555 réponses à ce sujet

[IoCaster]

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
Another ME2 plot thread? Oh well, it's doubtful that anything will get resolved here, but I'm game.[/quote]
Particularly when you've already decided to not accept it.[/quote]

What is it that I'm supposed to accept? That your opinion is more valid than mine?

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
I really like the seamless flow of this awesome plot. For two years some unknown entity is abducting humans from their colonies in the Terminus Systems without leaving any trace or evidence of their identity. Cerberus resurrects Shepard and TIM gives him the assignment to solve this vexing mystery. How awesomely contrived providential that he discovers not only who is responsible, but manages to find a surviving witness, omni-tool data, video recordings and seeker swarm samples. Old TIM sure is getting some bang for his Lazarus bucks isn't he?[/quote]

We're complaining about contrivance in a video game plot now? Because, apparently, the entirety of the first game didn't rely 100% on utterly contrived timing to gloss over the fact that the window of time in which you might stop Saren is a giant plot hole because he already has all the information you chase him around gathering and still get dropped right behind him on Ilos, let alone that you arrive right on the heels of every other major event on the plot worlds? Yeah, holy ****, things go well for the protagonist in such a way as to make the rest of the game possible, because in this case you happen to luck into running into an old associate during the investigation whose aid reveals a potential information source. This is hardly an unknown storytelling device.[/quote]

Ah, pulling the old everyone does it card. Game (A) had plot holes so therefore it's a prerequisite to criticize Game (A) to justify any criticism of Game (. Hmmm...nah, thanks but I'll limit myself to commenting on the plot of ME2 since that's the topic of this thread.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
I don't know about iakus, but I was paying attention. I was also rolling my eyes and giggling uncontrollably too. Mordin is the only one I can think of that provides a necessary service. Let's see, you can leave Grunt stewing in his test tube without affecting anything. You have to recruit Jack, but who in their right mind would want that psycho on their team? Especially on a mission of such grand scale and importance. Garrus is nothing but a Turian military veteran and former C-Sec officer. What exactly does he bring to the table that you couldn't get from another merc like Zaeed? I guess we can mark him down to fan service for lovesick FemSheps.

After Horizon we get Thane, Samara and Tali. Tali gives us what exactly? A tech to unlock a door? Is she supposed to be the best of the best in the galaxy or was she simply more fan service? This time for lovesick Talimancers. Thane doesn't even have an assigned task on the suicide mission. Maybe more fan service for those alien loving FemSheps? Are we detecting a pattern here yet? Samara can successfully do the biotic bubble but so can Jack. If you're not particular about keeping everyone on your squad alive on the suicide mission you can even get Miranda or Jacob to stand in for either of them. Heck you can throw caution to the wind and only recruit two out of the three if you'd like. If you grab the DLC twins you can skip all three of the best and most elite badasses in the galaxy. Yeah, I'm still laughing about this sh!t whenever I give it a thought.[/quote]

Neither tIM nor Shepard have the Prima Strategy Guide - they don't know what the suicide mission will require. Thus, all major bases are covered - biotics, infiltrators, potential fireteam leaders, technical experts. Just in case.
Do tell: After the Citadel, what actual plot-related purpose does any Mass Effect 1 squad member serve other than Liara or the Virmire victims (whose entire existence is as typecast love interest/heroic sacrifice)?[/quote]

If you have to resort to a strategy guide to make sense of it all then that's a damning indictment on the quality of the writing. I have to wonder what possible reason I would have to want to recruit a psycho biotic from a prison ship. An admitted murderer and pirate is not someone to be trusted or integrated into a team on a critical mission without some kind of compelling evidence that it's a necessity. Chalking it up to "Hey just in case a psycho biotic may come in handy" is hardly compelling. I didn't make this stuff up, BioWare did.

Sure I can disengage my brain and just go along for the ride, but at some point the cascading effect of all these recruitment and loyalty missions start to bog things down. How many do I actually need and why am I stuck doing a laundry list of personal errands for these people? I'm still seething that my Shepard is working for Cerberus and now I'm stuck doing tedious side quests for characters that I don't care about. And this constitutes 85-90% of the game.

Thankfully I can skip a few recruitments and still get the job done because as it turns out almost anyone can do any of the jobs on the suicide mission. All of these specialists are only required if you care whether they survive or not. Phew, what a relief that turned out to be. I could almost resort to opening the galactic phone book and choosing eight people at random and still get the job done.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
Oh yes, no doubt. Cerberus and TIM thought of everything, even before they knew for certain that the Collectors were abducting colonists and that they were agents of the Reapers. What a convenient coincidence. *rolleyes*[/quote]

Let's see. tIM's concerned about the Reaper threat, devotes staggering amounts of resources to rebuilding the only other human who might be able to do something about the Reaper threat, makes use of Reaper technology to enhance her odds...yep, that all seems to follow. This was always about the Reapers. Again - listen when he speaks.[/quote]

Yes more plot contrivance is just what the doctor(s) ordered. Can't have too much of that since it's just a video game and shouldn't be taken seriously anyway. Cerberus has pioneered some breakthrough medical technology that can bring the dead back to life. They've also got the resources to build a bigger, better and more badass SSV Normandy. Oh, but wait there's more! They've also constructed an actual functional AI based on Reaper technology that's fully capable of mining data from...blah, blah and blah. That's some pretty impressive output for a shadowy, quasi-terrorist organization with a track record of numerous experiments gone horribly wrong and failing in quite spectacular fashion. Heck, they recently reinforced this portrayal of hapless incompetence with the Overlord DLC. At what point does a video game plot check itself to determine whether it's crossed the absurdity event horizon?

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
Considering the fact that Shepard was the investigator that got the goods on the Collector scheme, a case can be made that he's more than adequate and lucky to boot. But he's too busy recruiting and running errands for his team of elite badasses. Oh well, I guess we're stuck with those hundreds of crack detectives that spent two years trying to figure out who was abducting colonists.[/quote]

Yep, Shepard caught a lucky break and found an old crewmate looking for someone who happened to have recorded information on the Collector scheme, without whom you'd have wandered Freedom's Progress for a while and left empty-handed. Shepard doesn't so much "investigate" as "be there when a variable the Collectors didn't account for shows up". Lucky yes. With sufficient access to do any investigating beyond that? Not really. There are several highly dangerous locations specialists need to be recovered from, for one. And Shepard's probably better off - to say nothing of it being better gameplay - delivering a partially Reaper-based AI connection to an information source in the Collector vessel than sitting at a desk playing the hacking minigame for hours on end to sift through Alliance comm chatter. That's for the aforementioned Cerberus research specialists. Shepard is a commando who keeps getting lucky.[/quote]

I'm not sure why you chose to take that seriously since I thought it was fairly obvious sarcasm. I can assure you that I understand why BioWare chose to do some of this stuff. It's cheap, convenient and mostly trivial. No big deal.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
The problem is that Shepard (the player) is getting spoon fed just a tidbit of information at any given time in the game.[/quote]
tIM runs the entire Cerberus operation - you know, that shadowy, technically-a-capital-offense organization? - on a need to know basis. EDI withholds information, Miranda withholds information, tIM withholds information. Yes, Shepard is somewhat isolated in the second act, forced to rely on people who simply aren't trustworthy (save those aboard her ship). Storytelling device.
As did the Council.[/quote]

You mean the shadowy organization that was responsible for Akuze? The same bunch of terrorist thugs that murdered Kahoku? The fact that Shepard has been forced to work for Cerberus is the most nonsensical part of it all. They have a history of failure and yet we're supposed to believe that they're fully capable of producing the technology and acquiring the resources to take on the Reapers. They have a history of committing atrocities, but that wasn't the real Cerberus, not really, that was just some rogue cells doing the nasty. This is the retcon from hell and I'm supposed to admire the audacity of a "storytelling device"?

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
TIM knew about the Derelict Reaper before he knowingly sent Shepard into the Collector Ship ambush. I understand why they did it but it's a constant stream of plot contrivance that gets grating as the game progresses. At this point in the game I was constantly having to stop playing for extended periods because it was getting so damn ridiculous.[/quote]
I'm sorry Bioware wasn't aware of your delicate constitution. There doesn't seem to that much contrivance in "the untrustworthy and consciously enigmatic operational director of a pro-human shadow intelligence agency doesn't lay all his cards on the table in front of the Alliance officer who previously gave his organization a kick in the teeth, nor does he give you any lead quite as vague as any of Anderson's but instead only contacts you with mission-critical options". You have decided to feel differently.[/quote]

Well, putting aside the snide reference to my "delicate constitution", the contrived nature of the 'most obvious trap in the history of obvious traps',is pretty blatant. Was I supposed to check my brain at the door when I installed this game?

-Snip a bunch of meaningless blather about needing some specialists for some as yet undefined tasks at some as yet undetermined location-

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
The end result is that they're nothing but cannon fodder to throw at the enemy during the assault on the Collector Base. You can literally get all but two of the squad killed if you choose to do it. That's a legitimate gameplay choice that BioWare included in the suicide mission. That makes it obvious that none of these characters will have an essential role to fill in ME3. So we recruit the best of the best and stop the Collectors, but end the game knowing that the Reapers are still coming and that none of these 'elite' badasses will make the cut for ME3. Sheesh, what's the friggin point of all this?[/quote]

You're the one making solid pronouncements about the content of ME3, you tell me, future man.
(snip some speculative complaints and subjective judgments on the threat posed by a Reaper that knows you personally)[/quote]

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]IoCaster wrote...
I'm sure that Shepard is meant to survive but I'm not so certain about the 'elite' badasses. It's not like they have an essential part to play in ME3 or anything.[/quote]
So what's it like in late 2012? Those of us stuck in 2010, and thus without knowledge of the plot of ME3, want to know. How's Dragon Age 2?
[/quote]

I agree that I should have worded that reply to make it clear that it's strictly my opinion that none of the ME2 squad will play an essential role in ME3. On the other hand, how likely is it that BioWare designed a game where everyone but Shepard and two squad members could be killed and not have a plan in place to account for that? The fact remains that, from the information we've been given, I'll be able to import a save file with only Shepard and any two surviving characters. The obvious conclusion is that any survivors would be relegated to minor roles in ME3. Whether that means cameos or emails is unknown at this point. Could BioWare invest the necessary resources to provide plot relevant content for all of the possible combinations of dead and/or surviving ME2 characters? Sure, but why would they bother to do it?

[Christmas Ape]

Well, we did have a civil thread, anyway...

[smudboy]

Christmas Ape wrote...

Well, we did have a civil thread, anyway...

I saw nothing offensive in Io's comments toward you personally, name calling, nor were there any ad-homs.  We're all having a good healthy tête-à-tête.

[glacier1701]

 I am not going to quote people here because it would turn some simple statements into walls of text. So what I am going to do is point out some things that are being used to say that the plot was advanced/there is a plot and counter them.

1. The NEW Normandy is one of the most advanced ships in the galaxy and fully upgraded is perhaps capable of taking on a Reaper.

 Okie it had 3 HOLES punched in it while it had FULL SHIELDS and super duper armour by an Occulus that could not kill Shepard when it came to a face-to-face confrontation. This is assuming you upgraded the Normandy. If you didnt well you dont have the most advanced ship in the galaxy.
 
If that is not bad enough then consider this. The Collector ship is, in plain and simple terms, nothing more than a ship for hauling cargo!!!. Its a FREIGHTER. It is NOT A WARSHIP. Now it happens to have advanced capabilities compared to the average level of warship in Council space but it is still not a warship. If all that cargo space were devoted to combat I doubt that it would have even noticed that it had blown the SR2 out of space. So we now have a ship capable of blowing up cargo vessels. Wow that makes it totally capable of killing a Reaper.
 
Footnote: Quite frankly with the power the Occulus displayed getting into the Normandy cargo hold it is surprising to be told that Shepard needs to go down and shoot it. While your party members tell you you need heavy weapons a pistol is still fine to kill it. Oh and why in heck wasn't it melting down everything in the cargo hold or burning its way to the engine? I mean come on it burnt through the hull and internal bulkheads are not armoured like the hull.

2. We find out more about the Reapers.

 What we find out is the how of their method of building more of themselves and why they 'kill' off technological civilisations. Yet we had that information from ME1. To be more exact we could figure out the how - machines can build more machines. The why of 'killing' off technological civilisations is a bit more vague but it would not have been unfair to say that if organics develop too much technologically they are a threat to the Reapers. Now in ME2 we get a combined answer in that organic material is needed to make a Reaper. The problem this introduces is why does it have to be a technological advanced species? There is obviously nothing that special about technology because apparently the Protheans (more advanced than the current Citadel races) turned out to be useless in making a new Reaper out of them. Yet the Collectors focus on humanity when apart from technology the 'organic' part of humanity is the same now as it was say 2000 years ago or even longer ago. And there is ingame evidence to suggest that the Reapers also destroy non-technological civilisations who havent even yet got to a stage of even thinking about technology and who are barely above the sticks and stones stage of development!!

Even worse is that the exposure of this 'new' fact contradicts completely what was said in ME1. And despite the huge amount of organic material we are told would be needed Sovereign wreckage lacks any sign of organic material. To give you an idea of the amount of organic material needed lets say that one person gives up on average 10kilograms of material to the new Reaper. EDI states that millions are needed for a single Reaper - substantially more than just millions. Very vague but lets say 5 million people are needed. That means 500,000 metric tons of organic goop is contained in a Reaper. In terms of something tangible that is pretty much what the larger supertankers weigh or about 5 U.S.S Nimitz sized supercarriers. Yet despite what we are told in terms of recovered material from Sovereign in quanties good enough to allow 2 groups to develop new technology not one microgram of organic material seems to have been found.

So we either have 2 types of Reapers which means that we still do not know what they are (are they one or the other or BOTH). Or BioWare got it wrong with one of the types and thus invalidated everything that was said in ME1.

3. We got a squad that can be used to fight the Reapers.

OKie. How are we going to be fighting the Reapers? So far as I can tell they are SPACESHIPS - that is ships that move around in space. So does that mean we have to invade every single one of them to kill them because thats about what we have to do with the squad as it stands right now. Or do we fly through their fleet with our squad mates standing in the airlocks firing their assault rifles as we pass them?  If you played ME1 there is a scene where Ashley shows frustration about the fact that they are facing a Reaper and that she, with her assault rifle, cannot do a thing to combat it. That is the situation we have by the end of ME2 and we STILL do not have a weapon that we can use that can take out a Reaper or hundreds of Reapers or tens of thousands of them but hey we got a squad so its got to be useful. 

[smudboy]

[theelementslayer]

smudboy wrote...

BioWare can speculate to the number of times people have played through.

Here's more Casey:
"There are people who play it five times, seven times, unbelievable.  That's the other part we try to mine and really understand is, for people who become experts in the game by playing it, what's their perspective on what needs to be better? So it's really those two halves that we put together. It ends up creating a big list of our goals and goals of our players. With Mass Effect 2 we tried to do literally every single one of them, and there were basically 40 different categories of things we wanted to add or improve or change."

Which means people only might play once, or maybe a 2 or three times.  That people would play more than that is "unbelievable."

He continues with:
"We knew it was a risk and something different. You're right, the story of Mass Effect 2 is very much about how you get ready for a mission by building a team and understanding who they are, and about learning the magnitude of what you're facing. The funny thing is that people will say 'other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there.' But that is the story."

ME2 is a frame story, so it's about recruiting these other people, and this is clearly what he had in mind for ME2.  Every character designed for ME2 was for ME2.  There is no reason for these characters to have relevant squad presence in ME3, especially if: 1) they're following the same design choices as ME2 (just make new characters), 2) every character is optional (which implies a generic placeholder if anything), 3) importing a save is optional (meaning new players can purchase ME3.) 4) resources and time are limited for this level of variation.  The best chances you've got are something like 2), which implies a generic placeholder.  For example, Alpha Protocol allows the player to choose a "Handler" for a mission, that is, someone who provides intel and support to the player.  This seems doable and wouldn't break the bank, or drive designers and developer into a web of causational insanity that is simply too complex to follow.

Continued:
There have to be a crazy number of permutations for how you can end your story in Mass Effect 2. How much of a nightmare is it for you guys to figure out how to address that for Mass Effect 3?
Casey: "It's ... very hard."
Do you have like a whiteboard somewhere, like a multi-faceted –
Casey: "No, it would be impossible, because it's multi-multi-dimensional. You couldn't put it into a 2D flowchart or a matrix –"
You need a stereoscopic 3D whiteboard that you can manipulate Minority Report style.
Casey: "It's beyond three or four dimensions, because you have all the consequences from a certain playthrough and many different things that happen and different things that happen within those. "

Casey is operating in a (few) dimension(s) that is(are) beyond human comprehension.  We're either going to get something that the rest of his human workforce can accomplish before achieving a singularity consciousenss, or a design so beyond simple logic that we'll need a crash course in trigonometry or string theory to figure out the connection between plot points.  Or a contrived mess.  Because Casey = Time Lord.  God have mercy on Mac, Drew and co.

And I would also use this as an argument for my side, really how can there be thousands of different permutations if we throw out the characters. We have really only a few differences if we do that with them, well big ones. We can keep/destroy the collector base, we can keep/get rid of out spectre status, and maybe lets say 100 differences becasue of missions. All those little side missions/paragon, renegade interupts. I just cant see it. I know I sound like a broken record but what else would make it so difficult. If they were only cameoing the alive characters, or getting rid of them where would the thousands of permutations come from. 

Yes, through speculation, while I'm giving you evidence explaining the logistics and design.

Still speculation on your part, we dont know what theyll do, they have surprised us before and might do so again, who knows? Plus these are the first people I know that import saves from previous games, pretty damn impressive I say, even if it isnt what I dream for Im still impressed. But thats personal opinion and really nothing to do with the discussion

They wouldn't do that because they have to account for saves that don't have everyone alive.  You have to think in terms of a development cycle.  What can we do to make this piece of software run as low as possible?  This includes after hardware and software limitations are solved.  They look to their 1k list of things that need to be imported, and try to calculate how much time and effort that can take, while trying to keep the social aspects (storytelling) worthwhile.  It's a colossal effort, and is not just a matter of money.  Unless you want to pay $200 and wait 5 years for what you're expecting.

They gave us character vignettes because they wanted to.  The characters had nothing to do with the plot, and now, because we've grown to like them, they're suddenly going to be plot relevant?  Oh yeah and it's a conceptual, logistical and resource time/money nightmare?

Honestly, ya I would wait the 5 years and the 200 dollars, but thats besides the point. Also as Casey said, cant remember where but I could hopefully find it if you asked, the game engine isnt changing as it did in ME1-ME2 so that gives them 2 years to think of a plotline, level design and figure out how to import the characters. Plus with time and money if we are going that direction they have now 12 well scripted character, modelled, animated, and voiced, saves alot of time when you think of it. As a modeller myself those character models of miranda/samara/grunt, really are quite different and take time to make. Why make new ones?

He has no reason to stay.  Post-Suicide is simply the end of the story.  It's just there for DLC.  C'mon man.

Fair enough, again just a difference of opinion

And I'm surprised you haven't called me a complainer, whiner, ME2 hater, ME1 nostalgia fan, or any other random explicative.

Oh dont worry there is still time yet you ME2 hater, ME1 nostalgia fan, complainer 

That is a joke-man EDI is awesome

[Christmas Ape]

Perhaps I'm alone in considering casting someone's opinion as "meaningless blather" to be not exactly conducive to civil discussion. Maybe that's just how the internet is these days. So, anyway...
[quote]IoCaster wrote...
What is it that I'm supposed to accept? That your opinion is more valid than mine?[/quote]The different tone, theme, and construction of the ME2 story. Do try not to assume I'm looking for a fight.
[quote]Ah, pulling the old everyone does it card. Game (A) had plot holes so therefore it's a prerequisite to criticize Game (A) to justify any criticism of Game (. Hmmm...nah, thanks but I'll limit myself to commenting on the plot of ME2 since that's the topic of this thread.[/quote]Well, let's see. When the criticism of Game B is "it's not a worthwhile sequel to the original plot" and Game A is "the original" I'd call it valid. Deflect at your leisure.
[quote]If you have to resort to a strategy guide to make sense of it all then that's a damning indictment on the quality of the writing.[/quote]That is...fairly far afield from my point. To the objection that some of your squadmates have no explicit purpose in the final mission, I say "That's intentional, they're recruited on incomplete information and there are built-in 'wrong' choices'; lacking prescience or some other guide to the suicide mission, they're forced to operate in that state". Gameplay following story.
[quote]I have to wonder what possible reason I would have to want to recruit a psycho biotic from a prison ship. An admitted murderer and pirate is not someone to be trusted or integrated into a team on a critical mission without some kind of compelling evidence that it's a necessity. Chalking it up to "Hey just in case a psycho biotic may come in handy" is hardly compelling. I didn't make this stuff up, BioWare did.[/quote]At the time, there are no other high-power biotics available based on Cerberus research. He tells you he's tracking down more leads and eventually comes up with Samara. In the meantime he offers you Jack, who is crazy but basically no more dangerous moment-to-moment than Wrex was, assuming that Shepard can either keep her on a leash or put one in the back of her head. I should hope that the reasons for recruiting an unusually powerful biotic remain obvious.
I'm also pretty sure it has to do with Cerberus trying to keep their biggest, angriest loose end on their radar, along with a status update on the Teltin project.
[quote]Sure I can disengage my brain and just go along for the ride, but at some point the cascading effect of all these recruitment and loyalty missions start to bog things down.[/quote]Just to toss in a snide backhand here, perhaps instead engaging it and seeing if there might be reasons for these things would go better.
[quote]How many do I actually need[/quote]As many as you can transport. Ups the odds.
[quote]and why am I stuck doing a laundry list of personal errands for these people?[/quote]You're not, really; only if you want to bring them all home.
[quote]I'm still seething that my Shepard is working for Cerberus and now I'm stuck doing tedious side quests for characters that I don't care about. And this constitutes 85-90% of the game.[/quote]Personal emotional reaction has pretty much 0% to do with its overall appropriateness or quality. Some people enjoy the moral ambiguity, the suddenly inverted personal world, the isolation, that comes with suddenly working for a previous enemy because this time, they picked the same side of the fight you did.
[quote]Thankfully I can skip a few recruitments and still get the job done because as it turns out almost anyone can do any of the jobs on the suicide mission. All of these specialists are only required if you care whether they survive or not. Phew, what a relief that turned out to be. I could almost resort to opening the galactic phone book and choosing eight people at random and still get the job done.[/quote]Well that's a fairly absurd oversimplification, and again relies on having already played through the suicide mission.
[quote]Yes more plot contrivance is just what the doctor(s) ordered.[/quote]Carried the first game to glory, can't be all bad.
[quote]Can't have too much of that since it's just a video game and shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.[/quote]Well, it should be judged on its genre, anyway.
[quote]Cerberus has pioneered some breakthrough medical technology that can bring the dead back to life.[/quote]Or have co-opted it, stolen it, faked it for FrankenShepard's benefit...
[quote]They've also got the resources to build a bigger, better and more badass SSV Normandy.[/quote]Well, they've got a dozen or so research bases in ME1 and at least two space stations, so apparently they're not exactly a shoestring operation.
[quote]Oh, but wait there's more! They've also constructed an actual functional AI based on Reaper technology that's fully capable of mining data from...blah, blah and blah.[/quote]Some petty hacker thief on the citadel accidentally made an AI. Apparently they're not that outside our grasp in the Mass Effect universe.
[quote]That's some pretty impressive output for a shadowy, quasi-terrorist organization with a track record of numerous experiments gone horribly wrong and failing in quite spectacular fashion.[/quote]Proportion of failures to successes: undetermined.
[quote]Heck, they recently reinforced this portrayal of hapless incompetence with the Overlord DLC. At what point does a video game plot check itself to determine whether it's crossed the absurdity event horizon?[/quote]Probably as it becomes absurd.
[quote]I'm not sure why you chose to take that seriously since I thought it was fairly obvious sarcasm.[/quote]That you happened to be making a point you personally reject isn't my lookout.
[quote]I can assure you that I understand why BioWare chose to do some of this stuff. It's cheap, convenient and mostly trivial. No big deal.[/quote]And I disagree, save that it all looks fairly convenient in hindsight.
[quote]You mean the shadowy organization that was responsible for Akuze? The same bunch of terrorist thugs that murdered Kahoku? The fact that Shepard has been forced to work for Cerberus is the most nonsensical part of it all. They have a history of failure and yet we're supposed to believe that they're fully capable of producing the technology and acquiring the resources to take on the Reapers.[/quote]Or if you buy into the premise that those ME1 Cerberus missions were failed experiments that Cerberus employed you to clean up via their Alliance contacts, a completely unknown track record save for a few failures because their safety protocols are kind of ass.
[quote]They have a history of committing atrocities, but that wasn't the real Cerberus, not really, that was just some rogue cells doing the nasty. This is the retcon from hell and I'm supposed to admire the audacity of a "storytelling device"?[/quote]I think you're supposed to take it as the loyalist selling you the line she believes. Hell, I don't believe those were "rogue cells" - not as completely rogue as that's intended, anyway - and find that makes them a better strange bedfellow than "No, really, we're totally the good guys".
[quote]Well, putting aside the snide reference to my "delicate constitution"[/quote]Okay, first off? It's a quoted line that seemed to fit there. And "constantly having to stop playing for extended periods" is either sad or absurd.
[quote]the contrived nature of the 'most obvious trap in the history of obvious traps',is pretty blatant. Was I supposed to check my brain at the door when I installed this game?[/quote]Perhaps that was the problem? It all hangs together pretty well as a sequence of events. You're going to have to explain this entire "the Collectors trying to trap you, tIM seeing it and making a calculated risk" counts as contrived, however.
[quote]-Snip a bunch of meaningless blather about needing some specialists for some as yet undefined tasks at some as yet undetermined location-[/quote]Meaningless blather, the entire premise, same difference right? This is exactly what I refer to with "decided not to accept it".
[quote]I agree that I should have worded that reply to make it clear that it's strictly my opinion that none of the ME2 squad will play an essential role in ME3. On the other hand, how likely is it that BioWare designed a game where everyone but Shepard and two squad members could be killed and not have a plan in place to account for that? The fact remains that, from the information we've been given, I'll be able to import a save file with only Shepard and any two surviving characters. The obvious conclusion is that any survivors would be relegated to minor roles in ME3. Whether that means cameos or emails is unknown at this point. Could BioWare invest the necessary resources to provide plot relevant content for all of the possible combinations of dead and/or surviving ME2 characters? Sure, but why would they bother to do it?[/quote]While an obvious conclusion, I don't think it's the only one, and Bioware has a habit of surprising the hell out of me. Other than that, I'm not inclined to speculate.

[ADLegend21]

[Christmas Ape]

[quote]glacier1701 wrote...
The NEW Normandy is one of the most advanced ships in the galaxy and fully upgraded is perhaps capable of taking on a Reaper.[/quote]That's....absurd. Who is actually suggesting the SR-2 is a toe-to-toe match with a Reaper?
[quote]Okie it had 3 HOLES punched in it while it had FULL SHIELDS and super duper armour by an Occulus that could not kill Shepard when it came to a face-to-face confrontation.[/quote]And Jack plowed through a trio of YMIRs in seconds. Gameplay is not cutscene, however you might feel about that.
[quote]If that is not bad enough then consider this. The Collector ship is, in plain and simple terms, nothing more than a ship for hauling cargo!!!. Its a FREIGHTER. It is NOT A WARSHIP.[/quote]A fairly meaningless distinction when you're not working with a budget or civilian hardware restrictions. It also completely spanked the last Normandy when they both met fully powered and at combat stations.
[quote]Footnote: Quite frankly with the power the Occulus displayed getting into the Normandy cargo hold it is surprising to be told that Shepard needs to go down and shoot it. While your party members tell you you need heavy weapons a pistol is still fine to kill it. Oh and why in heck wasn't it melting down everything in the cargo hold or burning its way to the engine? I mean come on it burnt through the hull and internal bulkheads are not armoured like the hull.[/quote]Gameplay trumping cutscene power.
[quote]What we find out is the how of their method of building more of themselves and why they 'kill' off technological civilisations. Yet we had that information from ME1. To be more exact we could figure out the how - machines can build more machines.[/quote]Okay, if anybody had "atomic rearrangement of the carbon in living beings" in the 'Reaper Reproduction Pool' at the end of ME1, they can have all my money.
[quote]The problem this introduces is why does it have to be a technological advanced species? There is obviously nothing that special about technology because apparently the Protheans (more advanced than the current Citadel races) turned out to be useless in making a new Reaper out of them.[/quote]Some might call those "further questions".
[quote]Yet the Collectors focus on humanity when apart from technology the 'organic' part of humanity is the same now as it was say 2000 years ago or even longer ago.[/quote]Except that in that time we killed a Reaper.
[quote]And there is ingame evidence to suggest that the Reapers also destroy non-technological civilisations who havent even yet got to a stage of even thinking about technology and who are barely above the sticks and stones stage of development!![/quote]There's evidence someone did. There's no time frame given on the bronze age civilization destroyed from orbit. I maintain it's as easily the Protheans securing their dominance as it is the Reapers.
[quote]Even worse is that the exposure of this 'new' fact contradicts completely what was said in ME1.[/quote]"We exterminate organic life every so often", being the sum total of Sovereign's imparted information, was hardly contradicted.
[quote]And despite the huge amount of organic material we are told would be needed Sovereign wreckage lacks any sign of organic material. To give you an idea of the amount of organic material needed lets say that one person gives up on average 10kilograms of material to the new Reaper. EDI states that millions are needed for a single Reaper - substantially more than just millions. Very vague but lets say 5 million people are needed. That means 500,000 metric tons of organic goop is contained in a Reaper. In terms of something tangible that is pretty much what the larger supertankers weigh or about 5 U.S.S Nimitz sized supercarriers. Yet despite what we are told in terms of recovered material from Sovereign in quanties good enough to allow 2 groups to develop new technology not one microgram of organic material seems to have been found.[/quote]I remain fixed on "rearrangement of the carbon found in organic life into a high-density metal" until someone can disprove it, because we have no answers as to what Reapers are made of. Why not just repurpose carbon from other sources? Ask them, their plan.
[quote]So we either have 2 types of Reapers which means that we still do not know what they are (are they one or the other or BOTH). Or BioWare got it wrong with one of the types and thus invalidated everything that was said in ME1.[/quote]Or neither of these are true and there are in fact clear potential answers to this actually non-existent problem.
[quote]OKie. How are we going to be fighting the Reapers?[/quote]Probably with fleets rallied on the strength of Shepard's personal connections and evidence, or with an as-yet-unrevealed plot device.
[quote]So far as I can tell they are SPACESHIPS - that is ships that move around in space. So does that mean we have to invade every single one of them to kill them because thats about what we have to do with the squad as it stands right now. Or do we fly through their fleet with our squad mates standing in the airlocks firing their assault rifles as we pass them?[/quote]Absurdity doesn't help your case. Spend some of that time considering solutions that might actually be plausible, you'll be amazed how it looks.
[quote]If you played ME1 there is a scene where Ashley shows frustration about the fact that they are facing a Reaper and that she, with her assault rifle, cannot do a thing to combat it. That is the situation we have by the end of ME2 and we STILL do not have a weapon that we can use that can take out a Reaper or hundreds of Reapers or tens of thousands of them but hey we got a squad so its got to be useful.[/quote]So there's an ongoing menace in the final sequence of Reapers powering up and moving in from dark space, rather than "Ahahahah, target practice for my super-weapon!". Am I alone in considering that a plus?
We have also learned that a civilization built a mass driver capable of accurately hitting a target billions of kilometers away - and were still exterminated. So it looks like the answer isn't as simple as "keep firing!"

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 13 juillet 2010 - 03:27 .

[theelementslayer]

glacier1701 wrote...


1. The NEW Normandy is one of the most advanced ships in the galaxy and fully upgraded is perhaps capable of taking on a Reaper.

 Okie it had 3 HOLES punched in it while it had FULL SHIELDS and super duper armour by an Occulus that could not kill Shepard when it came to a face-to-face confrontation. This is assuming you upgraded the Normandy. If you didnt well you dont have the most advanced ship in the galaxy.
 
If that is not bad enough then consider this. The Collector ship is, in plain and simple terms, nothing more than a ship for hauling cargo!!!. Its a FREIGHTER. It is NOT A WARSHIP. Now it happens to have advanced capabilities compared to the average level of warship in Council space but it is still not a warship. If all that cargo space were devoted to combat I doubt that it would have even noticed that it had blown the SR2 out of space. So we now have a ship capable of blowing up cargo vessels. Wow that makes it totally capable of killing a Reaper.
 
Footnote: Quite frankly with the power the Occulus displayed getting into the Normandy cargo hold it is surprising to be told that Shepard needs to go down and shoot it. While your party members tell you you need heavy weapons a pistol is still fine to kill it. Oh and why in heck wasn't it melting down everything in the cargo hold or burning its way to the engine? I mean come on it burnt through the hull and internal bulkheads are not armoured like the hull.

Maybe the Normandy isnt ready to destroy the reapers, maybe we need to find a weak spot. Or maybe the reapers arent as strong as we thought, though that is doubtful seeing how soverign destroyed all the citidel fleet. And the power of the occulus well cutscenes vs gameplay. And also for the melting well its gameplay. In 2007 crysis was released with destructible cover, in 2008 I think ME2 was started. They werent really concerened I think, about it. Its gameplay vs cutscenes.

2. We find out more about the Reapers.

 What we find out is the how of their method of building more of themselves and why they 'kill' off technological civilisations. Yet we had that information from ME1. To be more exact we could figure out the how - machines can build more machines. The why of 'killing' off technological civilisations is a bit more vague but it would not have been unfair to say that if organics develop too much technologically they are a threat to the Reapers. Now in ME2 we get a combined answer in that organic material is needed to make a Reaper. The problem this introduces is why does it have to be a technological advanced species? There is obviously nothing that special about technology because apparently the Protheans (more advanced than the current Citadel races) turned out to be useless in making a new Reaper out of them. Yet the Collectors focus on humanity when apart from technology the 'organic' part of humanity is the same now as it was say 2000 years ago or even longer ago. And there is ingame evidence to suggest that the Reapers also destroy non-technological civilisations who havent even yet got to a stage of even thinking about technology and who are barely above the sticks and stones stage of development!!

Even worse is that the exposure of this 'new' fact contradicts completely what was said in ME1. And despite the huge amount of organic material we are told would be needed Sovereign wreckage lacks any sign of organic material. To give you an idea of the amount of organic material needed lets say that one person gives up on average 10kilograms of material to the new Reaper. EDI states that millions are needed for a single Reaper - substantially more than just millions. Very vague but lets say 5 million people are needed. That means 500,000 metric tons of organic goop is contained in a Reaper. In terms of something tangible that is pretty much what the larger supertankers weigh or about 5 U.S.S Nimitz sized supercarriers. Yet despite what we are told in terms of recovered material from Sovereign in quanties good enough to allow 2 groups to develop new technology not one microgram of organic material seems to have been found.

So we either have 2 types of Reapers which means that we still do not know what they are (are they one or the other or BOTH). Or BioWare got it wrong with one of the types and thus invalidated everything that was said in ME1.

Questions that have yet to be answered, its only the second game out of three, shouldnt all be answered yet

3. We got a squad that can be used to fight the Reapers.

OKie. How are we going to be fighting the Reapers? So far as I can tell they are SPACESHIPS - that is ships that move around in space. So does that mean we have to invade every single one of them to kill them because thats about what we have to do with the squad as it stands right now. Or do we fly through their fleet with our squad mates standing in the airlocks firing their assault rifles as we pass them?  If you played ME1 there is a scene where Ashley shows frustration about the fact that they are facing a Reaper and that she, with her assault rifle, cannot do a thing to combat it. That is the situation we have by the end of ME2 and we STILL do not have a weapon that we can use that can take out a Reaper or hundreds of Reapers or tens of thousands of them but hey we got a squad so its got to be useful. 

Maybe we will infiltrate harbinger and cut the head off the snake as the old saying goes. One of them takes out a whole citidel fleet, I dont think itll be a space battle, I think itll be down and dirty in the ship itself, but again Bioware is allowed to surprise us, and I think they will

[pprrff]

glacier1701 wrote...

2. We find out more about the Reapers.

 What
we find out is the how of their method of building more of themselves
and why they 'kill' off technological civilisations. Yet we had that
information from ME1. To be more exact we could figure out the how -
machines can build more machines. The why of 'killing' off
technological civilisations is a bit more vague but it would not have
been unfair to say that if organics develop too much technologically
they are a threat to the Reapers. Now in ME2 we get a combined answer
in that organic material is needed to make a Reaper. The problem this
introduces is why does it have to be a technological advanced species?
There is obviously nothing that special about technology because
apparently the Protheans (more advanced than the current Citadel races)
turned out to be useless in making a new Reaper out of them. Yet the
Collectors focus on humanity when apart from technology the 'organic'
part of humanity is the same now as it was say 2000 years ago or even
longer ago. And there is ingame evidence to suggest that the Reapers
also destroy non-technological civilisations who havent even yet got
to a stage of even thinking about technology and who are barely above
the sticks and stones stage of development!!

Even worse is that
the exposure of this 'new' fact contradicts completely what was said in
ME1. And despite the huge amount of organic material we are told would
be needed Sovereign wreckage lacks any sign of organic material. To
give you an idea of the amount of organic material needed lets say that
one person gives up on average 10kilograms of material to the new
Reaper. EDI states that millions are needed for a single Reaper -
substantially more than just millions. Very vague but lets say 5
million people are needed. That means 500,000 metric tons of organic
goop is contained in a Reaper. In terms of something tangible that is
pretty much what the larger supertankers weigh or about 5 U.S.S Nimitz
sized supercarriers. Yet despite what we are told in terms of recovered
material from Sovereign in quanties good enough to allow 2 groups to
develop new technology not one microgram of organic material seems to
have been found.

 
I can see three ways this can go:

1. Building a Reaper is more than just chugging hydro-carbon molecules, they actually absorb the conciousness, or memories of the 'building blocks', and this how the Reapers learn and advance themselves. Similar to the Borg from Star Trek. They leave the species that are primitive alone since they are nothing to gain from absorbing a backward primitive culture.

2. Being machines, they have reach the pinacle of their evolution, the only way to go further is to absorb gentic information of other speices, hence using organic to reproduce. Each harvest brings in new DNAs, and this artificially keeps their genetic pool diverse. They of course are selective of what is good DNA, so they only target the ones they want.

3. They are programed by their creator to behave like this, so the are slave to this programing.We may not ever know the purpose of this program.

Any organic race that is not their intended target is left alone if they are not threat. The ones that do pose threats are wiped out even if not harvested. If the protheans are not suitable for harvest for some reason, they are still advance enough to actually threaten the Reapers (which they were), so were wiped clean too.

Modifié par pprrff, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:13 .

[smudboy]

theelementslayer wrote...
And I would also use this as an argument for my side, really how can there be thousands of different permutations if we throw out the characters.

Because there is?  Oh sorry, 988?  Now imagine voice actors, character models, level design, cutscene directing and composition, lighting, and whatever other resources else I'm missing.  Then the script and the variable permutations.  The best thing you're gonna get is a cameo, or a character in the background with a few lines to say of an existing main plot point event.

I mean I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.  They can die.  All of them, variably, sans 2 apparently.  That means 2 placeholders of no real relevance.  Unless you have more character vignettes of the same characters from ME2, which again have nothing to do with the plot of ME3, just like ME2.  Can you still not see this argument?

We have really only a few differences if we do that with them, well big ones. We can keep/destroy the collector base, we can keep/get rid of out spectre status, and maybe lets say 100 differences becasue of missions. All those little side missions/paragon, renegade interupts. I just cant see it. I know I sound like a broken record but what else would make it so difficult. If they were only cameoing the alive characters, or getting rid of them where would the thousands of permutations come from. 

The variable small and big choices are fine.  We're talking entire squadmates, and how they're relevant toward anything.  They were only partially relevant to ME2, because that's what ME2 was all about, (and not the main plot.)  Now, there are easy, literary means of making people plot relevant, plot dependent or essential, but that didn't happen in ME2: why would strangers not interested or motivated personally in a previous story suddenly be very motivated for reasons of...familiarity...to be plot integral?

Nevermind the design philosophy Case has mentioned that we should be meeting new characters, and the intrigue that brings, as opposed to having the old ones who...have...what, more daddy issues?  That is not to say they can show further character development, but why?  Why not just have a static asset instead of variable one?  These people have nothing to do with ME3: they were specifically Pokemon'd for ME2, just to have character vignettes.

Still speculation on your part, we dont know what theyll do, they have surprised us before and might do so again, who knows? Plus these are the first people I know that import saves from previous games, pretty damn impressive I say, even if it isnt what I dream for Im still impressed. But thats personal opinion and really nothing to do with the discussion

No I'm giving you evidence and explaining design.  I'm not speculating evidence or design.  I'm telling you this is what Casey has said, and I'm showing you what ME2 was about, and how it is extensively difficult to finish off a product and come to a reasonable end-game scenario with that many permutations just on characters alone, for them to be relevant plot wise, let alone being there in the first place.

Imports?  Go play Quest for Glory, Ultima and Suikoden.

We understand characters from ME1 coming into ME2, because they can't die.  In ME2, your entire squad can, sans two variable ones.

Honestly, ya I would wait the 5 years and the 200 dollars, but thats besides the point. Also as Casey said, cant remember where but I could hopefully find it if you asked, the game engine isnt changing as it did in ME1-ME2 so that gives them 2 years to think of a plotline, level design and figure out how to import the characters. Plus with time and money if we are going that direction they have now 12 well scripted character, modelled, animated, and voiced, saves alot of time when you think of it. As a modeller myself those character models of miranda/samara/grunt, really are quite different and take time to make. Why make new ones?

I'm quite sure writers are not involved in the engine development, but if it gives them more time to clearly make a script, hey, more power to them.

1) They do not have 12 well scripted characters who are modeled, textured or animated.  They do have voice actors, however.
2) Why make new ones?  I don't know, why make a new game if you're just going to rehash the same stuff?  I think, as a modeler, you'd be pretty pissed if they just slap in the old ME2 model with the same idle animations, only with 0 everything else.

Fair enough, again just a difference of opinion

No, he's a gun for hire.  He does his job, then leaves.  There's no reason for him to stay there.  Why the hell would he want to?

Modifié par smudboy, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:24 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

You do indeed have to take tIM's word for it. ME2 places you in an awkward position where the only reliable help you have keeps you in the dark and hangs you out to dry. It's a more somber, uneasy second act.
[/quote]

"Awkward" is having to work with a former enemy in an unholy alliance.  Having said former enemy be your new boss while you spend a whole game running "fetch" quests for him is someting entirley different,.  I expected one and got another.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

It is. This chapter follows Shepard's uneasy association with the Illusive Man and Cerberus following her death, giving several side missions whose entire purpose is to better define your relationship. He presents himself as the only one who can help you, and events largely conspire to make that true. I don't feel he steals the spotlight by virtue of being your primary source of intel any more than Liara does in ME1 by being the only one who can process your visions into something coherent.
[/quote]

Yes, TIm "presents himself" as the only one who will help you.  but aside from the visit to the Citadel (wich, as I pointed out before, throws continuity out the window) we don't see that.  Does Shepard get to ask the Alliance for aid?  The various mercenary groups  (when he's not shooting at them?)  The STG?  Aria?  Heck Liara could probably make some good recommendations.  If only you had the opportunity to ask.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...





[quote]Thank the Enkindlers for shortsightedness, i guess.  A second Collector sip and Shepard would have been a six billion credit dud.[/quote]They're not flawless, just potent and patient. And I disagree - Joker with a grudge and a Thannix cannon made pretty short work of the Cruiser. I think he could have schooled two cruisers with only bow guns at knife-fight range.

[/quote]

Even with the thanix cannon, the Normandy gets trashed and crashes on the base.  Joker doesn't get enough of it working to fly again until you're about to do your biotic bubble stroll.  If there was a second ship, some gun batteries, or  even an Occulus or two stationed at the base instead of the relay, the Normandy would have been toast.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...




[quote]I mean, the only way this assault could have worked would be if he knew there'd be little to no external security, No significant ship to ship combat, No external sensors (The Normandy's stealth device doesn't work on the Collectors, we know)  No heavy vehicles such as tanks and whatnot.[/quote]Granted, some things worked out in our favor. But it's hardly surprising that if they don't have a fighter screen around the base they also don't have external sensors in the radiation- and gravity-bathed environment of the galactic core.

[/quote]

All of which they don't know until after EDI gets the info from the Collector ship.  At this point, TIM has already given you all the dossiers.  Not to mention that the Collectors/Reapers have had tens of thousands of year to putter around with the sensors.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...




[quote]And Collectors in manageable numbers. What if the Relay led to a planet with billions of Collectors on it?[/quote]You're only there for about 15 minutes. They likely don't have time to mobilize their full numbers against Shepard as they have no real intelligence of their own. And once EDI tracks the ship's navigation logs to the galactic core it's fairly certain they don't have a genuine homeworld. Perhaps there's dossiers or missions he had on tap that got sidelined as irrelevant once they had a rough location because they were intended for planetary assault.
tIM doesn't answer to Shepard, and he doesn't explain himself willingly.
[/quote]

I'm fairly certain it was more than 15 minutes.  And we can only speculate that there were oother dossiers that turned out to be unnecessary.  We simply don't know.  The ammount of stuff we are left to speculate and guess on to fill in the gaps is rapidly outpacing what the story is actually telling us.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...




[quote]Fortunately, TIM seemed to know it was just a base with maybe a few dozen Collectors on it. The squad he assembled was perfect for what was needed.  And there's no explanation beyond "the plot demands it so" as to why.[/quote]tIM devoted extensive Cerberus resources to putting together dossiers to cover every forseeable eventuality to which he can't tell Shepard "improvise". Things go right sometimes too.
[/quote]

Things do go right.  But given how little intellligence there seemed to be (to Shepard and the player) it's truly astounding just how right things went.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

They just need to trade something with their computer technology for Cerberus to start reverse engineering the basic programming language.
Actual sapient AI is well beyond our experience. I'm personally unwilling to comment on their likely capabilities at this time, save that EDI is top of the line and basically built for the exact purpose she fulfills. The Reapers appear to be, for whatever reason, unwilling to actually rely on other machine intelligences - Sovereign used the geth as expendable.

[/quote]

I'm just disappointed that EDI gets relegated to infodumps and deus ex macina escapes when so much more could have been done with her.  AIs are not widely trusted in the Mass Effect universe, and I expected more to be made of it, particularly with #6 as the VA

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...



[quote]I've actually played games like that.  Typically, at some point (BEFORE the endgame) you find out what the boss is really up to and have a chance to do something about it.  Or join him.  Or something.[/quote]That might be coming in 3. Hard to comment on the fullness of the story before seeing its...fullness.

[/quote]

I admit ME 3 might close the circle and have everything make sense.  However, ME 1 had a definitive beginning, middle, and end, why couldn't ME 2?  Why settle for half a game?

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]I'll have to take your word on this, that Mordin can construct a Seeker (and a Seeker-
repeller) based on the omnitool readings of a delerious quarian.  And I thought the plaque cure with the resources of a free clinic was incredible.[/quote]He appears to be able to, yes, given he has a Seeker in the isolation bay in the lab before you go to Horizon. Even delerious, quarians are technical experts.

[/quote]

Again, this is an assumption because we don't see any tech being gathered or delivered to the Normandy.  Leaving some things up to the imagination to the player is fine.  But things are getting a bit ridiculous here.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...




[quote]My arguement is that I didn't get a story at all!  I get bits and pieces scattered throughout the entire game.  TIM stole Shepard's thunder.  This is Shepard's story, but he's no longer the main protagonist.  He's not a hero, not an antihero, not even a villain  he's just...drifting...waiting to be told what to do.  Waiting for something to happen.  ME 3 maybe.[/quote]I disagree. Shepard is placed in an uncomfortable position where the only way to do something good is to sign on with the devil, who yanks you around and uses you to serve his aims. It's a story, if a short transitional one not everyone bought into.
[/quote]

Again, uncomfortable is commiting, or allowing distasteful things to happen for a greater good.  Commiting acts of betrayal on former friends. Working alongside former enemies.  What we got was "kinder, gentler Cerberus" who won't actually tell you anything and just has you sit in a corner until called on.  Honestly, did Shepard actually do anything that absolutely no one else could do?

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...




[quote]And I say he didn't cover all the bases, he covered exactly the bases that needed covering, by an amazing coincidence that defies probability in anything besides a scripted event like a videogame.[/quote]So we're agreed it's a perfectly servicable chain of video game events on par with the original. Mass Effect is completely composed of a string of amazing coincidences.
[/quote]

The only real coincidence I can think of is Shepard happening to survive the Prothean beacon's message.  That was the unique, "Shapard-y" thing that made him so special in ME 1.  Perhaps tere are more, but ME 1's story is entertaining enough tat I didn't feel the need to examine it so closely.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

]Additional cut-scenes aren't really a plot element. I found the characters well put together, sufficiently developed, and not by nature the sort of people who hang out and gab a lot. Pretty much everybody on that list but Jacob, and to a degree Zaeed, seem to prefer being left alone.
[/quote]

Yes, they are not used to working in a group.  If they interacted more, that would be growth.  They'd be coming together as a team.  Cut scenes wouldn't be needed, just some dialogue would be fine.  Let them chat.  It's quite clear that great care was put into making these characters and their stories.  Let them mingle.  Shepard isn't (or shouldn't be) the entirety of their universe.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

Given each mission has several dozen possible combinations of squadmates to produce talkboxes, conversation, or additional input, that's probably not nearly enough to speak with confidence on it it. Again, that guide thread of Ecael's lists all the possibilities.
[/quote]

True, but I did pick some of the more likely ones (Thane to Samara's mission.  Miranda to Jacob's, Samara to Zaed's.  Tali to Mordin's)  There is an occasional quip. But nothing wit any bearing to the actual missions, or the choices involved in them.

And this doesn't even include random banter that could happen anywhere, depending on your party combination.  No cutscenes or talkboxes needed.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]Here's the final lines from Udina (you know the guy who didn't believe a word that came out of your mouth the entirety of the game) if you make him the Human Councilor:

 "Shepard's right. We're on the verge of war with an enemy unlike any the galaxy has ever known!  A war for the survival of all life as we know it!  Humanity is ready to do its part.  We will not back down. We will not surrender. We will lead you into battle against the Reapers and drive them back into dark space!"  (emphasis mine)

"Ah, yes, continuity..."[/quote]There's absolutely no chance that slimy little politician is telling you what you want to hear, after all. He's a reliable man.
[/quote]

None.  He says that after you give your "I'm gonna find a way to stop the Reapers" speach and walked out of the room.  He's talking to Anderson and the Council. 

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

It's a transitional story. Some people feel robbed of what they expected. While a fair response, it doesn't speak to the quality of the story, just personal expectations.

[/quote]  Bad story.  Wrong story.  Either way, I still feel burned (note I said I feel burned)

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...






[quote]I believe a perfectly fine story could have been made of Shepard's exploits on the fringes of known space, looking fro possible ways to defeat the Reapers.[/quote]With the exception of the addition of Cerberus, that more or less is ME2, if we accept the conceit that the Collector threat is at present the only information we have about the Reapers.

[/quote]

And allow for the fact that TIM still holds most of the cards concerning the Collector and Reaper information.  Shepard is still pretty much in the dark, no better off than he was in ME 1, except at least then he had the backing of the Council and Alliance.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

Some of us didn't find the story empty at all. A friend of mine - published if it makes a difference - described it as being second only to the interactive novel that was Planescape: Torment in terms of video game plots. There may be no common ground between these two points of perception.

[/quote]

No offense to you or your friend. But putting ME 2 and Planescape: Torment together like that makes my brain hurt.



[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...



[quote]What can I say?  Timing is everything.  If you're going to show te fall of a hero, there are two better ways that I can tink of:  1)  Dying at the moment of his greatest triumph, such as putting the Collector attack at the very end of ME 1 wen te Citadel battle is still fresh.  Alternatively, SHep could have really been squished by the piece of Sovereign.  OF course, that would mess with deciding who gets to be the Human Councilor...[/quote]Shepard is basically needed for the epilogue, yeah, and while I get the argument I think faulting them for the fact that video games take time to develop is unfair. If you're playing them back to back it's basically seamless. That they didn't put it on the end of the ME1 disc is the only 'timing' issue. It does immediately follow ME1 in universe, just that they took some time to do animations and programming and the like to make a game out of it.

[/quote]

The only thing I fault them on in this instance is setting out to make a trilogy, then not meshing them properly. Maybe it's their attempts to make each one stand on it's own, but I think they took that way too far.  A trilogy implies you're making a single large story in three parts.  Yet when you violently jerk the main protagonist around from one setting to another, one cast of characters to another, with no transition and little explanation, you're not creating Star Wars, you're making James Bond.  Nothing wrong with that, if that's what they want to do.  But it's not how it was marketed.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...




[quote]The other way would be watching a slide into obscurity.  Cutscenes of Shepard searching and failing to find what he's looking for, or even evidence of the Reapers.  His friends drift away, called to duty elsewhere, or dying in attacks and mishaps.  Normandy gets battered and rundown.  Funding dries up.  Alliance and Citadel no longer take him seriously.  Finally he pulls into Omega out of options, where Miranda and Jacob meet him with an almost-literal deal-with-the-devil.[/quote]Certainly an option, and a pretty decent one, save that people would be screaming their heads off here about their inability to change any of it. They needed a dramatic sudden shift of fortune to drive it forward.

[/quote]

As opposed to the people screaming about the abruptness in Shepard's death and ressurection (which is taken remarkably in stride by all concerned I might add)   We'll have to agree to disagree on it I guess.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

Many people think they're working behind the scenes and dismissing Shepard both to prevent a panic and because you show up working for Cerberus, membership in which is considered a capital offense in Citadel space. Seems plausible to me.

[/quote]

More assumptions.  Besids, despite what the Council said, if Cerberus membership was really a capital crime (meaning crime punishable by execution, not as minor thing, even for a Spectre), I highly doubt Captain Bailey would have been so friendly to me when I show up on the Citadel in a spacesip with the Cerberus logo clearly visible on the sides and two crew members with me wearing Cerberus uniforms and insignias.  Heck I doubt I'd have made it to the presidium.  At best, I'd likely be conference-calling Anderson/Udina from a holding cell.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

First time a video game plot twist has made me actually leap out of my seat with a "HOLY SH^T!". They sure did that one well.
[quote]1) Moment of triumph.  Remember how I mentioned that earlier?
2) There was internal consistency in the story.  There was foreshadowing, even if I didn't understand what it meant.  It wasn't a complete bolt from the blue.   Well, okay it was, kinda, but after I recovered from the shock and thought about it, it made sense.[/quote]Again, development time makes it seem further from your moment of triumph than it is. And while I'll grant you Jade Empire did a fantastic job setting it up without making you aware of it, Sovereign did tell you your extinction was inevitable.
[/quote]

There's "real time" and "game time"  The developers should keep track of both.  

 "Extinction" means the death of an entire race, not just Shepard.  You saying that's how ME 3 will end?

Modifié par iakus, 13 juillet 2010 - 11:39 .

[IoCaster]

Christmas Ape wrote...
-stuff-

IoCaster wrote...
-stuff-

Impasse. Time to move on.

Modifié par IoCaster, 14 juillet 2010 - 12:56 .

[theelementslayer]

smudboy wrote...

Because there is?  Oh sorry, 988?  Now imagine voice actors, character models, level design, cutscene directing and composition, lighting, and whatever other resources else I'm missing.  Then the script and the variable permutations.  The best thing you're gonna get is a cameo, or a character in the background with a few lines to say of an existing main plot point event.

I mean I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.  They can die.  All of them, variably, sans 2 apparently.  That means 2 placeholders of no real relevance.  Unless you have more character vignettes of the same characters from ME2, which again have nothing to do with the plot of ME3, just like ME2.  Can you still not see this argument?

No, dont get me wrong I see the argument but I cant see the reason why Bioware would invest a whole game dealing with characters, and getting their loyalty and such, as well as hiring 12 voice actors/actresses plus 12 face models and then taking the time to write them all, get all the different opinions, have all the different programming for the variables in deaths and such just to toss them out in the next game. I know it might be filler but I cant see it. If they wanted filler they would do what they did in ME1, many sidequests that did have connection to the story but very little variety. I just cant see the point of them being there for one game. Please just give me an idea.

The variable small and big choices are fine.  We're talking entire squadmates, and how they're relevant toward anything.  They were only partially relevant to ME2, because that's what ME2 was all about, (and not the main plot.)  Now, there are easy, literary means of making people plot relevant, plot dependent or essential, but that didn't happen in ME2: why would strangers not interested or motivated personally in a previous story suddenly be very motivated for reasons of...familiarity...to be plot integral?

Nevermind the design philosophy Case has mentioned that we should be meeting new characters, and the intrigue that brings, as opposed to having the old ones who...have...what, more daddy issues?  That is not to say they can show further character development, but why?  Why not just have a static asset instead of variable one?  These people have nothing to do with ME3: they were specifically Pokemon'd for ME2, just to have character vignettes.

If it were 5 or six characters I could see why Bioware would just be like: Well your filler, now begone.But the magnitude of characters seems too many. And reasons to be taken along for the ride with Shepard, keep in mind these are speculations but I think they are valid.

Miranda-Part of Cerberus, follows shepard, shes the loyalist
Jacob-Follows Miranda, but yes a gun for hire, I can see him leaving
Samara-Yes a justicar, yes she has a calling but when you kill Morinth the reason shes a justicar vanishes in a second. She misses people to talk to as she says in conversations with her, she likes the company, and just the scene when her and shep are about to kiss it seems that she really cares.
Grunt-Shep is his batllemaster, he says it in his loyalty quest
Jack-You freed her, from prision, if you do her sidequest, from herself, you have given her more then anyone else in the world, she likes and trusts shep even if she wont say it outright
Tali/Garrus-follows shep
Legion-He wants to fight the reapers, he says it outright, so why would he leave?
Mordin-He wants to repent his sins, and he thinks this is the way to do it

All of them know about the reapers, sure they signed on for the collectors but if they dont defeat the reapers the collector mission was for nothing really. Why would the crew break up so soon when they defeated someone no one had heard of or really seen?

The ones I can see going are Thane-he's dying, Kasumi-DLC character, and Zaheed-a gun for hire as you said.

Yes Casey mentioned it was fun to meet new characters but I felt like that was a selling point of ME2, maybe Im wrong who knows, right?

No I'm giving you evidence and explaining design.  I'm not speculating evidence or design.  I'm telling you this is what Casey has said, and I'm showing you what ME2 was about, and how it is extensively difficult to finish off a product and come to a reasonable end-game scenario with that many permutations just on characters alone, for them to be relevant plot wise, let alone being there in the first place.

Imports?  Go play Quest for Glory, Ultima and Suikoden.

We understand characters from ME1 coming into ME2, because they can't die.  In ME2, your entire squad can, sans two variable ones.

Havent started bioware games until ME1, apologies I did not know about the other importable games

As for evidence sure they can be killed off but other then that, and the Zaheed example of which I agree with, what evidence is there that they will leave?

I'm quite sure writers are not involved in the engine development, but if it gives them more time to clearly make a script, hey, more power to them.

1) They do not have 12 well scripted characters who are modeled, textured or animated.  They do have voice actors, however.
2) Why make new ones?  I don't know, why make a new game if you're just going to rehash the same stuff?  I think, as a modeler, you'd be pretty pissed if they just slap in the old ME2 model with the same idle animations, only with 0 everything else.

Apologies, yes Im sure writers arent involved in engine development, though code might be alot more understandable if they were..

Anyways I mean that it would free up money and focus not having to be spent on an engine, sorry poor choice of words.

1)Why arent they well scripted, we learend alot about them in ME2. I didnt say textured, at least I hope I didnt, and animating goes with the specific game, apologies those have to be done for ME3 no matter what. But modelled yeah they do, just import it from the previous project make a few tweaks. 40 hours of work cut down to 4. Why wouldnt they be modelled?

2) Why would I be pissed if they did that, it save time and money, the animations would change for sure, apologies if I said same animations, but its the character, why would they have to change it?

No, he's a gun for hire.  He does his job, then leaves.  There's no reason for him to stay there.  Why the hell would he want to?

Yes Ill agree with Zaheed, and a few more as stated above but why the others. Throw out counter arguments, this is actually kind of intresting., I like the differing opinions, makes me think.

[BrotherArdis]

No, he's a gun for hire.  He does his job, then leaves.  There's no reason for him to stay there.  Why the hell would he want to?

Because he's a gun for hire and you/Cerberus might have paid him quite handsomely to stay? Because, just as he himself has said, even he can recognize a galaxy-shaking (or whatever he called it) revelation when he sees one?

Plus a few, more vague (mostly revolving around Shepard's charisma) ones.

[smudboy]

theelementslayer wrote...

No, dont get me wrong I see the argument but I cant see the reason why Bioware would invest a whole game dealing with characters, and getting their loyalty and such, as well as hiring 12 voice actors/actresses plus 12 face models and then taking the time to write them all, get all the different opinions, have all the different programming for the variables in deaths and such just to toss them out in the next game. I know it might be filler but I cant see it. If they wanted filler they would do what they did in ME1, many sidequests that did have connection to the story but very little variety. I just cant see the point of them being there for one game. Please just give me an idea.

AH, good.  So long as you can see the argument, I'm happy with that.  Sometimes I feel like no one's listening.

I too, think it's a waste of resources.  I too, wish they'd develop the same characters more (especially the protagonist.)  But it seems unlikely, just by looking at ME2.  You can make a strong argument saying that ME2 was just filler.  The style is totally different, that is, it's more like a summer block buster garnered for maximum sales, than designed to be an epic space opera sequel.  That's just the feeling I got.  (I got a whole bunch of others, but that's another issue.)  Maybe that was due to the cinematics, the railroading, the simplification, the dumbed down story into oblivion, the lack of a plot, the excessive number of characters...who knows.  If BioWare can spend the time and millions of dollars...well that would be unimaginable to me.  But I can imagine how the project management schedule file would turn into a gargantuan Gantt chart from hell.

If it were 5 or six characters I could see why Bioware would just be like: Well your filler, now begone.But the magnitude of characters seems too many. And reasons to be taken along for the ride with Shepard, keep in mind these are speculations but I think they are valid.

That's one of the many problems: quantity over quality.  They ultimately are filler, and some are totally useless, let alone having any exposition to the main plot.  If you can literally accomplish the story without most, then I'd count that as being filler.  Simply very colorful side missions.

All of them know about the reapers, sure they signed on for the collectors but if they dont defeat the reapers the collector mission was for nothing really. Why would the crew break up so soon when they defeated someone no one had heard of or really seen?

There's barely any (at all?) talk of the Reapers by other squad mates.

The ones I can see going are Thane-he's dying, Kasumi-DLC character, and Zaheed-a gun for hire as you said.

Samara said she'd leave, Grunt has no more ground troops to fight, and Mordin's job is done.  I mean we can invent a dozen or so reasons for or against, but it's really a matter of logistics for having them in the sequel, let alone why the narrative says so (which there is none.)

Yes Casey mentioned it was fun to meet new characters but I felt like that was a selling point of ME2, maybe Im wrong who knows, right?

But that comment was made last month.  Which to me, implies that's the same philosophy he's going to use in the sequel.  And it makes sense.  Suicide Mission over, suicide squad disbanded, make some new, static characters.

Havent started bioware games until ME1, apologies I did not know about the other importable games

As for evidence sure they can be killed off but other then that, and the Zaheed example of which I agree with, what evidence is there that they will leave?

The only narrative evidence I can say why a character would stay would be the romance options.  Take into account the whole Liara/(Kaidan/Ash)/Wrex fans, and well, you have 4 new characters to add to it.

Now imagine if in ME2, you got to fill specific roles of recruitment, instead of just getting everyone (like biotic, engineer, leader and scientist.)  Fill them in existing roles that have ship specific tasks, like researching upgrades, cooking, whatever, while you can take individual people out to ground missions (Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops/Peace Walker does this.)  Then we could make a proper argument, for using people as placeholders in the sequel.  There'd be variability, and we could then comprehend that characters had specific roles, so that at least one engineer would be accessible to be a squadmate, if of course this was a popular and easy to design game play element.

Then, we could comprehend how such a placeholder design could work in ME3.  As it stands, we have no idea.  They're either going to blow the bank on putting everyone in, or not.  I can't see them possibly listening to the loudest fans over 15 potential crewmates, when it's faster, cheaper and easier to just make new ones.

Although I could buy the Romance Interest argument, but the same plot questions remain:
Miranda/Jacob (Engineer/Biotic/Leadership)
Tali/Garrus (Engineer/Combat/Leadership)
Jack/Thane (Biotic/Combat)

Keep in mind this is the same argument for keeping all, just a specific, and smaller list of fan service.  I'd much rather they keep everyone to large, static cameos, and tell a good story this time, and introduce new characters -- BioWare is good at characters.

1)Why arent they well scripted, we learend alot about them in ME2. I didnt say textured, at least I hope I didnt, and animating goes with the specific game, apologies those have to be done for ME3 no matter what. But modelled yeah they do, just import it from the previous project make a few tweaks. 40 hours of work cut down to 4. Why wouldnt they be modelled?

I'm saying they'd have brand new assets, regardless of their assets from the previous title.  They'd start from scratch again anyway, redraw Tali, redraw Grunt, etc.

2) Why would I be pissed if they did that, it save time and money, the animations would change for sure, apologies if I said same animations, but its the character, why would they have to change it?

Because that's what they did with ME2?  A forced two year gap, and characters look different.  Are you seriously desiring every single character model and animation just be a copy/paste job?  I think game reviewers would have a field day with that realization.  I'm not a big graphic ****, but if they did that, I think even I would be pretty annoyed.

Although if they listen to the fans about granting N7 style-armor components per squadmate, then it would probably be okay to see them in their casual attire/the same old assets.

[ADLegend21]

[theelementslayer]

smudboy wrote...

AH, good.  So long as you can see the argument, I'm happy with that.  Sometimes I feel like no one's listening.

I too, think it's a waste of resources.  I too, wish they'd develop the same characters more (especially the protagonist.)  But it seems unlikely, just by looking at ME2.  You can make a strong argument saying that ME2 was just filler.  The style is totally different, that is, it's more like a summer block buster garnered for maximum sales, than designed to be an epic space opera sequel.  That's just the feeling I got.  (I got a whole bunch of others, but that's another issue.)  Maybe that was due to the cinematics, the railroading, the simplification, the dumbed down story into oblivion, the lack of a plot, the excessive number of characters...who knows.  If BioWare can spend the time and millions of dollars...well that would be unimaginable to me.  But I can imagine how the project management schedule file would turn into a gargantuan Gantt chart from hell.

And yet I can also state that ME2 is a great second act of a story that leads up to the final confrontation. And I disagre with the story being dumbed down and over simplified. Just because the graphics were amazing and the overall view was extremely cinematic doesnt mean its meant to be a summer blockbuster. I mean hell, who doesnt love huge explosions. Though I agree that Gantt chart must be one mean son of a, and must take up alot of wall space.

That's one of the many problems: quantity over quality.  They ultimately are filler, and some are totally useless, let alone having any exposition to the main plot.  If you can literally accomplish the story without most, then I'd count that as being filler.  Simply very colorful side missions.

Sure you can get through the game with not doing most of them but the main recruitments no you have to do them and why would they do that if they were just going to voice them over once and bam gone. Just doesnt seem like a smart idea to spend all that money to just have it fizzle out. And this is bioware, they arent a dumb developer.

There's barely any (at all?) talk of the Reapers by other squad mates.

Yes, but I think it is very much implied, hell they are around shepard, and she must talk about the reapers somewhat plus the 2 that are with you when you talk to Udina, or Anderson, or the Council heard you talk about the reapers. Just because it isnt outright said doesnt mean that it didnt happen

Samara said she'd leave, Grunt has no more ground troops to fight, and Mordin's job is done.  I mean we can invent a dozen or so reasons for or against, but it's really a matter of logistics for having them in the sequel, let alone why the narrative says so (which there is none.)

Ah yes but Grunt has said that shepard is his battlemaster, sure he has no troops to fight but she is Grunts kin in grunts eyes. And youve heard my argument for samara, shes is staying Im pretty sure

But that comment was made last month.  Which to me, implies that's the same philosophy he's going to use in the sequel.  And it makes sense.  Suicide Mission over, suicide squad disbanded, make some new, static characters.

Regardless of when it was made, I thought it was made just after the Kasumi pack and why would they introduce new characters, they have alot of stuff to wrap up in the 3rd one, This is the final part of a trilogy. The second part is about getting ready for the final confrontation, and they did. Sheps got a crew now to fight the reapers

The only narrative evidence I can say why a character would stay would be the romance options.  Take into account the whole Liara/(Kaidan/Ash)/Wrex fans, and well, you have 4 new characters to add to it.

Now imagine if in ME2, you got to fill specific roles of recruitment, instead of just getting everyone (like biotic, engineer, leader and scientist.)  Fill them in existing roles that have ship specific tasks, like researching upgrades, cooking, whatever, while you can take individual people out to ground missions (Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops/Peace Walker does this.)  Then we could make a proper argument, for using people as placeholders in the sequel.  There'd be variability, and we could then comprehend that characters had specific roles, so that at least one engineer would be accessible to be a squadmate, if of course this was a popular and easy to design game play element.

Then, we could comprehend how such a placeholder design could work in ME3.  As it stands, we have no idea.  They're either going to blow the bank on putting everyone in, or not.  I can't see them possibly listening to the loudest fans over 15 potential crewmates, when it's faster, cheaper and easier to just make new ones.

Although I could buy the Romance Interest argument, but the same plot questions remain:
Miranda/Jacob (Engineer/Biotic/Leadership)
Tali/Garrus (Engineer/Combat/Leadership)
Jack/Thane (Biotic/Combat)

Keep in mind this is the same argument for keeping all, just a specific, and smaller list of fan service.  I'd much rather they keep everyone to large, static cameos, and tell a good story this time, and introduce new characters -- BioWare is good at characters.

Yes the romance argument is a large, large part that I would put into it. As for 4 new charcters returning sure I could see them get rid of 4 of the 12 characters, just not all 12. The only thing is I cant see Bioware, after gaining these loyal fans, stiff arm them and just smash it in out face because it would be "easier". These guys seem to want to push the bar for themselves, not make things easier. They seem to actually care about fanbase unlike *cough* IW *cough*

I'm saying they'd have brand new assets, regardless of their assets from the previous title.  They'd start from scratch again anyway, redraw Tali, redraw Grunt, etc.

I cant see them doing it from scracth. Sure a few changes but as a modeller why would they waste their time on changing a characters looks because I dont think they will change that much in a year or howevrer much time difference there is.

Because that's what they did with ME2?  A forced two year gap, and characters look different.  Are you seriously desiring every single character model and animation just be a copy/paste job?  I think game reviewers would have a field day with that realization.  I'm not a big graphic ****, but if they did that, I think even I would be pretty annoyed.

Although if they listen to the fans about granting N7 style-armor
components per squadmate, then it would probably be okay to see them in
their casual attire/the same old assets.

I think the only reason the characters look different is the better graphics engine, their facial features really didnt change, bar Liara, she seemed to mature a bit. And why would it matter if the character model is the same. Its the same person, its not like they will change much. Furthermore, as I said before the animations are specific to the game, of course those would change. Why would the people change looks? Sure theyll rexture them, the clothes and stuff but the model, especially the face where most of the time is put into, would stay the same.

Modifié par theelementslayer, 14 juillet 2010 - 01:53 .

[theelementslayer]

Double post-sorry

Modifié par theelementslayer, 14 juillet 2010 - 01:21 .

[glacier1701]

theelementslayer.....

While you keep on saying that because money was spent it makes no sense to trash characters others are just as adamant that past history shows that BioWare will trash characters regardless. Your 'desire' and hopes have no meaning in the eyes of BioWare. BioWare has trashed characters and Casey's statement clearly shows that despite the 'rage' of Ashley/Kaiden/Liara fans over what was done to their characters shows that he feels 'new characters' are more attractive than old ones. And it is HIS opinion that matters - not yours or mine. And remember those remarks are made almost 6 months AFTER ME2 release, with all the feedback off these forums and AFTER we know that they have already started work on ME3. In other words it is clear that while some of the old will be back most are gone. And this is pretty much what Casey's remarks boil down to.

Modifié par glacier1701, 14 juillet 2010 - 03:41 .

[theelementslayer]

glacier1701 wrote...

theelementslayer.....

While you keep on saying that because money was spent it makes no sense to trash characters others are just as adamant that past history shows that BioWare will trash characters regardless. Your 'desire' and hopes have no meaning in the eyes of BioWare. BioWare has trashed characters and Casey's statement clearly shows that despite the 'rage' of Ashley/Kaiden/Liara fans over what was done to their characters shows that he feels 'new characters' are more attractive than old ones. And it is HIS opinion that matters - not yours or mine. And remember those remarks are made almost 6 months AFTER ME2 release, with all the feedback off these forums and AFTER we know that they have already started work on ME3. In other words it is clear that while some of the old will be back most are gone. And this is pretty much what Casey's remarks boil down to.

Maybe, maybe not but all the characters from the 1st one were in the second minus the one that died. Two as squadmates, 2 as cameos. But I dont think Liaras story is done or Ash's either. I mean you do a mission for Liara and you get an apology email from ash why would they stop there. And I havent played any BW games in the past besides ME1, and DA so I dont know their intentions or what they usually do. Maybe I just have too much hope for BW but I can hope:P

[Unit-Alpha]

Plot hole: why did the council (or at the very least the Asari councilor) deny the existence of the Reapers in ME2? Replay the last dialog section of ME1. She bold-facedly states that you saved that lived of billions from Saren and the Reapers.

Otherwise, I agree with the OP.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 14 juillet 2010 - 04:02 .

[theelementslayer]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Plot hole: why did the council (or at the very least the Asari councilor) deny the existence of the Reapers in ME2? Replay the last dialog section of ME1. She bold-facedly states that you saved that lived of billions from Saren and the Reapers.

Otherwise, I agree with the OP.

Not a plothole thread but ya easy enough to answer. The council, as stated in a cutscene at the beginning of ME2 thought that the one Reaper, Soverign was an isolated threat, just the one of them and they think the battle is over. As you said, the asari says you have saved them from the reapers, they dont want to believe that more are coming. They hide  behind a wall of fear saying that you have won.

[glacier1701]

theelementslayer wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

theelementslayer.....

While you keep on saying that because money was spent it makes no sense to trash characters others are just as adamant that past history shows that BioWare will trash characters regardless. Your 'desire' and hopes have no meaning in the eyes of BioWare. BioWare has trashed characters and Casey's statement clearly shows that despite the 'rage' of Ashley/Kaiden/Liara fans over what was done to their characters shows that he feels 'new characters' are more attractive than old ones. And it is HIS opinion that matters - not yours or mine. And remember those remarks are made almost 6 months AFTER ME2 release, with all the feedback off these forums and AFTER we know that they have already started work on ME3. In other words it is clear that while some of the old will be back most are gone. And this is pretty much what Casey's remarks boil down to.

Maybe, maybe not but all the characters from the 1st one were in the second minus the one that died. Two as squadmates, 2 as cameos. But I dont think Liaras story is done or Ash's either. I mean you do a mission for Liara and you get an apology email from ash why would they stop there. And I havent played any BW games in the past besides ME1, and DA so I dont know their intentions or what they usually do. Maybe I just have too much hope for BW but I can hope:P

Well considering that the first news we had about the ME1 characters was that ALL were trashed and that only the outrage on the old forums seems to have saved them. Considering what was done to them though it might have been better if they had been trashed.