329 réponses à ce sujet

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

This thread needs more text.

[InvaderErl]

didymos1120 wrote...

Oh, it's been explained.  It just that the best explanation is that Bioware did a rewrite and either didn't catch the continuity error, or did and it was too late to re-record.

Don't get me wrong I THINK YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, but I am only speaking about the story as it stands right now and on its own merits this is definitely a plot hole.

There are quite a few moments that come off a bit jumbled because of I suspect a rushed production schedule.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 09 juillet 2010 - 08:26 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

This thread needs more text.

it needs more win

[InvaderErl]

Ksandor wrote...

The fact that there are so many threads about plot holes just proves that people really don't like them and want Bioware to be more thorough when it comes to plot quality. They should listen us. And I am sick of people being accused of nitpicking every time they say there are things they don't like. Let's hope Bioware does something about it -- improving plot that is. Seriously what's the harm?

Of course nobody WANTS plotholes but your initial post asserted Mass Effect 2 was suffered from plot holes while ME1 did not, which is blatantly untrue. If you want to ignore them and talk about time distortion effects then I guess that'll do for you but to hold the sequel to some kind of double standard while making excuses for the first is a bit disingenious.

wiggles89 wrote...

I love how posters like Zulu complain that a shortcoming of ME2 is that the story, at times, makes no sense, which is accurate. But when it comes to holding ME1 to the same standard retardery ensues. I could come up with zany explanations for all of the plot holes in ME2 that wouldn't even be in the same dimension of stupidity as the, um, time paradox theory.

It is a bit interesting to watch the role reversal.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 09 juillet 2010 - 08:30 .

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

But it was not clear you'd be needing to fight a unknown war on the ground.  I've nothing wrong with covert missions with 3 people, but we already have those 3 people.  If variation on readiness is merely a preference, whoopedy doo.  Tell me why we need more, and why 12 more, when 12 aren't even used in normal boot-to-ground situations.

So let's say Bioware had changed Mass Effect 2 slightly. Let's assume that recruitment for all party members but Mordin became optional . Instead, they institute a gameplay time mechanic. After 3 hours of play, Illusive Man will appear with your first assignment (Horizon). So now we have the exact same story, only party recruitment is entirely optional. Does this improve the story?

Shepard is now left with the option to do whatever he wants, recruit, fly, anything. I would understand your position better if Shepard had a choice between obtaining information and recruiting a team, but we know Illusive Man, the information broker, has taken it upon himself to do this for you. Shepard's job is to 'hang tight' and wait for contact. He should do something meaningful in that time. I think a better criticism for you to use is to attack the premise that Illusive Man will gather infomation for you. What I don't understand is that you seem fine with that premise, but Shepard recruiting a team is problematic when you accept the first. Premise #1 was a lame cop-out to avoid writing an in-depth plot. But Premise #2 works if we accept premise #1.

Exactly.  But we never get any, aside from their estimated location.

But do you really need any more information than that? Because we don't know the Collectors' motivations, etc doesn't alter the fact that we must stop them. A plot hole is created when there is a disconnection between two events or a character's motivation and an action so we start asking questions. Any information which is not critical becames 'filler': nice to have, but ultimately unnecessary.  

Goal: Stop the Collectors. Could involve information gathering, killing, whatever. Location is a necessary detail, their origins ultimately are not. The Geth are a great example of this. We learn so much about their origin/creation, but it's ultimately pointless. Did anything we learn about the Geth affect how Shepard performed his mission or viewed his enemy?

I'm not here to re-write ME2.  There are plenty of ways to make Shepard have value and plot-dependency.  Brainstorm all you like.  The obvious is what made him valuable in the first game: his Prothean visions and Cipher.

Nor am I asking you to re-write Mass Effect 2. But I think the distinction between a non-sensical and a lame plot should be made. Non-sensical is a plot which doesn't make sense. Lame is a plot which avoids doing more than it has to; avoiding details, etc. Mass Effect 2's plot just barely holds together. Illusive Man gathers information on the Collectors, Shepard in the meantime puts together a team while waiting. It's lame because the plot gives us the bare minimum that it has to where Mass Effect 1 gave exposition on far more than it needed (Quarians, Geth, etc). That's the critical difference. Shepard should have been the one finding all this out. The plot is logical, but minimal.

We're talking plot, not story.  Content can be anything.  Plot is the why of a story, a premise with a complication.

A story is a series of events.  It could be completely nonsensical.  ME2 has a story.

A plot is the telling of those events toward a goal.  Did you understand the point of ME2?  If you didn't, then 1) you aren't intelligent enough to grasp the creativity and intelligent of the writer(s), or weren't paying attention, or 2) the writer(s) didn't know how to coherently get you there, didn't know where they were going, or didn't know what they were even trying to do.  Plot holes are the symptoms of 2.  What happens when every scene has one, if not several?  This tells me the plot was an afterthought: because we need to meet cool characters and locales.

So to continue my Star Wars analogies, would you say this was the case of Episode V? This is certainly the least plot-motivated of the original trilogy yet hailed often as the best. But so little actually happens in the rebel vs. empire conflict. Much like how Mass Effect 2 does little to forward the Reaper-Organics conflict, excluding the ending.  Instead the opportunity was taken to expand the universe itself (genophage, Geth, etc).

If you can call rescuing Liara contrived,
If you can call getting the Cipher contrived,
If you can call meeting Benezia and saving/killing the Rachni Queen contrived,
If you can call fighting Saren on Virmire after meeting Sovereign contrived,
If you can call the race to the conduict on Ilos, after meeting Vigil contrived,
If you can call teleporting to the Citadel to have a final battle with Saren and Sovereign contrived,
Then yes, ME1 would be a contrived storyline.

Yes to all the bolded. I didn't find the conversation with Vigil contrived as much as bad-pacing, a different flaw.

Goal: Stop Saren, a rogue Spectre and agent of the Reapers who currently leads a vast army of Geth and has a great  number of operations in production across the Universe. Shepard has just been made a Spectre and he's been given several leads into locations where the Geth have been seen or encountered, exactly 4 locations (Virmire, etc.). I'd like to add that any of these leads could be a potential dud. Shepard's ultimate goal is to find the Conduit on Ilos though he does not yet know it. On Therum he finds a Prothean expert who is able to make sense of his visions. On Noveria, he is given the location of the relay which will take him to Ilos. On Feros he receives the Cipher and on Virmire the completed beacon.

Not a single one of these missions was optional; had Shepard not performed each investigation he would not have reached Ilos for one reason or another. Now given that Saren is leading an army of Geth and could have any number of operations in the works , we conveniently discovered everything we needed to send us to the Conduit with no mistakes, confusion, or dead trails. You don't find this contrived at all for a galaxy-spanning investigation?  

Shepard is The Chosen, and all that crap.

So sorry the Council didn't give you a 2nd Spectre for you to work with to get killed again.

Yes, believe it or not, that's exactly what I want. A 2nd Spectre, or even a third as a guide. I want my plot to make sense. Sending a shiny new Spectre to tackle the very best agent the Council ever had all by himself does not seem to make sense when they have experienced agents available. I recall our last discussion on Shepard's role in both Mass Effect 1 and 2 if you remember. You explained TouchedbyVorlorns and how it made Shepard irreplaceable, etc.

However there is still a flaw in the reasoning here; the Council doesn't know or care that Shepard is the Chosen. They think his visions are an absolute waste of time. They're not saying "Well, we have to move the plot forward so we'll let the Chosen chase the main villain, but pretend he's cracked out!". Hence why there's no semblance of logic in allowing their newest Spectre to chase after their best rogue agent in an Alliance ship with a ragtag crew. It stretches the suspension of disbelief to its absolute max. I want the plot to move forward, but it should at least do so in a way that I can understand why.

Saren is a character.  A turian.  A person.  Gone through indoctrination.  Hates humans.  Has a range of emotions.  Has a deadline.  Has a god to appease.

Harbinger is a...monotone booming voice, supposedly a million year old god who plays with dolls.

But most of these facts we don't know as of that first cut-scene beyond Saren being a turian/person. If we find out in Mass Effect 3 for example that Reapers can have emotions as anger, does this forgive the Harbinger-Collector General dialogue at the climax of Mass Effect 2?

When you lose a race, do you blame your running shoes, when you yourself created them, and you're the god of running shoes?

If this is the case, you're a moron (the guy running the race, not you personally.)

Depends. I probably wouldn't be talking to my shoes regardless, but if I made them myself expecting they would be useful for running and it turns out they weren't, I just might blame them as failures. So I very well could be a moron in such an instance.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 juillet 2010 - 08:56 .

[didymos1120]

smudboy wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

smudboy
wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Bigeyez
wrote...

Lol @ Smudboy thinking he makes coherent
arguments.

Compared to you, I actually try.  Now if you
can't understand them, that could mean a few problems on your end.

Awwww
how cute! You're trying to make me feel bad by insulting my
intelligence. You get cuter everytime I see you post you cutie pie you!

And
yet still no argument, no point to make.  It's like you've nothing
better to do.  I mean you could go outside and play with your childhood
friends.  Maybe they're understand when you at least try to make fun of
them.

Till then, plot holes suck.

Nope I
like playing with you way too much buddy!

And here I was
hoping for bigger words than "coherent" and "argument".  Or actual
coherent arguments.  Well at least you know how to spell.

I think Smudboy was just successfully trolled. That's...rather amusing.

Modifié par didymos1120, 09 juillet 2010 - 11:03 .

[didymos1120]

InvaderErl wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Oh, it's been explained.  It just that the best explanation is that Bioware did a rewrite and either didn't catch the continuity error, or did and it was too late to re-record.

Don't get me wrong I THINK YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, but I am only speaking about the story as it stands right now and on its own merits this is definitely a plot hole.

Yeah, I know.  I just wanted an excuse to post how easily fixed it is.

[smudboy]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
So let's say Bioware had changed Mass Effect 2 slightly. Let's assume that recruitment for all party members but Mordin became optional . Instead, they institute a gameplay time mechanic. After 3 hours of play, Illusive Man will appear with your first assignment (Horizon). So now we have the exact same story, only party recruitment is entirely optional. Does this improve the story?

Shepard is now left with the option to do whatever he wants, recruit, fly, anything. I would understand your position better if Shepard had a choice between obtaining information and recruiting a team, but we know Illusive Man, the information broker, has taken it upon himself to do this for you. Shepard's job is to 'hang tight' and wait for contact. He should do something meaningful in that time. I think a better criticism for you to use is to attack the premise that Illusive Man will gather infomation for you. What I don't understand is that you seem fine with that premise, but Shepard recruiting a team is problematic when you accept the first. Premise #1 was a lame cop-out to avoid writing an in-depth plot. But Premise #2 works if we accept premise #1.
[/quote]
Timing, nor enforcing an event, has no bearing, especially since Shepard's actions for recruitment/loyalty are disconnected anyway.  Whereas Mordin's recruitment allows for the main plot, only one main plot event allows for one recruitment and loyalty mission (Legion).

[quote]
But do you really need any more information than that? Because we don't know the Collectors' motivations, etc doesn't alter the fact that we must stop them. A plot hole is created when there is a disconnection between two events or a character's motivation and an action so we start asking questions. Any information which is not critical becames 'filler': nice to have, but ultimately unnecessary.
[/quote]
We don't understand the Collectors.  They're alien and enigmatic. They interact with the rest of the galaxy in two ways: 1) acquiring organic material in trade deals, 2) forcefully acquiring organic material, like live humans.

If we have an antagonist, we need to know their motivations.  If there are no motivations to the main opposing force or antagonist, there is no plot.  Now we could have had a plot about an enigmatic alien species we have to stop that we learn nothing about nor are revealed of, but ME2 wasn't setup that way.

[quote]
Goal: Stop the Collectors. Could involve information gathering, killing, whatever. Location is a necessary detail, their origins ultimately are not. The Geth are a great example of this. We learn so much about their origin/creation, but it's ultimately pointless. Did anything we learn about the Geth affect how Shepard performed his mission or viewed his enemy?
[/quote]
In a direct game play/plot element, no.  But ME1 wasn't "Stop the Geth."  They were the main opposing force, but they were controlled by Saren, who was controlled by Sovereign, who was also controlling Benezia.  We knew exactly what each of their goals and motivations were.

The Collectors only have the voice of a monotonous god complex.

Stopping Saren basically would involve killing him.  We just need to find him.  Along the way, we discover he is just one small part of the puzzle.

The puzzle that is the Collectors isn't alluded to, has no story, has virtually nothing save a tidbit on their origin.  We need goals, targets, scope, numbers of ships, planets, armaments, etc.  This is supposedly the plot, but nothing about it gets developed or revealed, aside from their most common stop.

[quote]
Nor am I asking you to re-write Mass Effect 2. But I think the distinction between a non-sensical and a lame plot should be made. Non-sensical is a plot which doesn't make sense. Lame is a plot which avoids doing more than it has to; avoiding details, etc. Mass Effect 2's plot just barely holds together. Illusive Man gathers information on the Collectors, Shepard in the meantime puts together a team while waiting. It's lame because the plot gives us the bare minimum that it has to where Mass Effect 1 gave exposition on far more than it needed (Quarians, Geth, etc). That's the critical difference. Shepard should have been the one finding all this out. The plot is logical, but minimal.
[/quote]
If the plot is to Do Z, but you end up doing 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., but 2-n has nothing to do with Z, then the plot is not being developed.  The story is just one random, meaningless series of side quests.  This is why the story of ME2 is there, where main plot point A goes into main plot point B, but that's it.  75% of the story is Pokémon.

There is also the idea of an active protagonist which we do not have.  Since these side missions aren't connected, Shepard is not actively purusing the goal, nor does he have any motivation we can identify; he's just doing other things because TIM said so.  Once the main plot points come around, it's still TIM guiding the plot.  Shepard has no interest or conviction toward recruitment, and nor do the recruits.  The recruitment conversations are mostly ridiculous to passable at best, and most of the loyalty missions are just there.

[quote]
So to continue my Star Wars analogies, would you say this was the case of Episode V? This is certainly the least plot-motivated of the original trilogy yet hailed often as the best. But so little actually happens in the rebel vs. empire conflict. Much like how Mass Effect 2 does little to forward the Reaper-Organics conflict, excluding the ending.  Instead the opportunity was taken to expand the universe itself (genophage, Geth, etc).
[/quote]
Episode V had a coherent plot, even if it didn't do much to the overarching plot.  It also had character development.
ME2 had neither.
[quote]
[quote]
If you can call rescuing Liara contrived,
If you can call getting the Cipher contrived,
If you can call meeting Benezia and saving/killing the Rachni Queen contrived,
If you can call fighting Saren on Virmire after meeting Sovereign contrived,
If you can call the race to the conduict on Ilos, after meeting Vigil contrived,
If you can call teleporting to the Citadel to have a final battle with Saren and Sovereign contrived,
Then yes, ME1 would be a contrived storyline. [/quote]

Yes to all the bolded. I didn't find the conversation with Vigil contrived as much as bad-pacing, a different flaw.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Well good for you.  I found it rather logical and appreciated how everything tied together.

[quote]
Not a single one of these missions was optional; had Shepard not performed each investigation he would not have reached Ilos for one reason or another. Now given that Saren is leading an army of Geth and could have any number of operations in the works , we conveniently discovered everything we needed to send us to the Conduit with no mistakes, confusion, or dead trails. You don't find this contrived at all for a galaxy-spanning investigation?
[/quote]
This is no worse (actually better) than most murder mystery plots, where every suspect has a motive, opportunity and means to kill the victim.  Whether an investigation of an unknown turns up anything is questionable: but as an audience, we want the goal of the quest, through mini-quests, to return something.  To tell a part of the story that has no meaning to the goal may seem realistic to you, but it needs to relate, contrived as it seems.  I had no idea what I was going to find out at the end of those quests.  The fact they relate to the main plot?  All the better.  I'm not saying it's great storytelling or as contemporary as a space opera should be: but it works.

Compare this to ME2.  You may "appreciate" how nothing relates to anything, and how that is not at all a contrived quality.  Yet I still feel more purpose and understanding from those ME1 quests, then helping get random character X, and then later do random character X's secret daddy issue wish.  I'm sure if loyalty missions were tied into main plot missions, it would also feel contrived.  Ya know what?  I wish they were.

[quote]
Yes, believe it or not, that's exactly what I want. A 2nd Spectre, or even a third as a guide. I want my plot to make sense. Sending a shiny new Spectre to tackle the very best agent the Council ever had all by himself does not seem to make sense when they have experienced agents available. I recall our last discussion on Shepard's role in both Mass Effect 1 and 2 if you remember. You explained TouchedbyVorlorns and how it made Shepard irreplaceable, etc.
[/quote]
Yes people +2 Spectres = plot make sense.  Alas, we're fresh out.  If you didn't understand the plot of ME1, you wouldn't be typing.

Let's see what humanity can do on it's own without the Council's help.  Oh right.  I think that was part of the deal with Shepard becoming a Spectre in the first place.
[quote]
However there is still a flaw in the reasoning here; the Council doesn't know or care that Shepard is the Chosen. They think his visions are an absolute waste of time. They're not saying "Well, we have to move the plot forward so we'll let the Chosen chase the main villain, but pretend he's cracked out!". Hence why there's no semblance of logic in allowing their newest Spectre to chase after their best rogue agent in an Alliance ship with a ragtag crew. It stretches the suspension of disbelief to its absolute max. I want the plot to move forward, but it should at least do so in a way that I can understand why.
[/quote]
If you didn't understand the meaning behind Spectre indoctrination, I can't help you.  Nor is your assessment of the Council any more valid then your desires on what they should have done to give you your extra Spectre.  I think that's the equivalent of people whining about ditching TIM right off the bat.

[quote]
But most of these facts we don't know as of that first cut-scene beyond Saren being a turian/person. If we find out in Mass Effect 3 for example that Reapers can have emotions as anger, does this forgive the Harbinger-Collector General dialogue at the climax of Mass Effect 2?
[/quote]
Saren was always a Turian/person and dealt with others on many occasions in many places.

If you see ME3 as an apologists view, well, many things could happen that might clarify some of the ridiculousness.  I doubt it'll cover even half of it.

[quote]
Depends. I probably wouldn't be talking to my shoes regardless, but if I made them myself expecting they would be useful for running and it turns out they weren't, I just might blame them as failures. So I very well could be a moron in such an instance.  [/quote]
You'd still be blaming yourself.

[Zulu_DFA]

InvaderErl wrote...

wiggles89 wrote...
I love how posters like Zulu complain that a shortcoming of ME2 is that the story, at times, makes no sense, which is accurate. But when it comes to holding ME1 to the same standard retardery ensues. I could come up with zany explanations for all of the plot holes in ME2 that wouldn't even be in the same dimension of stupidity as the, um, time paradox theory.

It is a bit interesting to watch the role reversal.

Indeed.

Whenever you tag after such a prodigy in hopes that he'll finally present a groundbreaking and undeniable, however simple and obvious, explanation for some known ME2 plot hole, he will immediately take an honorable retirement due to the futility and unworthiness of talking to biased dumbsters. Just check the latest in the "Anti-plothole" thread.

But whenever a known biased ME2 hater presents a possible explanation to some "simply unexplained" moments of ME2 (which such a person is not supposed to do at all due to his anti-ME2 bias), the fanboys, geniuses and prodigies all converge in great numbers to silence the blasthemy against the space wizardry, the lulz, and the memory of space traitors.

How Shepard survived the crash
Lazarus Station mayhem
Cerberus isn't rogue

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 juillet 2010 - 02:51 .

[pvt_java]

 @smudboy: Although I agree with your general viewpoint, I must correct one thing; Mass Effect 2 had loads of character development, it just was very displaced and only contributed to the subplots themselves, rather than the overarching plot of the game. It's the result of a poorly crafted and nonsensical story.

[Bigeyez]

didymos1120 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

smudboy
wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Bigeyez
wrote...

Lol @ Smudboy thinking he makes coherent
arguments.

Compared to you, I actually try.  Now if you
can't understand them, that could mean a few problems on your end.

Awwww
how cute! You're trying to make me feel bad by insulting my
intelligence. You get cuter everytime I see you post you cutie pie you!

And
yet still no argument, no point to make.  It's like you've nothing
better to do.  I mean you could go outside and play with your childhood
friends.  Maybe they're understand when you at least try to make fun of
them.

Till then, plot holes suck.

Nope I
like playing with you way too much buddy!

And here I was
hoping for bigger words than "coherent" and "argument".  Or actual
coherent arguments.  Well at least you know how to spell.

I think Smudboy was just successfully trolled. That's...rather amusing.

You'd think my sig would've given that away, but I guess he couldn't connect the dots.

[smudboy]

Bigeyez wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

smudboy
wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Bigeyez
wrote...

Lol @ Smudboy thinking he makes coherent
arguments.

Compared to you, I actually try.  Now if you
can't understand them, that could mean a few problems on your end.

Awwww
how cute! You're trying to make me feel bad by insulting my
intelligence. You get cuter everytime I see you post you cutie pie you!

And
yet still no argument, no point to make.  It's like you've nothing
better to do.  I mean you could go outside and play with your childhood
friends.  Maybe they're understand when you at least try to make fun of
them.

Till then, plot holes suck.

Nope I
like playing with you way too much buddy!

And here I was
hoping for bigger words than "coherent" and "argument".  Or actual
coherent arguments.  Well at least you know how to spell.

I think Smudboy was just successfully trolled. That's...rather amusing.

You'd think my sig would've given that away, but I guess he couldn't connect the dots.

Whatever gets you up in the morning.

[smudboy]

pvt_java wrote...

 @smudboy: Although I agree with your general viewpoint, I must correct one thing; Mass Effect 2 had loads of character development, it just was very displaced and only contributed to the subplots themselves, rather than the overarching plot of the game. It's the result of a poorly crafted and nonsensical story.

That was in regards to Episode V.  Yes, there is character development, but it may as well have been for another story entirely, since none of the main characters exhibited any.

[InvaderErl]

What do you mean by main characters? Shepard? The crew?

Shepard doesn't have character development in 1 or 2. No character flaw is established, Shepard doesn't learn anything in the narrative or come to any realizations about himself or the world around him.

Sure, the PLAYER can switch alignments and make decisions counter to earlier one's and such but you can do that in 2, that's the player roleplaying and making those connections - not the game's narrative.

Party characters like Garrus/Ash/Kaiden and Wrex show character development not Shepard - in that it is similiar to ME2.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 10 juillet 2010 - 04:25 .

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

Timing, nor enforcing an event, has no bearing, especially since Shepard's actions for recruitment/loyalty are disconnected anyway.  Whereas Mordin's recruitment allows for the main plot, only one main plot event allows for one recruitment and loyalty mission (Legion).

Well, I would argue that investigating Dr. Okeer's connection to the Collectors does have some main plot relevance (Grunt), but I see what you are saying. My issue with loyalty missions were that they all felt too final. Aside from Samara's recruitment implying her loyalty mission (you find Morinth's ship), I found it odd that each character had exactly one quest with a problem that was closed. Why not two or three quests for some? Why not none for others? Previous Bioware games (Jade Empire) have done this where Character missions are not so formulaic.

We don't understand the Collectors.  They're alien and enigmatic. They interact with the rest of the galaxy in two ways: 1) acquiring organic material in trade deals, 2) forcefully acquiring organic material, like live humans.

If we have an antagonist, we need to know their motivations.  If there are no motivations to the main opposing force or antagonist, there is no plot.  Now we could have had a plot about an enigmatic alien species we have to stop that we learn nothing about nor are revealed of, but ME2 wasn't setup that way.

Except in the case of the Collectors, we see they don't have 'true' motivations. This is not like the Geth whom we know worship Sovereign as a God of their own volition. The Collectors we know to be indoctrinated/repurposed Protheans, so they have been in this state for longer than I care to think and no longer have free will. Aside from this, what more exposition would you say was necessary?

Stopping Saren basically would involve killing him.  We just need to find him.  Along the way, we discover he is just one small part of the puzzle.

The puzzle that is the Collectors isn't alluded to, has no story, has virtually nothing save a tidbit on their origin.  We need goals, targets, scope, numbers of ships, planets, armaments, etc.  This is supposedly the plot, but nothing about it gets developed or revealed, aside from their most common stop.

We did know that they 'made camp' so to speak beyond Omega IV. Their goals are not so much their own as the Reapers'. I do however think that more could have been done with this. The Collector Ship was a great opportunity for such; it would have been so easy for Bioware to reveal that the Collectors have a single base/ship beyond the relay, etc. But I still find this argument a tad odd.

If stopping Saren involves killing him, wouldn't that mean going through an army of Geth? As such, shouldn't that mean we need intel on his armaments, scope, etc. It's odd because Mass Effect 1 feels like it revolves more on Shepard finding the Conduit before Saren than it does on Shepard making sure Saren dies.

If the plot is to Do Z, but you end up doing 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., but 2-n has nothing to do with Z, then the plot is not being developed.  The story is just one random, meaningless series of side quests.  This is why the story of ME2 is there, where main plot point A goes into main plot point B, but that's it.  75% of the story is Pokémon.

There is also the idea of an active protagonist which we do not have.  Since these side missions aren't connected, Shepard is not actively purusing the goal, nor does he have any motivation we can identify; he's just doing other things because TIM said so.  Once the main plot points come around, it's still TIM guiding the plot.  Shepard has no interest or conviction toward recruitment, and nor do the recruits.  The recruitment conversations are mostly ridiculous to passable at best, and most of the loyalty missions are just there.

Yes, if we can accurately say the plot consists of just Z. But Mass Effect 2 does this:

Z-stop the Collectors. <--Overarching goal, this breaks down into:
z1- Gather information/intel on the Collectors<--Illusive Man's job
z2- Combat the Collectors, by whatever means necessary. <-- Shepard's job.

For z2, Shepard needs z1 from Illusive Man, all of which unfortunately come in the form of locations. Until z1 occurs, Shepard is essentially doing nothing. I'm not saying it's a good method, it's very lazy because ordinarily we'd like to see Shepard do both z1 and z2, but it doesn't make it non-sensical. Prior to chasing the Collectors, we would have liked to see Shepard do something by way of preparations. Now it could have been Shepard training with a Yoda-figure (interesting), recruiting a squad, building a better ship, anything. They chose to go with recruit a squad, not the best plot point but until Shepard goes to Horizon, Collector Ship, etc he might as well have done something.

Episode V had a coherent plot, even if it didn't do much to the overarching plot.  It also had character development.
ME2 had neither.

In response to your below comment, who would you consider the main characters to be other than Shepard?

This is no worse (actually better) than most murder mystery plots, where every suspect has a motive, opportunity and means to kill the victim.  Whether an investigation of an unknown turns up anything is questionable: but as an audience, we want the goal of the quest, through mini-quests, to return something.  To tell a part of the story that has no meaning to the goal may seem realistic to you, but it needs to relate, contrived as it seems.  I had no idea what I was going to find out at the end of those quests.  The fact they relate to the main plot?  All the better.  I'm not saying it's great storytelling or as contemporary as a space opera should be: but it works.

Compare this to ME2.  You may "appreciate" how nothing relates to anything, and how that is not at all a contrived quality.  Yet I still feel more purpose and understanding from those ME1 quests, then helping get random character X, and then later do random character X's secret daddy issue wish.  I'm sure if loyalty missions were tied into main plot missions, it would also feel contrived.  Ya know what?  I wish they were.

Don't confuse my meaning. I don't want 'every' quest to follow this methodology, but I can apprecite how Horizon at least tries to do something different.What I'm saying is Mass Effect 1 could have benefitted greatly from following Mass Effect 2's mission structure.

Mass Effect 2: Freedom's Progress-->Horizon-->Collector Ship--> Reaper IFF--> Suicide Mission.

A better way would be if Bioware gave you a single lead (perhaps the Geth attacking Therum for Liara) and from there each investigation leading into the next one so Therum-->Feros-->Noveria, etc. We're essentially playing detective while tracking Saren down. The problem is that each critical element is disconnected from the previous one. You said Mass Effect 1 emphasized that you are always one step behind Saren. This would have been better done had they followed Mass Effect 2's mission structure. As it is, the contrived plot stretches my suspension of disbelief, which is critical to any good plot, no?   

Yes people +2 Spectres = plot make sense.  Alas, we're fresh out.  If you didn't understand the plot of ME1, you wouldn't be typing.

Let's see what humanity can do on it's own without the Council's help.  Oh right.  I think that was part of the deal with Shepard becoming a Spectre in the first place.

Except what humanity wants is irrelevant. Spectres answer to no one but the Council; they are their right-hand, as it were. Humanity's abilit to stand on its own two feet may be a theme of Mass Effect, but that is no excuse for this. Instead of explaining to me how medi-gel works, Bioware could have fixed this discrepancy.

Mass Effect spends the first few hours (Eden Prime and the Citadel) hammering into our heads how deadly and resourceful Spectres are. We learn something of their attitudes, experience, and duties. Now if the Alliance had secretly commissioned Shepard to investigate Saren apart from the Council, then I can understand where this is going. As it is, it's a plot-hole.

There's a disconnection between two events.

Event A- Shepard exposes Saren.
Event B- The Council is now going to send Shepard as a neophyte Spectre halfway across the galaxy to find their single deadliest agent who is leading a Geth army with an Alliance ship and ragtag crew, which the narrative just explained Spectres don't do. They work solo or usually with other Spectres.

If you didn't understand the meaning behind Spectre indoctrination, I can't help you.  Nor is your assessment of the Council any more valid then your desires on what they should have done to give you your extra Spectre.  I think that's the equivalent of people whining about ditching TIM right off the bat.

Well, not to change the subject, but haven't you before argued that we should be able to ditch TIM?

Back on subject: When Luke leaves Tatooine I don't doubt his motivations or call to action. His family has just died, but we knew that he always wanted to leave and sees his opportunity to do so with Obi-Wan and learn the ways of the force. We also learn a little about what it means to be a Jedi.
 
Shepard obviously wants to track Saren down. Unfortunately he's had absolutely no dealings with him so he knows absolutely nothing about how Saren may think, act, etc and as he's brand new, there must be more experienced Spectres available. This is never addressed. At all. You cannot answer this criticism by telling me Shepard is the Chosen; it may be why he's unique, but the Council doesn't have any reason to think so.  

Saren was always a Turian/person and dealt with others on many occasions in many places.

If you see ME3 as an apologists view, well, many things could happen that might clarify some of the ridiculousness.  I doubt it'll cover even half of it.

My point is that you used hates humans, indoctrination, and appeasing Sovereign all in your explanation for why Saren reacts so violently. This is all information we learn far after the cut-scene. Can I call  the second half of Mass Effect 1 an apologist view to the first half where we don't know Saren's motivations?How is it any different if Mass Effect 3 does the same with Harbinger?

You'd still be blaming yourself.

Fair enough, but I just think it's an issue of semantics. If I made a pair of running shoes which did not work, yes I am responsible as the craftsman. However as the running shoes have not fulfilled their function/role, they are failures. I feel the same with regards to Harbinger.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2010 - 12:04 .

[smudboy]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Well, I would argue that investigating Dr. Okeer's connection to the Collectors does have some main plot relevance (Grunt), but I see what you are saying. My issue with loyalty missions were that they all felt too final. Aside from Samara's recruitment implying her loyalty mission (you find Morinth's ship), I found it odd that each character had exactly one quest with a problem that was closed. Why not two or three quests for some? Why not none for others? Previous Bioware games (Jade Empire) have done this where Character missions are not so formulaic.
[/quote]
Okeer = Vorcha guy on Mordin's recruitment.  Grunt, like most, is a non-character.

[quote]
Except in the case of the Collectors, we see they don't have 'true' motivations. This is not like the Geth whom we know worship Sovereign as a God of their own volition. The Collectors we know to be indoctrinated/repurposed Protheans, so they have been in this state for longer than I care to think and no longer have free will. Aside from this, what more exposition would you say was necessary?
[/quote]
Not here to re-write ME2.  These guys are worse than Storm Troopers.

[quote]
Yes, if we can accurately say the plot consists of just Z. But Mass Effect 2 does this:

Z-stop the Collectors. <--Overarching goal, this breaks down into:
z1- Gather information/intel on the Collectors<--Illusive Man's job
z2- Combat the Collectors, by whatever means necessary. <-- Shepard's job.

For z2, Shepard needs z1 from Illusive Man, all of which unfortunately come in the form of locations. Until z1 occurs, Shepard is essentially doing nothing. I'm not saying it's a good method, it's very lazy because ordinarily we'd like to see Shepard do both z1 and z2, but it doesn't make it non-sensical. Prior to chasing the Collectors, we would have liked to see Shepard do something by way of preparations. Now it could have been Shepard training with a Yoda-figure (interesting), recruiting a squad, building a better ship, anything. They chose to go with recruit a squad, not the best plot point but until Shepard goes to Horizon, Collector Ship, etc he might as well have done something.
[/quote]
Sounds like a good opportunity for character development.

The plot is whatever TIM says it is.  We're along for the ride.  If TIM wants us to go somewhere without him explaining it, then the plot is nonsensical.  Our main target is disabled out of nowhere and we farcically get trapped in it.  He pulls a dead Reaper out of his ass.  This is called throwing sh*t together.

[quote]
In response to your below comment, who would you consider the main characters to be other than Shepard?
[/quote]
TIM and Shepard.

[quote]
Don't confuse my meaning. I don't want 'every' quest to follow this methodology, but I can apprecite how Horizon at least tries to do something different.What I'm saying is Mass Effect 1 could have benefitted greatly from following Mass Effect 2's mission structure.

Mass Effect 2: Freedom's Progress-->Horizon-->Collector Ship--> Reaper IFF--> Suicide Mission.

A better way would be if Bioware gave you a single lead (perhaps the Geth attacking Therum for Liara) and from there each investigation leading into the next one so Therum-->Feros-->Noveria, etc. We're essentially playing detective while tracking Saren down. The problem is that each critical element is disconnected from the previous one. You said Mass Effect 1 emphasized that you are always one step behind Saren. This would have been better done had they followed Mass Effect 2's mission structure. As it is, the contrived plot stretches my suspension of disbelief, which is critical to any good plot, no?[/quote]
I do not find it contrived, that at the end of ones investigation, one finds something related to ones goal.  Pieces of a puzzle.

Unless the point was to further develop Saren, and he had other prerogatives outside of whatever Sovereign wanted of him, then okay.  We could have little asides about Saren's life and family, or whatever.  This does not bother me.

[quote]
Except what humanity wants is irrelevant. Spectres answer to no one but the Council; they are their right-hand, as it were. Humanity's abilit to stand on its own two feet may be a theme of Mass Effect, but that is no excuse for this. Instead of explaining to me how medi-gel works, Bioware could have fixed this discrepancy.
[/quote]
I don't recall a discrepency where Spectres work in twos.

[quote]
Mass Effect spends the first few hours (Eden Prime and the Citadel) hammering into our heads how deadly and resourceful Spectres are. We learn something of their attitudes, experience, and duties. Now if the Alliance had secretly commissioned Shepard to investigate Saren apart from the Council, then I can understand where this is going. As it is, it's a plot-hole.
[/quote]
It's a plot hole becuase their top agent, Saren, killed Nihlus?  Sure buddy.
And because of that it's another plot hole since the Council didn't send their brand new human spectre with another?  Where are you getting this?

[quote]
There's a disconnection between two events.

Event A- Shepard exposes Saren.
Event B- The Council is now going to send Shepard as a neophyte Spectre halfway across the galaxy to find their single deadliest agent who is leading a Geth army with an Alliance ship and ragtag crew, which the narrative just explained Spectres don't do. They work solo or usually with other Spectres.
[/quote]
The Council sees Saren as a rebel agent, stripped of rank and resources, desperate and on the run, out in the Terminus System/wherever.  The compromise is made to make Shepard a Spectre to chase after him.  The discussion seems pretty darned logical, despite their lack of believing in the Reapers, or mention of a Geth army.

[quote]
Well, not to change the subject, but haven't you before argued that we should be able to ditch TIM?
[/quote]
If loyalty and trust was the theme, and we ME espouses choice, then that would've been a possible means.  Railroading can work, but in ME2's it didn't.

[quote]
Back on subject: When Luke leaves Tatooine I don't doubt his motivations or call to action. His family has just died, but we knew that he always wanted to leave and sees his opportunity to do so with Obi-Wan and learn the ways of the force. We also learn a little about what it means to be a Jedi.
 
Shepard obviously wants to track Saren down. Unfortunately he's had absolutely no dealings with him so he knows absolutely nothing about how Saren may think, act, etc and as he's brand new, there must be more experienced Spectres available. This is never addressed. At all. You cannot answer this criticism by telling me Shepard is the Chosen; it may be why he's unique, but the Council doesn't have any reason to think so.  
[/quote]
Shepard is The Chosen by the Alliance.  Shepard becomes a Spectre by the Council.  Shepard recommends himself to go after Saren, and the Council approves.

As far as the Council is concerned, Shepard is humanity's second attempt at being a Spectre.  One brand new capable Spectre hunting down a powerless one, stripped of rank and resources.  Sorry, it's pretty clear.

It would've been great to get another Spectre on board, but that has nothing to do with the plot, nor does it make it a plot hole.  It's pretty much just you not liking the Council's reasoning and situations surrounding the presentation of evidence to them: which seemed pretty well explained and rational to me.
[quote]
My point is that you used hates humans, indoctrination, and appeasing Sovereign all in your explanation for why Saren reacts so violently. This is all information we learn far after the cut-scene. Can I call  the second half of Mass Effect 1 an apologist view to the first half where we don't know Saren's motivations?How is it any different if Mass Effect 3 does the same with Harbinger?
[/quote]
Saren is a person.  A character.  We can relate to his body language, outbursts, desires, motivations, etc.

Harbinger is a digitally transformed voice who talks smack.  A voice is not a character.  Compare that to Fallout 3's President John Henry Eden, or even more accurately, SHODAN.  It it that difficult to observe what's wrong here?

[quote]
Fair enough, but I just think it's an issue of semantics. If I made a pair of running shoes which did not work, yes I am responsible as the craftsman. However as the running shoes have not fulfilled their function/role, they are failures. I feel the same with regards to Harbinger.
[/quote]
Yes but you're using the running shoes.  They're just tools.  The tools are meant to be put on your feet and give you good traction.  Just because someone else is faster than you, isn't you or the tools' fault, if the goal was to even win the race (we don't even know wtf is going on.)

[javierabegazo]

@ Smudboy and Bigeyez



Knock it off with the childish bickering. If either of you can't leave one another alone, you'll both take temp. vacations from the Forums. It takes two to argue. The best way to combat an insulting remark is to ignore it. Come on guys, I should hope you're above this

[CroGamer002]

javierabegazo wrote...

@ Smudboy and Bigeyez

Knock it off with the childish bickering. If either of you can't leave one another alone, you'll both take temp. vacations from the Forums. It takes two to argue. The best way to combat an insulting remark is to ignore it. Come on guys, I should hope you're above this

Wait your saying both of them are suspended for week?

[FourSixEight]

[quote]FourSixEight wrote...

[quote]ADLegend21 wrote...
blither blither blither. why are you on the Mass effect 2 boards anyway, shouldn't you be on your "Mass effect 1> Mass effect 2? horse in the Mass effect 1 boards?[/quote]

I don't care about any of the other back-and-forth flamebait quotes from both sides of the argument, but I'd like this question actually answered.[/quote]
[/quote]

Feel like answering that question yet, smudboy?

[smudboy]

FourSixEight wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...
blither blither blither. why are you on the Mass effect 2 boards anyway, shouldn't you be on your "Mass effect 1> Mass effect 2? horse in the Mass effect 1 boards?

I don't care about any of the other back-and-forth flamebait quotes from both sides of the argument, but I'd like this question actually answered.

Feel like answering that question yet, smudboy?

You want to know why I'm not on the ME1 forums?  Why would I go there?  This is a question you can email me with if you find it so pertinent.

Modifié par smudboy, 10 juillet 2010 - 10:24 .

[FourSixEight]

smudboy wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...
blither blither blither. why are you on the Mass effect 2 boards anyway, shouldn't you be on your "Mass effect 1> Mass effect 2? horse in the Mass effect 1 boards?

I don't care about any of the other back-and-forth flamebait quotes from both sides of the argument, but I'd like this question actually answered.

Feel like answering that question yet, smudboy?

You want to know why I'm not on the ME1 forums?  Why would I go there?  This is a question you can email me with if you find it so pertinent.

Actually, we can talk about it here. You've derailed this thread into your stomping ground, so I'm sure you won't mind.

I asked because all you seem to do here, ever, is post endless whiny complaints about how inferior Mass Effect 2 is, on a specific forum that's dedicated to discussing Mass Effect 2. A lesser man than I might accuse you of just being here to troll.

Modifié par FourSixEight, 10 juillet 2010 - 10:27 .

[angj57]

Some people on this forum are unbelievable. Are there some plot holes in Mass Effect 2? Sure! There are in every game, INCLUDING MASS EFFECT 1. ME2 is an amazing game-- it recieved critical aclaim and sold well for a good reason. There are a bunch of people here who hold ME2 to an absurdly different standard than the one that they are applying to the original game.

The original post mentions the Human Reaper as a plot hole.

Seriously??

You have no problem with the Reaper concept to begin with, but you don't like the Human Reaper? You don't wonder why the Reapers hibernate for millenia, wake up and cull organic life, and then go back and hibernate again for millenia? You don't think a species as advanced as the Reapers could have come up with a more efficient way to gather resources? You don't wonder who created them and how they took out their creators? According to your standards those would all be "plot holes" from the first one!

These don't bother me. I have faith that they will be resolved in the third game, just as "plot holes" like what the Human Reaper was for will be. But the double standard here is insane.

Mass Effect 2 is an incredible achievement. Yes, it changed things from the first game. It added a darker tone to the series, as sequels often do. If you don't like that, fine. But don't try and pretend that you dislike the game because of a decline in storytelling or anything so tangible-- it's just not there.

[smudboy]

FourSixEight wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

ADLegend21 wrote...
blither blither blither. why are you on the Mass effect 2 boards anyway, shouldn't you be on your "Mass effect 1> Mass effect 2? horse in the Mass effect 1 boards?

I don't care about any of the other back-and-forth flamebait quotes from both sides of the argument, but I'd like this question actually answered.

Feel like answering that question yet, smudboy?

You want to know why I'm not on the ME1 forums?  Why would I go there?  This is a question you can email me with if you find it so pertinent.

Actually, we can talk about it here. You've derailed this thread into your stomping ground, so I'm sure you won't mind.

I asked because all you seem to do here, ever, is post endless whiny complaints about how inferior Mass Effect 2 is, on a specific forum that's dedicated to discussing Mass Effect 2. A lesser man than I might accuse you of just being here to troll.

I'm pointing out flaws in ME2.  It's others who are asking questions through comparison with ME1.  In examples, occasionally I do too, but I honestly do not care to compare the two.  I've been dedicated to discussing ME2.

I don't see how I've derailed any thread.  I've been replying to people who ask me questions that I feel are relevant, and some irrevelant.  Mods don't like it when people start replying smack at me and I bother to respond.  I find it a nice distraction.

If you see my analysis, observations, and conclusions of ME2 as whiny, please, prove it.  Else you're just one of the masses who looks at dissenting opinion in disdain, without bothering to understand.

[Zulu_DFA]

angj57 wrote...
ME2 is an amazing game-- it recieved critical aclaim and sold well for a good reason.

Narcotics and pornography sell well too. Doesn't mean anything other that they are good business.

angj57 wrote...
There are a bunch of people here who hold ME2 to an absurdly different standard than the one that they are applying to the original game.

No. What the "bunch of people" does is holding ME2 exactly to the same standards as the original game. Which ME2 fails flat to meet.

angj57 wrote...
It added a darker tone to the series.

No, it didn't. It added a fiesta of bright rainbow colors, that kids like so much in the Disney Land.

[didymos1120]

smudboy wrote...
If you see my analysis, observations, and conclusions of ME2 as whiny, please, prove it. 

Well, the "analysis, observations, and conclusions" are all essentially a giant pile of complaints.  You repeat them nigh-ceaselessly, and have been doing so for months.  You even made an hour long Youtube series that's just you singing that same old song. 

Using my handy subscription to the OED, I find:

whine, v.
2. To utter complaints in a low querulous tone; to complain in a feeble, mean, or undignified way.

That bit after the semicolon seems the most relevant, so let's go with that. Now, there's just really no way to say you've been particularly dignified in your tenure here. So, yeah: that's pretty much it. You've satisfied one of the criteria: undignified complaining. 

It's official:  you are whining.

Now, I also happen to think the vast majority of your "analysis, observations, and conclusions" are also feeble and mean (mean as in "weak" or "of inferior quality"), but going into why I do isn't necessary, so I won't.  Feel free to complain about that.

Else you're just one of the masses who looks at dissenting opinion in disdain, without bothering to understand.

"Why? Why do they refuse to understand!? Ignorant fools! Sheep!"

Don't mistake me though:  go right ahead.  You just keep on whining as long you want.