380 réponses à ce sujet

[valkyrie0]

People have different tastes. You can not like or like a game and it's all right. There is no "better" or "best". It's just entertainment, people.

[Indoctrination]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

polyorpheus wrote...

I disagree with the OP. You play a role (hence RPG) really well in ME2. Inventory, customization, even the story line trees are game elements. The difference between the two games comes to taste.

You play a role in Halo too. Does that make Halo an RPG as well? Come on, that's just a semantics based argument, and you know it.

Story and game play elements are what separates RPGs from other genres.

So is the God of War trilogy then an RPG seeing as it has a engrossing story that is better then alot of RPGs?

First of all, I consider God of War's story to be very silly, and bad. That's not a very good example.
Secondly, I didn't just say story, did I? No, I didn't, and I have a hard time believing that you didn't see me also say that game play elements count as well. God of War is a button masher. Not RPG game play. Please do not fish for excuses to avoid addressing the spirit of my points. Thanks.

The God of War story is engrossing if you get the whole point, and it's not just "I WANT TO KILL EVERYTHING!"
Diablo plays similar to BG, expect you don't have a squad, yet that is pretty much just a dungion crawler with leveling up slapped on it. Does that make it an RPG then? or hpw about The Zelda series? It is considered a action-adventure RPG, but because it does not have leveling up and you can't customize Link does that mean it's not a real RPG? Story does not make a RPG, Morrowind is the perfect example for that.

There you go again, ignoring half of my point. Story AND game play. What is so hard to understand about that? Sure there are exceptions like say games that are more concerned with lore than raw plot, but again you're ignoring the spirit of my point here and attempting to argue semantics. Also, Diablo is considered an RPG. http://www.gamefaqs....ata/197113.html

And again, I'll have to disagree with you that the plot of God of War is "engrossing." The main character has all of the depth of a mid-tier pro wrestler who isn't a good enough orator to be a top-tier wrestler so he's given a gimmick of just being really angry and violent.

You don't get the point of the plot, it's ok and I am not ignoring anything. I am stating that an RPG does not need a plot to be an RPG. Morrowind has more heart in it then half the RPGs out there.
(if you want to know the point of the plot because I don't want to spoil it here then pm mbecause the whole point of the God of War series is very good if you played all three games)

ME2 was as much as an RPG then other Bioware games where. You might not think it, but I do. Theres no right or wrong here. It comes to prefernces.

Okay, it's pretty obvious that I can't force you to stop ignoring half of my point, so I'm just going to stop trying.

And if you think Mass Effect 2 is as much of an RPG as games like KOTOR, or Dragon Age, obviously we've wandered into silly territory here.

[kraidy1117]

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

polyorpheus wrote...

I disagree with the OP. You play a role (hence RPG) really well in ME2. Inventory, customization, even the story line trees are game elements. The difference between the two games comes to taste.

You play a role in Halo too. Does that make Halo an RPG as well? Come on, that's just a semantics based argument, and you know it.

Story and game play elements are what separates RPGs from other genres.

So is the God of War trilogy then an RPG seeing as it has a engrossing story that is better then alot of RPGs?

First of all, I consider God of War's story to be very silly, and bad. That's not a very good example.
Secondly, I didn't just say story, did I? No, I didn't, and I have a hard time believing that you didn't see me also say that game play elements count as well. God of War is a button masher. Not RPG game play. Please do not fish for excuses to avoid addressing the spirit of my points. Thanks.

The God of War story is engrossing if you get the whole point, and it's not just "I WANT TO KILL EVERYTHING!"
Diablo plays similar to BG, expect you don't have a squad, yet that is pretty much just a dungion crawler with leveling up slapped on it. Does that make it an RPG then? or hpw about The Zelda series? It is considered a action-adventure RPG, but because it does not have leveling up and you can't customize Link does that mean it's not a real RPG? Story does not make a RPG, Morrowind is the perfect example for that.

There you go again, ignoring half of my point. Story AND game play. What is so hard to understand about that? Sure there are exceptions like say games that are more concerned with lore than raw plot, but again you're ignoring the spirit of my point here and attempting to argue semantics. Also, Diablo is considered an RPG. http://www.gamefaqs....ata/197113.html

And again, I'll have to disagree with you that the plot of God of War is "engrossing." The main character has all of the depth of a mid-tier pro wrestler who isn't a good enough orator to be a top-tier wrestler so he's given a gimmick of just being really angry and violent.

You don't get the point of the plot, it's ok and I am not ignoring anything. I am stating that an RPG does not need a plot to be an RPG. Morrowind has more heart in it then half the RPGs out there.
(if you want to know the point of the plot because I don't want to spoil it here then pm mbecause the whole point of the God of War series is very good if you played all three games)

ME2 was as much as an RPG then other Bioware games where. You might not think it, but I do. Theres no right or wrong here. It comes to prefernces.

Okay, it's pretty obvious that I can't force you to stop ignoring half of my point, so I'm just going to stop trying.

And if you think Mass Effect 2 is as much of an RPG as games like KOTOR, or Dragon Age, obviously we've wandered into silly territory here.

No we havent, just because I don't share your thought on things does not make yours any better then mine. You might not think it is, but not every else thinks the same as you. I just love it how people like the OP think that if people don't share there opinion then they are wrong and silly.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Get Smudboy and CTM back in here, at least that argument was interesting.

[Indoctrination]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

polyorpheus wrote...

I disagree with the OP. You play a role (hence RPG) really well in ME2. Inventory, customization, even the story line trees are game elements. The difference between the two games comes to taste.

You play a role in Halo too. Does that make Halo an RPG as well? Come on, that's just a semantics based argument, and you know it.

Story and game play elements are what separates RPGs from other genres.

So is the God of War trilogy then an RPG seeing as it has a engrossing story that is better then alot of RPGs?

First of all, I consider God of War's story to be very silly, and bad. That's not a very good example.
Secondly, I didn't just say story, did I? No, I didn't, and I have a hard time believing that you didn't see me also say that game play elements count as well. God of War is a button masher. Not RPG game play. Please do not fish for excuses to avoid addressing the spirit of my points. Thanks.

The God of War story is engrossing if you get the whole point, and it's not just "I WANT TO KILL EVERYTHING!"
Diablo plays similar to BG, expect you don't have a squad, yet that is pretty much just a dungion crawler with leveling up slapped on it. Does that make it an RPG then? or hpw about The Zelda series? It is considered a action-adventure RPG, but because it does not have leveling up and you can't customize Link does that mean it's not a real RPG? Story does not make a RPG, Morrowind is the perfect example for that.

There you go again, ignoring half of my point. Story AND game play. What is so hard to understand about that? Sure there are exceptions like say games that are more concerned with lore than raw plot, but again you're ignoring the spirit of my point here and attempting to argue semantics. Also, Diablo is considered an RPG. http://www.gamefaqs....ata/197113.html

And again, I'll have to disagree with you that the plot of God of War is "engrossing." The main character has all of the depth of a mid-tier pro wrestler who isn't a good enough orator to be a top-tier wrestler so he's given a gimmick of just being really angry and violent.

You don't get the point of the plot, it's ok and I am not ignoring anything. I am stating that an RPG does not need a plot to be an RPG. Morrowind has more heart in it then half the RPGs out there.
(if you want to know the point of the plot because I don't want to spoil it here then pm mbecause the whole point of the God of War series is very good if you played all three games)

ME2 was as much as an RPG then other Bioware games where. You might not think it, but I do. Theres no right or wrong here. It comes to prefernces.

Okay, it's pretty obvious that I can't force you to stop ignoring half of my point, so I'm just going to stop trying.

And if you think Mass Effect 2 is as much of an RPG as games like KOTOR, or Dragon Age, obviously we've wandered into silly territory here.

No we havent, just because I don't share your thought on things does not make yours any better then mine. You might not think it is, but not every else thinks the same as you. I just love it how people like the OP think that if people don't share there opinion then they are wrong and silly.

Like I said, you're playing semantics games to avoid the actual spirit of my points here. If you're using the "eye of the beholder" argument, then you can't really see anything wrong with anything I've been saying without being a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways.

In any case, I've indulged this silly semantics based argument long enough. Getting back on topic now...

[Ziggy]

To avoid the debate about the exact definition of an rpg, i'll just say that i essentially agree with the op in that i like the story bits of ME way better than the shooting bits and thought there was too much of the latter and not enough of the former and what was there was in discrete little pieces - no real overall feel to it.

[CTM1]

kraidy1117 wrote...

If Shepards get replaced by anyone it is no longer Shepards story, thats the end of it

That is true. Now prove it. Don't use Bioware's comments, or what the game box says, or easily missed character interaction to support your argument. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

I have already stated it so many times, it seems only ypou and Smudboy can't grasp it

We can grasp it just fine. Better yet, we understand it just fine. What we don't understand is why Mass Effect 2's narrative does little to support that.

We understand in theory that it is Shepard's story, because that is what we're asked to accept. When the game shows us otherwise, however, we call shenanigans. We're not saying Shepard is inherently unimportant to the storyline; we're saying Bioware did a poor job selling his importance in Mass Effect 2 (smudboy even says as much in one of his posts). That is your failing; what you cannot grasp. Either that, or you don't want to admit it, and find it easier just to dismiss us as "morons" because you'd rather have it that we simply don't understand where you're coming from. (Hint: We do. We disagree.)

Whenever smudboy, Indoctrinated, or myself have argued that Shepard and the rest of the characters (save a few) are easily replaceable, you've either ignored the fine points, appealed to popularity on issues that can't be proven objectively, made blanket, unsupported statements, argued suddenly on tangential issues, contradicted yourself, etc. Oh, and you resorted to attacking your opponent when you decided you had nothing else to contribute.

Anyone who has had the patience to follow this topic since you joined in would probably tell you the same thing. I'd provide a list, but I'd rather not waste the effort. You'd probably ignore it anyway. Hell, you're probably going to already ignore half of what this post says, assuming you respond to it at all. I've seen you do it time and time again in other threads.

and whats funny is it's the people who are friends with Smudboy, go figure

Irrelevant, but friends tend to agree on things. Go figure.

and why did i bring DAO in here? Because the point I am making is because in DAO only three characters are importent to the plot, yet the OP is defending it and then poking at ME2. You can't do that. That is just bias.

That wasn't directly solely at you, but at others (mostly Onyx Jaguar, who has since deleted what he wrote). However, your explanation for your contribution is not acceptable. You could have avoided discussing Dragon Age altogether by ignoring what Indoctrinated said (which was a passing comment) and focused on the rest of what he said (which had to do with the topic, and which you completely ignored, as is typical behavior for you). Your post back on page 7 actually kicked off this whole tangent to begin with. Indoctrinated's comment on Dragon Age wasn't meant to be challenged so that you could start a brand new debate discussing details that are spoilers. You want to contest that issue, take it to PMs. It's not only tangential, but disrespectful of this forum's rules.

Here's a hint, kraidy1117. Don't respond to the last thing this post says, or what the first thing this post says. Respond to all of it. People will appreciate you more for it.

Modifié par CTM1, 10 avril 2010 - 08:12 .

[Bhaal]

Indoctrination wrote...
ME2 is simply lacking many of the RPG elements that made the first Mass Effect so rich. For example, in the first game many of the main plot missions have their own full sub-plots which make them interesting. You're on the mission to help your Saren investigation, but you get caught up in something bigger along the way, and the characters you meet become involved. Feros has you storming in, helping some colonists fight of a Geth attack. Then you explore the colony for a bit and chat up the colonists. Then you continue on your mission, fighting through the Geth, meet the Exogeni employees, chat them up for a bit, and learn some more about what's going on. Eventually you find out about the Thorian, mind control, etc. Feros is like the perfect model of what the format of a main plot world should be.

Edit: Before you read it Dragon Age Spoilers...

I must disagree with you at this point. I always hated that thing: You go somewhere for a very simple mission but then it turns out whole city was overrun by zombies. Then you defeat the evil necromancer who had been threated poorly during his chieldhood(he explains it during the boss fight) and decided to wreak havoc on his city. This is not "rpg" just old fashion AD&D(before anyone charges at me, I love AD&D and hated the 3rd edition) and really bores me.

Dragon Age is a good example what I hate about classic rpg concept: Find Arl Aemon: "Dammmm it! Demons, undeads, blood magic!", Fing the Dalish: "Oh holy cr.. werewolfes, demons, blood magic!", Find the dwarfs: "Why, is this quest connected to the main plot... interesting...", Go to the mage tower: "Holy f***ing s**t: Demons, destruction, blood magic... again!". Reminds me Jonah...

Quests which belong to the main plot shouldn't be disorienting. It maybe working well on paper&pen rpgs but not on video games if you ask me.

Modifié par Adakutay, 10 avril 2010 - 09:07 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

CTM1 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

If Shepards get replaced by anyone it is no longer Shepards story, thats the end of it

That is true. Now prove it. Don't use Bioware's comments, or what the game box says, or easily missed character interaction to support your argument. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

I have already stated it so many times, it seems only ypou and Smudboy can't grasp it

We can grasp it just fine. Better yet, we understand it just fine. What we don't understand is why Mass Effect 2's narrative does little to support that.

We understand in theory that it is Shepard's story, because that is what we're asked to accept. When the game shows us otherwise, however, we call shenanigans. We're not saying Shepard is inherently unimportant to the storyline; we're saying Bioware did a poor job selling his importance in Mass Effect 2 (smudboy even says as much in one of his posts). That is your failing; what you cannot grasp. Either that, or you don't want to admit it, and find it easier just to dismiss us as "morons" because you'd rather have it that we simply don't understand where you're coming from. (Hint: We do. We disagree.)

Whenever smudboy, Indoctrinated, or myself have argued that Shepard and the rest of the characters (save a few) are easily replaceable, you've either ignored the fine points, appealed to popularity on issues that can't be proven objectively, made blanket, unsupported statements, argued suddenly on tangential issues, contradicted yourself, etc. Oh, and you resorted to attacking your opponent when you decided you had nothing else to contribute.

Anyone who has had the patience to follow this topic since you joined in would probably tell you the same thing. I'd provide a list, but I'd rather not waste the effort. You'd probably ignore it anyway. Hell, you're probably going to already ignore half of what this post says, assuming you respond to it at all. I've seen you do it time and time again in other threads.

and whats funny is it's the people who are friends with Smudboy, go figure

Irrelevant, but friends tend to agree on things. Go figure.

and why did i bring DAO in here? Because the point I am making is because in DAO only three characters are importent to the plot, yet the OP is defending it and then poking at ME2. You can't do that. That is just bias.

That wasn't directly solely at you, but at others (mostly Onyx Jaguar, who has since deleted what he wrote). However, your explanation for your contribution is not acceptable. You could have avoided discussing Dragon Age altogether by ignoring what Indoctrinated said (which was a passing comment) and focused on the rest of what he said (which had to do with the topic, and which you completely ignored, as is typical behavior for you). Your post back on page 7 actually kicked off this whole tangent to begin with. Indoctrinated's comment on Dragon Age wasn't meant to be challenged so that you could start a brand new debate discussing details that are spoilers. You want to contest that issue, take it to PMs. It's not only tangential, but disrespectful of this forum's rules.

Here's a hint, kraidy1117. Don't respond to the last thing this post says, or what the first thing this post says. Respond to all of it. People will appreciate you more for it.

I prefer to tackle one subject at a time.  He brought it up and it was very much worth arguing against.

[Bhaal]

twice..

Modifié par Adakutay, 10 avril 2010 - 08:17 .

[CTM1]

That post wasn't directed at you, Onyx Jaguar.

kraidy1117 brought up a mostly non-related issue while simultaneously ignoring the main topic (and would have cheerfully gone on doing so if someone hadn't mentioned it). That's bad enough, except the mostly non-related issue contained Dragon Age spoilers. That's not a good idea by any means. Your post just made it worse by listing what I'm assuming was a long line of them (I didn't look for obvious reasons, though I bear you no ill will since you've since deleted them). It's an argument that could have been taken to PMs the moment it started.

Anyway, that's all irrelevant now. I'm not here to de-rail Indoctrinated's topic.

Modifié par CTM1, 10 avril 2010 - 08:31 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Meh, the post I made only had two spoilers. Most of it was detailing the level format like the way I describe ME 1 v ME 2 in its level design. also in order to put in a non derailment thingy to keep thread on track...

EDIT:  Also i know that post wasn't targeted at me, but I was replying to you refering to me in that post.

Adakutay wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...
ME2 is simply lacking many of the RPG elements that made the first Mass Effect so rich. For example, in the first game many of the main plot missions have their own full sub-plots which make them interesting. You're on the mission to help your Saren investigation, but you get caught up in something bigger along the way, and the characters you meet become involved. Feros has you storming in, helping some colonists fight of a Geth attack. Then you explore the colony for a bit and chat up the colonists. Then you continue on your mission, fighting through the Geth, meet the Exogeni employees, chat them up for a bit, and learn some more about what's going on. Eventually you find out about the Thorian, mind control, etc. Feros is like the perfect model of what the format of a main plot world should be.

I must disagree with you at this point. I always hated that thing: You go somewhere for a very simple mission but then it turns out whole city was overrun by zombies. Then you defeat the evil necromancer who had been threated poorly during his chieldhood(he explains it during the boss fight) and decided to wreak havoc on his city. This is not "rpg" just old fashion AD&D(before anyone charges at me, I love AD&D and hated the 3rd edition) and really bores me.

Dragon Age is a good example what I hate about classic rpg concept: Find Arl Aemon: "Dammmm it! Demons, undeads, blood magic!", Fing the Dalish: "Oh holy cr.. werewolfes, demons, blood magic!", Find the dwarfs: "Why, is this quest connected to the main plot... interesting...", Go to the mage tower: "Holy f***ing s**t: Demons, destruction, blood magic... again!". Reminds me Jonah...

Quests which belong to the main plot shouldn't be disorienting. It maybe working well on paper&pen rpgs but not on video games if you ask me.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 10 avril 2010 - 08:36 .

[kraidy1117]

CTM1 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

If Shepards get replaced by anyone it is no longer Shepards story, thats the end of it

That is true. Now prove it. Don't use Bioware's comments, or what the game box says, or easily missed character interaction to support your argument. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

I have already stated it so many times, it seems only ypou and Smudboy can't grasp it

We can grasp it just fine. Better yet, we understand it just fine. What we don't understand is why Mass Effect 2's narrative does little to support that.

We understand in theory that it is Shepard's story, because that is what we're asked to accept. When the game shows us otherwise, however, we call shenanigans. We're not saying Shepard is inherently unimportant to the storyline; we're saying Bioware did a poor job selling his importance in Mass Effect 2 (smudboy even says as much in one of his posts). That is your failing; what you cannot grasp. Either that, or you don't want to admit it, and find it easier just to dismiss us as "morons" because you'd rather have it that we simply don't understand where you're coming from. (Hint: We do. We disagree.)

Whenever smudboy, Indoctrinated, or myself have argued that Shepard and the rest of the characters (save a few) are easily replaceable, you've either ignored the fine points, appealed to popularity on issues that can't be proven objectively, made blanket, unsupported statements, argued suddenly on tangential issues, contradicted yourself, etc. Oh, and you resorted to attacking your opponent when you decided you had nothing else to contribute.

Anyone who has had the patience to follow this topic since you joined in would probably tell you the same thing. I'd provide a list, but I'd rather not waste the effort. You'd probably ignore it anyway. Hell, you're probably going to already ignore half of what this post says, assuming you respond to it at all. I've seen you do it time and time again in other threads.

and whats funny is it's the people who are friends with Smudboy, go figure

Irrelevant, but friends tend to agree on things. Go figure.

and why did i bring DAO in here? Because the point I am making is because in DAO only three characters are importent to the plot, yet the OP is defending it and then poking at ME2. You can't do that. That is just bias.

That wasn't directly solely at you, but at others (mostly Onyx Jaguar, who has since deleted what he wrote). However, your explanation for your contribution is not acceptable. You could have avoided discussing Dragon Age altogether by ignoring what Indoctrinated said (which was a passing comment) and focused on the rest of what he said (which had to do with the topic, and which you completely ignored, as is typical behavior for you). Your post back on page 7 actually kicked off this whole tangent to begin with. Indoctrinated's comment on Dragon Age wasn't meant to be challenged so that you could start a brand new debate discussing details that are spoilers. You want to contest that issue, take it to PMs. It's not only tangential, but disrespectful of this forum's rules.

Here's a hint, kraidy1117. Don't respond to the last thing this post says, or what the first thing this post says. Respond to all of it. People will appreciate you more for it.

For point one, how can you prove otherwise? The only other human that could have done what Shepard has done would be Miranda.Shepard was not only the first human-spector, but he is implated with the images from the becon, the cypher (spelling) it's possiable that he survived a huge attack from Maws, gaing him resepct, holding back slavers and pirates by him self during the Blitz or that he is ruthless and does anything to get the job done.It's one of these origins that gets him noticed and not to mention all the other stuff.

For your second point, why should they? It was given alot of support why Shepard is  needed and the point that Reapers want him shows that he is not just a human to them, he is more.  Also Shepard and depending who was in your squad was the only person to ever converse with Narraza excluding Saren and the Collector Genral (tho he is an empty husk) This can support why he is needed. Do you realy think anyone else expect for Shepard could have stopped the Collectors? We are given next to ntohing to support that, all we are given is that Shepard  is an icon and has conversed with a Reaper, a big plus on why he is importent.

Shepard was needed for the ME2 plot, removing him would have done more harm then anything, so thus Miranda is very importent and as we know she is the only one that has the skills to do it. Cerberus is very importent to the main story and to realy understand Cerberus, you need to talk to Jack. By removing her you are getting rid of alot of info on Cerberus. Garrus and Tali I will admit where added for the fanase. Thane and Samara are not connected to the plot because they are optional, hell you don't even need Thane, but if you lose Jack, then you need Samara The only character, regradless of Shepard in or out is Mordin. Without him we would never have even saved the colony. Throughout the whole game he helps you and only because useless at the base. Some characters are useless, but that is in everyother gameBioware has made. Look at Jade Empire, Sky and the Blackwhirlwind are usless, Sky is only needed at that pirate level but after that he is no longer useful for progresion to the plot and Black Whrilwind has nothing to do with the plot at all. Same as in ME, one Tali gives the evidence she is no longer realy needed, only Ashley, Kaidan and Liara play a huge part in the story for the rest of the game, Tali only has a moment.

Also I told him if he wanted to do this we can take it to the pms, he said no. The whole DAO was importent because he was poking at the characters in ME2 yet said the characters where importent in DAO, which they werent and I will not spoil it for you, all I said was that it's only three people, at this time Indoctrinated could have pm me and had the debate where no one would spoil but he kept on going and brought in two characters. this all would have not happen if he said lets get back on topic or he pm me, he did not, he continued, yet I am getting flack for it? All I said was that Miri, Jack and Mordin want to talk to you. I can see why people won't consider Jack importent but Miri and Mordin are, hell they are pretty much the Bastila and Carth, Zu and Silk Fox and Alistair and Morrigan of ME2. As the plot stands now, Shepard is very importent, and you can't realy say i how do you know he is, I can throw that back and say how do you know he is't?

As it stand, the trilogy is about Shepard because there is nothing to prove that anyone could have done what he did. So with that Miri is very importent in ME2 and while some characters where not importent to the main story, sevral characters are very importent to side stories. The geth/Quarian war and the Genophage are the biggest examples for this. If these conclude in ME3 and play a huge part in the Reaper war then ME2 is the true second part, but if thing like that or if Bioware decides to kill Shepard again then I will be very disapointed in Bioware and I would not buy ME3. Until ME3 comes out we can't say ME2 is useless, I remember with the Empire strikes back, when it first came out there was alot of complaints, people said plotholes, said it did nothing, yet when RotJ came out that stopped and TEB became very popular, so I am just saying we can't do anything till ME3 is out.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 10 avril 2010 - 09:10 .

[Nick Fox]

Started up Da:O again a few days ago (wich i havent played since early dec) and thought to myself. This is how ME was supposed to be like just in another world of setting.  DA is so full of life compared to ME 2 imho and you have much more way of defining your own character apart from others. More of everything for your customization. Oh and the stats is what makes your character progress along with the story in an rpg, and DA has that ME 2 dont. To a degree but its not even close to beeing a rpg in that department. failing in both these areas and succeding in combat means its not an rpg, quite simple in mind.

Shepard is looking more like a comic book kind of super hero rather than an engaging alter ego to me in this game. He/she was more alive in the first game due to the story and how bw chose to make your Shep be like the new guy at the school. Now Shep acts more like your typical super/action hero a´la Hollywood style.
Everything still feels so much more important and bigger in the first game compared to ME 2. I dont know, I used to kind of like this....not anymore. Dont hate it, more dont care for it.
I do however want the last istallment of this serie to be an rpg and not your standard action game with all cliches (sp). I can live with some but this is like a standard action movie that dont even hit the theaters, just stright to dvd.

[preacher0057]

OP does bring up some good points, I'm 60 years young and have played both ME 1 & 2 liked one better but getting used to ME 2. I hate haveing to scan planets, but you do what you have to do. The biggest thing for me is I want my armor from ME 1.
  Bring on the DLC's free or pay I want more.
Thanks Bioware, don't make me wait till I'm 65 for ME3.

God is great, Beer is good, People
are crazy

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Absolutely 100% agree with this guy.



Bioware, unless youre too busy patting yourself on the back for making the best "Bioware title ever" (.......), listen to this guy and make adjustments for ME3.



ME2 did some things right, but it wasnt an "all round improvement" over ME1. It got some things terribly wrong that ME1 utterly excelled at (things I had until now expected Bioware to always give precedence too).



Topics like this sum up why ME2 was such a bitter disappointment to me. If you truly do "pay attention to the fans", hopefully its feelings like this that will be taken into consideration for ME3, not "MOAR SHOOTA!!!!!!!"

[RyuGuitarFreak]

CTM1 wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...



If Shepards get replaced by anyone it is no longer Shepards story, thats the end of it

That is true. Now prove it. Don't use Bioware's comments, or what the game box says, or easily missed character interaction to support your argument. I'm curious to see what you come up with.



I have already stated it so many times, it seems only ypou and Smudboy can't grasp it







We can grasp it just fine. Better yet, we understand it just fine. What we don't understand is why Mass Effect 2's narrative does little to support that.



We understand in theory that it is Shepard's story, because that is what we're asked to accept. When the game shows us otherwise, however, we call shenanigans. We're not saying Shepard is inherently unimportant to the storyline; we're saying Bioware did a poor job selling his importance in Mass Effect 2 (smudboy even says as much in one of his posts). That is your failing; what you cannot grasp. Either that, or you don't want to admit it, and find it easier just to dismiss us as "morons" because you'd rather have it that we simply don't understand where you're coming from. (Hint: We do. We disagree.)



Whenever smudboy, Indoctrinated, or myself have argued that Shepard and the rest of the characters (save a few) are easily replaceable, you've either ignored the fine points, appealed to popularity on issues that can't be proven objectively, made blanket, unsupported statements, argued suddenly on tangential issues, contradicted yourself, etc. Oh, and you resorted to attacking your opponent when you decided you had nothing else to contribute.



Anyone who has had the patience to follow this topic since you joined in would probably tell you the same thing. I'd provide a list, but I'd rather not waste the effort. You'd probably ignore it anyway. Hell, you're probably going to already ignore half of what this post says, assuming you respond to it at all. I've seen you do it time and time again in other threads.



and whats funny is it's the people who are friends with Smudboy, go figure







Irrelevant, but friends tend to agree on things. Go figure.



and why did i bring DAO in here? Because the point I am making is because in DAO only three characters are importent to the plot, yet the OP is defending it and then poking at ME2. You can't do that. That is just bias.







That wasn't directly solely at you, but at others (mostly Onyx Jaguar, who has since deleted what he wrote). However, your explanation for your contribution is not acceptable. You could have avoided discussing Dragon Age altogether by ignoring what Indoctrinated said (which was a passing comment) and focused on the rest of what he said (which had to do with the topic, and which you completely ignored, as is typical behavior for you). Your post back on page 7 actually kicked off this whole tangent to begin with. Indoctrinated's comment on Dragon Age wasn't meant to be challenged so that you could start a brand new debate discussing details that are spoilers. You want to contest that issue, take it to PMs. It's not only tangential, but disrespectful of this forum's rules.



Here's a hint, kraidy1117. Don't respond to the last thing this post says, or what the first thing this post says. Respond to all of it. People will appreciate you more for it.

I'm back to this pointless discussion. I should be playing more ME2 than doing this, but whatever.



Questioning Shepard himself is already stupid because the character may vary a lot depending on the player, that was what kraidy said, although I and him made valid points why he was important for the suicide mission, but you and your "friend" seem to ignore it



You and your "friend" like to question something that should be simple, i.e. Shepard's importance on ME2 doesn't it? Do you know why Shepard is important on ME2? Because of ME1! That is why TIM brought him back! Because he is a N7 marine, first human Specter who defeated Saren. If there is someone who could stop the reapers it was Shepard. TIM BROUGHT SHEPARD BACK SO HE COULD FIGHT THE REAPERS WITH CERBERUS, HE WASN'T SURE THE COLLECTORS WORKED FOR THE REAPERS BACK THEN OR THEY WERE ABDUCTING THE COLONIES.



Now think about ME2. The Collectors own Shepard in a pre-emptive strike "surprise buttsecks" style of attack. Think about why they did this. Collectors took him so Shepard didn't go after them if they started abducting colonies. I think this is very much implied, also, they went after his body. There isn't much information on the Collectors because of the Omega 4 relay. Facts: they took the Normandy down easily, they abduct entire colonies and have very advance technology that could be associated with the reapers. For that Shepard should have a small army and the suicide mission has started with Shepard starting to get his crew and TIM more information on the Collectors.



Shepard himself maybe couldn't succeed either, since the Collectors took down Shepard once, THIS IS ON THE GAME, YOU CAN FAIL, but at the same time he was HUMANITY'S best chance of survival through the Collectors threat since he already stopped the reapers once. He is a natural leader and if the reapers know fear, no one other than Shepard should be better for this mission.



Now, you have two endings on your game. You die, you survive to fight the last fight with the reapers in ME3. That is completely dependent on your decisions through the game.

[bjdbwea]

Nick Fox wrote...

Shepard is looking more like a comic book kind of super hero rather than an engaging alter ego to me in this game. He/she was more alive in the first game due to the story and how bw chose to make your Shep be like the new guy at the school. Now Shep acts more like your typical super/action hero a´la Hollywood style.
Everything still feels so much more important and bigger in the first game compared to ME 2. I dont know, I used to kind of like this....not anymore. Dont hate it, more dont care for it.
I do however want the last istallment of this serie to be an rpg and not your standard action game with all cliches (sp). I can live with some but this is like a standard action movie that dont even hit the theaters, just stright to dvd.

Well said.

[smudboy]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Questioning Shepard himself is already stupid because the character may vary a lot depending on the player, that was what kraidy said, although I and him made valid points why he was important for the suicide mission, but you and your "friend" seem to ignore it

Please tell me how Shepard is important for the suicide mission.  Shepard only varies in his attitude based on the P/R system.  His background and psych profile mean nothing in this game.

You and your "friend" like to question something that should be simple, i.e. Shepard's importance on ME2 doesn't it? Do you know why Shepard is important on ME2? Because of ME1! That is why TIM brought him back! Because he is a N7 marine, first human Specter who defeated Saren. If there is someone who could stop the reapers it was Shepard. TIM BROUGHT SHEPARD BACK SO HE COULD FIGHT THE REAPERS WITH CERBERUS, HE WASN'T SURE THE COLLECTORS WORKED FOR THE REAPERS BACK THEN OR THEY WERE ABDUCTING THE COLONIES.

ME1 does not make Shepard important to ME2's plot.  ME2's plot is the only thing that can make Shepard important to itself.

TIM may have a dozen or so reasons to bring Shepard back.  It doesn't matter if those reasons aren't exhibited.  Existing in a story is one thing, being relevant and integral to it is another.  So what if Cerberus spent time bringing Shepard back?  I've already shown that Shepard isn't needed in ME2's plot: anyone could've done what Shepard did.

For example, if Shepard was a telepath, and the story progresses by him figuring out the motives of other characters, then Shepard would be integral to the plot.  (Much the same way Mordin's countermeasure was a plot device to explore Horizon.  Mordin is essential, even if his use gets reduced to a plot device (look at ME1's Tali.))  Now let's say TIM brings telepathic Shepard back, but Shepard doesn't use his telepathy to advance the plot?  This is what's referred to as Chekhov's Gun, which is exactly what happened to Shepard in ME2.

Now think about ME2. The Collectors own Shepard in a pre-emptive strike "surprise buttsecks" style of attack. Think about why they did this. Collectors took him so Shepard didn't go after them if they started abducting colonies. I think this is very much implied, also, they went after his body. There isn't much information on the Collectors because of the Omega 4 relay. Facts: they took the Normandy down easily, they abduct entire colonies and have very advance technology that could be associated with the reapers. For that Shepard should have a small army and the suicide mission has started with Shepard starting to get his crew and TIM more information on the Collectors.

If we knew why the Collector's wanted Shepard, then that would've gone to help explaining their motives.  This however has no impact on the plot, or why Shepard is integral to it.  The rest of your post is meaningless.

Shepard himself maybe couldn't succeed either, since the Collectors took down Shepard once, THIS IS ON THE GAME, YOU CAN FAIL, but at the same time he was HUMANITY'S best chance of survival through the Collectors threat since he already stopped the reapers once. He is a natural leader and if the reapers know fear, no one other than Shepard should be better for this mission.

Prove to me in ME2 how Shepard was humanity's best chance of survival, (while keeping in mind Cerberus waited 2 years trying to rebuild Shepard, and the Alliance and the Council did nothing.)

Now, you have two endings on your game. You die, you survive to fight the last fight with the reapers in ME3. That is completely dependent on your decisions through the game.

Irrelevant to Shepard being integral to ME2's plot.  Again, anyone could've done this.  Considering it took 2 years and credits it took to bring Shepard back, this could've been accomplished sooner.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Questioning Shepard himself is already stupid because the character may vary a lot depending on the player, that was what kraidy said, although I and him made valid points why he was important for the suicide mission, but you and your "friend" seem to ignore it

Please tell me how Shepard is important for the suicide mission. Shepard only varies in his attitude based on the P/R system. His background and psych profile mean nothing in this game.

You and your "friend" like to question something that should be simple, i.e. Shepard's importance on ME2 doesn't it? Do you know why Shepard is important on ME2? Because of ME1! That is why TIM brought him back! Because he is a N7 marine, first human Specter who defeated Saren. If there is someone who could stop the reapers it was Shepard. TIM BROUGHT SHEPARD BACK SO HE COULD FIGHT THE REAPERS WITH CERBERUS, HE WASN'T SURE THE COLLECTORS WORKED FOR THE REAPERS BACK THEN OR THEY WERE ABDUCTING THE COLONIES.

ME1 does not make Shepard important to ME2's plot. ME2's plot is the only thing that can make Shepard important to itself.



TIM may have a dozen or so reasons to bring Shepard back. It doesn't matter if those reasons aren't exhibited. Existing in a story is one thing, being relevant and integral to it is another. So what if Cerberus spent time bringing Shepard back? I've already shown that Shepard isn't needed in ME2's plot: anyone could've done what Shepard did.



For example, if Shepard was a telepath, and the story progresses by him figuring out the motives of other characters, then Shepard would be integral to the plot. (Much the same way Mordin's countermeasure was a plot device to explore Horizon. Mordin is essential, even if his use gets reduced to a plot device (look at ME1's Tali.)) Now let's say TIM brings telepathic Shepard back, but Shepard doesn't use his telepathy to advance the plot? This is what's referred to as Chekhov's Gun, which is exactly what happened to Shepard in ME2.

Now think about ME2. The Collectors own Shepard in a pre-emptive strike "surprise buttsecks" style of attack. Think about why they did this. Collectors took him so Shepard didn't go after them if they started abducting colonies. I think this is very much implied, also, they went after his body. There isn't much information on the Collectors because of the Omega 4 relay. Facts: they took the Normandy down easily, they abduct entire colonies and have very advance technology that could be associated with the reapers. For that Shepard should have a small army and the suicide mission has started with Shepard starting to get his crew and TIM more information on the Collectors.

If we knew why the Collector's wanted Shepard, then that would've gone to help explaining their motives. This however has no impact on the plot, or why Shepard is integral to it. The rest of your post is meaningless.

Shepard himself maybe couldn't succeed either, since the Collectors took down Shepard once, THIS IS ON THE GAME, YOU CAN FAIL, but at the same time he was HUMANITY'S best chance of survival through the Collectors threat since he already stopped the reapers once. He is a natural leader and if the reapers know fear, no one other than Shepard should be better for this mission.

Prove to me in ME2 how Shepard was humanity's best chance of survival, (while keeping in mind Cerberus waited 2 years trying to rebuild Shepard, and the Alliance and the Council did nothing.)

Now, you have two endings on your game. You die, you survive to fight the last fight with the reapers in ME3. That is completely dependent on your decisions through the game.

Irrelevant to Shepard being integral to ME2's plot. Again, anyone could've done this. Considering it took 2 years and credits it took to bring Shepard back, this could've been accomplished sooner.

I'll copy and paste somethings. I believe it's not necessary to explain and write everything back. And I don't know how to divide the quotes like this. {smilie} You're in simple denial. You can argue as much as you want for your point. Maybe the reasons showed in the game are not enough for you, but you can't say there are no reasons at all.



"Please tell me how Shepard is important for the suicide mission. Shepard only varies in his attitude based on the P/R system. His background and psych profile mean nothing in this game."



No, they in fact don't. I was just showing that he wasn't nominated for a candidate for Specter for no reason. He was not an ordinary Alliance marine. His actions through ME1 make Shepard important for the Suicide mission.



"TIM may have a dozen or so reasons to bring Shepard back. It doesn't matter if those reasons aren't exhibited. Existing in a story is one thing, being relevant and integral to it is another. So what if Cerberus spent time bringing Shepard back? I've already shown that Shepard isn't needed in ME2's plot: anyone could've done what Shepard did."



Those reasons were showed in ME1 LOL. What the hell have you been playing?



He is a N7 marine, first human Specter who defeated Saren. If there is someone who could stop the reapers it was Shepard. TIM BROUGHT SHEPARD BACK SO HE COULD FIGHT THE REAPERS WITH CERBERUS. He was HUMANITY'S best chance of survival through the Collectors threat since he already stopped the reapers once. He is a natural leader and if the reapers know fear, no one other than Shepard should be better for this mission as the Alliance wasn't moving and Cerberus wanted him to keep searching for the reapers and stopping them. You are SUPPOSING anyone could what Shepard did on ME2. I won't even answer properly to that. Shepard had the highest recommendations ans reasons for being the leader of a group against ANYTHING regarding the reapers i.e. Collectors and Harbinger, a reaper.



"If we knew why the Collector's wanted Shepard, then that would've gone to help explaining their motives. This however has no impact on the plot, or why Shepard is integral to it. The rest of your post is meaningless."



I was just showing that even the Collectors find some big importance on Shepard. How the charater is relevant to ME2's plot.



"Prove to me in ME2 how Shepard was humanity's best chance of survival, (while keeping in mind Cerberus waited 2 years trying to rebuild Shepard, and the Alliance and the Council did nothing.)"



Play Mass Effect 1 and watch the first cutscene of ME2 for why CERBERUS found Shepard so important and tried to bring him back. Again, you're denying the events of the first game. He was a Specter, THE FIRST HUMAN SPECTER let me say it again, the hero of the Citadel. Who the hell are you gonna call when entire colonies of humans are being kidnapped? The turian councilor? Shepard himself questioned all the effort of Cerberus for trying to bring him back. He was caught off guard by the Collectors, but that doesn't mean HE STILL ISN'T the best person to look for the reapers. AGAIN, he was the best HUMANITY (CERBERUS) had to stop the reapers.



"Irrelevant to Shepard being integral to ME2's plot. Again, anyone could've done this. Considering it took 2 years and credits it took to bring Shepard back, this could've been accomplished sooner."



Yeah, anyone could've done what Shepard did, oh yeah, that's why he's main character of Mass Effect and he's called Nihlus. He's the hero of the Citadel for no reason, he stopped the Collectors and the construction of a new reaper because when the Citadel didn't want to do **** about it he stopped. You are missing the entire point of who Shepard is and why Cerberus wanted to bring him back. You are SUPPOSING things for trying make a point where you have nothing to back up your theories. There isn't a story when another marine or Specter do what Shepard CAN DO, and that are your choices through the game. You INTERACT with NPCs and the story presented to you. Don't say anyone could be Shepard because that's not the point of the game. You had an impact on the galaxy on the first game and even before the beginning of it btw. The sequel just continues that story, the story of Commander Shepard.

[smudboy]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
 I'll copy and paste somethings. I believe it's not necessary to explain and write everything back. And I don't know how to divide the quotes like this. {smilie} You're in simple denial. You can argue as much as you want for your point. Maybe the reasons showed in the game are not enough for you, but you can't say there are no reasons at all.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm simply asking questions.

There are reasons as to why TIM, Miranda and the Collectors think Shepard is important.  But TIM, Miranda and the Collectors are not the plot.

"Please tell me how Shepard is important for the suicide mission. Shepard only varies in his attitude based on the P/R system. His background and psych profile mean nothing in this game."

No, they in fact don't. I was just showing that he wasn't nominated for a candidate for Specter for no reason. He was not an ordinary Alliance marine. His actions through ME1 make Shepard important for the Suicide mission.

I am not interested in the events of ME1, only ME2.

Having a highly skilled individual to conduct a difficult operation geared toward their experience is indeed a good reason to have such a person.  In no way is that reflected in the plot.  Again, you're confusing the interests and reasons why Cerberus wanted Shepard, not why the plot required Shepard.  Existence does not equate to necessity.  Which is what I'm asking.

"TIM may have a dozen or so reasons to bring Shepard back. It doesn't matter if those reasons aren't exhibited. Existing in a story is one thing, being relevant and integral to it is another. So what if Cerberus spent time bringing Shepard back? I've already shown that Shepard isn't needed in ME2's plot: anyone could've done what Shepard did."

Those reasons were showed in ME1 LOL. What the hell have you been playing?

Did you even read what I wrote?  I wrote x, y, and z people may have reasons r1, r2, and r3 reasons to bring Shepard back.  Those reasons could be plentiful, hidden, or few.  But that is not what I'm asking.  I'm asking why Shepard is needed in the plot of ME2, because I see no behavior or thoughts by Shepard that can't be reproduced by anyone else.  You are failing to understand this.

I understand that Tim, Miranda, the Collectors, etc. all have interest and see Shepard as being valuable.  This is not the argument.  The argument is what Shepard does within the plot of ME2 that has any necessity to it: for example, in order to survive you need a heart.  A protagonist of a story is essential to the telling of that story, the driving force if you will.  We can remove peripheral organs from the body, like an arm or leg, and the body can still exist, but not the heart.

In ME2, Shepard is a character model that pushes the game along by virtue of being the player character.  He has the characterization of a brick, and whose only motivation could be "because he was attacked by Collectors."  However, motivation is not applicable to the happenstances of the events in the plot.

He is a N7 marine, first human Specter who defeated Saren. If there is someone who could stop the reapers it was Shepard. TIM BROUGHT SHEPARD BACK SO HE COULD FIGHT THE REAPERS WITH CERBERUS. He was HUMANITY'S best chance of survival through the Collectors threat since he already stopped the reapers once. He is a natural leader and if the reapers know fear, no one other than Shepard should be better for this mission as the Alliance wasn't moving and Cerberus wanted him to keep searching for the reapers and stopping them. You are SUPPOSING anyone could what Shepard did on ME2. I won't even answer properly to that. Shepard had the highest recommendations ans reasons for being the leader of a group against ANYTHING regarding the reapers i.e. Collectors and Harbinger, a reaper.

Which are all qualities that make Shepard a skilled and experienced fellow.  But not integral to the plot, not a "heart".

For example, Tali was necessary in ME1's plot because she provided evidence on Saren, allowing the plot to continue.  Mordin was necessary for the same reason in ME2, allowing for the team to travel to Horizon.  Do you see how that works?

Shepard in ME1 had the Prothean visions of impending doom.  Along with the Cipher and assistance from Liara, they were able to locate the Conduit, which allowed them to travel to Ilos.  This makes Shepard, Liara and Tali integral to the plot of ME1.

Shepard in ME2 could've been anyone.  I've yet to see how Shepard is relevant to the plot of ME2.  You listing qualities is like describing how effective/powerful/range/rate of fire/etc. Chekhov's Gun is.  If Chekhov's Gun is not fired, it's useless, and there's nothing integral, special, about it.  Shepard is not the "heart" for the body (plot.)

"If we knew why the Collector's wanted Shepard, then that would've gone to help explaining their motives. This however has no impact on the plot, or why Shepard is integral to it. The rest of your post is meaningless."

I was just showing that even the Collectors find some big importance on Shepard. How the charater is relevant to ME2's plot.

TIM, Miranda, the Collectors, all have value in Shepard.  The ME2 plot is "The Collectors are taking human colonies for some reason, and we have to stop/fight them."  The interest the Collectors have in Shepard may be one of their mysterious motives, but it does not explain ME2's plot, or make Shepard integral to ME2's plot.  It may make Shepard integral to their plot, that is, to capture Shepard, but not to the plot of ME2.

Do you see?  Because we cannot identify what makes Shepard so important in the plot of ME2, by his actions or why Collectors are taking human colonies, the character is completely replaceable.

"Prove to me in ME2 how Shepard was humanity's best chance of survival, (while keeping in mind Cerberus waited 2 years trying to rebuild Shepard, and the Alliance and the Council did nothing.)"

Play Mass Effect 1 and watch the first cutscene of ME2 for why CERBERUS found Shepard so important and tried to bring him back. Again, you're denying the events of the first game. He was a Specter, THE FIRST HUMAN SPECTER let me say it again, the hero of the Citadel. Who the hell are you gonna call when entire colonies of humans are being kidnapped? The turian councilor? Shepard himself questioned all the effort of Cerberus for trying to bring him back. He was caught off guard by the Collectors, but that doesn't mean HE STILL ISN'T the best person to look for the reapers. AGAIN, he was the best HUMANITY (CERBERUS) had to stop the reapers.

Again, just because Cerberus likes Shepard for reasons r1, r2, r3, doesn't mean Shepard's integral to the plot of ME2.

"Irrelevant to Shepard being integral to ME2's plot. Again, anyone could've done this. Considering it took 2 years and credits it took to bring Shepard back, this could've been accomplished sooner."

Yeah, anyone could've done what Shepard did, oh yeah, that's why he's main character of Mass Effect and he's called Nihlus. He's the hero of the Citadel for no reason, he stopped the Collectors and the construction of a new reaper because when the Citadel didn't want to do **** about it he stopped. You are missing the entire point of who Shepard is and why Cerberus wanted to bring him back. You are SUPPOSING things for trying make a point where you have nothing to back up your theories. There isn't a story when another marine or Specter do what Shepard CAN DO, and that are your choices through the game. You INTERACT with NPCs and the story presented to you. Don't say anyone could be Shepard because that's not the point of the game. You had an impact on the galaxy on the first game and even before the beginning of it btw. The sequel just continues that story, the story of Commander Shepard.

In ME2, I don't see how anyone couldn't have done what Shepard did, especially considering the group who's behind solving the problem of the Collectors is Cerberus.  Miranda is more than capable.

I am not supposing things for trying to make a point.  These are not theories.  This is pure evidence.  I haven't found any instance, in the actions of Shepard, in their characterization, or in how "Collectors are taking human colonies", whereupon their involvement of the plot is integral.  None.  There simply isn't.

The point of the game is to "Stop/Fight the Collectors."  That's the plot.  That's the whole reason the story is being told.

All you have to do, is give me one example where Shepard is integral to the plot of ME2.  That's all.  Something they do, something they think, that puts the plot in motion, that gives us the next scene or series of events, that could not be done by anyone else.  (For example, Mordin is integral to the plot of ME2, because without his countermeasure, the party could not get to Horizon.)

If you cannot prove this, then you must concede you do not understand what I'm writing, or you simply cannot answer the question.

[Dudeman315]

I think the main point that people are trying to make is take ME2 as an independent story since it can be played as one. Look at how non-relevant characters were to ME2 without bringing up ME1, interviews or ME3. Only then can you justify someone's importance to ME2's story, not to the trilogy or ME1 or the outside ME universe.

[harazal]

i literally could not disagree with the OP, or many of the stat nerds in this thread more. Everything you wanted was in the game. A real RPG fan hunts for the back ground material that in small pieces builds the world around you. The OP, like many on this board, seem to want the RPG elements handed to them on a big shining plate screaming 'look at me, i'm an rpg hook!!!!!!!!'.

i wont go into a long tear down of the orginal post, but i will focus on just one topic, and thats the idea that the story hooks didnt carry over. Were you playing the same game?..... try talking to rodam to see how he feels. what about the two asari that need the forged id? what about the fact there is an asari politican running an anti human campaign to get elected. look at the make of c-sec now.

these are all small details that build the blocks of a world, and thats just some of them, regarding one topic, the death of the council. but the op apparantly needs a giant cutscene telling him the consequences of his actions. when you make a decision, short of murdering someone, you rarely get live throwing your actions in your face in giant technicolour. the decisions you make colour your like in a thousand small ways, if you have the eyes and the wit to see it

most of the guys ripping this game are the very stereotypical nerds that EA and Bioware WANTED to drop. Theres actually no pleasing you. I remember all the ****ing that was done about ME1, for i was active on the forums at the time. Have a look at most of the complaints that were made about ME1 in the opening months. Nearly all of the things that are being ****ing about now, regarding ME2, were requested by this community of whingers!!!!!!

ME1 and ME2 are two of the best games i have ever played. I have played and completed both of those games multiple times, they tell a story. The only gameplay element that counts in an RPG, are choices, and every choice in that game had an impact. If you can't see the wood for the trees, the problem doesn't lie with bioware, but with you.

Modifié par harazal, 10 avril 2010 - 06:26 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
 I'll copy and paste somethings. I believe it's not necessary to explain and write everything back. And I don't know how to divide the quotes like this. {smilie} You're in simple denial. You can argue as much as you want for your point. Maybe the reasons showed in the game are not enough for you, but you can't say there are no reasons at all.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm simply asking questions.

There are reasons as to why TIM, Miranda and the Collectors think Shepard is important.  But TIM, Miranda and the Collectors are not the plot.

"Please tell me how Shepard is important for the suicide mission. Shepard only varies in his attitude based on the P/R system. His background and psych profile mean nothing in this game."

No, they in fact don't. I was just showing that he wasn't nominated for a candidate for Specter for no reason. He was not an ordinary Alliance marine. His actions through ME1 make Shepard important for the Suicide mission.

I am not interested in the events of ME1, only ME2.

Having a highly skilled individual to conduct a difficult operation geared toward their experience is indeed a good reason to have such a person.  In no way is that reflected in the plot.  Again, you're confusing the interests and reasons why Cerberus wanted Shepard, not why the plot required Shepard.  Existence does not equate to necessity.  Which is what I'm asking.

"TIM may have a dozen or so reasons to bring Shepard back. It doesn't matter if those reasons aren't exhibited. Existing in a story is one thing, being relevant and integral to it is another. So what if Cerberus spent time bringing Shepard back? I've already shown that Shepard isn't needed in ME2's plot: anyone could've done what Shepard did."

Those reasons were showed in ME1 LOL. What the hell have you been playing?

Did you even read what I wrote?  I wrote x, y, and z people may have reasons r1, r2, and r3 reasons to bring Shepard back.  Those reasons could be plentiful, hidden, or few.  But that is not what I'm asking.  I'm asking why Shepard is needed in the plot of ME2, because I see no behavior or thoughts by Shepard that can't be reproduced by anyone else.  You are failing to understand this.

I understand that Tim, Miranda, the Collectors, etc. all have interest and see Shepard as being valuable.  This is not the argument.  The argument is what Shepard does within the plot of ME2 that has any necessity to it: for example, in order to survive you need a heart.  A protagonist of a story is essential to the telling of that story, the driving force if you will.  We can remove peripheral organs from the body, like an arm or leg, and the body can still exist, but not the heart.

In ME2, Shepard is a character model that pushes the game along by virtue of being the player character.  He has the characterization of a brick, and whose only motivation could be "because he was attacked by Collectors."  However, motivation is not applicable to the happenstances of the events in the plot.

He is a N7 marine, first human Specter who defeated Saren. If there is someone who could stop the reapers it was Shepard. TIM BROUGHT SHEPARD BACK SO HE COULD FIGHT THE REAPERS WITH CERBERUS. He was HUMANITY'S best chance of survival through the Collectors threat since he already stopped the reapers once. He is a natural leader and if the reapers know fear, no one other than Shepard should be better for this mission as the Alliance wasn't moving and Cerberus wanted him to keep searching for the reapers and stopping them. You are SUPPOSING anyone could what Shepard did on ME2. I won't even answer properly to that. Shepard had the highest recommendations ans reasons for being the leader of a group against ANYTHING regarding the reapers i.e. Collectors and Harbinger, a reaper.

Which are all qualities that make Shepard a skilled and experienced fellow.  But not integral to the plot, not a "heart".

For example, Tali was necessary in ME1's plot because she provided evidence on Saren, allowing the plot to continue.  Mordin was necessary for the same reason in ME2, allowing for the team to travel to Horizon.  Do you see how that works?

Shepard in ME1 had the Prothean visions of impending doom.  Along with the Cipher and assistance from Liara, they were able to locate the Conduit, which allowed them to travel to Ilos.  This makes Shepard, Liara and Tali integral to the plot of ME1.

Shepard in ME2 could've been anyone.  I've yet to see how Shepard is relevant to the plot of ME2.  You listing qualities is like describing how effective/powerful/range/rate of fire/etc. Chekhov's Gun is.  If Chekhov's Gun is not fired, it's useless, and there's nothing integral, special, about it.  Shepard is not the "heart" for the body (plot.)

"If we knew why the Collector's wanted Shepard, then that would've gone to help explaining their motives. This however has no impact on the plot, or why Shepard is integral to it. The rest of your post is meaningless."

I was just showing that even the Collectors find some big importance on Shepard. How the charater is relevant to ME2's plot.

TIM, Miranda, the Collectors, all have value in Shepard.  The ME2 plot is "The Collectors are taking human colonies for some reason, and we have to stop/fight them."  The interest the Collectors have in Shepard may be one of their mysterious motives, but it does not explain ME2's plot, or make Shepard integral to ME2's plot.  It may make Shepard integral to their plot, that is, to capture Shepard, but not to the plot of ME2.

Do you see?  Because we cannot identify what makes Shepard so important in the plot of ME2, by his actions or why Collectors are taking human colonies, the character is completely replaceable.

"Prove to me in ME2 how Shepard was humanity's best chance of survival, (while keeping in mind Cerberus waited 2 years trying to rebuild Shepard, and the Alliance and the Council did nothing.)"

Play Mass Effect 1 and watch the first cutscene of ME2 for why CERBERUS found Shepard so important and tried to bring him back. Again, you're denying the events of the first game. He was a Specter, THE FIRST HUMAN SPECTER let me say it again, the hero of the Citadel. Who the hell are you gonna call when entire colonies of humans are being kidnapped? The turian councilor? Shepard himself questioned all the effort of Cerberus for trying to bring him back. He was caught off guard by the Collectors, but that doesn't mean HE STILL ISN'T the best person to look for the reapers. AGAIN, he was the best HUMANITY (CERBERUS) had to stop the reapers.

Again, just because Cerberus likes Shepard for reasons r1, r2, r3, doesn't mean Shepard's integral to the plot of ME2.

"Irrelevant to Shepard being integral to ME2's plot. Again, anyone could've done this. Considering it took 2 years and credits it took to bring Shepard back, this could've been accomplished sooner."

Yeah, anyone could've done what Shepard did, oh yeah, that's why he's main character of Mass Effect and he's called Nihlus. He's the hero of the Citadel for no reason, he stopped the Collectors and the construction of a new reaper because when the Citadel didn't want to do **** about it he stopped. You are missing the entire point of who Shepard is and why Cerberus wanted to bring him back. You are SUPPOSING things for trying make a point where you have nothing to back up your theories. There isn't a story when another marine or Specter do what Shepard CAN DO, and that are your choices through the game. You INTERACT with NPCs and the story presented to you. Don't say anyone could be Shepard because that's not the point of the game. You had an impact on the galaxy on the first game and even before the beginning of it btw. The sequel just continues that story, the story of Commander Shepard.

In ME2, I don't see how anyone couldn't have done what Shepard did, especially considering the group who's behind solving the problem of the Collectors is Cerberus.  Miranda is more than capable.

I am not supposing things for trying to make a point.  These are not theories.  This is pure evidence.  I haven't found any instance, in the actions of Shepard, in their characterization, or in how "Collectors are taking human colonies", whereupon their involvement of the plot is integral.  None.  There simply isn't.

The point of the game is to "Stop/Fight the Collectors."  That's the plot.  That's the whole reason the story is being told.

All you have to do, is give me one example where Shepard is integral to the plot of ME2.  That's all.  Something they do, something they think, that puts the plot in motion, that gives us the next scene or series of events, that could not be done by anyone else.  (For example, Mordin is integral to the plot of ME2, because without his countermeasure, the party could not get to Horizon.)

If you cannot prove this, then you must concede you do not understand what I'm writing, or you simply cannot answer the question.

You are failing to put the reapers in the equation of ME's 2 plot and relate it to Shepard. Shepard wasn't put back in action to NECESSARILY pursue the Collectors or save the human colonies, Cerberus has made him comeback to fight the reapers in the first place, ergo, all the MAIN plot of the Mass Effect SAGA: The fight of Shepard against the reapers. That's the first thing TIM says to Shepard. The story wouldn't continue if it wasn't related to the reapers. If you relate it at how Shepard was/is somehow alone with the Normandy crew to
stop them, you can even make it bigger relation, something they can even come up with in ME3.

Shepard is the related to the reapers as he has the cypher, he has seen the protheans visions (yeah, a plot hole as he could make Liara meld with the councilor), stopped Sovereign, got killed by the Collectors (reapers somehow), and got back to stop them. You can say the suicide mission and stop the Collectors is related to the plot as was the pursuit of Saren and finding the conduit on ME1, a plot behind the bigger plot of the fight against the reapers.

You can say Bioware screwed up when they killed him, and made all that story of his comeback for Cerberus. But the Collectors and their relationship to the reapers would be reason enough why Shepard would go after them if he wasn't killed.

Edit: I have to say that in your past post you came up with something almost convincible, and you have made a good point.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 10 avril 2010 - 07:15 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Indoctrination wrote...

I didn't "command" you to anything. No need to get all dramatic on me. I only said if you want to find out why you are wrong, here's what you have to do, etc. I can understand not wanting to do it and the desire to keep it to PMs. A topic stating Shale has no presence at all in the main plot would probably be very embarrassing for you. Like I told the other guy, if you don't want to discuss DA:O on the DA:O boards, I'll accept it as a concesssion, and drop it. We're done.

I'm sorry, but you sir are out of line. If you're going to make a point about DA:O, then it is your duty to follow through. Otherwise, do not introduce the argument. It is not our job to make a thread in the DA:O forums on a point you brought up. If you feel that strongly about the issue, then you can do it yourself. Your responses demonstrate the height of immaturity in this regard.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 10 avril 2010 - 07:05 .