413 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

ME2 also advances the player's understanding -- crucially, the player's sympathy -- toward every other major plotline in the trilogy. None of ME3's best moments would have worked nearly as well without ME2's build-up.

[RoboticWater]

 Yes, by the end of ME2 you're in the exact same position you were in at the end of ME1. You made zero progress. Which is the main criticism against the game. It's a glorified side story.

You have more connections and a more in depth understanding of the galaxies various conflicts. Both of which are instrumental in uniting the galaxy.

[JeffZero]

Yeah, what Data said.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

You are bad. You are so very, very bad.

[Dean_the_Young]

So what was ME3 then? Too much substance?

 

More like trying to back-fill for ME2's lack of substance. Not everything, but quite a bit of ME3's flaws were pressed or set in motion by ME2's lack of narrative progress towards understanding or beating the Reapers.

[Mcfly616]

You have more connections and a more in depth understanding of the galaxies various conflicts. Both of which are instrumental in uniting the galaxy.

 not quite. By the end of ME1 we know the intricacies of the genophage, the Quarian/Geth conflict, etc etc. Sure. More details were added, details that could've still been there had they focused a modicum of the plot on the series' main antagonist, its motives and a way to sufficiently combat it.

 

It doesn't take an entire game to explore 'more connections' of various conflicts.  

[Lord Gunsmith 90]

If he is no longer the lead writer, this game is going to be delayed a long time and the new IP will probably come out first.

[Dean_the_Young]

It was a thoughtless plot device to justify the time leap. Cerberus could have been forced on us in other ways.

 

What's a shame is that everything about the Lazarus project and Cerberus recruitment could have been justified if Shepard was a crippled survivor of the first Normandy, and the time-skip was spent with Shepard more or less being hidden from public by a Council and Alliance that saw him as something of an embarassment as a cripple making unwanted noise.

 

So Shepard's in an recovery wing, locked out of sight, the Normandy SR-1 crew goes their separate ways with their careers, and then what do you know but a Human charity organization with a cutting-edge experimental treatments comes forward with a volunteer option to get the jaded and disgruntled Commander Sheaprd back on their feet, literally...

[RoboticWater]

 not quite. By the end of ME1 we know the intricacies of the genophage, the Quarian/Geth conflict, etc etc. Sure. More details were added, details that could've still been there had they focused a modicum of the plot on the series' main antagonist, its motives and a way to sufficiently combat it.

 

It doesn't take an entire game to explore 'more connections' of various conflicts.  

Not at all. Until we got Legion, we only knew of renegade Geth and were probably sympathetic only to the Quarians. Until Mordin, we only received snippets of emotional anecdotes about the Genophage from Wrex. In fact, both conflicts were entirely in the background of ME1, mere tidbits of lore. ME2 brought you to the forefront of each conflict and gave them a human element that they were severely lacking.

 

JeffZero and many others are right when they say that ME3 could not have reached the emotional highs it did without ME2's detour.

 

Mass Effect isn't a game about destroying Reapers. It's a game about disparate cultures faced with crises. Having a game mainly devoted to Mass Effect's greatest thematic conflict rather than it's greatest literal conflict is not only reasonable, but desirable.

 

 

More like trying to back-fill for ME2's lack of substance. Not everything, but quite a bit of ME3's flaws were pressed or set in motion by ME2's lack of narrative progress towards understanding or beating the Reapers.

Odd that ME3 tried to make up for ME2's "lack of progress" by making Cerberus the main villain and barely touching upon the Reaper's motivations until the last 10 minutes.

[Dean_the_Young]

ME2 also advances the player's understanding -- crucially, the player's sympathy -- toward every other major plotline in the trilogy. None of ME3's best moments would have worked nearly as well without ME2's build-up.

 

This is less a credit to ME2's plot and more to the subplots- or at least the ones that weren't thrown under the bus between games. Geth pinocchio syndrom, the flanderization of the Quarians, Wrex abandoning his politics, and the whole Cerberus Sith Empire.

 

 

More importantly, though, none of the subplots as they were required ME2's core plot to be what it was. That's the good (or bad) thing of having such disconnected subplots: the core plot could have been literally anything else and the Quarian/Tuchanka plotlines could have been more or less the same. The main story could have had far more trilogy relevance- even tied the subplots in to the main story- and been just as good or far better.

 

And, considering that only three companions actually advance those major subplots- Tali, Legion, and Mordin- I think most of the ME2 as well could have been made to support the trilogy as well. A personal rule would have been that every companion should have addressed or been tied to some major subplot in some way. When you can remove half the cast, and lose very little narrative impacts, your characters aren't particularly important to the story.

[RoboticWater]

What's a shame is that everything about the Lazarus project and Cerberus recruitment could have been justified if Shepard was a crippled survivor of the first Normandy, and the time-skip was spent with Shepard more or less being hidden from public by a Council and Alliance that saw him as something of an embarassment as a cripple making unwanted noise.

 

So Shepard's in an recovery wing, locked out of sight, the Normandy SR-1 crew goes their separate ways with their careers, and then what do you know but a Human charity organization with a cutting-edge experimental treatments comes forward with a volunteer option to get the jaded and disgruntled Commander Sheaprd back on their feet, literally...

Yeah, but dying is more metal.

 

I might agree with you more if this was a movie or a book, but think about this in the context of a game. Usually in games (and thus far in Mass Effect), death is a failure state: "Game Over," However, ME2 plays with that trope by building death into it's narrative. I agree with InExile that BioWare could have done more with resurrection themes, but Shepard's death is a interesting way to open a game.

[Dean_the_Young]

Odd that ME3 tried to make up for ME2's "lack of progress" by making Cerberus the main villain and barely touching upon the Reaper's motivations until the last 10 minutes.

 

Hm? Not really seeing your point, or your argument. Cerberus wasn't the main villain. Cerberus was consistently just a road-block towards addressing the main villains- but the Crucible project was, and the Reapers were, the narrative focus of every arc except the immediate post-Thessia arc.

 

Saving Reaper motivations for the last ten minutes is certainly a questioanble design choice- but that's not really challenging that ME2 (and ME1) decided to leave it for ME3 in the first place. If anything, it demonstrates it: ME3 had to invent a synthetic-organic theme in no small part because ME1 and ME2 never decided what the Reapers motivations were enough to start it in advance. ME3 wouldn't have had to do that, and couldn't have done it in the last ten minutes, had ME2 spent more time on the Reaper's creator issues than the crew's daddy issues.

 

If synthetics-vs-organics was supposed to be a major theme, the entire Geth plot was woefully bungled by it's ME2 follow up. Only instead of 'the Council is leading the organics of the galaxy against the unprovoked Geth invasion that attacked the Citadel in a mass mobilization that will help against the Reapers', we got 'war's over, no one's preparing for Reapers.'

[Dean_the_Young]

Yeah, but dying is more metal.

 

I might agree with you more if this was a movie or a book, but think about this in the context of a game. Usually in games (and thus far in Mass Effect), death is a failure state: "Game Over," However, ME2 plays with that trope by building death into it's narrative. I agree with InExile that BioWare could have done more with resurrection themes, but Shepard's death is a interesting way to open a game.

 

Death, mortality, and themes of life and passing really weren't themes of focus in ME2, no more than 'the inhumanity of combat' or 'the ethics of mercenaries.' They were waved as the big thing about the Suicide Mission, but most of the game was spent avoiding that outcome.

[Killroy]

ME2 also advances the player's understanding -- crucially, the player's sympathy -- toward every other major plotline in the trilogy. None of ME3's best moments would have worked nearly as well without ME2's build-up.

You have more connections and a more in depth understanding of the galaxies various conflicts. Both of which are instrumental in uniting the galaxy.

Why can't that be done in a game that isn't pointless? ME1 established a ton of lore, conflicts and relationships but also wasn't filler.

If he is no longer the lead writer, this game is going to be delayed a long time and the new IP will probably come out first.

Getting rid of the head writer doesn't mean they have to scrap the story.

[In Exile]

Why would there be a need for a time jump without killing Shepard off for 2 minutes?

 

It's the whole "RPG fan control over my character" angle. Bioware - if they did a timeskip ala ME3 - was worried to face the "My Shepard wouldn't [X] during the [Y period]". It's the same reason you see absurd contortions like "thermal clips" to justify switching from ME1's combat to ME2's. And in fact the whole absurd ammo thing in ME1 was designed to justify the non-shooter RPG mechanic. 

[In Exile]

What's a shame is that everything about the Lazarus project and Cerberus recruitment could have been justified if Shepard was a crippled survivor of the first Normandy, and the time-skip was spent with Shepard more or less being hidden from public by a Council and Alliance that saw him as something of an embarassment as a cripple making unwanted noise.

 

So Shepard's in an recovery wing, locked out of sight, the Normandy SR-1 crew goes their separate ways with their careers, and then what do you know but a Human charity organization with a cutting-edge experimental treatments comes forward with a volunteer option to get the jaded and disgruntled Commander Sheaprd back on their feet, literally...

 

In fact, a plot where we work partly for and/or with a purportedly civilian human corporation willing to back a war against the Reapers, only to slowly unravel the plot that it is Cerberus, the pro-human shadow society led by the almost mythical "Illusive Man", woluld make for a far better plot. You could even play with the misidrection - there's a shadow-y backer, is it the Shadow Broker, etc. - until we get to the big reveal. Really, there was so much potential to the idea behind Cerberus, despite the way Bioware bungled the plot (including your own, IMO, quite interesting take on it, which you've previously linked on a few threads here). 

 

Edit: Because I'm apparently illiterate. 

[Jaquio]

If he is no longer the lead writer, this game is going to be delayed a long time and the new IP will probably come out first.

 

Doubtful.  Writers bail on post-EA Bioware frequently, so they should be used to it by now.  I get the sense it's not an ideal work environment.

[Dean_the_Young]

In fact, a plot where we work partly for and/or with a purportedly civilian human corporation willing to back a war against the Reapers, only to slowly unravel the plot that it is Cerberus, the pro-human shadow society led by the almost mythical "Illusive Man", woluld make for a far better plot. You could even play with the misidrection - there's a shadow-y backer, is it the Shadow Broker, etc. - until we get to the big reveal. Really, there was so much potential to the idea behind Cerberus, despite the way Bioware bungled the plot (not including your own, IMO, quite interesting take on it, which you've previously linked on a few threads here). 

 

Aw, Exile, how sweet. If you're not careful, Dez might get jealous-

 

Wait- so much potential not including?

 

 

Hmph. And for a second I thought you had taste.

[In Exile]

Aw, Exile, how sweet. If you're not careful, Dez might get jealous-

 

Wait- so much potential not including?

 

 

Hmph. And for a second I thought you had taste.

 

It was a typo! Typo!  

 

I meant including. It's fixed.  

[BabyPuncher]

 Yes, by the end of ME2 you're in the exact same position you were in at the end of ME1. You made zero progress. Which is the main criticism against the game. It's a glorified side story.

 

Yes. That is what I literally just said.

 

More like trying to back-fill for ME2's lack of substance. Not everything, but quite a bit of ME3's flaws were pressed or set in motion by ME2's lack of narrative progress towards understanding or beating the Reapers.

 

No, they really weren't. As I've said multiple times now, ME 3 is going to start in the same position of the Reapers invading and crushing anything regardless of what happens in ME 2 because this is the kind of story Mass Effect is. This is the kind of enemies the Reapers are. Whatever preparations take place, the Reapers are going to fly in and crush everything because that is their function as a villain.

[BabyPuncher]

It's the same reason you see absurd contortions like "thermal clips" to justify switching from ME1's combat to ME2's. And in fact the whole absurd ammo thing in ME1 was designed to justify the non-shooter RPG mechanic. 

 

I'm more and more inclined to suspect this is more of a silly conditioned reflex from you rather than any semblance of rational thought given these conclusions. What exactly is it that's 'absurd' about the ammo in ME 1? How is ME 2's introduction of the thermal clips in any way analogous to not having Shepard as a blank slate for two years?

[RoboticWater]

Why can't that be done in a game that isn't pointless? ME1 established a ton of lore, conflicts and relationships but also wasn't filler.

Do you think that Empire Strikes Back is filler?

 

ME1 established lore, ME2 explored it. Exploring requires much more attention.

 

Death, mortality, and themes of life and passing really weren't themes of focus in ME2, no more than 'the inhumanity of combat' or 'the ethics of mercenaries.' They were waved as the big thing about the Suicide Mission, but most of the game was spent avoiding that outcome.

I know, I agree with you there, but dying at the beginning of ME2 is still interesting because it breaks video game convention. I won't argue that it's integral to ME2's plot or themes, but it's a cool thing to go through.

 

Hm? Not really seeing your point, or your argument. Cerberus wasn't the main villain. Cerberus was consistently just a road-block towards addressing the main villains- but the Crucible project was, and the Reapers were, the narrative focus of every arc except the immediate post-Thessia arc.

 

Saving Reaper motivations for the last ten minutes is certainly a questioanble design choice- but that's not really challenging that ME2 (and ME1) decided to leave it for ME3 in the first place. If anything, it demonstrates it: ME3 had to invent a synthetic-organic theme in no small part because ME1 and ME2 never decided what the Reapers motivations were enough to start it in advance. ME3 wouldn't have had to do that, and couldn't have done it in the last ten minutes, had ME2 spent more time on the Reaper's creator issues than the crew's daddy issues.

 

If synthetics-vs-organics was supposed to be a major theme, the entire Geth plot was woefully bungled by it's ME2 follow up. Only instead of 'the Council is leading the organics of the galaxy against the unprovoked Geth invasion that attacked the Citadel in a mass mobilization that will help against the Reapers', we got 'war's over, no one's preparing for Reapers.'

I rarely felt like I was 

 

I think about it like this: Saren was the antagonist of ME1, not Sovereign and Cerberus (more specifically TIM) was the antagonist of ME3, not the Reapers. Sure, Sovereign and the Reapers are doing the heavy lifting of all the bad stuff in their respective games, but they're not the people you're fighting. I have to stress people because antagonists need to be round characters. That's what TIM and Kai Leng (ithough he was poorly written) were. I classify the Reapers more as a threat, like the Death Star. They're big and scary and you want them gone, but you're as much in conflict with Reapers as you are with the Death Star. 

 

I think it would have been in ME3's benefit to have a character represent the Reapers throughout ME3. Someone (preferably Harbinger or a Reaper like him) that could keep the players focused on the Reapers and their motivations. By following and developing this character, the player could discover the Reaper's weakness in a more natural way than having the Crucible shoved in our faces.

 

Hell, I'd probably like the Catalyst more if we could have interrogated him more and more as the game progressed. The Reaper mystery doesn't need to be dissolved immediately, but it does need to be slowly developed so I'm constantly invested in it throughout the game.

[In Exile]

I'm more and more inclined to suspect this is more of a silly conditioned reflex from you rather than any semblance of rational thought given these conclusions. What exactly is it that's 'absurd' about the ammo in ME 1? How is ME 2's introduction of the thermal clips in any way analogous to not having Shepard as a blank slate for two years?

 

It's a really poor mechanic - it's incredibly easy to equip infinite ammo guns - especially pistols and assault rifles - which makes for very poor gameplay. The mechanism is absurd, because it defeats the purpose of an ammo mechanic in the first place. As to the analogy, the lore - such as it was - had been introduced in ME1 to justify a gameplay mechanic. In ME2, new lore was introduced for a new meta-reason: a new gameplay mechanic. Shepard being dead - the Lazarus Project, all of it - was really justified by a meta-reason, not a narrative reason. 

[pdusen]

This forum is like a giant speculation-engine. If I were Bioware, I'd start making random changes to various things with no explanation just to see what ideas it generates.

[BabyPuncher]

It's a really poor mechanic - it's incredibly easy to equip infinite ammo guns - especially pistols and assault rifles - which makes for very poor gameplay. The mechanism is absurd, because it defeats the purpose of an ammo mechanic in the first place. As to the analogy, the lore - such as it was - had been introduced in ME1 to justify a gameplay mechanic. In ME2, new lore was introduced for a new meta-reason: a new gameplay mechanic. Shepard being dead - the Lazarus Project, all of it - was really justified by a meta-reason, not a narrative reason. 

 

Is that right? And what 'meta-reason' was that, precisely?

 

As for the ammunition, while I prefer the new system, I never used the infinite ammo because I found cyro rounds inferior to incendiary rounds. The ammunition system clearly did serve a purpose to players such as myself. In any event, it's very common for video games to offer system that have different tiers of difficulty for different approaches, and has often been hailed as a superior alternative to standard difficulty settings.