Mass Effect 3

[Calax]

The thing is that ME2 provided two things to the story (well three if you count Miranda's family issue). It provided the Illusive man as a set up, and it provided EDI to the game world, which are fairly important in ME 3 (also gotta laugh at 7 exobytes I'd adult images hacked int Cerberus computers after they tried to recover her).

 

However the thing with the collectors was still kind of important because it removed them from the equation. If we hadn't eliminated the collectors, we'd have half the fleet being wiped out by the collectors and a giant human reaper striding around earth like a Titan of Greek myths

 

There's no reason why the Illusive Man and EDI couldn't have been introduced in ME3. Their actions in ME2 had little impact on ME3's plot.

 

As for the Reapers the Collectors were building, they've been doing that for two years and EDI says that they still need millions of people to complete it. It's highly unlikely they would have been able to complete it by the time the Reapers invaded. Even then, instead of earth getting attacked by 1,000 Reapers, it gets attacked by 1,001 Reapers, big deal.

 

I thought there was like 2 years between the suicide run and ME3....or something.

 

And I don't think you could have gotten away with EDI and TIM being introduced in ME3 and had them be as effective. And not without SERIOUS retooling of the ENTIRE secondary plot of the game (that is "OMG CERBERUS!")

 

Besides, two of the biggest deciding factors within the game are created specifically because of what happens within ME2.

 

Maelon and the Genophage.

And Legion.

 

They should be self explanatory, but one thing I think should definitely be pointed out is that you could remove certain plot elements and establish them in ME 3, but all you'd basically be doing would be making ME3 into ME2 with less character work, and more "primary plotline" stuff.

[Raithe]

You need EDI's presence in ME2 to have established that rapport with Joker, and to have an unshackled AI that you can contrast with the horrors of the Reapers.

 

Thus making EDI's potential journey into an awareness of what it means to be "alive" a nice background note to all of the horrors of war that's happening during ME3.

[Giantevilhead]

The thing is that ME2 provided two things to the story (well three if you count Miranda's family issue). It provided the Illusive man as a set up, and it provided EDI to the game world, which are fairly important in ME 3 (also gotta laugh at 7 exobytes I'd adult images hacked int Cerberus computers after they tried to recover her).

 

However the thing with the collectors was still kind of important because it removed them from the equation. If we hadn't eliminated the collectors, we'd have half the fleet being wiped out by the collectors and a giant human reaper striding around earth like a Titan of Greek myths

 

There's no reason why the Illusive Man and EDI couldn't have been introduced in ME3. Their actions in ME2 had little impact on ME3's plot.

 

As for the Reapers the Collectors were building, they've been doing that for two years and EDI says that they still need millions of people to complete it. It's highly unlikely they would have been able to complete it by the time the Reapers invaded. Even then, instead of earth getting attacked by 1,000 Reapers, it gets attacked by 1,001 Reapers, big deal.

 

I thought there was like 2 years between the suicide run and ME3....or something.

 

And I don't think you could have gotten away with EDI and TIM being introduced in ME3 and had them be as effective. And not without SERIOUS retooling of the ENTIRE secondary plot of the game (that is "OMG CERBERUS!")

 

Besides, two of the biggest deciding factors within the game are created specifically because of what happens within ME2.

 

Maelon and the Genophage.

And Legion.

 

They should be self explanatory, but one thing I think should definitely be pointed out is that you could remove certain plot elements and establish them in ME 3, but all you'd basically be doing would be making ME3 into ME2 with less character work, and more "primary plotline" stuff.

 

It's actually something like 3 months between ME2 and ME3.

 

I never said that nothing in ME2 mattered, I said that the main plot of ME2 was inconsequential to the main plot of ME3.

 

All that other stuff could have been done in DLC's or an expansion for ME1. The main plot of ME2 was just a side quest stretched out into a full game.

 

In terms of the side quests, a lot of the characters don't play very important roles in ME3 either. Samara/Morinth, Grunt, Jack, Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, Kasumi and Jacob all played very minor roles in ME3 with essentially no impact on the main plot except maybe adding some war asset points.

 

 

You need EDI's presence in ME2 to have established that rapport with Joker, and to have an unshackled AI that you can contrast with the horrors of the Reapers.

 

Thus making EDI's potential journey into an awareness of what it means to be "alive" a nice background note to all of the horrors of war that's happening during ME3.

 

"Nice to have" is not the same as "crucial to the story."

 

It's like the difference between Lord of the RIngs and Star Trek. You miss some very important plot information if you watch The Two Towers without watching Fellowship of the Ring. You can watch The Next Generation without knowing anything about the original series just like how you can watch DS9 without knowing anything about the two shows that came before it. Having watched the shows that came before help give you context and improve your experience but it is not necessary to understand what's going on.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[greylord]

Considering the interest in this game it really is a shame that there is no mod scene at all above a few cosmetics and save game editing owing to the file format protections.

 

I hadn't even started looking at the mod scene yet. That stinks if that holds true. Looong way from NWN glory days in that case.

 

One other thing to those wanting to say the Normandy 2 was weak and hence the Collector cruiser was weak...

 

I'd say it was the strongest ship in the fleet, strong enough that the Admirals wanted to make it a flagship. Flagships are typically the big ship of the fleet or group they are in.....not the weakest.

Edited March 19, 2012 by greylord

[Calax]

It's actually something like 3 months between ME2 and ME3.

 

I never said that nothing in ME2 mattered, I said that the main plot of ME2 was inconsequential to the main plot of ME3.

 

All that other stuff could have been done in DLC's or an expansion for ME1. The main plot of ME2 was just a side quest stretched out into a full game.

 

In terms of the side quests, a lot of the characters don't play very important roles in ME3 either. Samara/Morinth, Grunt, Jack, Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, Kasumi and Jacob all played very minor roles in ME3 with essentially no impact on the main plot except maybe adding some war asset points.

And I'm saying it is. A major facet of the plot is based around the Genophage cure, which you only knew about because you met, and affected Mordin in ME2. And he wasn't even trying to see this, or the cure itself, without your intervention. And Maelon would probably have killed all the females before he had a chance to cure it anyway.

 

Basically what I'm saying is, the first 1/3rd of the game would be impossible without ME2.

You need EDI's presence in ME2 to have established that rapport with Joker, and to have an unshackled AI that you can contrast with the horrors of the Reapers.

 

Thus making EDI's potential journey into an awareness of what it means to be "alive" a nice background note to all of the horrors of war that's happening during ME3.

 

"Nice to have" is not the same as "crucial to the story."

 

It's like the difference between Lord of the RIngs and Star Trek. You miss some very important plot information if you watch The Two Towers without watching Fellowship of the Ring. You can watch The Next Generation without knowing anything about the original series just like how you can watch DS9 without knowing anything about the two shows that came before it. Having watched the shows that came before help give you context and improve your experience but it is not necessary to understand what's going on.

Except it's more like stumbling into DS9 during the season that the Federation was kicked off. You know that the guys in colored shirts are good because of pop culture, but why does the story keep flipping back to those annoying side characters? Why do they matter? Well, a viewer who saw every episode would know that those are actually part of the main cast, and their station is occupied territory at that point. Yes, a viewer could say that they understood the episode, and got the story, but they would have only gotten the stick figure version, while somebody who had a clue about the meta-arc would have enough info to be able to see the intricate tapestry found withing the series.

 

Edit: and for the record, ME hasn't ever really had a mod scene The only thing I've seen, even on a quick google skim, is basic texture updates.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Calax

[Raithe]

"Nice to have" is not the same as "crucial to the story."

 

It's like the difference between Lord of the RIngs and Star Trek. You miss some very important plot information if you watch The Two Towers without watching Fellowship of the Ring. You can watch The Next Generation without knowing anything about the original series just like how you can watch DS9 without knowing anything about the two shows that came before it. Having watched the shows that came before help give you context and improve your experience but it is not necessary to understand what's going on.

 

Hm, that depends on several perspectives. Having the comparison between EDI and the Reapers as both are examples of unshackled AI's might not be a glaring "This is majorly important to the Plot!" marks, but it's very good storytelling. It adds to the sense of the world, and you couldn't build that in if it was all crammed into ME3.

 

By establishing EDI and exactly how she came to be unshackled in ME2, it lets them weave in a more fully fledge part of the backstroy for ME3. Vital to the plot? Maybe not, but vital to the sense of character and background? I'd say so.

 

Also, for the plot related notes, EDI's presence, unshackled nature, and attachement to both Joker and Shepard are what allows Normandy to be there to pick up Shepard on Earth at the beginning. If EDI and Joker hadn't hijacked the ship from where the Alliance were remodelling it, getting Shep off planet and back to the ship would have been a whole nother mess of things.

[Oblarg]

 

Not to get too outrightly finnicky, but the SR2 is based off of the original Normandy, but has a whole bunch of upgrades compared to it. That's why it's about twice the size of the original Normandy, and that's before you do any of the character driven upgrades available.

 

It's still spec'd to the original normandy, and it's still a frigate whose primary purpose is not combat.

 

Do you really think the Collectors would be able to avoid all detection and bypass entire fleets in order to do any sort of damage in a large war? Nah, not by a long shot. They encounter one bulk cruiser and they're done for.

[Giantevilhead]

It's actually something like 3 months between ME2 and ME3.

 

I never said that nothing in ME2 mattered, I said that the main plot of ME2 was inconsequential to the main plot of ME3.

 

All that other stuff could have been done in DLC's or an expansion for ME1. The main plot of ME2 was just a side quest stretched out into a full game.

 

In terms of the side quests, a lot of the characters don't play very important roles in ME3 either. Samara/Morinth, Grunt, Jack, Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, Kasumi and Jacob all played very minor roles in ME3 with essentially no impact on the main plot except maybe adding some war asset points.

And I'm saying it is. A major facet of the plot is based around the Genophage cure, which you only knew about because you met, and affected Mordin in ME2. And he wasn't even trying to see this, or the cure itself, without your intervention. And Maelon would probably have killed all the females before he had a chance to cure it anyway.

 

Basically what I'm saying is, the first 1/3rd of the game would be impossible without ME2.

 

Except the genophage thing isn't actually a part of the main quest of ME2. It was part of Mordin's loyalty quest and therefore optional.

 

The main plot of the ME2, all the quests that you have to do, not the quests that you can ignore if you want, are not important for ME3.

 

"Nice to have" is not the same as "crucial to the story."

 

It's like the difference between Lord of the RIngs and Star Trek. You miss some very important plot information if you watch The Two Towers without watching Fellowship of the Ring. You can watch The Next Generation without knowing anything about the original series just like how you can watch DS9 without knowing anything about the two shows that came before it. Having watched the shows that came before help give you context and improve your experience but it is not necessary to understand what's going on.

Except it's more like stumbling into DS9 during the season that the Federation was kicked off. You know that the guys in colored shirts are good because of pop culture, but why does the story keep flipping back to those annoying side characters? Why do they matter? Well, a viewer who saw every episode would know that those are actually part of the main cast, and their station is occupied territory at that point. Yes, a viewer could say that they understood the episode, and got the story, but they would have only gotten the stick figure version, while somebody who had a clue about the meta-arc would have enough info to be able to see the intricate tapestry found withing the series.

 

Edit: and for the record, ME hasn't ever really had a mod scene The only thing I've seen, even on a quick google skim, is basic texture updates.

 

That analogy is completely wrong since you would not understand the main plot of the episodes without seeing previous episodes.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[Giantevilhead]

"Nice to have" is not the same as "crucial to the story."

 

It's like the difference between Lord of the RIngs and Star Trek. You miss some very important plot information if you watch The Two Towers without watching Fellowship of the Ring. You can watch The Next Generation without knowing anything about the original series just like how you can watch DS9 without knowing anything about the two shows that came before it. Having watched the shows that came before help give you context and improve your experience but it is not necessary to understand what's going on.

 

Hm, that depends on several perspectives. Having the comparison between EDI and the Reapers as both are examples of unshackled AI's might not be a glaring "This is majorly important to the Plot!" marks, but it's very good storytelling. It adds to the sense of the world, and you couldn't build that in if it was all crammed into ME3.

 

By establishing EDI and exactly how she came to be unshackled in ME2, it lets them weave in a more fully fledge part of the backstroy for ME3. Vital to the plot? Maybe not, but vital to the sense of character and background? I'd say so.

 

Also, for the plot related notes, EDI's presence, unshackled nature, and attachement to both Joker and Shepard are what allows Normandy to be there to pick up Shepard on Earth at the beginning. If EDI and Joker hadn't hijacked the ship from where the Alliance were remodelling it, getting Shep off planet and back to the ship would have been a whole nother mess of things.

 

This is not an either or situation. ME2 did have some important character stuff, I never said that it didn't, but that doesn't mean it's OK for the main plot to be pointless. There's no reason why ME3 couldn't have been written to give significance to both the plot and character development in ME2. Why couldn't they have made the destruction of the Collectors a setback for the Reapers that has some real significance? Why couldn't they have the team, not just a few members but the entire team, you assembled play a bigger role in the fight against the Reapers? Was it necessary for them to make the stuff you do in the side quests like the genophage cure and development of the Geth/Quarian relationship more important than the stuff you did in the main quest? That's like if they set next Fallout game in Vegas again but made your decision to help Goodspring more important than which faction took over Vegas.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[greylord]

Not to get too outrightly finnicky, but the SR2 is based off of the original Normandy, but has a whole bunch of upgrades compared to it. That's why it's about twice the size of the original Normandy, and that's before you do any of the character driven upgrades available.

 

It's still spec'd to the original normandy, and it's still a frigate whose primary purpose is not combat.

 

Do you really think the Collectors would be able to avoid all detection and bypass entire fleets in order to do any sort of damage in a large war? Nah, not by a long shot. They encounter one bulk cruiser and they're done for.

 

In ME3 it was going to be the personal ship of Admiral Anderson, and indications seem to have that it would have been a flagship.

 

AS I said before, flagships are NOT your weakest ships of the fleet, in fact typically they are the strongest.

[Calax]

It's actually something like 3 months between ME2 and ME3.

 

I never said that nothing in ME2 mattered, I said that the main plot of ME2 was inconsequential to the main plot of ME3.

 

All that other stuff could have been done in DLC's or an expansion for ME1. The main plot of ME2 was just a side quest stretched out into a full game.

 

In terms of the side quests, a lot of the characters don't play very important roles in ME3 either. Samara/Morinth, Grunt, Jack, Miranda, Thane, Zaeed, Kasumi and Jacob all played very minor roles in ME3 with essentially no impact on the main plot except maybe adding some war asset points.

And I'm saying it is. A major facet of the plot is based around the Genophage cure, which you only knew about because you met, and affected Mordin in ME2. And he wasn't even trying to see this, or the cure itself, without your intervention. And Maelon would probably have killed all the females before he had a chance to cure it anyway.

 

Basically what I'm saying is, the first 1/3rd of the game would be impossible without ME2.

 

Except the genophage thing isn't actually a part of the main quest of ME2. It was part of Mordin's loyalty quest and therefore optional.

 

The main plot of the ME2, all the quests that you have to do, not the quests that you can ignore if you want, are not important for ME3.

Thing is ME2 wasn't built as a plot driven piece. It's a character driven piece, and thus, all of the important parts of the game are entirely character pieces. And just because of your involvement with Mordin being optional, doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen. Maelon and Wilkes use the same research, and the game IN DEFAULT MODE assumes you did the loyalty missions, so I don't think you can just say "LAWL it's optional" and hide.

 

Hell, Lair of the Shadowbroker was "Optional" and is still considered to have happened (although it's Liara alone instead of her and Shep), and Arrival most CERTAINLY happened.

"Nice to have" is not the same as "crucial to the story."

 

It's like the difference between Lord of the RIngs and Star Trek. You miss some very important plot information if you watch The Two Towers without watching Fellowship of the Ring. You can watch The Next Generation without knowing anything about the original series just like how you can watch DS9 without knowing anything about the two shows that came before it. Having watched the shows that came before help give you context and improve your experience but it is not necessary to understand what's going on.

Except it's more like stumbling into DS9 during the season that the Federation was kicked off. You know that the guys in colored shirts are good because of pop culture, but why does the story keep flipping back to those annoying side characters? Why do they matter? Well, a viewer who saw every episode would know that those are actually part of the main cast, and their station is occupied territory at that point. Yes, a viewer could say that they understood the episode, and got the story, but they would have only gotten the stick figure version, while somebody who had a clue about the meta-arc would have enough info to be able to see the intricate tapestry found withing the series.

 

Edit: and for the record, ME hasn't ever really had a mod scene The only thing I've seen, even on a quick google skim, is basic texture updates.

 

That analogy is completely wrong since you would not understand the main plot of the episodes without seeing previous episodes.

You would though. If I'd said Battlestar Galactica you'd be correct, but DS9 was a show designed around having self contained storylines with a meta-arc slowly chugging along in the background. Specifically for syndication. Thus each episode had a story contained within, and the average viewer could follow it without having to look up Memory Alpha in order to get the context for everything that is happening.

[sorophx]

wow, what a heated debate, you guys didn't even notice you'd gone over 500 posts

[Giantevilhead]

Thing is ME2 wasn't built as a plot driven piece. It's a character driven piece, and thus, all of the important parts of the game are entirely character pieces. And just because of your involvement with Mordin being optional, doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen. Maelon and Wilkes use the same research, and the game IN DEFAULT MODE assumes you did the loyalty missions, so I don't think you can just say "LAWL it's optional" and hide.

 

Hell, Lair of the Shadowbroker was "Optional" and is still considered to have happened (although it's Liara alone instead of her and Shep), and Arrival most CERTAINLY happened.

 

 

You would though. If I'd said Battlestar Galactica you'd be correct, but DS9 was a show designed around having self contained storylines with a meta-arc slowly chugging along in the background. Specifically for syndication. Thus each episode had a story contained within, and the average viewer could follow it without having to look up Memory Alpha in order to get the context for everything that is happening.

 

Except that in no way addresses my criticism. Just because the game is character driven does not excuse the fact that the main plot didn't matter. There's no reason why they couldn't have made both the character development and plot development relevant. There's no reason why the driving events that lead to all that character development has to be inconsequential. If the main plot of the game isn't actually strong enough to carry the game then why not make them into DLC's or part of an expansion? Why not come up with a main plot that is significant and will impact the next game?

Edited March 20, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[Oblarg]

In ME3 it was going to be the personal ship of Admiral Anderson, and indications seem to have that it would have been a flagship.

 

AS I said before, flagships are NOT your weakest ships of the fleet, in fact typically they are the strongest.

 

Have you read the codex? It's a frigate. Frigates are not built for pitched combat. In large battles they never directly engage a larger ship alone. The Normandy is not a particularly powerful warship - it's stealthy and quick, yes, but nothing special in a battle (especially un-upgraded). It certainly shouldn't be able to fight a heavy cruiser head-on, (unless you've upgraded the weapons, but that's irrelevant as it's not needed to win the fight) and it's absolutely negligible compared to a dreadnaught. This indicates that the only Collector ship was fairly weak in direct combat, and would not make any sort of meaningful impact on the outcome of a large battle.

[Gorth]

I'd say it was the strongest ship in the fleet, strong enough that the Admirals wanted to make it a flagship. Flagships are typically the big ship of the fleet or group they are in.....not the weakest.

Wouldn't they more likely be in the ship that best offered them situational awareness combined with survivability?

 

In the days of sailing ships, it made sense to put an admiral in the middle of the line (for the overview and easy signalling to other ships) and give him a big ship to make him stay afloat for a while.

 

It would make sense for a modern admiral (or general in a landwar) to stay out of the firing line while having access to as much sensor and communication equipment as possible. Big guns tends to draw enemy attention.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

Some people are going to be really disappointed.

[Guest Slinky]

Nicely done video if nothing else. Kinda funny situation, the ending is either really bad or really, really good. There's just one big thing why I have trouble even wishing any of that turning out to be true:

 

The idea of EA taking huuuuge risk like this boggles my mind. Sure, ME3 has had some serious publicity because of the ending, but it's hasn't been very positive to say the least.. I'm sure they would sell a good number of DLC that starts right after harbinger has shot at shepard, but would it be enough for a company full of stock holders breathing down it's neck?

Edited March 20, 2012 by Slinky

[HoonDing]

I guess I'll hold off my NG+ then.

[BobSmith101]

Nicely done video if nothing else. Kinda funny situation, the ending is either really bad or really, really good. There's just one big thing why I have trouble even wishing any of that turning out to be true:

 

The idea of EA taking huuuuge risk like this boggles my mind. Sure, ME3 has had some serious publicity because of the ending, but it's hasn't been very positive to say the least.. I'm sure they would sell a good number of DLC that starts right after harbinger has shot at shepard, but would it be enough for a company full of stock holders breathing down it's neck?

 

That would be really stupid because of the % of people who they sold the game to who are not online.Knowingly shipping a game with a false ending with no ability to redress that, it's not going to go down well.

[Guest Slinky]

Nicely done video if nothing else. Kinda funny situation, the ending is either really bad or really, really good. There's just one big thing why I have trouble even wishing any of that turning out to be true:

 

The idea of EA taking huuuuge risk like this boggles my mind. Sure, ME3 has had some serious publicity because of the ending, but it's hasn't been very positive to say the least.. I'm sure they would sell a good number of DLC that starts right after harbinger has shot at shepard, but would it be enough for a company full of stock holders breathing down it's neck?

 

That would be really stupid because of the % of people who they sold the game to who are not online.Knowingly shipping a game with a false ending with no ability to redress that, it's not going to go down well.

 

Then again, it hasn't gone down very well even if the ending is final. Lawsuits and petitions and whatnot.

 

And doesn't the game kinda require you to be online, at least once?

 

Edit: Forgot the consoles. Still, with the earlier DLC's and the multiplayer in ME3, I wouldn't be so sure they are worried about the people without online access.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Slinky

[Bos_hybrid]

That would be really stupid because of the % of people who they sold the game to who are not online.Knowingly shipping a game with a false ending with no ability to redress that, it's not going to go down well.

 

Their number would be insignificant to Bio/EA. I mean they made it so you couldn't get the best ending without playing MP. So obviously non-online players aren't important. I'm not saying the Indoctrination theory is correct, just that non-online people have little value to EA, since they can't milk them with DLC.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[Humanoid]

Can't you send them a self-addressed envelope and have them send you the files on floppy disk? Oh, wrong century.

[Gorth]

That would be really stupid because of the % of people who they sold the game to who are not online.Knowingly shipping a game with a false ending with no ability to redress that, it's not going to go down well.

 

Their number would be insignificant to Bio/EA. I mean they made it so you couldn't get the best ending without playing MP. So obviously non-online players aren't important. I'm not saying the Indoctrination theory is correct, just that non-online people have little value to EA, since they can't milk them with DLC.

I'm a bit curious, what is considered the "best" ending?

 

In my game, I picked the green ending.

 

 

That was the "Synthesis" ending. I was also offered Control and Destroy

 

 

I've never touched the multiplayer.

[Morgoth]

Why did I never get the green ending?

 

Doesn't matter really anmore....

[Raithe]

I'm a bit curious, what is considered the "best" ending?

 

In my game, I picked the green ending.

 

 

That was the "Synthesis" ending. I was also offered Control and Destroy

 

 

I've never touched the multiplayer.

 

Ah, if you have a really high number of War Assets.. And I believe it's only if you choose the Destroy option..

You get an extra..15 seconds of footage..where the camera pans back on rubble..a body wearing N7 armour that's all shredded.. the music suddenly stops..and the body jerks as if suddenly taking a new breath. Thus..only if you destroy the Reapers is it possible for Shepard to be alive..