(Spoilers)Mass Effect 2 ruined the Franchise, 3 was continuation of that

[Morty]

Even worse, if the Collectors hadn't attacked the Normandy at the start of the game, Shepard would still have been uselessly chasing nonexistent Geth whilst they succeeded at their stupid useless plan to build a single Reaper.

I never thought about it this way, but this is a good point.

Basically, if you wanted a good ending to 3 we would have had to go back to at least the beginning of 2 and re-worked things from the ground up.

That's more or less it. The endings were a result of a lack of direction since almost the beginning.

The beginning of the game set the tone for what followed, really. When you're so desperate to do a hard reset of the plot that you kill off the main character and then bring them back to life with space magic, you know something ain't right in Dodge.

It's not even a hard reset, really. That'd be letting Shepard stay dead or otherwise out of action. Instead they gave us a new story and a new setting... with the same character.

I'd say it has more to do with some people's inability to simply build a bridge and get over it already.

It really is the same old argument recooked over seven years, isn't it.

[Aotrs Commander]

On Earth you destroy a landed Reaper destroyer with massed infantry rocket launcher fire. It might not have been a full size one, but it went down to man portable weapons.

The one on Rannoch is clearly not being hit with anything like all the firepower of the several thousand migrant fleet ships. That would have vapourised Shepard given that he was standing in pistol range of the thing by the end.



And here's the thing.

The games have not been telling us that a conventional war with the Reapers is unwinnable except by dialogue in Mass Effect 3.

The whole concept from Mass Effect 1, of the Reapers guiding the development of the galaxy along very specific lines becoming reliant on the Mass Relay network which have a central hub at the Citadel allowing the network to be cut there and enemy co-ordination to be disabled. And using that as a surprise attack/decapitation strike to start the war every time, and being so committed to that plan that they order their minions to build a new Reaper presumably to try and turn it on again (because that's the only thing it could possibly have achieved alone) when they can only possibly have been six months away all along* does not imply that they are militarily invincible.

Either the Reapers are so monumentally bored of the cycle that their only joy is setting up stupidly convoluted Rube Goldbergian masterplans that even Nale would shake his head at, or they need the advantage.

Remember also that Sovereign did not fight the Citadel's defence fleet even when it was presumably much weaker than it is now before the Rachni war, if the Reapers are allegedly so powerful he would not have needed to spend fifteen centuries trying first with the Rachni and then with the Geth to get enough of a screening fleet to get in and do his work.

If the Reapers are so strong, Sovereign could have won the game any time he wanted. Showed up, smashed faces, won the game.

He didn't.

They're not.

The dialogue in the badly written game might wring its hands about how invincible the Reapers are, but that's just a symptom of how badly it works as a continuation of the universe from the first and even second game.



* And yes, they must have been there all along, because long distance Mass Relays require a send and receive relay. So the Reaper fleet in darkspace must be hanging out at a Mass Relay, they don't start moving until after the stupid Collector plan fails. Also they're close enough for realtime communication by Assuming Direct Control.

I can't disagree. I did feel that ME3 was far too keen on shoving "everything is being destroyed instantly" narrative as a means of aggrandising the protagonsist (along with the whole "Reapers became monsters not villains" thing).

It took the Protheans a long, long time to be wiped, and I don't think they even stopped the main Citidel mass relay did they? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, it has been seven years since I last played...!)

On the other hand, I think a deus ex machina of SOME sort was more or less unavoidable (otherwise there is no way the trilogy could have had a decisive conclusion and it's pretty expected for the genre), there were so many better ways of handling it.



On the subject of not letting things go?

I will, by the way, just point out... Well, you know the Dwarven Book of Grudges that the Warhammer Dwarves have?

I actually wrote one of my own. Like, for real. I think it is buried somewhere in my old quests.

I file EVERYTHING away, always; I never forget, and very rarely forgive in any sector of life or unlife, from the trivial of bad video games to the serious of the general deportment of humanity...

Sure, I know when an internet arguement is futile to continue (hell, if I haven't just had my boney arse completely handed to me by 1939 on Hearts of Iron IV... Playing Germany... On Recruit... I'd not be here now), but that doesn't mean that I don't remember stuff...

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

ME2 has great writing, amazing characters, and masterfully well-done loyalty missions; like someone above said, character vignettes.

What it doesn't have is a strong plot. And this is true whether we consider it as the middle part of a trilogy, or as a stand-alone game.

Compare to ME1.

Planet under attack --> betrayal and reveal of Saren as the bad guy --> Expose Saren (in the process stumbling upon 3 vital allies, and discovering the Reapers) --> Choice of 3 (Hunt down Saren's lieutenant and her daughter, an expert on the Reapers who happens to be a party member, and check out what the Geth want at this other planet, learning that it's the ability to understand Prothean messages)--> Storm Saren's base and cripple his army, in the process discovering what the Reapers are --> discover the ancient Prothean planet --> learn the plan of the Reapers --> massive last-ditch battle to defeat the Reaper.

ME2?
Die --> Get resurrected, escape base --> investigate disappeared colony, discover collectors --> assume without evidence that must be related to reapers, told to collect party members --> collect 4 party members --> defend colony from disappearing --> collect 3 party members --> go to Collector ship, discover origin of Collectors --> go to Reaper corpse and get ability to reach Collector base +1 party member, --> oh no Collectors attack --> suicide mission, discover weird human-reaper, destroy Collectors.

Notice the difference between ME2 and ME1? ME2 you've basically learned everything you need to after, like, the 2nd mission: collectors are the bad guys, they're over there, you need to blow them up, go get a team. That's pretty much it. Until you discover that the Collectors are the remnants of the Protheans, there's no actual connection between the Collectors and the Reapers beyond TIM telling Shepard "oh yeah it's totally gonna be Reapers behind this", and Shepard being naive or damaged enough to believe it. Additionally, compare how one gets the companions in ME2 vs ME1: ME1 you pick them up naturally as you fulfil your mission, ME2 the companions ARE the mission. This large portion of the game is basically just a fetch quest, only instead of "bring me 10 Bear Skins", it's "bring me these 7 characters". They're interesting, sure, but interesting characters do not a good plot make.

Meanwhile, ME1 is a scramble for information. Shepard and the player are both running on limited information, drip-dripped to them through natural-feeling missions that raise the stakes, that all comes together at the very end, RIGHT before the final battle, satisfyingly.

ME as a series only holds together, I think, if one considers it as a whole: the gameplay of 2 and 3, the writing and characters of 3, and the plot of 1 and 3 (excepting the end and the gimmick-super-weapon).
Still such a shame nothing came of that obvious "dark energy" foreshadowing.

[Douglas]

At one point you even kill a Reaper with handheld weaponry. A space technical with a fifty cal can fend one off by hitting its eyes.

I don't remember that, and every Reaper kill I can find mention of involved something much bigger.

Sovereign: Focus fired by the entire Arcturus Fleet of the Alliance.
Reaper on Tuchanka: Dragged underground by Kalros, the mother of all thresher maws.
Reaper on Rannoch: Focus fired by the Quarian Migrant Fleet, with targeting data provided by Shepard.
Reaper defending the beam on Earth: Hit with precision guided Thanix missiles, followed by additional bombardment. Also, this was one of the small Reapers.

If you were referring to the end fight in Mass Effect 2, that was only a partially developed proto-Reaper, with nowhere near the firepower and defenses of a complete Reaper.

[Callos_DeTerran]

It took the Protheans a long, long time to be wiped, and I don't think they even stopped the main Citidel mass relay did they? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, it has been seven years since I last played...!)

On the other hand, I think a deus ex machina of SOME sort was more or less unavoidable (otherwise there is no way the trilogy could have had a decisive conclusion and it's pretty expected for the genre), there were so many better ways of handling it.

There is an important point for why it took so long for the Protheans to be wiped out. That being the point behind the decapitating strike...or one of them anyway being so nobody knows what is going on. Instead of fighting a panicky galaxy, its a bunch of individual words to be conquered. Which allows the Reapers to focus fire on targets and then wipe away any evidence of the Dealers and presumably anything from the prior civilization that could prove to be a problem. They have the time to sanitize each world they harvest which would, undeniably, take quite a long time especially against an Empire that was apparently putting up quite the fight.

Also I agree with you that the Reapers became more monsters than villains..with the exception of Sovreign and Harbinger, but I don't see a satisfying way they could of had us take out Harbinger considering he's the biggest and possibly oldest Reaper there is...and you're on foot.

[Aotrs Commander]

There is an important point for why it took so long for the Protheans to be wiped out. That being the point behind the decapitating strike...or one of them anyway being so nobody knows what is going on. Instead of fighting a panicky galaxy, its a bunch of individual words to be conquered. Which allows the Reapers to focus fire on targets and then wipe away any evidence of the Dealers and presumably anything from the prior civilization that could prove to be a problem. They have the time to sanitize each world they harvest which would, undeniably, take quite a long time especially against an Empire that was apparently putting up quite the fight.

Also I agree with you that the Reapers became more monsters than villains..with the exception of Sovreign and Harbinger, but I don't see a satisfying way they could of had us take out Harbinger considering he's the biggest and possibly oldest Reaper there is...and you're on foot.

Well, we had a boss fight against one on foot, so, like I said before, they could have not put that there, but put that at the end or something and made it Harbinger.

Hell, doing something like a repeat of ME1 against Soverign and Whathisname, my mind's gone blank from the first one with Harbinger and TIM (Harbinger maybe getting locked into Assuming Direct Control by some techno-biotic triockey from your squad mates)... There would have been ways.

[Forum Explorer]

On Earth you destroy a landed Reaper destroyer with massed infantry rocket launcher fire. It might not have been a full size one, but it went down to man portable weapons.

The one on Rannoch is clearly not being hit with anything like all the firepower of the several thousand migrant fleet ships. That would have vapourised Shepard given that he was standing in pistol range of the thing by the end.



And here's the thing.

The games have not been telling us that a conventional war with the Reapers is unwinnable except by dialogue in Mass Effect 3.

The whole concept from Mass Effect 1, of the Reapers guiding the development of the galaxy along very specific lines becoming reliant on the Mass Relay network which have a central hub at the Citadel allowing the network to be cut there and enemy co-ordination to be disabled. And using that as a surprise attack/decapitation strike to start the war every time, and being so committed to that plan that they order their minions to build a new Reaper presumably to try and turn it on again (because that's the only thing it could possibly have achieved alone) when they can only possibly have been six months away all along* does not imply that they are militarily invincible.

Either the Reapers are so monumentally bored of the cycle that their only joy is setting up stupidly convoluted Rube Goldbergian masterplans that even Nale would shake his head at, or they need the advantage.

Remember also that Sovereign did not fight the Citadel's defence fleet even when it was presumably much weaker than it is now before the Rachni war, if the Reapers are allegedly so powerful he would not have needed to spend fifteen centuries trying first with the Rachni and then with the Geth to get enough of a screening fleet to get in and do his work.

If the Reapers are so strong, Sovereign could have won the game any time he wanted. Showed up, smashed faces, won the game.

He didn't.

They're not.

The dialogue in the badly written game might wring its hands about how invincible the Reapers are, but that's just a symptom of how badly it works as a continuation of the universe from the first and even second game.



* And yes, they must have been there all along, because long distance Mass Relays require a send and receive relay. So the Reaper fleet in darkspace must be hanging out at a Mass Relay, they don't start moving until after the stupid Collector plan fails. Also they're close enough for realtime communication by Assuming Direct Control.

It was a tiny one. I have no problems believing that massed anti tank fire could kill the Reaper equivilent to a frigate.

Oh wow, a Sci Fi space opera ignores physics in favor of drama! That is surely the first time that has ever happened.

Seriously, you are entirely correct. Shep should've died, or been useless, during that boss fight because why the frig was it trying to charge an anti-ship laser to fry you rather then, I don't know, shooting at the fleet actually shooting at it? Or at least shooting its laser horizontally instead of in dodgeable vertical beams. It was fun and cool, so I forgive the existence of the scene, but it makes zero sense.

Because Space is Big. No really. I don't think you comprehend how mindbogglingly big a galactic war would be and how insanely long it would take. Like, it's said that the whole Citadel plan when ahead as normal when the Promethians were harvested, and they still had time to try and invent the Crucible, and a bunch of other stuff. And that makes sense. Like, you know what would've completely ruined all future cycles of Reaper harvesting? Humanity sending a single colony ship out to deep space for a century or two, and returning to Earth once they Reapers were gone.

And that's proper warfare to boot. Just because you can win a straight up war with some casualties doesn't mean you don't try and win the war outright with no casualties.

But really, Sovereign dismantles the Citadel Fleet, which is one of the strongest fleets in the galaxy with the most powerful and advanced flagship at its center. It takes an entire extra fleet to destroy it. And its one Reaper. Yes the Geth helped, but if the Geth were so powerful as to nearly win with a 2v1 disadvantage, then they should've pretty much wiped out the Quarians instantly in ME3. Also the Racchni wars happened so long ago as to not matter at all to the current numbers of any fleet in the setting. Like the Racchni wars ended in CE 300. The games take place in CE 2185. Also I thought the Racchni brainwashing was more about making sure the Racchni went extinct then anything else. Because they would break the cycle otherwise.

I seriously have no idea why you'd think the Citadel Fleet is at its weakest rather then it's strongest. That makes no sense.

And no, all of the games emphasize how much the Reapers would utterly crush a conventional war. Even the second game in its way as it shows how badly the Collectors outclass conventional wargear who aren't actually Reapers in the first place.

The Reapers showing up after about six months is a gigantic plot hole the story never bothers to fix. I agree, that's a massive problem. But it's a problem with the entire trilogy, because they sorta shot themselves in the foot with that whole thing in Mass Effect 1. So I suppose if you answer is to rewrite the entire trilogy so that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally, then you are right, that would work. And hey, it wouldn't even be that hard. You just need to change a few small details throughout the story. It might even make the story better in a lot of ways.

But that's not a problem with the ending. That's a problem with the entire story. You may have turned a blind eye to it until the ending forced you to face it, but that's not a fault with the ending or even Mass Effect 3. Its a problem right from the get go.

It would have been completely ridiculous, but I've always entertained the mental image of Shepard surfing the Normandy into battle and punching the reapers to death.

The Crucible actually just turns you into a giant mech.

[GloatingSwine]

Also I agree with you that the Reapers became more monsters than villains..with the exception of Sovreign and Harbinger, but I don't see a satisfying way they could of had us take out Harbinger considering he's the biggest and possibly oldest Reaper there is...and you're on foot.

Board him and blow up his brain from the inside.

We already know Reapers have internal volumes that you can walk around in, we did it in ME2.

You could even make doing that the "win button". Reverse the Reapers' decapitation strike by killing their command and control which they are overreliant on. That even explains their daft overreliance on a convoluted plan. They make sure the galaxy forms in their image because if it was too decentralised they wouldn't understand it and wouldn't fight it effectively.

[Aotrs Commander]

Before I completed the game and got... That ending, I had manym many ideas floating around, of increasing silliness, but among my favourites were the entire squard from all three games (maybe even with some "surprise, I ain't dead") Doing A Boss Battle (a lal NWN2), or Tali and Liara teaming up to Assume Direct Control of a hapless and luckless Harbinger and having him duff up his mates (screechig like Dalek all the while), or the Crucial being effecitively a giant trans-stellar snper rifle so that Shepard and Garrus could take turns head-shotting Reapers from across the galaxy...

[GloatingSwine]

It was a tiny one. I have no problems believing that massed anti tank fire could kill the Reaper equivilent to a frigate.

Massed anti tank fire would have a tough time dealing with a modern frigate....

Oh wow, a Sci Fi space opera ignores physics in favor of drama! That is surely the first time that has ever happened.

Seriously, you are entirely correct. Shep should've died, or been useless, during that boss fight because why the frig was it trying to charge an anti-ship laser to fry you rather then, I don't know, shooting at the fleet actually shooting at it? Or at least shooting its laser horizontally instead of in dodgeable vertical beams. It was fun and cool, so I forgive the existence of the scene, but it makes zero sense.

Or it was simply a small portion of the fleet firing not the entire thing, which is not suggested in any way by the events we are shown and participate in (and that Reaper still flinched when you shot it in the eye with the machinegun on your space technical.).

Because Space is Big. No really. I don't think you comprehend how mindbogglingly big a galactic war would be and how insanely long it would take. Like, it's said that the whole Citadel plan when ahead as normal when the Promethians were harvested, and they still had time to try and invent the Crucible, and a bunch of other stuff. And that makes sense. Like, you know what would've completely ruined all future cycles of Reaper harvesting? Humanity sending a single colony ship out to deep space for a century or two, and returning to Earth once they Reapers were gone.

And that's proper warfare to boot. Just because you can win a straight up war with some casualties doesn't mean you don't try and win the war outright with no casualties.

But if you have such massive advantages you don't need to come up with plans so convoluted they need appendices. You can just smash your way in and blow up anything that tries to stop you. See: 2003 invasion of Iraq where the US/UK forces managed to cause just about as many casualties to themselves as the Iraqi forces did, if not more, because they had a massive technological and materiel advantage.

The only sane conclusion is that the Reapers simply did not.

But really, Sovereign dismantles the Citadel Fleet, which is one of the strongest fleets in the galaxy with the most powerful and advanced flagship at its center. It takes an entire extra fleet to destroy it. And its one Reaper. Yes the Geth helped, but if the Geth were so powerful as to nearly win with a 2v1 disadvantage, then they should've pretty much wiped out the Quarians instantly in ME3. Also the Racchni wars happened so long ago as to not matter at all to the current numbers of any fleet in the setting. Like the Racchni wars ended in CE 300. The games take place in CE 2185. Also I thought the Racchni brainwashing was more about making sure the Racchni went extinct then anything else. Because they would break the cycle otherwise.

Sovereign barely engages the Citadel fleet. He takes a few potshots as he flies past to dock with the Citadel itself.

I seriously have no idea why you'd think the Citadel Fleet is at its weakest rather then it's strongest. That makes no sense.

Because it was 1500 years less technologically advanced and was a peacetime fleet never exposed to a serious galactic conflict.

And no, all of the games emphasize how much the Reapers would utterly crush a conventional war. Even the second game in its way as it shows how badly the Collectors outclass conventional wargear who aren't actually Reapers in the first place.

The Collectors had one ship and the Normandy blew it up in about three shots. They'd be ****ed if they tried to fight anyone.

The Reapers showing up after about six months is a gigantic plot hole the story never bothers to fix. I agree, that's a massive problem. But it's a problem with the entire trilogy, because they sorta shot themselves in the foot with that whole thing in Mass Effect 1. So I suppose if you answer is to rewrite the entire trilogy so that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally, then you are right, that would work. And hey, it wouldn't even be that hard. You just need to change a few small details throughout the story. It might even make the story better in a lot of ways.

But that's not a problem with the ending. That's a problem with the entire story. You may have turned a blind eye to it until the ending forced you to face it, but that's not a fault with the ending or even Mass Effect 3. Its a problem right from the get go.

This thread is about how there are problems with the entire story, at least from Mass Effect 2 onwards.

It's also easy to fix.

Instead of Stupid Reaper Infant the Collectors are building another Citadel. There, I fixed it in once sentence. They're kidnapping humans out of the same spite they are in the actual game, but instead of stupid reaper infant they're rebuilding them into the Keepers for the new Citadel. Humanity's reward for fighting against the cycle is to ensure that it continues. It's even thematically stronger now.

Then Mass Effect 2 is even relevant to the story because it can end with the replacement Citadel being activated as you destroy the Collector base and the climax being the destruction of the Omega Relay. Meaning the Reapers have arrived but they're trapped in the galactic core and have to navigate out the slow way, giving about the same six month timeframe.

[Douglas]

On Earth you destroy a landed Reaper destroyer with massed infantry rocket launcher fire. It might not have been a full size one, but it went down to man portable weapons.

The one on Rannoch is clearly not being hit with anything like all the firepower of the several thousand migrant fleet ships. That would have vapourised Shepard given that he was standing in pistol range of the thing by the end.

Those rockets were mounted on vehicles, not man portable. And sure, it may have only been a fraction of the Migrant Fleet's firepower, but it was still orbital bombardment that brought it down, not hand held infantry weapons.

And here's the thing.

The games have not been telling us that a conventional war with the Reapers is unwinnable except by dialogue in Mass Effect 3.

The whole concept from Mass Effect 1, of the Reapers guiding the development of the galaxy along very specific lines becoming reliant on the Mass Relay network which have a central hub at the Citadel allowing the network to be cut there and enemy co-ordination to be disabled. And using that as a surprise attack/decapitation strike to start the war every time, and being so committed to that plan that they order their minions to build a new Reaper presumably to try and turn it on again (because that's the only thing it could possibly have achieved alone) when they can only possibly have been six months away all along* does not imply that they are militarily invincible.

Either the Reapers are so monumentally bored of the cycle that their only joy is setting up stupidly convoluted Rube Goldbergian masterplans that even Nale would shake his head at, or they need the advantage.

Remember also that Sovereign did not fight the Citadel's defence fleet even when it was presumably much weaker than it is now before the Rachni war, if the Reapers are allegedly so powerful he would not have needed to spend fifteen centuries trying first with the Rachni and then with the Geth to get enough of a screening fleet to get in and do his work.

If the Reapers are so strong, Sovereign could have won the game any time he wanted. Showed up, smashed faces, won the game.

He didn't.

They're not.

The dialogue in the badly written game might wring its hands about how invincible the Reapers are, but that's just a symptom of how badly it works as a continuation of the universe from the first and even second game.



* And yes, they must have been there all along, because long distance Mass Relays require a send and receive relay. So the Reaper fleet in darkspace must be hanging out at a Mass Relay, they don't start moving until after the stupid Collector plan fails. Also they're close enough for realtime communication by Assuming Direct Control.

My understanding of it is that the Reapers, collectively, were powerful enough to be unstoppable in a conventional war, but not so powerful that they would take no casualties, and they needed consistent zero or near-zero casualties to be able to maintain the cycle because they only make a small handful of new Reapers each cycle. The surprise decapitation strike on the Citadel allows them to mass their entire fleet against one system at a time while also preventing the rest of the galaxy from massing a combined fleet to face them, making it possible to Reap the galaxy in detail, with every battle having such an overwhelming advantage that no one ever gets to do more than scratch their paint. The reason it takes a century for them to finish each cycle is that they go one system at a time, while taking steps to disrupt attempts by the remaining systems to group up.

The games tell and show you, over and over again, that defeating the entire Reaper fleet in a conventional war is not possible, but that inflicting casualties is possible. That is entirely consistent with the Reapers' behavior and strategy, as while your goal is just to win, their goal is to win without casualties.

Board him and blow up his brain from the inside.

We already know Reapers have internal volumes that you can walk around in, we did it in ME2.

You could even make doing that the "win button". Reverse the Reapers' decapitation strike by killing their command and control which they are overreliant on. That even explains their daft overreliance on a convoluted plan. They make sure the galaxy forms in their image because if it was too decentralised they wouldn't understand it and wouldn't fight it effectively.

I don't recall any Reaper actually showing up in ME2, and certainly not walking around inside one.

[tonberrian]

TI don't recall any Reaper actually showing up in ME2, and certainly not walking around inside one.

The mission where you grab the code, where you recruit Legion, takes place in a Reaper shot down by the mother of all railguns. Cerberus was inside trying to research it, but they went and got themselves mind-controlled.

[Douglas]

The mission where you grab the code, where you recruit Legion, takes place in a Reaper shot down by the mother of all railguns. Cerberus was inside trying to research it, but they went and got themselves mind-controlled.

Oh yeah, forgot that ship was a Reaper.

Still, that was an already dead Reaper. I'd expect boarding a live and active Reaper to require about the same firepower as just destroying it directly.

[Morty]

I could swear I saw this exact argument a few weeks ago on another forum. Almost like the games give us unclear or contradictory information so people can pick a hill and die on it.

[Forum Explorer]

Massed anti tank fire would have a tough time dealing with a modern frigate....



Or it was simply a small portion of the fleet firing not the entire thing, which is not suggested in any way by the events we are shown and participate in (and that Reaper still flinched when you shot it in the eye with the machinegun on your space technical.).



But if you have such massive advantages you don't need to come up with plans so convoluted they need appendices. You can just smash your way in and blow up anything that tries to stop you. See: 2003 invasion of Iraq where the US/UK forces managed to cause just about as many casualties to themselves as the Iraqi forces did, if not more, because they had a massive technological and materiel advantage.

The only sane conclusion is that the Reapers simply did not.



Sovereign barely engages the Citadel fleet. He takes a few potshots as he flies past to dock with the Citadel itself.



Because it was 1500 years less technologically advanced and was a peacetime fleet never exposed to a serious galactic conflict.



The Collectors had one ship and the Normandy blew it up in about three shots. They'd be ****ed if they tried to fight anyone.



This thread is about how there are problems with the entire story, at least from Mass Effect 2 onwards.

It's also easy to fix.

Instead of Stupid Reaper Infant the Collectors are building another Citadel. There, I fixed it in once sentence. They're kidnapping humans out of the same spite they are in the actual game, but instead of stupid reaper infant they're rebuilding them into the Keepers for the new Citadel. Humanity's reward for fighting against the cycle is to ensure that it continues. It's even thematically stronger now.

Then Mass Effect 2 is even relevant to the story because it can end with the replacement Citadel being activated as you destroy the Collector base and the climax being the destruction of the Omega Relay. Meaning the Reapers have arrived but they're trapped in the galactic core and have to navigate out the slow way, giving about the same six month timeframe.

I actually disagree, but the last time any warship was sunk in battle was apparently in WW2, so who even knows.

Was it literally the entire fleet? Maybe not. Was it still orbital focus fire directly into the Reaper's weakspot? Yes it was.

So you point is that the Reapers could win the war, but would likely take a bunch of casualties. Like how it went in Mass Effect 3? And also like how that's really dumb if you can avoid it? Also I don't think any historian is going to look at that war and give the generals in charge praise for a well fought war.

Seriously, it's dumb to take casualties if you don't have to. It's really dumb when you are a species that apparently needs to harvest entire civilizations in order to reproduce.


It's been a while, so I did decide to rewatch those scenes, and you are entirely right. Modern weaponry is so useless against him, that Sovereign literally ignores the defending ships, to the point of ramming itself through a ship like it wasn't even there.


I'm sorry, why do you think that the fleet would get less advanced with 1500 years of technological advancement? That's just retarded and I assume you must have miswrote something there. Or do you think it's literally the same fleet? Because it is stated that it's a fleet formed from the member nations of the Council, particularly the Turians who are heavily militarized. Not to mention the Destiny Ascension, a super dreadnought which apparently has the fire power of an entire fleet.


Right after you spend the entire game collecting the most advanced technology in the galaxy to upgrade your ship with. And the Normandy was a state of the art ship to begin with. And fighting the Collector ship still makes you crash land.


That would fix that plot hole and make ME2 relevant to the overarching plot. So that's good and a wonderful idea. But maybe I wasn't being clear, I was talking about how the entire series built the Reapers up to be unable to be defeated in a conventional war when I said the whole trilogy would need a rewrite. I admit I was unclear, because the sentence before hand was talking about how the plothole existed throughout the whole series.


Also, while yes, this is a thread about the problems in Mass Effect's story, this particular conversation started when I challenged you to come up with a different ending to Mass Effect 3. So far your answer has been 'change everything else first so a conventional war could be won.'

[Psyren]

At one point you even kill a Reaper with handheld weaponry.

And when was that, exactly?

And quite frankly if you think "magically find a deus ex machina bomb to solve the problem" is an acceptable plot even for a trashy videogame you want to go back to school.

Irony.

[Rodin]

So you have your druthers what is the grand arch that ME2 does? What changes do you make that remove Kai Leng, the war asset system and the atrocious ending?

I don't know, I'm not an entire team of professional writers. I'm certainly not going to try and fanfiction away a story that took years to write just off the top of my head in a few minutes on an Internet forum. Especially since you have to fit said story to a videogame at the same time.

I can address a couple of the specifics you wrote though. On Kai Leng, I would simply remove him. He's entirely unneccessary to the plot and can be replaced by a generic mooks. Rather than the BS scene where he lands on Shepard's car, the car gets hit by a rocket. Instead of the scene where he shanks Thane, we see Thane wrecking a bunch of mooks until he doubles over from his illness taking its toll and gets shot as a result. The gunship covers some regular Cerberus troopers making their escape, and the boss battle is replaced by waves of reinforcement troopers.

Also, all of the above about Kai Leng is basically irrelevant, because if you're changing the plot to that extent Kai Leng wouldn't exist anyway. One thing I have always said is that I'm not a fan of how Cerberus was handled. They're space racists, sure. We also see in ME2 that the entire organization isn't irredeemable, and indoctrinating them so that they're all evil in the third game was just lazy writing. You can get good mileage out of "enemy of my enemy", and that was sadly underutilized.

The War Asset system was fine, apart from some implementation niggles. Renegade shouldn't have been punished as hard on the War Assets as it was, and there should have been some bad Paragon options that hurt your assets. Multiplayer should not have affected it, and that has nothing to do with story. As a tool to show how well you're doing as an effect on the ending? I thought it was fine. Probably the weakest part is that it doesn't have enough effect on the ending, changing many of the cutscenes only minimally.

-----

On why the Protheans took so long to defeat: Keep in mind that the Protheans were of a higher tech level than the current galaxy. They were also a totally unified, highly militarized empire. They already had the resources that Shepard is trying to get the Council to build for the entire trilogy. And they still lost.

[russdm]

This thread is about how there are problems with the entire story, at least from Mass Effect 2 onwards.

It's also easy to fix.

Instead of Stupid Reaper Infant the Collectors are building another Citadel. There, I fixed it in once sentence. They're kidnapping humans out of the same spite they are in the actual game, but instead of stupid reaper infant they're rebuilding them into the Keepers for the new Citadel. Humanity's reward for fighting against the cycle is to ensure that it continues. It's even thematically stronger now.

Then Mass Effect 2 is even relevant to the story because it can end with the replacement Citadel being activated as you destroy the Collector base and the climax being the destruction of the Omega Relay. Meaning the Reapers have arrived but they're trapped in the galactic core and have to navigate out the slow way, giving about the same six month timeframe.

This actually works better and even give you a reason to help out TIM: His agents discover the resources being used to make the new citadel, and the System Alliance and Citadel types don't buy it because of the whole Cerberus history issues. So you get involved with that. Also, the Collectors are towards that end, making your effort to fight them actually mean something. Plus it makes it more reasonable as to why neither the Citadel or System Alliances doesn't care: Nobody is supposed to be able to build the Citadel station, so why believe what Cerberus is saying.

In the Game, neither the Citadel Council or the System Alliance believe that the Reapers are real, despite seeing one and possibly being saved by one. So why actually denounce the idea? I mean, it's not like every single being on the station had a mass hallucination here. And why ignore human colonies going missing? It's not like they are independent ones. I don't it being stated that they are independent ones. And apparently, the System Alliance cannot be bothered to check.

To be honest, I think TIM installed something in your brain to make you loyal to him and not just give him the finger and take off as soon as you arrive at the station after getting resurrected.

Frankly, to make the plot of ME2 to actually happen, everyone has to act like idiots or hold the idiot-ball. Yeah character vignettes are great, but why not have more about making it directly relate to the Reapers? Does the Collectors actually improve any understanding of the Reapers? And does making the Reaper Baby really clarify what the Reapers are intending or just make them into the Borg basically?

[Psyren]

I wouldn't be opposed to "they were building Citadel 2 at the galactic core" instead of the Proto-Reaper. The main issue there though is that the only choice becomes to destroy it - there is no dilemma or ambiguity at the end worth considering, a potential back door is too dangerous, much like how Arrival couldn't offer any kind of choice for either Paragon Shep or Renegade Shep more nuanced than "blow it up as fast as possible" or "try to warn people before blowing it up."

But while that would have been a stronger plot for the trilogy overall, I don't agree that not going with that is a cardinal sin.

[Forum Explorer]

I wouldn't be opposed to "they were building Citadel 2 at the galactic core" instead of the Proto-Reaper. The main issue there though is that the only choice becomes to destroy it - there is no dilemma or ambiguity at the end worth considering, a potential back door is too dangerous, much like how Arrival couldn't offer any kind of choice for either Paragon Shep or Renegade Shep more nuanced than "blow it up as fast as possible" or "try to warn people before blowing it up."

But while that would have been a stronger plot for the trilogy overall, I don't agree that not going with that is a cardinal sin.

Eh, choice is overrated in video games. Don't get me wrong, I liked how the Paragon and Renegade system let me build a relatively unique Shep to roleplay. But some choices should be made for the player because they are the only option that makes sense for the story. I feel so much of the outrage about ME3's ending was because people were promised a choice, and the one they got sucked because all of the options boiled down to 'activate the Crucible and save the Galaxy.'

Which honestly was the only choice. So why even ask? Eliminating that choice allows you to make the singular option a lot more solid, and lets you do things like get rid of the Starchild altogether.


Otherwise I completely agree. However while that would work with the ME3 we got, it creates a big problem for the proposed 'beat the Reapers with conventional warfare' idea. In that, okay, so why doesn't that just happen? Like, everyone would be able to see the Reapers are there. They'd arm themselves the best they can, they'd certainly work together, and its not like you are some genius tactician that they need your input to win. Basically, how would you make the story revolve around the main character, and not just be a spectator to watching the galaxy win?

[Psyren]

All of the options boiled down to 'activate the Crucible and save the Galaxy.'

Which honestly was the only choice. So why even ask?

Because "press button to end game" is boring. I like the idea of multiple options on how to save the day, each with tradeoffs, even if the ramifications of those options could have been better explored. I even love the idea of Synthesis, even though I wouldn't be crazy about making that choice for everyone on my own.

[Forum Explorer]

Because "press button to end game" is boring. I like the idea of multiple options on how to save the day, each with tradeoffs, even if the ramifications of those options could have been better explored. I even love the idea of Synthesis, even though I wouldn't be crazy about making that choice for everyone on my own.

And I'd rather have one good ending then three crappy ones.

Really there are only a couple games I can think of that actually managed to have multiple quality endings. Namely, Balder's gate the Throne of Baal expansion, and Undertale.

[factotum]

One thing I have always said is that I'm not a fan of how Cerberus was handled. They're space racists, sure. We also see in ME2 that the entire organization isn't irredeemable, and indoctrinating them so that they're all evil in the third game was just lazy writing. You can get good mileage out of "enemy of my enemy", and that was sadly underutilized.

The biggest problem I had with Cerberus in ME2 is that they were far too powerful. Even if we ignore their magic resurrection abilities that no-one else seems to possess, they were able to build a bigger, better version of the most advanced ship in the Alliance fleet in a couple of years. Where did they get access to that technology? Where did they get all the manpower and materials from without anyone noticing? Y'know, what with them being an outlawed terrorist organisation.

[Razade]

I'd have aged Shepard up. At the end of Two we know the Reapers are coming but we also know it was supposed to take a long time. ME3 cheated and said they got through somehow but that's not what ME1 left us with. Their backdoor into our Galaxy was shut. I'd have given the game thirty years to play with. You're an older, wiser Shep. You've helped bring the Galaxy into a fighting chance. Chased down leads, found technology, circumvented their cycle and when they finally came, you'd be ready for them.

Instead of "WAR IS HORRIFYING" through the violence on the front lines, the game could have explored all the people you came into contact with, forming one last team to take on Harbinger with all the weaponry you could muster. A grizziled team of A listers, all ready to fall over and give it to the new generation but one more fight to do before then. You can't have three games telling you there may be a chance, then be told you never really did and nothing you did mattered right at the last 10 minutes and get away without some flak.

[Anteros]

The biggest problem I had with Cerberus in ME2 is that they were far too powerful. Even if we ignore their magic resurrection abilities that no-one else seems to possess, they were able to build a bigger, better version of the most advanced ship in the Alliance fleet in a couple of years. Where did they get access to that technology? Where did they get all the manpower and materials from without anyone noticing? Y'know, what with them being an outlawed terrorist organisation.

Eh, the universe is a big place. Plus, it's not like Cerberus is really outlawed. Their operatives are allowed to come and go from the citadel as they please after all. Most of the universe hasn't seen what Shepherd has and they presumably don't know how bad Cerberus actually is.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I'd have aged Shepard up. At the end of Two we know the Reapers are coming but we also know it was supposed to take a long time. ME3 cheated and said they got through somehow but that's not what ME1 left us with. Their backdoor into our Galaxy was shut. I'd have given the game thirty years to play with. You're an older, wiser Shep. You've helped bring the Galaxy into a fighting chance. Chased down leads, found technology, circumvented their cycle and when they finally came, you'd be ready for them.

Instead of "WAR IS HORRIFYING" through the violence on the front lines, the game could have explored all the people you came into contact with, forming one last team to take on Harbinger with all the weaponry you could muster. A grizziled team of A listers, all ready to fall over and give it to the new generation but one more fight to do before then. You can't have three games telling you there may be a chance, then be told you never really did and nothing you did mattered right at the last 10 minutes and get away without some flak.

This would have also been good, especially if combined with the idea above of replacing BabyReaper with a new Citadel. Would also give reason for Shepard to be in deep **** for those who did'nt play Arrival (I didn't when I first played 3, and was very confused why Shepard was on trial). Also a way to not NEED a giant god-gun to win.

Picture this: Shepard zooms through the array, and "my god it's real". Maybe even make the rumors, be less "they're making a citadel" and more "they're making a mass relay", and then Shepard discovers the scale of the thing when they arrive. Gotta have that cinematic reveal.
They do the whole fight thing, replace the BabyReaper fight with a fight with the Collector General. Interrupt the fight to activate the Citadel 2.0, and show smaller Reapers start to trickle in; oh snap need to destroy right away. Just as the Collector General is about to die, have Harbinger mention something about his control being unnecessary now. Shepard hits the destruction button, but just before the Citadel 2.0 explodes, and just before the Normandy goes back through the mass relay, we see Harbinger jump into the picture, almost as big as the Citadel was itself, with glowing yellow eyes to make it clear it's the one doing the controlling.
Shepard now knows that there are reapers about to come through that relay, including Harbinger who is huge and scary (the Citadel 2.0 helps provide a sense of scale that would otherwise be lacking). Shepard is forced to destroy the Relay as well (possibly through a hijacking of Omega itself! Have there be a Renegade/Paragon test to convince Aria to back down, or kill her! Choice: is there time to evacuate Omega?) Have there be a great scene of one of the smaller Reapers just appearing as the Relay goes super-nova. This can even replace the need for the Arrival DLC, with the destruction of Omega now replacing the destruction of the Batarian colony.
We now start turning to cut-scene epilogues. Shepard is sitting on a bench, head in hands. Back-flash (voices done with a bit of echo): Shepard arguing vehemently with the Council that an entire army of Reapers lies in the galactic core, luckily not all of them so if they start preparing now, cut off by whichever of Anderson/Udina is NOT on the council who puts a hand on Shepard's shoulder and shakes their head. Shepard than turns and berates them as well, before storming off.
Back-flash: Shepard is on trial, the prosecutor is presenting evidence of the mass death caused by the Omega Explosion (death count differs based on actions taken, who's in the witness box or in the audience varies on who's survived). Judge gives a sentence of several decades (a lesser amount if Paragon actions taken, with Judge noting attempts to save lives, but not enough to be free).
Present: zoom out, the bench Shepard is sitting in is a cell. All of a sudden, the wall collapses, and Shepard jumps to the side and narrowly dodges the Normandy Shuttle as it smashes through the wall.

Still has the Cerberus issues, but much more satisfying and doesn't require DLC to set up the next game.

[Serenity]

If the whole point is that conventional warfare against the Reapers is completely impossible then the games should never have featured them actually getting here. You make 2 and 3 about finding the technology that will seal them in dark space for good, with maybe a climactic encounter in 3 where they will arrive if you can't fight a delaying action for long enough. Or its about figuring out their motivation and a way to negotiate with them, or some control nexus that can be assaulted to shut them down or disrupt their unity.

If you *can* fight an at least semi-conventional war against the Reapers--and between the loss of their signature advantages of surprise and control of the Mass Relay network, the cost of travelling the long way 'round, greater time for this cycle to develop, I believe that is a justifiable approach--then the arc of ME2 and ME3 becomes unifying the galaxy to prepare for the threat, attending to the needs of various super-science projects, and otherwise preparing for the coming threat, along with gathering whatever information can still be found from previous cycles about the Reapers for an extra edge.

Idle thought--I feel like a lot could be done by swapping two notable plot points from 2 and 3. In 2, eliminate the 'brought back from the dead' angle, and simply make Cerberus outright the villains, more in line with their original ME1 presentation as a rogue paramilitary group of mad scientists making deals with the Collectors--though we might still TIM intimating a goal of human evolution and control over the Reapers. So the plot of 2 would take on much of the 'War with Cerberus' aspects of 3. Meanwhile, 2's suicide mission should have been the finale of 3, taking into account not just squadron loyalty but choices throughout the series to determine whether you get a Pyrrhic victory where this cycle is lost but the Reapers are gone, a heroic sacrifice where Shepard et al lay down their lives to save the cycle, or the miraculous golden ending.

Also, if Shepard never stops working with a Council who aren't head-in-the-sand morons, the Reaper IFF mission can involve Council sanctioned attempts to research *Sovereign's* remains, rather than a random Reaper derelict found by dubious means.

All fairly rough ideas, admittedly, but it's off the top of my head, and I'm not a highly skilled team of professional writers, either.

[Name_Here]

All fairly rough ideas, admittedly, but it's off the top of my head, and I'm not a highly skilled team of professional writers, either.

I think this entire thread kinda proves that professional writers aren't the be all or end all of perfect writing.

I always wonder why they didn't do more with the suicide mission mechanics. I think something like that more often in the third game could have added quite a bit to the epicness and fun of the game.

[Psyren]

And I'd rather have one good ending then three crappy ones.

Nobody wants crappy endings, regardless of quantity. But I still think your dichotomy above is false.

I think this entire thread kinda proves that professional writers aren't the be all or end all of perfect writing.

What it proves is that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us who received the finished product to say "if they had just done X it would be better." But we weren't there when the sausage was being made either.

[Name_Here]

What it proves is that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for us who received the finished product to say "if they had just done X it would be better." But we weren't there when the sausage was being made either.

I mean we weren't there but when the sausage is complete garbage does it really matter?