I think this right here is a lot of really interesting stuff to explore.
For all my knowledge about the games this apparently plot point alludes me. Refresh my memory?
He is correct. I don't recall the precise details, but the original story was hinted at in ME2 on Haestrom regarding dark energy and stars behaving differently than they should. The entire game's script leaked, and BioWare quickly rewrote much of the game's script for reasons......
Welllll, I wouldn't go as far as to say that "true fans" will act any sort of way. I mean, tons of "true fans" read the books before they see the movie as it were. But to your point, even in that case Bioware could've and maybe perhaps should've stayed their original course - because "true fans" that have already read the script will still be interested in the finished product.
I couldn't agree more.
Again, Mass Effect 2 dropped hints about a few things that were dealt with in ME3. The Dark Energy plot, which was to become a focus for ME3 was changed into a side thing involving Conrad Verner of all people.But to that end I don't necessarily see that ME1 and ME2 were necessarily building towards something else. In fact I consider ME2 to be the weakest in the series from a story perspective because it more or less was a giant stall of a game. You couldn't play with any of your crew from ME1 (a way to preserve them and get around all of the "choice" forks - hence giving the illusion of choice without actually having to program for it). The Reaper threat was put on ice in favor of a new side threat, the Collectors, which of course had to be killed/dealt with. And we more or less had to wait until 3 to get anything that really affected the central story line.
ME:2 was rife with side stories and character moments. Which was more or less the highlights from that game. I think people liked it a lot because of the gameplay and character moments. But from a story perspective if it hadn't ever existed it wouldn't really change the plot of the ME series much. (In short the collectors were a genetically modified race, the original Protheans, that the Reapers now use to harvest civilizations as they continue to wipe out species every cycle... none of those things are "necessary" to move forward the story - it could've just as easily been the Reapers themselves, indoctrinated current species (eg: Saren/followers), or species they co-opt such as the Geth - all of which were already established in ME1).
It also, if we're going to criticize plot points in the story, killed off Shepard in the opening moments of the game writting in an unnecessary, implausible reanimation plot-point as a setup to having him/her work with the Illusive Man and Cerberus. They went out of their way to say, "let's kill Shepard" and can we "mess with the player and get them to work with the villains of humanity" just essentially to do it. Which in a lot of ways is far more ridiculous than things that happen in 3 (but we all have our opinions).
Well, the whole killing Shepard bit was an issue of story being driven by the requirements of a video game. They wanted a new way to introduce players to the universe and characters who might not have played ME1. Additionally, they wanted to "reset" Shepard so that you had your skill level etc. grind all over again. I first played ME2 before ME1, so I can tell you that it worked. Old gamers like me are used to game stories being shit or contrived to fit around game mechanics. Unfortunately, it is what it is. That being said, I largely agree with you. ME2's strength isn't in its story, its in its characters, settings and sub-plots. The main plot is actually dealt with in only a handful of the total hours of playtime.
Well, I would largely agree with you excluding the ME3's ending making Reapers out to be puppets and many of the character moments and experiences being fruitless due to how the game ends, especially in its original form. Many people will argue some bullshit about it being "the journey" and not the "destination" or some such sentiment. Perhaps you feel that way and that's fine. While the results of my efforts do not determine the full worth of them, they are still very much important. I do not wish to put a ton of effort into something that bears no fruit. From a gameplay perspective all the way up until Priority Earth, I'd agree with you entirely. ME3 had it all. Story, great character moments, an amazing setting, interesting set pieces, cinematic moments, weapon customization, character customization, etc. It was the best in the series marred by the last hour or so of gameplay.Again, as controvertial as it may seem, I think ME3 was the best in the series, followed by 1, and lastly 2. I enjoy all the games, so don't take my ordering as meaning that I think any of them are terrible - but as a dude that likes plot, character development, etc more than perhaps caring as much about every piece of gameplay - that's the order I place the games in (I still think ME1 plays great, despite apparently a lot of people thinking its clunky). For all of 3's failings (which I clearly think there are less of than the collective internet), it got a lot right with closings moments for all its characters and plots from the first two games.
I question that really. I think there was a lot of cool things that lined up with the Geth and the Reapers. That the Reapers distained the Geth, knowing what they were (a sentient AI) but of course used them to help with harvesting. And I think a lot of the things regarding harvesting and of course the fact that the Reapers are clearly sentient machines were explored pretty well from the reveal in ME1 to basically a majority of the plot in ME2.