123 réponses à ce sujet

[lordgeryon]

My hopes for ME3:



Shepard no longer works for anyone. No Alliance, Council, or Cerberus leash. S/he is working solely on their own merits, doing things as they see fit. Sure, that robs them of some support, but it also gives them freedom to operate without regard to jurisdiction or allegiances.



Instead of recruiting squad members as the story focus, Shepard is now working to unify the galaxy. Recruiting entire races, in other words. Quarians and Geth. Krogan, under Wrex or not. Rachni. And so on.



No more time limits, for gameplay reasons. I hate time limits(timed missions are different).



A step away from the simplified combat system. In ME2, the gameplay feels dumbed down from ME1.



As for squadmates, all ME1 and ME2 survivors should be recruitable. We've been introduced to these people, we know their stories. We care about these people, not counting individual tastes. And for many, they are masters of their fields with the skills, knowledge, and reputation that comes with that. Plenty of ways to make them plot relevant, no need for new people. But, make us choose between them due to personality conflicts; You can't have Jack and Miranda. You can't have Grunt and Wrex. In addition, a limited number of team slots would be good.



And finally, I want ME3 to be massive. I want it to be epic.



However, I won't be holding my breath. With the trend of gaming over the last decade, games are getting shorter and simpler, losing gameplay for flash. It's a pity. Mainstream strikes again.

[smudboy]

Torrential wrote...

Jzadek72 wrote...

Ok, your opinion differs from mine, I respect that. But if the game makes you so angry, why do you just hang about these boards being snide? At least, if you have to stay around (and I see no reason why you would be motivated to, but again, if you want to, I'll respect that) and complain, you might try being more civil. Torrential is presenting his arguements, and being perfectly nice. You spend the debated sneering at his opinions.

I don’t believe Smudboy can really fathom what a character driven story means, so he is trying to take the comments out of context, or just trolling, probably both.

I’ll try it in a few simple words, which he seems to prefer.

Smudboy – How can you enjoy characters and the story?

Characters driving story make story good, I enjoy, ug ug rawr, {img} picture of cake {/img}.

Do the character’s motives, desires and personalities influence that cause and effect chain? Then it's character driven.

By default Shepard is a flat and static character, which makes the plot of ME2 automatically plot driven.

Modifié par smudboy, 16 avril 2010 - 11:27 .

[Nightwriter]

lordgeryon is right.

Screw every fuhking organization in this game. I hate you all!

Cerberus, the Alliance, the Council - you're just different flavors of the same shiht! WHO NEEDS YOU!!!

Modifié par Nightwriter, 16 avril 2010 - 11:35 .

[smudboy]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
So ultimately having the Side Quests focused on Characters more than having the characters focused in the main quest is a mistake?

Exactly.

Exposition on anything has to be neatly woven into the narrative.  As in the narrative of the main story.  Or else, like in ME2, you get 12 stories with one story, completely static.  Remember the ending to Samara's story where she kills her daughter?  It was like "okay, great, can we go now?"  Typical male attitude toward shopping.  It didn't help that Shepard was a brick, either, which made also getting there hilarious.

The characters in those stories grow, but they do not grow along the plot of the main story.  In fact it's not even part of the plot.  They have 0 motivations toward it, and we're not told why we need to put the plot on this path.  Mordin's story was the only one that came close to this, because we're told by TIM/Miranda to go get him, and his countermeasure becomes a plot device.  And that's it (which is fine.)  He at least had some deal made with Shepard to join, let alone similar interests (plague, Collectors.)  There was a line of dialog with a Vorcha who may have known something about the Collectors, but that went nowhere.  (Thane's recruitment, too, where he just talks about it, but again, goes nowhere.)

[Nightwriter]

smudboy wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
So ultimately having the Side Quests focused on Characters more than having the characters focused in the main quest is a mistake?

Exactly.

Exposition on anything has to be neatly woven into the narrative.  As in the narrative of the main story.  Or else, like in ME2, you get 12 stories with one story, completely static.  Remember the ending to Samara's story where she kills her daughter?  It was like "okay, great, can we go now?"  Typical male attitude toward shopping.  It didn't help that Shepard was a brick, either, which made also getting there hilarious.

The characters in those stories grow, but they do not grow along the plot of the main story.  In fact it's not even part of the plot.  They have 0 motivations toward it, and we're not told why we need to put the plot on this path.  Mordin's story was the only one that came close to this, because we're told by TIM/Miranda to go get him, and his countermeasure becomes a plot device.  And that's it (which is fine.)  He at least had some deal made with Shepard to join, let alone similar interests (plague, Collectors.)  There was a line of dialog with a Vorcha who may have known something about the Collectors, but that went nowhere.  (Thane's recruitment, too, where he just talks about it, but again, goes nowhere.)

I completely agree, smudboy. Couldn't have said it better.

[Karstedt]

Mordin's loyalty mission also added to the story, because the genophage could play a part in the story. Legion's was also relevant. But yeah, the rest were pretty much, meh. Ok, we did your thing, now quit yer' bishin' and do what I want. Sure they were mostly cool, but more like a collection of unrelated short stories. It didn't feel like a Karpyshynian adventure.

[Nightwriter]

I weep for Karpyshyn.

[smudboy]

Nightwriter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
So ultimately having the Side Quests focused on Characters more than having the characters focused in the main quest is a mistake?

Exactly.

Exposition on anything has to be neatly woven into the narrative.  As in the narrative of the main story.  Or else, like in ME2, you get 12 stories with one story, completely static.  Remember the ending to Samara's story where she kills her daughter?  It was like "okay, great, can we go now?"  Typical male attitude toward shopping.  It didn't help that Shepard was a brick, either, which made also getting there hilarious.

The characters in those stories grow, but they do not grow along the plot of the main story.  In fact it's not even part of the plot.  They have 0 motivations toward it, and we're not told why we need to put the plot on this path.  Mordin's story was the only one that came close to this, because we're told by TIM/Miranda to go get him, and his countermeasure becomes a plot device.  And that's it (which is fine.)  He at least had some deal made with Shepard to join, let alone similar interests (plague, Collectors.)  There was a line of dialog with a Vorcha who may have known something about the Collectors, but that went nowhere.  (Thane's recruitment, too, where he just talks about it, but again, goes nowhere.)

I completely agree, smudboy. Couldn't have said it better.

I can continue!

It's made worse by actually having the main plot "Stop the Collectors" being totally unrevealed.  All we know, since the beginning of the game, is that the Collectors have a Cruiser, and there's an Omega-4 relay we eventually have to go through.

So aside from not knowing why we need 12 soldiers to at least have a space ship battle with the Cruiser, we're apparently going to have a land war in Asia, but it's not spelled out how we know that, or how that will happen.  We needed to know our target, their scope, their armament, what their homeworld was like, how many planets and bases, because that's the goal of the story (Suicide Mission.)  Couple this with the one Big Reveal that they're Protheans, which means they're 50k years old, so they could have the largest civilization/planetary expansion than any other species.  And how we land the ship is ridiculous: if you upgrade the gun, Shepard recommends "getting in close" to "finish them off", thereby crashlanding the Normandy.  Great leadership, Shep.  And there's our land war in Asia.  As with other stories of this nature, like Guns of Navarone, we know what the characters have to do: blow up the Guns of Navarone.  'cause they're big guns, and we see them early on.

Upgrade our ship to help in a ship battle?  Click a menu button. (What, did TIM and his secret fleet yard and information network skimp on the technology here?)  If anything that should've tied into the quest for those respective characters.  (Tali gets suerp-secret specs and materials after helping her in her trial for shields, finding out Captain's passwrod codes from Jacob's father on the Hugo Gernsback database for specs and salvage from the ships armor, Sidonis being an ex-Turian military guy who's got ties to C-Sec/whatever for the cannon.)

Modifié par smudboy, 16 avril 2010 - 12:18 .

[Torrential]

smudboy wrote...
Do the character’s motives, desires and personalities influence that cause and effect chain? Then it's character driven.

By default Shepard is a flat and static character, which makes the plot of ME2 automatically plot driven.

Flat - How interesting you find a character, or even a plot for that matter, doesn’t impact whether the story is character or plot driven.

Static - Shepard dictates how the characters develop. The characters develop into loyal followers or tragic ends, they develop into making peace with their past or running that past into a wall. Your experience and ultimate conclusion is dictated by the choices your characters make. Hence ME2 is Character driven.

The experience will be enhanced greatly if these character driven choices form the basis of ME3, it will be diminished if they don’t.

smudboy wrote...
The characters in those stories grow, but they do not grow along the plot of the main story.  In fact it's not even part of the plot.  They have 0 motivations toward it,

Most of their motivations are pretty obvious from their stories and dialogue. Some feel invested in their own survival, some like fighting/killing, others owe a debt to society, owe you a debt, or just believe in Cerberus.

They grow into the plot, and many have personal growth - Thane, Miranda, Jack spring to clear mind. Didn’t play out Mordin's line, as I wanted the Krogan dead for ME3 but I assume from the dialogue options him to. I also killed Jacob's father with a renegade choice, but I imagine that might have seen some growth in a paragon playthrough, can't say for sure.

I do wish for instance Garrus and Ash had more gametime, but I posted about that already.

This is a suicide mission, a few people are missing that when speaking about the plot. Most of the characters time was spent wrapping up loose ends, expecting not to come back, so personal growth understably wasn't their main focus.

smudboy wrote...
and we're not told why we need to put the plot on this path. 

If you don’t understand why the collectors needed to be stopped stealing human colonists and turning them into minions, sludge for reapers and various other threats, then your character is even more renegade than mine was. If your meaning the start of the plot was rushed (in my opinion forced), I think many of us have agreed on that a few times now.

Modifié par Torrential, 16 avril 2010 - 12:20 .

[smudboy]

Torrential wrote...
Flat - How interesting you find a character, or even a plot for that matter, doesn’t impact whether the story is character or plot driven.

"Flat characters are two-dimensional in that they are relatively uncomplicated and do not change throughout the course of a work"
It is by definition impossible for a flat character to be the protagonist of a character driven story.

Static - Shepard dictates how the characters develop. The characters develop into loyal followers or tragic ends, they develop into making peace with their past or running that past into a wall. Your experience and ultimate conclusion is dictated by the choices your characters make. Hence ME2 is Character driven.

The side characters have their own plots, some their own arcs.  The Shepard character may interact with those plots, but that's as far as it goes.

Loyalty is merely a gameplay mechanic for "best ending" and is totally optional.

The experience will be enhanced greatly if these character driven choices form the basis of ME3, it will be diminished if they don’t.

What character driven choices?

Most of their motivations are pretty obvious from their stories and dialogue. Some feel invested in their own survival, some like fighting/killing, others owe a debt to society, owe you a debt, or just believe in Cerberus.

Their motivations, save maybe Mordin, have nothing to do with the main plot.

They grow into the plot, and many have personal growth - Thane, Miranda, Jack spring to clear mind. Didn’t play out Mordin's line, as I wanted the Krogan dead for ME3 but I assume from the dialogue options him to. I also killed Jacob's father with a renegade choice, but I imagine that might have seen some growth in a paragon playthrough, can't say for sure.

Yes, they grow into the character's plot, not the main story's plot.  There is a difference.

This is a suicide mission, a few people are missing that when speaking about the plot. Most of the characters time was spent wrapping up loose ends, expecting not to come back, so personal growth understably wasn't their main focus.

The whole point of those "Loyalty" missions was their characterization.

If you don’t understand why the collectors needed to be stopped stealing human colonists and turning them into minions, sludge for reapers and various other threats, then your character is even more renegade than mine was. If your meaning the start of the plot was rushed (in my opinion forced), I think many of us have agreed on that a few times now.

The story is clear: we know what the problem is (Collectors are stealing people.)  We don't know why they're building a human Reaper.  The plot, however, is to stop them.  What does stopping the Collectors involve?  We're never told.  It's like a military commander not giving their troops necessary information to get the job done (or who their enemy is, how many, how large the campagin is, how long it'll take, etc.) assuming the mission even needs military troops, yet knowing full well there's a B52 bomber above, somewhere.  But that's okay: after we get past the Point of No Return, we should do fine.  To magically fight a land war in Asia, in space.

[Nightwriter]

smudboy wrote...

I can continue!

It's made worse by actually having the main plot "Stop the Collectors" being totally unrevealed.  All we know, since the beginning of the game, is that the Collectors have a Cruiser, and there's an Omega-4 relay we eventually have to go through.

So aside from not knowing why we need 12 soldiers to at least have a space ship battle with the Cruiser, we're apparently going to have a land war in Asia, but it's not spelled out how we know that, or how that will happen.  We needed to know our target, their scope, their armament, what their homeworld was like, how many planets and bases, because that's the goal of the story (Suicide Mission.)  Couple this with the one Big Reveal that they're Protheans, which means they're 50k years old, so they could have the largest civilization/planetary expansion than any other species.  And how we land the ship is ridiculous: if you upgrade the gun, Shepard recommends "getting in close" to "finish them off", thereby crashlanding the Normandy.  Great leadership, Shep.  And there's our land war in Asia.  As with other stories of this nature, like Guns of Navarone, we know what the characters have to do: blow up the Guns of Navarone.  'cause they're big guns, and we see them early on.

Upgrade our ship to help in a ship battle?  Click a menu button. (What, did TIM and his secret fleet yard and information network skimp on the technology here?)  If anything that should've tied into the quest for those respective characters.  (Tali gets suerp-secret specs and materials after helping her in her trial for shields, finding out Captain's passwrod codes from Jacob's father on the Hugo Gernsback database for specs and salvage from the ships armor, Sidonis being an ex-Turian military guy who's got ties to C-Sec/whatever for the cannon.)

Now I agree with you even more.

Not only do I feel that each character should've had something specific and important to contribute to the mission, each character should've been personally and emotionally invested in the mission, as well.

For instance:

Samara - The Collectors want very much to study a very rare and specific genetic anomaly: the ardat-yakshi. They kidnap her two other daughters. In addition to Samara's needing to find Morinth and kill her, she has to rescue her daughters, as well.

Jack - She was experimented on by Cerberus using some groundbreaking technology, and was outfitted with a very special amp that had never been seen before and cannot be duplicated. It is revealed that the rogue Cerberus cell built it off of Collector technology. The amp is killing her. It's also unusually effective against the Collectors. She needs answers.

Thane - A dear hanar friend who had dedicated his life to the study of Protheans both religiously and scientifically went missing when he began to learn a little bit too much about the connection between the Protheans and the Collectors.

I could go on. Those are just examples.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 16 avril 2010 - 12:41 .

[smudboy]

Nightwriter wrote...
Now I agree with you even more.

Not only do I feel that each character should've had something specific and important to contribute to the mission, each character should've been personally and emotionally invested in the mission, as well.

For instance:

Samara - The Collectors want very much to study a very rare and specific genetic anomaly: the ardat-yakshi. They kidnap her two other daughters. In addition to Samara's needing to find Morinth and kill her, she has to rescue her daughters, as well.

Jack - She was experimented on by Cerberus using some groundbreaking technology, and was outfitted with a very special amp that had never been seen before and cannot be duplicated. It is revealed that the rogue Cerberus cell built it off of Collector technology. The amp is killing her. It's also unusually effective against the Collectors. She needs answers.

Thane - A dear hanar friend who had dedicated his life to the study of Protheans both religiously and scientifically went missing when he began to learn a little bit too much about the connection between the Protheans and the Collectors.

I could go on. Those are just examples.

Sounds like what we did in creative writing class back in school.  We'd sit around and brainstorm, seeing which idea sounds the most interesting without being too contrived or requiring too much exposition (the idea that everything/everyone inthe universe of the story is related to the main plot does sometimes get farcical.  In a galaxy and scope like ME, it's all possible, though.)

Which would make sense, if under the context that TIM has spent the past 2 years looking for information on the Collectors.  All his data would point to those leads.  Stating that Shepard's a natural leader and can pick up anyone is ridiculous.  So what if you have dossiers TIM?  Who are these people?  Why do we need them?  All recruits just jump on a Suicide Mission, because.  Which makes the concept of loyalty silly, if they're going to risk their lives on something, they need to deal with some daddy issues?  You signed up for a one way trip, people.  (Nevermind them being professional in life and death situations, "loyalty" gets reduced to people being bulletproof, not getting hit by rockets, biotic prowess, or some unknown-invisible strength stat.)  If Loyalty actually meant trust and, there are scenes in the Suicide Mission where Shepard gives commands, that would be a good example of that.  Instead it's "you fill this role and work independently".  That has nothing to do with trust.

The issue still becomes of the land war in Asia, and thus, after recruiting said people, we must learn something about our goal in order to constitute their recruitment,  someone else's, or some other main plot quest that is essential to that goal.  Motivations and reasons are important to understand people, as that explains the social reality; but the physical reality, the "use the right tool for the right job" aspect, is the most important.

[Nightwriter]

smudboy wrote...

Sounds like what we did in creative writing class back in school.  We'd sit around and brainstorm, seeing which idea sounds the most interesting without being too contrived or requiring too much exposition (the idea that everything/everyone inthe universe of the story is related to the main plot does sometimes get farcical.  In a galaxy and scope like ME, it's all possible, though.)

Which would make sense, if under the context that TIM has spent the past 2 years looking for information on the Collectors.  All his data would point to those leads.  Stating that Shepard's a natural leader and can pick up anyone is ridiculous.  So what if you have dossiers TIM?  Who are these people?  Why do we need them?  All recruits just jump on a Suicide Mission, because.  Which makes the concept of loyalty silly, if they're going to risk their lives on something, they need to deal with some daddy issues?  You signed up for a one way trip, people.  (Nevermind them being professional in life and death situations, "loyalty" gets reduced to people being bulletproof, not getting hit by rockets, biotic prowess, or some unknown-invisible strength stat.)  If Loyalty actually meant trust and, there are scenes in the Suicide Mission where Shepard gives commands, that would be a good example of that.  Instead it's "you fill this role and work independently".  That has nothing to do with trust.

The issue still becomes of the land war in Asia, and thus, after recruiting said people, we must learn something about our goal in order to constitute their recruitment,  someone else's, or some other main plot quest that is essential to that goal.  Motivations and reasons are important to understand people, as that explains the social reality; but the physical reality, the "use the right tool for the right job" aspect, is the most important.

I very much like the idea of loyalty, not making characters necessarily impervious to a situation that would otherwise kill them, but making them more likely to follow a critical order or trust in Shepard during a vital moment.

For instance - the characters are forced into a situation where Jack must rescue Miranda or vice versa, and depending on how loyal they are to you they will either obey or disobey.

Then perhaps later, if those two characters are not alive, a mission critical action does not get performed that they would have otherwise been there to accomplish.

[rastakore]

ME1 ending > ME2 ending

[smudboy]

Nightwriter wrote...
I very much like the idea of loyalty, not making characters necessarily impervious to a situation that would otherwise kill them, but making them more likely to follow a critical order or trust in Shepard during a vital moment.

For instance - the characters are forced into a situation where Jack must rescue Miranda or vice versa, and depending on how loyal they are to you they will either obey or disobey.

Then perhaps later, if those two characters are not alive, a mission critical action does not get performed that they would have otherwise been there to accomplish.

Perfect example.  The pro-Cerberus character helping the anti-Cerberus character, or vice versa.  Shepard commands one to save/help the other.  Simple, easy.  Ditto with Tali and Legion.

(One thing that bothered (haha one) me was the bubble role.  Why couldn't Jack and Samara do it?)

The rush to hit all the valves was the most exciting part of the game, since it's up to you to keep your teammate from frying, but really no sense of loyalty going on there.  The next most exciting (which involved leadership and strategy in some sense) was Tali's recruitment mission, where Shepard can order Kal'Reegar to do a certain action, while running like mad to fight a colossus, on three different paths, while avoiding geth, while avoiding the colossus's blasts, while saying out of the sun.  Aside from Kal'Reeger flippin out over you, your team mates should've done the same.

[FlintlockJazz]

smudboy wrote...

(One thing that bothered (haha one) me was the bubble role.  Why couldn't Jack and Samara do it?)

Are you refering to the part where you need one of them to create the Biotic bubble in the collector base?  Jack and Samara are actually the ones that can do it the best, so I'm guessing you're actually talking about some other part?

[smudboy]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

smudboy wrote...

(One thing that bothered (haha one) me was the bubble role.  Why couldn't Jack and Samara do it?)

Are you refering to the part where you need one of them to create the Biotic bubble in the collector base?  Jack and Samara are actually the ones that can do it the best, so I'm guessing you're actually talking about some other part?

I meant "...do it together?"

[Xpheyel]

smudboy wrote...

The issue still becomes of the land war in Asia, and thus, after recruiting said people, we must learn something about our goal in order to constitute their recruitment,  someone else's, or some other main plot quest that is essential to that goal.  Motivations and reasons are important to understand people, as that explains the social reality; but the physical reality, the "use the right tool for the right job" aspect, is the most important.

I disagree with that part. I don't they need to justify bringing a powerful biotic within the context of the ME universe at all. If this was a game about special forces and there was a demolitions expert on the squad even when we didn't need him, would there be a problem? 

Same reason everyone had Biotic, Tech, and Combat bars in ME1. They're just useful skills which you may need.

[FlintlockJazz]

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

smudboy wrote...

(One thing that bothered (haha one) me was the bubble role.  Why couldn't Jack and Samara do it?)

Are you refering to the part where you need one of them to create the Biotic bubble in the collector base?  Jack and Samara are actually the ones that can do it the best, so I'm guessing you're actually talking about some other part?

I meant "...do it together?"

Ah sorry, I get ya now.  As to why they couldn't do it together, well I think that's a rather personal ques-oh you mean create a bubble together, not um, nevermind.   No idea, I have heard of people taking all the biotic  characters with them on that one thinking they could have one take over if needed, and I don't see why Shepard (as the god-man that he supposedly is) couldn't do it either if you're playing as an adept.  Not in character anyway.

[KnotEngaged]

OP makes some nice points. Unfortunately this thread will now be flamed by idiots that don't understand how a trilogy with a serialized narrative structure works, and the challenges it presents.

[smudboy]

Xpheyel wrote...

smudboy wrote...

The issue still becomes of the land war in Asia, and thus, after recruiting said people, we must learn something about our goal in order to constitute their recruitment,  someone else's, or some other main plot quest that is essential to that goal.  Motivations and reasons are important to understand people, as that explains the social reality; but the physical reality, the "use the right tool for the right job" aspect, is the most important.

I disagree with that part. I don't they need to justify bringing a powerful biotic within the context of the ME universe at all. If this was a game about special forces and there was a demolitions expert on the squad even when we didn't need him, would there be a problem? 

Same reason everyone had Biotic, Tech, and Combat bars in ME1. They're just useful skills which you may need.

They need to justify bringing anyone into the plot, including Shepard (which they do, unfortunately their utility is never proven.)  Our plot is specific: Stop the Collectors.  What exactly are we stopping and how?  So far, a Cruiser, which is a ship battle, at least.  In ME1, Garrus is just some guy, but he has motivations toward the plot, which is to stop Saren and unravel a doomsday scenario.  In ME2, everyone save Mordin is just some guy, with a specific goal of destruction whose target is unknown.

I actually made the zapper/nuke argument before.  Since we're here to Stop an Enemy, that means a few things, most extreme would be to kill them.  A weapons or demo expert, or getting bombs, would naturally make sense, (and it's e even suggested in the Suicide Mission), but you'd still have to explain what they're going to be blowing up: unless you like flat characters just because (note: bad writing.)  As well as explain the land war in Asia.  Having a person who's merely really good at moving things around with their mind doesn't make sense, unless their destructive force and operation is comparable to a space ship (i.e. Samara going all Technoman in space to rip through the Collector Cruiser.)

If all we know that is revealed is the Cruiser, just get nukes, or better firepower. Which is why the Normandy getting grounded is contrived, because the plot needs a land war in Asia.

In the Suicide Mission, we never really see the effectiveness or utility of the 2nd team.  (Considering it's everyone else who's not in your squad and not the tech expert.)  This is kind of important.  All we know is it may involve getting a stray rocket blast to the tech expert's head, and the leader may suddenly have bulletproof armor.

[smudboy]

Flies_by_Handles wrote...

On an emotional level I really enjoyed ME2. First impressions do count for something, but I will admit that now that I'm slowly going through my second playthrough and reading various threads at this site, the game has a lot of flaws---though certainly not enough to turn me away from the game. Some of the problems have the potential to be lessened once the third game is released. Or atleast I hope that all the time spent on the recruitment/loyalty missions will amount to something later down the road; ME2 was pretty much all about recruitments with a side helping of plot. With ME3, the writers will have another chance to show why your team is motivated to follow you to the pits of hell. I don't want new, recruitable characters. I want the ones I already have to be further fleshed out and involved in the plot in a more meaningful way.
~~~
@Smudboy: I've read many of your other posts and you've brought up several things that I agree with. I just want to know what you like about the game because I don't think I've seen any posts describing its positives.

http://social.biowar...879280/1#879280

I find the P/R system interesting, or any social reality simplified in a choice-problem solving-attitude system.

[Xpheyel]

smudboy wrote...
They need to justify bringing anyone into the plot, including Shepard (which they do, unfortunately their utility is never proven.)  Our plot is specific: Stop the Collectors.  What exactly are we stopping and how?  So far, a Cruiser, which is a ship battle, at least.  In ME1, Garrus is just some guy, but he has motivations toward the plot, which is to stop Saren and unravel a doomsday scenario.  In ME2, everyone save Mordin is just some guy, with a specific goal of destruction whose target is unknown.

I actually made the zapper/nuke argument before.  Since we're here to Stop an Enemy, that means a few things, most extreme would be to kill them.  A weapons or demo expert, or getting bombs, would naturally make sense, (and it's e even suggested in the Suicide Mission), but you'd still have to explain what they're going to be blowing up: unless you like flat characters just because (note: bad writing.)  As well as explain the land war in Asia.  Having a person who's merely really good at moving things around with their mind doesn't make sense, unless their destructive force and operation is comparable to a space ship (i.e. Samara going all Technoman in space to rip through the Collector Cruiser.)

If all we know that is revealed is the Cruiser, just get nukes, or better firepower. Which is why the Normandy getting grounded is contrived, because the plot needs a land war in Asia.

In the Suicide Mission, we never really see the effectiveness or utility of the 2nd team.  (Considering it's everyone else who's not in your squad and not the tech expert.)  This is kind of important.  All we know is it may involve getting a stray rocket blast to the tech expert's head, and the leader may suddenly have bulletproof armor.

While I can agree that it makes more sense for Shepard to just nuke the place, the concept doesn't seem that contrived to me. They have no way of knowing how well defended or large the Collector homeworld/base might be. The only way to ensure victory would be to send a fleet through. Or at least a dreadnought. TIM has neither. However, they could reasonably expect to temporarily cripple the Collector's incursions by doing something like destroying their spaceports.

Similarly Ilos turns out to be a ground mission where you can luckily drive a tank through a mass relay. Wrex is a random guy in ME1, double if you go straight from Garrus to Chora's Den and skip recruiting Wrex until you bump into him at the elevator. Tali is an chick from a race which isn't widely trusted or accepted who happens to have a recording of Saren gloating darkly acquired in a way that some of the other characters seem to believe is impossible... But her evidence is instantly accepted and Shepard puts her on the squad, not to mention dragging Liara to a potential gun fight with her mother (nice for the story but totally, totally insane).

You can cast elements from either game as being contrived or just plain crazy if you want to take the time to bother. You can also probably come up with justifications for either.