2 thoughts on “The Story of ME3: A Fair Critique”

  1. Interesting. I can’t help but acknowledge most of those points, too: in particular, I think there’s a bit much Cerberus. I’m not sure I agree that an ME2 squadmate would have made a good substitute for Kai Leng, though, unless maybe it was Miranda. Most of the ME2 gang made clear in that game that they were joining Shepard, not Cerberus.

    I must have good suspension of disbelief, too, though, or I was so immersed in the game narrative that I didn’t really question it. One question that did occur to me in-game was: why are we fighting our way through hordes of enemies in ruined London to hitch a ride to the Citadel, instead of sending a strike team to Ilos, where we know there’s a back door?

    1. Hah. Making Miranda into a double-turncoat would have been delicious. But betrayal doesn’t have to be in favor of Cerberus. Picture Kaidan, giving into his doubts and leaving at a deciding moment, or trying to take over? Or EDI, turning out to be vulnerable to reaper-hacking after all. Lots of missed opportunities.

      As for the Conduit, we don’t know that the exit-relay has survived the geth attack, do we?

      I’m aware that the series as a whole is built on a set of flawed, internally inconsistent assumptions, so very little in the way of plot holes can surprise or upset me. ME1 had a shaky plot to say the least; the plot of ME2 was simpler but unfocused. ME3 does a lot better than either. Don’t know where I’d put it on some external scale, but compared to, say, Dragon Age or The Elder Scrolls games, ME is gold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.