't just turn my brain off and enjoy the awesome.
If we're going to Andromeda, I want to know why we couldn't leave sooner. Why we don't explode or cook on the way there. Why the Reapers couldn't follow us. Or why they aren't there to greet us. I'll want to know why Andromeda isn't ruled by omnicidal synthetics, or organics so advanced and powerful they make Space Cthulhu look like cuttlefish.
if there is a shortcut the ark takes, the problems conventional crossings would face are still there. Ok, there is still the question why the Rapers didn´t build a shortcut too, but well the cuttlefishs are really set in their line of thinking anyways. The Leviathan are just a bunch of lazy nutjobs who got decadent and were on decline anyways.
Yes.
But you see, after ME1, I had ME2 and ME3 to look forward to. Answers to the headscratchers that it left behind. More stuff to develop. Questions to answer. Like Lost or BSG.
Sadly, like both those series, it failed to live up to the promise.
The answer is pretty simple. Why didn't 1890s England build Damascus Steel swords? Because despite their advancement they lacked the technical knowledge.
Because the age of guns was well under way and made swords obsolete.
Because the age of guns was well under way and made swords obsolete.
And for all we know, the technology that gets you from one galaxy to another is total garbage when it comes to intragalatic travel, making it useless for the purpose of the reapers, which have shown absolutely 0 technological innovation.
Um, the Reapers have shown technical innovation. They invented the Citadel and Mass Relays, as well as all their variations of husks. Heck, the Catalyst showed technological innovation by inventing the Reapers.
if there is a shortcut the ark takes, the problems conventional crossings would face are still there.
Because the age of guns was well under way and made swords obsolete.
Looks like Mass Effect to me. Do I need other criteria?
For a teaser, I'd say the N7 logo, the horizon shot, the omni-blade, the krogan, and the end music hammered the point home quite well that it was Mass Effect.
Yes.
But you see, after ME1, I had ME2 and ME3 to look forward to. Answers to the headscratchers that it left behind. More stuff to develop. Questions to answer. Like Lost or BSG.
Sadly, like both those series, it failed to live up to the promise.
Sorry, but again, it wasn't ME2 and ME3's job to make sense out of the mundane contrivances and lapses in logic that kept ME1 moving along, many of which clearly weren't going to matter beyond the first entry. These things weren't anywhere near the significance of LOST or BSG's puzzle-box mysteries. They were straight-up "awesome" nonsense cooked up by Karpyshyn that twisted even the self-contained lore of ME1 in a pretzel.
Inconsistencies and headscratchers =/= Promise to live up to.
Sorry, but again, it wasn't ME2 and ME3's job to make sense out of the mundane contrivances and lapses in logic that kept ME1 moving along, many of which clearly weren't going to matter beyond the first entry. These things weren't anywhere near the significance of LOST or BSG's puzzle-box mysteries. They were straight-up "awesome" nonsense cooked up by Karpyshyn that twisted even the self-contained lore of ME1 in a pretzel.
Inconsistencies and headscratchers =/= Promise to live up to.
Well, with Casey Hudson saying during a 2007 interview that ME was created and planned as a Trilogy from the start (which in retrospect it obviously was not), I think it would have been the job of ME2/3 to follow up and not to re-invent the plot for every game, wouldn't you think so?
Well, with Casey Hudson saying that ME was created and planned as a Trilogy from the start (which in retrospect it obviously was not), I think it would have been the job of ME2/3 to follow up and not to re-invent the plot for every game, wouldn't you think so?
Sure, but there's a difference between following up and running around patching all the hand-waves from the first game, from nifty mysteries to throwaway contrivances. ME1's nonsense remains ME1's nonsense, pure and simple.
For a teaser, I'd say the N7 logo, the horizon shot, the omni-blade, the krogan, and the end music hammered the point home quite well that it was Mass Effect.
Well, it shows it is a "Mass Effect" game. Whether it is a Mass Effect game has yet to be determined.
Well, with Casey Hudson saying during a 2007 interview that ME was created and planned as a Trilogy from the start (which in retrospect it obviously was not), I think it would have been the job of ME2/3 to follow up and not to re-invent the plot for every game, wouldn't you think so?
I wouldn't say that, it was clearly planned as a trilogy.
I think, much like Lost, they didn't know the end-game of the said trilogy until mid-way through of the series.
What do you mean by re-inventing the plot for every game? All three games did have different plots.
Sure, but there's a difference between following up and running around patching all the hand-waves from the first game, from nifty mysteries to throwaway contrivances. ME1's nonsense remains ME1's nonsense, pure and simple.
Hm, apart from the fact that I know from previous conversations that we very much disagree on what contrivances ME1 had exactly, I do think "following up on" and "patching handwaves" do go hand in hand. Unfortunately, even if you want to separate those two, ME2/3 did neither very well.
If they were to make a new trilogy in Andromeda, I would very much hope for substantial improvement in that particular area.
I wouldn't say that, it was clearly planned as a trilogy.
I think, much like Lost, they didn't know the end-game of the said trilogy until mid-way through of the series.
What do you mean by re-inventing the plot for every game? All three games did have different plots.
It depends on how you define "planned". Yes, obviously they had an idea that they wanted to make 3 games but IMO, planning a trilogy means exactly that you have an idea of where you are going before you get to the third part.
As for re-inventing the plot: IMO, the plot of the trilogy does not feel very coherent or even continuous. ME2 especially goes to great length to confront you with problems that have nothing to do with the main premise of the trilogy and therefore stalls the plot there. ME3 tries to get the ME1 plotlines back on track but in doing so, it again breaks with what little progress did happen in ME2. Ultimately, while all 3 games in themselves are very good at presenting and advancing their own plotlines, they just don't fit together very well as a coherent whole (which is what I expect from a trilogy).
Well, it shows it is a "Mass Effect" game. Whether it is a Mass Effect game has yet to be determined.
What is a "Mass Effect" game though?
I feel safe predicting that the game will be an ARPG with TPS combat, powers, and a party. Dialogue and character interaction will be the usual BioWare design.
Well, it shows it is a "Mass Effect" game. Whether it is a Mass Effect game has yet to be determined.
To be fair, you can say that of almost any game that has had only an announcement trailer as marketing material.
Announcement trailers are little more than "Look at what we're making! Get hyped!".
What is a "Mass Effect" game though?
I feel safe predicting that the game will be an ARPG with TPS combat, powers, and a party. Dialogue and character interaction will be the usual BioWare design.
A "Mass Effect" game is a game that has Mass Effect put in the title.
A Mass Effect game is a game that captures all the same unique feelings the Mass Effect franchise has.
To be fair, you can say that of almost any game that has had only an announcement trailer as marketing material.
Announcement trailers are little more than "Look at what we're making! Get hyped!".
I know.
Hm, apart from the fact that I know from previous conversations that we very much disagree on what contrivances ME1 had exactly, I do think "following up on" and "patching handwaves" do go hand in hand. Unfortunately, even if you want to separate those two, ME2/3 did neither very well.
If they were to make a new trilogy in Andromeda, I would very much hope for substantial improvement in that particular area.
It depends on how you define "planned". Yes, obviously they had an idea that they wanted to make 3 games but IMO, planning a trilogy means exactly that you have an idea of where you are going before you get to the third part.
As for re-inventing the plot: IMO, the plot of the trilogy does not feel very coherent or even continuous. ME2 especially goes to great length to confront you with problems that have nothing to do with the main premise of the trilogy and therefore stalls the plot there. ME3 tries to get the ME1 plotlines back on track but in doing so, it again breaks with what little progress did happen in ME2. Ultimately, while all 3 games in themselves are very good at presenting and advancing their own plotlines, they just don't fit together very well as a coherent whole (which is what I expect from a trilogy).
Well, the plot is more or less the same, Reapers are coming, how do we stop them. That basic plot thread is present in all three games. What I think you are describing is the narrative of all three games instead, which are all different by design.
The narrative focus is why they are disjointed a bit. The first game is the road movie, the second game is the dirty dozen, and the third game is the war movie, essentially. So game one was tightly focused on finding a rogue operative and exploring the galaxy, game two was all about interpersonal relationships and setting up bits of the universe. The galaxy is lived in now so you don't need to find every nook and cranny again, while game 3 is the climax, the big fight that has been on a simmer since game one. A lot of that game is consequence over choice, whereas the first two games were a lot of choices with less consequence.
Pacing issues in all three games aside, which they all have a lot of, most of what you see in the games are NOT supposed to be a part of the main plot in terms of narrative structure. Got to remember, the first game is about Saren, not the Reapers, who are more or less shown to be the true villains in act 3. So much of what you are doing in the first game, the side-stuff and tracking Saren, is either narrative-related so it can accomodate choices, or slightly plot related regardless of said choices.
The second game is consciously tied to interpersonal relationships, and many of those conflicts come back in game 3, especially for characters like Mordin, Tali, Samara, Jack and Legion. It doesn't have to be married to the plot per-se, but it does have to give narrative context to why you are doing these missions; to gain trust and make sure you survive. It's not interested in confronting you every moment of the day with the plot, but it also doesn't have to either because of the narrative.
Game 3, being the climax, is the closest-tied to the actual plot if you really think about it. Yet the biggest missions and moments only have some degree of plot undertone to them, it is the narrative choices found in the first two games that dramatically change how they play and feel in game 3. Tuchanka and Rannoch obviously come to mind; yes it's tied to the plot because were recruiting, but it's in the background, much like Mass Effect 2 and how gaining your crews trust and loyalty is tied to the plot of assembling a team to assault their base. It is an insignificant connection, but it is present, and like I said, the strength of the series is its not married to the plot all the time.
If it was, Citadel and other DLC would not exist.
What is a "Mass Effect" game though?
I feel safe predicting that the game will be an ARPG with TPS combat, powers, and a party. Dialogue and character interaction will be the usual BioWare design.
It's the same thing that makes Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy. Very few of those games are in the same world, or have the same characters save for a few themes and trademarks, design choices and aesthetics, and presentation.
That is what a franchise does. It's less about the actual mechanics because any game can have those mechanics. It is more about the actual presentation.
Hm, apart from the fact that I know from previous conversations that we very much disagree on what contrivances ME1 had exactly, I do think "following up on" and "patching handwaves" do go hand in hand. Unfortunately, even if you want to separate those two, ME2/3 did neither very well.
@LinksOcarina: Yes, I do see all of that except two things:
1. ME1 was about the reapers from the start, we just didn't know it (we go to Eden Prime because of Sovereign, not Saren, he is just a puppet). The fact that we only find out later doesn't change that.
2. The "change in narrative focus" as you call it is exactly the problem I am having. A well designed trilogy does not diverge that far from the main plotline in the second installment. It also doesn't introduce characters there, that basically only have roles in the second installment. ME2's plotline (the whole Harbinger/Collector business) and it's character (with the exception of ME1 returns) basically remain inconsequential for ME3, just like ME1's plot was ultimately fairly inconsequential for ME2. You say it yourself "it was an insignificant connection". Well, in my opinion, that may be enough for some plot arc episodes in a tv or novel series where there is lot's of time to develop things and to intersperse irrelevant plotlines but with the confined narrative space of a three part series, BW didn't have that luxury and IMO, it shows as ME2s shortcomings in this regard cause a lot of the sudden "out of the blue" developments that haunt ME3.
@dreamgazer: Yes well, no need to reiterate that discussion here.
@LinksOcarina: Yes, I do see all of that except two things:
1. ME1 was about the reapers from the start, we just didn't know it (we go to Eden Prime because of Sovereign, not Saren, he is just a puppet). The fact that we only find out later doesn't change that.
2. The "change in narrative focus" as you call it is exactly the problem I am having. A well designed trilogy does not diverge that far from the main plotline in the second installment. It also doesn't introduce characters there, that basically only have roles in the second installment. ME2's plotline (the whole Harbinger/Collector business) and it's character (with the exception of ME1 returns) basically remain inconsequential for ME3, just like ME1's plot was ultimately fairly inconsequential for ME2. You say it yourself "it was an insignificant connection". Well, in my opinion, that may be enough for some plot arc episodes in a tv or novel series where there is lot's of time to develop things and to intersperse irrelevant plotlines but with the confined narrative space of a three part series, BW didn't have that luxury and IMO, it shows as ME2s shortcomings in this regard cause a lot of the sudden "out of the blue" developments that haunt ME3.
@dreamgazer: Yes well, no need to reiterate that discussion here.
Yet that is also the feel they were going. It was the sci-fi serial of it all with Mass Effect 2, and more or less actually hit that. Not to mention they actually developed their entire cast of characters rather well, DLC content aside.
I also should point out a lot of trilogies have changes in their narrative focus, well loved ones too. They also add and drop characters all the time.
Take, for example, Star Wars. The addition of Yoda in the second movie, or Jabba the Hutt in the third 3 movie, were more than just minor bits. The Yoda stuff was tied to the plot, but it was done out of convenience to the plot, you needed to separate Luke from his friends to have that confrontation. Jabba is completely irrelevant to the plot, the only reason he is shown is because of Han Solo and his rescue were done on screen.
Also to point out, what is the actual plot of the Star Wars trilogy? All three movies are completely different from each other in tone, style and narrative structure, much like mass effect, that the plot is technically also incoherent in the way you describe. This is also not unique either; Lord of the Rings, those Hunger Games books; and so forth. Each of them adds new elements into each book, sometimes for only one book, to serve part of that said narrative.
I would also argue it's unfair to say characters from two are inconsequential in three, they are pretty important since many of them kind of hinge in who is allying with you in the end. Not to mention they close story arcs for those personal characters and help you gain assets for the final fight.
To each their own, I guess. I just don't see it being inconsistent at all. The charges of Mass effect 2 being superfluous tend to be overblown because yes, it's not connected to the Reapers fully like the third game or the first game, but it also doesn't have to be to move that plot along.
Retour en haut