242 réponses à ce sujet

[Statulos]

This is exactly the same kind of arguments used to attack people like Ionesco, Artaud, Brecht or Grotowsky back in the day: "hey you; you don´t follow an Aristotlean logic when writing threatre; your plays are crapp because they don´t make sense!"



Sure, ME2 is not Wating for Godot; but the narration is a bit more sophisticated than the usual TV series/novel. Hopefully, Bioware will keep it that way.

[marshalleck]

If the crew of ME2 is our main crew for ME3, then all the character establishment here will make sense--they essentially will have made an entire game out of the usual recruitment phase, and proceed directly to the main course in ME3.



If they just throw out everything (read: the characters) from ME2, then god help them. That would make ME2 largely irrelevant.



I remember seeing similar complaints from ME1 though. I think some people (not all, but some) ignore that Bioware is trying to create an overarching story in three parts. These people experience only one chapter of it, don't get the full picture, claim it's "incomplete" or "it sucks" and don't bother to give it any further consideration.

[CorvushatesEA]

davidt0504 wrote...

what about the thorian, the rachni, etc in me1? These things had nothing to do with Saren, the geth or the reapers. 

Somebody skipped through a LOT of dialogue, I see.

[Myrmedus]

davidt0504 wrote...

what about the thorian, the rachni, etc in me1? These things had nothing to do with Saren, the geth or the reapers.  The thorian can sort of count because of the cypher but overall was just added to give more stuff to do on that mission, and make it more interesting than just chasing a rogue turian around.

The Thorian was required because you needed Shiala for the Cypher, without that you couldn't have tracked Saren to Ilos.

The Rachni weren't a core plot string but the encounter with Benezia was which was actually the purpose of going to Noveria and not the Rachni Queen.

Yes, when you descend upon these worlds you don't know why they're relevant yet, but that's fine because it adds to the feeling of discovery. However, whats important is that the closure is relevant.

These games are largely about experiencing the galaxy they've created.  The story elements presented in squad quests and loyalty quests are just as integral and will most likely be extremely relavent to me3, and probably much more relavent than the results of those interactions in me1, which by your definition are more a part of the main story than the geth heretics, or the quarian flotilla, or the genophage cure, etc.

It doesn't matter what's more or less relevant in ME3. Why? Because of course actions in ME2 are going to generally be more relevant to ME3 - it's the direct prequel to that instalment! What matters is whether these elements are relevant to the plot of the game/story they're contained within. With ME1, they were. With ME2, they were not.

and by the way, I don't mean this for those who just honestly didn't like the story in mass effect 2, everyone has their own opinion and tastes, but it seems like a lot of people didn't get the fact that so much of mass effect 2 revolved around your crew, and squad.  The characters were the focus of this game, even more so than the collectors.

I liked the ME2 story, thought it was great and incredibly well written, there simply wasn't enough of it IMO. It doesn't matter to me whether the intention was for 80% of the focus to be on characters because even if it was intended I categorically disagree with that approach in the wake of ME1's plot structure.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 02:58 .

[Myrmedus]

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

You CAN complete this game without doing a single loyalty mission, and you can even keep Shepard alive through doing so. If you can complete the game without doing something then it is side content.

You're absolutely right about the fact that you can complete this game without doing any of the loyalty missions.  My concern is, you're only looking at this game as a "single" game, and not part of the overral story which is as much about Shepard him/herself as it is about the Reapers.

Shep dying after the final mission is in fact finishing the game, but that is also the end of Shepard and his/her story.

No actually it's quite the contrary - I think looking at this game as part of a trilogy makes its plot imbalance even worse. Quite simply there's way too much plot to get through in ME3 because not enough was involved in ME2. Perhaps that will be remedied with proposed expansion packs but that's not good enough IMO. The lack of core plot also concerns me because I can't see how they're going to wade through all the inevitable plot in ME3, especially with its proposed release being in 2012. Either the plot is going to feel artificially shortened and come to a premature climax or there will be some kind of disclosed climax to the trilogy because of it. The only other option is that the game's plot arc and gameplay will be on the same scale as a Final Fantasy which I find highly unlikely.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:03 .

[davidt0504]

marshalleck wrote...

If the crew of ME2 is our main crew for ME3, then all the character establishment here will make sense--they essentially will have made an entire game out of the usual recruitment phase, and proceed directly to the main course in ME3.

If they just throw out everything (read: the characters) from ME2, then god help them. That would make ME2 largely irrelevant.

I remember seeing similar complaints from ME1 though. I think some people (not all, but some) ignore that Bioware is trying to create an overarching story in three parts. These people experience only one chapter of it, don't get the full picture, claim it's "incomplete" or "it sucks" and don't bother to give it any further consideration.

I agree, I hope that bioware knows how much people actually did grow attatched to these characters and that if they just scrap them for the 3rd installment they will have failed.  I have a feeling though that like most trilogies, mass 2 and 3 will be much more interconnected than the first two, I think this is evident throughout mass 2 also.  We have a level cap of 30 (half of the first one, perhaps continue into 3?) and we are allowed to continue after the suicide mission and now have our ship and crew, we are ready for anything, bioware need not find a way to bring in an entirely new story and crew for the third game but simply find a good system of bringing in which characters are alive and which ones aren't, perhaps there will be options for replacements for those who lost crew, I dno't know but I just hope that bioware will not make the series threatening mistake of giving the me2 squad the same treatment as all the "killable" crew from the first game.

[marshalleck]

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter what's more or less relevant in ME3. Why? Because of course actions in ME2 are going to generally be more relevant to ME3 - it's the direct prequel to that instalment! What matters is whether these elements are relevant to the plot of the game/story they're contained within. With ME1, they were. With ME2, they were not.

I would tend to disagree slightly. People made the same arguments about ME1 that you're hearing from ME2.

"I saved/killed the Rachni, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."
"I saved/killed the colonists of Feros, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."

Etc. etc.

[Oawa]

Frotality wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Frotality wrote...

it is inconsistent with the plot set up, so it making no sense is the problem. we expected and wanted to continue the story of the reapers, and we liked the character stories...but as the focus of the plot, in the sequel no less...does not compute.

I think  this is where a lot of confusion comes from.  The Mass Effect trilogy isn't just about the Reapers.  It's about Commander Shepard, moreso than anything else.

but the main narrative is about the reapers, not thane/ tali/ miranda/ etc. of course the story can encompass many more things, it is a universe of content after all, but the lack of foucs on the main drive of the story is what im getting at. without the main focus of the first game, ME2 is little beyond a spin-off storywise.

I think I'm going to have to disagree.  The main narrative imo is about Commander Shepard, the Reapears are just one of, or should I say the main thing he is focusing on and trying to deal with.

Everything we've experienced so far in the two games are the hurdles Shep has to overcome to achieve his main goal of stopping the Reaper invasion.

ME 1 served it's purpose very well, a strong intro to Shep and what he/she is about, and gave us a very formidable obstacle, Saren, to overcome.  Plus considering it was the first chapter of the story, there was a lot to learn about current events.

ME 2 is pretty straightforward, simply because a lot of things we already knew thanks to the great intro the first game was.  Perhaps more could have been done revelation wise with the second, there still were some pretty good ones though. 

[davidt0504]

marshalleck wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter what's more or less relevant in ME3. Why? Because of course actions in ME2 are going to generally be more relevant to ME3 - it's the direct prequel to that instalment! What matters is whether these elements are relevant to the plot of the game/story they're contained within. With ME1, they were. With ME2, they were not.

I would tend to disagree slightly. People made the same arguments about ME1 that you're hearing from ME2.

"I saved/killed the Rachni, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."
"I saved/killed the colonists of Feros, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."

Etc. etc.

thats largely what I meant when I said that those things didn't have anything to do with Saren and the geth.  But I think the most important thing to remember (which I'm pretty sure has been said already) is that this story is more about shepard than the reapers.

[Myrmedus]

marshalleck wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter what's more or less relevant in ME3. Why? Because of course actions in ME2 are going to generally be more relevant to ME3 - it's the direct prequel to that instalment! What matters is whether these elements are relevant to the plot of the game/story they're contained within. With ME1, they were. With ME2, they were not.

I would tend to disagree slightly. People made the same arguments about ME1 that you're hearing from ME2.

"I saved/killed the Rachni, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."
"I saved/killed the colonists of Feros, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."

Etc. etc.

Yes, but the difference between ME1 and ME2 was that ME1 recognised those decisions as side-content whereas ME2 seemed to be under the illusion such choices were core content.

Saving the Rachni Queen is just an epilogue to the Benezia episode.

Saving the Colonists on Feros was just a prelude to the Thorian encounter.

None of these examples on ME1 were their own isolated story arcs, they were all simply a stepping stone to a core arc. The biggest issue with ME2 is quantity of core content but also its plot structure - it differentiates too clearly between the character side-plots and the core plot rather than integrating it together like ME1 does. If you did that in a novel it would be considered poor which is a grievious injustice to ME2 since its script is so good.

[TheShady]

Statulos wrote...
Sure, ME2 is not Wating for Godot; but the narration is a bit more sophisticated than the usual TV series/novel. Hopefully, Bioware will keep it that way.

Define usual, please.

(This was not hostile. It was entirely neutral.)

[Myrmedus]

davidt0504 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter what's more or less relevant in ME3. Why? Because of course actions in ME2 are going to generally be more relevant to ME3 - it's the direct prequel to that instalment! What matters is whether these elements are relevant to the plot of the game/story they're contained within. With ME1, they were. With ME2, they were not.

I would tend to disagree slightly. People made the same arguments about ME1 that you're hearing from ME2.

"I saved/killed the Rachni, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."
"I saved/killed the colonists of Feros, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."

Etc. etc.

thats largely what I meant when I said that those things didn't have anything to do with Saren and the geth.  But I think the most important thing to remember (which I'm pretty sure has been said already) is that this story is more about shepard than the reapers.

Those things weren't the purpose of going to those planets, they were simply episodes that took place along the way - that is the difference. The main difference between ME1 and ME2 is plot structure, and while ME2's content and the plot/characters themselves are excellent the structure in which those elements are welded together is severely lacking compared to ME1 giving it a rather fragmented feel.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:07 .

[Oawa]

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

You CAN complete this game without doing a single loyalty mission, and you can even keep Shepard alive through doing so. If you can complete the game without doing something then it is side content.

You're absolutely right about the fact that you can complete this game without doing any of the loyalty missions.  My concern is, you're only looking at this game as a "single" game, and not part of the overral story which is as much about Shepard him/herself as it is about the Reapers.

Shep dying after the final mission is in fact finishing the game, but that is also the end of Shepard and his/her story.

No actually it's quite the contrary - I think looking at this game as part of a trilogy makes its plot imbalance even worse. Quite simply there's way too much plot to get through in ME3 because not enough was involved in ME2. Perhaps that will be remedied with proposed expansion packs but that's not good enough IMO. The lack of core plot also concerns me because I can't see how they're going to wade through all the inevitable plot in ME3, especially with its proposed release being in 2012. Either the plot is going to feel artificially shortened and come to a premature climax or there will be some kind of disclosed climax to the trilogy because of it. The only other option is that the game's plot arc and gameplay will be on the same scale as a Final Fantasy which I find highly unlikely.

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

[MassEffect762]

Bioware sure has their work cut out for them come ME3, I'll give them 60/40 chance they'll pull it off and end the trilogy in Epic fashion.

I get ME2s story, as a stand alone story it is rather mediocre but I realize it's just a piece of the tale.
I thought working for cerberus sucked though(paragon), I miss my spectre days arguing with the Council only to prove them wrong time and time again.(I can't wait to prove them wrong again, bastards)

Modifié par MassEffect762, 14 février 2010 - 03:10 .

[davidt0504]

Myrmedus wrote...

davidt0504 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

It doesn't matter what's more or less relevant in ME3. Why? Because of course actions in ME2 are going to generally be more relevant to ME3 - it's the direct prequel to that instalment! What matters is whether these elements are relevant to the plot of the game/story they're contained within. With ME1, they were. With ME2, they were not.

I would tend to disagree slightly. People made the same arguments about ME1 that you're hearing from ME2.

"I saved/killed the Rachni, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."
"I saved/killed the colonists of Feros, it didn't matter in the fight against Saren."

Etc. etc.

thats largely what I meant when I said that those things didn't have anything to do with Saren and the geth.  But I think the most important thing to remember (which I'm pretty sure has been said already) is that this story is more about shepard than the reapers.

Those things weren't the purpose of going to those planets, they were simply episodes that took place along the way - that is the difference. The main difference between ME1 and ME2 is plot structure, and while ME2's content and the plot/characters themselves are excellent the structure in which those elements are welded together is severely lacking compared to ME1 giving it a rather fragmented feel.

I know this relation has been used to death, but think about like Star Wars, A new hope and the return of the jedi (the book ending chapters) were the ones that focused heavily on the story of the empire and rebellion, but the empire strikes back had a lot of its appeal in just exploring the star wars galaxy.  There wasn't a lot of stuff done with the over arching plot of the rebellion and the empire, in fact the rebellion disappeared for the majority of the movie.  Mass Effect 2 had a lot of exploring the universe, coupled with the over arching idea of stopping the collectors in an effort to halt the reapers eventually.

[TheShady]

Oawa wrote...

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

Well, personally I wanted much more of the Reapers. We got to talk to one in ME1. Nothing like that in ME2. No new information whatsoever.
We also had a perfectly fine enemy army: The Geth. Replacing them with the Collectors that now probably are completely irrelevant again felt like a waste of space.
Spectres were a big deal in ME1 and seemed like a big deal in the alltogether ME lore.
We had plenty of interesting characters (to name a few: Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, Anderson, Udina of sorts, the council, heck... even the Consort)

Also, did we really need Shepard to die? Did we really need 2 years to pass? Did we need Cerberus as such a main force?

[Myrmedus]

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

You CAN complete this game without doing a single loyalty mission, and you can even keep Shepard alive through doing so. If you can complete the game without doing something then it is side content.

You're absolutely right about the fact that you can complete this game without doing any of the loyalty missions.  My concern is, you're only looking at this game as a "single" game, and not part of the overral story which is as much about Shepard him/herself as it is about the Reapers.

Shep dying after the final mission is in fact finishing the game, but that is also the end of Shepard and his/her story.

No actually it's quite the contrary - I think looking at this game as part of a trilogy makes its plot imbalance even worse. Quite simply there's way too much plot to get through in ME3 because not enough was involved in ME2. Perhaps that will be remedied with proposed expansion packs but that's not good enough IMO. The lack of core plot also concerns me because I can't see how they're going to wade through all the inevitable plot in ME3, especially with its proposed release being in 2012. Either the plot is going to feel artificially shortened and come to a premature climax or there will be some kind of disclosed climax to the trilogy because of it. The only other option is that the game's plot arc and gameplay will be on the same scale as a Final Fantasy which I find highly unlikely.

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

They didn't 'skip' over anything - or if they did I can't say specifically since I don't know the plot of ME3 - but rather the amount of plot in ME2 leaves ALOT to be wrapped up in ME3.

Think about it. We've faced 2 Reapers total and an entire game has been devoted to battling each one, yet we're meant to encounter thousands of them in a single ME? Either those Reapers are going to lose their individual 'fortress'-like feel, becoming nothing more than big explody things in a space battle cinematics, or the game is going to last 1000 hours+

Not to mention we need to consider:
- How to actually fight them.
- What the hell is going on with Haestrom's Star.
- Potentially recruit entire faction armies.
- Probably sort out issues between the Quarians and the Geth.
- Discern the Reaper's overarcing purpose as a means of maintaining anthromorphisation of the saga's antagonists (in other words if we don't dig deeper into the Reaper's motivations, goals etc. we risk losing them as a humanized antagonist and they become nothing more than a stable bad-guy cardboard cut-out).

These are just things off the top of my head so there's doubtless many more. There's simply too many things to fit into a 40 hour game there, especially if BW want to continue with their high quantity of heavily fleshed out characters. Either it's going to get rushed, not nearly everything will be included or the climax is going to be considerably inadequate.

The main issue with ME2 is that by indulging in all these characters it risks making ME3 suffer, and by extension the whole trilogy suffer.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:16 .

[davidt0504]

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

You CAN complete this game without doing a single loyalty mission, and you can even keep Shepard alive through doing so. If you can complete the game without doing something then it is side content.

You're absolutely right about the fact that you can complete this game without doing any of the loyalty missions.  My concern is, you're only looking at this game as a "single" game, and not part of the overral story which is as much about Shepard him/herself as it is about the Reapers.

Shep dying after the final mission is in fact finishing the game, but that is also the end of Shepard and his/her story.

No actually it's quite the contrary - I think looking at this game as part of a trilogy makes its plot imbalance even worse. Quite simply there's way too much plot to get through in ME3 because not enough was involved in ME2. Perhaps that will be remedied with proposed expansion packs but that's not good enough IMO. The lack of core plot also concerns me because I can't see how they're going to wade through all the inevitable plot in ME3, especially with its proposed release being in 2012. Either the plot is going to feel artificially shortened and come to a premature climax or there will be some kind of disclosed climax to the trilogy because of it. The only other option is that the game's plot arc and gameplay will be on the same scale as a Final Fantasy which I find highly unlikely.

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

They didn't 'skip' over anything - or if they did I can't say specifically since I don't know the plot of ME3 - but rather the amount of plot in ME2 leaves ALOT to be wrapped up in ME3.

Think about it. We've faced 2 Reapers total and an entire game has been devoted to battling each one, yet we're meant to encounter thousands of them in a single ME? Either those Reapers are going to lose their individual 'fortress'-like feel, becoming nothing more than big explody things in a space battle cinematics, or the game is going to last 1000 hours+

Not to mention we need to consider:
- How to actually fight them.
- What the hell is going on with Haestrom's Star.
- Potentially recruit entire faction armies.
- Probably sort out issues between the Quarians and the Geth.
- Discern the Reaper's overarcing purpose as a means of maintaining anthromorphisation of the saga's antagonists (in other words if we don't dig deeper into the Reaper's motivations, goals etc. we risk losing them as a humanized antagonist and they become nothing more than a stable bad-guy cardboard cut-out).

These are just things off the top of my head so there's doubtless many more. There's simply too many things to fit into a 40 hour game there, especially if BW want to continue with their high quantity of heavily fleshed out characters. Either it's going to get rushed, not nearly everything will be included or the climax is going to be considerably inadequate.

The main issue with ME2 is that by indulging in all these characters it risks making ME3 suffer, and by extension the whole trilogy suffer.

but your assuming that bioware plans a war like ending with the reapers, I think its pretty obvious that something less obvious is going to happen, something unexpected and it won't end just simply with us blowing up all the reapers, they've intentionally made the story so that it will be nearly impossible for them to do that.

[Kolaris8472]

I understand a switch from plot-driven to character-driven; I picked up on it, and it still makes for a good individual story. Hell, I liked ME2 more than ME1.



But it can still be a low point from a trilogy perspective. We took a step backwards in scale in just about every aspect from ME1, and you can't justify that simply by pointing to a character-driven story model.

[davidt0504]

but I whole heartedly agree with you about the reaper motivations needing to be revealed

[Myrmedus]

Oawa wrote...

Frotality wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Frotality wrote...

it is inconsistent with the plot set up, so it making no sense is the problem. we expected and wanted to continue the story of the reapers, and we liked the character stories...but as the focus of the plot, in the sequel no less...does not compute.

I think  this is where a lot of confusion comes from.  The Mass Effect trilogy isn't just about the Reapers.  It's about Commander Shepard, moreso than anything else.

but the main narrative is about the reapers, not thane/ tali/ miranda/ etc. of course the story can encompass many more things, it is a universe of content after all, but the lack of foucs on the main drive of the story is what im getting at. without the main focus of the first game, ME2 is little beyond a spin-off storywise.

I think I'm going to have to disagree.  The main narrative imo is about Commander Shepard, the Reapears are just one of, or should I say the main thing he is focusing on and trying to deal with.

Everything we've experienced so far in the two games are the hurdles Shep has to overcome to achieve his main goal of stopping the Reaper invasion.

ME 1 served it's purpose very well, a strong intro to Shep and what he/she is about, and gave us a very formidable obstacle, Saren, to overcome.  Plus considering it was the first chapter of the story, there was a lot to learn about current events.

ME 2 is pretty straightforward, simply because a lot of things we already knew thanks to the great intro the first game was.  Perhaps more could have been done revelation wise with the second, there still were some pretty good ones though. 

The Reapers are the main antagonist of the plot though, and everyone knows that an antagonist is as responsible for the quality of a plot or narrative as the protagonist. There hasn't been many, if any, epic plotlines over the decades that have lacked an awesome antagonist and make no mistake that while the Reapers may employ a "puppeteer" role within the story thus far they are very much a significant pull and force in ME's plot's quality. The visage, presence and lore of the that BW have created for these Lovencrantz-esque characters is definitely what gives ME an edge over many other sci-fi stories. The second you push them to the backburner (like in ME2) is the second you weaken said plot.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:20 .

[marshalleck]

Myrmedus wrote...

Those things weren't the purpose of going to those planets, they were simply episodes that took place along the way - that is the difference. The main difference between ME1 and ME2 is plot structure, and while ME2's content and the plot/characters themselves are excellent the structure in which those elements are welded together is severely lacking compared to ME1 giving it a rather fragmented feel.

ME2 is about Shepard's relationships with his/her crew. The Collectors are there as a catalyst to get things moving. I understand that some people expected the Collectors to be the antagonist that's constantly dogging Shepard's heels like Saren was in ME1, but the fact that they are not does not mean the game is "lacking." It merely means that someone's personal expectations were not met--hardly damning criticism in itself.

Again, I think this will make much more sense if there's a relatively seamless transition into ME3. But I have no idea what Bioware intends to do and I'm making no predictions.

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 février 2010 - 03:21 .

[davidt0504]

I think people are forgetting that there is only one more "story" mission in me1 than in me2

[Myrmedus]

davidt0504 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Oawa wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

You CAN complete this game without doing a single loyalty mission, and you can even keep Shepard alive through doing so. If you can complete the game without doing something then it is side content.

You're absolutely right about the fact that you can complete this game without doing any of the loyalty missions.  My concern is, you're only looking at this game as a "single" game, and not part of the overral story which is as much about Shepard him/herself as it is about the Reapers.

Shep dying after the final mission is in fact finishing the game, but that is also the end of Shepard and his/her story.

No actually it's quite the contrary - I think looking at this game as part of a trilogy makes its plot imbalance even worse. Quite simply there's way too much plot to get through in ME3 because not enough was involved in ME2. Perhaps that will be remedied with proposed expansion packs but that's not good enough IMO. The lack of core plot also concerns me because I can't see how they're going to wade through all the inevitable plot in ME3, especially with its proposed release being in 2012. Either the plot is going to feel artificially shortened and come to a premature climax or there will be some kind of disclosed climax to the trilogy because of it. The only other option is that the game's plot arc and gameplay will be on the same scale as a Final Fantasy which I find highly unlikely.

What plot points do you think they skipped over in ME 2?

They didn't 'skip' over anything - or if they did I can't say specifically since I don't know the plot of ME3 - but rather the amount of plot in ME2 leaves ALOT to be wrapped up in ME3.

Think about it. We've faced 2 Reapers total and an entire game has been devoted to battling each one, yet we're meant to encounter thousands of them in a single ME? Either those Reapers are going to lose their individual 'fortress'-like feel, becoming nothing more than big explody things in a space battle cinematics, or the game is going to last 1000 hours+

Not to mention we need to consider:
- How to actually fight them.
- What the hell is going on with Haestrom's Star.
- Potentially recruit entire faction armies.
- Probably sort out issues between the Quarians and the Geth.
- Discern the Reaper's overarcing purpose as a means of maintaining anthromorphisation of the saga's antagonists (in other words if we don't dig deeper into the Reaper's motivations, goals etc. we risk losing them as a humanized antagonist and they become nothing more than a stable bad-guy cardboard cut-out).

These are just things off the top of my head so there's doubtless many more. There's simply too many things to fit into a 40 hour game there, especially if BW want to continue with their high quantity of heavily fleshed out characters. Either it's going to get rushed, not nearly everything will be included or the climax is going to be considerably inadequate.

The main issue with ME2 is that by indulging in all these characters it risks making ME3 suffer, and by extension the whole trilogy suffer.

but your assuming that bioware plans a war like ending with the reapers, I think its pretty obvious that something less obvious is going to happen, something unexpected and it won't end just simply with us blowing up all the reapers, they've intentionally made the story so that it will be nearly impossible for them to do that.

Coming up with something original is fine but if it fails to be true closure on the trilogy then it's a failure of epic proportions - besides I see the Reapers as being incredibly weak to direct invasion by infantry. You get people inside that Reaper is ****ed.

If this wasn't Shepard's last outing then I'd say fine but since it is, and since there has been a personal vendetta-esque conflict developed between Shepard and the Reapers, if they finish his last outing without closure on the Reapers it's going to be poor.

As an example, Lord of the Rings is one of many sagas included in Tolkien's overall works called the The Silmarillion yet it still had a final closure. Even if ME1-3 is merely one trilogy within an over-arcing saga it needs its own true closure.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 14 février 2010 - 03:25 .

[MassEffect762]

I'd like to know how the Reapers began(flashback maybe), that would be some really juicy information.