847 réponses à ce sujet

[sjsharp2011]

To me, RPG has always been about story development, being an old time table-top D&D player and DM from early years. It is a collaborative undertaking shared by the participants in the table-top game.

However, "cRPGs" are limited in creating such an environment as the creators (game developers) can only anticipate a limited number of variables to stay within the story, plot, and individual subplots of the game they are presenting. In other words, the developers are trying to tell a story, but are trying to anticipate the player's motives for choices within a limited amount of options made available to the player.

 

True AI (artificial intelligence) does not yet exist, and therefore a computer RPG cannot be programmed react to a situation as a player may hope to achieve. The devil is always in the details and full reasoning is not yet attainable in computer-based games because there are no means of creating sideboard conversations between the GM and the individual player in order to determine an alternative outcome.

 

For me, I always felt the ending of of ME 3 was about as close as anyone could come regarding choices (especially with the extended content that helped to explain some things), that only seemed to prove my own interpretation of the original endings. The biggest mistake BioWare had made at that point was to originally anticipate that everyone playing would also invest time in the multi-player portion of the game to make up enough scored points to achieve the most player-based advantageous decision alternatives towards a solution to the end of the game based on the player's decisions, which was later resolved in the extended ending from my own perspective. 

 

In the end, whether or not I enjoy a cRPG game is whether or not I had fun playing the game. For the Mass Effect series, I can say yes to all three games, as I can only see myself playing for the fun I have had during the games, despite what others may "nit-pick" about.

Indeed I agree and I think some people that complained about the endings forget this or just plainly ignore it yes the endng of ME3 was weak but more due to the writing than the mechanics I think but in general I've never had any serious problems with ME3 's ending as I kind of beared this in mind when playing it also I kind of had a feeling even before the game came out I always thought it would have a Shepard goes out in a blaze of glory kind of ending anyway which in a sense it did. Other than I think the writing could have been better approached at the end ME3 was a solid finish to the trilogy imo.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Role playing, ideally, should be a CYOA experience (See The Witcher 3).  It forced you into the role of Geralt but what you DID in the game, that was up to you.  And you got three different endings with variations among them.

 

It's when you get streamlined into a crap sundae like ME 3, that's when the ugliness arrives.  You don't make the three-way cross roads at the very end of the game.  You make it along the way. 

 

It should literally not be  ----------------| < ^ >

 

It should be more like a low-hanging tree sprouting from the earth.  The branches can all go into different directions. 

 

Except that's not an ideal for me at all. The majority of TW3's decisions amounted to ''X is kind of a dick for Y reasons, kill or not?'', apart from deciding a few outstanding issues such as the Nilfgaard/North conflict. I never felt Geralt was my character; I was along for the ride, and could sometimes steer the boat, but it ultimatelywasn't my boat. Whereas Bioware RPGs (well, Dragon Age more than Mass Efect admitedly) give you far more freedom to define my character, which I value far more in an RPG.

 

Now, total freedom is not only not achievable, but I don't think it's a good idea either (I dislike Bethesda's approach to let the player do anything regardless of how little sense it makes, for instance), but TW3 simply didn't have enough RPG elements and ways to shape your character(s) to really scratch that itch for me. Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Pillars of Eternity, Fallout New Vegas, those are the games that manage to make custom protagonist work best.

 

Hell, I felt Deus Ex: HR gave me more freedom to define who Adam is and why he made some choices than TW3 did. And that game doesn't even bill itself as an RPG. 

[SKAR]

I just want another trilogy and hope they learn from the mistake of me2/me3. Please please please don't make another filler game like me2 was.

ME 2 is arguably the best game in the series. ME3 had errors but doesn't every game in history? Always something for people to complain about. Always.

[sjsharp2011]

ME 2 is arguably the best game in the series. ME3 had errors but doesn't every game in history? Always something for people to complain about. Always.

|You deserve a like just for saying this.  

[SKAR]

|You deserve a like just for saying this.

thank you kind sir. . "What a nice guy"

[myownchris]

I believe BioWare isn't closing it's eyes and could see what is 'IN' right now, story-rich games. They should learn from the success of Telltale, and should implement their greatest weapon that makes Mass Effect great, Stories. We can get more action in Multiplayer. So let's hope that ME:A is story-rich. It's doesn't have to be a storyline, just give us a lot thing to interact with or even tailor our own story, creating unique story for each player depends on their actions, instead  of just paragon-renegade bar thingies.

[Natureguy85]

And yet you come here...

 

Touche. But I don't have to actually be face to face with them here!

 

 

I think the argument here is not whether or not ME2 advanced the Reaper plot (which it easily could have if Harbinger played a significant role in ME3's plot), but whether ME2 needed to advance the Reaper plot to be considered "connected" to the series. My view is that technically, Mass Effect's plot is to stop the Reapers from destroying the galaxy. That second part is necessary because I think that ME2 is about answering the question "what galaxy?" Obviously ours, but who's in it? Why do I care about them? Why won't this fight be as simple as getting a big gun and telling everyone to work together?

 

Mass Effect isn't simply "the quest to find that thing that'll kill the Reapers," it's a story about unifying the galaxy against the Reaper threat, and ME2 adds complications to achieving that unity. In my opinion, that's pretty vital thing to establish. I still think ME2 could have done a better job expanding on (or even resolving) the political corruption in the Citadel and Terminus systems and conflict with the mercenary groups, but it has enough important additions to justify its existence within the overarching plot.

 

You're right but what you're talking about is all the side stuff, and I agree that stuff was great. ME2's entire value was in developing the characters. ME2 certainly shifted the series from plot focused to character focused, like Star Wars is. However, that has nothing to do with the main plot. Killing Shepard, destroying the Normandy, expanding Cerberus, and introducing the Collectors had no value whatsoever.

 

Secondly, everything was bound to the individuals. The parts of the game that had to do with the Genophage weren't about the Salarians or even Krogan generally, they were about Mordin. The drama in curing it in ME3 is bound in Mordin and Wrex and, as much as I like Padok Wiks, the entire thing is diminished without those two characters. The same is true of the Rannoch arc with Tali and Legion.

 

 

Well in my opinoin it did so again I think your confusing what facts and opinions are

 

No, you're the one doing that. It objectively did not progress the series plot. Please tell me how it did. Your enjoyment of it is what is subjective opinion. I also enjoyed it but that had nothing to do with the main plot. It had to do with gameplay and the excellent characters.

 

 

Exactly as in my opinion the reaper plot is advanced as in terms of the story is they changed tactics as they realised that using the geth was no longer going to work so instead they activated the Collectors and got them to start working on attacking the smaller colonies and start building a reaper ready for their arrival

 

This is just wrong. The Collectors were building the next Reaper, not doing anything to bring the Reapers back like Sovereign was with the Geth. It wasn't a change in tactics, though. It was something completely unrelated, unless you think they were going to deploy the Human Reaper to try Sovereign's plan again.

 

 

Not for the players they don't. You play your character. That's it. If your character dies as a result of his choices, that's a legitimate outcome.

The character might have failed, but the player didn't.

My favourite Warden in DAO was an abject coward who refused to learn useful combat skills. My goal in that playthrough was to see what would happen if I built a character like that. He died in Haven when Sten killed him. I call that a wholly successful playthrough.

I don't even understand how a player could fail in a roleplaying game.

 

That's just you creating your own game within the game. You're defining your own objectives. That's perfectly fine, but that's what it is. That doesn't make the actual game not a game.

 

 

I disagree. ME2 covers the the 3 main sub-arcs of the series: the Geth, the Genophage, and the Citadel council. Turians and asari are covered under Citadel politics and salarians are closely tied to the Genophage. Admittedly, ME2 should have covered Citadel politics more deeply, but Mass Effect never needed to examine each culture separately. Unlike DA:O, the sub-arcs involve multiple cultures interacting with each other rather than individual cultures dealing with their own problems.

 

I liked how ME2 tore all our accomplishments to shreds because it reminds me of Empire Strikes Back. ME1 set us up with a fairly simple conflict that was bound to be solved by some plot contrivance (the only way to defeat a horde of god machines), and ME2 adds a host of more personal conflicts along the way. By the end of Mass Effect 2, you have a number of connections throughout the galaxy with high ranking officials and specialists as well as close relationship with Harbinger. Really, it's all ME3's fault for not leveraging that.

 

The Geth alone are not an arc so I assume you mean the entire Geth/Quarian conflict. Yes, that is developed but not along the main plot. The same is true for the Genophage. What happens with Citadel politics? You have one meeting with the Council. What exactly was developed regarding Turians and Asari?

 

Also, as I mentioned above, the Genophage and Quarian/Geth conflict are particularly focused on the characters, Mordin, Grunt, Talki, Legion, and Wrex. They are not focused on the species as a whole.

 

The difference between ME2 and The Empire Strikes Back is that the film does advance the main story. Star Wars is entirely focused on the characters, with the war against the Empire being the back drop for the character stories. ME2 shifts Mass Effect into a similar story. So the most important things in Empire are Luke training with Yoda and facing Vader. Luke develops and a major plot point is revealed. When does this happen in ME2? Where does Shepard change? What of value do we learn about our opponent? Shepard, and most of the other characters, are barely phased by Shepard's death and resurrection. There's just one line about it in ME3, a game too late.

 

What connections of value, other than Liara as Shadow Broker? Shepard met Aria but while she shows Shepard some respect, she doesn't really care about him/her.

End of ME1: The Reapers are coming to kill us all and we have no way to stop them.

End of ME2: The Reapers are coming to kill us all and we have no way to stop them. Also they are closer now.

 

 

ME 2 is arguably the best game in the series. ME3 had errors but doesn't every game in history? Always something for people to complain about. Always.

 

That may be but it certainly is not because of the plot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's just you creating your own game within the game. You're defining your own objectives. That's perfectly fine, but that's what it is. That doesn't make the actual game not a game.

But it's not possible to fail. If roleplaying, as I described it, is a game, then collecting stamps is a game, and so is learning to cook or performing for am audience or going to school. You've created a definition of game that is so broad as to be meaningless.

Furthermore, if I'm playing a different game inside yours, I might not be playing yours.

I also don't think you've adequately grasped the distinction between the player and the character. They are two fully distinct entities with different objectives and different frames of reference.

[Cyonan]

But it's not possible to fail. If roleplaying, as I described it, is a game, then collecting stamps is a game, and so is learning to cook or performing for am audience or going to school. You've created a definition of game that is so broad as to be meaningless.

Furthermore, if I'm playing a different game inside yours, I might not be playing yours.

I also don't think you've adequately grasped the distinction between the player and the character. They are two fully distinct entities with different objectives and different frames of reference.

 

There is player skill involved in games like DA:O. Thus, it is possible to fail in things like combat by having your character die as a direct result of player skill and not character choice. This constitutes a player failure state and not a character failure state.

 

However if you still want to claim that isn't a game, that rules the majority of games out of being a game.

[Natureguy85]

But it's not possible to fail. If roleplaying, as I described it, is a game, then collecting stamps is a game, and so is learning to cook or performing for am audience or going to school. You've created a definition of game that is so broad as to be meaningless.

Furthermore, if I'm playing a different game inside yours, I might not be playing yours.

I also don't think you've adequately grasped the distinction between the player and the character. They are two fully distinct entities with different objectives and different frames of reference.

 

If Role Playing is a game or not is a separate thing I never touched on. I said an RPG is a game. You're arguing the act of role playing isn't a game, but there an RPG is a game in which you role play. There is still a game behind the role play.

 

You are right that you can play around with a game in a way that is not playing that actual game. If I just play Army Men with my Axis & Allies pieces, I'm not playing Axis & Allies.

 

I have full grasp of the distinction. However, the motivations of the character are assigned by either the writer or the player. What you fail to grasp is that sometimes the game creator assigns aspects of that character. Commander Shepard wants to stop the Reapers no matter what you want him/her to want.

 

 

 

There is player skill involved in games like DA:O. Thus, it is possible to fail in things like combat by having your character die as a direct result of player skill and not character choice. This constitutes a player failure state and not a character failure state.

 

However if you still want to claim that isn't a game, that rules the majority of games out of being a game.

 

Well it's still a character failure state within the game world, in which the player doesn't exist (unless he does, like in StarCraft or the Sims: Medieval.) So while in our world, the player screwed up, within the game world, the character failed at combat. However, for Sylvius, that's still "success" because his goal is just for things to happen. If the character died, the character died.

[Cyonan]

Well it's still a character failure state within the game world, in which the player doesn't exist (unless he does, like in StarCraft or the Sims: Medieval.) So while in our world, the player screwed up, within the game world, the character failed at combat. However, for Sylvius, that's still "success" because his goal is just for things to happen. If the character died, the character died.

 

It causes a problem in the definition of game if death as a result of lack of player skill is still considered a character failure, because now almost no game is actually considered a game under Sylvius' definition of the word.

 

Half-Life no longer has a fail state because if I die it was Gordon Freeman who failed, not me. Thus Half-Life isn't a game but it's also not a RPG, so what is it?

 

If we're not considering that a player failure state then the term game becomes meaningless when talking about video games and we need a new word that means what the rest of us have been calling games all this time.

[Natureguy85]

It causes a problem in the definition of game if death as a result of lack of player skill is still considered a character failure, because now almost no game is actually considered a game under Sylvius' definition of the word.

 

Half-Life no longer has a fail state because if I die it was Gordon Freeman who failed, not me. Thus Half-Life isn't a game but it's also not a RPG, so what is it?

 

If we're not considering that a player failure state then the term game becomes meaningless when talking about video games and we need a new word that means what the rest of us have been calling games all this time.

 

Those are two separate things. To you, of course you, the player, failed. However, within the game world, you don't exist. When you load the game, it's like a rewind or as if that death didn't happen. Unless it did, such as with Bioshock Infinite.

[Elhanan]

<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
 
Personally, Bio bribed their way into getting the award. I admit, it's my bias opinion mostly due to "... It's a PC game for PC gamers by PC gamers..." and compared to DA:O and DA2.  You and I have been at it in the DA:I forums for a long time.
 
Let's hope ME:A  is NOT the equivalent of DA:I

I do, but hope it's even better. And your biased opinion has no evidence or facts to support it; only supposition.

[correctamundo]

I'm not sure if you caught this, but I did enjoy helping the refugees in the Hinterlands. It felt like I was taking a proactive role in the story, and it had a small reward. I loved bombing around the zone and hearing NPCs mention how much the Inquistion help has benefited them. I enjoyed that because it felt connected to the larger events as I was experiencing them as a player.

Some things I didn't care for, such as the entirety of the Requisition Table. Those quests didn't have any story impact and felt like busy work to me. It was only there get Power, and frankly there was much more entertaining ways to get a lot of it. The Western Approach is my favorite zone in the game, because the quests really tie into the plot and depending upon when the player does it, is a nice foreshadowing for Weisshaupt. Plus, the dragon and the wyvern give just as much Power judging from my notes as the RT did.

I don't complain about the shards too much. I mean, trying to get to some of them with a KB+M can be tricky, but I can always ignore them. Just to throw that out there. Despite some of my disdain for the quests, that one doesn't phase me.

I don't think the War Table was a bad idea, but I feel like it could be refined quite a bit. I agree with your analogy, but I point right back to the quest I mentioned in my previous post.

 

I definitely think they overdid it with the sheer number of shards.   Clear trolling on parts of the player base.   I don't really understand why people look upon the requisition table as quests. It's mainly quick and easy power. Some of them I do for pure roleplaying reasons. The war table works well for me. It would be nice if more of those stories turned in real quests like the Sutherland crew though. When playing DAI I focus on the zones mainstories, companion quests and the mainquests themselves It really make up for a lot of gametime in every playthrough anyway.

[Gileadan]

The war table, I think, is mainly meant to give the player an illusion of control over the Inquisition since that was part of the marketing hype while the actual gameplay is still about controlling a team of four field operatives. Also, it's quick and easy content much like the "found letter" filler quests that requires just a bit of written text as opposed to voice acting and animations.

I'd actually like DA:I's approach better for ME:A than I liked it for DA:I. I'd be fine with exploring some planets merely for resources or the off chance of finding some alien artifact if the game's main themes are exploration and establishing a foothold in a new galaxy as opposed to fighting another inevitable doom - because then it would be a natural activity and not a problem with the pacing.

[straykat]

The war table, I think, is mainly meant to give the player an illusion of control over the Inquisition since that was part of the marketing hype while the actual gameplay is still about controlling a team of four field operatives. Also, it's quick and easy content much like the "found letter" filler quests that requires just a bit of written text as opposed to voice acting and animations.

I'd actually like DA:I's approach better for ME:A than I liked it for DA:I. I'd be fine with exploring some planets merely for resources or the off chance of finding some alien artifact if the game's main themes are exploration and establishing a foothold in a new galaxy as opposed to fighting another inevitable doom - because then it would be a natural activity and not a problem with the pacing.

 

If the missions suck, I don't see why it needs to be in at all. Just to maintain some illusion? And does the illusion even work? Do you actually feel like you're in control of something? Most of us just see it for what it is.

 

I'd say if you want to provide illusion, then just do it passively -- through story. If it can't be done right on an interactive level, why bother.

 

This isn't just targetting DAI though. I'd say the same for planet scanning in ME2. And I liked ME2. In the end, both developers and players are just wasting their time with this stuff.

[Gileadan]

If the missions suck, I don't see why it needs to be in at all. Just to maintain some illusion? And does the illusion even work? Do you actually feel like you're in control of something? Most of us just see it for what it is.

As far as my personal impression goes - no, it doesn't, and no, I don't.  I merely guessed that this was the reason for its existence, other than "Assassin's Creed had something very similar".

 

For me to actually feel in control of the Inquisition would have required different features - like ordering actual troop movements and keep garrisons in game, not in text, with visible effects and consequences.

 

But even then, the fact that the player always fights in the first line with a small team pretty much kills the illusion of being the leader of a big organisation. Which organisation would risk their leader in such a way? Even relatively small forces like modern anti-terror teams don't send in their highest commander with the first wave. So ultimately, I think it was a concept near impossible to achieve because it makes little sense as a whole.

[Elhanan]

As far as my personal impression goes - no, it doesn't, and no, I don't.  I merely guessed that this was the reason for its existence, other than "Assassin's Creed had something very similar".
 
For me to actually feel in control of the Inquisition would have required different features - like ordering actual troop movements and keep garrisons in game, not in text, with visible effects and consequences.
 
But even then, the fact that the player always fights in the first line with a small team pretty much kills the illusion of being the leader of a big organisation. Which organisation would risk their leader in such a way? Even relatively small forces like modern anti-terror teams don't send in their highest commander with the first wave. So ultimately, I think it was a concept near impossible to achieve because it makes little sense as a whole.

The Federation did just that until the Next Generation....

[sjsharp2011]

Touche. But I don't have to actually be face to face with them here!

 

 

 

You're right but what you're talking about is all the side stuff, and I agree that stuff was great. ME2's entire value was in developing the characters. ME2 certainly shifted the series from plot focused to character focused, like Star Wars is. However, that has nothing to do with the main plot. Killing Shepard, destroying the Normandy, expanding Cerberus, and introducing the Collectors had no value whatsoever.

 

Secondly, everything was bound to the individuals. The parts of the game that had to do with the Genophage weren't about the Salarians or even Krogan generally, they were about Mordin. The drama in curing it in ME3 is bound in Mordin and Wrex and, as much as I like Padok Wiks, the entire thing is diminished without those two characters. The same is true of the Rannoch arc with Tali and Legion.

 

 

 

No, you're the one doing that. It objectively did not progress the series plot. Please tell me how it did. Your enjoyment of it is what is subjective opinion. I also enjoyed it but that had nothing to do with the main plot. It had to do with gameplay and the excellent characters.

 

 

 

This is just wrong. The Collectors were building the next Reaper, not doing anything to bring the Reapers back like Sovereign was with the Geth. It wasn't a change in tactics, though. It was something completely unrelated, unless you think they were going to deploy the Human Reaper to try Sovereign's plan again.

 

 

 

That's just you creating your own game within the game. You're defining your own objectives. That's perfectly fine, but that's what it is. That doesn't make the actual game not a game.

 

 

 

The Geth alone are not an arc so I assume you mean the entire Geth/Quarian conflict. Yes, that is developed but not along the main plot. The same is true for the Genophage. What happens with Citadel politics? You have one meeting with the Council. What exactly was developed regarding Turians and Asari?

 

Also, as I mentioned above, the Genophage and Quarian/Geth conflict are particularly focused on the characters, Mordin, Grunt, Talki, Legion, and Wrex. They are not focused on the species as a whole.

 

The difference between ME2 and The Empire Strikes Back is that the film does advance the main story. Star Wars is entirely focused on the characters, with the war against the Empire being the back drop for the character stories. ME2 shifts Mass Effect into a similar story. So the most important things in Empire are Luke training with Yoda and facing Vader. Luke develops and a major plot point is revealed. When does this happen in ME2? Where does Shepard change? What of value do we learn about our opponent? Shepard, and most of the other characters, are barely phased by Shepard's death and resurrection. There's just one line about it in ME3, a game too late.

 

What connections of value, other than Liara as Shadow Broker? Shepard met Aria but while she shows Shepard some respect, she doesn't really care about him/her.

End of ME1: The Reapers are coming to kill us all and we have no way to stop them.

End of ME2: The Reapers are coming to kill us all and we have no way to stop them. Also they are closer now.

 

 

 

That may be but it certainly is not because of the plot.

well the whole plot isn't just about activating the relay and as I already said in the plot the reapers changed tactics that is how I consider the plot to be  advanced by the fact they decided to get the collectors to build the reaper because every cycle has a birth of a new reaper in it. It's quite possible they might have deployed the reaper to open the relay but by then I'd have thought the reapers would have reached the galaxy by then anyway so no need.

[correctamundo]

well the whole plot isn't just about activating the relay and as I already said in the plot the reapers changed tactics that is how I consider the plot to be  advanced by the fact they decided to get the collectors to build the reaper because every cycle has a birth of a new reaper in it. It's quite possible they might have deployed the reaper to open the relay but by then I'd have thought the reapers would have reached the galaxy by then anyway so no need.

 

After Sovereigns failure in ME1 they activate two back-up plans in ME2 that Shepard again thwarts. Thus buying the galaxy time to uncover the crucial information that necessitates survival. That is more or less the short version of my view on the subject.

[Natureguy85]

well the whole plot isn't just about activating the relay and as I already said in the plot the reapers changed tactics that is how I consider the plot to be  advanced by the fact they decided to get the collectors to build the reaper because every cycle has a birth of a new reaper in it. It's quite possible they might have deployed the reaper to open the relay but by then I'd have thought the reapers would have reached the galaxy by then anyway so no need.

 

What do the Collectors or the Human Reaper have to do with the invasion itself? If there isn't an answer, then it's just something else the Reapers are doing, not a change in tactics. The plot is about the Reapers coming and killing everyone for unknown reasons. The Collectors and the Human Reaper do nothing for that except tell us that the Reapers need organic goop to reproduce. I guess it gives them some motivation but Shepard already had reason to oppose the Reapers.

 

 

 

 

After Sovereigns failure in ME1 they activate two back-up plans in ME2 that Shepard again thwarts. Thus buying the galaxy time to uncover the crucial information that necessitates survival. That is more or less the short version of my view on the subject.

 

More time passes between Shepard's death and resurrection than between the end of ME2 and ME3. ME3 comes so quickly as to make Arrival (and ME1) worthless.

[slimgrin]

Except that's not an ideal for me at all. The majority of TW3's decisions amounted to ''X is kind of a dick for Y reasons, kill or not?'', apart from deciding a few outstanding issues such as the Nilfgaard/North conflict. I never felt Geralt was my character; I was along for the ride, and could sometimes steer the boat, but it ultimatelywasn't my boat. Whereas Bioware RPGs (well, Dragon Age more than Mass Efect admitedly) give you far more freedom to define my character, which I value far more in an RPG.

 

Now, total freedom is not only not achievable, but I don't think it's a good idea either (I dislike Bethesda's approach to let the player do anything regardless of how little sense it makes, for instance), but TW3 simply didn't have enough RPG elements and ways to shape your character(s) to really scratch that itch for me. Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Pillars of Eternity, Fallout New Vegas, those are the games that manage to make custom protagonist work best.

 

Hell, I felt Deus Ex: HR gave me more freedom to define who Adam is and why he made some choices than TW3 did. And that game doesn't even bill itself as an RPG. 

 

 

Except Bioware RPGs for the most part don't have the drastic branching paths like Witcher does. A choice that alters the story is also one that defines my character. I could care less about the alignment approach of DnD which was ever present in ME2, and did not really make it a better role play experience. You basically got two types- saint or ****** - and little in between. 

[straykat]

What do the Collectors or the Human Reaper have to do with the invasion itself? If there isn't an answer, then it's just something else the Reapers are doing, not a change in tactics. The plot is about the Reapers coming and killing everyone for unknown reasons. The Collectors and the Human Reaper do nothing for that except tell us that the Reapers need organic goop to reproduce. I guess it gives them some motivation but Shepard already had reason to oppose the Reapers.

 

 

 

 

 

More time passes between Shepard's death and resurrection than between the end of ME2 and ME3. ME3 comes so quickly as to make Arrival (and ME1) worthless.

 

I think Drew K had a half-assed plan revolving around the human Reaper. They were fascinated with human DNA (especially human biotics) for various space magicky reasons revolving around dark energy. I imagine the Collectors were just a first step in their experiments. It seemed to be an idea well into LotSB, where the Shadow Broker says the Collectors wanted to pay almost as much for Jack as they do Shepard.

 

Once everything just becomes about Shepard only (as it did at the end of ME3 with the Catalyst), there was no need for the Collectors abducting human colonists to begin with. It just played up the whole "Space Jesus" thing, without any particular context.

[correctamundo]

More time passes between Shepard's death and resurrection than between the end of ME2 and ME3. ME3 comes so quickly as to make Arrival (and ME1) worthless.

 

I agree that the time between ME2 and ME3 was cut short for whatever reason, I don't see how that makes Arrival and ME1 worthless though? It does give Liara just enought time to uncover the crucial crucible.

[In Exile]

I think they made up the Collectors for ME2. Like how they just reinvented cerberus. Bioware clearly had no plan for the series.