Nightwriter wrote...
Come on now. You don't really think it's about the inventory system, do you?
kraidy1117 has been known to argue with strawmen, selectively ignore those who disagree with him, and argue solely on popularity to make his cases. Do not expect him to be courteous with you.
I've said this before, but I agree with the OP wholeheartedly. This is the sort of opinion that needs more visibility on this forum.
Mass Effect 2 was a disappointment, if you came in it expecting a great story. I know I most certainly did; Bioware is known for it. Mass Effect 1 did it for me, why not this game? It only works if you don't think too hard about it. Depending on who you are, this makes it more or less serviceable to you.
Not for me. Bioware is capable of far more than what we got.
smudboy wrote...
Hearing the ME3 production date of 2011 does have me a little worried, if they're simply going to recycle the same format that ME2 used.
I've read comments from Bioware (mainly, that Casey Hudson fellow) stating that Mass Effect 3 is being produced on the same time table Mass Effect 2 was. If that's true, March 2012 is more likely the eventual release date for the game. If it's in 2011, it's most certainly the last quarter of 2011. The only thing I heard concerning an earlier release date was Hudson wishing for a "fairly short turnaround", which can mean whatever one wants it to. The question it answered was a loaded one that also asked if the game would land on a next-generation console because of how long it took for Mass Effect 2 to land in stores, and Hudson's response was likewise, also saying that he wanted "the entire trilogy of games done within [the Xbox 360's] life cycle." So take it as you will. He also said they started on the third game before the second was released, so who knows at this point, really. The 2011 date was a guess made by various media outlets eager for information.
As for recycling the same format: the only thing that's been hinted at so far is that Bioware will be using the same game engine (correct me if I'm wrong). Everything else is left up in the air for speculation.
I sure as hell hope this whole nonsense Mass Effect 2 calls loyalty missions doesn't repeat itself -- or if it does, they end up doing so in a way that builds towards the grand, overarching main plot of
dealing with the Reapers. Because hell, you've been saying it for some time now: what's the point to all of Mass Effect 2's characters if they don't serve the main plot any (save Mordin)? Personally, I'm inclined to believe character recruitment and interaction will resemble more of how Mass Effect 1 unfolded, if Mass Effect 3 promises to be a return to focusing on the main storyline.
ME2 didn't fill the big shoes it was supposed to. This "dark bridge" part of the trilogy is on quite shakey ground, and I can only guess ME3 will be somewhat of a disappointment because of it.
This is my inclination as well because I'm typically a pessimist, but I'm also hoping Bioware surprises me. They've done it before.
I had to answer this. Seriously, how they are not connected to the main plot if your Shepard's SURVIVAL and by this saying this his PRESENCE in ME3 are connected to your squad effiency and loyalty.
Because their connection to keeping Shepard alive has nothing to do with Mass Effect 2's plot, which deals with a group of stupid aliens called the Collectors and a megalomaniacal human terrorist group called Cerberus. To say that the characters are important because they're necessary to keep the commander breathing is a weak argument; Bioware forces that on the player, and Shepard's living status is only necessary to make sure the plot happens (and only as far as the plot demands it, since Shepard can die). Since that's necessary for any protagonist of any story ever conceived, it doesn't count. The problem is that it's the
only way they're connected. I'd elaborate, but smudboy seems to have done that for me already.
RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
The plot demands it, yes, I agree on that. So what? You are already saying their connection to it.
A connection that is not adequately explained, much less justified. Why are these characters important?
Because the Illlusive Man said so. They're the "best of the best" for your mission to stop the Collectors. It's
The Dirty Dozen, Bioware says.
"So?" I say. The mission is so vague (and the character motivations little more than "help me Shepard, and I'll help you"), that I'm left wondering why these people are needed at all. "We're going to go through the Omega 4 Relay and stop the Collectors once and for all!" Bioware says. "How?" I say. We now
nothing about what lies beyond it. It could be a base (boo, that's what we conveniently got) -- or it could be a fleet of ships waiting to annihilate whoever comes through. How the hell does the Illusive Man know what to expect? He's assuming (and risking, since we're told resurrecting Shepard is an enormous investment) quite a lot for a man that does a lot of scheming if he's just as clueless as the rest of us. None of this is ever explained, so we're just expected to take the game's word for it.
The plot smacks of bad, inadequate writing. It's one reason I'm hoping that Mass Effect 3 bends over backwards explaining it all - preferably with the Illusive Man, since he's the one telling us to recruit these people. (On an unrelated note, an explanation for the human Reaper and the Collectors' motivations would be nice, too.)
And what is the plot? A highly possible suicide mission. Going on a mission facing tough enemies on a remote
region where you don't know what you are going to find and no ship has ever come back. And for that you're gonna have to recruit some people who maybe is difficult to deal.
Why not just send a probe through the relay? No one knows why ships don't come back, as noted. There could be anything beyond that relay. Hell, there could have been a trap luring ships into a black hole for all we knew prior to going in.
To raise your chances of survival you have to make these people trust your command, and focus their minds completely on the mission, i.e. having no loose ends or something to bother them while on the Normandy. For that you do the "loyalty" missions. That was the whole plot design for ME2.
Loyalty missions that were optional and overshadowed the main plot, especially considering they had nothing to do with it directly. Most of those characters don't have to be on the Normandy for you to tie up their loose ends to begin with. While there's a bare minimum needed to open up more plot missions, the connection is nonexistent. (Why is recruiting Garrus, Grunt and Jack necessary to visit Horizon? Bioware said so.) Earning loyalty to keep Shepard alive at the end of the suicide mission is an indirect component that could have been just about anything - and for missions that take up so much of the game's content, it would have been nice if they directly impacted the plot in some way. Since they don't, you can argue that most of it is unnecessary filler. There are far better ways to shape a plot than unnecessary filler. Furthermore, they only factor in keeping Shepard alive at the end of the game, after the main plot has concluded (i.e., Shepard stops the Collectors). Shepard succeeds no matter what (you just decide
how) and once he does, anything goes -- including his death. (In other words, Shepard's survival is
not necessary to the plot.) So, in conclusion: the loyalty missions' connection to the main plot is pretty much intangible. If you're going to argue for its importance, you'd have to start talking about Mass Effect 3 -- which isn't what we're discussing here.
If they're going to be in there, why not have more plot-related missions? That would have helped a lot. I suppose you can say that then that would have meant more resources and more time spent developing the game, but at least then you'd have a more fine-tuned game.
kraidy1117 wrote...
Take out Miri, the story will change big time. <Miri and Mordin are needed for the plot and for the Cerberus plot Jack is needed and since Cerberus is part of the main story that makes Jack part of the main story.
Miranda is only necessary because she lead the project that resurrected Commander Shepard. Beyond that, we know she's a tool for Cerberus. Her usefulness in stopping the Collectors is as questionable as any of the other characters, including Jack, whose only connection to anything at all is that she was a test subject for Cerberus and was abused by them. Cerberus is part of the main story (they're the only ones willing to stop the Collectors, and provide Shepard the means to do so), but Jack's association with Cerberus (former test subject) does not make her important to the mission of stopping the Collectors...which
is the main story.
RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
If you relate the dark energy thing to the reapers already, Tali's recruitment mission could be included or at list have a connection to the reaper threat plot.
Except it's speculation on your part. Its connection is something fans on the forum debate about. If it does have some importance, we'll see...in Mass Effect
3. It has
nothing to do with Mass Effect 2's plot, because there are no in-game references directly stating its relationship to the Collectors' plans, or the Reapers.
Modifié par CTM1, 10 avril 2010 - 05:09 .
Retour en haut
