Actually, it makes sense. It was quite obvious that Cerberus was practically turned into reaper pawns. You can see that on the level on Mars. How is not that important to the plot. It happened one way or another, and Cerberus itself is at fault for doing certain experiments with reaper tech. But we can even forget all that. ME3 advanced the story because the final fight with the reapers happened. ME2 is filler. You know Dragonball Z, when two characters meet in the first episode, second episode is all about powering up, and third episode is where the fight happens? The powering up is complete filler, and that is ME2.
No it doesn't. You are forgetting the fact the Cerberus is not a homogenous organisation but much like terror cell, of which cells pperate independant from each other. There are no strict hierarchy in Cerberus, each cell can take decisions technically. Lazarus Project was under the control of Lawson she was operating under the TIM directly. Other Cerberus cells even its investors can simply say "Guys... guys ? I think we're a bit off from our objectives, no ?"
Cerberus' transformation of ME3's Collectors is plain ridicolous in every sense.
Personal problems as an entire race...? Yeah no, personal and race can't go together here. But why you're doing it is what determines if it advances the plot or not. In ME3 you're doing it because you're in a final battle for survival of all the advanced species of the galaxies. You know, the thing that was announced since the first game. That's why you need to unite the races.
In ME2, well, you do it for your crew because you want to stop the collectors from making humans disappear. The collectors are filler. No connection to ME1 nor ME3.
Except Cerberus was in the first game, a key player in the second game, and indoctrinated in the third. Collectors only appear in the second game. Again, Collectors are filler.
Not quite true. Collectors are threat because, much like Keepers and Saren in ME1, they are acting as a backdoor of Reapers. They are abducting humans not because for fun, but because they are harvesting them, creating a army by either using them in H.Reaper or turning them into husks. I do agree however, this was not quite underlined in ME2 or you had the impression about what and how Collectors are dangerous because we are dealing with so many side missions. But that doesn't change anything about Collectors nor how they advanced the plot.
About personal problems of race..
Salarians: Don't help Krogans
Krogans: Help us please for curing the genophage
Asari: Man I cant help you guys out, I wanna protect my city. Then: Help us to save our capital (you couldnt')
Turians: Please can you extract our primarch so we can decide whether we should join you guys ? Then: Please save my son his ships is down.
Humans: We're gonna takh backh Earthhh
Quarians: We want our homeworld baghhh
I'm sorry, I fail to see any connection between these missions and Reapers.
Except Cerberus was in the first game, a key player in the second game, and indoctrinated in the third. Collectors only appear in the second game. Again, Collectors are filler
Again.. you can not indoctrinate an entire organisation in 3 years, which is operating as sleeper cells. These guys had connections in the Council and in the Human Alliance. If they are indoctrinated, Shepard should've been executed for treason.
For Mass Effect, the weapon mods are more significant since it actually can change your style of play, rather than being a power boost like mods in most games. But FPS games have actually copied these elements from RPG games. They are at heart RPG game features. And when comparing ME2 to ME3, ME3 does it better, which is what we were talking about.
I played RPG games which had tons of personalisation but lacks the story.
I played FPS games which had no personalisation but it was giving you a story.
I don't know which is more important to you but, I prefer a RPG game without weapon mods but with a logical plot which player decisions actually matter.
Yeah I imported, and I know that Mordin can live at another cost, Samara can too since she did in mine, and Thane was terminal since ME2. So... Yeah. And what about the Grunt moment? That was awesome and he didn't need to die for it.
He can live how ? You either kill him or he blows himself off. Sure you have to kill Wrex, and that's exactly what I'm talking about, why I hate ME3 and don't call it RPG. See, you have to kill another character in FIRST game in order to save the other. Why ? Why I can't play like boss, kill and destroy everything on my path and save all of my friends ?
Because some developer thought that is a good idea to kill some characters in order to give "emotional" experience. I hate that. Let players to decide who lives and dies, let them fail so they lose their buddies or let them win and save their friends. ME2 exactly does that, not ME3.
About Grunt, he couldn't die, he was wearing his plot armor. Guy falls from a cliff and survives, a salarian specialist dies in front of a computer.
ME3 had these moments too, without killing people off... I think the only ones that actually died in my game were Mordin, Legion and Thane. Three out of uh.. A lot is not that bad lol.
I even forgot Legion, thanks for reminding. He was also dying. Speaking of which, the ONLY and ONLY RPG moment in ME3, was ironicaly that part. Game doesn't force you to kill someone.
Did you do Tali's mission in ME2 ?
Did you do Legion's mission in ME2 ?
What were their outcomes ?
If you have a sort of magical mixture, YOU COULD save Geth AND Quarians BOTH. That's a fantastic result of awarding the player who played the game like a boss. (I mean "boss"; I mean player who completed most of the side missions and actually invested time in the game) No one has to die, both lives happily after (that is if and will ignore the ending)
Then again, this missions was actually written by someone else, that's normal it was RPGesque.
Uh... She was there in my game.
She was ? Sure, asking your help... again. I also saved her in ME1, what did she bring new ? Did we get Rachnii swarm in London ? Nope. We had 200 War assets and they could be as well gotten if I had saved Krogan squads. She's irrelevant.
TIM either achieved what he wanted, so he doesn't need you anymore, or you pissed him off, and he doesn't want you anymore. No rocket science.
I gave him Collector's data (ME2), did all of his side missions (ME2), kept the collectors base and handed over him (ME2). Maybe I wanted to become Cerberus operative, why would he need a loser like that guy with swords ? (He was so forgettable character that I even forgot his name)
Why can't I become the bad guy and rule out the Council with Cerberus and Udina and go on with it ? Details...
Considering uniting the galaxy is a thing, the Alliance is a much better ally than Cerberus would ever be, considering they're practically anti anything that's not human. And humanity cannot win this battle alone.
2 things about Cerberus:
First, they didn't have to go bad, since Shepard was indirectly repairing their reputation in ME2. True that they're xenophobes, but the real threat here is the Reapers not aliens. It was still possible to achieve, Humanity as the dominant race and fight alongside aliens. ME2 was this after all. One should not forget that they are the ones who built Normandy V2, which shows that Cerberus clearly have the upper hand in terms of technology. Considering they were pretty much everywhere in ME3, they could pack pretty heavy punch in terms of military power.
Second, even if they go bad, player should've had a chance to pick a side, because of all the reasons above.
Imagine here for a second; Shepard decides to help Cerberus, Control is a bonus ending for Cerberus path, Shepard assumes direct control of Reapers and enslaves the entire galaxy, leading human as dominant race.
What a terrible yet awesome yet dark ending it could've been.
Renegades also suffer from PTSD, although, I do agree that it was poorly executed.
He could've cried over Virmire MIA, or Thane or Reaper indoctrination.. But a kid, stuck in a vent ? C'mon...
Cerberus was bad in the first game.
ME3 was clearly under time constraints by EA, which limited what BioWare could do, and the game suffered for it.
But expecting extensive resolution for EVERYTHING from the first and second game is not realistic. ME3 does not have to respect all the player choices.... It's war. Things are gonna go sideways.
That's what they've said. Sure it'd be physically impossible at some point. But making somethings irrelevant is plain absurd:
Saved Council in ME1 = Irrelevant (already irrelevant in ME2)
Killed Council in ME1 -> Human led council = Alien led council in ME2 = Irrelevant
Saved Destiny Ascension = Irrelevant, since it can be replaced with more human fleet in war assets if player chooses to kill council.
Collector's base = Irrelevant
Rachnii = Irrelevant
Human Reaper = Irrelevant
Side missions over characters in ME3 = Irrelevant (It DID matter in ME2)
What happened to dark energy thing ? Oh right.... It met "artistic integrity" and EA's moneygrubbing. ME3 makes previous games irrelevant. You could still play ME3 as if it was a new game and without knowing what has actually happened before. It works just fine, you don't have to play previous games in order to get something plus for the final war.
That's why there are "war assets". No racchnii ? Sure, take your 200 assets. Saved rachnii ? Aw.. that's bad, now I'm gonna take 200 assets back from you by killing krogan squads of yours. That's why your decisions don't matter, since either way they are awarding. That's why they are killing bunch of characters, because they don't matter to new player who has no idea who Mordin was. Hiding plot failures and logical nonsence behind killing characters is easier than thinking and creating a good plot. They didn't need that. That's why you also has "no RPG" option in ME3, which allows every decisions is given by the game not by the player.Edited by Alvarez - 6/24/16 at 10:00am