120 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

What would people's reaction be if saving the base only gave the option to control the reapers no matter the ems, and if the base is destroyed, destroy is the only option no matter what ems the player has?

This is a bit off topic but if that were to happen, it would need some serious treatment in the plot. It would need to be made clear that the collector base/human reaper gadget is an absolutely integral component to the crucible (almost as important as the catalyst) and we would at the end need to know why it actually makes this difference (and I am not talking about one line of arbitrary techno babble in the war asset description).
The impact was arbitrary as it was. I don't mind so much because it's just low EMS but if this were a major thing, it would definitely need more exposure (ideally, it would then have already needed some hints in ME2, so that we at least have some notion what this decision would ultimately be about).

[StarcloudSWG]

Scuttlebutt has it that Chris L'etoile left Bioware because of creative differences with the lead writer. In ME 2, that lead writer was Mac Walters. Mac apparently wanted Legion to start 'developing emotions' like Star Trek's Data, and Chris was disgusted by the idea and the direction Mac wanted to go.

[fraggle]

Just keep in mind that this guy is (like me) a fan of mainly ME1 and (like me) has HUGE problems with ME2 and 3. As far as ME2 goes, I agree with about 95% of what he says. His thoughts on ME3 have just started and it's funny there because I find myself agreeing with most of it again but I do think he could spend a bit more time going into how the whole narrative structure of the series was tangled into knots at that point already - strange when you think about how elaborately he covers how this happened before.

Anyway, I wouldn't call it a pleasant read exactly (too sad a topic for that) but it's certainly comprehensive.

 

No worries, I am prepared for that I'm open to criticism and I think it's going to be interesting, even if I might not agree completely.

[angol fear]

Scuttlebutt has it that Chris L'etoile left Bioware because of creative differences with the lead writer. In ME 2, that lead writer was Mac Walters. Mac apparently wanted Legion to start 'developing emotions' like Star Trek's Data, and Chris was disgusted by the idea and the direction Mac wanted to go.

Any source ? Or you are just trying to spread new rumours ?

PS : mass effect 2 lead writers were both drew karpyshyn and mac walters ! (just like Jade Empire)

[Ithurael]

Not sure if Chris left due to Creative differences, but I do note the vast difference between the machines in ME2 and ME3.

https://web.archive....e-reapers.4229/

 

It would be enough to warrent the notion that Mac - after taking the lead - pushed for this direction. Though, I don't think this warrents the notion that was what caused Chris to leave.

 

(the rest of his thoughts are, I think, located here: http://forums.f13.net/)Chris's username was "Stormwaltz" I think. I am pushing my crawlers to another project so I won't be able to look just yet but if anyone else wants to I say go for it. You should be able to accomplish it with a simple google query I summize.

 

Also, if my memory serves...Drew and Mac both worked on Jade Empire, but they were NOT the lead writers:

http://www.imdb.com/...65/fullcredits/

[angol fear]

Exact. My mistake.

[aoibhealfae]

Drew Karpyshynn left Edmonton to work on SWTOR. Understandably, he said he's Star Wars guy than Mass Effect guy. Mostly he complained about the cold and being miserable there.

[LineHolder]

@MrFob

 

I have to admit, I have never read Karpyshyn's blog or the leaked ending script to ME3. My view is solely from judging the little tidbit of Dark Energy referred to in ME2. The big thingamajingy needed to stop the Reapers in ME3 could easily have been something that accelerates the aging of a star to near instantaneous destruction or one that needs a few weeks or months (and no, this isn't because of the new Star Wars plot) based on the observations of the Quarians investigating Haestrom. This knowledge could have been used to systematically draw Reaper forces to a star system with a Relay and blow them up by inducing a supernova state of the star. I do not have in-depth expertise on the speed of a supernova's destruction wave but I guess it must be at the speed of light. So, once a Reaper fleet has been drawn into a system, take out the Relay so they have no chance to escape and then induce a supernova.

 

I suppose the end of the game could be one where inspite of these measures, Council Space (including Sol) has been completely wiped out (at enormous cost to the Reapers however) and the surviving members of the Galactic races make a stand on the Relay leading to the Terminus systems. Shepard along with his crew is entrusted with one last suicide mission where he must stay behind and wait to draw out the remaining Reaper fleet within that system, destroy the Relay and proceed to induce the star's supernova stage. Destroy option means killing the Reapers as well as sacrificing himself and his crew. With a high enough Reputation (or whatever magic number or previous plot point they wish), Shepard can have the option to parlay with the Reapers and offer them a chance to surrender.

 

The end game state leaves the surviving races in the treacherous and inhospitable regions of the Terminus sytems, far from home, far from the safety and order of Citadel space and a struggle on new frontiers (much like the proposed Andromeda).

 

Of course, how you deal with the Quarians matters in their handing over the data for the thingamajingy. If you side with the Quarians, you can destroy more Repaers, thereby giving you more chances of parlay, going against them would mean still making the device but later so you are faced with more Reapers in the final battle. Siding with the Geth would mean they would offer to be an intermediary between Shepard and the Reapers but going against them would mean the 1st quadrant (top right) of the galaxy would become more hostile to the remaining galactic forces. A peaceful resolution between Quarians-Geth would mean being able to deceive the Reapers into letting Shepard escape and still induce supernova (something like that. This is just an idea sketch and with the full knowledge that the way the Quarian-Geth conflict was presented in ME3 would have to be rewritten).

 

A fitting tag line to this ME3 would have been 'Hold the Line' rather than 'Take Back Earth'.

 

When I talked about Harby-Collectors-Base etc, I didn't mean having them make a return but using the plot points they raised in ME3. Stuff about how and why a species gets Reaperized. Perhaps making counter-Reapers (lol ... something TIM would cream his pants over) of our own. The drawbacks of the forced synthesis of a species. Quite a lot of viable hard sci-fi was hinted at but not explored in the 3rd game. My reason for making the thread was to suggest that ME2 should not be held liable for not advancing the plot forward if the succeeding game did not use any of the issues it raised at all.

 

Regarding Cerberus, I must admit, I have only played ME1 thoroughly (every side mission) only once. And I noticed Cerberus cropping up in journal and codex entries then. The other two times, I just played through the main story missions (because I ****** hate the gameplay of ME1) and Cerberus doesn't show up at all. In that sense Cerberus in its new avatar makes an appearance only in ME2. For someone who was paying attention to the codex in ME1, yes, Cerberus in ME2 is jarring. But for someone who was is really introduced to Cerberus in ME2, the one in ME3 is laughably bad. Has the most interesting enemy set to fight against in terms of gameplay but in terms of narrative, it's a joke.

 

Inducing supernovae across the galaxy and destroying galactic races and nascent ones (like primitive species, flora, fauna), making Reapers of our own would present quite a lot of ethical dilemnas that I think would far outweigh in significance stuff like Rachni, Genophage etc.

[ImaginaryMatter]

What would people's reaction be if saving the base only gave the option to control the reapers no matter the ems, and if the base is destroyed, destroy is the only option no matter what ems the player has?

 

Probably angry (more angry?). The ME2 ending choice was terrible. Having some sort of strict consequence, like limiting the ME3 ending choice, would just make it worse.

[von uber]

Easy fix with ME2 - make the mission about assembling a team to go find a legendary Prothean tech to destroy the reapers - i.e. the crucible.

It's just a rumour, and you assemble an ad-hoc team to do it as it is behind the Wall Of Nightmares or some such thing.

You can have Cerberus trying to find it alongside you - of course this means no Lazarus, Collectors or Miranda's arse - such a shame.

[wright1978]

Easy fix with ME2 - make the mission about assembling a team to go find a legendary Prothean tech to destroy the reapers - i.e. the crucible.

It's just a rumour, and you assemble an ad-hoc team to do it as it is behind the Wall Of Nightmares or some such thing.

You can have Cerberus trying to find it alongside you - of course this means no Lazarus, Collectors or Miranda's arse - such a shame.

 

Any suggestion that involves cutting Miranda or the notion of cutting a more interesting complex Cerberus of ME2 isn't something i'd support ever.

I'd suggest a simpler solution would be just to use the current Cerberus setup and the omega 4 relay as the goal & have something of intrinsic value to stop the reapers on the other side.

[aoibhealfae]

I didn't particularly like Miranda's "I'm created perfect but you're better" self-pitying talk. I would love a conflict between Shepard and Miranda about Cerberus which made her starting to question her allegiance. I hate how she simply shut me down after she gave excuses of how Cerberus was merely interested in humanity's advancement... as much as people whine about autodialogue in ME3, I find its its way frustrating in ME2.

[Dean_the_Young]

A common criticism about ME2 is that it didn't advance the central story of the trilogy, the Reaper War. Isn't this hindsight?

 

 

No, because most of the criticisms were apparent even before ME3.

 

The implications for killing the companion cast (that they couldn't be very important going forward), destroying the Collector Base (it can't be that important if it'd screw over the larger half of the morality spectrum), and having no actual set-up for beating the Reapers were apparent well before. Even the question of why the Collectors were abducting people for the Human Reaper was a linger plot hole of ME2's own creation, given that the ending and Arrival showed that the Human Reaper wasn't some Sovereign 2.0 to retake the Citadel.

 

 

 

 

How can ME2 be blamed for not advancing the story if ME3 did not utilize the 2nd game's plot points AT ALL?

 

 

Because ME2 didn't have many plot points, it had vague techno-babble, and didn't have any idea of how it wanted them used going forward.

 

The writers were making it up as they went along- the point for planning doesn't begin after you've made your mid-trilogy work.

 

 

 

 

 

I know I'm personifying the two games but really they don't feel related. Is it the fault of the preceding game or the sequel?

 

 

Not feeling related is the problem, and why

 

A trilogy requires structural support throughout the entire effort, so that the ending doesn't get bogged down with the weaknesses of the early/midgame. ME2 didn't support it the end-game plan, because there was no plan- but that should have been established at the point of ME2, not ME3. ME2 is responsible for setting up ME3, not the other way around.

 

You don't blame the last man of a relay race for losing if he has to make up more than his fair share of time.
 

 

I am playing through the trilogy again and having started ME3, I see Cerberus being active in every frakking theater of war like they're some super convenient super organization that can do everything. Yes, there is the explanation at the end that TIM has been indoctrinated but I personally feel it was a cop out and very contrary to Cerberus' paranoia shown in ME2.

 

However good ME2 is, I now wish that the 'schism' with Cerberus was resolved in ME2 itself, with the 'save or destroy' Collector base in the middle of the game and an assault on TIM towards the end. Something like Witcher 2 with it's two branching storylines finally converging again at the end.

 

 

 

 

It was, and it was a weakness- that discongruity is reflective of a lack of the planning ME2 had, because ME2 didn't decide what it wanted Cerberus to actually be or where it intended the series to go. It threw up a lot of ideas to be picked up or dropped, rather than setting up a plan.

 

 

 

I play ME2 with all these great characters and marvel at the potential that was squandered going into ME3. IF Shepard can have plot armor, why not Miranda? Jack? Grunt? Garrus? Tali?

 

 

Because ME2 built itself around something called the Suicide Mission, with the sales pitch that anyone could die. Shepard's death was explicitly non-canon even before ME2's release, while squadmate deaths carrying forward into the future was a feature.

 

 

The thing about making a character even potentially killable is that all future plots have to be written with the condition that the character is, well, killed. You either duplicate resources for alternate paths- entirely new voice actor costs and writing for things like Mordin's replacement, Jack's mission, or the Quarian plotline- or you diminish the importance, or both. Note how Garrus is completely plot irrelevant if he's missing, and how Tali's seemingly vital role only shapes the end-Rannoch choice.

 

 

 

ME3 is a poorer game just by comparing its squad roster to that of its predecessor.

 

 

ME2 kneecapped ME3's squad roster by inflating the costs of using any of the old squadmates.

 

 

I'd also argue that ME3 does a far better handling of it's individual character arcs than ME2 did. The depth and polish on the squadmate conversations and characterizations is signficant: even without loyalty missions dedicated to the character (and rarely the trilogy plots), the companions we got talk more on the ship, talk more with eachother, and there's far more interaction amongst the cast in the course of missions themselves. ME2 had a particularly nasty habbit of only using interchangeable filler grunts or snark from its companions- ME3 has entire squadmate exchanges tailored to the plot missions and personalities.

[AlanC9]

Even the question of why the Collectors were abducting people for the Human Reaper was a linger plot hole of ME2's own creation, given that the ending and Arrival showed that the Human Reaper wasn't some Sovereign 2.0 to retake the Citadel.

One of the devs actually tweeted that the H-R wasn't a replacement for Sovereign. I think it's because they were taking so much heat for this idea making no sense, since the Collectors couldn't finish the Reaper without winning the war first.

[Mlady]

One of the devs actually tweeted that the H-R wasn't a replacement for Sovereign. I think it's because they were taking so much heat for this idea making no sense, since the Collectors couldn't finish the Reaper without winning the war first.

 

I thought since they were still hovering over the Dark Energy idea, the Human Reaper was their attempt to create something to stop it (and the Reapers were seeing humanity as their best chance, as once suggested when they were trying to come up with an ending to ME3), then when the plot changed in ME3, everything in ME2 likely connected to the other ending went all out the window. ME2 seems to strongly hint at another path that was never reached, thus making it seem like the less connected game in the series.

[ImaginaryMatter]

One of the devs actually tweeted that the H-R wasn't a replacement for Sovereign. I think it's because they were taking so much heat for this idea making no sense, since the Collectors couldn't finish the Reaper without winning the war first.

 

I think the baby Reaper is doomed to making no sense no matter what path the writer took.

[AlanC9]

I have to admit, I have never read Karpyshyn's blog or the leaked ending script to ME3. My view is solely from judging the little tidbit of Dark Energy referred to in ME2. The big thingamajingy needed to stop the Reapers in ME3 could easily have been something that accelerates the aging of a star to near instantaneous destruction or one that needs a few weeks or months (and no, this isn't because of the new Star Wars plot) based on the observations of the Quarians investigating Haestrom. This knowledge could have been used to systematically draw Reaper forces to a star system with a Relay and blow them up by inducing a supernova state of the star.

How do you accomplish this without the Reapers being extraordinarily stupid? Or even with them being stupid? What's the incentive for them to pack all their forces into one system?

Sure, that's what happens in ME3 as released. But the reason it happens is that the Crucible is a real threat.

I do not have in-depth expertise on the speed of a supernova's destruction wave but I guess it must be at the speed of light. So, once a Reaper fleet has been drawn into a system, take out the Relay so they have no chance to escape and then induce a supernova.

*sigh* Look, if you're this clueless about the lore, you really need to stop trying to come up with alternative plots for ME3. Relays are not necessary for FTL travel, by the Reapers or anybody else. Standard Citadel mass effect drives move ships at something over 5000x lightspeed; Reapers move at approximately twice that.

How'd you play ME3 without learning this? It's not possible to complete the game without moving the Normandy between systems without using a relay.

[LineHolder]

I already addressed this in previous posts in this topic, but here goes,

 

If the 3rd part of a story dumps *everything* its predecessor put forward, of course the 2nd part is going to look detached and stupid. Instead of making what they had already done work somehow, it was flushed down the toilet without any attempt to save face. Saying ME2 was already wandering down a different path maybe true enough but what's the point in spiriting away to an entirely new thread? What could have been done in ME3 is entirely academic anyway. All I am saying is that it could have continued from what was established in ME2.

 

As for the fate of the squad mates suddenly being important to their arcs in the 3rd game, consider this,

 

1. Shepard can *also* die. Yet we have a 3rd game featuring him as the main protagonist. There's no Lazarus Project 2.0 in ME3 to hand wave that away.

 

2. The fate of the Collector Base makes no difference either way in the 3rd. The ME3 plot doesn't reference it meaningfully at all. It doesn't expand upon the 'techno-babble' of the 2nd, it is just ignored and only serves as a checksum for having additional choices depending upon EMS (whatever this was supposed to mean anyway). It may certainly have been stupid to impose that choice but it's evident now that nothing was learned when the rainbow ending was imposed upon the end of ME3 again.

 

To me it's quite clear 'choices' and 'consequences' are not something that was understood during the creation and production of this series. The interpretation of these two words is all over the place. Because if the 'consequence' of Shepard dying in ME2 is meaningless, why does it not apply to selected squad mates from that game as well?

 

It's similar to passionate discussions people used to have on this place 3-4 years ago ... discussing which ME3 ending would be canon and such (not that I want to revive that again ... god, no).

[Mlady]

I already addressed this in previous posts in this topic, but here goes,

 

If the 3rd part of a story dumps *everything* its predecessor put forward, of course the 2nd part is going to look detached and stupid. Instead of making what they had already done work somehow, it was flushed down the toilet without any attempt to save face. Saying ME2 was already wandering down a different path maybe true enough but what's the point in spiriting away to an entirely new thread? What could have been done in ME3 is entirely academic anyway. All I am saying is that it could have continued from what was established in ME2.

 

As for the fate of the squad mates suddenly being important to their arcs in the 3rd game, consider this,

 

1. Shepard can *also* die. Yet we have a 3rd game featuring him as the main protagonist. There's no Lazarus Project 2.0 in ME3 to hand wave that away.

 

2. The fate of the Collector Base makes no difference either way in the 3rd. The ME3 plot doesn't reference it meaningfully at all. It doesn't expand upon the 'techno-babble' of the 2nd, it is just ignored and only serves as a checksum for having additional choices depending upon EMS (whatever this was supposed to mean anyway). It may certainly have been stupid to impose that choice anyway but it's clear nothing was learned when the rainbow ending was imposed upon the end of ME3 again.

 

To me it's quite clear 'choices' and 'consequences' are not something that was understood during the creation and production of this series. The interpretation of these two words is all over the place. Because if the 'consequence' of Shepard dying in ME2 is meaningless, why does it not apply to selected squad mates from that game as well?

 

It's similar to passionate discussions people used to have on this place 3-4 years ago ... discussing which ME3 ending would be canon and such (not that I want to revive that again ... god, no).

 

If Shepard dies at the end of ME2, you can't import that game. You basically ended Shepard's story before the 3rd game and have to restart with a Shepard that lives, but to be honest, the effort to make Shepard die is a lot more effort than it is to keep everyone alive. It's just for fun.

[AlanC9]

I thought since they were still hovering over the Dark Energy idea, the Human Reaper was their attempt to create something to stop it (and the Reapers were seeing humanity as their best chance, as once suggested when they were trying to come up with an ending to ME3), then when the plot changed in ME3, everything in ME2 likely connected to the other ending went all out the window. ME2 seems to strongly hint at another path that was never reached, thus making it seem like the less connected game in the series.

That doesn't really square with the dev statements. DE was never the actual plan, it was just one idea among several.

[LineHolder]

How do you accomplish this without the Reapers being extraordinarily stupid? Or even with them being stupid? What's the incentive for them to pack all their forces into one system?

Sure, that's what happens in ME3 as released. But the reason it happens is that the Crucible is a real threat.


*sigh* Look, if you're this clueless about the lore, you really need to stop trying to come up with alternative plots for ME3. Relays are not necessary for FTL travel, by the Reapers or anybody else. Standard Citadel mass effect drives move ships at something over 5000x lightspeed; Reapers move at approximately twice that.

How'd you play ME3 without learning this? It's not possible to complete the game without moving the Normandy between systems without using a relay.

 

Do you know how long codex entries are? Are you aware of how long it takes to play the trilogy completely? I suppose one can measure them in hundreds of pages and hundreds of hours.

 

I apologize for not working out all the kinks of an idea in a two paragraph precis. Perhaps if you'd pay me, I could come up with a more professional looking draft.

[themikefest]

I think the baby Reaper is doomed to making no sense no matter what path the writer took.

It was put in because someone just finished watching the Terminator movies and thought it would be cool to put in the game. Didn't matter if it made sense. hahaha

[themikefest]

If Shepard dies at the end of ME2, you can't import that game. You basically ended Shepard's story before the 3rd game and have to restart with a Shepard that lives, but to be honest, the effort to make Shepard die is a lot more effort than it is to keep everyone alive. It's just for fun.

It's not hard at all to have Shepard die at the end. For me its easier than having everyone live.

[Mlady]

That doesn't really square with the dev statements. DE was never the actual plan, it was just one idea among several.

 

That's the problem. We get so many different answers from them, but sometimes they seem confusing. Like saying Shepard was under rubble on the Citadel, then they make the rebar comment which relates to London. For me it just seems like when you write a fanfic and quit then have someone else take over and they change what you intended and write something they saw instead, but keep the characters and story from your previous writing in there.

 

Sometimes I think they threw in different things because they were trying to keep it all open until they decided on where ME3 would go.

 

 

It's not hard at all to have Shepard die at the end. For me its easier than having everyone live.

 

LOL I tried but someone always lives. I don't know how to do it.

[AlanC9]

Do you know how long codex entries are? Are you aware of how long it takes to play the trilogy completely? I suppose one can measure them in hundreds of pages and hundreds of hours.

I apologize for not working out all the kinks of an idea in a two paragraph precis. Perhaps if you'd pay me, I could come up with a more professional looking draft.

Dude... like I said, you can't actually finish ME3 without moving Normandy between systems without using a relay. No reading required.

It also comes up in various NPC comments, and even in the opening cinematic of ME1.