524 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

Slidell505 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

ALL Major plot points from ME 1 are expanded in ME 2.

By a quarter of an inch.

Oh FFS, aspects like the Genophage, Biotics, Geth Emergance and Human Politics are expanded upon greatly and are given more depth this go around than the first time around.

[smudboy]

Pacifien wrote...
There is something about storytelling that bugs me which is a writer's tendency to over explain elements that can just as easily be implied or interpreted in a myriad of ways. Because it's not written or shown in a story does not mean it didn't happen or the writer couldn't be bothered to incorporate it into the story.

This is interesting, since I've never seen this as a problem.  This only occurs in sci-fi and fantasy stories, where the writer must spend several chapters explaning the history, happenstance and workings of the universe, because it is alien to us.  Essentially you get a lot of descriptions of trees and forests, and computers and glowing technology.

Every fantasy or science fiction universe falls into this trap. The fans want more. Explain more. Show more. Which can just as well bite them in the ass if the writer does show more and it turns out the explanation is much worse than what you imagined.

I wouldn't say we all want the tiny details of how something works to be explained, unless the thing to be explained is very important (a MacGuffin, the orphan's "special plot trinket", the mind control device, etc. ) No one, even a sci-fi reader, wants to read even more ramblings about forests and glowing tech, just because.  Unless they don't know the difference between good writing (brief, succinct) and simply want info (which a glossary or other story within the series can do) because they're rabid fanboys.

I'm not trying to say that explanations should be minimal, nor that forcing one to use their imagination to fill in the holes makes for a good plot. There's a balance and you don't get bogged down with explanations when the player is wanting to get on with it.

I agree, but I would argue explanations or showing things should at least be there.  And briefly.

There's a video where the developers explain their design of the Collector ship/base that is drastically different from what we see in the game. They knew the Collectors were the keepers of advanced technology beyond any other species out there. And so their ship was very angular, mechanical, efficient, and cold. But when it came time to transfer that design into a 3D computer model, the lighting wouldn't reflect off surfaces correctly. The mission levels became repetitive and had the atmosphere of complete boredom. And so the design was completely changed to be more organic, fluid, darker and almost an extension of the Collectors own body dynamic. And they said they knew this design didn't really make sense, it's like designing a ship modeled after the human body, organic flesh and all.

I'd love to see that.

I think I've been rambling this entire post without a point. I was just about to bring in the Portal development commentary into the mix, particularly what the GLaDOS voice actress has to say about how much the developers really don't have planned even as she was recording dialogue. Why am I bringing up the development process of a game at all? I don't know. Certainly it has nothing to do with developing a solid plot beyond being the implementer of the plot.
I think I need to cut back on the caffeine intake.

There's nothing wrong with having the plot change during development, provided the media and the writing reflects that change.  It's a symbiotic balance.  But when a hole is generated and not patched up in any number of methods from writing or media (show, tell, announce the mystery, foreshadow, reflect, ponder, change perspective, illude, etc.), then the disconnects begin, especially in a contemporary setting where the main "magic sci-fi" is limited to mass effect fields.

[adam_grif]

So as a courtesy to Smudboy for reading my monolithic review, I decided to check out this video series. The impression I got from reading the first few pages of this thread was that the series was going to be full of **** and petty complaining, but instead it was actually really good.



Sure, there were a few minor things wrong with it, but as a whole it was quite good. Started out a bit bumpy but by the end the good points just kept coming. I'm kind of depressed that there was so much crossover between this video and the review I wrote though, because now it means I can't post it without seeming unoriginal

[smudboy]

badkenbad wrote...
Um, no. Sure, he makes a lot of points, the problem is that many of them have nothing to do with the game Mass Effect. The conclusion I came to by the third video was that the guy hadn't played the game, or if he had, hadn't read any of the codex or explored any of the dialogue.

We're playing the same game.

I admit I didn't read the codex.  A story of any sort does not require a reference material, or it automatically fails.  This is called bad writing.  The story fails even more if it's a sequel, and doesn't reference its prequel properly, if at all.  Even if ME2's plot had no holes, the mention of a retcon would break continuity.  (To be clear, a retcon first requires a reboot to work, which can be done properly.)

Also it was painfully obvious that he was trying to copy RedLetterMedia's style and doing a painfully poor job of it. It really hurt his criticism, because to fit the style he had to make up a whole bunch of things that weren't really wrong with ME2.

I was going for that.  Since ME2 = The Star Wars Prequels.

Then please tell me the bunch of things, no, one thing that wasn't really wrong that I mentioned with ME2.

Anyway, I meant it when I said I didn't know where to begin, and I don't really want to take the time to take notes and refute each point he makes (or makes up) in his hour worth of video. I just hope that Bioware doesn't pay any attention, because I certainly wouldn't want this game to follow the boilerplate conventional story tropes that smudboy is so in love with.

The only thing I'm in love with is a plot.  (I have this thing for things making sense to a 4 year old.)

Unfortunately, they'll either have to be sci-fi geniuses on the level of Isaac Asimov, with the explanatory style of Mr. Rogers, as well as master game engineers if they're not going to use stereotypes or some commonality to explain things.  I think even the visual designers (watching some dev diaries) had to redesign the look of the Collectors because it was too alien to their audience, so they fell back to the conventional, stereotypes of organic aliens.

I will say one thing, though. It's a mistake to analyze the story of a video game as if it were a movie or a book. Video games aren't movies or books. They don't work the same way. The stories don't work the same way. Judging video game stories with the same measures as other media only makes you look like an Ebert.

The only thing that makes a video game different is the page it's on and how you turn it.  The narrative is more than just words: it's audio and visual.  Like how we get visual and audio cues on the resurrection of Shepard (audio logs, size and aesthetics of the station, etc.)  Now, we have to apply even more knowhow on how the story is told.  The basic rule is: form follows function.  What does a large spacestation need to have all these rooms when reconstructing a man?  The design has nothing to do with Shepard's rebirth, and everything to do with a tutorial level.  If it's just some medical base, then fine.  But because we get no clues, no visual evidence, no "failed experiment evidence", no clear motives from our traitor, no concern from our protagonist, and confusing audio techno-jargon, where's the real story of Shepard's rebirth?  (Conclusion: there isn't one.)  In this paragraph, I haven't compared this to other rebirth stories or another medium.  And yet there's a medical miracle whose how and meaning is lost, because we need to shoot things.

However, you said "it's a mistake to analyze the story of a video game as if it were a book or movie," which suddenly puts the story of a video game in some special place that can't be evaluated.  This is false thinking.  "Shepard stretches the kink out in his arm.  He ponders if the discomfort is from his resurrection." = the idle animation.  If we reduce the story of a video game to a book or movie, then of course we can compare and evaluate it.  A video game is just a combination of audio and visual outputs, with special page turning inputs.  It'll have the exact same elements, obviously in a conjoined manner.  But I'm barely doing that.  I'm just talking about what makes the story make sense (i.e. the plot.)

I am most definitely not comparing this work to Asimov or Clarke (and some have, which I touch on in some of the next videos I'm making.)  Unless you really want to see how much of a farce it becomes.

Modifié par smudboy, 06 juin 2010 - 01:18 .

[smudboy]

adam_grif wrote...

So as a courtesy to Smudboy for reading my monolithic review, I decided to check out this video series. The impression I got from reading the first few pages of this thread was that the series was going to be full of **** and petty complaining, but instead it was actually really good.

Sure, there were a few minor things wrong with it, but as a whole it was quite good. Started out a bit bumpy but by the end the good points just kept coming. I'm kind of depressed that there was so much crossover between this video and the review I wrote though, because now it means I can't post it without seeming unoriginal

Hahaha, go for it adam!  There's plenty of smart people on the forums with things I didn't get, and arguing clarified them up for me.

[smudboy]

finnithe wrote...
snip

If you're arguing symbolism, that's fine, as I'm not trying to.  What you stated sounds accurate.

The endgame decision of Mass Effect 2 concerns this theme because the Reaper technology in the base will likely have that same result of humanity evolving down the Reaper's lines, risking themselves into being turned into something resembling Saren or the Collectors, or as the Human Reaper at the end suggests, something much worse. 

Yet humans have been progressing with mass effect fields like everyone else in the galaxy, and one and his squad were able to stop Sovereign.

The difference is we, Shepard and co., now know they exist.  And, TIM's ego is slowly getting on par with a Reaper.  I can't see TIM stop prattling on about preserving and advancing humanity any time soon.  At worse, he'll probaly want to start mind controlling others to think humans > all.

Now that I think about it, you are probably right about Sovereign's speech. Mass Effect 1, being the first game in the series, needs a lot of exposition, and the reveal that Sovereign itself was a Reaper was done well through that speech. I'm just happy they didn't do it again with Harbinger in the second game. 

You're happy we didn't get any meaningful exposition from Harbinger?

So you like meaingless protagonists who don't make sense, ramble on about crap, want to kill/capture us for some reason, have some master plan of birthing another one of their kind, for some reason...?

Sci-fi needs exposition.  Antagonists need exposition: a lot.  In fact, the most out of any other storytelling element.  Especially when you introduce a new opposing force with a piggy-back controling overmind that taunts you the entire time about how inferior you are.  Harbinger is worse than Dr. Evil.  Even though we knew that movie was a farce, he at least made sense.

[Pacifien]

[quote]smudboy wrote...
This is interesting, since I've never seen this as a problem.  This only occurs in sci-fi and fantasy stories, where the writer must spend several chapters explaning the history, happenstance and workings of the universe, because it is alien to us.  Essentially you get a lot of descriptions of trees and forests, and computers and glowing technology.[/quote]
I like my stories to be efficient, tight, and focused. With the creation of a whole universe, it's tempting to divert your audience on a little side journey so you can show them something unique and interesting about that universe. Sometimes you keep expanding the scenes of the character's story until you're talking about his trip to the bathroom, just so the audience can get every little morsel of this character's life. Sure, it's interesting, but is it really necessary?

For instance, a lot of people wonder about the geth/quarian conflict and how the two sides are going to play out in the end. War? Peace? It's an interesting story, but is it one that needs to be resolved during Shepard's battle against the Reapers? Possibly it might if ME3 was about Shepard building an army, but I personally think the geth/quarian conflict is an interesting enough story not to be reduced to a side mission. In which case, don't resolve the issue in Shepard's story, save it for an entirely new game or story.

It's not that I always dislike it when the writer decides to spend a moment on the little details, that's certainly important in getting you to understand this universe he's trying to create. I just think sometimes the writer gets bogged down in the details.

An interesting element in telling a story as a game is that you don't even have to describe something about the universe, you can simply show it and let the audience draw their own conclusions. I'm trying to figure out if there's a good example I can give based on the Mass Effect games, but I'm drawing a blank right now..... well, that's annoying. Stupid brain.

I think everything I've just mentioned is something we agree on to a point.

[quote]smudboy wrote...
[quote]Pacifien wrote...
There's a video where the developers explain their design of the Collector ship/base that is drastically different from what we see in the game.*snip*[/quote]
I'd love to see that.[/quote]
I'd love to provide the link, but I am having no luck in finding it again. I'm nothing if not obsessive, so I'll get a link to that video eventually, even if I have to scour every single video with the tag "mass effect" on it.[/quote]

[quote]smudboy wrote...
There's nothing wrong with having the plot change during development, provided the media and the writing reflects that change.  It's a symbiotic balance.  But when a hole is generated and not patched up in any number of methods from writing or media (show, tell, announce the mystery, foreshadow, reflect, ponder, change perspective, illude, etc.), then the disconnects begin, especially in a contemporary setting where the main "magic sci-fi" is limited to mass effect fields.[/quote]
This is why I said in an earlier post that any story can be torn apart if you look closely enough. Things that people are willing to overlook will differ for each person as well. And certainly it's an accumulation of little things that eventually break the camel's back and you throw your hands up in the air and go "That's it! This is all wrong and I can't take it anymore!"

I think my point in the malleability of the plot during the development process is that sometimes resources and time are going to hinder you to such a degree that the plot holes can't be helped. If the plot holes get too big, then it becomes a very serious issue on what kind of hit on the resources/time front the developers are willing to make to fix it. In the gaming world, prolonging development can hurt just as much as rushing it.

I suppose the funny thing for me is that I've spent all this time describing issues with storytelling that all apply to Mass Effect 2, so by all rights, I should be disappointed with it just as much as you. They sacrificed their main story of the Reaper threat so they could concentrate on little vignettes about all these interesting and different characters. The addition of the Collectors is just the excuse to put all these characters together in one place, and even then the reasons some of them join the fight is a bit tenuous. For all my talk of liking efficient, tight, and focused stories, I made the conscious decision to disregard my preferences in storytelling for the sake of enjoying the game.

Maybe my mind decided to disregard ME2 as part of a trilogy. Instead, the series becomes a duology to me and ME2 is just the big side story in the middle that the developers decided to throw in.

[Lemonwizard]

finnithe wrote...

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. The Collectors symbolize what happens when a race falls under the Reaper influence, 

Oh, so if the reapers win, we're going to be BORED for the rest of eternity!?



Well, shit, son, we better get to fighting!

Modifié par Lemonwizard, 06 juin 2010 - 06:44 .

[DOYOURLABS]

I thought it was good. But your opinion probably matters more.

[glacier1701]

 Sorry about not replying earlier but was a miserable weekend and I didn't feel up to it. The on bright side though was that I had a thought about the one piece of the CollectorBase destruction that we've all overlooked despite it being there right in front of us. Smud, you state and we've all pretty much agreed that the Collector Base is the last piece of evidence concerning the Reaper threat. As it turns out we are ALL WRONG. There is one further piece of evidence about the Reaper threat and as I said its staring us right in the face. Billions in the galaxy know of it. We players frequently mention it in posts and even use its attributes in some of our discussions. What is it? Its The Citadel itself!!!


 From ME1 we know The Citadel is actually a Mass Relay connecting to one in dark space where the Reapers have, UNTIL NOW, been waiting to use it to return to the galaxy to commence the next cycle. It has not been turned on due to Prothean action last cycle and of course Shepard's action this time around. However The Citadel and the associated control panel is still there waiting. Shepard KNOWS where this panel is. So how does this help us. If the Reapers do not exist then The Citadel is nothing but a very large space station built by the Protheans. Thats what the air-quote councillor believes when he dismisses Shepard's claims. If what Shepard says is true then all that is needed to be done is for controls to be turned on and for the 'new' relay to be used to take a ship out into dark space where the Reapers where. 

 Is it safe to use? Well up until recently it wasn't because the Reapers were waiting there. Now they have set out for the galaxy on FTL drive. All we need do is wait say a week or so and turn it on. By that time the Reapers should be far enough away they wont get back in time to surprise us at the Relay before we had a look round and since we'll only stay a few hours or so we'll be back and have it shut down. Should be easy enough to get it turned back on - we just let EDI work her magic - she is familiar with Reaper computer systems so this should be a doddle. All in all it is a win-win situation. Not only will we be able to prove the Reaper threat we'll have, potentially,  MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of years worth of information (yes I know I argued against that in the destruction of the Collector Base) of what the Reapers have done from the computer systems.

So The Citadel AS A RELAY negates Smud's #2 reason. It negates my own arguement against Smud's #1 reason but in this case we get not just perhaps information on the last 50k years but MILLIONS of years worth of data. Note that this data is not just technological but could be on everything imaginable. The races exterminated and their locations, stellar phenomenae, plans A, B, C and however many the Reapers had and so on. We MIGHT even find out who built the Reapers in the first place. This information should encompass so much that lines of research on how to destroy the Reapers should be able to go ahead based on ideas that do not use Reaper technology.

 So yes I have done a complete 180 on the use of information but in this case what we get is so much vastly more that it is justifiable.

[Mister Mida]

glacier1701 wrote...


 Sorry about not replying earlier but was a miserable weekend and I didn't feel up to it. The on bright side though was that I had a thought about the one piece of the CollectorBase destruction that we've all overlooked despite it being there right in front of us. Smud, you state and we've all pretty much agreed that the Collector Base is the last piece of evidence concerning the Reaper threat. As it turns out we are ALL WRONG. There is one further piece of evidence about the Reaper threat and as I said its staring us right in the face. Billions in the galaxy know of it. We players frequently mention it in posts and even use its attributes in some of our discussions. What is it? Its The Citadel itself!!!

...

You make a good point, glacier. But now we need to figure out why Shepard in ME2 didn't access the Citadel master control unit to show the evidence to the Council. Answers will always be replaced by questions again it seems.

[Halmiriliath]

So I finally got round to watching all of your analysis, Smudboy, and I applaud you for the time and effort you made to put it together. It contains quite a few valid points, and you are right about wanting things like more squad interaction and greater exposition in certain instances pertaining to important plot points, but I'm personally willing to wait and see with future DLC and Mass Effect 3 in regard to the latter. However, there are a few points that I disagree with that are mainly due to difference of opinion, but for the moment I just want to cover the main one that stood out for me:

Regarding your point that Shepard doesn't grow as a character throughout the game, despite others doing so, I personally think this is a matter of perspective. The way I approach this is that Shepard is my avatar in the Mass Effect universe, and thus it is up to me to interpret the unfolding events and to develop my own perspective and understanding of the things happening around him/her. This is far too unique to each individual player to have anywhere near enough responses or differences in inflection on the dialogue wheel to represent how even a small group of people playing this game perceive such critical points as resurrection, affiliation with Cerberus and decisions regarding the fate of the Collector base, and how Shepard changes in response to each event.

Of course, this is achievable in games where a character has a set path of development or in films etc., but if we are given choices to reflect our own perspective, then I personally think that you need to give some leeway for personal interpretation unique to each player. This applies to all the protagonists in the RPGs I've played - there are always few tangible signs of inward change of the main character, and when they are, they're always open-ended and somewhat vague, like the nightmare sequences and team-mates asking about you in the Baldur's Gate series. Moreover, the fact that the protagonist is fully voiced makes it even more difficult in that the way Jennifer Hale or Mark Meer say something may not be the way I would say it, be it too forceful or timid etc. Of course, I would have liked more to play with in this regard - i.e. greater surprise at Shepard's return; a few questions about his mental state from characters like Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, Garrus, Tali or whoever you're romancing (the sole instance in the game being Jacob's conversations as a love interest); and informal meetings of the squad to gauge where they, and more importantly, you, are at - but I think the rest mostly depends upon the way you as a player develop in the Mass Effect universe.

Depending on whether I suddenly get any flashes of insight at a later date, I'll try to add more of my two penneth later, but I'll stop for now.

Modifié par Halmiriliath, 07 juin 2010 - 03:01 .

[Pacifien]

Actually, beyond just the Citadel and the other Mass Relays, there are still pieces of Sovereign out there being studied by various groups. The problem with that situation is that each group is working independently from each other and there is no sharing of data.

I said it recently in some thread, but I feel sorry for whoever managed to snag the piece of Sovereign that manages indoctrination.

[Mister Mida]

Pacifien wrote...

I said it recently in some thread, but I feel sorry for whoever managed to snag the piece of Sovereign that manages indoctrination.

I doubt Sovereign's indocrination device is still active after the Alliance fleet tore it apart. Unlike with the Derelict Reaper. There is a big difference with just one big hole in the hull and being completely blown up .

[glacier1701]

Mister Mida wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...


 Sorry about not replying earlier but was a miserable weekend and I didn't feel up to it. The on bright side though was that I had a thought about the one piece of the CollectorBase destruction that we've all overlooked despite it being there right in front of us. Smud, you state and we've all pretty much agreed that the Collector Base is the last piece of evidence concerning the Reaper threat. As it turns out we are ALL WRONG. There is one further piece of evidence about the Reaper threat and as I said its staring us right in the face. Billions in the galaxy know of it. We players frequently mention it in posts and even use its attributes in some of our discussions. What is it? Its The Citadel itself!!!

...

You make a good point, glacier. But now we need to figure out why Shepard in ME2 didn't access the Citadel master control unit to show the evidence to the Council. Answers will always be replaced by questions again it seems.

Until the Reapers are actually on the move its unsafe to work the controls. We could let them in by mistake. Now that we 'know' the Reapers are on the move we wait a short time and then have a go at the controls. The Reapers should be far enough away that they cant get back before we turn the thing off PLUS if it needs a Reaper IFF then since we got one by the end of ME2 we dont have to worry about that either. So in actuality until the end of ME2 the pieces we might need are not in place. Now they are.

[Mister Mida]

glacier1701 wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...


 Sorry about not replying earlier but was a miserable weekend and I didn't feel up to it. The on bright side though was that I had a thought about the one piece of the CollectorBase destruction that we've all overlooked despite it being there right in front of us. Smud, you state and we've all pretty much agreed that the Collector Base is the last piece of evidence concerning the Reaper threat. As it turns out we are ALL WRONG. There is one further piece of evidence about the Reaper threat and as I said its staring us right in the face. Billions in the galaxy know of it. We players frequently mention it in posts and even use its attributes in some of our discussions. What is it? Its The Citadel itself!!!

...

You make a good point, glacier. But now we need to figure out why Shepard in ME2 didn't access the Citadel master control unit to show the evidence to the Council. Answers will always be replaced by questions again it seems.

Until the Reapers are actually on the move its unsafe to work the controls. We could let them in by mistake. Now that we 'know' the Reapers are on the move we wait a short time and then have a go at the controls. The Reapers should be far enough away that they cant get back before we turn the thing off PLUS if it needs a Reaper IFF then since we got one by the end of ME2 we dont have to worry about that either. So in actuality until the end of ME2 the pieces we might need are not in place. Now they are.

D'oh, it seems I didn't think about that the Reapers were still at the supposed relay by the time of ME2.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 07 juin 2010 - 05:19 .

[Pacifien]

Mister Mida wrote...
I doubt Sovereign's indocrination device is still active after the Alliance fleet tore it apart. Unlike with the Derelict Reaper. There is a big difference with just one big hole in the hull and being completely blown up .

RUDIMENTARY CREATURES OF BLOOD AND FLESH, YOU TOUCH MY MIND, FUMBLING IN IGNORANCE, INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING.

[Mister Mida]

Pacifien wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...
I doubt Sovereign's indocrination device is still active after the Alliance fleet tore it apart. Unlike with the Derelict Reaper. There is a big difference with just one big hole in the hull and being completely blown up .

RUDIMENTARY CREATURES OF BLOOD AND FLESH, YOU TOUCH MY MIND, FUMBLING IN IGNORANCE, INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING.

Understand this, 'Sovereign': without power from your mass effect core there isn't much powering you or your indoctrination device. That is something not beyond our comprehension.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 07 juin 2010 - 07:44 .

[glacier1701]

Halmiriliath wrote...

So I finally got round to watching all of your analysis, Smudboy, and I applaud you for the time and effort you made to put it together. It contains quite a few valid points, and you are right about wanting things like more squad interaction and greater exposition in certain instances pertaining to important plot points, but I'm personally willing to wait and see with future DLC and Mass Effect 3 in regard to the latter. However, there are a few points that I disagree with that are mainly due to difference of opinion, but for the moment I just want to cover the main one that stood out for me:

Regarding your point that Shepard doesn't grow as a character throughout the game, despite others doing so, I personally think this is a matter of perspective. The way I approach this is that Shepard is my avatar in the Mass Effect universe, and thus it is up to me to interpret the unfolding events and to develop my own perspective and understanding of the things happening around him/her. This is far too unique to each individual player to have anywhere near enough responses or differences in inflection on the dialogue wheel to represent how even a small group of people playing this game perceive such critical points as resurrection, affiliation with Cerberus and decisions regarding the fate of the Collector base, and how Shepard changes in response to each event.

Of course, this is achievable in games where a character has a set path of development or in films etc., but if we are given choices to reflect our own perspective, then I personally think that you need to give some leeway for personal interpretation unique to each player. This applies to all the protagonists in the RPGs I've played - there are always few tangible signs of inward change of the main character, and when they are, they're always open-ended and somewhat vague, like the nightmare sequences and team-mates asking about you in the Baldur's Gate series. Moreover, the fact that the protagonist is fully voiced makes it even more difficult in that the way Jennifer Hale or Mark Meer say something may not be the way I would say it, be it too forceful or timid etc. Of course, I would have liked more to play with in this regard - i.e. greater surprise at Shepard's return; a few questions about his mental state from characters like Kaidan/Ashley, Liara, Garrus, Tali or whoever you're romancing (the sole instance in the game being Jacob's conversations as a love interest); and informal meetings of the squad to gauge where they, and more importantly, you, are at - but I think the rest mostly depends upon the way you as a player develop in the Mass Effect universe.

Depending on whether I suddenly get any flashes of insight at a later date, I'll try to add more of my two penneth later, but I'll stop for now.

Part of the issue in 'character growth' is what do we mean by that. I suppose we all have different interpretations of that. Yet even so there was growth to Shepard's character in ME1. The Prothean Beacon vision is one example. It changed Shepard from being a soldier in the Alliance - one of millions - to being the MOST important person in the galaxy (even if many did not think so). Becoming a Specter was another character growth point in that Shepard now served more than just the Alliance and had to think about galactic matters when dealing with things. The Beacon vision, which had an impact on Shepard but minor compared to death, elicited comments and a remark from Chakwas about a change in brain waves and propelled us into confrontation with Saren.

 In ME2 we got nothing comparable to those moments. It was pretty much humdrum all the way through. Yet Shepard's death and return should have been such a moment. Ah well BioWare does seem to miss Drew in the storytelling department.
 

[smudboy]

glacier1701 wrote...
 Sorry about not replying earlier but was a miserable weekend and I didn't feel up to it. The on bright side though was that I had a thought about the one piece of the CollectorBase destruction that we've all overlooked despite it being there right in front of us. Smud, you state and we've all pretty much agreed that the Collector Base is the last piece of evidence concerning the Reaper threat. As it turns out we are ALL WRONG. There is one further piece of evidence about the Reaper threat and as I said its staring us right in the face. Billions in the galaxy know of it. We players frequently mention it in posts and even use its attributes in some of our discussions. What is it? Its The Citadel itself!!!

No worries.  I was busy video'ing it up.  Oh, so no rebuttle, instead, a brand new argument.

Maybe not the last piece, but probably the latest (and so far, most.)

 From ME1 we know The Citadel is actually a Mass Relay connecting to one in dark space where the Reapers have, UNTIL NOW, been waiting to use it to return to the galaxy to commence the next cycle. It has not been turned on due to Prothean action last cycle and of course Shepard's action this time around. However The Citadel and the associated control panel is still there waiting. Shepard KNOWS where this panel is. So how does this help us. If the Reapers do not exist then The Citadel is nothing but a very large space station built by the Protheans. Thats what the air-quote councillor believes when he dismisses Shepard's claims. If what Shepard says is true then all that is needed to be done is for controls to be turned on and for the 'new' relay to be used to take a ship out into dark space where the Reapers where.

Wouldn't that technically be a two-way door?

 Is it safe to use? Well up until recently it wasn't because the Reapers were waiting there. Now they have set out for the galaxy on FTL drive. All we need do is wait say a week or so and turn it on. By that time the Reapers should be far enough away they wont get back in time to surprise us at the Relay before we had a look round and since we'll only stay a few hours or so we'll be back and have it shut down. Should be easy enough to get it turned back on - we just let EDI work her magic - she is familiar with Reaper computer systems so this should be a doddle. All in all it is a win-win situation. Not only will we be able to prove the Reaper threat we'll have, potentially,  MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of years worth of information (yes I know I argued against that in the destruction of the Collector Base) of what the Reapers have done from the computer systems.

So you want to succeed where Sovereign failed, on the assumption that all the Reapers aren't camping their massive relay (do they just have one?) to jump to the Citadel because of a third-person omniscient view of Reaper going somewhere in that closing vid, which is an arugment after you've made the choice to destroy the Collector Base.  (Which means Shepard and co. have no clue.)

This is an illogical, after the fact argument, but now an extremely dangerous proposition to the point of being galactically insane, because if anything goes wrong, you just initiated the cycle of destruction.

So The Citadel AS A RELAY negates Smud's #2 reason. It negates my own arguement against Smud's #1 reason but in this case we get not just perhaps information on the last 50k years but MILLIONS of years worth of data. Note that this data is not just technological but could be on everything imaginable. The races exterminated and their locations, stellar phenomenae, plans A, B, C and however many the Reapers had and so on. We MIGHT even find out who built the Reapers in the first place. This information should encompass so much that lines of research on how to destroy the Reapers should be able to go ahead based on ideas that do not use Reaper technology.

Well, yeah, this on the assumption there will be something on the other side that won't kill us, that we can overpower, or to the effect of gaining some kind of several million year old Reaper info.  Which I'm guessing implies a Reaper?

Are you sure you thought this through?

 So yes I have done a complete 180 on the use of information but in this case what we get is so much vastly more that it is justifiable.

I'll just wait for your other response on the matter...

[finnithe]

smudboy wrote...

finnithe wrote...
snip

If you're arguing symbolism, that's fine, as I'm not trying to.  What you stated sounds accurate.

Your analysis wasn't exactly even handed. You didn't really talk about what the antagonists represented. 

The endgame decision of Mass Effect 2 concerns this theme because the Reaper technology in the base will likely have that same result of humanity evolving down the Reaper's lines, risking themselves into being turned into something resembling Saren or the Collectors, or as the Human Reaper at the end suggests, something much worse. 

Yet humans have been progressing with mass effect fields like everyone else in the galaxy, and one and his squad were able to stop Sovereign.

The difference is we, Shepard and co., now know they exist.  And, TIM's ego is slowly getting on par with a Reaper.  I can't see TIM stop prattling on about preserving and advancing humanity any time soon.  At worse, he'll probaly want to start mind controlling others to think humans > all.

Now that I think about it, you are probably right about Sovereign's speech. Mass Effect 1, being the first game in the series, needs a lot of exposition, and the reveal that Sovereign itself was a Reaper was done well through that speech. I'm just happy they didn't do it again with Harbinger in the second game. 

You're happy we didn't get any meaningful exposition from Harbinger?

So you like meaingless protagonists who don't make sense, ramble on about crap, want to kill/capture us for some reason, have some master plan of birthing another one of their kind, for some reason...?

Sci-fi needs exposition.  Antagonists need exposition: a lot.  In fact, the most out of any other storytelling element.  Especially when you introduce a new opposing force with a piggy-back controling overmind that taunts you the entire time about how inferior you are.  Harbinger is worse than Dr. Evil.  Even though we knew that movie was a farce, he at least made sense.

Read Harbinger's battle quotes. He actually does give a lot of exposition, unlike Sovereign he doesn't do it in one sitting. "We are your genetic destiny" means "We are going to turn you into Reapers", and the final boss complies with that promise. 

Your definition of theme is wrong I think. What you described sounds closer to plot structure, whereas the theme is usually a message or concept of some sort. I described the theme of self-determination, or freedom of thought, which is explored a lot with Legion and his descriptions of the conflict between his faction of Geth and the Heretics. The Reapers represent the end of freedom or self-actualization/determination, and their victims the Collectors/Protheans, again show how dangerous they are.

I do agree with you about the lack of significance of Shepard's death. It just sort of happens. I think Shepard contemplating this or talking about it with his squad mates would have been better. They react to it as if it was a daily occurrence. 

[calabain]

I dunno, the plot was average, I wished they developed the NPC interactions and relationships more, but Bioware said from the beginning that most of this game was about building a party, and actually less about the collectors. I think they did a pretty good job, the writing was great, the characterization that was there was good and it was cinematic enough to be exciting.



This is still a videogame, not that thats an excuse for a poor plot, but a videogame has limitations that books and movies will never have, like Shepard being essentially an avatar. I usually cut writers some slack, if I wanted to have something with a story thats as strong as Dune, The Forever War or Stranger in a Strange land I'd go read one of those books. I play games for the interactive element and when there is a gap I use my own imagination to fill it in.

[TuringPoint]

A few valid points. A lot of (ironically) not well-thought-out criticism though.

Modifié par Alocormin, 08 juin 2010 - 02:57 .

[finnithe]

Your analysis would benefit a lot by not calling ME2's the worst plot in a sequel ever. Its not a great opener.