Hello all,
Through RPG Codex I found an article on PC Gamer about the first details on Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect 3 article
Truth be told after reading this, I am not really impressed and it feels somewhat cheap and predictable.
As well as stupid!
During the Prologue of the game the Reaper Invasion which threat loomed over the horizon in Mass Effect 1 and 2 finally takes place and the goal of this segment of the game is to escape to the player's ship and head off into space to find a way of stopping the Reapers.
Also during the game Cerberus, the organization the player worked for during ME2 does a 180 degree turn and becomes the player again, no details if there is any change if the player decided to cooperate with them in the end but I doubt that will happen.
As I discussed with friends online, the only way the player would be able to defeat the Reapers, at least in an 'action spectacular' fashion, is to make them stupid, or in this case stupider as ME1 and ME2 already started neutering them.
This pretty much takes away from the almost Lovecraftian near omnipotent atmosphere the Bioware writers surrounded the Reapers with in the first place.
To be honest this was pretty much already way to live up in the first place and I think the designers should have dropped it when they realized that they could not accomplish it without having only a hopeless outcome ending. (in Lovecraftian stories mankind has no chance against Old Ones or Elder Things in the long run)
Any, this aside, this is yet another Halo themed invasion scenario during which Earth is in ruins, everything seems hopeless, and the solution is found within the span of a single game which to me makes the decision to make a trilogy of games pretty much useless.
While I do approve of self contained stories I thought the idea of the trilogy was to build up both the threat and the search of finding a way to stop it, both which neither really happened in ME2 and its DLCs.
The whole decision of making Cerberus the bad guy again is also shoddy plot writing.
Even in the 'worst' scenario Shepherd and Cerberus parted on somewhat bad terms but Shepherd/The player still did lots of work for the organization, making it questionable while they turn to full evil again.
Most likely explained later on in a poor way.
Your thoughts?
Through RPG Codex I found an article on PC Gamer about the first details on Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect 3 article
Truth be told after reading this, I am not really impressed and it feels somewhat cheap and predictable.
As well as stupid!
During the Prologue of the game the Reaper Invasion which threat loomed over the horizon in Mass Effect 1 and 2 finally takes place and the goal of this segment of the game is to escape to the player's ship and head off into space to find a way of stopping the Reapers.
Also during the game Cerberus, the organization the player worked for during ME2 does a 180 degree turn and becomes the player again, no details if there is any change if the player decided to cooperate with them in the end but I doubt that will happen.
As I discussed with friends online, the only way the player would be able to defeat the Reapers, at least in an 'action spectacular' fashion, is to make them stupid, or in this case stupider as ME1 and ME2 already started neutering them.
This pretty much takes away from the almost Lovecraftian near omnipotent atmosphere the Bioware writers surrounded the Reapers with in the first place.
To be honest this was pretty much already way to live up in the first place and I think the designers should have dropped it when they realized that they could not accomplish it without having only a hopeless outcome ending. (in Lovecraftian stories mankind has no chance against Old Ones or Elder Things in the long run)
Any, this aside, this is yet another Halo themed invasion scenario during which Earth is in ruins, everything seems hopeless, and the solution is found within the span of a single game which to me makes the decision to make a trilogy of games pretty much useless.
While I do approve of self contained stories I thought the idea of the trilogy was to build up both the threat and the search of finding a way to stop it, both which neither really happened in ME2 and its DLCs.
The whole decision of making Cerberus the bad guy again is also shoddy plot writing.
Even in the 'worst' scenario Shepherd and Cerberus parted on somewhat bad terms but Shepherd/The player still did lots of work for the organization, making it questionable while they turn to full evil again.
Most likely explained later on in a poor way.
Your thoughts?
