Mass Effect Trilogy

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I always thought the original was the best. 2 felt out of place both in terms of storytelling and gameplay, and 3 was more of the same imo.

Edited January 31, 2014 by KaineParker

[GhostofAnakin]

 

 

I found ME2 a welcome departure from the usual bioware formula... even though DA2 did it more.

 

I liked it on its own, but I didn't like how it fit within a supposed 3-game story arc.

 

It did, however, have the best sidequest missions in any of the three games.

 

Mass Effect 2 actually fits the second act formula for a particular type of a three story arc. Same as Star Wars, for instance. It's kind of common with stories that plan for trilogies, but don't really PLAN for the trilogy if that makes sense. The second part doesn't really make any headway in concluding the arc, it just fleshes things out. People criticize it because "Mass Effect 1 ended with the Reapers coming to the galaxy, Mass Effect 2 ended with the Reapers.... coming to the galaxy." But, The Empire Strikes back didn't end with the Empire on the run. It ended with Luke knowing more about Vader. And in context of Mass Effect 2, we learn more about the Reapers.

 

If the Collector base had paid off similarly, it could have been that connection the trilogy needed. The reason Mass Effect 2 fails to push the story forward is Mass Effect 3's fault, not Mass Effect 2's. As if Return of the Jedi had all but ignored the family connection, save for a passing mention during the final battle. ESB would have turned into the weird midqual where they just meet the guy who blows up the second Death Star.

 

 

That's kind of what I meant, though.  It didn't fit within the 3-arc story because, like you said, ME3 seemed to ignore pretty much the majority of it.  And the things ME3 didn't ignore, they made trivial.

[Hassat Hunter]

Not that there was much to go from on ME2, the story being what it was.

 

Also, they would have been thoroughly screwing the player if allowing all the party to die in 2, then base 3 on the party you ended 2 with...

[Calax]

Not that there was much to go from on ME2, the story being what it was.

 

Also, they would have been thoroughly screwing the player if allowing all the party to die in 2, then base 3 on the party you ended 2 with...

I don't know of many people who would have kept their run where crew died. Hell, most people I know of end up using a save from the interwebz to continue the game.

 

And ultimately, the decision to have the entire team (including shepard) killable in ME2 was stupid on any number of levels given they were running for a trilogy.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Calax

[Oner]

Also, they would have been thoroughly screwing the player if allowing all the party to die in 2, then base 3 on the party you ended 2 with...

That's where they could've pulled Liara, Ashley/Kaidan, EDI, etc out though.

[Zoraptor]

Having killable NPCs is not stupid, it was necessary and fine if you don't plan on using them again as recruitables. What dramatic gravitas ME2 has would be lost if you gave NPCs character shields.

 

I'd also note that most of the defences of ME2 ignore that ME2 did exactly the same thing vis-a-vis ME1 that people say ME3 did to it, ie a general disregard of the main plot points, but if you look at the plot progression factors then ME1 and ME3 are clearly related and denote a- more or less- logical progression. ME2 though? It isn't just that it doesn't set things up for ME3, it's also that it doesn't really mesh with and build on ME1 either. As a standalone game it's fine enough which is why I'd be fine if it were ME: Subtitle. But you don't progress the fight against the reapers or learn anything significant about them, you don't progress the political situation in the wider galaxy, you don't progress the, er, progress of the reapers into the galaxy (until the last dlc), you're fighting for Cerberus who you fight against in 1 and 3, against a bunch of enemies you don't see in either 1 or 3.

 

ME3 could have integrated some things from ME2 better certainly, had the odd Collector around or whatever but they were insignificant as defined by ME2 itself- a slave rave, altered and distinct from the Protheans. In the end they can barely be more significant than husks as established by ME2 itself. But there's very little to build on there (ME2) when it comes to the climactic battle against the Evil Enemy, because the game is mainly about the Evil Enemy's butler.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Calax]

Having killable NPCs is not stupid, it was necessary and fine if you don't plan on using them again as recruitables. What dramatic gravitas ME2 has would be lost if you gave NPCs character shields.

True but if you know you're a trilogy, you don't have your entire game be "collect your crew" and "End!" without that crew continuing through to the next game. That was my point with ME2's idiocy of having the NPC's killable. The entire game is collecting them for this mission against the Collectors, and for the eventual fight with the reapers. However ME3 shows up and EVERYONE just ran off to the winds, while you're left to collect your original  next squad to fight the reapers. Basically ME3 made the bulk of ME2 totally pointless (because the characters that they spent SO LONG fleshing out are thrown to the side), which ME2 didn't do to ME1. 

 

ME1 was almost totally about the fight to stop Saren (and the geth). Character moments and quicky conversations were something that would come up in interludes during your various attempts to subvert Saren's organization(s). Thus when you got "killed" and had to remake your squad for ME2, the writing didn't make ME1 seem almost pointless. The ties between games are the same, yes, but the transition between games was different. ME1>ME2 was your character DYING and being put back together over two years. ME2>ME3 was your character being arrested for crimes and sitting on his hands for a few months. Add to that the fact that ME2 is a game very heavily based on the idea that your squad is dedicated and totally loyal to YOU because you helped them with their various issues (usually of the daddy variety), and the conversion of your old squad into token NPC's that are little more than "HEY REMEMBER ME!?" moments, just feels wrong.

[Zoraptor]

I guess the emphasis would be on "collecting the crew for this mission against the collectors" in Bioware's (and mine, really) mind.
 
I really don't have much problem with it for reasons tied up in why I think that ME: Subtitle would be better as its name, I see the recruitments as inherently self contained, all about this mission then people go back to their lives. The other option is them sitting twiddling their thumbs for the months you're in jail for, plus, in many cases it would not make much sense for them to be diddling around in an earth ship, they're either ex Cerberus without the Shepard name and distinguished service in ME1 as protection, aliens, no longer have a reason for being there/ have a good reason not to be there or a combination of all three. And it would also then be completely fair to complain about the recruitables from 1 that aren't recruitable in 2- Wrex, Liara, Ashden.
 

Thus when you got "killed" and had to remake your squad for ME2, the writing didn't make ME1 seem almost pointless.

 

I'd argue that is pretty much exactly what ME2 does- it's a contrived plot device to get you to work for Cerberus against everything established in ME1.

[Raithe]

I wonder if the argument could be made that ME2 throws you into the middle of Cerberus to add a touch more oomph to it, so you can connect to it more then just the "Black Ops that went Rogue" in ME1, and provides a touch more depth for seeing how they lose their way (so to speak) in ME3 by thinking they can control the Reapers, and that's the way to defend humanity.

 

Hm, if you look at it with a bit of squint..actually..  Shepard has a point of view and perspective on what the problem is and how it should be solved. The character is willing to do a whole heap of things to achieve those goals and what they're willing to sacrifice to get to the end.   The Illusive Man is exactly the same. He has his perspective of what the problem is and how to solve it. He is Shepard, just one in a mastermind role with an organisation rather then a "lone" wolf with a small crew and single ship.

[NOK222]

 

 

He is Shepard, just one in a mastermind role with an organisation rather then a "lone" wolf with a small crew and single ship.

 

Eh, Jack Harper (Illusive Man) was being subtly manipulated by the Reapers since before the series started. 

[Raithe]

 

 

Eh, Jack Harper (Illusive Man) was being subtly manipulated by the Reapers since before the series started. 

 

 

True, but he pretty much acted just like Shepard.

 

Thought he had a purpose and an understanding of the problem no-one else did. Check.

Thought the fate of humanity rested on his shoulders. Check.

Had a vision of how to solve the situation. Check.

Was willing to make the hard calls to get there. Check.

Inspired loyalty in the majority of those who followed him. Check.

Had no problem breaking the rules to achieve what he wanted. Check (even Paragon Shepard did that).

 

Shepard just did it with a small crew. The Illusive Man did it with a whole organisation and one massive bank roll.

[Hassat Hunter]

Eh, Jack Harper (Illusive Man) was being subtly manipulated by the Reapers since before the series started.

Or... how they had no plan whatsoever for their trilogy and start making up **** post-mortem... which wouldn't even mesh with the game several times, just 'cause.

 

It's really not ME3's fault that ME2's plot and basis was such a pile of rubbish and completely designed stand-alone rather than a mid-parter to a sequel. I seriously doubt the crew could have just doubled the teammates with all the plot, cutscenes, dialogue and what-not just cause the ME2 crew thought the suicide mission was a good idea. May look good on paper, and it's easy to say "they should have just used xxx instead as crew" but I doubt most people would realise the work and cost involved.

[NOK222]

 

 

It's really not ME3's fault that ME2's plot and basis was such a pile of rubbish and completely designed stand-alone rather than a mid-parter to a sequel

 

You really have that backwards, but that's like, your opinion man. 

[Calax]

I guess the emphasis would be on "collecting the crew for this mission against the collectors" in Bioware's (and mine, really) mind.

 

I really don't have much problem with it for reasons tied up in why I think that ME: Subtitle would be better as its name, I see the recruitments as inherently self contained, all about this mission then people go back to their lives. The other option is them sitting twiddling their thumbs for the months you're in jail for, plus, in many cases it would not make much sense for them to be diddling around in an earth ship, they're either ex Cerberus without the Shepard name and distinguished service in ME1 as protection, aliens, no longer have a reason for being there/ have a good reason not to be there or a combination of all three. And it would also then be completely fair to complain about the recruitables from 1 that aren't recruitable in 2- Wrex, Liara, Ashden.

 

Thus when you got "killed" and had to remake your squad for ME2, the writing didn't make ME1 seem almost pointless.

 

I'd argue that is pretty much exactly what ME2 does- it's a contrived plot device to get you to work for Cerberus against everything established in ME

IIRC people did complain about not having Wrex, Liara, or the Virmire character as recruitable. Wrex not as much as the other two, because he had a legit "After ME1" story, unlike the Virmire survivor who just said "I don't trust you and you died too!" and Liara who was to busy with information to help you (somehow). My point about the ME2 crew was that the entire game was built around getting their characters loyal to you personally for that suicide mission, and then when you're "arrested" (which makes less and less sense as I think about it) they just shrug their shoulders and move on. Admittedly for some characters this makes more sense than others, specifically Mordin, Grunt and Miranda, as all of their encounters were a direct outgrowth of their loyalty missions. However Jacob, Garrus, Tali, Jack, Legion and Thane really make no sense in why they'd just shrug and wonder off. Samara I admit I could see wandering off.

 

Garrus and Tali are the worst as they've been a follower for way to long. Jack owes her freedom (and emotional stability) to Shepard, Thane is on his last legs and has nowhere else to go, and Jacob has nothing beyond the organization you removed him from.  Even as it is, Jack and Jacob are SO shoehorned into the game that their "quests" are almost entirely unconnected with the plot at large.

 

I feels almost like we're arguing similar points (ME2 was not a good game to have as the middle of a trilogy), it's just I'm arguing that if we have to have it as it is, then they should have kept the same squad (or close to it). While you're saying that they should have made the game a side story or something.

 

I am wondering how they'll do a fourth given that the end of three basically wrote them into a corner.

 

 

 

Eh, Jack Harper (Illusive Man) was being subtly manipulated by the Reapers since before the series started.

Or... how they had no plan whatsoever for their trilogy and start making up **** post-mortem... which wouldn't even mesh with the game several times, just 'cause.

 

It's really not ME3's fault that ME2's plot and basis was such a pile of rubbish and completely designed stand-alone rather than a mid-parter to a sequel. I seriously doubt the crew could have just doubled the teammates with all the plot, cutscenes, dialogue and what-not just cause the ME2 crew thought the suicide mission was a good idea. May look good on paper, and it's easy to say "they should have just used xxx instead as crew" but I doubt most people would realise the work and cost involved.

I realize that it's hard, which is why I said that the concept of a suicide mission where EVERYONE can die was an utterly stupid idea on their part. 

 

Given how they openly stated "Oh yeah keep your savegames because we're gonna do this again!" in game, it's surprising they made things SO overly changeable.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Calax

[Hassat Hunter]

It's really not ME3's fault that ME2's plot and basis was such a pile of rubbish and completely designed stand-alone rather than a mid-parter to a sequel

 

You really have that backwards, but that's like, your opinion man. 

Wait, it IS ME3's fault ME2 had no plot, no correlation to ME1, and wasted it's premise of being a midquel by killing off it's entire crew you bonded in all the game at the end, not to mention desperately ended the Ceberus connection hard that it so painstainkly awkward and badly forced upon you? And didn't let you break off despite having 1000 lines of "I do not trust you, and I shall never work for Cerberus!" options?

Do tell me more!

[NOK222]

It just seems you're taking too much blame off ME3. 

 

And the way you passionately attack ME2 makes me think the game literally came to life and spanked you or something. 

[Raithe]

If you ignore the fact that there were so many daddy issues going on, on a case by case basis the individual missions were pretty damn good in ME2. It's just the overarching game plot that it kind of fell apart. You got the slight teaser on that Dark Energy side of things, but that fell through when writers changed.

 

That, and you needed a "bridger" dlc to translate from the end of ME2 to the start of ME3.

 

As a whole, the trilogy had a lot more good, fun moments then bad. It just wasn't too logically consistent, and the finale just never matched up with the expectations that got built up (that and the initial go-round pretty much sucked).

 

Forget the War Assets, forget the shoe-horned multi-player aspect, forget the daddy issues, forget the long elevator rides, forget the planet scanning.... You had a lot of very shiny moments in the three games. By the end of it, you pretty much can say you got your moneys worth out of buying them.

[BruceVC]

I enjoyed the entire ME series. I'm a lover of fantasy primarily so I admit I wasn't one of hard core fans who had this huge expectation for ME 3.

 

Personally I think that ME 3 was a good game but the lack of a cohesive ending for many fans blurred there enjoyment of the entire journey, in other words the game received unfair criticism because of the ending. I think people over analyse this a little

 

The only complaint I do have is that there weren't enough Romance options in the game

[Bryy]

I refuse to believe that people actually liked the RPG mechanics and GUIs of ME1. 

 

The story is great, the writing fantastic.

 

The RPG features were the weakest part. ME3 did what ME1 should have been doing.

[Calax]

I enjoyed the entire ME series. I'm a lover of fantasy primarily so I admit I wasn't one of hard core fans who had this huge expectation for ME 3.

 

Personally I think that ME 3 was a good game but the lack of a cohesive ending for many fans blurred there enjoyment of the entire journey, in other words the game received unfair criticism because of the ending. I think people over analyse this a little

 

The only complaint I do have is that there weren't enough Romance options in the game

Personally, The ending was one thing, but the lack of a distinct cohesive narrative that followed through the entire game (instead of being almost episodic) bit the game.

 

I mean, the Events of Tuchaunka and that entire segment of the story only have consequence for the 15ish minutes after the segment ends. Then it's onto the next segment of the game with the next "gutpunch".

 

You know how a lot of people say that Call of Duty lost a lot of it's emotional punch when it was killing protagonist characters as a "thing"? With that big moment in MW1, and then in MW2 they do it twice(?) and by the third Modern Warfare it'd just lost all possible emotional impact it may have had. It's like that, but shoved into one game because the devs wanted you to know that WAR IS BAD MMMMK?

[BruceVC]

 

I enjoyed the entire ME series. I'm a lover of fantasy primarily so I admit I wasn't one of hard core fans who had this huge expectation for ME 3.

 

Personally I think that ME 3 was a good game but the lack of a cohesive ending for many fans blurred there enjoyment of the entire journey, in other words the game received unfair criticism because of the ending. I think people over analyse this a little

 

The only complaint I do have is that there weren't enough Romance options in the game

Personally, The ending was one thing, but the lack of a distinct cohesive narrative that followed through the entire game (instead of being almost episodic) bit the game.

 

I mean, the Events of Tuchaunka and that entire segment of the story only have consequence for the 15ish minutes after the segment ends. Then it's onto the next segment of the game with the next "gutpunch".

 

You know how a lot of people say that Call of Duty lost a lot of it's emotional punch when it was killing protagonist characters as a "thing"? With that big moment in MW1, and then in MW2 they do it twice(?) and by the third Modern Warfare it'd just lost all possible emotional impact it may have had. It's like that, but shoved into one game because the devs wanted you to know that WAR IS BAD MMMMK?

 

 

Interesting assessment, you make some good points

[HoonDing]

At this point I hardly even remember the plot, let alone the names of most characters.

[BruceVC]

At this point I hardly even remember the plot, let alone the names of most characters.

 

Shepard is the main character and the story is basically about this synthetic alien race called the Reapers that wants to wipe out most of the current, civilised and  intelligent life forms to make way for the next cycle of evolution. Your job is to stop them doing that ( I think that's right  )

[Elerond]

I refuse to believe that people actually liked the RPG mechanics and GUIs of ME1. 

 

The story is great, the writing fantastic.

 

The RPG features were the weakest part. ME3 did what ME1 should have been doing.

 

In my opinion ME3 was weaker in its RPG parts than ME1 (ME2 was trilogy's weakest one in this sector), which was not great. That said, I think also that all three games where terrific as games, but their RPG mechanics were more a flavor than anything else.

[NOK222]

 

 

Personally I think that ME 3 was a good game but the lack of a cohesive ending for many fans blurred there enjoyment of the entire journey,

 

This pretty much it.