329 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

BlackyBlack wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This has been already explained in this very thread just 2 pages ago!

Just like 99% of your ME2's "plot holes", but you're just a biased ME2 hater and don't wanna listen

All right, let's be balanced for a minute.

SR-1 had no restroom. It's a -




SR-2 has 2, no, 3 restrooms! Yay!!! ME2 > ME1 'cause Normandy got frikkin' latrines!!!

Oh, wait...

Why are they always empty? Why is that I never get chancy enough to pop in the "ladies" and see Miranda taking a dump?

Why does Shepard never eat, never sleep, never pee? Although you are controlling him all the time? When is "night" in ME universe?

See, if you let these things go to your ME2 loving head, you'll know that the on-screen "real time" has nothing to do with the story time frame. And it may have been a week before Shepard met Tali on the Citadel, although to you, as player, it looked just like half an hour of double timing around a place half the size of a mall as if Ashley and Kaidan were your Shepard's drill instructors and if he stopped just for a sec, he'd be in a world of sh*t.

And, BTW, I've solved more ME2 "plotholes" than most, I guess, and solved this Tali evidence "plothole" for you. But it doesn't change the fact that the story and plot in ME2 were trashed for the "fluent gameplay", "cool stuff", Michael Bay depiction style and EA-set release deadline. And as I do hate ME2 for that, you don't wanna listen.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 juillet 2010 - 11:38 .

[didymos1120]

Could you get a new picture Zulu? It wasn't particularly amusing the first 10,000 times you posted it, and, you know: Familiarity leads to contempt, and next thing you know...BAM! You've been consumed by the Dark Side, and nobody wants to see that happen. I mean, think of the children.

[IoCaster]

Badpie wrote...
I love ME2 and am currently replaying it, which gives me a better opportunity to notice things I didn't notice before.  And you're right.  I'm finding myself going "wait, what?" WAY more often than I should.  I know their big focus was bringing the combat up to par and making this a decent shooter.  And that's great.  The combat is amazing now and I nearly peed myself when I saw the improvements they'd made.  But as a result they kind of...put the storytelling on the backburner in a lot of ways.

Aside from the "wait, what?" moments that are positively littering this game, the overall story isn't an overall story.  It's an episodic story.  ME1 felt like a movie, with an over arching plot that was integrated into all of the main missions and a steady, natural progression of story.  ME2 is like a television show.  This week's episode is Jack's loyalty mission.  It has nothing to do with the main story, but here it is anyway.  Don't get me wrong, I loved the loyalty missions, but sometimes it felt like space fillers where there should have been more of the "real" story.

And I know people will argue that ME2 "was about the characters" but it really wasn't.  Having that many squad members really hurt Bioware's ability to fully develop wonderful characters.  I saw glimmers of character development, but none of the characters really realized their full potential in the game because there were so many of them and not enough time.  Not to mention the fact that unless you were romancing one of them they just kind of stopped talking to you.  I loved the characters, but I felt like their development was sadly lacking, and this made me sad because there were some amazingly interesting places they could have gone.

This is a very concise summation of some of the problems I also had with the game. I would have preferred more focus on the main plot and more Reaper/Collector missions. If that means trimming the fat by dropping one or two squad members off the roster it would have been a good trade. Actually, I ended up not caring at all about most of the characters because I felt that they detracted too much from the parts of the game that I was primarily interested in. Oh well, I hope that ME3 has a tighter focus on the Reaper threat and less time devoted to squad recruitment and loyalty fluff.

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.

Why? How is that question relevant to the topic of this thread? If you've got a question for someone why don't you ask him/her directly?

Spornicus wrote...
Asking BW not to make more plot holes is one of the most ignorant and naive statements one can make. This topic should not be 8 pages, it should be locked.

Why? Because you say so? This type of pugnacious and dictatorial comment is why we need an ignore function on this forum. If you don't have any interest in the topic of the thread, then don't click the link. It's really that damn easy.

Spornicus wrote...
I don't respect it anymore because there are dozens of threads clogging the forums where people feel entitled to tell Bioware how they hate plotholes in their own unique way. What's worse is that each of these threads garners pages upon pages worth of responses. We get it, people are upset by "plotholes." Do we really need so many topics on the same issue? I don't see 10 Tali appreciation threads, I don't need to see 30 anti-plothole threads.

You don't get to determine what is or isn't a relevant topic for discussion on this forum. What makes you think that you have the authority to dictate terms or set limits on discussion on a BioWare forum?

Massadonious1 wrote...
Fan nitpicking is more like it.

We don't need to know who Miranda's father is because IT DOESN'T MATTER who he is. He is about as important to the overall narrative as Refund Guy.

You don't get to determine what is or isn't a relevant topic for discussion on this forum. What makes you think that you have the authority to dictate terms or set limits on discussion on a BioWare forum?

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

I always figured that'd be a conversation to have with Kelly.  All that changes in that conversation is if everyone's loyalty is 100%.  What the heck does the Cerberus operative that has problems with a few of the crew suddenly know about their relationship with Shepard, and how they're suddenly focused?  Is he observing them somehow?  You'd think Kelly would be much more in their face about their issues, considerin she actually talks to them.

I would assume by this point she's close to breaking. She's very optimistic for someone who has to deal with a dozen different Rorschach-level personalities

I see nothing wrong with getting a good ground team, an engineer, a biotic, etc.  But this has to be in the narrative, not "you'll get who you need."  For what?  Doing what?  If TIM said "I believe you'll need an engineer", then OKAY!  Thank you for taking the time to explain your master recruitment plan, chief.  Same with the heavy weapon choice: we don't know what will be the most useful type to take on a mission.  If we got some intel on what we'll be encountering, we might have a good assessment of what weapon types to take.

A more interesting method might have been if Illusive Man had already recruited this team for us after Freedom's Progress. Imagine if instead of each recruitment mission TIM had accomplished this step already. More room might have been made for plot missions and our goal as a team might have been to investigate the Collectors, which could made actual use of Mordin's science, Tali's technical expertise, etc.

But although contrived, I still thought it was coherent. Shepard and Illusive Man decide to split the task up. Illusive Man will track our prey through his information network while Shepard gathers a team of specialists who will handle the actual assignments. Now we might not be certain what any party member is used for (Thane, I'm looking at you), but we do know we have to battle the Collectors in some capacity, probably involving both space and ground engagements at some point. The problem is our crew right now consists of Jacob and Miranda, two capable individuals but not quite ideal to tackle any situation.    

I'll take clarity over identifying a thematic or plot device anyday, especially for something as bizarre as that.  There are arguably many, and better ways to present exposition: but it must be there.  It's like having a murder mystery with no people.

This is very true, but I suppose my point here is that a good plot is more than just a series of cohesive events (going from point A to point . There are instances where plot exposition comes at the expense of form, creating disbelief or ruinng a story's pace. Here's an example I personally found with Mass Effect 1.

Good Exposition: Sovereign explaining that he is a Reaper. This would not have had the same impact had it come from Saren or any anonymous henchman. It came at the right time (about 3/4 through the game) so we spent enough time thinking he was a ship for it to shock us. It might not change what our goals are, but their context; we still intend to stop Saren but now things have truly gone to hell.

Bad exposition: Vigil explaining the Protheans' situation on Ilos. Now this is obviously necessary to the plot; exposition must be there. However it completely messes up the pacing of the story's climax. We had plenty of time for exposition and we are finally close to stopping Saren and we pause for a nice little chat with this VI. It does its duty, but leaves me on edge and confused knowing that Sovereign/Saren are currently on route to the Citadel while I'm having tea with a computer terminal.

Yes we can draw similarities to both goals, that is, "stop the bad guys."  But Saren was a person, interacting with people on planets and the sort.  He even had a henchman we got to stop.  There were social and personal worlds to explore, plots to uncover, things to learn about their machinations, eventually to uncover the Conduit plot.

The Collectors are a mysterious, alien species, that don't talk, don't "leave a trace", don't interact with people, and fly around in a big cylinder.  They take humans.  That's it?  All our information networks and that's all we learn?  Then we get  the 2nd most ridiculous mission, the disabled Collector Cruiser, and all we learn is where their usual stop is  Revealing that they're Protheans is fluff to our ends (they could've been 100ks years old and it would've made absolutely no difference), as this discovery could've been made well before that (Horizon), and provides no tactical advantage (this is even worse than discovering Saren is upgraded as a cybernetic near the end.)

It's interesting that you mention Horizon. Aside from the Ashley/Kaidan plot hole, I actually enjoyed the mission. It provided something different in that it brought us no closer to our goal of stopping the Collectors. This might be viewed as odd, but compare this to stopping Saren which souns like a monumental task. This task however culminates in exactly four main quest missions each of which happens to provide Shepard with one element he needs (Prothean Expert, undamaged beacon, location of relay, and Cipher) in order to stop Saren. This felt rather contrived.

But I suppose that's besides the point. I didn't feel any more bothered by the manor which we stop the Collectors than tracking down Saren. Each had their own flaws to consider. Let's consider Mass Effect 1 once more.

We are given this wonderful exposition on Spectres on Eden Prime/Citadel. We are told how dangerus and respected they are, of their authority, how they usually work alone. This culminates in the powerful statement "Spectres are not made, they're born." However, once becoming an actual Spectre, it seems to lose its coherency. It's nothing how Nihlus or Saren seemed to depict the role.

You are still Commander Shepard, but this is an RPG we are going to give you a ship, let you keep your crew members, and embark on an epic quest to save the world. It's as if Bioware threw away the opportunity to allow some refreshing opportunity to re-affirm the RPG arche-type which makes little sense given how Spectres function.

Within that context, the narrative tells us that Sovereign is not a VI by our squad, although they could be wrong.  We've never encountered anything like that before.  The narrative has acknolwedged that this weird red glowing squid thing is "not as it appears."

In regards to Harbinger, no one has encountered it at all.  It's a voice talking smack.  We have nothing to point to, no dialog.  Yet for some inexplicable reason "Harbinger is coming."

Shepard: "No really, you have to believe me.  It was this booming vocie, an egotistical...Reaper!  Talking about...genetics, and..."
Council: "..."

However, we do also know that VI's can be made to take on a variety of appearances and personalities. Perhaps Saren has simply gone insane from all his high profile missions, as a counter.

Could we not say with Mass Effect 2 that the narrative has 'acknowledged' the same'? Certainly Shepard knowing Harbinger is absurd. But the narrative is indicating that after the destruction of the Collectors, the Reapers are finally in motion and we will be engaging them.

That doesn't make sense.  If the Collectors are mindless drones, how can a indoctrinated, mindless, completely controlled drone fail?  And don't give me that whole Sunday morning cartoon James Bond style villain getting angry at his hired, brainless muscle, who only follows his masters orders, and can only look down and whimper.  That is childlessly dumb.  It's simply unclear writing.  What, does Harbinger normally talk to his mindless drones?  Does the million year old AI start blowing up small satellites when his dolls break, when it doesn't get his way?  It's absolutely out of character of what we know of Reapers, if in fact Harbinger is one.

Well, not to use an argument you are saying not to use, but yes essentially it is the Bond style villain. Is this any different from Saren upon finding out Shepard has touched the Beacon lunges at Matriarch Benezia? What is the purpose of this? Why her? Is it her fault? Did she lead the Geth? Is Saren simply going crazy? The narrative is not making this entirely clear either. Context is all we have in such instances.
 
I'd also like to point out (briefly) that Harbinger did not 'blow up' anything. It was Shepard who was responsible for the facility's destruction. Certainly we can make many distinctions between what Harbinger meant by "You have failed", but all ultimately lead to the same basic point; he is referring to the Collectors.

The Collector General is seen on screen with a Reaper image (not unlike Soveregn) when his eyes fade away and we hear "Releasing control". This indicates he was under possession of the Reapers. That this happens right after Shepard activates a bomb also indicates that Harbinger is angry/displeased with their actions.  

[Bigeyez]

Lol @ people wasting their time arguing with Smudboy and Zulu.

[Nightwriter]

I always feel like trying to get in on a wall-of-text debate that's already in progress is like trying to chip off a tiny piece of ice off of an iceberg, and say, "Here! I disagree with this piece of ice, right here!"

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Bigeyez and Nightwriter yes.

So often it's just a case of people being brief instead of overly verbose. Most of the time what needs to be said can be condensed into 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 of whats posted. But some people just like posting and reposting alot... and peppering their posts with drivel.

It's called "getting to the point" without blah, blah. That way people don't get bored of reading and engaging in discussion.

[Nightwriter]

I get in wall of text debates a lot.

Most of the time I make them so long because my opponent has made like a whole bunch of points that I want to address and prove individually wrong, one... at... a time.

So that none escape. None. Mwahahaha.

[darkwonders]

didymos1120 wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...
Mechs aside, I'm pretty sure it says when the clips were intoduced and it was well after they got stuck on creepy island. BioWare are just lazy.

Yeah, it does say in the codex: the clips came from examining and testing geth weapons.  Since the geth hadn't been out of the veil until Eden Prime, it's rather unlikely that anyone had gotten a hold of geth weapons earlier than two years ago.  This is why Shep automatically knowing about them pulls so many people up short.

What I wish they'd done in the Lazarus station sequence is, instead of having the line "This weapon doesn't have a thermal clip", have Shepard attempt to activate the pistol and fire a test shot.  It's the sort of thing you'd expect a soldier to do: make sure your weapon works, and in fact that's exactly what Shep was doing. Then Shep could have griped that the gun was trash and wouldn't fire, at which point Miranda could have briefly explained the new system.  Something along the lines of:

"Oh, crap.  That's right, you don't know about that.  OK, most guns now have disposable heat sinks.  Thermal clips.  You need to find one.  Look for little red cylinders.  There's a little port on the back.  They go in there. The pistol has a slide: that ejects it.  All right: that's it.  Crash course over Shepard.  Now move."

In actuality, I think that line was Bioware sort of winking at we players:  "Yeah, yeah: we know. It's all different. Just roll with it people."  Instead, we got approximately eleventy-billion people crying out "ZOMG!  IT'S A PLOTHOLE.  OR A RETCON.  ONE OF THOSE. WE HATES IT!"

Well seeing as you the player were able to recreate any class with the new shepard, complete with already knowing an ability in that class and how to use it, you can probably assume that Cerberus programmed the knowledge of thermal clips into Shepard...

That's just my guess tho.

[FlyinElk212]

Nightwriter wrote...

I get in wall of text debates a lot.

Most of the time I make them so long because my opponent has made like a whole bunch of points that I want to address and prove individually wrong, one... at... a time.

So that none escape. None. Mwahahaha.

Haha! Wall of Text Wars are fun...but so fraggin' tedious...especially since every point your opponent makes has to be wrong...

Seriously though, looking up a couple of posts, I know somebody mentioned that Mass Effect 1 is a movie, Mass Effect 2 is a television series. I couldn't agree more. The loyalty missions are like the filler episodes.

And bioware's incessant need of a 12 squad team seems like a desperate attempt to continue the Shepard= God analogies, with the 12 disciples and all. Seriously, there wasn't a need for this many characters. Why 12? That's a random number...unless they're secretly implying something.......

[smudboy]

Bigeyez wrote...

Lol @ people wasting their time arguing with Smudboy and Zulu.

I'll take coherent argument, though you consider fruitless, over wasting time making observations posting conclusions "wasting time" while arguing.  On a forum.

So glad you posted that.

At least Nightwriter can fly and laugh, just not at the same time.

[Nightwriter]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Seriously though, looking up a couple of posts, I know somebody mentioned that Mass Effect 1 is a movie, Mass Effect 2 is a television series. I couldn't agree more. The loyalty missions are like the filler episodes.

Then the box needs to have a warning. Right on the cover.

Warning! Please do not judge this game on par with game one! Please treat this game like a television series and NOT a movie! Prepare for a series of missions that feel disconnected from the plot and story of the previous game!

[Bigeyez]

Lol @ Smudboy thinking he makes coherent arguments.

[FlyinElk212]

Nightwriter wrote...

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Seriously though, looking up a couple of posts, I know somebody mentioned that Mass Effect 1 is a movie, Mass Effect 2 is a television series. I couldn't agree more. The loyalty missions are like the filler episodes.

Then the box needs to have a warning. Right on the cover.

Warning! Please do not judge this game on par with game one! Please treat this game like a television series and NOT a movie! Prepare for a series of missions that feel disconnected from the plot and story of the previous game!

Oh trust me my flying four-wheeled friend, I'm right with you when it comes to my opinions on ME2. By no means am I saying ME2 is justified because it's a telelvision show.

That'd be like saying the Terminator television series is on par with the Terminator movies. <_<

[Nightwriter]

smudboy wrote...

At least Nightwriter can fly and laugh, just not at the same time.

I'm doing both right now.

FlyinElk212 wrote...

Oh trust me my flying four-wheeled friend, I'm right with you when it comes to my opinions on ME2. By no means am I saying ME2 is justified because it's a telelvision show.

That'd be like saying the Terminator television series is on par with the Terminator movies. <_<

I didn't even know there was a show.

I wish they had found a way to connect the characters to the plot better. I think that would've changed ME2 a bit for me. The characters felt kind of random. Their stories were great and I enjoyed them, but they still felt like random stories.

[Sparda Stonerule]

How Shepard's body was found and recovered exactly? Not even ME comic gives details.

Actually from what I've read the Collector General hired the Shadow Broker to find it. Evidently he was hired before the ship was even attacked, so he was waiting for the attack to happen based on the fake Geth reports that the Normandy was there for. (Still a coincidence that Shepard did actually die, but that's more a plot device than a plot hole). Cerberus then got Liara's assistance in recovering Shepard's body. Once Liara came into contact with it she let Cerberus have it in order to let Cerberus attempt the Lazerus project. I think all of this is fairly well documented, all though some of my details may be muddled but that's what I got out of all the writing available.

How Mordin found the seeker bug?

This one is mostly speculation. However when you recruit Mordin Jacob mentions a tissue sample they had that Mordin could analyze. So either Cerberus with its vast resources and under handed dealings found a bug to analyze, or Mordin engineered his own bug based on a tissue sample Cerberus had already. I think the former is the most likely though. Granted it isn't told to you directly but there are one line clues to kind of fill you in.

Who attacked the Cerberus base? Who Wilson was working for? (forgetting such details is unbecoming to you Bioware).

Wilson attacked the base. I can only imagine that he was just disgruntled about Miranda and the Illusive man. Through his logs on the base I got the distinct impression he was just unhappy about his treatment during the project and most likely decided to try and kill everyone, or at least cause a panic so he could steal some research or money and attempt to get off the station alive.

What is the exact reason for a human reaper?

Now this one is easy as all get out. From Harbinger's dialog it's readily apparent he is impressed with Human Genetic malleability, he also states they have impressive technical potential. Now during those lines he says Humans are a viable possibility. Now I gather from all this that the Reapers want to make a new type of Reaper, one never seen before to help with some as of yet unstated plan. Another thing is that Harbinger wants Shepard's body intact if possible. I believe Harbinger wanted to integrate Shepard with the Reaper in an effort to make a new wave of Reapers and be able to control it. I still don't know why, but I know the Reapers are interested in humans and more specifically Shepard. So from some exposition from Harbinger I can sort of derive what they want since Reapers are in fact bio synthetic constructs. 

If reapers convert selected species to new reapers why all the reapers are squid like and not the converted versions of various species?

It's never actually stated that they turn certain species into Reapers, it is stated however that they have turned certain species into tools that they can use. Like how they never made a Prothean reapers, they just re-purposed them into the Collectors. Besides that, even if they did use DNA from a species who is to say that the Human Reaper wasn't an ambitious project by the Reapers in an effort to do something new and turn the tide of this cycle of destruction? It's clear that the Reaper's don't know absolutely everything, since it seems to me that they are curious about things, probably due to their bio synthetic nature.

Who was Miranda's father?

We simply don't know yet. So either he's very important, and knowing his name would ruin a plot point in 3, since he is an evidently powerful person on Earth. Or he is not important at all and knowing his name would just serve to add an inconsequential name to our understanding of Miranda's history. Either way, not really that urgent.

Why we don't know the exact reason of Omega district plague?

Oh come on. The Collector's contracted the Vorcha to test the plague, probably so that the Collector's could use it to wipe out all the other species to make it easier to harvest Humans. This one is pretty well documented in the mission from Vorcha Exposition. 

Now I realize some of this is just stuff I personally derived from the game. But I think most of my explanations are sound and very well thought out since I always do try to identify plot holes. With only one major plot hole evident in the game which I hope they explain right away in 3. This has to do with the Datapad Joker gives to Shepard at the end. Although I believe EDI used her Computer system hacking power to get into the systems of the base. Which would make sense, however that's the only thing I'm not reasonably sure about.

I hope none of this sounds too crazy or far fetched.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 09 juillet 2010 - 04:19 .

[smudboy]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I would assume by this point she's close to breaking. She's very optimistic for someone who has to deal with a dozen different Rorschach-level personalities
[/quote]
Kelly loves people.  I can't see her breaking over talking with them.  Although the Thane-esque vision was a little freaky.

[quote]
A more interesting method might have been if Illusive Man had already recruited this team for us after Freedom's Progress. Imagine if instead of each recruitment mission TIM had accomplished this step already. More room might have been made for plot missions and our goal as a team might have been to investigate the Collectors, which could made actual use of Mordin's science, Tali's technical expertise, etc.
[/quote]
We were boots-to-the ground to TIM's plan, whatever method or design that was.  We didn't know his plan or reason, or how he could've possibly known we'd need certain people for the Suicide Mission.  One of the teaser trailers was bizarre, having TIM and Miranda talk about "Commander Shepard?"  "...to his credit, he's recruiting an impressive team...he's scouring the galaxy for the best."  We were just doing whatever TIM wanted.  No argument, no choices to make, just "here's some dossiers".  Compared to ME1, this is ridiculous.  Even with this setup, if the characters you eventually find 1) had some motivations, 2) had some knowledge, 3) knew what was going on, 4) could provide some plot specific MacGuffin or role, then we might say "oh wow, this person's valuable/important, I'm glad we got them".  But they have nothing.  It's as if they were created because the creators thought "wouldn't it be cool when we meet this person?"  But didn't bother to explain or go through the basic conversations, psychology, or simple issue of this job being a one way ticket; and no one involved being worried, concerned, fighting, or having plans to make sure it isn't.  (Save some romance dialog.)

And you might be thinking "what about Thane?"  Thane doesn't give a crap about his life, and was just using Shepard for a distraction.  He was one of the only people, like O'Keer, that knew of the Collectors.  Imagine if Thane's son was killed by Collectors.  Imagine if Shepard was killed by Co...oh.  Right.

[quote]
But although contrived, I still thought it was coherent. Shepard and Illusive Man decide to split the task up. Illusive Man will track our prey through his information network while Shepard gathers a team of specialists who will handle the actual assignments. Now we might not be certain what any party member is used for (Thane, I'm looking at you), but we do know we have to battle the Collectors in some capacity, probably involving both space and ground engagements at some point. The problem is our crew right now consists of Jacob and Miranda, two capable individuals but not quite ideal to tackle any situation.    
[/quote]
What assignments?  To sit in their rooms on the Normandy?

To fight an unknown enemy with handguns instead of blowing them out of the sky in our spaceship?

"Oh look, our spaceship has magically crashlanded on the perviously-unknown-yet-only base we're here to destroy, after finally blowing up the only known target that we had plenty of chances to attack before, after stupidly flying close to it while it explodes."
[quote]
This is very true, but I suppose my point here is that a good plot is more than just a series of cohesive events (going from point A to point . There are instances where plot exposition comes at the expense of form, creating disbelief or ruinng a story's pace. Here's an example I personally found with Mass Effect 1.
[/quote]
I would say a good plot involves good understanding going to point B.

[quote]
Good Exposition: Sovereign explaining that he is a Reaper. This would not have had the same impact had it come from Saren or any anonymous henchman. It came at the right time (about 3/4 through the game) so we spent enough time thinking he was a ship for it to shock us. It might not change what our goals are, but their context; we still intend to stop Saren but now things have truly gone to hell.

Bad exposition: Vigil explaining the Protheans' situation on Ilos. Now this is obviously necessary to the plot; exposition must be there. However it completely messes up the pacing of the story's climax. We had plenty of time for exposition and we are finally close to stopping Saren and we pause for a nice little chat with this VI. It does its duty, but leaves me on edge and confused knowing that Sovereign/Saren are currently on route to the Citadel while I'm having tea with a computer terminal.
[/quote]
With Vigil, the only issue was pacing.  There's nothing wrong with small dips in the rising action.  Taken that view, Vigil could be seen as its own climax for Ilos.  It made that "suicide run" to the Conduit intense: we know what's at stake.

[quote]
It's interesting that you mention Horizon. Aside from the Ashley/Kaidan plot hole, I actually enjoyed the mission. It provided something different in that it brought us no closer to our goal of stopping the Collectors. This might be viewed as odd, but compare this to stopping Saren which souns like a monumental task. This task however culminates in exactly four main quest missions each of which happens to provide Shepard with one element he needs (Prothean Expert, undamaged beacon, location of relay, and Cipher) in order to stop Saren. This felt rather contrived.
[/quote]
Stopping an entire ancient species, that's unknown to us, sounds like a monumental task.  (No problem! Just Pokémon some people.)
[quote]
But I suppose that's besides the point. I didn't feel any more bothered by the manor which we stop the Collectors than tracking down Saren. Each had their own flaws to consider. Let's consider Mass Effect 1 once more.

We are given this wonderful exposition on Spectres on Eden Prime/Citadel. We are told how dangerus and respected they are, of their authority, how they usually work alone. This culminates in the powerful statement "Spectres are not made, they're born." However, once becoming an actual Spectre, it seems to lose its coherency. It's nothing how Nihlus or Saren seemed to depict the role.

You are still Commander Shepard, but this is an RPG we are going to give you a ship, let you keep your crew members, and embark on an epic quest to save the world. It's as if Bioware threw away the opportunity to allow some refreshing opportunity to re-affirm the RPG arche-type which makes little sense given how Spectres function.
[/quote]
ME1's plot gives us leads to investigate, whose ends provide us with comprehensive, though innacurate results.  Pieces to a puzzle.
ME2's plot gives us unbelievably obvious and contrived situations, strung together by an unknown series of causes (to be fair, we couldn't control the events in ME1 either, just choose the order.)

[quote]
However, we do also know that VI's can be made to take on a variety of appearances and personalities. Perhaps Saren has simply gone insane from all his high profile missions, as a counter.
[/quote]
A counter of the number of implants/personalities he's got?

Regardless, the narrative tells us otherwise.  Thank you narrative!  Glad someone's paying attention, my 2nd squad team mate, whomever you were.

[quote]
Could we not say with Mass Effect 2 that the narrative has 'acknowledged' the same'? Certainly Shepard knowing Harbinger is absurd. But the narrative is indicating that after the destruction of the Collectors, the Reapers are finally in motion and we will be engaging them.
[/quote]
But it has no meaning: we already know the "Reapers are coming".  We don't know how, where, when, or in what capacity, and neither does Shepard.  Harbinger and co. could be coming in hundreds of years.

[quote]
Well, not to use an argument you are saying not to use, but yes essentially it is the Bond style villain. Is this any different from Saren upon finding out Shepard has touched the Beacon lunges at Matriarch Benezia? What is the purpose of this? Why her? Is it her fault? Did she lead the Geth? Is Saren simply going crazy? The narrative is not making this entirely clear either. Context is all we have in such instances.
[/quote]
You're comparing an actual character's anger, who is a real person, to Harbinger.  To you sir I tip my hat.

[quote]
I'd also like to point out (briefly) that Harbinger did not 'blow up' anything. It was Shepard who was responsible for the facility's destruction. Certainly we can make many distinctions between what Harbinger meant by "You have failed", but all ultimately lead to the same basic point; he is referring to the Collectors.
[/quote]
Yes, in English, like he does non-chalantly to his drones on Horizon, for some reason.  It's bad writng, unknown context, unknown reference.  Because it is unclear.

[quote]
The Collector General is seen on screen with a Reaper image (not unlike Soveregn) when his eyes fade away and we hear "Releasing control". This indicates he was under possession of the Reapers. That this happens right after Shepard activates a bomb also indicates that Harbinger is angry/displeased with their actions.  [/quote]
Which doesn't make sense because the Collector General wasn't doing anything for Harbinger to get angry at, since Harbinger has been in control the entire time.

Harbginer: "Now that I've finally given you freedom: you're a failure."

I had no idea million year old AI can get angry (at themselves) for the stupidest of reasons, and then blame his dolls.  How...totally like the Reapers we (supposedly) know...

[smudboy]

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.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

 

How Shepard's body was found and recovered exactly? Not even ME comic gives details.

The Collectors hired the Shadow Broker who in turn hired the Blue Suns to find it. The Collectors also gave the Shadow Broker and the Blue Suns the location.   

How Mordin found the seeker bug?

It might have been part of the data in Veetor's omni-tool and he just cloned it.

Who attacked the Cerberus base? Who Wilson was working for? (forgetting such details is unbecoming to you Bioware).

My guesses: The Shadow Broker, Miranda's father, the Council, or the Human Systems Alliance, a crazy ultra radical religious right-wing militant cult who saw Shepard's resuscitation as a blasphemy.

What is the exact reason for a human reaper?

It's possible that the Human Reaper was a prototype design that the Reapers saw as an upgrade.

If reapers convert selected species to new reapers why all the reapers are squid like and not the converted versions of various species?

My guess is that the Reaper wanted a uniform look, and saw that form as being the most useful until humanity came along.

Who was Miranda's father?

A business man. A  very egomaniacal, wealthy (maybe the richest man in the galaxy) and powerful business man, who wanted a dynasty (and Miranda was not one he created she was the first one he kept) not a pair of daughters, believed deeply in Cerberus, and donated money to Cerberus until Miranda joined.

Ultimately it's not relevant to the main plot of Mass Effect 2  other than in Miranda's loyalty quest. It might be explained in DLC, an expansion, in a future novel, comic book series, on in Mass Effect 3, but we know enough to know that according to Miranda he's a no-good SOB.

Why we don't know the exact reason of Omega district plague?

It was a test mutations in other species, humans were safe as a control group. Sometimes you have to accept what is said in the game even if it's stated as a theory is the real exact reason.

Again it's not terribly important thing to know because in the end outside Modin's recruitment quest it's not relevant to the overall plot. Again it might be explained in DLC, expansion, in future novel. comic book series, or in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 09 juillet 2010 - 04:31 .

[Bigeyez]

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!

[smudboy]

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.

[Il Divo]

What assignments?  To sit in their rooms on the Normandy?

To fight an unknown enemy with handguns instead of blowing them out of the sky in our spaceship?

"Oh look, our spaceship has magically crashlanded on the perviously-unknown-yet-only base we're here to destroy, after finally blowing up the only known target that we had plenty of chances to attack before, after stupidly flying close to it while it explodes."

Well, as you yourself saw assignments included: Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF. The entire goal of Mass Effect 2 was to go beyond the Omega IV relay. This was not going to be done while Commander Shepard sat in the Normandy. It was clear at some point or another a ground engagement would be needed, whether it was to gather a data pad from Collectors, overpower their vessel, something involving getting close enough to them. But I don't quite see how your counter-argument works. 

1. We need information before we can battle the Collectors.
2. Illusive Man is going to obtain that information and provide us with such information.

From these two premises, what is your conclusion? 3. Shepard should sit around and do nothing because we don't have yet have information. He at least has a goal in sight and is able to achieve some purpose (such as recruiting Mordin). If we accept that Illusive Man gathers intelligence, what precisely should Shepard do?

I would say a good plot involves good understanding going to point B.

And it also requires more than clarity. Let me provide a counter-example. Star Wars Episode IV is approximately two hours long, give or take. Most consider it a good plot. We know Luke is a farmer. Let's say George Lucas decided to create a new edition (yes, another one) of Star Wars which also included an 8 hour sequence where all we do is watch Luke farm. Now we still have the same plot, unfortunately it now suffers from suicide-status pacing. A good plot is a balancing act between several different elements, not just clear understanding of point A to B. It's partially why I forgive Mass Effect 2's errors because the suicide mission had far better pacing than any other Bioware game thusfar.

With Vigil, the only issue was pacing.  There's nothing wrong with small dips in the rising action.  Taken that view, Vigil could be seen as its own climax for Ilos.  It made that "suicide run" to the Conduit intense: we know what's at stake.

It was far more than a small dip in the rising action. This entire adventure has been building up to the moment we find the Conduit. Once we find out that Saren is intending to release the Reapers from dark space, this becomes even more critical. That's why the quest is called "Race to the Conduit" and not the "Steady Jog to the Conduit".  We already knew what was at stake, making Vigil's exposition somewhat wasted. If we don't stop the Reapers, we die. We knew that already from speaking with Sovereign. Why that entails another 10-15 minutes of discourse to remind us of this is beyond me.

Stopping an entire ancient species, that's unknown to us, sounds like a monumental task.  (No problem! Just Pokémon some people.)

Yes, but your point seems to be "Mass Effect 1 has an incredible plot, Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in gaming history". Mine is "Mass Effect 1 has an incredible plot, while Mass Effect 2's merely gets the job done." You cannot invalidate my conclusion by showing how Mass Effect 2 commits Mass Effect 1's error; you must be able to defend the contrived investigation against Saren to maintain your conclusion that Mass Effect 1's plot truly is incredible regardless of Mass Effect 2.

Your point about the Collector Mission does not change the fact that stopping Saren also involved a remarkable set of circumstances. Across the entire universe, we happened to discover 4 of his operations all of which conveniently allowed us to locate the Conduit? This is contrived.

ME1's plot gives us leads to investigate, whose ends provide us with comprehensive, though innacurate results.  Pieces to a puzzle.
ME2's plot gives us unbelievably obvious and contrived situations, strung together by an unknown series of causes (to be fair, we couldn't control the events in ME1 either, just choose the order.)

I'm not sure I understand how this is a counter. Wth Mass Effect 1, as I explained we receive wonderful exposition on Spectres. The game however contradicts itself following exposing Saren. I'm a Spectre now, the first human Spectre. Hence I'm also the least experienced. For some reason however the Council sees it as a good idea to send me alone against their former top agent with a ragtag group of mercenaries, Alliance soldiers, and scientists. Not perhaps with other Spectres which we know can happen according to the Codex. But for some reason Shepard is the best choice for the job in the oddest context; what Spectres have entire crews under their command? This is no addressed.   

A counter of the number of implants/personalities he's got?

Regardless, the narrative tells us otherwise.  Thank you narrative!  Glad someone's paying attention, my 2nd squad team mate, whomever you were.

Perhaps the Geth gave him those implants. "It's not made clear", I suppose. Sovereign could still be a VI, despite what our companions think (although why I would trust Wrex's opinion on what is or isn't a VI is unclear).

But it has no meaning: we already know the "Reapers are coming".  We don't know how, where, when, or in what capacity, and neither does Shepard.  Harbinger and co. could be coming in hundreds of years.

Well, to once again counter, how did we know at the conclusion of Mass Effect 1? We certainly knew Sovereign/Saren tried to bring them back. You yourself pointed out the absurdity of Shepard knowing Harbinger's name from in-game taunts. How exactly does Shepard know the Reapers are 'coming' after Sovereign's demise? It seemed desiged to evoke a dramatic response more than anything when Shepard has no basis to say what the other Reapers are not doing. You cannot challenge Mass Effect 2 for this, but not 1.

You're comparing an actual character's anger, who is a real person, to Harbinger.  To you sir I tip my hat.

Certainly. If we can question Harbinger's tossing aside of the Collectors, I see no reason why the same cannot be said of Saren lunging at Benezia. Especially when we consider how out of character it is given his voice recording in the Geth memory core. We were intended to think that Saren was angry about Eden Prime and now we find out it was a 'success'?

Yes, in English, like he does non-chalantly to his drones on Horizon, for some reason.  It's bad writng, unknown context, unknown reference.  Because it is unclear.

So you're saying it's unknown that Harbinger is referring to the Collectors? When he is looking right at them? After Shepard destroys their facility? What alternate interpretations could you see as reasonable, for my own curiosity?

Which doesn't make sense because the Collector General wasn't doing anything for Harbinger to get angry at, since Harbinger has been in control the entire time.

Harbginer: "Now that I've finally given you freedom: you're a failure."

I had no idea million year old AI can get angry (at themselves) for the stupidest of reasons, and then blame his dolls.  How...totally like the Reapers we (supposedly) know...

How unreasonable could it possibly be? He is frustrated with his creations, so he finally discarded them as tools. And to conclude, he referred to them as failures. I don't quite see how he must even get angry; he stated a fact.

[smudboy]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
Well, as you yourself saw assignments included: Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF. The entire goal of Mass Effect 2 was to go beyond the Omega IV relay. This was not going to be done while Commander Shepard sat in the Normandy. It was clear at some point or another a ground engagement would be needed, whether it was to gather a data pad from Collectors, overpower their vessel, something involving getting close enough to them. But I don't quite see how your counter-argument works. 
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
1. We need information before we can battle the Collectors.
[/quote]
Exactly.  But we never get any, aside from their estimated location.
[quote]
2. Illusive Man is going to obtain that information and provide us with such information.
[/quote]
But we never get any.

[quote]
From these two premises, what is your conclusion? 3. Shepard should sit around and do nothing because we don't have yet have information. He at least has a goal in sight and is able to achieve some purpose (such as recruiting Mordin). If we accept that Illusive Man gathers intelligence, what precisely should Shepard do?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
And it also requires more than clarity. Let me provide a counter-example. Star Wars Episode IV is approximately two hours long, give or take. Most consider it a good plot. We know Luke is a farmer. Let's say George Lucas decided to create a new edition (yes, another one) of Star Wars which also included an 8 hour sequence where all we do is watch Luke farm. Now we still have the same plot, unfortunately it now suffers from suicide-status pacing. A good plot is a balancing act between several different elements, not just clear understanding of point A to B. It's partially why I forgive Mass Effect 2's errors because the suicide mission had far better pacing than any other Bioware game thusfar.
[/quote]
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.

Good writing involves clear, simple concepts, that we can understand.  If my boss wants me to get help with an unknown military threat, great: treat it like a military operation: a spying, recon team, and an attack squad.  So instead of hunting down leads, we just get soldiers?  Why a mysterious assassin no one knows of?  Why a mysterious vigilante on the run from several gangs in the worst spacestation in the galaxy?  Why an anti-Cerberus super-biotic criminal?  etc. And if it was supposed to be a story of building relationships, let it be about building relationships, not "oh thanks for doing that thing for me that I always wanted/couldn't possibly have done if you hadn't shown up." (Alibi in some caes that's true, but that's not loyalty or trust.  That's doing favors, as if that suddenly gives them trust/focus.)  With life on the line, you've got some serious scenes of honesty, personal revelation and exposition that could have occurred, if people had real conversations.
[quote]
Yes, but your point seems to be "Mass Effect 1 has an incredible plot, Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in gaming history". Mine is "Mass Effect 1 has an incredible plot, while Mass Effect 2's merely gets the job done." You cannot invalidate my conclusion by showing how Mass Effect 2 commits Mass Effect 1's error; you must be able to defend the contrived investigation against Saren to maintain your conclusion that Mass Effect 1's plot truly is incredible regardless of Mass Effect 2.
[/quote]
ME2's story gets the job done.  The only plot that exists is: because TIM said so.  We needed the Collectors to give Shepard something to shoot at, because taking humans is bad.  Oh, Collectors are Protheans.

[quote]
Your point about the Collector Mission does not change the fact that stopping Saren also involved a remarkable set of circumstances. Across the entire universe, we happened to discover 4 of his operations all of which conveniently allowed us to locate the Conduit? This is contrived.
[/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]
I'm not sure I understand how this is a counter. Wth Mass Effect 1, as I explained we receive wonderful exposition on Spectres. The game however contradicts itself following exposing Saren. I'm a Spectre now, the first human Spectre. Hence I'm also the least experienced. For some reason however the Council sees it as a good idea to send me alone against their former top agent with a ragtag group of mercenaries, Alliance soldiers, and scientists. Not perhaps with other Spectres which we know can happen according to the Codex. But for some reason Shepard is the best choice for the job in the oddest context; what Spectres have entire crews under their command? This is no addressed.   
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
Well, to once again counter, how did we know at the conclusion of Mass Effect 1? We certainly knew Sovereign/Saren tried to bring them back. You yourself pointed out the absurdity of Shepard knowing Harbinger's name from in-game taunts. How exactly does Shepard know the Reapers are 'coming' after Sovereign's demise? It seemed desiged to evoke a dramatic response more than anything when Shepard has no basis to say what the other Reapers are not doing. You cannot challenge Mass Effect 2 for this, but not 1.
[/quote]
Eh, I'll give you that.
[quote]
Certainly. If we can question Harbinger's tossing aside of the Collectors, I see no reason why the same cannot be said of Saren lunging at Benezia. Especially when we consider how out of character it is given his voice recording in the Geth memory core. We were intended to think that Saren was angry about Eden Prime and now we find out it was a 'success'?
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
So you're saying it's unknown that Harbinger is referring to the Collectors? When he is looking right at them? After Shepard destroys their facility? What alternate interpretations could you see as reasonable, for my own curiosity?
[/quote]
Do they understand English?  Do they even communicate?  Does this make sense?  To you, go for it.  To me, not a chance.

[quote]
How unreasonable could it possibly be? He is frustrated with his creations, so he finally discarded them as tools. And to conclude, he referred to them as failures. I don't quite see how he must even get angry; he stated a fact. [/quote]
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.)

[Bigeyez]

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!

[smudboy]

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.