|
Xander77 posted:Congratulations on your puppet master / social experiment defense, I guess? What I mean by this (and I do say this in the video) is that I'm deliberately adopting a specific way of looking at things for the purposes of creating this reading. It's sort of something I kind of believe, but not to the extent I pretend in the video. I think subtext is more important than textual stuff, but that's my personal preference and like I said, it has weaknesses. quote:For one thing, so far you weren't actually talking about the Crucible turns out to be, but rather about what it could have been. And everyone are (relatively) fine with what it could have been. No, it's how I honestly think it is in the game. It'll be more apparent when we meet Vendetta, I suppose. Ships of Magic is better but (funnily enough) when I was younger I preferred the Assassins, largely because I was so attached to Fitz that I couldn't get into a story about somebody else - especially after the way Assassins ended.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:What I mean by this (and I do say this in the video) is that I'm deliberately adopting a specific way of looking at things for the purposes of creating this reading. But by all means, keep backpedaling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Oh, that was just me being hardline. I didn't literally mean subtext and text are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
So any time someone calls you out, you are just going to claim you were not actually saying what you said?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I don't understand why did you chose to "gate" your LP only to those who are worthy. What's the point? What exactly does saying "The way you enjoy fiction is wrong, and my way is right" prepares us for? Say what you have to say. Some people will like it, some won't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Waltzing Along successfully derailed the thread for several pages with a discussion on exactly how many Reapers were on Palaven. It was boring and awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Let's Read an Essay by Lt. Danger Topic: Mass Effect 3
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Yes, that's right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
BioMe posted:Let's Read an Essay by Lt. Danger Age 12.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
I don't actually buy the stuff with ME2 and "my gay dad", at least not as a deliberate choice on the part of the writers. Again, it's a question of horses not zebras. You've got a situation where Bioware have had to come up with twelve missions relating to each of the potential party members, all of which have to have some actual emotional significance or growth potential for these characters. You can't just get Zaeed drunk on his birthday and then have a contest to see who can piss the highest up the wall without splashing back on themselves, like normal people would bond, they have to have some traumatic backstory that Shepard can fix with the strategic application of a pew pew laser gun. Writing Cliches 101 suggests that traumatic backstory should normally either be "my gay dad", "my gay son", or "I became a titty monk because of my gay vampire daughter". Hence why it is what it is. It would make a lot more sense as a deliberate thematic choice if it actually went anywhere or was applicable to Shepard in any way. It's much easier to assume that Bioware only know how to write four different stories and cover the rest by changing the thing the planet is made out of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
What do you envision this thread being? What exactly do you want?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Much like the terrible tie-in franchise fiction I thought you said you hadn't read the other stuff. If you haven't, then how do you know it is terrible? If you are basing this statement on other peoples opinions, and your opinions already run contrary to pretty much everyone elses opinion, wouldn't that mean you would probably like the tie in fiction? I've read almost everything now. Most of the comics are bad, but not all. The books are hit and miss, but in general are interesting. The fourth one is pretty bad because it seems like the author just hadn't done any research so it is inconsistent. The other three fit in with the games just fine. I'd have to say that the first book is definitely better than this LP. But that's just my opinion. I certainly enjoyed it more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
So is the Crucible or the Citadel the vagina?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Cryohazard posted:So is the Crucible or the Citadel the vagina? They're both a penis since they dock against each other. Bioware shoving the gay agenda down our throats again. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:What do you envision this thread being? What exactly do you want? An LP and not a critical reading of a video game where-in the LP-er ends up so far up his own rear end with 'trolling' and back-pedalling that my metaphor breaks down. E: Either that or you're serious in which case 
Samuel L. Hacksaw fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Random Number posted:An LP and not a critical reading of a video game where-in the LP-er ends up so far up his own rear end with 'trolling' and back-pedalling that my metaphor breaks down. quote:An alternative playthrough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2jBep8NKvA
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
How come they didn't figure out the Catalyst was supposed to dock with the Citadel anyway? Every engineering in the galaxy working on the thing and no one notices it has docking claws in the exact same diameter as the most famous structure in the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
I'll sidestep this debate with some remarks I have about the points you've brought up: Mechanically, the lack in variation on Reaper forces could probably be boiled down to lack of development time. Give a simple search and you'll be able to find a number of enemy designs for Reaper forces that could have made it into the game. Husk-ified walking volus bombs, quarians with drone weapons, elcor tanks with volus operating the turrets, even a drat (Terran) dinosaur. These could have presented a number of interesting combat options and given the Reaper forces some variety, but there simply wasn't enough time design, test, and finalize everything for the release date. An issue, however, comes in an enemy that was present in 2, and was eventually added to the Multiplayer and as an option in Citadel's Armax Arsenal Arena: The Collectors. In spite of destroying their base, they were still both around and proven enemies and had/could have gotten additional decent combat options. They too could have been axed simply due to lack of development time, but I feel that they should have been prioritized as an option for the base game. Story-wise I will agree to some points on the games being less about the Reapers themselves and more about Shepard and the Galaxy. A problem that comes when trying to portray the Reapers in a standard warfare sense is one I've seen people make about "statting Cthulhu" or the Lord British Postulate, whatever you want to call it. If you really give Dread Cthulhu stats beyond "devours 1d6 Investigators per round" the threat it poses becomes minimized; if you stat it, people will find a way to kill it. Look up the tale of Old Man Henderson if you want to see what lengths people can go to to accomplish such feats. I'd wager this was something on the design team's mind when setting up both mechanics and story, so Shepard, the player, was kept away from the Reapers (at least, the bigger, kilometer-sized ones) for as long as possible. I'd say it's not a successful attempt in the end due to the Reapers still getting nerfed/marginalized in different ways, and due to marketing. Way, way too often was "take Earth back from the Reapers" and "Destroy the threat to the galaxy" and even just "poo poo poo poo poo poo THE REAPERS ARE HERE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE SAVE US SHEPARD" was emphasized over, well "Save/unite the Galaxy!" ...all right this seems a tad too serious. Something something Harbinger joke, something something Let's Play's Genetic Destiny, cycles. There.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Hey man, I like your LP, I'm down to laugh at it for reasons you never intended, given that the experience of media is subjective and all. This is a pretty good thread by LP sub-forum standards, rivaled only by the redneck rampage thread. That last video just reminded me of diarrhea I once had, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Let's be serious for a moment. The actual theme of Mass Effect 3 is a thought experiment confirming the superiority of objectivist morality. After two games which lured the player into complacency with the assumption that the world has a place for shades of grey, every single conflict is revealed to be a black and white as the infamous Ditko card trick. Furthermore, though you thought that heroes could deviate ever so slightly from the true path in the name of expediency, every Renegade decision you've previously made comes back to bite you, much like the Renegade option in every galactic conflict turns out to be outright wrong. There is the path of the angels and the path of devils, and nothing - nothing - in between. Recommending Spoiler Warning to anyone for any reason is the greatest troll of all. StrifeHira posted:I'd wager this was something on the design team's mind when setting up both mechanics and story, so Shepard, the player, was kept away from the Reapers (at least, the bigger, kilometer-sized ones) for as long as possible. Covok posted:Doesn't some of your statement become moot when you consider Shepard and two other squadmates were able to take down a reaper using their normal equipment in Mass Effect 2? I mean, once you do that, it's hard to undo the effect. We killed a reaper, with collector minions, just using normal weapons, why can't the galaxy beat them with ships?  Xander77 fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:I'll sidestep this debate with some remarks I have about the points you've brought up: Doesn't some of your statement become moot when you consider Shepard and two other squadmates were able to take down a reaper using their normal equipment in Mass Effect 2? I mean, once you do that, it's hard to undo the effect. We killed a reaper, with collector minions, just using normal weapons, why can't the galaxy beat them with ships?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Of all the ways the opening was botched, having dozens of Reapers descend upon a single city was possibly the biggest. The absolutely best way to make them as nonthreatening as possible. Again, not saying it was successful. Just attempted.  Covok posted:Doesn't some of your statement become moot when you consider Shepard and two other squadmates were able to take down a reaper using their normal equipment in Mass Effect 2? I mean, once you do that, it's hard to undo the effect. We killed a reaper, with collector minions, just using normal weapons, why can't the galaxy beat them with ships? Terminator baby was incomplete and like, half the size of Godzilla. And also goofy and silly and just kinda dumb. And I had a nuke gun. Sovereign by contrast was 2 kilometers and needed a whole armada to take out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:I'll sidestep this debate with some remarks I have about the points you've brought up: I agree. One of many problems about this game's premise is that it can't seem to decide if it wants to be about a war against a powerful, but not unstoppable, threat or the galaxy being devoured by eldritch monsters from beyond the veil. It seems to try to do both, and fails to use either properly because of it. The Reapers are crushingly powerful, but they fight like idiots and ignore major advantages like the Citadel relay control (the center of ME1's endgame that is somehow just forgotten) as if they're doing everything in their power to increase everyone's chances. The forces of the galaxy are rallying and gaining important victories off and on-screen, but the characters keep saying it's all pointless for reasons. Everyone's firmly convinced that their only hope is a device without any known function let alone any idea how to properly utilize it instead of any of the other potential technologies that could aid them (again, Citadel Relay Control). Said device has all the earmarks of the Reapers' many traps, but that's all just handwaved away because Liara trusts it a lot for some reason. Shepard had to kill 300,000 people just to delay the Reapers, but all that amounted to was a six month stint and a terrible speech. All this while Cerberus runs around hilariously evil and suddenly powerful enough to match everyone because their technology is (apparently) just that good whenever the writers need somebody for Shepard to shoot besides husks. It's just so indecisive that it comes off as the writers just not knowing what to do from here in the narrative (which is absolutely what happened). Geostomp fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:I thought you said you hadn't read the other stuff. If you haven't, then how do you know it is terrible? If you are basing this statement on other peoples opinions, and your opinions already run contrary to pretty much everyone elses opinion, wouldn't that mean you would probably like the tie in fiction?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Weren't they riddled with plot holes? The fourth one is terrible mostly because it has a character that "grew out" of her autism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I agree. One of many problems about this game's premise is that it can't seem to decide if it wants to be about a war against a powerful, but not unstoppable, threat or the galaxy being devoured by eldritch monsters from beyond the veil. It seems to try to do both, and fails to use either properly because of it. The Reapers are crushingly powerful, but they fight like idiots and ignore major advantages like the Citadel relay control (the center of ME1's endgame that is somehow just forgotten) as if they're doing everything in their power to increase everyone's chances. The forces of the galaxy are rallying and gaining important victories off and on-screen, but the characters keep saying it's all pointless for reasons. Everyone's firmly convinced that their only hope is a device without any known function let alone any idea how to properly utilize it instead of any of the other potential technologies that could aid them (again, Citadel Relay Control). Said device has all the earmarks of the Reapers' many traps, but that's all just handwaved away because Liara trusts it a lot for some reason. All this while Cerberus runs around hilariously evil and suddenly powerful enough to match everyone because their technology is (apparently) just that good whenever the writers need somebody for Shepard to shoot besides husks. (Note that this does not require one to assume that the writers were competent, or that the plot is solid and hole-free.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Waltzing Along successfully derailed the thread for several pages with a discussion on exactly how many Reapers were on Palaven. It was boring and awful. Wait seriously? I don't remember that. Then again I was in bed with a fever for most of last week! Soricidus posted:The alternative is to assume, for the sake of argument, that the writers achieved what they set out to do, and explore ways of looking at the game such that it is successful. That is what Lt Danger appears to be aiming for. I think you're misstating your position; you're supposed to look at the work in a vaccuum, disregarding what the writers may or may not wanted. It is full of holes, but instead of assuming that that's a problem you just note that it's full of holes and add that to your analysis. That's all well and good when you are trying to figure out what the work is in its entirety. The problem is when you bring that back to the real world and start trying to attach value judgments, you can quickly get confused into saying that the work is intentionally bad and therefore good. Modern criticism can certainly lead to this conclusion but it tends to be rejected as nonsensical. BTW I just finished playing ME3 again myself and I have to say it is a better game than ME2. A lot of class balance issues have been smoothed out, the covers system works better, the weapon weight system is a good compromise between ME's too much choice and ME2's limitations, and levels play well. Lt. Danger I took some pictures of Menae and Thessia and the Citadel to talk about level design and I hope you wouldn't mind if I posted them to talk about level design. Someone mentioned streamlining as a design goal for post ME2 Bioware and I think that's a good summation for the level design philosophy in ME3. It's not necessarily bad but there's a definite economy to ME3's spaces that you don't get in ME or even ME2 actually. (I'm replaying ME2 now and for example Omega is more generous with space than ME3's citadel.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
I agree with the points that Cerberus enemies are more fun to fight against, but that's also an example of the narrative and gameplay not reinforcing one another. The shooty enemies are more varied and more fun to fight against than the cyborg space demons, why not just have a game that focused more on that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I agree. One of many problems about this game's premise is that it can't seem to decide if it wants to be about a war against a powerful, but not unstoppable, threat or the galaxy being devoured by eldritch monsters from beyond the veil. Listen and... do what? I realize that being singled out as the Cassandra by inept politicians is an intrinsic part of the genre, but we've just had it hammered into our skulls that "conventional methods are useless", in order to sell us on the Catalyst. But since we didn't get anything on the Catalyst before this game (and I agree that that's no necessarily a problem with ME2, as each game may as well be taken on its own. It's a problem with ME3  ), the whole thing is revealed a blindly following the trope with little concern for the overall logic.McKilligan posted:I agree with the points that Cerberus enemies are more fun to fight against, but that's also an example of the narrative and gameplay not reinforcing one another. The shooty enemies are more varied and more fun to fight against than the cyborg space demons, why not just have a game that focused more on that? On the one hand, Bioware was always adept at... drawing inspiration from other sources... and they are, indeed, fairly fun to fight even outside multiplayer. On the other hand, their design rather fails to hide their origin, and they stick out of the overall game aesthetic. They feel as though they belong in the generic 21st century multiplayer shooter from which they were drawn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Cerberus in general gets way too much attention and importance in the storyline; a friend who played the game said that it was like Cerberus are what 'Americans' think terrorist organisations are like (unlimited funds, hypercompetent offscreen but totally incapable against Real SoldiersTM yet constantly ahead of the game and being sneaky bastards etc.) While that brings a lot of political baggage into the discussion, it did actually ring kind of true with me; Cerberus is what the media hypes terrorist organisations up to be, instead of what they actually are. As a result there are huge and ovbious logical gaps that make you sit there and go "How the gently caress did they pull that off? What is even happening why are you what the gently caress?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
I'll weigh in here and comment that the reason it seems Cerberus troops, the 'more fun' enemy to fight with their variety and multiple methods of approach, are more commonly used and that the 'unfun' or 'unvaried' reaper units are less common is probably not just a 'we ran out of ideas' thing. Cerberus troops fight fair. They use the same kinds of tools you do (sans their mech, which is more of a miniboss) and play by the same kinds of rules. Cerberus units are there to challenge the player's reflexes and critical thinking. Planning, strategy, tactics, and skill are more utilized in encounters with them. The area plays a large part in how to tackle them, and they reward exploring game play options to defeat them. Tough enemy entrenchment? Going around for a flank can result in easy kills and a sense of satisfaction at handling what would be a tough firefight with ease. Reaper units are bullet sponges. They have multiple mechanics that make the fight longer and are less about imminent threat and more about making repeated mistakes due to fatigue in an endurance contest. These units teach (or train) consistency. Their toughness-based mechanics incentivize learning the quickest and easiest ways to take them out, careful aim, and management of resources. They also showcase that the reapers are TOUGH. They are, pound for pound, more durable than the average Cerberus unit, and as such, should make the player feel more pressure when fighting them. They are the game's supposed antagonist, after all. This pressure is what provides their challenge. Think of how tough a reaper soldier unit is compared to a Cerberus soldier. Now extrapolate to the larger scale units, like Sovereign, and its easy to see why humanity (and their color-coded alien friends) will lose this war without some miracle like the crucible: Everything has to go just right for them to win, with no mistakes, missteps, or serious losses. Except the reapers are not just a physical threat. Their troops might mindlessly seek an objective, but the reapers themselves seek victory. They have shown they can lie, manipulate, and lay traps Eons in advance to win. The other races have rarely shown that kind of fore-planning, and when they have, they abandon it (like the recent updates' bomb) or fail to implement it (like Javik's people). Cerberus come off as cartoonish evil sometimes, deliberately sabotaging humanities efforts to win this war just so they can say they were the deciding factor, or gain personal power from it, which is something out of a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Not everyone can get along and work together, but against a threat like the Reapers, you would have to be stupid not to try. They do, however, struggle as hard as Shepard and crew to achieve their objectives. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
There's also the incredibly obvious reason Cerberus' actions don't make any drat sense: They're Indoctrinated and actively working to sabotage everyone else's chances because, you know. That's what that entire plot point is for. They'll still give their 'WE CAN USE THIS TO MAKE HUMANITY STRONG' BS reason because Indoctrinated characters rarely notice they're indoctrinated. It's a reasonable excuse to have human enemies and 'collaborators' with the apocalyptic threat with whom you absolutely cannot negotiate or join.
Night10194 fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Cerberus in general gets way too much attention and importance in the storyline; a friend who played the game said that it was like Cerberus are what 'Americans' think terrorist organisations are like (unlimited funds, hypercompetent offscreen but totally incapable against Real SoldiersTM yet constantly ahead of the game and being sneaky bastards etc.) Crashing through the sky Comes a fearful cry COBRA! Cooooobra! COBRA! Cooooobra!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Sure. Cerberus is a fine enemy except you end up fighting them so much. They also get mixed up in the late game where the game is straining to give you something to do and come off poorly because of the association.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
What do people think about the conversation on Virmire and at the end of the Earth prologue being clues by Bioware on how to understand the game - that the genophage, the quarians and Cerberus are more important than the Reapers? Is that convincing?Arglebargle III posted:Wait seriously? I don't remember that. Then again I was in bed with a fever for most of last week! It wasn't just him, there were a couple of others *ahem* and I bought into it too. It wasn't until a little later that I realised his criticism wasn't even true. quote:Lt. Danger I took some pictures of Menae and Thessia and the Citadel to talk about level design and I hope you wouldn't mind if I posted them to talk about level design. Someone mentioned streamlining as a design goal for post ME2 Bioware and I think that's a good summation for the level design philosophy in ME3. It's not necessarily bad but there's a definite economy to ME3's spaces that you don't get in ME or even ME2 actually. (I'm replaying ME2 now and for example Omega is more generous with space than ME3's citadel.) Please do, I liked your other posts on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:The game is actually FAR too focused on Cerberus troops. In addition to the internal logic issue of Cerberus jumping from a minor terrorist organization into a force that can literally conquer planets, there's a design problem. Cerberus troops are rather obviously Well, that's what I'm saying - The plot should have been more carefully considered from the beginning so that Cerberus (or ANY pseudo-military organization) could have been the main antagonists throughout the series, rather than this schizophrenic plot / gameplay divide. You could just as easily have had an awesome story just focusing on intergalactic politics and black-ops, losing none of the richness of the races and setting, which would also have provided plenty of opportunities for the kind of firefights and gameplay that Bioware loves to design. What I'm saying is that in my opinion, Reapers make poo poo boring (big bad that we all rally against) and muddled (why the hell am I shooting these dudes over here and not doing something more directly related to the greater threat). I know this is deep in wistful 'what-if' territory, but what if they designed the trilogy WITHOUT reapers at all? I'd certainly be interested in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 08:35
|
|
Xander77 posted:The actual theme of Mass Effect 3 is a thought experiment confirming the superiority of objectivist morality. After two games which lured the player into complacency with the assumption that the world has a place for shades of grey, every single conflict is revealed to be a black and white as the infamous Ditko card trick. Furthermore, though you thought that heroes could deviate ever so slightly from the true path in the name of expediency, Come now, you know that's not true. Plenty of Renegade choices are either inconsequential or actually beneficial. And at least some of the big ones (Genophage-related ones especially) are debatable. It's only angels-or-devils if that's how you see the issues. If you do, that's cool, but it's not "objectively" there. Sure the game tries to ram the goodness of certain Paragon choices down your throat, but not to the point where you can't make up your own mind. Morality is morality. If a game is needed (or even able) to "lure you into complacency" with the idea that there are shades of grey, or to "surprise" you with the idea that some major decisions are binary, then the first place to examine is yourself.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:What do people think about the conversation on Virmire and at the end of the Earth prologue being clues by Bioware on how to understand the game - that the genophage, the quarians and Cerberus are more important than the Reapers? Is that convincing? The problem is that line of dialogue can never be convincing from an in-universe perspective because if the Reapers win that is It with a capital I. A Reaper victory renders everything moot, everything else instantly becomes irrelevant in the event of a Reaper victory and that makes it extremely difficult to treat other factions as more important than the Reapers; ex. Why does the Quarian\Geth conflict matter if they're all just going to die anyway? It doesn't. That said, if you 'know' that the Reapers won't win, then the other factions become more important. From a metagame perspective it is easy to see the Reapers as a backdrop rather than an actual element of the story, but from an in-universe perspective it is almost impossible to see the Reapers as anything other than The Most Important Aspect. I'm not sure if this is just poor writing or if the writers never fully considered the ramifications of a Reaper victory. I suspect it is the latter because if you are operating under the assumption that the Reapers are going to lose rather than the assumption that they are going to win or that the outcome is in question then the points you're bringing up carry a lot more weight. Basically I think its a conflict of metaknowledge; if you accept that you are playing a game and therefore the Reapers can't win because if they win the story is over then it's possible to consider things like the Quarians and the Genophage as more important than the Reapers. But if you go into the story with the expectation of being presented a 'realistic' (and I use that term very lightly) universe and story then you are going to be dissapointed because that doesn't happen. The idea of Cerberus and the Quarians being more important than the Reapers only works if you already know that the Reapers aren't actually important; something that you have no reason to think unless you are metagaming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Iamblikhos posted:Come now, you know that's not true. However, you may want to keep watching the LP to see how many of the things that were depicted as morally grey in ME1-2 are now purely black. Lt. Danger posted:What do people think about the conversation on Virmire and at the end of the Earth prologue being clues by Bioware on how to understand the game - that the genophage, the quarians and Cerberus are more important than the Reapers? Is that convincing? In addition to the above, the Reaper threat ends up displacing, subsuming and (maybe, possibly, arguably) allegorically representing the above conflicts - and that's also convincing and coherent? Nah, I'll have to disagree with that one. Edit - In general, you should settle on one reading of how important ME1 and 2 are to the themes of ME3. You're oscillating between waving the previous installments aside and relying on them for support. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Gonna be a pedantic dick here and say that's not really what metagaming means. I get what you mean though. I hate to use it, it's always brought out, but Star Wars is a film that isn't about the decline and fall of the Galactic Empire, but Luke Skywalker's heroic journey and reconciliation with his father - something which 'wouldn't matter' if Darth Vader crushed the nascent New Republic and plunged the galaxy into ten thousand years of misrule. I don't think anyone would criticise Star Wars for using the Rebellion as a crucible in which to forge Luke's heroic journey. quote:However, you may want to keep watching the LP to see how many of the things that were depicted as morally grey in ME1-2 are now purely black. I think it's very important that these things aren't purely black. Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 09:16
|
|