Mass Effect 3 - Includes plot-line axed from ME2

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
News via OXM UK that some Citadel missions axed from Mass Effect 2 will be included in Mass Effect 3:
"There was a Mass Effect 2 plot that was a kind of callback to the first Mass Effect that was going to be on the Citadel, and we cut it. But now it's made a resurrection in Mass Effect 3, so I'm happy, but I can't say what it is. That's the nice thing about trilogies, sometimes you get a second chance."
A cherished Mass Effect 1 environment, the Citadel was accessible to a very limited degree in the sequel. According to Mass Effect 3's lead writer Mac Walters, BioWare considered adding more Citadel quests but decided against it. Mass Effect 3 will revive at least one of those lost plot threads.
BioWare has confirmed that Shepard will return to the Citadel in Mass Effect 3, and revealed that you'll be able to tackle Citadel missions originally slated to appear in Mass Effect 2.
More information.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
I really missed the ME1 Citadel in ME2. Definitely one of the bigger disappointments of the game.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,578
Location
Bergen
Yes, I agree with both. I realise that the first ME with the Citadel and everything was one of those rare games that has taken a special place in my memory. Very atmospheric and memorable.

I hope the Citadel makes a proper return in ME3, but I don't believe so.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
Mass Effect 2's premise and possible endings were a headache to write around, Walters admitted, particularly given the need to prepare the ground for a threequel.

I don't think I'd call it 'trapped'," he explained, when asked how he felt about having to accommodate several possible player decisions at key plot junctures. "They're more hurdles. Sometimes they're hurdles that we've given ourselves, so we kind of smack ourselves in the head and say 'What the hell were we thinking? Why did we do that?'

The classic example is 'Hey, let's make the ending of Mass Effect 2 a suicide mission where all your henchmen can possibly die, and Shepard can even die!' Oh right... and then we're gonna do another game after that. What the hell are we gonna do with all those guys?"

Huh. Wasn´t ME3 supposed to be awesome fun to develop because it´s the end of the trilogy where they could finally capitalize on consequences and stuff because there was no need to take a sequel into account?
Doesn´t seem like it was, after all.

I hoped they had the trilogy planned and thought through in a bit more detail than the interview implies.
Not a particularly encouraging article.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
I hoped they had the trilogy planned and thought through in a bit more detail than the interview implies.
Indeed, same here. I originally got the impression Bioware had the trilogy at least outlined, planned the story arc for it, but it seems they're just making it up as they go. Depressing and kind of defeats the purpose of doing a trilogy.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
564
Location
I come from the land of ice and snow
Hey! Even best-selling authors of series with many books make stuff up as they go! Hell, even Star Wars did to a great extent. :)
Despite what Lucas has said since, I don't seriously believe that he really planned the original Star Wars as a trilogy. It's a different thing to continue a commercially successful story, than to plan a trilogy from a get go. ME2 could just as well been a game/story of its own, there's precious little to tie it to ME1 (apart from superficial things), IMO. For reference, check Lord of the Rings. That's a coherent trilogy.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
564
Location
I come from the land of ice and snow
Despite what Lucas has said since, I don't seriously believe that he really planned the original Star Wars as a trilogy.

Fans do know he evolved his story. He actually intended it to be 9 stoies, originally, but in the course of time he boiled it down into three stories, cutting here and there.

I still have Sci-Fi magazine from 1983 which has all 9 titles in it.

There are indeed hints that th stoery would even be different, and fans know that. For example that Luke Skywalker would be having adventures during the reign of the Empire … The movies don't show that anymore. "Splinter Of The Mind's Eye" is a rare example of what might have been. Plus, it still contains quite a lot of the so-called "fairy-tale aspect" that went lost during the movies (but can still be seen in those two Ewok movies he did for TV).
Another part of the story would be that Han Solo would be killed, and Luke would end up as an Eremit. These things were never becoming part of "The Story".

I don't really think Lord of the Rings was intended to be a trilogy. More like one story split into three parts. There is a difference. :)

I'm planning to go through all of the "History Of Middle Earth" books released by Christopher Tolkien. I think there should be enough mterial in it.

And yes, I think I remember that this whole story should have been in ONE book, originally. But - as an author/writer, things are not that easy. You work on everything as you progress in writing, and even story parts can change through the course of writing.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
For reference, check Lord of the Rings. That's a coherent trilogy.

JRRT made it up as he went and kept going back and revising it about a billion times. Seriously. Christopher Tolkien published a pile of books that contain the drafts and they are like 3 times as long as the novels.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,769
Location
Minnesota, USA
Back
Top Bottom