Yeah, I just. I don't know, y'all. I just don't know.
Sometimes I feel like I'm not allowed to love even the elements of ME3 that are generally well-regarded. Like, say, the stuff that was heavily foreshadowed in ME1 and ME2. Like the Reaper invasion itself. C'mon, that had to happen.
Yeah, I just. I don't know, y'all. I just don't know.
Sometimes I feel like I'm not allowed to love even the elements of ME3 that are generally well-regarded. Like, say, the stuff that was heavily foreshadowed in ME1 and ME2. Like the Reaper invasion itself. C'mon, that had to happen.
Even though I hated ME3's endings prior to the EC, and even after find it by far to be the weakest finale of the trilogy, I think the rest of the game was on the whole superior to ME1 and ME2. Even with the whole ending controversy, I'd still rank ME3 as my favorite game of the series.
Even though I hated ME3's endings prior to the EC, and even after find it by far to be the weakest finale of the trilogy, I think the rest of the game was on the whole superior to ME1 and ME2. Even with the whole ending controversy, I'd still rank ME3 as my favorite game of the series.
Thing is, that's the image at the very end of ME2, and the Reapers have been doing the bold every 50k years for countless millions of years. Those are the cards that ME3 was dealt. Not sure how easy it would've been to simply go another way.
Terrible idea. Having the sort of buildup ME 1 and ME 2 do towards the Reapers and not having a proper climax (actually showing them as the tidal wave of destruction they've been continually talked up as) is abysmal writing.
I'd really rather the Reapers weren't left In Exile.
Shepard could have been Saren 2.0, except he would be searching for ways to stop Reapers, building personal army from krogans, geth and Terminus mercs, trying to warn as many as possible and being hunted by governments trying to hide Reaper threat. But we got Loveboad story and it got highest scores in trilogy. So whatever.
Simple. Like ME1, ME3 is all about stopping the reapers in transit. It preserves their Cthulu like status. And it makes Shepard useful, since it doesn't mean conventional space war.
I'd of just gone with killing sovereign and taking his stuff combined with a long enough delay from actions by Shepard in ME2 allowed the galaxy to tech upgrade too the point they had a fighting chance. Initially Sovereign was indestructible until his shields dropped when his robo saren got destroyed. The fleet couldn't do squat while his shields were up, he ignored them and drove through them like they weren't there. With reaper guns now they can penetrate the shields. Explain no other cycle ever got that shot at Sovereign so the reapers pretty much wiped out the galaxy without ever losing a ship, so no other cycle had the opportunity to steal the tech and design ships with weapons capable of taking out a reaper. Have the war assets be used as butt kicking was assets and how many you had determines the state of the galaxy. I mean WTF do the war assets do in ME3, I don't mean the game mechanic. But how does having more fleets kicking butt change the magic effect of a magic gun, is it feeding on the positive energy of the galaxy?
Great ending, not even close. But given the cards they were dealt I'd much rather have that ending than what we got.
Shepard could have been Saren 2.0, except he would be searching for ways to stop Reapers, building personal army from krogans, geth and Terminus mercs, trying to warn as many as possible and being hunted by governments trying to hide Reaper threat. But we got Loveboad story and it got highest scores in trilogy. So whatever.
People need to understand that Shepard preparing wouldn't have made any difference.
The Reapers are a plot device. There's always going to be as many of them as need be for the story to work. Just like the orcs at Helm's Deep. If the galaxy has 50 dreadnoughts, there's going to be 1000 Reaper capital ships. The galaxy has 1,000 dreadnoughts? There's going to be 50,000 capital ships.
You get the idea. The Reapers are going to invade and crush through the galaxy, at least initially, because that's the kind of story this is and that's what they do. Arguing about numbers is pointless, because it's never been about numbers, it's been about narrative.
People need to understand that Shepard preparing wouldn't have made any difference.
The Reapers are a plot device. There's always going to be as many of them as need be for the story to work. Just like the orcs at Helm's Deep. If the galaxy has 50 dreadnoughts, there's going to be 1000 Reaper capital ships. The galaxy has 1,000 dreadnoughts? There's going to be 50,000 capital ships.
You get the idea. The Reapers are going to invade and crush through the galaxy, at least initially, because that's the kind of story this is and that's what they do.
I don't say they don't, I'd just prefer if they split preparation and war between two games. Hmph, not even war actually, because you can't wage war with tsunami, more like trying to pull the trigger of your hope when everything is falling apart.
This sounds to me like you're upset over 'your' Shepard not preparing for the Reapers. Is that the case?
You understand it wouldn't make any difference?
sounds to me like they didn't like the fact the plot (or lack thereof) was utterly pointless, spending an entire game focusing on a sole 'suicide' mission whilst needing to manage everybody's mommy/daddy issues in order to achieve success, making ME2 the biggest detriment to the overarching narrative of the entire trilogy.
sounds to me like they didn't like the fact the plot (or lack thereof) was utterly pointless, spending an entire game focusing on a sole 'suicide' mission whilst needing to manage everybody's mommy/daddy issues in order to achieve success, making ME2 the biggest detriment to the overarching narrative of the entire trilogy.
And that's a legitimate criticism. But solving it would help ME 2, and that's it. It's not going to change the arc of the trilogy. When ME 3 rolls along, it's going to have the Reapers invading and crushing everything under them, and that's just all there is to it, because that's the kind of story this is.
You're still in the exact same position of having a lot of Reapers and not many ideas on what to do about them at the beginning of ME 3.
Maybe Mass Effect 2 should have ended with Shepard recovering the Crucible plans. That would have at least have given Shepard something to do that actually matters in the game's second chapter.
In ME2 Shepard doesn't really accomplish anything. He prevents the Reapers from using the Collectors to construct another Reaper, but it does nothing to prevent or delay the Reaper invasion. In fact its likely that waiting for the Collectors to finish the new Reaper would have bought the galaxy more time than its destruction, since it wasn't even close to completion. Shepard destroying it just prompted the Reapers to step on the pedal as their Plan B, which for whatever reason, was now a totally viable way for the Reapers to get to the Milky Way. Six months later Khar'Shan is on fire.
Well, the Crucible is about the worst piece of writing BioWare has ever crapped out...so...
Maybe Mass Effect 2 should have ended with Shepard recovering the Crucible plans. That would have at least have given Shepard something to do that actually matters in the game's second chapter.
ME2 had suicide mission. The only mission where choices actually do anything. The music, the atmosphere, the action, the cinematic and choices in that mission were prefect.
I didn't care if ME2 was a filler. It had great characters and each squad mate got a recruit mission and loyalty mission. Some of the missions didn't even have combat like Samara or Thane and they were still fun.
The Reapers are the definition of boring villains so most ME3 main mission did nothing for me and autodialogue Shepard killed all my renegade play throughs. At least ME2 barely had the Reapers so I got to enjoy it more. Lets hope ME:A has a better villains who's mission isn't to just kill stuff.
Well, the Crucible is about the worst piece of writing BioWare has ever crapped out...so...
I didn't care for the Crucible's execution, but I didn't mind the idea for a superweapon. In fact a superweapon was needed to defeat the Reapers if you both wanted to preserve the Reapers superiority and have Shepard, rather than say Hackett or Primarch Victus, be the one most responsible for their eventual defeat.
I disagree.
The trope of the overwhelming enemy horde against the few elite heroes is very much standard for fiction. Whether it's science, fantasy, modern day, or something else. They can't all fall back on superweapons.
Anyway, the whole thematic point of this sort of scenario is that they aren't superior. That the protagonists have some subtle quality they lack. It's not about winning, it's about winning in a thematically meaningful way. Whatever superweapon or superwhatever is used needs to be based on that.
I disagree.
The trope of the overwhelming enemy against the few elite heroes is very much standard for fiction. Whether it's science, fantasy, modern day, or something else. They can't all fall back on superweapons.
Anyway, the whole thematic point of this sort of scenario is that that they aren't superior. That the protagonists have some subtle quality they lack. It's not about winning, it's about winning in a thematically meaningful way. Whatever superweapon or superwhatever is used needs to be based on that.
How would you have had the heroes defeat the Reapers? If not by a superweapon, than by what means?
Any sort of conventional military victory wouldn't involve Shepard as the primary agent of the Reapers' defeat, as ME isn't a RTS, and the command of fleets would be in the hands of someone like Hackett or Victus.
I've watched all 15 seasons of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis combined -- twice.
A superweapon-to-the-rescue sprouts up roughly once every two seasons in that franchise. I live.
The Crucible isn't bad.
I don't know.
Perhaps going to back to the drawing board and thinking about what kind of fatal flaw could be introduced in the Reapers.
Shepard doesn't need to be the primary agent. He only needs to be the tipping point.
I've watched all 15 seasons of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis combined -- twice.
A superweapon-to-the-rescue sprouts up roughly once every two seasons in that franchise. I live.
The Crucible isn't bad.
"We found this magic wand that solves our monumentally colossal problem that requires no work or qualities from you (since the Crucible is found, planned, constructed, and transported entirely off screen with no interference from Shepard)" is bad. It's very bad. It's beyond bad.
"We found this magic wand that solves our monumentally colossal problem that requires no work or qualities from you" is bad. It's very bad. It's beyond bad.
"You" is a fairly relative term, isn't it? I mean, you and I are generally on the same side when it comes to wanting our heroes to struggle. Shepard struggles -- a lot -- holding the Reaper armada at bay as much as possible as scientist survivors from across the known galaxy pour their hearts and minds into getting that thing to turn on. That's not us working on the solution directly, no, but we're definitely not "not working." I get what you're saying. It could have been better. Definitely.
I can think of a lot of ways it could have been worse, too, though, personally.
"We found this magic wand that solves our monumentally colossal problem that requires no work or qualities from you (since the Crucible is found, planned, constructed, and transported entirely off screen with no interference from Shepard)" is bad. It's very bad. It's beyond bad.
Yeah. Shep should've had to put his heroic essense into the crucible or something.
ME2 had suicide mission. The only mission where choices actually do anything. The music, the atmosphere, the action, the cinematic and choices in that mission were prefect.
I didn't care if ME2 was a filler. It had great characters and each squad mate got a recruit mission and loyalty mission. Some of the missions didn't even have combat like Samara or Thane and they were still fun.
Retour en haut
