Mass effect Trilogy

[Gorth]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that something else was planned for the overall story arch, but got changed between ME2 and ME3, so what looked like the start of story archs in ME2 ended up not being used in ME3 (adding to some of the overall confusion). Something about the human shaped Reaper and dark matter that actually mattered

[Serrano]

Is the trilogy just a re-release or will their be any cosmetic improvements or anything to the older two games?

Edited November 15, 2012 by Serrano

[GhostofAnakin]

Looking back at the trilogy, I'm not sure I got the point of ME2.

 

Considering how Bio themselves seemed to drop/ignore/not pick up on much of what happened in ME2's main story, I'd say they also didn't get the point of ME2 either.

[alanschu]

That legitimately made me laugh out loud. "ME2 has one of the best endings ever in any game" is just the cherry topper icing on that cake, puts it really over the top. +10 troll points for that one phrase alone. Current subtotal: 27. Keep up the good work.

 

There's a non-trivial amount of people that really like how the ending played out in ME2, particularly from the standpoint of how player choice was tracked and how it fed into whether or not the each individual survived the suicide mission, based on a variety of criteria. I think how this played out really fed in to why a lot of people were disappointed with the ME3 ending.

[Drowsy Emperor]

"And just when I thought you finally got your act together."

 

You need to think to have a thought. And, the fatc you believe that BG is a betetr RPG than any other BIO game (except MAYBE MDK2 and SS) shows you obviously don't know what rping is. And, it certainly was nowhere near as good as DA2 or the ME series when it comes to role-playing.

 

P.S. ME2 being attacked? Meh. It has one of the best endings ever in any game and some of the most cool character questsb ever as well. It certainly can't be worse than ME2 which had an awful start.

 

Oh DEAR.

 

NURSE!

Edited November 15, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[alanschu]

It's not that you like Dragon Age 2, is that you call everyone else who doesn't like it people that don't seem to comprehend RPGs, because apparently you have a better understanding than all of us.

 

This is where the satire comes in. Volourn is hardly unique in presenting his position in this way. In virtually every forum that has RPG focused discussion this comes up a lot. Mind numbingly so.

 

I mean, just as an observation, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding those that are Bethesda haters (especially Fallout). The thing I found interesting, is that the way I read a lot of your comments regarding DA2 (and this could very well just be reader bias on my part) it comes across similar to those that you are standing up against with respect to Fallout 3. (Just an observation, not a critique. I am not meaning to talk down towards you or anything and I won't delude myself into believing that a person's personal perspective is going to lend itself to interpreting things in different ways. You're human and acting like a human as far as I'm concerned). I have no doubt that you don't consider them the same though (and I would prefer to not derail this into breaking down the differences because it's neither here nor there) and genuinely believe that you feel justified in your perspective towards the games you play. Which you are.

 

 

On the BSN I basically have a policy of shutting down threads that turn into "what is an RPG" pissing matches because it never goes anywhere productive and people always get hyper defensive about it. While I have no issues whatsoever with people that say "This is what I want and value in an RPG," but get frustrated when I see people tell other people that they are RPGing wrong and things like that. What I found exceptionally interesting with respect to Project Eternity was how the notion that many fans loved the IE games (a statement I wholeheartedly believe to be true) and that in general they all liked it for the same reasons (something this forum has shown to be patently false). Suddenly there's a lot of arguments about what makes an RPG, and what exactly is required in a game for it to be properly "inspired" by the Infinity Engine games. Torment is my favourite of all of them, and I'd love something like that. But some absolutely love the D&D combat and like IWD and BG series more because of that.... whereas I found myself more enjoying Baldur's Gate in spite of not being a fan of the AD&D rules.

 

 

IMO what Volo does is take the behaviours of a not insignificant part of many online forum goers and uses hyperbole and caricature to sort of mock the collective of internet forum goers. I don't know what the history is like on this forum, but if you go back to the beginning I was locked in with some epic mudslinging matches with him when I first joined this board. Something happened, though, and he doesn't even bother me in the hockey thread anymore! I think I may have just learned to not care and/or grew up a little bit.

[Lorfean]

I enjoyed ME2 more than ME1, but I feel ME1 had the better story and ending -- the encounter with Vigil, the final battle with Saren and the attack on the Citadel / deciding the fate of the council combined into an expertly paced ending sequence that features some of the best storytelling moments in sci-fi gaming history.

 

ME2 was a lot more "Hollywood" and therefore it's probably easier to pick up and replay it. The main plot is more or less secondary, IMO, and its strength lies in the contained stories of the companion quests.

 

As for BG -- I simply find it a better game overall than any of the ME's. Its underlying rules have more depth, the combat and gear systems are way more interesting, its open world is a lot more interesting, fun, and hazardous to explore, and I like that it doesn't take itself too seriously -- especially in the writing department -- with a bunch of really nutty secondary and tertiary characters running around, but at the same time doesn't shy away from the darker and more disturbing stuff like in the Doppelganger sequence near the end of the game. I don't care if the ME's had "better role-playing" -- I'll pick BG over any of them, any day.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Lorfean

[Nepenthe]

That legitimately made me laugh out loud. "ME2 has one of the best endings ever in any game" is just the cherry topper icing on that cake, puts it really over the top. +10 troll points for that one phrase alone. Current subtotal: 27. Keep up the good work.

 

There's a non-trivial amount of people that really like how the ending played out in ME2, particularly from the standpoint of how player choice was tracked and how it fed into whether or not the each individual survived the suicide mission, based on a variety of criteria. I think how this played out really fed in to why a lot of people were disappointed with the ME3 ending.

For the record, I'm one of them. The best "Empire Strikes Back" type ending I've played in a game. And it made for a good platform for DLC, certainly much better than ME3 where I really can't bring myself into actually _caring_ about the DLC, since we have Evil Chris Priestly proclaiming how it won't make any changes into the ending...

[Spider]

The concepts of the ME2 ending were fine. The suicide mission, and showing the true intentions if TIM. But the overgrown terminator? That brought it all down a lot for me.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yeah, the King Kong thing made the game really embarrassing if you were trying to sell ME2 to some bystanders as an example of maturity in video games.

[NOK222]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that something else was planned for the overall story arch, but got changed between ME2 and ME3, so what looked like the start of story archs in ME2 ended up not being used in ME3 (adding to some of the overall confusion). Something about the human shaped Reaper and dark matter that actually mattered

 

Yup, the dark matter storyline. Aborted, can't say now which would be better. We still don't really know why...the human reaper. I always just assume a new vanguard.

 

The thing I found interesting, is that the way I read a lot of your comments regarding DA2 (and this could very well just be reader bias on my part) it comes across similar to those that you are standing up against with respect to Fallout 3.

 

Yeah...let's not open that cookie jar. I don't want to make an argument about this.

 

Turian female everybody, we will now see the male version of garrus fan girls

[Oner]

words

I think you are trying too hard to find logic where there is none.

[HoonDing]

After months of careful deliberation, I conclude ME1 > ME2 = ME3.

 

Also, female TUrians are pretty hot.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Drudanae

[GhostofAnakin]

The female Turian looks like Garrus with makeup on.

[NOK222]

The female Turian looks like Garrus with makeup on.

 

Also, female TUrians are pretty hot.

 

I conclude then, base on these premises, Garrus is apparently hot.

[Volourn]

"ME1 > ME2 = ME3."

 

Nah. ME1 = ME2 >>>>>>>>> ME3

[trulez]

"ME1 > ME2 = ME3."

 

Nah. ME1 = ME2 >>>>>>>>> ME3

Nah. My opinion > Your opinion.

[Hassat Hunter]

The concepts of the ME2 ending were fine. The suicide mission, and showing the true intentions if TIM. But the overgrown terminator? That brought it all down a lot for me.

Pretty much the endgame of ME3 times 2.

 

Makes one wonder why ME3 got all the flak, while ME2 did not. Maybe because you can shoot silly stuff. That makes it all better right?

(no, no, it doesn't)

[Raithe]

From the cheap seats, I would say elements of ME2 were better then ME1, and elements of ME3 were better then ME2... Unfortunately by the same token, there were also elements that were worse.. So each one gained half a dozen steps forward..then fell back.

 

I'd say that the ending of ME2 didn't get so much flak because the Terminator Reaper was the major silly thing. Apart from that, the rest of the finale was quite coherent with all the story that had come before.

[Hassat Hunter]

I'd say that the ending of ME2 didn't get so much flak because the Terminator Reaper was the major silly thing. Apart from that, the rest of the finale was quite coherent with all the story that had come before.

 

Okay... how's that different from ME3?

[Gorth]

I'd say that the ending of ME2 didn't get so much flak because the Terminator Reaper was the major silly thing. Apart from that, the rest of the finale was quite coherent with all the story that had come before.

 

It probably also got a 'free pass' because there was the chance of it getting explained later in ME3, so while it was a bit silly, people could still rationalize it with "it will probably make sense eventually". Could be something as simple as Reapers modelling new young Reapers on particularly adaptive/successful species (Reaper "evolution") to something more outlandish.

[NOK222]

I'd say that the ending of ME2 didn't get so much flak because the Terminator Reaper was the major silly thing. Apart from that, the rest of the finale was quite coherent with all the story that had come before.

 

Okay... how's that different from ME3?

 

The mindset is...eh, it's just there, kill it and be done with it. I guess it has to do with player control. And really the terminator didn't really bring bother me as much as COLOR CODED SPACE MAGIC

 

It probably also got a 'free pass' because there was the chance of it getting explained later in ME3, so while it was a bit silly, people could still rationalize it with "it will probably make sense eventually". Could be something as simple as Reapers modelling new young Reapers on particularly adaptive/successful species (Reaper "evolution") to something more outlandish.

 

According to the artbook, all reapers look similar when they're young, based on their species. As they complete the outer shell, they get the squid like look. All in the artbook.

 

Some species don't get to to become reaper capital ships, they become the little destroyers instead.

Edited November 16, 2012 by NKKKK

[Hassat Hunter]

It bothered me more.

 

Maybe I am just crazy though...

[Raithe]

I'd say that the ending of ME2 didn't get so much flak because the Terminator Reaper was the major silly thing. Apart from that, the rest of the finale was quite coherent with all the story that had come before.

 

Okay... how's that different from ME3?

 

Because the Star Child and multi-coloured endings didn't exactly feel as coherent and as much a part of the story.

 

And as Gorth suggested, with ME2 (apart from that sheer sillyness of Human-Reaper) because there was more of the story to come it left you wondering which were story hooks, which elements were red herrings and just how it was all going to tie together. It left that anticipation and hanging on the edge of the precipice feeling as you waited for ME3 to come along and show you how it all connected.

 

And then.. Star Child and multi-colour endings.

 

I will admit, with the Leviathan dlc, the ending makes more sense. I really wish they'd actually shipped the game with that already in it as part of the main storyline. Rather then leave you waiting 10 months before getting that background and depth to what was going on.

[GhostofAnakin]

It probably also got a 'free pass' because there was the chance of it getting explained later in ME3, so while it was a bit silly, people could still rationalize it with "it will probably make sense eventually".

 

I think in general this is why ME2's flaws get overlooked more than ME3's. When it's the middle installment of a franchise that has already been stated will have three parts, any WTF moments can be chalked up to expectation that it'll be explained further in the final installment. But when the third and final installment comes around and you've still got WTF moments, the proverbial poop hits the fan.

 

Also, as stupid as the terminator robot was, nothing beats the annoying little star child for me.