380 réponses à ce sujet

[RyuGuitarFreak]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

1. I agree on the Kaidan's part, but this is very different if you assume Miranda taking Shepard's role in ME2. In this way they would have VERY different paths to the point of the beginning of the suicide mission. Miranda shouldn't have taken the path "Kaidan Shepard ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png" had in ME1, they would have very different paths and knowledge of the reapers. Having information about something is very different from facing it and stopping it, but most importantly they would have very different backgrounds and because of this you can't assume that just because they both have military abilities they would ended up with the same result.

2. I agree and I'm not sure about this but didn't the Council treated it like a test for Shepard abilites? If not, the
Turian Councilor says that Spectres aren't made, they are chosen and this way couldn't we say they treats Specters equally about their abilities? Just a theory.

1. Haha that's true. I'm not denying the details would have been different (Kaidan is not Miranda is not Samara, etc). I'm just saying that the general plot out-line as Smudboy seems to be referencing it is still possible.

2. This is possible and it's exactly why I hate over-examining plot lines. You will find a plot hole if you search far enough. This didn't bother me in ME1 either, but when I see people criticize ME2 this in-depth, I'm forced to produce counter-arguments which could be applied to ME1.

1. It's possibile, yes, I kind of agreed with him on that. But if you ask me, highly not possible. 1000 soldiers sometimes don't make it worth for 1 good commander.

2. Haha, that's ok. For me the only plot holes of ME are: on ME1 Liara not melding with the Asari councilor. On ME2 the crew leaving the ship for the IFF implementation. And they are not really plot holes, they are just things that didn't happen or not properly explained (The squad was I don't know, gonna have a special expensive dinner on the Citadel before suicide mission? ).

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Andrew_Waltfeld wrote...

Except that more than likely, other spectres might be implicated with Saren..... so really, it was just sheppard left to do it. Hell of an road test for first human spectre though. When you have possible corruption, you leave it very very modular. Very few know about the investigation and only top level officals and the select few know about it. Including other spectres that have ties to Saren is bad leadership and is in general - a bad idea.

Hmm, this I could see. Like I said, it's not that I find Shepard being sent alone entirely unbelievable; I was too swept up in the story to honestly be saying "Why are they sending Shepard?" Same with ME2. I thought the story was a tad weaker, but the extent of some criticisms are surprising. I never found myself saying "Shepard is totaly replaceable!" at any point.

Well to be honest, We're assuming major conflicts like space pirates/slavers, thresher maw attacks and wars don't happen. They just don't happen every day of the week. So techinacally... the only generic is the earth-born, colony-born, spacer. The other issues are more individual since how many people surivive thresher maw attacks on foot for example. Or the act of holding off the pirates/slavers on your own while your squad retreated is an act of bravery. While Ruthless Commander I believe it is called, means that you put the mission above everything else, you get the job done. Period. It's more of a what you are bringing to the table, surivialability, courage to stand against many while looking out for your squad, or give up everything for the mission no matter the odds.

As I Am sure the other candiates for spectre status was just as good, I doubt any had "Surivive thresher maw attacked, or held off an whole crapload of pirates/slavers on my own or I lost my entire team, but i did get the mission done. 

Aye, on the whole Shepard was the best one for the job. To me, that's really his "role" throughout the ME series, pure and simple. It's his combat abilities, charisma, demeanor, etc; the way all these different aspects came together to create this one particular indvidual; that is why Commander Shepard is necessary. He's a unique personality and this is his story, no more no less.

[smudboy]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I CAN do that. Dude, you are seriously denying information from the game and what I'm saying. This is my last post discussing with you. Try to see the big picture just once, for god's sake. Saying that the reapers being the masterminds about the Collectors makes no difference about ME2's plot is just being stupid and you're just making fun of yourself.

The plot is "Stop the collectors from taking human colonies."  The Collectors are the agents of the Reapers.  How am I denying this?  I admit that the Reapers are the masterminds, being the guys in charge of the Collectors.  How does this change the plot?  This is not in dispute.

ME2's plot is basically stop the Reapers too. "Stop the Collectors, (as in that organic race of slaves) from taking
human colonies" is basically "Stop the reapers" like "Stop Saren and fing the Counduit" was to ME1. You're missing the whole point of the story denying this and showing lack of interpretation skills. Everything in ME1 and 2 plots remain about the fight on the reapers. You can't deny that. Do you want me to write here the dialogs on the game here so it makes it clear for you?

You could say Shepard is at war with the Reapers, and that ME2 is a battle with their agents.  You could argue you're shooting Harbinger by proxy after he controls a peon, but so what?  That's not my point at all, and doesn't change the fact that Shepard is still replaceable, that anyone could be pulling that trigger.

Before the whole suicide mission got started, Shepard's mission (I know he was searching geth, but I'm talking about it in a bigger scale) and why Cerberus got him back, was to stop the reapers. I DARE to say that Cerberus wouldn't get Shepard to bother about the Collectors if they weren't related to the reapers. TIM had suspitions about it, that's why he put Shepard to retrieve information on Freedom's Progress and everything about the suicide mission started.

Yes, I'm not denying this.  I am fully aware of the reasons of why TIM brought Shepard back.  Obviously, TIM has much value in Shepard.  As does Harbinger.  As does Miranda.  As does x, y, z for reason r1, r2, r3, etc.

In no way does this prove that Shepard is integral to the plot of ME2.  Shepard is important to those parties: I am not denying this.  But you are failing to draw the connection, between party interest in Shepard, and relevance to the plot.

The entire universe could revolve around Shepard: but if Shepard doesn't do anything within that universe, that couldn't be done by anyone else, then Shepard is not integral to the plot of that universe.

You can't say anyone could do what Shepard's did on ME2 LOL. Hahaha, it's funny you argue so much that you're writing stuff like that. You're not the damn writer of the game, you didn't participate on ME2's scripting, or write something offical about. If you like so much to develop that idea, write a fanfic, I might read. However, you can't deny he was the best for that mission, wasting a bazillion credits or not. Think about like Shepard never died (which I've telling you 2 posts ago), who better than him to investigate the Collectors? That's what TIM thought, but he wasted money, for the best or worst, like hell to put him on that.

I don't need to be the writer of the game to observe the actions and behaviors of Shepard, and go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that."  And so far, you've yet to prove me otherwise.

I don't deny Shepard was probably the best for the mission; what's your point?  That doesn't make them integral nor irreplaceable to the plot.  (Psst, that's my point.)

I quite have agreed with you about the Lazarus Project, I'm not gonna discuss it. The thing is: TIM decided to do it. If you don't agree and wanna show to him why this is a waste of time and credits (lol) argue with Mac Walters and Drew Karpyshyn, not with me.

Why?  You're the one who's bothering to reply.  Yet you still can't answer my question: why is Shepard irreplaceable?  You've provided no evidence.  You just talk about how parties in the story find value in Shepard for various reasons.

If I wanted to know why Shepard was valuable, you'd give me many answers from many different sources in many difference scenarios.  But I am not asking that.

I am asking, where in the plot, does Shepard do something, that is integral to the plot, that can't be done by anyone else.  That's all.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

2. Haha, that's ok. For me the only plot holes of ME are: on ME1 Liara not melding with the Asari councilor. On ME2 the crew leaving the ship for the IFF implementation. And they are not really plot holes, they are just things that didn't happen or not properly explained (The squad was I don't know, gonna have a special expensive dinner on the Citadel before suicide mission? ).

Yeah, I was weirded out. At first I thought they were going for something like "Hey, we gotta evacuate the ship while we test the IFF!" When I realized that wasn't panning out, I was like wtf?

Edit: Meh, Smud really likes being difficult. At this point, it might be better to just ignore him. Unless he would like to provide his own example of how Shepard is 'critical' in ME1. He's ignoring all my responses to him, for some reason I can't understand.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 avril 2010 - 12:38 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I CAN do that. Dude, you are seriously denying information from the game and what I'm saying. This is my last post discussing with you. Try to see the big picture just once, for god's sake. Saying that the reapers being the masterminds about the Collectors makes no difference about ME2's plot is just being stupid and you're just making fun of yourself.

The plot is "Stop the collectors from taking human colonies."  The Collectors are the agents of the Reapers.  How am I denying this?  I admit that the Reapers are the masterminds, being the guys in charge of the Collectors.  How does this change the plot?  This is not in dispute.

ME2's plot is basically stop the Reapers too. "Stop the Collectors, (as in that organic race of slaves) from taking
human colonies" is basically "Stop the reapers" like "Stop Saren and fing the Counduit" was to ME1. You're missing the whole point of the story denying this and showing lack of interpretation skills. Everything in ME1 and 2 plots remain about the fight on the reapers. You can't deny that. Do you want me to write here the dialogs on the game here so it makes it clear for you?

You could say Shepard is at war with the Reapers, and that ME2 is a battle with their agents.  You could argue you're shooting Harbinger by proxy after he controls a peon, but so what?  That's not my point at all, and doesn't change the fact that Shepard is still replaceable, that anyone could be pulling that trigger.

Before the whole suicide mission got started, Shepard's mission (I know he was searching geth, but I'm talking about it in a bigger scale) and why Cerberus got him back, was to stop the reapers. I DARE to say that Cerberus wouldn't get Shepard to bother about the Collectors if they weren't related to the reapers. TIM had suspitions about it, that's why he put Shepard to retrieve information on Freedom's Progress and everything about the suicide mission started.

Yes, I'm not denying this.  I am fully aware of the reasons of why TIM brought Shepard back.  Obviously, TIM has much value in Shepard.  As does Harbinger.  As does Miranda.  As does x, y, z for reason r1, r2, r3, etc.

In no way does this prove that Shepard is integral to the plot of ME2.  Shepard is important to those parties: I am not denying this.  But you are failing to draw the connection, between party interest in Shepard, and relevance to the plot.

The entire universe could revolve around Shepard: but if Shepard doesn't do anything within that universe, that couldn't be done by anyone else, then Shepard is not integral to the plot of that universe.

You can't say anyone could do what Shepard's did on ME2 LOL. Hahaha, it's funny you argue so much that you're writing stuff like that. You're not the damn writer of the game, you didn't participate on ME2's scripting, or write something offical about. If you like so much to develop that idea, write a fanfic, I might read. However, you can't deny he was the best for that mission, wasting a bazillion credits or not. Think about like Shepard never died (which I've telling you 2 posts ago), who better than him to investigate the Collectors? That's what TIM thought, but he wasted money, for the best or worst, like hell to put him on that.

I don't need to be the writer of the game to observe the actions and behaviors of Shepard, and go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that."  And so far, you've yet to prove me otherwise.

I don't deny Shepard was probably the best for the mission; what's your point?  That doesn't make them integral nor irreplaceable to the plot.  (Psst, that's my point.)

I quite have agreed with you about the Lazarus Project, I'm not gonna discuss it. The thing is: TIM decided to do it. If you don't agree and wanna show to him why this is a waste of time and credits (lol) argue with Mac Walters and Drew Karpyshyn, not with me.

Why?  You're the one who's bothering to reply.  Yet you still can't answer my question: why is Shepard irreplaceable?  You've provided no evidence.  You just talk about how parties in the story find value in Shepard for various reasons.

If I wanted to know why Shepard was valuable, you'd give me many answers from many different sources in many difference scenarios.  But I am not asking that.

I am asking, where in the plot, does Shepard do something, that is integral to the plot, that can't be done by anyone else.  That's all.

Dude, TIM think's he is irreplaceable to the threat of the reapers, i.e. the Collectors. Your opinion won't change that and what happened on ME1 and why THE NPCS THINK HE IS IRREPLACEABLE.  That's what matters and what I've been telling you the whole time. Edit: You can't say Shepard is NOT irreplaceable as a FACT because there is NO CENARIO ON THE GAME WITHOUT HIM on the 2 years later after his death and no suicide mission without Shepard. If you go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that", it doesn't matter at all and you CAN'T POINT IT AS THE TRUTH.

You are a troll and I'm done with you.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 avril 2010 - 01:18 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

2. Haha, that's ok. For me the only plot holes of ME are: on ME1 Liara not melding with the Asari councilor. On ME2 the crew leaving the ship for the IFF implementation. And they are not really plot holes, they are just things that didn't happen or not properly explained (The squad was I don't know, gonna have a special expensive dinner on the Citadel before suicide mission? ).

Yeah, I was weirded out. At first I thought they were going for something like "Hey, we gotta evacuate the ship while we test the IFF!" When I realized that wasn't panning out, I was like wtf?

Edit: Meh, Smud really likes being difficult. At this point, it might be better to just ignore him. Unless he would like to provide his own example of how Shepard is 'critical' in ME1. He's ignoring all my responses to him, for some reason I can't understand.

He is just a troll and evasive when he can't win or accept other people's arguments and points of view. When he is cornered he goes back to his previous question when you already answered it. He's one of that guys who think they live in their own world. I'm done arguing with him and I know I'm not the first one, as I've seen the same on other threads. It's like a machine with a modus operandi.

[smudboy]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Dude, TIM think's he is irreplaceable to the threat of the reapers, i.e. the Collectors. Your opinion won't change that and what happened on ME1 and why THE NPCS THINK HE IS IRREPLACEABLE.  That's what matters and what I've been telling you the whole time. Edit: You can't say Shepard is NOT irreplaceable as a FACT because there is NO CENARIO ON THE GAME WITHOUT HIM on the 2 years later after his death and no suicide mission without Shepard. If you go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that", it doesn't matter at all and you CAN'T POINT IT AS THE TRUTH.

You are a troll and I'm done with you.

Sure, but TIMs' reasons for wanting Shepard is not the plot of ME2.  Just because TIM, Miranda, Harbinger and whomever have r1, r2, and r3 reasons as to why Shepard is important/irreplaceable/God's gift to whatever, doesn't prove Shepard is irreplaceable to the plot of ME2.  For example, Mordin is irreplaceable to ME2 because he creates a countermeasure that allows the plot to continue.  His role may be reduced to a plot device, but it's still essential.  The same with Tali in ME1: the story wouldn't have continued if the Council didn't have evidence on Saren.  I think it's called putting exposition into the narrative.

Again, I ask for you to show me a situation in ME2 where Shepard conducts an action that is integral to the plot of ME2, and that only Shepard could do.

It doesn't matter that the entire universe revolves around Shepard.
It doesn't matter what the entire universe thinks about Shepard.
It doesn't matter that TIM brought him back to life for r1, r2, r3 reasons.
If Shepard does not do an action, that, allows the plot to continue, that Shepard and only Shepard could have done, then they are not integral to the plot.

Now if you have evidence of this (I believe someone else on here linked to a youtube post of something only Shepard could do) which shows off something integral to the plot, then by all means, show me.

[primero holodon]

Agreed

[Indoctrination]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

Thank you for that incredibly pretentious post which ignores all of the posts that answer this for you. This is not a DA:O spoiler board. I am not allowed to post DA:O spoilers here. If I did, I'd probably get a nasty PM from a moderator. If you want DA:O spoilers you have to go to a DA:O spoiler board. This isn't up for debate. I'm not going to answer any more posts about this because I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself for people who don't want to read my posts but respond to them anyway as if they had.

[Indoctrination]

Halmiriliath wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

I'll concede that a lot of the loyalty missions are pretty fun. It's too bad that all of the mandatory missions couldn't be like those. As for "dismissing the lack of depth or plot", if you feel that "5-10 minutes of plot, 50 minutes of shooting mercenaries) is a poor description of Samara's mission, you're more than welcome to try and give a different description of it. I don't see how you could, when that's the literal truth, but don't let that stop you.:innocent:

What would have made ME2 more of an RPG for me? Aside from the big issues I've been mentioning, there's always the little things. Characters having dialogue with each other while you're on a mission, a deeper leveling/talent system, bigger side goals with huge rewards for people willing to work for them (think of some of the really old RPGs where you'd have that one amazing sword or armour in a shop that would cost a fortune to purchase), stuff like that. Basically what would make it a more worthy RPG would be to have more meaningful features that existed outside of fighting giant hordes of mercs.

I distinctly remember posting that there is room for improvement in the missions, and Samara's is indeed one that I think could have been worked on a bit more. Personally, I would like to have had a longer conversation with Samara in order to persuade her of the immediacy of the Collector/Reaper threat, rather than exploring the drugs issue which is frankly - as Shepard says elsewhere - far below his/her pay grade.

Re. 'little things' - with the acknowledged shortage of character interaction/independence - are there not thousands of little things dotted throughout the galaxy to be found that either built upon little/big things you did in the first game or were implemented by fan suggestion? I personally enjoyed my little 'encounter' with Conrad; the conversation with the envoy from the Rachni Queen; the advert for Blasto the Hanar Spectre; the encounter with Fist and Helena Blake; the 'reminiscence' with Harkin; the warm reception Wrex gave me on Tuchanka; squad comments on hub worlds; the news reports that you hear in 'civilised' worlds (which, regardless of the denigration they receive here, I very much enjoy); and countless other tidbits, in-references and brilliant touches that make this game so immersive. For me, one of the cornerstones of an RPG is immersion, and I've rarely felt so immersed in a game as I have in Mass Effect 1 and 2.

Regarding rewards for going out of your way to do stuff, while I appreciate things like this and feel like it has its place in grand games like the Baldur's Gate franchise, I think it would be slightly out of context to go on grand, time-consuming escapades for nice rewards that don't bear much relevance to the overall plot. The Collector's will abduct more colonies and the Reaper invasion crawls ever more nearer with each second lost, and Shepard is pretty much unwelcome wherever he/she goes. I got a sense of claustrophobia and exclusion that I thought the developers crafted brilliantly in this game that I think sometimes goes unnoticed, and is more worthy of praise.

You make it sound like Samara's is the only one that's like that, when it's actually all of them. Look at the Dr. O'Keer (Grunt) or Thane recruitment missions if you want further examples. "Shepard, there's this bad dude you need to get on to your team. Fight mercenaries for an hour to find him." It sounds like I'm simplifing it, but I'm not. The reality is that these missions are comically simplistic.

The little things you describe from ME1, are actually microscopic in my opinion. Fist? Helena Blake? Why? Do these appearances have any relevance at all? No. Do they have any kind of follow-up that makes it seem like letting them live in ME1 mattered at all? No. Take Blake for example. Her entire cameo is used to tell you how much of a "bad dude" Aria is. If BioWare wanted to make the Blake decision meaningful you would have seen her smuggling/drug ring causing problems. Maybe even a follow-up mission where you get cut-in to the profits, or you finally shut her down.

As far as rewards go, did anyone say anything about "grand time consuming escapades?" No, please do not invent an argument that no one is making just so you can knock it down. When I talk about rewards and consequences I'm referring to making decisions that have either a meaningful postive or negative consequence as a result.

Modifié par Indoctrination, 11 avril 2010 - 11:12 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Indoctrination wrote...

Thank you for that incredibly pretentious post which ignores all of the posts that answer this for you. This is not a DA:O spoiler board. I am not allowed to post DA:O spoilers here. If I did, I'd probably get a nasty PM from a moderator. If you want DA:O spoilers you have to go to a DA:O spoiler board. This isn't up for debate. I'm not going to answer any more posts about this because I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself for people who don't want to read my posts but respond to them anyway as if they had.

"Blah blah blah, whine whine whine". That's how your post reads. If you are concerned about DA:O spoilers, then don't bring DA:O up in the first place as an argument. It's that simple. It doesn't mean you can go around claiming that other people have 'conceded' because they are following through what you opened up. Certainly someone as stupid as yourself can understand this?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 avril 2010 - 11:15 .

[Indoctrination]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

Thank you for that incredibly pretentious post which ignores all of the posts that answer this for you. This is not a DA:O spoiler board. I am not allowed to post DA:O spoilers here. If I did, I'd probably get a nasty PM from a moderator. If you want DA:O spoilers you have to go to a DA:O spoiler board. This isn't up for debate. I'm not going to answer any more posts about this because I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself for people who don't want to read my posts but respond to them anyway as if they had.

"Blah blah blah, whine whine whine". That's how your post reads. If you are concerned about DA:O spoilers, then don't bring DA:O up in the first place as an argument. It's that simple. It doesn't mean you can go around claiming that other people have 'conceded' because they are following through what you opened up. Certainly someone as stupid as yourself can understand this?

Okay, now you're having a tantrum fit and just posting flames. I'm going to ignore you altogether now.

Modifié par Indoctrination, 11 avril 2010 - 11:20 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Indoctrination wrote...

Okay, now you're having a tantrum fit and just posting flames. I'm going to ignroe you altogether now.

I believe it was you who first referred to me as 'pretentious'. I read all your posts. I also read all of Onyx's. Yours gave me a sense of immaturity; his did not.  

And don't feel bad. Most people find it difficult to admit when they're wrong. Simple lines of reasoning can evade even the best of us sometimes.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 11 avril 2010 - 11:21 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Dude, TIM think's he is irreplaceable to the threat of the reapers, i.e. the Collectors. Your opinion won't change that and what happened on ME1 and why THE NPCS THINK HE IS IRREPLACEABLE.  That's what matters and what I've been telling you the whole time. Edit: You can't say Shepard is NOT irreplaceable as a FACT because there is NO CENARIO ON THE GAME WITHOUT HIM on the 2 years later after his death and no suicide mission without Shepard. If you go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that", it doesn't matter at all and you CAN'T POINT IT AS THE TRUTH.

You are a troll and I'm done with you.

Sure, but TIMs' reasons for wanting Shepard is not the plot of ME2.  Just because TIM, Miranda, Harbinger and whomever have r1, r2, and r3 reasons as to why Shepard is important/irreplaceable/God's gift to whatever, doesn't prove Shepard is irreplaceable to the plot of ME2.  For example, Mordin is irreplaceable to ME2 because he creates a countermeasure that allows the plot to continue.  His role may be reduced to a plot device, but it's still essential.  The same with Tali in ME1: the story wouldn't have continued if the Council didn't have evidence on Saren.  I think it's called putting exposition into the narrative.

Again, I ask for you to show me a situation in ME2 where Shepard conducts an action that is integral to the plot of ME2, and that only Shepard could do.

It doesn't matter that the entire universe revolves around Shepard.
It doesn't matter what the entire universe thinks about Shepard.
It doesn't matter that TIM brought him back to life for r1, r2, r3 reasons.
If Shepard does not do an action, that, allows the plot to continue, that Shepard and only Shepard could have done, then they are not integral to the plot.

Now if you have evidence of this (I believe someone else on here linked to a youtube post of something only Shepard could do) which shows off something integral to the plot, then by all means, show me.

See how this guy is a moron? He picked a part of my post and said is not the plot of ME2 and ignored the rest in his answer. I won't write anything about what is the plot of ME2 anymore, you have proved already to me you missed the story of not only ME2, ME1 as well or you're just ignoring it to make to your benefit. I have already wrote why your "logic" and which path the game would continue Shepard was not brought back is pointless. Based on your last post I could write about it why it is flawed and even more pointless, but I don't give a damn about it anymore.

I'm just gonna give you a hint, you don't need to answer this, I would ask you to keep it to yourself. Consider yourself "won" in the argument if you want: by the logic you're using, your example by why Mordin is irreplaceable is wrong. He is replaceable.

As I said, I could continue from this hint, but I won't. This is all you deserve of my attention.

Goodbye.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 avril 2010 - 04:11 .

[Bucky_McLachlan]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Dude, TIM think's he is irreplaceable to the threat of the reapers, i.e. the Collectors. Your opinion won't change that and what happened on ME1 and why THE NPCS THINK HE IS IRREPLACEABLE.  That's what matters and what I've been telling you the whole time. Edit: You can't say Shepard is NOT irreplaceable as a FACT because there is NO CENARIO ON THE GAME WITHOUT HIM on the 2 years later after his death and no suicide mission without Shepard. If you go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that", it doesn't matter at all and you CAN'T POINT IT AS THE TRUTH.

You are a troll and I'm done with you.

Sure, but TIMs' reasons for wanting Shepard is not the plot of ME2.  Just because TIM, Miranda, Harbinger and whomever have r1, r2, and r3 reasons as to why Shepard is important/irreplaceable/God's gift to whatever, doesn't prove Shepard is irreplaceable to the plot of ME2.  For example, Mordin is irreplaceable to ME2 because he creates a countermeasure that allows the plot to continue.  His role may be reduced to a plot device, but it's still essential.  The same with Tali in ME1: the story wouldn't have continued if the Council didn't have evidence on Saren.  I think it's called putting exposition into the narrative.

Again, I ask for you to show me a situation in ME2 where Shepard conducts an action that is integral to the plot of ME2, and that only Shepard could do.

It doesn't matter that the entire universe revolves around Shepard.
It doesn't matter what the entire universe thinks about Shepard.
It doesn't matter that TIM brought him back to life for r1, r2, r3 reasons.
If Shepard does not do an action, that, allows the plot to continue, that Shepard and only Shepard could have done, then they are not integral to the plot.

Now if you have evidence of this (I believe someone else on here linked to a youtube post of something only Shepard could do) which shows off something integral to the plot, then by all means, show me.

See how this guy is a moron? He picked a part of my post and said is not the plot of ME2 and ignored the rest in his answer. I won't write anything about what is the plot of ME2 anymore, you have proved already to me you missed the story of not only ME2, ME1 as well or you're just ignoring it to make to your benefit. I have already wrote why your "logic" and which path the game would continue Shepard was not brought back is pointless. Based on your last post I could write about it why it is flawed and even more pointless, but I don't give a damn about it anymore.

I'm just gonna give you a hint, you don't need to answer this, I would ask you to keep it to yourself. Consider yourself "won" in the argument if you want: by the logic you're using, your example by why Mordin is irreplaceable is wrong. He is replaceable.

As I said, I could continue from this hint, but I won't. This is all you deserve of my attention.

Goodbye.

^That guy is not a moron, that guy is 100% correct. Chakwas was spot on when she referred to Shepard as the Normandy's "removable center".

It's totally different in ME1 because Shepard isn't just following orders or something, he's intimately involved in everything that is happening, Shepard's actions are the reason things happen. No Shepard Saren never gets caught. Remove Shep from ME1 and you're left dead in the water, he is the focal point of everything that takes place. Remove Shep from ME2? He/she could easily be replaced by  another protaganist  character that you control. There's very little continuation of Shepard's story in ME2. The game is all about everybody but Shepard.

Shepard in ME2 is like Peter Sellers in Being There, he doesn't actually make any choices he's following a very carefully laid out plot and the actions he takes are not motivated by his own desire. He is compelled to action by outside forces. There's no internal or personal conflict, the only real conflict is between him and the Council/Alliance but we barely ever see any of that.

The rest of the time he's off fighting a completely impersonalized enemy and does not start to understand who that enemy really is or what they've done to him until halfway through the game, and even then it never really gets personal.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 11 avril 2010 - 04:46 .

[Halmiriliath]

Indoctrination wrote...
You make it sound like Samara's is the only one that's like that, when it's actually all of them. Look at the Dr. O'Keer (Grunt) or Thane recruitment missions if you want further examples. "Shepard, there's this bad dude you need to get on to your team. Fight mercenaries for an hour to find him." It sounds like I'm simplifing it, but I'm not. The reality is that these missions are comically simplistic.

The little things you describe from ME1, are actually microscopic in my opinion. Fist? Helena Blake? Why? Do these appearances have any relevance at all? No. Do they have any kind of follow-up that makes it seem like letting them live in ME1 mattered at all? No. Take Blake for example. Her entire cameo is used to tell you how much of a "bad dude" Aria is. If BioWare wanted to make the Blake decision meaningful you would have seen her smuggling/drug ring causing problems. Maybe even a follow-up mission where you get cut-in to the profits, or you finally shut her down.

As far as rewards go, did anyone say anything about "grand time consuming escapades?" No, please do not invent an argument that no one is making just so you can knock it down. When I talk about rewards and consequences I'm referring to making decisions that have either a meaningful postive or negative consequence as a result.

Whoever said I was trying to knock an invented argument down? I was merely making a point (note: I said 'I think' in the beginning of that sentence, denoting its subjectivity) in which some of my tendency toward dramatic and grandiose expressions reared its ugly head. I think you inferred too much from what I was saying - t'is more characteristic of my way of saying things than an attempt to trivialise an invented point of contention. Please don't take everything as an argument or attack - it sours the conversation and provokes needless hostility which I don't really come on these forums to experience.

By your own standards, however, you have invented another point of contention in the very first sentence I've quoted. Sure, there are issues in other missions - I have never said otherwise, and you infer too much from what I have said. Don't enforce your opinion on me, because I disagree with you in this instance. You think the missions are 'comically simplistic'? Fine. T'is your prerogative. I think there is great depth to be found in some of the missions, and think that denigrating them as simplistic is a disservice to the writing and designing teams that created them.

Of course it would be nice to have more decisions that could have adverse or positive effects on you or others, and reappearances from Mass Effect 1 bringing greater consequences. Again, I have never said otherwise. But you would have to strike a balance between the immediacy of the main plot and interesting sub-plots so as to uphold that sense of coming doom. We also have no idea what Mass Effect 3 will bring in regard to these issues. And I personally have always felt that investigating such things as smuggling rings is below Shepard's pay grade -  he/she is tackling a threat to the galaxy itself, and an Omega smuggling ring, to use your example, is peripheral to say the least in comparison. 

[darknoon5]

cachx wrote...

As long as the storyline, dialogue, characters and choice stay top notch, and the gameplay stays solid, I don't really care what "label" the game is going to get. Action? Shooter? RPG? if it's a great game, then it doesn't matter.

But then again I may be on the minority that thinks that ME1 was actually held back by poorly implemented RPG elements

*cough* Inventory and omni-gel*

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Dude, TIM think's he is irreplaceable to the threat of the reapers, i.e. the Collectors. Your opinion won't change that and what happened on ME1 and why THE NPCS THINK HE IS IRREPLACEABLE. That's what matters and what I've been telling you the whole time. Edit: You can't say Shepard is NOT irreplaceable as a FACT because there is NO CENARIO ON THE GAME WITHOUT HIM on the 2 years later after his death and no suicide mission without Shepard. If you go "Hmm, I bet someone else could've done that", it doesn't matter at all and you CAN'T POINT IT AS THE TRUTH.

You are a troll and I'm done with you.

Sure, but TIMs' reasons for wanting Shepard is not the plot of ME2. Just because TIM, Miranda, Harbinger and whomever have r1, r2, and r3 reasons as to why Shepard is important/irreplaceable/God's gift to whatever, doesn't prove Shepard is irreplaceable to the plot of ME2. For example, Mordin is irreplaceable to ME2 because he creates a countermeasure that allows the plot to continue. His role may be reduced to a plot device, but it's still essential. The same with Tali in ME1: the story wouldn't have continued if the Council didn't have evidence on Saren. I think it's called putting exposition into the narrative.

Again, I ask for you to show me a situation in ME2 where Shepard conducts an action that is integral to the plot of ME2, and that only Shepard could do.

It doesn't matter that the entire universe revolves around Shepard.
It doesn't matter what the entire universe thinks about Shepard.
It doesn't matter that TIM brought him back to life for r1, r2, r3 reasons.
If Shepard does not do an action, that, allows the plot to continue, that Shepard and only Shepard could have done, then they are not integral to the plot.

Now if you have evidence of this (I believe someone else on here linked to a youtube post of something only Shepard could do) which shows off something integral to the plot, then by all means, show me.

See how this guy is a moron? He picked a part of my post and said is not the plot of ME2 and ignored the rest in his answer. I won't write anything about what is the plot of ME2 anymore, you have proved already to me you missed the story of not only ME2, ME1 as well or you're just ignoring it to make to your benefit. I have already wrote why your "logic" and which path the game would continue Shepard was not brought back is pointless. Based on your last post I could write about it why it is flawed and even more pointless, but I don't give a damn about it anymore.

I'm just gonna give you a hint, you don't need to answer this, I would ask you to keep it to yourself. Consider yourself "won" in the argument if you want: by the logic you're using, your example by why Mordin is irreplaceable is wrong. He is replaceable.

As I said, I could continue from this hint, but I won't. This is all you deserve of my attention.

Goodbye.

^That guy is not a moron, that guy is 100% correct. Chakwas was spot on when she referred to Shepard as the Normandy's "removable center".

It's totally different in ME1 because Shepard isn't just following orders or something, he's intimately involved in everything that is happening, Shepard's actions are the reason things happen. No Shepard Saren never gets caught. Remove Shep from ME1 and you're left dead in the water, he is the focal point of everything that takes place. Remove Shep from ME2? He/she could easily be replaced by another protaganist character that you control. There's very little continuation of Shepard's story in ME2. The game is all about everybody but Shepard.

Shepard in ME2 is like Peter Sellers in Being There, he doesn't actually make any choices he's following a very carefully laid out plot and the actions he takes are not motivated by his own desire. He is compelled to action by outside forces. There's no internal or personal conflict, the only real conflict is between him and the Council/Alliance but we barely ever see any of that.

The rest of the time he's off fighting a completely impersonalized enemy and does not start to understand who that enemy really is or what they've done to him until halfway through the game, and even then it never really gets personal.

Edit: Shepard is intimately involved with the reapers. Dying at the start of
the game or not.
Most importantly : you are making the same mistake as he is doing. Pretend another character has the same skills as Shepard and would act the same as Shepard or better, would have the same or better results as Shepard and pointing it as the truth. This is ridiculous, you are just theoryzing. Edit: You have no PROOF, no EVIDENCE, no GAME, no STORY of what would happen Shepard would not return after his death and whoever would take his place.
You. Don't. Know.
You. Are. Not. The. Damn. Writers.
There. Is. No. Cenario. In. ME2. With. Shepard. Not. Returning. From. The. Dead. And. Ruling. The. Squad. On. The. Suicide. Mission.

And yet I have to use the same answers I used with another person. My god.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 avril 2010 - 05:46 .

[Bucky_McLachlan]

^No I am not making a mistake you moron. I am a screenwriting major, working on my masters now. I kinda do this **** for a living. You are a stupid fanboy that doesn't know anything about the process of writing a story. Go away.

If you can't understand that the plot of ME1 is reliant on Shepard's actions while the plot of ME2 is not you do not even understand what the conversation is about.

For the majority of ME2 Shepard is a passive character in the story, Shepard is the focal point of the story in ME1 because he receives the vision from the Prothean Beacon on Eden Prime. This has the effect of making him both the protaganist AND the McGuffin in ME2. The vision isn't motivating him, his desire to stop Saren is, his position as a Spectre combined his knowledge of what Saren has and is planning to do is all that stands between the galaxy facing total annihilation.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 11 avril 2010 - 05:52 .

[Nightfish103]

So, as far as the original post goes: I'm with the OP all the way. I was really disappointed that ME2 was actually less RPG than ME1 when I had been hoping for more. But then again, I've never been a big fan of shooters, so that makes me kinda biased. As far as shooters go, ME2 was quite entertaining at points, while it got very repetitive at others. So many chest-high walls all over the place... Geez...

As for Shepard being replaceable or not... Well, it's kinda funny how it's *said* that he is irreplacable, but the reasons given for that are kinda voided along the way. Like, didn't the Intro sort of say that Shepard is someone the Council can get behind, "He's a bloody icon" and whatnot. But then the Council pretty much treats him like a mental patient when he talks about repears and he gets no more support from the Alliance as anyone else would. So, really, what exactly is it that Shepard is needed for? Can't somebody else pick up a dozen stray people and blow up a base? I mean, seriously, most of the time he doesn't even have to do any convincing. It's like "Hey, wanna join my team?" "Hm.. okay!". Another thing that makes me feel rather passive as Shepard is how I often get forced to do certain missions right now. Dragon Age did that much better. I could chose where I go and when I go.

Imo it wouldn't have been that hard to make Shepard irreplaceable to Cerberus. Like by convincing Anderson and the Council that they need to get off their asses and do something. Coming from anyone else, this might be seen as a ruse, but Shepard would have the credibility needed to reconcile former terrorists with the galactic governement. At least my ME1 Paragon Shepard would have that. I don't really know if the renegades command the same respect, but they could probably just bully their way through instead or something.

Modifié par Nightfish103, 11 avril 2010 - 05:53 .

[smudboy]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I'm just gonna give you a hint, you don't need to answer this, I would ask you to keep it to yourself. Consider yourself "won" in the argument if you want: by the logic you're using, your example by why Mordin is irreplaceable is wrong. He is replaceable.

How is Mordin replaceable?

Modifié par smudboy, 11 avril 2010 - 06:08 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

^No I am not making a mistake you moron. I am a screenwriting major, working on my masters now. I kinda do this **** for a living. You are a stupid fanboy that doesn't know anything about the process of writing a story. Go away.

If you can't understand that the plot of ME1 is reliant on Shepard's actions while the plot of ME2 is not you do not even understand what the conversation is about.

For the majority of ME2 Shepard is a passive character in the story, Shepard is the focal point of the story in ME1 because he receives the vision from the Prothean Beacon on Eden Prime.

Yeah, I understand it. SO WHAT? At the very end of ME1 Shepard says he will go after the reapers. That is his story on Mass Effect as a whole. The Collectors are ultimately involved with the reapers. What is so hard to understand in that? You are reducing Shepard to a walking person with Protheans visions. That wasn't even why TIM brought him back. And yet you can't Bioware forgot about it as Shepard use it on a N7 and see Collectors in Protheans visions.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 avril 2010 - 05:56 .

[Stinkface27]

Really well written.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Yeah, I understand it. SO WHAT? At the very end of ME1 Shepard says he will go after the reapers. That is his story on Mass Effect as a whole. The Collectors are ultimately involved with the reapers. What is so hard to understand in that? You are reducing Shepard to a walking person with Protheans visions. That wasn't even why TIM brought him back. And yet you can't Bioware forgot about it as Shepard use it on a N7 and see Collectors in Protheans visions.

Honestly man I don't mean to be so blunt but you really just do not even understand what is being argued here.

For one thing it's not just the Prothean visions, it's also his status as a Spectre which allows him to make the choices he does, but you don't get it. This isn't an argument about what he is physically capable or allowed to do in the world of the story. This is about the fact that Shepard's choices in ME1 are 100% responsible for moving the plot along he is the central character of the story and everything that happens happens as a result of his choices.

In ME2 Shepard is a passive character in the story with only the illusion of choice everything is happening outside of his domain or even without his knowledge and he's simply following orders from someone else. His only connection to what is happening is tenuous at best.

ME1 is a story about Commander Shepard becoming the first human Spectre and Saving the Galaxy. ME2 is a story about Cerberus bring back Commander Shepard from the dead and using him for their own purposes. He never really makes any important decisions in the story.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

smudboy wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I'm just gonna give you a hint, you don't need to answer this, I would ask you to keep it to yourself. Consider yourself "won" in the argument if you want: by the logic you're using, your example by why Mordin is irreplaceable is wrong. He is replaceable.

How is Mordin replaceable?

This guy does not understand the difference between story structure and character development, passive and active involvement of those characters within that story and the reality of the world of the story.

He is basically saying "If they can replace Shepard, well surely there's another brilliant scientist somewhere in the universe." ergo he is a fanboy "doing his duty fopr Bioware" and doesn't understand the argument being made.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 11 avril 2010 - 06:23 .