ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,887 Likes: 3,546
inherit
9886
0
3,546
ahglock
2,887
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on Feb 20, 2019 16:41:27 GMT
Except all you face on the other side of the omega 4 relay is one ship and the base destroying those 2 things ends their threat. If they had a fleet there would still be a threat. When you are in the collector ship you comment on how it can hold all the colonists from multiple worlds on its own, in fact it was so big it could target earth for harvesting. Bad math or hyperbole I’m not sure. So no, there was no need for multiple ships. And yes the assumption people were making previously was that there were tons of collector ships that doesn’t mean they were right at that point. They didn’t think they were the husk remnants of the protheans, they thought they were a independent species behind a mystery relay. And it would make no sense to think a new species would only have 1 ship and it was being used to harvest colonies. They had no knowledge of them. Apparently if you watched a terrible cartoon you find out there was a second ship. But there weren’t fleets of them or even a fleet. And no it would get rocked by a fleet and probably the destiny ascension on its own. Yes the Normandy had a super gun for its size but ground cannons that weren’t reaper tech drive them off. They are tough but no where near reaper tough. They specifically attacked colonies because they have virtually no defenses. No cannons, no ships. Pretty much just defenses against ground forces and thanks to the swarms those were easily dealt with. Yhe Collector threat ends at the destruction of the base because you destroy the Reaper larva (i.e. the reason they were taking colonists in the first place). We are clearly shown that they also have occuli, which act as fighter drone ships.
In game, up until ME3, we are shown only one Asari ship - the DA, but we don't go around assuming that's the only ship they had.
Finally, it's an assumption that is clearly refuted with Paragon Lost.
Yup a second ship. Wooo. There is very little evidence they had a fleet. That’s an assumption with no evidence on your part. And again if they had a fleet the threat wouldn’t be stopped as they could just harvest colonies again and build another reaper larvae. The story point was oh my gerd a entire species with fleets we can’t stop this. Then it reveals through the game that it’s possible as they are the remnants of protheans huskified and its one ship and a base. They added a second ship to give James a backstory but that’s it. In fact mp strongly implies that yup, that was it. The relay wasn’t destroyed they could easily fly in from the omega 4 relay if they wanted to. The only way they’d need to go slow speed dark space black ark fly in thing is if that was a separate group. Probably hanging with the reapers acting as their opposable thumb maintenance crew while the reapers hibernated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 20:32:58 GMT
Yhe Collector threat ends at the destruction of the base because you destroy the Reaper larva (i.e. the reason they were taking colonists in the first place). We are clearly shown that they also have occuli, which act as fighter drone ships.
In game, up until ME3, we are shown only one Asari ship - the DA, but we don't go around assuming that's the only ship they had.
Finally, it's an assumption that is clearly refuted with Paragon Lost.
Yup a second ship. Wooo. There is very little evidence they had a fleet. That’s an assumption with no evidence on your part. And again if they had a fleet the threat wouldn’t be stopped as they could just harvest colonies again and build another reaper larvae. The story point was oh my gerd a entire species with fleets we can’t stop this. Then it reveals through the game that it’s possible as they are the remnants of protheans huskified and its one ship and a base. They added a second ship to give James a backstory but that’s it. In fact mp strongly implies that yup, that was it. The relay wasn’t destroyed they could easily fly in from the omega 4 relay if they wanted to. The only way they’d need to go slow speed dark space black ark fly in thing is if that was a separate group. Probably hanging with the reapers acting as their opposable thumb maintenance crew while the reapers hibernated. It's proof of a second dreadnought-sized vessel. As I said, they used occuli drones instead of fighters at the collector base. They probably could have started building another Reaper out of human remains... oh, yeah, the Reapers started that process again on the Citadel. Once the "stealth-building" plan was blown, it was blown. The Reapers had no more use for Collectors going around kidnapping a few here and there. They opted to go all in and attack in full strength regardless of the essential Citadel still be inaccessible and there being no Alpha relay to let them in... yet, they STILL got in. Conclusion, they were never truly "trapped" in dark space.
Sovereign never got his signal out to "wake up" the Reapers "trapped" in dark space... so how did the Collectors even know to start trying to build a human reaper. If they could only come through an Alpha Relay, where was the alternative to Aratoht? Why wasn't it used sooner or at least in conjunction with Aratoht?
|
|
inherit
10160
0
Nov 16, 2024 16:06:57 GMT
4,911
burningcherry
1,336
May 18, 2018 21:58:48 GMT
May 2018
burningcherry
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
burningcherry97
|
Post by burningcherry on Feb 23, 2019 21:55:52 GMT
themikefest I just replayed Menae and it was nowhere. But I'm still pretty sure I remember it so I'll be watching for it the next time I play ME3 in full. Until then, I withdraw my word.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 24, 2019 0:57:07 GMT
Graphic wise it holds up. Combat wise it hasn't due to the improvements in ME3 to combat. Story wise it is an action movie in video game form. Which isn't inherently bad but doesn't help with it is the middle game of the trilogy and the plot doesn't do anything to service the greater over all story. As a spin off side game with a different main character then Shepard maybe but not as main story. We didn't need Mass Effect 1.2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 17:17:08 GMT
Graphic wise it holds up. Combat wise it hasn't due to the improvements in ME3 to combat. Story wise it is an action movie in video game form. Which isn't inherently bad but doesn't help with it is the middle game of the trilogy and the plot doesn't do anything to service the greater over all story. As a spin off side game with a different main character then Shepard maybe but not as main story. We didn't need Mass Effect 1.2. The bad thing about trying to construct a Trilogy within the game framework is that the second episode in a Trilogy is where the antagonist is support to get the upper hand, upping the ante for a bigger battle in the third act. In a game, however, the player expects to "win" each and every installment. Bioware tried to set up a secondary antagonist in Cerberus in the second act and still allow the player to "win" by having Shepard essentially switch sides, fighting a tertiary, throw-away enemy (the Collectors). It simply didn't work well. In the final installment, it was a challenge to bring the story back towards fighting what was originally to be the major antagonist (the Reapers) and, instead, we wound up fighting Cerberus most of the time.
As a result, the whole Reaper plot fell like a deferral from the start. In ME1, we should have really gotten to know the Reapers... instead, all we really got is that they could influence our minds and the rest was stated outright as being "unknowable." In ME2, we should have learned just how powerful they really were... by them gaining the upper hand, but instead we got an basic change in the concept of what they were doing and in how they ultimately were constructed. This basic concept changed yet again in ME3 and then yet again at the very end of ME3.
If ME was to be a cohesive Trilogy, it should have been in ME3, that, already knowing what they were and their true power, we should have simply found a way to beat the odds and defeat them. The Suicide Mission should have then taken place in ME3, where the nature of the defeat of the Reapers should have been a fixed cannon... but the cost in lives of our compatriots could have been what was based on all our decisions made throughout all the games.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 25, 2019 20:22:16 GMT
Graphic wise it holds up. Combat wise it hasn't due to the improvements in ME3 to combat. Story wise it is an action movie in video game form. Which isn't inherently bad but doesn't help with it is the middle game of the trilogy and the plot doesn't do anything to service the greater over all story. As a spin off side game with a different main character then Shepard maybe but not as main story. We didn't need Mass Effect 1.2. The bad thing about trying to construct a Trilogy within the game framework is that the second episode in a Trilogy is where the antagonist is support to get the upper hand, upping the ante for a bigger battle in the third act. In a game, however, the player expects to "win" each and every installment. Bioware tried to set up a secondary antagonist in Cerberus in the second act and still allow the player to "win" by having Shepard essentially switch sides, fighting a tertiary, throw-away enemy (the Collectors). It simply didn't work well. In the final installment, it was a challenge to bring the story back towards fighting what was originally to be the major antagonist (the Reapers) and, instead, we wound up fighting Cerberus most of the time.
As a result, the whole Reaper plot fell like a deferral from the start. In ME1, we should have really gotten to know the Reapers... instead, all we really got is that they could influence our minds and the rest was stated outright as being "unknowable." In ME2, we should have learned just how powerful they really were... by them gaining the upper hand, but instead we got an basic change in the concept of what they were doing and in how they ultimately were constructed. This basic concept changed yet again in ME3 and then yet again at the very end of ME3.
If ME was to be a cohesive Trilogy, it should have been in ME3, that, already knowing what they were and their true power, we should have simply found a way to beat the odds and defeat them. The Suicide Mission should have then taken place in ME3, where the nature of the defeat of the Reapers should have been a fixed cannon... but the cost in lives of our compatriots could have been what was based on all our decisions made throughout all the games.
You don't have to win every game if there isn't an ending to it. Still have Cerberus but they are just an alliance black ops unit that operates out in the areas of space the Alliance can not officially work. Tone down some of the more cartoonishly evil morally bankrupt shit to keep them an actually grey morality. 3/4ths the game devoted to recruiting team mates to take out the collectors. Once their main base is taken out you learn the Reapers are right behind them and the remaining 25% of the game is during the opening bit of the Reaper War. With the final part of the game being when Shepard leaves Earth and Anderson behind. That said the fact they inter-space Cerberus with Reaper troops to fight in ME 3 is actually a good thing. If you play the entire game just slaughtering your way though a single group of enemies eventually they lose their treat. That is why Star Trek TNG sparingly used the Borg. They are suppose to be all powerful but if every other week the Enterprise was able to beat them then they would lose their threat because if a single star ship can do that then the entire Federation shouldn't have a problem. A problem they would run into with Deep Space 9 and the Jem hadar that were suppose to be genetically engineered perfect war machines using technology well beyond what the Alpha Quadrant had. But they kept getting defeated and evaded and other things over and over again by the main cast to the point it became "what deus ex machina will happen next?" Their threat was removed and it just became a boring plot device were they win this time because they have to and they lose this time because they have to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 22:43:13 GMT
The bad thing about trying to construct a Trilogy within the game framework is that the second episode in a Trilogy is where the antagonist is support to get the upper hand, upping the ante for a bigger battle in the third act. In a game, however, the player expects to "win" each and every installment. Bioware tried to set up a secondary antagonist in Cerberus in the second act and still allow the player to "win" by having Shepard essentially switch sides, fighting a tertiary, throw-away enemy (the Collectors). It simply didn't work well. In the final installment, it was a challenge to bring the story back towards fighting what was originally to be the major antagonist (the Reapers) and, instead, we wound up fighting Cerberus most of the time.
As a result, the whole Reaper plot fell like a deferral from the start. In ME1, we should have really gotten to know the Reapers... instead, all we really got is that they could influence our minds and the rest was stated outright as being "unknowable." In ME2, we should have learned just how powerful they really were... by them gaining the upper hand, but instead we got an basic change in the concept of what they were doing and in how they ultimately were constructed. This basic concept changed yet again in ME3 and then yet again at the very end of ME3.
If ME was to be a cohesive Trilogy, it should have been in ME3, that, already knowing what they were and their true power, we should have simply found a way to beat the odds and defeat them. The Suicide Mission should have then taken place in ME3, where the nature of the defeat of the Reapers should have been a fixed cannon... but the cost in lives of our compatriots could have been what was based on all our decisions made throughout all the games.
You don't have to win every game if there isn't an ending to it. Still have Cerberus but they are just an alliance black ops unit that operates out in the areas of space the Alliance can not officially work. Tone down some of the more cartoonishly evil morally bankrupt shit to keep them an actually grey morality. 3/4ths the game devoted to recruiting team mates to take out the collectors. Once their main base is taken out you learn the Reapers are right behind them and the remaining 25% of the game is during the opening bit of the Reaper War. With the final part of the game being when Shepard leaves Earth and Anderson behind. That said the fact they inter-space Cerberus with Reaper troops to fight in ME 3 is actually a good thing. If you play the entire game just slaughtering your way though a single group of enemies eventually they lose their treat. That is why Star Trek TNG sparingly used the Borg. They are suppose to be all powerful but if every other week the Enterprise was able to beat them then they would lose their threat because if a single star ship can do that then the entire Federation shouldn't have a problem. A problem they would run into with Deep Space 9 and the Jem hadar that were suppose to be genetically engineered perfect war machines using technology well beyond what the Alpha Quadrant had. But they kept getting defeated and evaded and other things over and over again by the main cast to the point it became "what deus ex machina will happen next?" Their threat was removed and it just became a boring plot device were they win this time because they have to and they lose this time because they have to. I think the players expect to be able to win in every game. They'd most certainly have whined about it if Shepard had of unavoidably gotten his/her a$$ handed to him/her by the Collectors in ME2... unavoidably losing members of the team and hivng to return to the Milky Way without having taken down the Collector base. They liked having the option to lose certain members of the team, but few would consider Shepard dying at the end of ME2 a "good ending" to the game. Now substitute actual Reapers in for the Collectors such that, in Act II; they gain entry into the galaxy and they start their harvest (which is more what I would expect out of a movie trilogy) and you would have had a riot.
Whether or not have more than one type of enemy in a game is beneficial is not what I was pointing to in my statement. They kept skirting the issue about fighting THE actual Reapers in ME3 and when they did set an encounter, it was rather lame because fighting THE Reapers ceased to be the focus of the game. Fighting everyone else in the galaxy became the focus and the story... which was a drastic change of course from ME1 and a continuation of what ME2 had started... and not what people were expecting or apparently wanting. Also, you're using an example from a series, not a Trilogy, to suggest that fighting the main antagonist would be run of the mill and boring. Within the confines of a true Trilogy and with a truly well constructed and well defined antagonist, I don't think it would.
Given the failure to adequately define their main antagonist early on, I still say they did a credible job of pulling it all together in ME3... better than I expected... even through the endings (which, as you know, I liked the original ones).
|
|
ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,887 Likes: 3,546
inherit
9886
0
3,546
ahglock
2,887
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on Feb 25, 2019 23:36:23 GMT
I think upagain is right, most gamers would not accept a game where they lost. People are more willing to accept the loss in a movie than a game because in the game it’s them that is losing. It’s possible with a really well done narrative people would accept it, but I kind of doubt it. There are games that have pulled it off to some degree so maybe I’m wrong.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Feb 26, 2019 1:00:56 GMT
You don't have to win every game if there isn't an ending to it. Still have Cerberus but they are just an alliance black ops unit that operates out in the areas of space the Alliance can not officially work. Tone down some of the more cartoonishly evil morally bankrupt shit to keep them an actually grey morality. 3/4ths the game devoted to recruiting team mates to take out the collectors. Once their main base is taken out you learn the Reapers are right behind them and the remaining 25% of the game is during the opening bit of the Reaper War. With the final part of the game being when Shepard leaves Earth and Anderson behind. That said the fact they inter-space Cerberus with Reaper troops to fight in ME 3 is actually a good thing. If you play the entire game just slaughtering your way though a single group of enemies eventually they lose their treat. That is why Star Trek TNG sparingly used the Borg. They are suppose to be all powerful but if every other week the Enterprise was able to beat them then they would lose their threat because if a single star ship can do that then the entire Federation shouldn't have a problem. A problem they would run into with Deep Space 9 and the Jem hadar that were suppose to be genetically engineered perfect war machines using technology well beyond what the Alpha Quadrant had. But they kept getting defeated and evaded and other things over and over again by the main cast to the point it became "what deus ex machina will happen next?" Their threat was removed and it just became a boring plot device were they win this time because they have to and they lose this time because they have to. I think the players expect to be able to win in every game. They'd most certainly have whined about it if Shepard had of unavoidably gotten his/her a$$ handed to him/her by the Collectors in ME2... unavoidably losing members of the team and hivng to return to the Milky Way without having taken down the Collector base. They liked having the option to lose certain members of the team, but few would consider Shepard dying at the end of ME2 a "good ending" to the game. Now substitute actual Reapers in for the Collectors such that, in Act II; they gain entry into the galaxy and they start their harvest (which is more what I would expect out of a movie trilogy) and you would have had a riot.
Whether or not have more than one type of enemy in a game is beneficial is not what I was pointing to in my statement. They kept skirting the issue about fighting THE actual Reapers in ME3 and when they did set an encounter, it was rather lame because fighting THE Reapers ceased to be the focus of the game. Fighting everyone else in the galaxy became the focus and the story... which was a drastic change of course from ME1 and a continuation of what ME2 had started... and not what people were expecting or apparently wanting. Also, you're using an example from a series, not a Trilogy, to suggest that fighting the main antagonist would be run of the mill and boring. Within the confines of a true Trilogy and with a truly well constructed and well defined antagonist, I don't think it would.
Given the failure to adequately define their main antagonist early on, I still say they did a credible job of pulling it all together in ME3... better than I expected... even through the endings (which, as you know, I liked the original ones).
The loudest people do not always represent the majority. There would be people who complain but they would be matched by the people who would point out ME 3 has yet to come out and the trilogy isn't over.
Fighting the Reapers was the point the issue was the Reapers are basically god. You can't fight gods all the time and expect to be able to win every fight. The entire nature of the Reapers means you can't directly fight them. Anyone who thinks you could wasn't paying attention as 2 games have gone out of their way to show that they are an unstoppable force with conventional tactics. Nearly every single game, movie or tv show that has an enemy that is an unstoppable juggernaut has always defeated them in non conventional ways and never by directly attacking them unless they got in a way of an objective.
A great example that this wouldn't be a problem is Halo Trilogy the original one. In Halo 2 the Covenant invades Earth. You don't address that problem in a single game. Not only that but the Flood gets onto High Charity the heart of the Covenant Empire giving them the ability to collect enough biomass and gain space flight to threaten the rest of the galaxy. By the end of Halo 2 you are leaving the flood infected High Charity heading back to the still under siege from the loyal Covenant forces that have been doing all they can to wipe the very existence of humanity from the face of the galaxy.
The Flood, the Covenant War and the Civil War in the Covenant wouldn't be resolved until Halo 3. And the story line for that game was praised and while at the time I wasn't on the internet much due to the times but every review I've seen praised the story line.
No doubt there would be people who would complain. But they would also be the same self entitled little waffles that would complain regardless.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 8, 2019 1:36:22 GMT
It is probably my favorite game of all time. Yes it has held up very well. Partially because the graphics were good for the time and the way the game looked was better the MEA and that horrific frostbite engine.
|
|
Ergunk
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: MulleManden
Posts: 32 Likes: 51
inherit
6780
0
51
Ergunk
32
April 2017
ergunk
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
MulleManden
|
Post by Ergunk on Mar 11, 2019 10:27:49 GMT
The whole build up for the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2 is what i felt like was the peak of BioWare. Never in a video game have i felt so invested emotionally. BioWare nailed the suicide mission and really captured the feeling of "this is it".
The soundtrack playing through the whole mission is one of the best game soundtracks aswell imho, it is a masterpiece and very memorable.
I have played alot of Witcher 3 aswell and that game is amazing too we all know that, however for me the suicide mission had me more invested than the Wild Hunt.
And that is why Mass Effect 2's Suicide Mission is my all time favourite final mission in a video game.
|
|
