J1M
Arcane
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 14,764
There's so much wrong with this post.Wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion about the series being better without the reapers. I agree with the consensus that the series would be better. I think it worked well in the first game. I remember thinking Sovereign was really cool and intimidating in the first game. It would be cool if stopping Sovereign delayed the reapers for hundreds of years or so. That way the threat would be in the background and could influence decisions but wouldn't be the main focus after the first game.
Personally i liked Shamus Young's take that the later games should have been about exploring the galaxy with the goal to find and learn ways to deal with them - they'd still be a threat (via indirect means like the Geth), just not a direct one.
I disagree. The trilogy has many problems, but by keeping it focused on the reapers, they told a story from start to finish. With Shamus Young's take, Bioware would've created an unfocused and disjointed collection of stories that lead nowhere. How do I know? Well, it's the route they took with Dragon Age.
First, the hamfisted mashing of Collector and Reaper antagonists was not focused.
Second, they did not tell a story from start to finish. To say as much suggests you think ME2 and the ending of ME3 were intentional, or planned, but we know that none of those things are the case from the lips of the devs themselves.
Third, people love episodic crime stories. Look at how many TV shows with that formula stay on the air for a decade. The plot advancement can take place in the characters, it doesn't need to be about punching the same villain over and over.
Finally, the stakes don't need to be set at maximum for every single chapter in a trilogy.
Last edited: