555 réponses à ce sujet

[tvih]

glacier1701 wrote...

ME-ParaShep wrote...
*A Reaper invasion soon coming in the Milky Way Galaxy

This was a given at the end of ME1. Its no revelation to have this occur at the end of ME2. In a way it says that ME1 did not matter.

I actually can't recall seeing much that would say the invasion is any more imminent than it was. Of course it is sort of imminent, but the cutscene showing the Reaper fleet doesn't say much, because all they did was show the fleet still out there, far outside the galaxy, stationary as far as I could tell. If they try to travel from there without mass relays, it'll take them ages, unless they have some new tricks up their sleeve suddenly. And I say suddenly, because if they'd had those fast methods of travel besides mass relays to begin with, what would they have needed the "Conduit" in ME1?

[Il Divo]

tvih wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

ME-ParaShep wrote...
*A Reaper invasion soon coming in the Milky Way Galaxy

This was a given at the end of ME1. Its no revelation to have this occur at the end of ME2. In a way it says that ME1 did not matter.

I actually can't recall seeing much that would say the invasion is any more imminent than it was. Of course it is sort of imminent, but the cutscene showing the Reaper fleet doesn't say much, because all they did was show the fleet still out there, far outside the galaxy, stationary as far as I could tell. If they try to travel from there without mass relays, it'll take them ages, unless they have some new tricks up their sleeve suddenly. And I say suddenly, because if they'd had those fast methods of travel besides mass relays to begin with, what would they have needed the "Conduit" in ME1?

We as the audience had never actually been confronted with the threat we face. Certainly, we hear about the Reapers in dark space from Sovereign and Illusive Man constantly reminds us that they are coming, but that is nothing compared to actually seeing for ourselves how large this threat is; it makes things seem almost hopeless.

[smudboy]

[quote]theelementslayer wrote...
Alright I think the way we identify with the protagonists of the story is through the problems that they face and I think Grisham does this really well. His problems are believable and common, but each are unique in their own way and how they react to them. Plot structure well, during his novels your left to do a bit of guess work during it until the end when they either confirm your suspicion or blow it away. Dialouge structure, well this is usually to more illustrate a character then really anything else. 
[/quote]
Okay.

[quote]
For ME2 they seem to follow many of these steps, but on a much larger scale. In those "frivolous loyalty quests" as you called them in your video it allows us deeper connection with the characters. Sure they are revenge issues, and family matters but it puts ME2 down to a personal level, and brings the characters closer to home. I can relate to revenge or having a bad childhood like Mirandas alot easier then I can when its oh no we can save everyone just let me take the lead. Nah I really cant relate to that as much as all those sidequests. 
[/quote]
Except we only have one protagonist.

We may be shown more about a character, but they have nothing to do with the plot, so we have really no reason to care for them in that context.  They're just people with issues, and then it's like "You have a sister.  Okay?"  What's the pull, as it were?  It doesn't bring ME2 down to a personal level; ME2 is to Fight the Collectors.  Or Stop them, or what not.

Now I'm a mystery buff, but every quest story has an element of mystery in it.  (Like wtf are these Collector guys?)  You may not like these rules, but they're there.

http://character-dev...inor_characters
"How Many Side Characters Should a Book Contain?
Too many side characters can make a story confusing. Minor characters should never be introduced without a reason for their existence. For example, a meddling aunt or a drunken father that does nothing to further the plot is just excess baggage. The meddling aunt could hear something important in her eavesdropping. The alcoholic father could pick up a clue or two at the bar. Make them work by having them provide clues to a mystery. If your book is not a mystery, these side characters can serve to provide insight into how they shaped the hero’s life and made him the person he has become. But characters should never be introduced who play no part in the story and have no real purpose.

Don’t let opportunities go to waste. When introducing side characters, see if some of them can be combined and do double duty. For example, when possible use the same waitress or doorman every time instead of creating multiple extra characters. These people the hero sees every day can be great imparters of clues and necessary information without being intrusive. They will also seem more real to the reader than a generic character who appears only once, and the reader will look forward to their occasional appearance.

Don’t Let Side Characters Steal the Show
Because there is pressure to make the hero perfect, a writer may find that all the good scenes and lines are being stolen by the best friend or the sidekick. The side characters can be quirky and colorful but they shouldn’t steal the limelight away from the hero. Their purpose is to complement him and highlight his character. If a writer finds a side character taking over, one of two things may be happening. The book may really be about the side character instead of the hero. If the focus of the book centers more on the minor character than the hero, a rewrite may be in order where they switch roles. The problem can also sometimes be remedied by transferring the clever lines to the hero and making the side character take a back seat."

[quote]
Thank you. Alright not english class but my work is rendering right now so why not. I have nothing better to do. First off we have to agree that this series isnt about the reapers, it isnt about the geth or Saren or the collectors. This is about Commader shepard. In the first game it had shepard come face to face with a threat, it established that commander shepard will have to fight and what she is up against.
[/quote]
If it was about Commander Shepard, then there'd be proper character development, as well as making them an active protagonist.

[quote]
The second game was a more in depth story-of shepard, which the series is about. Not in depth about the collectors, not the reapers. No, shepard and her relationship with the crew. It showed us really what she is able to do. Anyone can get lucky and kill a reaper because of sheer determination and having 100 ships at your disposal just because the old rule of the enemy of my enemy. But can someone gather a team, gain their trust, and take on an unknown threat, all while keeping a cool head and leading them into combat. This game proved that yes, Shepard can. It defined the role of her. Now we know two things about her. She is good in combat and determined-ME1, and she is a great leader that can gather 9 people together, gain their trust, and take on an unknown enemy-ME2. Two very vital things thatll come in handy when fighting the reapers in the last game. Thus a great continuation of the ME franchise and Commander Shepards story.
[/quote]
Sorry, but ME2 is not about Shepard.  You could make an argument about ME1 being about Shepard, but I wouldn't even completely agree with that.

If we're talking Battle of the Citadel, then no one can get lucky and "kill a Reaper."  ME1 proved Shepard was integral to the plot.  If it wasn't for Shepard's involvement, the galaxy would've been destroyed.

Anyone could have done what ME2 Shepard did. 1) recruiting those people (save maybe Tali), 2) "gain their trust" (if by trust you mean run a violent errand for them), 3) take on an unknown threat, 4) keeping a cool head and leading them into combat.  There is not one instance where anyone couldn't have replaced Shepard as the protagonist in ME2.  ME2's Shepard is a flat, static and passive protagonist.

Shepard has almost no relationship with the crew.  If anything, some kind of weird, quasi-human resources relationship, where people join you on a suicide mission at the drop of a hat, and decide to do something with you because you have bullets and a spaceship, that they were incapable of doing themselves (in some cases this is explained.)  The romances add to a relatinoship, but they are simple at best, and we can't romance everyone.  The best we get are to "spill some drinks on the Citadel" with one character.

[quote]
Alright

Character development-Each of these characters were done with beautiful care. From the eccentric scientist to the cold hearted Justicar, each and every one of the characters had uniqeness and some were very up front with it. Thane, and Tali, Garrus. Others you had to work with to understand their motives. Jack, and Samara, Miranda ect. Each was easily connectable with through the loyalty mission and each was different but equally good. Even Jacob for all the hate he gets wasnt a horrible character. Bit creepy yes, but overall had his motives, his reasons and his own ideals.
[/quote]
If you're going to have a premise for a frame story, it doesn't matter how awesome or cool or beautiful these characters are.  If it doesn't connect to the frame, it's a waste.

[quote]
Pacing-People say this turned ME2 into a linear game but it made more sense. You didnt have all the time in the world and sometimes the battle wasnt fought on your terms-Horizon, Freedoms progress. This made the game much more immersive and it kept the plot going breaking up recruitment and such.
[/quote]
If you're referring to game play and having freedom of choosing to go wherever you wanted, you did have all the time in the world to do so.  The only rising action would be to go save your crew by going on the suicide mission, which you were going to do anyway.

[quote]
With holding of information-It made you keep guessing. Who are the collectors, what is their intrest in humans, why the intrest so recently, where is the homeworld, how do  they fight on their turf. Plus more intimate ones like why is Samara what she is, why is Miranda so cold sometimes? Who is tIM, what is his connection. Made me keep guessing and for you who say they dumbed down the plot how did they do that?
[/quote]
And it still keeps me guessing.  We're not told what their interest in humans are.

The plot is non existent; it's the story that's dumbed down.  I'm not saying the story is bad or good, it's simply there.

Story: "The king died, then the queen died."
Story with plot: "The king died, then the queen died, out of grief."

If the Collectors are the queen, we have no idea why they died (were doing what they were doing.)

[quote]
We both dont know what they are going to do. Devs surprise everyone for better or for worse. They were the plot in ME2 if you look at my post about the story being shepards story.
[/quote]
But you're wrong.

[quote]
After the collector mission when Joker gives shepard the PDA with all of the info about probably Harbinger, and the crew is in with her. This is the real enemy, they know it. Shepard knows it. I believe that this is when the conversation took place about them staying for the Reapers. 
[/quote]
Ah?  Joker gives Shepard a pad with 4 pictures of a Reaper.  The crew doesn't know jack.  The two you took might've been a bit spooked about seeing the Baby Reaper, but so what?  That doesn't imply they're still going to be around, or what their thoughts are.

[quote]
You have rebuttled 2, what about the remaining 7 or 8?
[/quote]
I could, but it doesn't matter: it's speculation, and there's plenty of evidence (Casey, lack of a save important, save import without recruitment, save import with death, lack of plot integrity, etc.) to say they won't be coming back.

[quote]
And I do not agree with Samara leaving just because they are done the suicide mission.
[/quote]
SHE SAID SHE WOULD.


[quote]
As stated before what the devs do is all speculation
[/quote]
So I can only speculate on exactly what Casey said?  Okay...

[quote]
I am one of those Liara fans. Am I sad of what happened to her, yes. Does this take away from the story or my opinion of the game. No. I liked what they did made it feel more real and the Shepard was more human then usual. Not everything always goes his way, sometimes there are screwups, people move on, people get preconcived ideas. It fit the idea of Shepards story very well.
[/quote]
The point being she was cameo'd.  Cameo'd, which is exactly what's going to happen to a save import to most of the characters.

[quote]
And here comes the language. If you recall I said update the models. Thats what your suggesting. I also said they would have to change the animations, as each are unique to every game.
[/quote]
No you didn't. I just ctrl+f'd your posts.  You did not say update the models.  It is not a simple copy/paste job.  Still time and money.  Still making brand new assets.  FOR THE LAST TIME.

[quote]
Yes it is expensive but I cant see why EA/Bioware wouldn't do it. And no Im not talking about them just copy pasting it, I only ever said they wouldnt start the models from scratch. Thats all I said
[/quote]
Because it's too expensive and complicated and not that big a deal aside from a few raving fanboys?

Modifié par smudboy, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:34 .

[Il Divo]

Just wanted to respond to a few things.

iakus wrote...

Actually what I expected were more quests for yo to demonstrate jsut how far Shepard is wiling to go to protect teh human race.  More dilemmas like what to do about Veetor.  maybe something ike "Shepard, the Aliance is snping around one of our bases.  Theit interference could jepordize the mission.  Deal with it.  What to do?  Kill teh Aliance overt operatives?  Sabotage their equipment?  Or maybe sabotage but leave tem some clues to find later?

The problem here is that playing as Paragon, I can already see there being contentions about working with Cerberus. Bioware did it right by having Illusive Man keep Shepard from doing anything too controversial, otherwise you might wonder why Shepard doesn't leave the group. If you notice, the only controversial order Illusive Man gives you (to keep the base) is the one point in the game you can tell him to screw off.

"Hey, Anderson, we go back a ways, think I can trade in all this Cerberus tech for a new ship and crew? You thought I actually worked for Cerberus? Haha good one. Watch the AI. She's shackled, but probably not too happy. By the way, how's Kaiden/Ashley doing? Been a while and I want to catch up?"
 
Note: pre-Horizon, My paragon Shep would have done this in a heartbeat. With maybe the only change being giving the crew an opportunity to join me or be put ashore on Omega.

And assuming you follow this path, what do you plan to do from there? Illusive Man is shown to be the only individual who is willing to invest the time and resources to help you (to the point where he even tracks the Collectors). Although grateful, I doubt the Council would suddenly do a turn around and start backing you. Illusive Man also has better connections in the Terminus Systems where the Collectors operate, so the idea of betraying him is not too wise.

I'll admit that current technology keeps games like ME 1 from being played out in real-time (that would truly be an awesome experience to dwarf even Alpha Protocol's decision-shaping features) As it is, the situation in ME 1 are kind of a modular experience. You go there, here's the setup, now play. ME 2's suicide mission you are (theoretically) supposed to be planning and preparing for it for the entirety of the game. Yet somehow, it's already planned out for you. All you have to do is connect the dots.
 
The way I see it, the game should have gone about the Suicide Mission in one of two ways:
 
1) TIM and Shepard get a hold of at least a little information on the Collector Base at the beginning. Nothing detailed, but enough to justify the choices TIM makes. OR...
 
2) Go "whole hog" into contrivance to make the experience so awesome the Rule of Cool overshadows everything. This is actually the route I'd prefer, but it's less feasible. basically, there would be 12 specialist challenges along the Suicide Mission, one specifically designed for each squad mate (with appropriate duplication of abilities available, no need to turn one mistake into an irrecoverable death spiral)
 
 For example. Grunt is a krogan, renowned for close-quarters combat. There should be a point in the mission where such a specialist is needed "Boy good thing we let Grunt out of the tank, huh?"

Given how unreceptive some of have been to the idea of recruiting a team, I don't think option #2 is the way to go. I wasn't bothered by the recruitment missions; recruiting a biotic/tech specialist does not require any special intel about the Collectors to understand their usage. Ex: Garrus stating that Liara's biotics would come in handy.

But what you are suggesting would be the extreme form. Mass Effect 2's suicide mission was formulaic (This is the tech sequence, now this is the biotic sequence), but it didn't seem all that contrived. If the mission was designed so that every squad member had a unique purpose, I would honestly have been very disappointed. That would be pushing suspension of disbelief to its limits.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:39 .

[glacier1701]

tvih wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

ME-ParaShep wrote...
*A Reaper invasion soon coming in the Milky Way Galaxy

This was a given at the end of ME1. Its no revelation to have this occur at the end of ME2. In a way it says that ME1 did not matter.

I actually can't recall seeing much that would say the invasion is any more imminent than it was. Of course it is sort of imminent, but the cutscene showing the Reaper fleet doesn't say much, because all they did was show the fleet still out there, far outside the galaxy, stationary as far as I could tell. If they try to travel from there without mass relays, it'll take them ages, unless they have some new tricks up their sleeve suddenly. And I say suddenly, because if they'd had those fast methods of travel besides mass relays to begin with, what would they have needed the "Conduit" in ME1?

There was a time when there were NO Relays. This means that the only way of travel was by FTL. While the Reapers claim to have built the Relays there is no way we can tell if that claim is true or false. Who actually built them doesn't make much of a difference in the end. If the Relays were built by organics then since you can ONLY jump from a Relay to another Relay they must have had a pretty decent drive system to go the distance to make the other end of the connection within a reasonable amount of time. At a guess it has to have been at least a few magnitudes of order better than what is the current norm. However even that is still not 'fast' compared to the travel via Relay but certainly it means that long distances can be covered in a 5 year timeframe. The Reapers, when they took over, inherited that drive system.
 
 Now if Reapers built the Relays other factors matter but in the end they still need that speedier FTL drive system. Basically it boils down to the fact that IF they are too slow in moving via FTL then any organic resistance to them could advance far enough technologically to defeat them because of the time needed to move long distances. This did not happen, as we know, thus they had to have been able to advance across the galaxy fast enough to overcome resistance thus they had a fast FTL system. Either way the Reapers have an FTL system that is orders of magnitude better than what we have.

 In the end we can expect that the distance the Reapers have to travel is somewhere in the region of a 4-5 year trip. It might be longer and perhaps be 10 years BUT there are out of game reasons for this NOT to be true. Those reasons are simple. The Mass Effect trilogy is about Shepard. If a LONG time has to elapse then there are problems with having an old Shepard trying to stop the Reapers. So for that reason the timeframe has to be within 2 or 3 years of the ending of ME2 for the beginning of ME3 (barring a prologue that compresses time or other DLC spanning that time gap).


 As for the Conduit - this is nothing to do with the quickness or slowness of travel by the Reapers. All the information anyone had, at first, was that it was a means of perhaps defeating the Reapers. Since Sovereign believed that a frontal assault was out the Conduit had to be investigated since it might be possible to use it in any attempt upon the Citadel. Remember the ONLY people who knew what it was were dead or at the front door on the planet that one half of the COnduit was built on. Its ONLY when you get there that its found that its a backdoor onto the Citadel. Now a frontal assault can be launched because 'ground forces' have been snuck onto the Citadel thus gaining surprise as command and control of local forces is disrupted and as we see Relays are shut down preventing reinforcement.


In short then the Reaper FTL drive system HAS to be orders of magnitude better than what we have because it was needed to be able to establish control of the galaxy in the first place. Therefore nothing has to be pulled out of a hat to explain why it takes 4 or 5 years to reach the nearest Relay sited in the Galaxy. It just happens to be the nature of the beast. It is a simple explanation which is built on simple assumptions about the past without introducing complexities.

[tvih]

glacier1701 wrote...
Now if Reapers built the Relays other factors matter but in the end they still need that speedier FTL drive system. Basically it boils down to the fact that IF they are too slow in moving via FTL then any organic resistance to them could advance far enough technologically to defeat them because of the time needed to move long distances. This did not happen, as we know, thus they had to have been able to advance across the galaxy fast enough to overcome resistance thus they had a fast FTL system. Either way the Reapers have an FTL system that is orders of magnitude better than what we have.
...
 As for the Conduit - this is nothing to do with the quickness or slowness of travel by the Reapers. All the information anyone had, at first, was that it was a means of perhaps defeating the Reapers. Since Sovereign believed that a frontal assault was out the Conduit had to be investigated since it might be possible to use it in any attempt upon the Citadel. Remember the ONLY people who knew what it was were dead or at the front door on the planet that one half of the COnduit was built on. Its ONLY when you get there that its found that its a backdoor onto the Citadel. Now a frontal assault can be launched because 'ground forces' have been snuck onto the Citadel thus gaining surprise as command and control of local forces is disrupted and as we see Relays are shut down preventing reinforcement.

Well, since the Reapers have been around for tens of millions of years, if they indeed were the first to build the mass relays they certainly had the tech advantage at the time compared to anyone else, and even with "normal" FTL travel have certainly had plenty of time to expand the network to its present state. Note that I'm not saying that they can't be faster with their FTL than the "younger races", but they're not necessarily that much faster either. To do what they have done, they don't really need to be, in any case.

Sovereign only needed to access the Citadel via Ilos because the Protheans had messed with the Keepers so that the Reaper signal didn't make them activate the Citadel Relay, and thus the Reapers could not attack the way they normally do. That's basically the only reason we know of that the Reapers just didn't come in in force and blast everyone away. It had nothing to do with frontal assault being out of the question for other reasons. Their fleet would've obliterated everyone and everything with little trouble had they been able to enable the Citadel Relay as planned, and as they had done time and time again in the past, but couldn't now because of the Prothean interference. So they sent a ground team to fix the issue, so then they could come in.

[theelementslayer]

[quote]
Except we only have one protagonist.

We may be shown more about a character, but they have nothing to do with the plot, so we have really no reason to care for them in that context.  They're just people with issues, and then it's like "You have a sister.  Okay?"  What's the pull, as it were?  It doesn't bring ME2 down to a personal level; ME2 is to Fight the Collectors.  Or Stop them, or what not.

Now I'm a mystery buff, but every quest story has an element of mystery in it.  (Like wtf are these Collector guys?)  You may not like these rules, but they're there.
[/quote]

And thats your problem right there. It is not about the collectors, thats not the plot. The plot is about the problem of gaining the trust of 12 crewmembers. Getting them ready for death, taking care of their last business-the loyalty quests- This is Shepards story, Shepards trilogy, and I feel that gaining the trust of a crew helps very much in defining the character, as well as connecting to the story of Shepard.

[quote]
If it was about Commander Shepard, then there'd be proper character development, as well as making them an active protagonist.

Sorry, but ME2 is not about Shepard.  You could make an argument about ME1 being about Shepard, but I wouldn't even completely agree with that.

If we're talking Battle of the Citadel, then no one can get lucky and "kill a Reaper."  ME1 proved Shepard was integral to the plot.  If it wasn't for Shepard's involvement, the galaxy would've been destroyed.

Anyone could have done what ME2 Shepard did. 1) recruiting those people (save maybe Tali), 2) "gain their trust" (if by trust you mean run a violent errand for them), 3) take on an unknown threat, 4) keeping a cool head and leading them into combat.  There is not one instance where anyone couldn't have replaced Shepard as the protagonist in ME2.  ME2's Shepard is a flat, static and passive protagonist.

Shepard has almost no relationship with the crew.  If anything, some kind of weird, quasi-human resources relationship, where people join you on a suicide mission at the drop of a hat, and decide to do something with you because you have bullets and a spaceship, that they were incapable of doing themselves (in some cases this is explained.)  The romances add to a relatinoship, but they are simple at best, and we can't romance everyone.  The best we get are to "spill some drinks on the Citadel" with one character.
[/quote]

Yes Shepard was passive-reacting in the beginning-but the second game is a much more active game then the first. She is reubilding even after the collectors took everything from her. She recruits a team to fight them, TIM helps her figure out problems. Just because she has to rely on someone else doesnt mean she is passive

Now let me tear apart the rest of it

Shepard has no character development? The whole story is about Sheps character development. You are Shepard, this development depends on how you play the game, how does that make it a flat character. It is the main character in which you can shape in so many different ways that its crazy.

Shepard was integral in the battle of the citidel? Yes and no. Yes she was needed to kill saren, no she really didnt kill the reapear, Joker did that. Overall she was needed but thats what it should be, because its her story.

Shepard wasnt needed for the second game? Really think that. She was an icon, people would follow her becasue of what she stands for. Not everyone can gather a team and gain their trust. If a ERT guy asks me for help on a mission and a random guy asks for my help Im going to go witht the ERT guy becasue he has some credentials, some reason for loyalty. Now he might completely play me but that doesnt change the fact I would trust him first. Shepard is gathering THE BEST the galaxy has to offer. Has to be a pretty important person to be able to persuade these people to go off course. No shepard was needed because she was iconic.

No relationship with the crew? Loyalty quests, helping the people on a very personal matter. Thats a relationship. Much more of a relationship then ME1. Bar maybe Liara it was the enemy of my enemy is my friend rule.

Tali-she was played by the shadow broker and saren-common enemy
Wrex-He said it himself-the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Garrus-He wanted to get saren becuase he didnt when he was in C-Sec
Ashely/Kaiden-Marines, he/she does what he/she is expected to

If you actually talked to the people you would find out how actually personable they are in each of their own unique ways. Yes it wouldnt be spoon fed to you, and you would have to talk to them but there is a definate relationship there. Two of the most, how should I say, deep relationships were not the romantic ones. Mordin and Samara. You know my reasoning for Samara, and Mordin feels like a part of the team. Yes he has processed his emotions but he does like someone to talk to.

[quote]
If you're going to have a premise for a frame story, it doesn't matter how awesome or cool or beautiful these characters are.  If it doesn't connect to the frame, it's a waste.

If you're referring to game play and having freedom of choosing to go wherever you wanted, you did have all the time in the world to do so.  The only rising action would be to go save your crew by going on the suicide mission, which you were going to do anyway.

And it still keeps me guessing.  We're not told what their interest in humans are.

The plot is non existent; it's the story that's dumbed down.  I'm not saying the story is bad or good, it's simply there.

Story: "The king died, then the queen died."
Story with plot: "The king died, then the queen died, out of grief."

If the Collectors are the queen, we have no idea why they died (were doing what they were doing.)
[/quote]

It is connected to the story, of raising a team and getting them together. You might not like the story that is personal opinion but it does very well to connect to the story.

There is no rising action bar the Suicide mission? Thats the CLIMAX. The rising action hm maybe I dont know. Horizon, Freedoms progress, the Dericlit reaper perhaps, or maybe the collector vessel? The recruitment as you steadily got closer to your goal? Or when jacob says "So we are really going to do it, I have to take care of some unfinished business, guess everyone else is too" Thats the jump into loyalty missions where the people finish up their last bits before they have to throw themselves into a unknown mission. The whole game is rising action.

As for allowing freedom, yes to a point. Do the first three missions then you are forced into an incounter on horizon. This keeps the game moving. It doesnt matter what you do in between but there are spcific points that trigger actions which keep the story moving. In ME1 you could do all missions up to virmire before even recruiting Liara, or going to Feros or hell even looking for Matriarch Benezia. Dont you think by the time you destroyed the cloning facility the rachni would have been done?

[quote]
But you're wrong.
[/quote]

You should go into politics and do what Joe Wilson did. "YOU LIE"

Great argument buddy, want to back it up?

[quote]
Ah?  Joker gives Shepard a pad with 4 pictures of a Reaper.  The crew doesn't know jack.  The two you took might've been a bit spooked about seeing the Baby Reaper, but so what?  That doesn't imply they're still going to be around, or what their thoughts are.
[/quote]

Humans are an intresting creation, as are many lifeforms. Have you ever stepped on an ant, and not killed it, just maimed it? It keeps moving towards the objective, as long as they are alive it doesnt give up hope. If you put your foot closer to it it moves quicker because it doesnt want to die. It works with everything. Deer, humans, any life form.

Its the same thing here and there are two things going on. The galaxy is under attack, shepard is not broken, the races have united to some degree in this small coalition of people. They know the collectors arent the real threat. They aren't stupid and think oh ya we killed the collectors we are done now. You really think they are that dumb. Shepard spent the last game convincing the council of the reapers, and most of the people in ME2 know of Shepard, therfore should know what she spent a month doing before the citidel collapsed and was under attack. They know the have a chance they arent going to roll over and die.

[quote]
I could, but it doesn't matter: it's speculation, and there's plenty of evidence (Casey, lack of a save important, save import without recruitment, save import with death, lack of plot integrity, etc.) to say they won't be coming back.
[/quote]

Alright, hmm casey said you cant import with a shepard death, you can only not recruit 2 people and give them to Cerberus, but that might have reaching implications in the 3rd game. Lack of plot integrity. Um in ME2 they are the plot so how are the plot irrelavent.

[quote]
SHE SAID SHE WOULD.
[/quote]

She also said another time when shepard almost kissed her. She also told shepard If you need me, come find me and Ill help.

[quote]
So I can only speculate on exactly what Casey said?  Okay...
[/quote]

No I know what he said. Does it mean anything, no we dont know the plot of ME3, hence, speculation

[quote]
The point being she was cameo'd.  Cameo'd, which is exactly what's going to happen to a save import to most of the characters.
[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. 2 of five were imported as squaddies, if we go by those odds itll be between 4-6 that are imported from ME2

[quote]
No you didn't. I just ctrl+f'd your posts.  You did not say update the models.  It is not a simple copy/paste job.  Still time and money.  Still making brand new assets.  FOR THE LAST TIME.
[/quote]

[quote]theelementslayer wrote...

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?

[/quote]

That is what I wrote. Yes you are right I didnt say update I said tweak. And yes still time and money, just a lot less. A brand new asset though? No.

A brand new asset would be say the collectors in ME2. They had to be scripted, codexed, a history of them made, charcter drawings, texture drawings. Clay modelling, 1st iteration 3d modelling. Biped controls, texture mapping, voice anaylsis, IK paramaters, and then a final material edit, and modelling edit. We already have those for Samara.

The basic structure of the character-done: Gets rid of needing character drawings, clay modelling, 1st iteration modelling
Basic history of her race/her-done: Gets rid of codexing it, history being made
Basic knowldge of what she looks like and moves-done: Finishes Texture drawins, texture mapping, IK paramaters, Biped controls
Basic knowledge of her voice-done: Finishes off the voice analysis

Whats left out of a list of 10? 2 things. Final material edit and modelling edit.

[quote]
Because it's too expensive and complicated and not that big a deal aside from a few raving fanboys?
[/quote]

EA is huge, Bioware is huge. Also based in Edmonton where money is flowing crazy. Alberta has alot of expendable capital, even after the recession. With the BP oil screwup Alberta has seen more business in the Oil Sands of Fort Mac then really ever before. No they have the money. And they also want to make the best game possible. This oughta do it, and Im pretty sure they know it.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

The problem here is that playing as Paragon, I can already see there being contentions about working with Cerberus. Bioware did it right by having Illusive Man keep Shepard from doing anything too controversial, otherwise you might wonder why Shepard doesn't leave the group. If you notice, the only controversial order Illusive Man gives you (to keep the base) is the one point in the game you can tell him to screw off.

One thing the game lacks(I think) is the opportunity for Shepard and TIM to really lock horns.  There's plenty of chances to say "Yessir!  RIght away!" or "Cerberus isn't as bad as all that"   But precious few moments to show real animosity for a terrorist organization Shep has no choice but to work with. No  "We're allies for now.  But you won't always be the lesser evil"  There need to be points where Sep can rail at TIM over playing fast and loose wit people's lives (besides Shepard's own) and TIM needs chancs to mock SHep's squeamishness to do what's necessary.

Il Divo wrote...

And assuming you follow this path, what do you plan to do from there? Illusive Man is shown to be the only individual who is willing to invest the time and resources to help you (to the point where he even tracks the Collectors). Although grateful, I doubt the Council would suddenly do a turn around and start backing you. Illusive Man also has better connections in the Terminus Systems where the Collectors operate, so the idea of betraying him is not too wise.

Pre-Horizon, TiM has told Shepard nothing of worth.  Shepard found Veetor with the Collector recordings, not TIM.  And even then it was a fluke. TIM cured Shep of his deadness, after that he really didn't seem to provide all that much. (again, pre-Horizon)

Given how unreceptive some of have been to the idea of recruiting a team, I don't think option #2 is the way to go. I wasn't bothered by the recruitment missions; recruiting a biotic/tech specialist does not require any special intel about the Collectors to understand their usage. Ex: Garrus stating that Liara's biotics would come in handy.

But what you are suggesting would be the extreme form. Mass Effect 2's suicide mission was formulaic (This is the tech sequence, now this is the biotic sequence), but it didn't seem all that contrived. If the mission was designed so that every squad member had a unique purpose, I would honestly have been very disappointed. That would be pushing suspension of disbelief to its limits.

I personally don't mind the recruiting as such.  I just think it was not very well implemented for an rpg. (excuse me, "rpg/shooter hybrid") You're recruiting people for a Suicide Mision, but you don't know what the mission will entail exactly until very late in the game. 

 Notice in movies with similar themes:  war stories, sports movies, caper films, you see the team members practicing, rehearsing, gathering intelligence and supplies they'll need.  Bonding over the mission.  None of that happens here.  We get the loyalty missions,which are strictly between the crew member and Shepard, regardless of there being a third party member.  And we get Shepard preparing for a mission he really has no idea how to prepare for (okay, upgrading the already-upgraded Normandy was a good start)  So while the game is pretty as a picture, like a picture, it lacks depth.

And yes, what I suggested was an extreme form, or maybe "X-treme form".  And not feasible.  Like I said, it was a Rule of Cool.  method.  If the Suicide run was so cinematic and gave every single squad member an opportunity to shine, it would likely have quelled a lot of grumbling.  yes it;s unbelievable, but it would be so in a way that you know you're not supposed to take it seriously.  As it is right now, you are supposed to take it seriously, but I simply can't. Thus, option 1 would have been the more realistic approach.  And yeah, I think it would have patched up some of the problems I had with the game.  Not all, by any means.  But I'd be less inclined to think the writers went golfing and let the interns take over for the day

[tvih]

iakus wrote...
 Notice in movies with similar themes:  war stories, sports movies, caper films, you see the team members practicing, rehearsing, gathering intelligence and supplies they'll need.  Bonding over the mission.  None of that happens here.  We get the loyalty missions,which are strictly between the crew member and Shepard, regardless of there being a third party member.

For my part I'll admit that having more interaction between the team members would've been nice. As it is, it's mostly a line or two of random dialogue here or there (like Garrus asking Tali if she remembers/misses their elevator talks... heh). Bonding or even conflicts between members (like the Jack/Miranda thing I've heard about, or of course the Tali/Legion incident) would add some more spice to the mix for sure.

[Nerevar-as]

tvih wrote...

iakus wrote...
 Notice in movies with similar themes:  war stories, sports movies, caper films, you see the team members practicing, rehearsing, gathering intelligence and supplies they'll need.  Bonding over the mission.  None of that happens here.  We get the loyalty missions,which are strictly between the crew member and Shepard, regardless of there being a third party member.

For my part I'll admit that having more interaction between the team members would've been nice. As it is, it's mostly a line or two of random dialogue here or there (like Garrus asking Tali if she remembers/misses their elevator talks... heh). Bonding or even conflicts between members (like the Jack/Miranda thing I've heard about, or of course the Tali/Legion incident) would add some more spice to the mix for sure.

THIS.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

One thing the game lacks(I think) is the opportunity for Shepard and TIM to really lock horns.  There's plenty of chances to say "Yessir!  RIght away!" or "Cerberus isn't as bad as all that"   But precious few moments to show real animosity for a terrorist organization Shep has no choice but to work with. No  "We're allies for now.  But you won't always be the lesser evil"  There need to be points where Sep can rail at TIM over playing fast and loose wit people's lives (besides Shepard's own) and TIM needs chancs to mock SHep's squeamishness to do what's necessary.

I can understand wanting the opportunity to oppose Illusive Man (or at least make your disdain clear), but I just don't think it works within the context of what Illusive Man asks you to do. If you notice, he never orders Shepard to do anything controversial until the Collector Base. You're never forced to watch as he performs spectacular acts of destruction. Which if you were, I don't think a dialogue option would suffice; as a paragon I would personally be wondering why I did not have the option to ditch this psycho if it reached that point. Illusive Man knows this is an alliance of necessity, he's not looking to rock the boat before he has to.  

Pre-Horizon, TiM has told Shepard nothing of worth.  Shepard found Veetor with the Collector recordings, not TIM.  And even then it was a fluke. TIM cured Shep of his deadness, after that he really didn't seem to provide all that much. (again, pre-Horizon)

Illusive Man promised to do everything he could to track the Collectors while Shepard formed a team. This is more than you would get from the Council. It's true that he did not have much to contribute immediately after Freedom's Progress. However, he still remains the only one who believes you and is willing to help. Betryaying him for the Alliance/Council is useless if they have no information to contribute on the Collectors.

I personally don't mind the recruiting as such.  I just think it was not very well implemented for an rpg. (excuse me, "rpg/shooter hybrid") You're recruiting people for a Suicide Mision, but you don't know what the mission will entail exactly until very late in the game. 

 Notice in movies with similar themes:  war stories, sports movies, caper films, you see the team members practicing, rehearsing, gathering intelligence and supplies they'll need.  Bonding over the mission.  None of that happens here.  We get the loyalty missions,which are strictly between the crew member and Shepard, regardless of there being a third party member.  And we get Shepard preparing for a mission he really has no idea how to prepare for (okay, upgrading the already-upgraded Normandy was a good start)  So while the game is pretty as a picture, like a picture, it lacks depth.

I agree that recruitment was a lame cop-out so Bioware would avoid providing a detailed overall plot. That said, I didn't find the premise illogical. Any military team would ultimately break down into combat, biotic, and tech specialists. If I were venturing into the unknown, I would personally want all my bases covered (ignoring the lack of a demo expert - _ -). Having re-read the dossiers, they all seem to have a set purpose in mind even if they did not have an opportunity to fill a niche. I personally would not fancy entering the Omega IV relay with just Miranda and Jacob at my side, regardless of what I may or may not find.  

[Christmas Ape]

[quote]iakus wrote...
Actually what I expected were more quests for yo to demonstrate jsut how far Shepard is wiling to go to protect teh human race.  More dilemmas like what to do about Veetor.  maybe something ike "Shepard, the Aliance is snping around one of our bases.  Theit interference could jepordize the mission.  Deal with it.  What to do?  Kill teh Aliance overt operatives?  Sabotage their equipment?  Or maybe sabotage but leave tem some clues to find later?[/quote]I can certainly see your argument, I'll admit that. Something more than Overlord, the lost operative, or the recruitment conversations with your old teammate would have been nice, sure, but would run the risk of further diluting the Collector-centered plot which is already, I will admit, light on the ground in terms of gameplay hours.
It's also some of the problem with Hackett in ME1; it's a good thing Fifth Fleet has the first human Spectre on speed dial, because the Alliance appears to have no other teams in the field. Cerberus has people who tackle these sorts of issues; those who picked up Kahoku, for instance. tIM doesn't want Shepard overly distracted.
To a third point, tIM is firmly aware that he and a Shepard played to Paragon are on opposite sides of the coin, and that Shepard has a nasty way of accomplishing the impossible when tested; why give her a grudge to settle? While I do accept and even largely agree with the idea that some direct attention to the issue would have been desirable, even if it's just tIM giving you that quiet smirk and "It's handled, Shepard. Focus on the mission", I get the story reasons as to why he keeps anything like that from you in the same way your whole Cerberus crew seems pretty okay with almost a dozen aliens on board.
[quote]"Ah, yes, 'Reapers'= bad continuity[/quote]Politicians already in office declining to rock the boat is never going to be bad continuity to me, particularly given the triune premise that
- Shepard is presently employed by a banned terrorist group
- The Council is not unfamiliar with galactic threats and the idiocy of sapients in large groups
- The only time they openly acknowledge the existence of Reapers is on the vacant Presidium, face to face, and only to Shepard, Anderson, and Udina. They may simply consider the Council's acknowledgement of the Reaper threat to be top secret information and they won't risk a comm leak.
[quote]"Hey, Anderson, we go back a ways, think I can trade in all this Cerberus tech for a new ship and crew? You thought I actually worked for Cerberus? Haha good one. Watch the AI. She's shackled, but probably not too happy. By the way, how's Kaiden/Ashley doing? Been a while and I want to catch up?"
Note: pre-Horizon, My paragon Shep would have done this in a heartbeat. With maybe the only change being giving the crew an opportunity to join me or be put ashore on Omega.[/quote]After the trial Anderson can't shield you from, the one that may eventually clear you of charges of working for a banned terrorist organization despite your lack of evidence? Quite possibly. Enjoy hunting geth again, assuming of course that tIM doesn't simply kill you, recapture you, or advise the sleeper agent(s?) on board to drug the crap out of Shepard and bring her back. Evidently Agent Lawson was right, prep the surgery bay. They're certainly not going to give you a ship and a dozen of the best N7s alive to assault an impassable relay on tIM's word. Slavers and pirates, we'll get them eventually. Go patrol the Verge, Shepard, glad to have you back.
[quote]"Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Commander Shepard; you may remember me from two years ago, when I killed a couple hundred of your people with a frakking tank, so you know you don't wanna mess with me. I've come for a business proposal. I have a wealthy benefactor here who's undertaking a rather risky venture. Something's been attacking the human colonies in the Terminus Systems. We want to hire you folks to provide us with intel on the movements of any Collector vessels you may find, and perhaps protection for the colonies themselves. Professor Solus here has been working on a way to neutralize their more effective attacks. My friend TIM here will pick up the tab for you and as an added bonus we'll throw in some Collector tech, as I'm sure with a bunch of big bad mercenaries like you, there'll be plenty of Collector guns to go around.[/quote]Considering how light on the ground cash is for Shepard in ME2, I sincerely doubt tIM is going to add "private army" to her tab - colonial protection would start to make the budget for the SR-2 look like a tip jar.
Passing off disappearances as slavers and pirates is one thing, but do you see the Alliance turning a blind eye to mercenary armies landing at their colonies to "protect" them on Cerberus orders - particularly given the odds are the slavers and pirates they blame already belong to these groups, and even if not are working for the other group they think might be stealing their people?
And this has a much greater chance of alerting the Collectors to your presence and interest than it does alerting you to theirs. They've been popping into the Terminus Systems and hijacking colonies for as long as two years, and nobody has any evidence of it until Shepard lucks into a quarian they didn't want. Space is ridiculously huge and hard to find a single, mobile thing that doesn't want to be found in. Unless the Collectors dock for supplies () one only sees them going in and out of the relay, or through a fire control console.
[quote]"Captain Kirahe? Comander Separd, from Virmire? How've I been? Dead. How about you? Uh huh. Uh huh. Look I'm afraid I'm in a bit of a time crunch here. I've got a really dangerous mission coming up and I was wondering if you could pull some strings and get me some intel on the down-low. The Salarians have been a space-faring race way longer than humans, and I was wondering if you could get me any info you have on the Collectors. Oh, and I was wondering if you could recommend any former STG types that might be willing to do a very dangerous mission on the cheap. You know, idealists who want to save the galaxy. Literally. And Mordin says "Hi"
Granted Mr "Hold the Line" may not have suvived everyones Me 1 playthroughs.[/quote]Well, there's the fact he can be dead, as you say. He's also evidently more a team leader than an operations director, and probably can't actually put a team together for you. Particularly not a team whose options are "survive the suicide mission, be tried and executed for providing aid to Cerberus".
I take the implication from the amount of data tIM's looking over any time you see him to suggest that they have access to any and all logged Collector data of any value. They know the name and whereabouts of a krogan scientist believed to have recent contact with them. Cerberus intelligence-gathering services are operating at full capacity for Lazarus Cell's mission, and only those things deemed most relevant by analysts and an old hand at military intelligence get through to the team leader. He's saved you the fetch-quest grunt work, by my interpretation, like if you had another team you could send to Noveria (which doesn't need a Prothean-treated brain) while you hit Feros.
[quote]"Hey Aria, since I've done you a couple of favors, I was wondering if you could help me out. You have your ear to the ground. Got any recommendations on really good mercs who'd be willing to take orders from me? Oh and could you have someone keep an eye on that big red relay in the system here, and let me know if any ships enter or leave it? I'd count it as a personal favor."[/quote]a) "No." seems as plausible as anything here. I didn't get "super-interested in being Shepard's buddy" from Aria.
Nobody better than Zaeed, anyway. You and Archangel already shot all the runners-up.
c) So you know when the Collector ship exits the Omega-4 relay and jumps to FTL. Great. That information tells you the Collectors aren't beyond the relay; that's it. It would be a reason to keep the ship at combat stations, but hardly any sort of workable lead.
[quote]"Liara, you've done a lot to help me. I was wondering if I could ask you one more favor. TIM gave me this list of people I should recruit for my mission. I wonder if you could look it over and let me know if there's anything he "forgot" to mention about them. And if you can recommend any other mercenaries of their caliber, that would be an extra bonus."[/quote]This is either a stunning endorsement of her memory or a hope of waiting around on Illium for a few weeks for her to get back to you with "A couple of them have children". If she's just offering more bodies to carry guns, you have information about a few already. How many colonists get abducted while you convince an old friend to put her work on hold and find you people you like better?
[quote]This doesn't include the various bargaining chips Shepard could use to convince the Alliance/Citadel to help:
Access to Cerberus records[/quote]Assuming they don't have them already....*cough disavowedblackopsgroup cough*
[quote]Schematics of the new Normandy[/quote]It's a big frigate. The Alliance already has stealth systems, they built a sister ship to the SR-1. The upgrades might be relevant information, but other than that, "they built her to the specs of the old Normandy". So, you know...do that again, but bigger, with a ~300 million credit drive core. Then there can be crew quarters and washrooms on board!
[quote]Data on the Lazarus Project.  Even if he can't get at the direct records (or if Miranda won't let him), I'm sure he could get Chakwas to do some medical scans and draw some blood, etc for Citadel medics to look at.  Even incomplete data on teh "Cure for Death" must be worth something.  All for the low low price of some covert support and information[/quote]Assuming it's not just meticulous cellular reconstruction and some implants to keep it all running smoothly. It's quite possible this is technology that exists, but is ordinarily prohibitively expensive. We're kept in the dark about just how impressive it is, given that politicians back on Earth evidently cheat death from time to time.
[quote]iakus wrote...[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bruise their ass when they jump.
[/quote]I have no clue what this means.[/quote]Just that "if" is "if". When discussing the relative merits of a peanut butter cookie recipe, "if only it had chocolate chips" isn't really relevant. Yes, these things would be nice, but they're not present; let's look at what is. I'm not going to deny some potential was wasted, but I still think what we got was damn fine.
[quote]The last of the dossiers go out after Horizon, the first time you ever lay eyes on them (you can't trigger teh Colector ship mission until you've got eight squadmates).  At this point, you still don't know what they are capable of, how many there are, even if they have more than one ship.
Believe me, if we learned more about the Collector origin point much sooner in the game, it would have made these recruitment missions a lot easier to understand.
"They seem to be counting on the enviroment to screeen out ships. There is little in the way of space defenses.  Just the one base, it seems.  Not a whole planet.  That's a good sign.  I wonder what's in this big open area in the middle?"[/quote]Hmm, yeah? Alright, guess that'll teach me not to replay it every couple of months if I'm going to be talking about it. Alright, we got lucky on that one.
[quote]Stupid too, to keep the commander of this mission, Who happens to be an N7 Special Forces trained marine, who has captained his own ship, was the first human Spectre, and oh, yeah killed a Reaper in the dark about the operation. No chance he'd have any thoughts or insights into who to select for a mission, what kind of people might work well together or not, what specialists they may be lacking.  Details which may get everyone killed, plus humanity and the galaxy as a whole. Nope.[/quote]To be fair, Shepard saved galactic civilization with two Alliance Marines, a teenage quarian, an old krogan bounty hunter, an archaelogist, and an ex-C-Sec investigator. Your team the first time was random and you did the impossible. Sue the Man for having faith in you.
[quote]I'll admit that current technology keeps games like ME 1 from being played out in real-time (that would truly be an awesome experience to dwarf even Alpha Protocol's decision-shaping features) As it is, the situation in ME 1 are kind of a modular experience. You go there, here's the setup, now play. ME 2's suicide mission you are (theoretically) supposed to be planning and preparing for it for the entirety of the game. Yet somehow, it's already planned out for you. All you have to do is connect the dots.[/quote]I...really don't see the distinction between the two. Go here, follow the chain of events, go to the next one. There were just more side tracks in the first game.
Shepard's not the only one planning for the suicide mission, which is good, because you've been dead for two years and might be a little out of touch.
Beyond the fact that certain portions of the game must be planned in advance so they can be programmed, I don't see the mission as that foolproof for Shepard. You can lose best friends, the whole team, your own life. Judging the story by the fact it must make concessions as a video game is rough at best. Stopping Saren is planned out from the moment you hit the ground at Ilos.
[quote]The way I see it, the game should have gone about the Suicide Mission in one of two ways:
1) TIM and Shepard get a hold of at least a little information on the Collector Base at the beginning. Nothing detailed, but enough to justify the choices TIM makes. OR...
2) Go "whole hog" into contrivance to make the experience so awesome the Rule of Cool overshadows everything. This is actually the route I'd prefer, but it's less feasible. basically, there would be 12 specialist challenges along the Suicide Mission, one specifically designed for each squad mate (with appropriate duplication of abilities available, no need to turn one mistake into an irrecoverable death spiral)
For example. Grunt is a krogan, renowned for close-quarters combat. There should be a point in the mission where such a specialist is needed "Boy good thing we let Grunt out of the tank, huh?"[/quote]Arguments and suggestions I certainly accept, with the caveat that there is I feel a plausible limit to the intel you should be able to gather about the base beforehand. They've been a complete mystery for centuries, but as soon as we have their mailing address we can figure everything out?
[quote]And that description seriously overplays the role the Collectors play in this game, as well as the missing colonies , the interest in Shepard (which no one but Harbringer seems to comment on)[/quote]Well, it describes the role of the Collectors and the missing colonies - occasional pro-active antagonist and inciting incident, respectively. That they don't get a lot of screen time doesn't change their presence as elements.
As to Harbinger's interest, the other Collectors aren't sapient, and both Shepard and tIM seem to accept the "You did kill one" rationale for the resurrection; it seems fair to assume that if it's worth the kind of attention it gets you from Cerberus, it would equally get the attention of the Reapers.
[quote]Indeed, we have to accept it.  It's preposterous, but the only explanation that fits.[/quote]Preposterous? He modified a thousand year old genetic virus during a covert operation. He designed an airborne cure to a Collector plague with the resources of a free clinic. He sleeps 1/4 the time humans do, is a genius among a species that puts humanity's intelligence to shame on average, and spends all his time in the lab working.
And to compare, Shepard and crew killed a million+ year old machine god on the cusp of triumph with a combination of small arms, emotional appeals, and a frigate. Now who's preposterous?
[quote]What info does Shepard funnel to Cerberus?  He just goes and shoots stuff and sets off traps so TIM can have a good laugh.[/quote]Everything you learn about the Collectors. Everything else you learn of any value regarding the Shadow Broker, Ilium, Tuchankan politics; Shepard can go where no other Cerberus operative can, get answers no-one else can get. Hell, you even locate the Migrant Fleet for them.
[quote]Image?  Most of the galaxy thinks you're dead.  Most of those who know otherwise see your rep as tarnished more than Cerberus' name being improved.[/quote]And they take the information you're alive pretty well, though they're either concerned you're employed by Cerberus or are like Wrex and just don't care. But besides the general "credit to the uniform" Shepard always manages to be, you do prove to the Alliance that it's not Cerberus abducting colonies. That's a big PR coup.
[quote]I can't think of any missions where you actually betray the Alliance or former squaddies (except for being dead for two years) Agreeing to help Cerberus is certainly seen as Not A Good Thing.  But's it's more guilt by association.[/quote]Actively? No. tIM's smarter than that. But is being wrongly(?) perceived as a traitor any better than actually betraying them? You're judged without bloodying your hands even once. To me, that's far more intriguing; you're an angel flying the flag of devils, and nothing you've done wipes away that stain. When they turn their backs on you, are you Good enough to not turn your back in reply?
[quote]The most morally questionable deed Shep seems to have to countenence is actually agreeing to work alongside Cerberus.[/quote]Worst thing you're forced to do, yes. You can also turn over a source of highly advanced technology to a proscribed terrorist group, reject your previous love interest for their attitude to your being dead and working with the only other people who believe in the threat, kill your way through anyone that looks like they might be an obstacle...basically continue to define your Shepard as you see fit under a new set of circumstances - working with the villain against the monster.
[quote]How is that "dark and gritty"?[/quote]Context and nuance.
[quote]See above on why that's a really stupid system to use.[/quote]You say stupid device, I say reinforcing the sense of isolation from what you were in the first game. Different receptions, but the same device.
[quote]And which really smacks of plot rails.[/quote]Quick, which major decision points in the ME1 plot could the player actually affect with a bearing on the outcome of the game?
What in provides urgency in fiction can feel like railroading when you're playing through it in pursuit of big choices. But as a wise man once told me, "No-one really minds being on the rails if the view from the carriage is nice and the destination is Awesometown". And that's a subjective response no-one can make for you. You didn't like the ride? Sorry it's not your thing, but tastes differ.
[quote]Shepard only avoided a gunfight because Tali was there. The only quarian he's ever met,coincidentally[/quote]And she's going to be there every time, because that's how her part of the story goes. She's in charge of the task group trying to recover Veetor. Veetor went to Freedom's Progress. That it was lucky isn't in question, coincidence drives the genre. Shepard's still the only one that could have made it work.
[quote]As to the second, my point is that Jacob or Miranda could probably have done most everything else needed in this game. Maybe with a higher body count, but yeah,[/quote]This presumes everyone would respond identically to either of them as they would to Shepard; essentially, that everyone in both games who describes her as "a natural leader" is just blowing smoke up her ass. And I genuinely doubt either of the biotics or the technical specialists would have signed on with them for their own reasons; Jack's and Tali's being obvious, while Samara allows Shepard's reputation to smooth over the rough patch that is Cerberus and Legion isn't that interested in Miranda. Attrition starts right away and things just get worse.
[quote]TIM and his six billion credit investment really made Shep "The Chosen One". ME 1 was much more "right place at the right time"[/quote]"...and happened to survive a Prothean beacon, mind intact, and is thus receptive to collecting visions to find what Saren already knows how to find". It's just another Chosen One; Shepard is The Marine Who Lived. Until the Collectors put that to the lie, and Enter, Stage Left: Cerberus.
They're probably about even as devices go, just that the beacon feels like fate and Lazarus feels like human agency. Matter of preference.
[quote]Still don't know what frogs have to do with anything.  Wandering the ship is a bit much. But even having them chat while on a mission, while wandering around Illium or Omega.  The one scene in the Citadel between Garrus and Tali is often cited as being a wonderful surprise.  Pity it's also unique.[/quote]Seven. Hundred. Lines, and that's just for idle chatter and not much of it. If you usually take out the same two squadmates, as most players do, you'll hear about 12 of them. That's a lot of "lost" material to include for the purposes of capturing the "multiple RPG playthrough" demographic.
And wandering the ship was relevant when this was about scenes in the mess hall, now we're back to "all RPG squads must live up to DA's banter". They're testing the feature out and it's being well-received. Expect to see more.
[quote]I can also seeh im having something to say about a parent out to kill her child.  I can also see Samara having something to say about a father trying to save his son from a life of crime and violence.[/quote]Feasible. 10 of 11 playthroughs, and in the content-cutting world that's 10 of 11 games sold, won't see it though.
[quote]Okay, flip them.  Jacob at Miranda's loyalty mission.  All I've seen from that one is Jack giving a quip which, while I shared her sentiments, really had nothing to do with the plot.[/quote]No, it was pure characterization admittedly. I can't really comment on this one because, as primarily a FemShep player (you didn't guess from my pronoun use? ) I just don't talk to Jacob. No idea what makes him tick, except apparently warship armor.
[quote]Is that a train I hear?[/quote]Right on time. All aboard for Collector Base, with stops at Ilium, Tuchanka, and parts unknown. Just like every other RPG, lots of scenic routes to the same destination.
Samara as characterized has the options of binding herself to Shepard's decisions to help stop the Collectors, or depopulating your lower decks and possibly forcing you to put her down. That you recruit dangerous self-starters is a risk the game chooses to mitigate.
[quote]No, but her people created the geth, and lost their homeworld and all thier colonies in a vicious, bloody war.  You have to wonder:  would a quarian sympathize more with the salarians, who performed a terrible act to correct a mistake before it engulfed the galaxy in war.  Or do they identify with the krogan, who have lost their civilization, are threatened with extinction, and are now seen largely as galactic pariahs?[/quote]Based on her conversations with Wrex in 1? Closer to the krogan, but mostly they don't think or talk about it. They have their own problems.
[quote]So the codex can be voiced but squadmates must stand mute?[/quote]...apparently? That's a question for the dev team, besides the "everybody has the codex but squad makeup is far more variable" excuse. I'm not saying it's a fantastic use of resources, just that full inter-squad chatter would be a monumental undertaking. Maybe they made the squad too big this time, to their detriment. I found them fairly well-realized beings without everybody having random, idle conversations during a mission with people they might have met for the first time in the shuttle, but others differ.
[quote]Udina was outraged that the Council was refusing to do anything about Eden Prime, and the claim that humans weren't ready for the Spectres.  He never actually backed Shep specifically.  I'd think Udina would push for the Reapers simply because Citadel on war footing strengthens humanity's position.[/quote]As does going along with the Council position on the issue. As I say, that contemptible little weasel is, to my eyes, only trustworthy so long as you both want exactly the same thing. And once the first game is over, what he wants is to position humanity as a decision-making body. If that means closing ranks with the Council over backing a lone war hero who shows up after a two year disappearance in a terrorist vessel and thus might have faked her own death, he will.
[quote]Three aliens who, in the end, believed you and were humbled.  Or died and were replaced.[/quote]I'm not saying your relationship didn't evolve, just that it was completely one-sided the first time so why expect more now?
[quote]There's the Hero's Journey.  Then there's the Hamfisted Plot-Device.  DOing this in teh beginning of a game, even a sequel, falls into the latter, I believe.[/quote]I'm ultimately not that interested in the position of those bits on a given disc of plastic so much as I am the device's position in the story, which I'm quite happy with. Your mileage, based on different criteria, may vary.
[quote]"Apparantly less than people wanted" is putting it mildly.  I actually wonder if some were stuck in there specifically to remind people that, yes, this is set in the Mass Efect universe[/quote][...which one of these smileys is a shrug?]
[quote]That may have been the intention, but the reesults felt more like "the transition is, we have a new game, so we have to reset you" and the explanation being "We want to experiment with the story in the middle of the trilogy"[/quote]I suppose we're just assessing the story on different grounds. I'm looking at it without taking the video game parts into account, just the narrative flow, the whole picture from a step back. That they might have had gameplay-centric motives for it simply doesn't matter to me. Taking what we're given as the sequence of in-universe events, does it feel 'authentic' enough to me? And yes, it does.
[quote]My first choice of terms was going to be "comic book" but decided that would be misinterpreted as being insulting. Stories only connect to the degree the writers can be bothered to connect them.[/quote]Shepard's story contains Shepard. The story of Shepard vs. the Reapers contains both Shepard and Reapers in both acts. We're dealing with galaxy-sized matters here, the little details don't bother me so much.
[quote]"You were dead for two eyars and we had to rebuild you from the ground up" Should have anyone who's brains aren't made of cement staring at a wall and pondering deep thoughts.  "Am I still me?"  "What do I remember?"  How?" "Why?"  at the very least  "How much back pay do I have coming?"  Religious or not.  Death is a Big Deal.[/quote]Death is the cessation of autonomic function resulting in deoxygenation of the brain, cell death, and eventual decay. This was, evidently, reversed. It's impressive - damn impressive - but it's not supernatural. Perhaps Shepard's just geniunely rational as opposed to the lingering superstition that plagues western culture. Memories are just chemical tags, after all.
To Shepard, there's no gap. There's blacking out in high orbit over Alchera, a hazy scene in a med bay, and waking up during an assault. She could, as easily, simply not believe them. Would you put it past Cerberus to hastily recover Shepard, keep her on ice for two years, and fake some logs on conveniently unlocked terminals during a likely staged attack on the space station?
[quote]I'd be curious to find out if this is so.  If it is, I still think they'd have been better of scrapping the idea.[/quote]Well, my friend, frogs either way I fear. The second act begins with Shepard's death and reconstruction. That either works for you or it doesn't.

Edit for formatting debacle.

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 17 juillet 2010 - 09:38 .

[smudboy]

[quote]theelementslayer wrote...

And thats your problem right there. It is not about the collectors, thats not the plot. The plot is about the problem of gaining the trust of 12 crewmembers. Getting them ready for death, taking care of their last business-the loyalty quests- This is Shepards story, Shepards trilogy, and I feel that gaining the trust of a crew helps very much in defining the character, as well as connecting to the story of Shepard.
[/quote]
No, that's the theme.  That's not the plot.

A theme is what a story is about.  A plot is what happens in a story, with a reason, premise and interesting conflict.

How the hell does "gaining the trust of a crew" define Shepard's character?

Look at how Shepard actually recruits and "loyalizes" these people.  The actions itself is very base, and has no real character about it.  Unless you want to start describing the "brickiness" of Shepard.


[quote]
Yes Shepard was passive-reacting in the beginning-but the second game is a much more active game then the first. She is reubilding even after the collectors took everything from her. She recruits a team to fight them, TIM helps her figure out problems. Just because she has to rely on someone else doesnt mean she is passive
[/quote]
You are completely wrong.

Do you even know what you're saying?

Go research what it means to be an active protagonist, then look at ME1.  Here let me help you.

"An active protaganist differs from a passive protaganist in that the story happens as a result of their properly motivated choices instead of them just sort of existing in the world of the story but having no control over their own actions or anything else that is happening, and ultimately having no personal goal in the story."

Here's a basic narrative for you:
"1. The Setup: We are introduced to the setting and the characters, the situation the protaganist finds their self in and his or her ultimate goal. At some point toward the end of this part of the narrative there is an inciting incident the moment where the character is thrown into conflict and has to make a choice to overcome his or her problem(s). Once this choice has been made the story moves right in to dealing with how the protaganist will overcome his or her problem(s) and ultimately obtain their goal. Sometimes there is an artifact or "McGuffin" introduced here, something of ultimate power or knowledge which glues the story together.

2. The Confrontation: During this part the story developes through a series of complications and obstacles. Without this conflict the story cannot move forward. Although small crisis during this period might have temporary resolution each of these conflicts leads to an even greater conflict than what came before. So we have some rising and falling tension, but overall tension is built leading us into the ultimate conflict.Well constructed stories will have something at the end of this section called the unexpected turn where the antagonist's plans are revealed and the protaganist understands what he or she has to go to overcome and ultimately win. The end of this section is called the point of no return.

3. The Resolution: All plot threads are tied together and we see the outcome of the protaganist's decision at the climax. The
protaganists goal is obtained and conflict is settled. In a good story at the end of this conflict we see evidence of positive change in the protaganist ending his or her character arc."

Now not every story has to follow that exactly, nor should it be just as simple, but it makes things clear, especially in a multiple alien, space-opera settings with dozens of characters.

-We are introduced to Commander Shepard, an alliance marine who is a candidate for the Spectres. An intergalactic government sanctioned group of assorted badasses who work outside the law to maintain the balance of peace. It is hoped that Commander Shepard will be the first human to become a Spectre.
-As a test of Commander Shepard's abilities Nihilus, a Turian Spectre is on board to oversee a mission to Eden Prime. An Ancient Prothean Beacon has been found and Commander Shepard must recover it.
-After landing on the planet we are attacked by synthetics, namely the Geth and human beings that have been converted into mindless Husks. After defeating some of these enemies we are introduced to the main antagonist of the story, Saren. Nihilus encounters Saren and is surprised to see the fellow spectre. Saren kills Nihilus and we learn that he is leading synthetics and is also trying to obtain the Prothean Beacon.
-Commander Shepard discovers Nihilus' body and learns that he has been murdered by this Turian named Saren. He and his team move along defeat the remaining Geth and find the Prothean Beacon. Encountering the beacon, one of Shepard's squad mates is lured in somehow by it's power, Shepard moves to save his comrade and is pulled in by the Beacon. He experiences a vision of synthetics wiping out the Protheans and passes out.

It's pretty easy to go through ME1 and see how the basic rules of narrative structure and character development apply to it and also understand how these basic things are totally overlooked in favor of creating something more flashy and "badass" out of ME2.  It's all style and no substance.

[quote]
Now let me tear apart the rest of it

Shepard has no character development? The whole story is about Sheps character development. You are Shepard, this development depends on how you play the game, how does that make it a flat character. It is the main character in which you can shape in so many different ways that its crazy.
[/quote]
Shepard barely had any character developing in the first story.  They have 0 in this one.

[quote]
Shepard was integral in the battle of the citidel? Yes and no. Yes she was needed to kill saren, no she really didnt kill the reapear, Joker did that. Overall she was needed but thats what it should be, because its her story.
[/quote]
Shepard was integral to the plot of ME1.  Without Shepard (and various other things), the story couldn't even have progressed past that point.

[quote]
Shepard wasnt needed for the second game? Really think that. She was an icon, people would follow her becasue of what she stands for. Not everyone can gather a team and gain their trust. If a ERT guy asks me for help on a mission and a random guy asks for my help Im going to go witht the ERT guy becasue he has some credentials, some reason for loyalty. Now he might completely play me but that doesnt change the fact I would trust him first. Shepard is gathering THE BEST the galaxy has to offer. Has to be a pretty important person to be able to persuade these people to go off course. No shepard was needed because she was iconic.
[/quote]
Icon = meaningless
People would follow her = meaningless
Not everyone can gather a team and gain their trust = yes they can
Barely anyone knew Shepard or went "OMG you're the Hero of the Citadel."

What you're saying exists completely in your imagination.

[quote]
No relationship with the crew? Loyalty quests, helping the people on a very personal matter. Thats a relationship. Much more of a relationship then ME1. Bar maybe Liara it was the enemy of my enemy is my friend rule.
[/quote]
Doing fetch quests makes you a courier, not a relationship.  That the narrative imposes that is false.  A relationship is more than just "Hey Shepard I need X."  That is not to say I don't believe the characters felt and thought what Shepard did wasn't of value to them, and in some cases I can see a direct connection (i.e. Tali, because by Quarian culture, there is already an implied relationship.)  But Shepard is a brick.  A relationship is a two way street.  God forbid the kid who gets picked on in school who does tasks for his bullies develops a "relationship" with them out of fear.  Shepard just does quests because.  No personal stake, no motivation, no relationship.

[quote]
It is connected to the story, of raising a team and getting them together. You might not like the story that is personal opinion but it does very well to connect to the story.
[/quote]
No it does not.  You cannot prove it, because it doesn't exist, and you are officially talking out of your ass.

There is no "very well to connect to the story."  The best you get is about Mordin, and TIM saying "You'll get who you need."  That's it. 

[quote]
There is no rising action bar the Suicide mission? Thats the CLIMAX. The rising action hm maybe I dont know. Horizon, Freedoms progress, the Dericlit reaper perhaps, or maybe the collector vessel? The recruitment as you steadily got closer to your goal? Or when jacob says "So we are really going to do it, I have to take care of some unfinished business, guess everyone else is too" Thats the jump into loyalty missions where the people finish up their last bits before they have to throw themselves into a unknown mission. The whole game is rising action.
[/quote]
Then you do not understand narrative structure, or don't have analytical skills.

Hell by that definition getting, EDI telling everyone on the shuttle for a pizza party is a rising action.

[quote]
You should go into politics and do what Joe Wilson did. "YOU LIE"

Great argument buddy, want to back it up?
[/quote]
Most of what you write is crap.  I have to delete most of it before I spend an entire error telling you how wrong you are, but you won't (or can't) listen, so I don't see the point.

That, and you start making crap up that isn't in the narrative.  It's like arguing to a person who's inventing a story in their heads.
[quote]
Humans are an intresting creation, as are many lifeforms. Have you ever stepped on an ant, and not killed it, just maimed it? It keeps moving towards the objective, as long as they are alive it doesnt give up hope. If you put your foot closer to it it moves quicker because it doesnt want to die. It works with everything. Deer, humans, any life form.
[/quote]
You are so creeping me out.

[quote]
Its the same thing here and there are two things going on. The galaxy is under attack, shepard is not broken, the races have united to some degree in this small coalition of people. They know the collectors arent the real threat. They aren't stupid and think oh ya we killed the collectors we are done now. You really think they are that dumb. Shepard spent the last game convincing the council of the reapers, and most of the people in ME2 know of Shepard, therfore should know what she spent a month doing before the citidel collapsed and was under attack. They know the have a chance they arent going to roll over and die.
[/quote]
You are referencing nothing.  You just made this sh*t up.

[quote]
Alright, hmm casey said you cant import with a shepard death, you can only not recruit 2 people and give them to Cerberus, but that might have reaching implications in the 3rd game. Lack of plot integrity. Um in ME2 they are the plot so how are the plot irrelavent.
[/quote]
No they are not the main plot.  We're f*cking done here.

[quote]
She also said another time when shepard almost kissed her. She also told shepard If you need me, come find me and Ill help.
[/quote]
IF you try to romance her as a Paragon.
IF you have a Paragon path.

More optional conditions on one character, aside from the stuff I already listed.

[quote]
No I know what he said. Does it mean anything, no we dont know the plot of ME3, hence, speculation
[/quote]
When Casey writes something, yes, it damn well better mean something, or he's lying.  Good god.  We are so done.

And I just got tired of reading your crap, so I'm not gonna bother anymore with you.

[DurkBakala]

Basically, get over it Smuddy!

[smudboy]

DurkBakala wrote...

Basically, get over it Smuddy!

Basically, get over what?

[glacier1701]

Smud,

Glad you replied to that Element post. When I read it I think my jaw dropped to the floor in amazed disbelief. It sounded as if a whole different game was being played from the one I had been playing.



Elementslayer,

I am adding a few points here that you might also consider. In ME2 you ONLY need to talk to the squadmembers under 4 conditions:

 (1) To get upgrades
 (2) To get their loyalty quest
 (3) To romance them (if you choose to do so)
 (4) To get extra paragon/renegade points (Kelly, Chakwas, Ken and Gabby etc)

 Nothing in the above list adds anything to your knowledge about the Collectors/Reapers, gives you a weapon to combat the Reapers or changes the way the squadmember faces the remainder of mission. In ME1 talking to the squadmembers COULD change their outlook and in one case the outcome of an encounter. Not ONCE in ME2 can you persuade Miranda (for example) that Cerberus is wrong. She will always remain a cheerleader for Cerberus throughout the game. The same applies to everyone else. They have a fixed point of view which does not change even if you are romancing them.

 This is not character development because the characters do not develop. Talking to them or not talking to them does NOT change anything UNLESS you decide NOT to run their loyalty mission or get their upgrades (and even then you only need 3 specific upgrades to avoid deaths). Even when you have run their loyalty mission the only change is an additional unlocked power and a change of clothes. Yet because of the way the combat SCALES to the combat abilities present having or not having that power is meaningless. I have done playthroughs where I have had squadmembers with 10 or 20 points still to allocate to powers and have not done so. It did NOT make the ending any harder to get through. I might say that in some cases it did seem a bit easier but that might be more due to familiarity with the end mission and not necessarily due to lack of full powers. Anyways the point is ME1 allowed the squadmembers to change over the course of the game. ME2 DOES NOT. That makes the ME2 squad less than it was in ME1.

[Il Divo]

glacier1701 wrote...

Nothing in the above list adds anything to your knowledge about the Collectors/Reapers, gives you a weapon to combat the Reapers or changes the way the squadmember faces the remainder of mission. In ME1 talking to the squadmembers COULD change their outlook and in one case the outcome of an encounter. Not ONCE in ME2 can you persuade Miranda (for example) that Cerberus is wrong. She will always remain a cheerleader for Cerberus throughout the game. The same applies to everyone else. They have a fixed point of view which does not change even if you are romancing them.

I found this surprising because this was exactly how I felt about the Mass Effect 1 party. Garrus aside, the Mass Effect 1 party never undergoes any deep character development. Liara confronting her mother had great potential, but ultimately felt meaningless. Between Wrex, Kaidan, Liara, and Tali (especially) I felt the they were all relatively static characters who never underwent any changes.

I'd also like to point out that changing a squad member's perspective in Mass Effect 1 also does not add anything to your knowledge of Saren or the Geth.  

 This is not character development because the characters do not develop. Talking to them or not talking to them does NOT change anything UNLESS you decide NOT to run their loyalty mission or get their upgrades (and even then you only need 3 specific upgrades to avoid deaths). Even when you have run their loyalty mission the only change is an additional unlocked power and a change of clothes. Yet because of the way the combat SCALES to the combat abilities present having or not having that power is meaningless. I have done playthroughs where I have had squadmembers with 10 or 20 points still to allocate to powers and have not done so. It did NOT make the ending any harder to get through. I might say that in some cases it did seem a bit easier but that might be more due to familiarity with the end mission and not necessarily due to lack of full powers. Anyways the point is ME1 allowed the squadmembers to change over the course of the game. ME2 DOES NOT. That makes the ME2 squad less than it was in ME1.

Well, first arguments about gameplay in a plot/story-oriented discussion are rather meaningless. I could point out that Shepard in Mass Effect is an L3 while Kaidan is an L2, yet Kaidan's biotics are no stronger than Shepard's. We should keep this discussion strictly to plot.

But how can you say none of the characters develop? I can agree it's not as a result of the main plot, but that is hardly grounds to make your point, especially considering some of the romances. Jack and Thane are perfect examples of this. Jack has a great number of trust issues, which makes Shepard wanting to be close so foreign to her. Likewise Thane realizing that his relationship with Shepard makes him afraid to die is another great example. Miranda's/Grunt's/Tali's loyalty missions are also great examples of character development.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that upgrades to your ship are relevant to the out-come of the mission.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2010 - 04:29 .

[theelementslayer]

[quote]smudboy wrote...


No, that's the theme.  That's not the plot.

A theme is what a story is about.  A plot is what happens in a story, with a reason, premise and interesting conflict.

How the hell does "gaining the trust of a crew" define Shepard's character?

Look at how Shepard actually recruits and "loyalizes" these people.  The actions itself is very base, and has no real character about it.  Unless you want to start describing the "brickiness" of Shepard.
[/quote]

Alright since you no nothing about ploline and structure, and then try to act all perfect about it I will give you the definition of theme and plot

Theme-From dictionary.com
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/theme

a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

Plot-again dictionary.com
http://dictionary.re...com/browse/plot

Also called storyline. the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story.


The theme of the story is friendship, loyalty, not giving up, getting rid of your personal differences for the betterment of everyone else. One of the greater ones is technolgy vs. ethics. The geth mission, overlord, and the collectorbase all had the motif of tecnology vs ethics.

The plot, or storyline is the main story. Getting the team to fight the collectors.Getting the TEAM together. Yes plot and storyline mean the same thing.

Plot Theasarus Entry

How does gaining the trust of a crew show off sheps character. I dont know maybe becasue it shoes shepard is one to be looked up to. They ask her for help becasue she is the best at it.

[quote]

You are completely wrong.

Do you even know what you're saying?

Go research what it means to be an active protagonist, then look at ME1.  Here let me help you.

"An active protaganist differs from a passive protaganist in that the story happens as a result of their properly motivated choices instead of them just sort of existing in the world of the story but having no control over their own actions or anything else that is happening, and ultimately having no personal goal in the story."

Here's a basic narrative for you:
"1. The Setup: We are introduced to the setting and the characters, the situation the protaganist finds their self in and his or her ultimate goal. At some point toward the end of this part of the narrative there is an inciting incident the moment where the character is thrown into conflict and has to make a choice to overcome his or her problem(s). Once this choice has been made the story moves right in to dealing with how the protaganist will overcome his or her problem(s) and ultimately obtain their goal. Sometimes there is an artifact or "McGuffin" introduced here, something of ultimate power or knowledge which glues the story together.

2. The Confrontation: During this part the story developes through a series of complications and obstacles. Without this conflict the story cannot move forward. Although small crisis during this period might have temporary resolution each of these conflicts leads to an even greater conflict than what came before. So we have some rising and falling tension, but overall tension is built leading us into the ultimate conflict.Well constructed stories will have something at the end of this section called the unexpected turn where the antagonist's plans are revealed and the protaganist understands what he or she has to go to overcome and ultimately win. The end of this section is called the point of no return.

3. The Resolution: All plot threads are tied together and we see the outcome of the protaganist's decision at the climax. The
protaganists goal is obtained and conflict is settled. In a good story at the end of this conflict we see evidence of positive change in the protaganist ending his or her character arc."

Now not every story has to follow that exactly, nor should it be just as simple, but it makes things clear, especially in a multiple alien, space-opera settings with dozens of characters.

-We are introduced to Commander Shepard, an alliance marine who is a candidate for the Spectres. An intergalactic government sanctioned group of assorted badasses who work outside the law to maintain the balance of peace. It is hoped that Commander Shepard will be the first human to become a Spectre.
-As a test of Commander Shepard's abilities Nihilus, a Turian Spectre is on board to oversee a mission to Eden Prime. An Ancient Prothean Beacon has been found and Commander Shepard must recover it.
-After landing on the planet we are attacked by synthetics, namely the Geth and human beings that have been converted into mindless Husks. After defeating some of these enemies we are introduced to the main antagonist of the story, Saren. Nihilus encounters Saren and is surprised to see the fellow spectre. Saren kills Nihilus and we learn that he is leading synthetics and is also trying to obtain the Prothean Beacon.
-Commander Shepard discovers Nihilus' body and learns that he has been murdered by this Turian named Saren. He and his team move along defeat the remaining Geth and find the Prothean Beacon. Encountering the beacon, one of Shepard's squad mates is lured in somehow by it's power, Shepard moves to save his comrade and is pulled in by the Beacon. He experiences a vision of synthetics wiping out the Protheans and passes out.

It's pretty easy to go through ME1 and see how the basic rules of narrative structure and character development apply to it and also understand how these basic things are totally overlooked in favor of creating something more flashy and "badass" out of ME2.  It's all style and no substance.
[/quote]

Alright, lets see how ME2s follows it.

The setup-oh maybe Freedoms progress, the threat of the collectors, the opening scene. Meeting with the Illusive man to get your missions

The confrontation-The 4 confrontations with the collectors, plus trying to recruit a team

The resolution-Destroying the collector base or keeping it and living with what the Illusive Man wanted of telling him to stick it

[quote]
Shepard barely had any character developing in the first story.  They have 0 in this one.
[/quote]

Ya just stop there and dont make a fool of yourself. You are in command of her character. Whether helping people nicely or telling them to f off. Maybe helping them but with a price, maybe having extreme tactics but getting the job done. That is character development. Or putting aside their own feelings for the betterment of humanity-working for Cerberus.

[quote]
Shepard was integral to the plot of ME1.  Without Shepard (and various other things), the story couldn't even have progressed past that point.
[/quote]

I never disagreed, it is shepards trilogy so it would make sense she would be integral part of both plots


[quote]
Icon = meaningless
People would follow her = meaningless
Not everyone can gather a team and gain their trust = yes they can
Barely anyone knew Shepard or went "OMG you're the Hero of the Citadel."

What you're saying exists completely in your imagination.
[/quote]

Wow, you really dont read history do you? And for a history buff I would think you would know one of the great generals quotes.

ICON= meaningless? "A soldier with fight long and hard for a peice of coloured ribbon"-Napolean Boneparte talking about a soldier fighting for a flag, for a country. This is an ICON of the country. People are willing to die for it. No, icons are never meaningless.

People would follow her=meaningless? Again using the idea of napolean. He made a stand against the entire WORLD because people would follow him. He lost 90% of his army in Russia and then was able to get another army together and scare the world again. People need to follow shepard because she cant fight the reapers alone

Everyone can gather a team and gain their loyalty? Ask that to the many many officers who have been subjects of insobordination. Hell ask all those officers where they cant make their team follow them. No, not everyone can do it.

Bar Jack Grunt and Samara, every character had heard of Shepard.

[quote]
Doing fetch quests makes you a courier, not a relationship.  That the narrative imposes that is false.  A relationship is more than just "Hey Shepard I need X."  That is not to say I don't believe the characters felt and thought what Shepard did wasn't of value to them, and in some cases I can see a direct connection (i.e. Tali, because by Quarian culture, there is already an implied relationship.)  But Shepard is a brick.  A relationship is a two way street.  God forbid the kid who gets picked on in school who does tasks for his bullies develops a "relationship" with them out of fear.  Shepard just does quests because.  No personal stake, no motivation, no relationship.
[/quote]

Yes it is more then that but if you just talked to the characters you would see it was more then just helping them get X. It was a personal favour in which the relationship grew.

[quote]
No it does not.  You cannot prove it, because it doesn't exist, and you are officially talking out of your ass.

There is no "very well to connect to the story."  The best you get is about Mordin, and TIM saying "You'll get who you need."  That's it. 
[/quote]

Ya since the story was about the characters there is no way that they were connected to it. Your so right, everything is so clear now.

Oh and btw if I could talk out of my ass I would start my own show, man that would be a great show :happy:

[quote]
Then you do not understand narrative structure, or don't have analytical skills.

Hell by that definition getting, EDI telling everyone on the shuttle for a pizza party is a rising action.
[/quote]

Ya, um dont know what to say to that other then



Any action leading up to the climax is rising actio with smaller "anti-climaxes" like that of the collector vessel or Horizon

Taken from About.com
Rising action is tha series of events that lead to the climax of the
story, usually the conflicts or struggles of the protagonist.


[quote]
You are referencing nothing.  You just made this sh*t up.
[/quote]

No its speculation with maybe some evidence, we both know nothing of the next plot

[quote]
No they are not the main plot.  We're f*cking done here.
[/quote]

No were not, you like arguing too much

[quote]
IF you try to romance her as a Paragon.
IF you have a Paragon path.

More optional conditions on one character, aside from the stuff I already listed.
[/quote]

doesnt matter, she still says it. And again we dont know what will happen next.

[quote]
When Casey writes something, yes, it damn well better mean something, or he's lying.  Good god.  We are so done.

And I just got tired of reading your crap, so I'm not gonna bother anymore with you.
[/quote]

Aw that makes me so sad. Go try to talk to someone wholl agree with you becasue you cant take a little bit of disagreement.

Modifié par theelementslayer, 17 juillet 2010 - 05:42 .

[pprrff]

@smudboy



Going back to what you wrote about returning characters. I don't think it make sense for the dev to cameo the entire cast up to this point. Some will definitely not return in full, but at least half of them will. This leaves room for may be 2 or 3 new squad member, plus return of Ash/Kaidan + Liara.



1) No saves imported: This is easy, since the dev need not to worry about decisions carried over, they can decide the fate of previous crew member however they want. They will use this as default template and all other variations are modification of this.

2) Saves are Imported, and ME3 squad survived ME2: Nothing needs to the modified from the default setting, the only thing dev need to add is a few cameo spot for the survivors whom they didn't plan as full fledge squads.

3) Saves are Imported, but ME3 squads didn't survive: No problem there either, just cut the characters out. You might think it's a waste but it's not without precedent. I point to dragon age as an example, where Wynne, Leiliana, Sten, Zevran, Loghain, are all optional. I personally didn't realized Sten can be recruited in the first play through, and I also killed Zevran without waking him.

[Sago_mulch]

MadInfiltrator wrote...

I've been seeing lately a lot of criticism towards the plot of the second game. I feel like all of a sudden, people are just turning on Mass Effect 2 because they have far off, beloved memories of the first, and would bring down the second to justify that.

Now it may seem like I am dismissing the first game, I am just saying that I don't see how people can use the first plot to bring down the second, saying the first was more akin to so and so sci fi, while 2 was like this and that. 

What  I'm trying to say is that both plots are the two best I've probably ever seen in videogames, and that the evidence some people use to try and dissect either is almost completely defunct. I challenge anyone to find a serious issue with either story, as I seriously don't consider it to be a possibility.


As for the reasons some people have a panicky, "they're destroying the series", reaction to the second game's plot, I have a few reasons why I think a very vocal group is suddenly freaking out.

- The Art Style
  Mass Effect 2 features a much more grounded, "filled out", art style than the first game. Shepard's armor seems much moe complete, more robust, and a departure from the first game, which I thought was frankly not the coolest, and every set seemed too uniform. The diversity, and more colorful, fuller costume designs probably reminded people too much of common dress in our time, and less of the future. Bioware embraced contemporry influence more in the second game, and while for most was just a way to see the improved visuals, and gave them a stronger sense of understanding for the universe, a move like this could obviously push some people from recognizing it as a "pure sci fi". For me, and I think most, it did not change how I viewed the universe, it just made it more pleasant to look at. Mass Effect 1 had a lot of, actually, too much, thick white and a sort of dull blue to it.
- The Story's Angle
  For many people, the first game had the right sci fi feel where everything sort of came through the Council, Shepard's place as a Spectre defined the character, and this one sided approach gave a strong sense of uniformity to the character, and drove home the idea of the "Citadel Society" and it's paramount importance to everything. While taking this more traditional setting for sci fi, it was easy to get people into the universe. But the second game spread out the universe, and explored more of the ins and outs. With a focus on Cerberus, more than one hub world, and prominent roles for merc groups, criminals, black ops, and assassins, this different approach to the same universe leaves the possibility for "purists" to dislike the story.

I think the people who don't like the story should take these things into account, at least try to look past the art, and see it in a perspective that acknowledges both viewpoints (Council and Criminals), may very well fit in the same universe.

HEY BROS, I CAN TYPE IN BOLDEDCAPS IN THIS FORUM BECAUSE SEAGLOOM DOESN'T MODERATE IT. HAHA.

PEOPLE HAET MASS EFFECT 2 PLOTLINE BECAUSE

- BECAUSE THEY ARE RAGING AT PEOPLE WHO COMPARE IT TO GENUINELY WELL WRITTEN(ANYONE THAT DOESN'T COME FROM OR LIKE FANFICTION.COM) PLAYS/NOVELS/FILMS SUCH AS LORD OF THE FLIES, DUCHESS OF MALFI OR LES LIASONS DANGEREUSES.

AND THESE PEOPLE THAT COMPARE IT TO THESE ARE GENERALLY;
PEOPLE WITH NO TASTE
IDIOTS
PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING PAID TO WRITE AN OVERTOP REVIEW
FANBOYS
FAN FICTION WRITERS
PEOPLE WITH AUTISM, ADD, DOWNS SYNDROME ETC

I AM ****ING RAGING TOO. I RAGE AT THE WORLD. I RAGE FOR NO ****ING REASON BUT SOME ARE RAGING BECAUSE MASS EFFECT GETS TOO MUCH PRAISE.

**** YEAH. I AM ANGRIER THAN THAT UNFUNNY NERD ON YOUTUBE WHO IS KNOWN TO REVIEW OLDGAME AND GET ANGRY.

ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWAH

TL;DR

DOMINATES THIS DEBATE. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

[DurkBakala]

smudboy wrote...

DurkBakala wrote...

Basically, get over it Smuddy!

Basically, get over what?

Everything you're so butthurt about.

[smudboy]

DurkBakala wrote...

smudboy wrote...

DurkBakala wrote...

Basically, get over it Smuddy!

Basically, get over what?

Everything you're so butthurt about.

I don't recall getting my feelings hurt, but thanks either way.

[Iakus]

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
I can certainly see your argument, I'll admit that. Something more than Overlord, the lost operative, or the recruitment conversations with your old teammate would have been nice, sure, but would run the risk of further diluting the Collector-centered plot which is already, I will admit, light on the ground in terms of gameplay hours.
[/quote]

True enough.  Looks like ME 2 needed more Collector-based quests which Shepard and TIM can clash over methods of getting the job done



[quote]  It's also some of the problem with Hackett in ME1; it's a good thing Fifth Fleet has the first human Spectre on speed dial, because the Alliance appears to have no other teams in the field. Cerberus has people who tackle these sorts of issues; those who picked up Kahoku, for instance. tIM doesn't want Shepard overly distracted.[/quote]

Meh, those quests were optional.  Though it does get funny when Joker says "Message coming in.  Big surprise!  The Alliance needs our help again!"

[quote]
To a third point, tIM is firmly aware that he and a Shepard played to Paragon are on opposite sides of the coin, and that Shepard has a nasty way of accomplishing the impossible when tested; why give her a grudge to settle? While I do accept and even largely agree with the idea that some direct attention to the issue would have been desirable, even if it's just tIM giving you that quiet smirk and "It's handled, Shepard. Focus on the mission", I get the story reasons as to why he keeps anything like that from you in the same way your whole Cerberus crew seems pretty okay with almost a dozen aliens on board.
[/quote]

At this point I'd settle for knowing smirks and thinly-veiled euphamisms for interrogations.

[quote]



[quote]"Ah, yes, 'Reapers'= bad continuity[/quote]Politicians already in office declining to rock the boat is never going to be bad continuity to me, particularly given the triune premise that
- Shepard is presently employed by a banned terrorist group
- The Council is not unfamiliar with galactic threats and the idiocy of sapients in large groups
- The only time they openly acknowledge the existence of Reapers is on the vacant Presidium, face to face, and only to Shepard, Anderson, and Udina. They may simply consider the Council's acknowledgement of the Reaper threat to be top secret information and they won't risk a comm leak.
[/quote]

Then Anderson (who is still Shepard's friend, whether he's Councilor or not))  should say something like:

 "Just play along Shepard.  They're not so delusional as they appear.  It's politics.  They know the real score, but can't afford to voice the threat, even here on the Presidium, or risk a panic.  They have to pretend that everything's fine while we rebuild our fleets and gather our strength.  You're showing up alive and working with Cerberus complicates things."


[quote] Considering how light on the ground cash is for Shepard in ME2, I sincerely doubt tIM is going to add "private army" to her tab - colonial protection would start to make the budget for the SR-2 look like a tip jar.
Passing off disappearances as slavers and pirates is one thing, but do you see the Alliance turning a blind eye to mercenary armies landing at their colonies to "protect" them on Cerberus orders - particularly given the odds are the slavers and pirates they blame already belong to these groups, and even if not are working for the other group they think might be stealing their people?
And this has a much greater chance of alerting the Collectors to your presence and interest than it does alerting you to theirs. They've been popping into the Terminus Systems and hijacking colonies for as long as two years, and nobody has any evidence of it until Shepard lucks into a quarian they didn't want. Space is ridiculously huge and hard to find a single, mobile thing that doesn't want to be found in. Unless the Collectors dock for supplies () one only sees them going in and out of the relay, or through a fire control console.

[/quote]

Sooner or later, Shep's gonna hafta unite the people of the galaxy to face the Reapers.  This would be as good a starting point as any.  The Citadel and Alliance  are all scared to go into the Terminus Systems out of fear for starting a war (they already spent two years allowing colonies to disappear without doing anything, according to TIM

Only see them going in and out of the Relay?  Kill anything that comes out of it!

Not saying any of this is entrely workable.  The problem is these are opportunities that are never expored or talked about in the game. 



[quote]I take the implication from the amount of data tIM's looking over any time you see him to suggest that they have access to any and all logged Collector data of any value. They know the name and whereabouts of a krogan scientist believed to have recent contact with them. Cerberus intelligence-gathering services are operating at full capacity for Lazarus Cell's mission, and only those things deemed most relevant by analysts and an old hand at military intelligence get through to the team leader. He's saved you the fetch-quest grunt work, by my interpretation, like if you had another team you could send to Noveria (which doesn't need a Prothean-treated brain) while you hit Feros. [/quote]

So in ME 2 all the exploration and discovery for the game's story is done off-screen by other groups, leaving Shepard with running around shooting stuff at TIM's behest.

Thanks Bioware, it's just what I always wanted in an rpg 

[quote]
a) "No." seems as plausible as anything here. I didn't get "super-interested in being Shepard's buddy" from Aria.
Nobody better than Zaeed, anyway. You and Archangel already shot all the runners-up.
c) So you know when the Collector ship exits the Omega-4 relay and jumps to FTL. Great. That information tells you the Collectors aren't beyond the relay; that's it. It would be a reason to keep the ship at combat stations, but hardly any sort of workable lead.
[/quote]

A and b would take one line of dialogue to establish

C at least we'd know when the Collectors were on this side of the Relay.

[quote]



[quote]"Liara, you've done a lot to help me. I was wondering if I could ask you one more favor. TIM gave me this list of people I should recruit for my mission. I wonder if you could look it over and let me know if there's anything he "forgot" to mention about them. And if you can recommend any other mercenaries of their caliber, that would be an extra bonus."[/quote]This is either a stunning endorsement of her memory or a hope of waiting around on Illium for a few weeks for her to get back to you with "A couple of them have children". If she's just offering more bodies to carry guns, you have information about a few already. How many colonists get abducted while you convince an old friend to put her work on hold and find you people you like better?[/quote]

Stunning endorsement of her memory.  She went from oddball archaelogist to "Information broker to rival the Shadow Broker" in two years.  Even if it took time, se could get back to you while you do other stuff "Samara's a justicar.  She would never betray you once she gives her word.  I'll forward any more pertinent information while you find her.  I'll also need to obtain a larger storage device to hold Jack's criminal record."

None of these ideas are supposed to replace TIM as Shep's ultimate patron (well, maybe the Alliance one is) so much as to show that Shep should have other souces to turn to for potential information.  If Shepard were to give teh list to Liara, who returns it and goes "I'm sorry Shepard, but the poeple on that list are the most formidable warriors and mercenaries you are likely to find in the galaxy.  No other names I can come up with would do that list justice.  Then hey, at elast you verifeid that Tim's playing straight with you in this."

  If Shepard were to approach some mercenaries and try to hire them, only to get in a gunfight, well, he tried.  The fact is, Shep implicitly trusts just about everything TIM says without verifying anything.  Shep probably cuts the cards when Tali shuffles, but he trusts TIM???

[quote]
[[quote]iakus wrote...[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bruise their ass when they jump.
[/quote]I have no clue what this means.[/quote]Just that "if" is "if". When discussing the relative merits of a peanut butter cookie recipe, "if only it had chocolate chips" isn't really relevant. Yes, these things would be nice, but they're not present; let's look at what is. I'm not going to deny some potential was wasted, but I still think what we got was damn fine. [/quote]

All right.  "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride"  Fair enough.  But this cookie has raisins in it.  I hate raisins.


[quote] Hmm, yeah?  Alright, guess that'll teach me not to replay it every couple of months if I'm going to be talking about it. Alright, we got lucky on that one.[/quote]

Very lucky.  If the info on the Collector base had been found on Horizon (Deus ex EDI?), or Freedom's Progress (Veetor's omnitool?) I could go along with TIM's selections much more easily.

[quote]



[quote]Stupid too, to keep the commander of this mission, Who happens to be an N7 Special Forces trained marine, who has captained his own ship, was the first human Spectre, and oh, yeah killed a Reaper in the dark about the operation. No chance he'd have any thoughts or insights into who to select for a mission, what kind of people might work well together or not, what specialists they may be lacking.  Details which may get everyone killed, plus humanity and the galaxy as a whole. Nope.[/quote]To be fair, Shepard saved galactic civilization with two Alliance Marines, a teenage quarian, an old krogan bounty hunter, an archaelogist, and an ex-C-Sec investigator. Your team the first time was random and you did the impossible. Sue the Man for having faith in you.
[/quote]

You forgot the ability to run your own investigation

But seriously, Mordin may like the challenge of getting the most use out of the fewest resourcees.  But to deliberately hamstring the team leader by witholding information, means TIM's either an idiot, or as another agenda.  I'm going with "another agenda" mainly because I'd rather believe Bioware told a story badly than told a bad story.

[quote]I...really don't see the distinction between the two. Go here, follow the chain of events, go to the next one. There were just more side tracks in the first game.
Shepard's not the only one planning for the suicide mission, which is good, because you've been dead for two years and might be a little out of touch.
Beyond the fact that certain portions of the game must be planned in advance so they can be programmed, I don't see the mission as that foolproof for Shepard. You can lose best friends, the whole team, your own life. Judging the story by the fact it must make concessions as a video game is rough at best. Stopping Saren is planned out from the moment you hit the ground at Ilos.[/quote]

The problem is, ME 2 was supposed to be different somehow.  In ME 1 you spend most of the game reacting.  Saren's up to someting and you're trying to find out what it is.  Pretty standard. Story is far from unique, but told well.  ME 2 is supposed to be more proactive.  You  were supposed to recruit and plan a spooooky suicide mission where some or all of your companions could die.  The goal is to plan and prepare for it.  Who lives and who dies are based on your decisions!

Except:

 Until the Collector Ship quest is completed, you have no clue what's on the other side of the Relay, so how  TIM knows who you should recruit is to me a big question mark.  ("Soldiers, engineers, and techs" is a very video-gamey way of saying what kind of specialists are needed.  It's like saying "warriors, rogues, and mages") Yet somehow, his picks are just what you need.  It's all planned out ahead. 

 If this went more the Baldur's Gate route, and you have a limited number of people you could recruit, and the final cut was up to Shepard, that would be one thing. (yes I know in BG you can ditch party member and pick up new ones along the way)  Say there were a total of sixteen dossiers, but Shepard, for whatever reason could only recruit eight.  Then you could actually call it "Shepard's team" 

You literally can't go wrong in who you recruit.  Everone works together, regardless of personal animosities.  Aside from Thane, everyone is a potential "specialist" (how did he slip by?)   You could decline to recruit everyone, to a certain degree.  But you must have at elast eight to advance the story (Coincidentally, the exact number needed to complete a minimalist run and get eveyone killed)

This is leaving out the "clue stick" features like upgrading the ship and doing loyalty missions.

Games do run on rules and there is some railroading involved in all computer games.  But a good rp tells a good enough story that you can ignore or overlook the conventions.  ME 2, on the other hand almost has me yelling at the screen "That is so fake!  I can see the strings!"



[quote]Arguments and suggestions I certainly accept, with the caveat that there is I feel a plausible limit to the intel you should be able to gather about the base beforehand. They've been a complete mystery for centuries, but as soon as we have their mailing address we can figure everything out?[/quote]

Absolutely.  Giving away too much information about the Collectors too soon would be as bad as not giving enough.  All I'm saying is there should have been something used as a starting point in deciding who to recruit for the mission.  As it is, we're operating well into "not enough" territory.  Either out of TIM being an idiot or carelessness on the part of the writers.

[quote] Well, it describes the role of the Collectors and the missing colonies - occasional pro-active antagonist and inciting incident, respectively. That they don't get a lot of screen time doesn't change their presence as elements.
As to Harbinger's interest, the other Collectors aren't sapient, and both Shepard and tIM seem to accept the "You did kill one" rationale for the resurrection; it seems fair to assume that if it's worth the kind of attention it gets you from Cerberus, it would equally get the attention of the Reapers.[/quote]

The Collectors are borderline Mcguffins.  They provide the motivation to recruit the team, but really have little else to do but look menacing.  If we had the chance to dig deeper into thier backstory, rather than have EDI read us a stroy during the Collector Ship mission, they could have had a much much bigger impact on the game.  In fact, I call the Collectors te dingle biggest wasted oportunity in ME 2.  Perhaps the entire ME franchise

Collector General:  The Boba Fett of the Mass Effect universe.


[quote]  Preposterous? He modified a thousand year old genetic virus during a covert operation. He designed an airborne cure to a Collector plague with the resources of a free clinic. He sleeps 1/4 the time humans do, is a genius among a species that puts humanity's intelligence to shame on average, and spends all his time in the lab working.
And to compare, Shepard and crew killed a million+ year old machine god on the cusp of triumph with a combination of small arms, emotional appeals, and a frigate. Now who's preposterous?[/quote]

I didn't say that was the only thing Mordin did that was preposterous.  I found curing the Collectors plague in his free clinic right about on par with it.  I cut some slack with the genophage because a) e was part of a team  his people created the genophage to begin with and were monitoring it and c) he had full government (perhaps Citadel) backing.

Sleeps 1/4 of the time a human does?  Has 1/4 human lifespan as well!

Genius I'll grant.  But Jacob spends all is time in the armory, Miranda spends all her time in her office doing paperwork, and Garrus spends all is time doing calibrations on the main gun.  What does this say about them? (besides that gun really needs to be replaced if it requires that much calibration)

In ME 1 Shepard and his crew did defeat Soverein.  Though to be 100% accurate, they killed Saren. Joker and Fifth Fleet took out Sovereign itself.  I prefer "audacious;y daring" to preposterous in that case"

One comparatively minor pet peeve about the companions in this game is that, aside from jacob, they go beyond "best of the best" and into the realm of superheroes/demigods.  I know Shepard's looking for the best for this mission, but they laid it on a little thick.  In ME 1, the squadmates were "exceptional, but still mere-mortals"

[quote]



[quote]What info does Shepard funnel to Cerberus?  He just goes and shoots stuff and sets off traps so TIM can have a good laugh.[/quote]Everything you learn about the Collectors. Everything else you learn of any value regarding the Shadow Broker, Ilium, Tuchankan politics; Shepard can go where no other Cerberus operative can, get answers no-one else can get. Hell, you even locate the Migrant Fleet for them.[/quote]

And I'm sure Miranda and Jacob could get that infomation too, if they weren't so into spandex outfits  with Cerberus logos on them



[quote]And they take the information you're alive pretty well, though they're either concerned you're employed by Cerberus or are like Wrex and just don't care. But besides the general "credit to the uniform" Shepard always manages to be, you do prove to the Alliance that it's not Cerberus abducting colonies. That's a big PR coup.[/quote]

You have to wonder about an organization where proving they weren't responsible for killing/carrying off hundreds of thousands of civilians over a two year period is a "big PR coup"

[quote]



[quote]I can't think of any missions where you actually betray the Alliance or former squaddies (except for being dead for two years) Agreeing to help Cerberus is certainly seen as Not A Good Thing.  But's it's more guilt by association.[/quote]Actively? No. tIM's smarter than that. But is being wrongly(?) perceived as a traitor any better than actually betraying them? You're judged without bloodying your hands even once. To me, that's far more intriguing; you're an angel flying the flag of devils, and nothing you've done wipes away that stain. When they turn their backs on you, are you Good enough to not turn your back in reply? [/quote]

I dunno.  I always found stories of guilt and redemption more intriguing than "wrongly accused". That's what made Saren such a cool villain in the first game.   To me it would have had much more impact if somehow, paragon or renegade, you have to act against the Alliance in some way to stop the Collectors.  Then when that scene came up, Shepard would actually have to consider "Am I really a traitor?  Can I ever go back?  Do I even want to?"  instead of "Did you it your head when the Seeker swarm froze you? I just saved you and most of the colony from bug-eyed aliens! " The one moment in Ashley'Kaiden's tirade that actually made me pause was when she/he sugests that Cerberus may be manipulating Shepard.



[quote]Worst thing you're forced to do, yes. You can also turn over a source of highly advanced technology to a proscribed terrorist group, reject your previous love interest for their attitude to your being dead and working with the only other people who believe in the threat, kill your way through anyone that looks like they might be an obstacle...basically continue to define your Shepard as you see fit under a new set of circumstances - working with the villain against the monster.[/quote]

Okay I'll grant you selling Legion (heck I'll throw in bringing Morinth on board too, forgot about that one)  i don't think I'd count rejecting the old LI.  That's more of a "letting go" (or "being petulant") more than a moral choice.  Killing anyone who gets in my way...why that?  You do that anyway, regardless of your Shepard's defined outlook.

[quote]



[quote]How is that "dark and gritty"?[/quote]Context and nuance.
[/quote]

I still hold that it would have been more nuanced if Shep had been confronted with more "morally gray" choices in Cerberus' service    Or at least see them going on around him.  Whether Shep approves or not is up to the player.


[/quote]



[quote]See above on why that's a really stupid system to use.[/quote]You say stupid device, I say reinforcing the sense of isolation from what you were in the first game. Different receptions, but the same device.
[/quote]

Actually I was referring to TIM not tellingShepard anything of substance  about a dangerous mission Shep's supposed to lead

[quote]



[quote]And which really smacks of plot rails.[/quote]Quick, which major decision points in the ME1 plot could the player actually affect with a bearing on the outcome of the game?
What in provides urgency in fiction can feel like railroading when you're playing through it in pursuit of big choices. But as a wise man once told me, "No-one really minds being on the rails if the view from the carriage is nice and the destination is Awesometown". And that's a subjective response no-one can make for you. You didn't like the ride? Sorry it's not your thing, but tastes differ.[/quote]

I admit, most of the choices made in ME 1 did not have much in the way of immediate consequences in the game.  That said, it was part one of a trilogy, and we were told to "hold onto our save files" because there would be consequences. Wow! Buildup to consequences!  Not just different dialogue!.  That more than made up for not having an immdiate impact on your surroundings.  Delayed gratification!

And I think the line  "Players tend to stay on the rails better when you place obvious landmines on either side of the tracks"  applies better to ME 2



[quote]And she's going to be there every time, because that's how her part of the story goes. She's in charge of the task group trying to recover Veetor. Veetor went to Freedom's Progress. That it was lucky isn't in question, coincidence drives the genre. Shepard's still the only one that could have made it work. [/quote]

 I can see the strings again



[quote]This presumes everyone would respond identically to either of them as they would to Shepard; essentially, that everyone in both games who describes her as "a natural leader" is just blowing smoke up her ass. And I genuinely doubt either of the biotics or the technical specialists would have signed on with them for their own reasons; Jack's and Tali's being obvious, while Samara allows Shepard's reputation to smooth over the rough patch that is Cerberus and Legion isn't that interested in Miranda. Attrition starts right away and things just get worse.[/quote]

People would probably respond better to them if they removed the logos from all their outfits, equipment, and oh, yeah the side of the ship.  Oh, and if they stopped telling people they were Cerberus.Legion  Jack is unlikely to go along with them, but if Jacob, as a former Alliance marine had approached her and mentioned "Reapers are up to something"   I'd say she'd be receptive, as long as "Cerberus" isn't mentioned.  Samara too might have gone along, considering opposing the Collectors to be a worthy cause.[/quote]

Shepard's a leader, yeah, but  being this great, charismatic hero of legend was nowhere in ME 1.  Shepard had done something extraordinary early on.  Apparantly had the strength of will to survive an encounter with the Prothean beacon, and was popular with the crew of the Normandy.  Now Shep can command the loyalty of mercenaries, loners, psychopaths of every imaginable race, just by saying his name and flashing a smile.


[quote]"...and happened to survive a Prothean beacon, mind intact, and is thus receptive to collecting visions to find what Saren already knows how to find". It's just another Chosen One; Shepard is The Marine Who Lived. Until the Collectors put that to the lie, and Enter, Stage Left: Cerberus.
They're probably about even as devices go, just that the beacon feels like fate and Lazarus feels like human agency. Matter of preference. [/quote]

All the Prothean beacon provided was information.  Information that took most of the game to fully decipher. Shep was still Shep.  Mortal, human.  Just with a vision of a looming disaster.  There's nothing to say others couldn't have received the message too (Saren certainly did).  It's likely a major reason why Saren wanted the colony destroyed.  In case anyone else had accessed the beacon.  Shepard was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time and becomes a hero.  I could se the story playing out (somewat differently) if Kaiden or Ashley had gotten teh message from the beacon and survived.  It ould have played out a bit differently, but I could see an alternate universe scenerio where Shepard the Spectre unts down Saren with fellow marine/prophet trying to make sense of the vision.

Lazarus project, on the other hand,   undid death.  Not only that, but Shepard came back with a superpowered charisma.  Shepard officially becomes the messianic character his name suggests, He is now the Savior of the Galaxy.  The Only One Who Can Stand Against the Reapers.  

 Before Shep was the only one who believed.  Now Shep's the only one who can do.  Big difference. 


[quote]Seven. Hundred. Lines, and that's just for idle chatter and not much of it. If you usually take out the same two squadmates, as most players do, you'll hear about 12 of them. That's a lot of "lost" material to include for the purposes of capturing the "multiple RPG playthrough" demographic.
And wandering the ship was relevant when this was about scenes in the mess hall, now we're back to "all RPG squads must live up to DA's banter". They're testing the feature out and it's being well-received. Expect to see more.[/quote]

Bioware is well known for it's rpgs.  I'm guessing (guessing, mind you) that a big chunk of its core audience would be the "multiple rpg playthrough demographic"

By wandering the ship I thought you meant the squadmates wandering the ship, which I admit would be a pain.  But a few really short cutscenes in specific areas as teh game progresses would be nice.  Not absolutely necessary, but nice.  Maybe like the KOTOR 2 scenes.

[quote]



[quote]I can also see him having something to say about a parent out to kill her child.  I can also see Samara having something to say about a father trying to save his son from a life of crime and violence.[/quote]Feasible. 10 of 11 playthroughs, and in the content-cutting world that's 10 of 11 games sold, won't see it though.[/quote]

Depends on how often people will play through ME 2, after the shooting and graphics have lost their luster, and all that's left are the stories and characters I guess



[quote]No, it was pure characterization admittedly. I can't really comment on this one because, as primarily a FemShep player (you didn't guess from my pronoun use? ) I just don't talk to Jacob. No idea what makes him tick, except apparently warship armor. [/quote]

I got that impression, yeah, just like I'm a maleShep player.  And paragon to boot

Well, I'll save you the trouble of searching and say that Jacob says nothing concerning Miranda or her sister.  The only response I've gotten or heard of is Jack admiring the Eclipse merc for denigrating Miranda's skin-tight outfit.  Whoever goes along as the third squad member is basically a mobile weapons platform.  just like all the other lopalty missions.




[quote]Samara as characterized has the options of binding herself to Shepard's decisions to help stop the Collectors, or depopulating your lower decks and possibly forcing you to put her down. That you recruit dangerous self-starters is a risk the game chooses to mitigate.[/quote]

And I'd actually rather it didn't.  I wanted more personality conflicts to defuse.  Maybe an option to kick people off the ship saying "you don't play well with others"  "Why did TIM think we could use you?"



[quote]Based on her conversations with Wrex in 1? Closer to the krogan, but mostly they don't think or talk about it. They have their own problems.[/quote]

Maybe  but I'd like to see more depth of character in these squadmates that are suppsed to be so important abut.  I want to see them interact more with eac other, in the Mass Effect universe, rather than their own little corner in it.



[quote]Maybe they made the squad too big this time, to their detriment. I found them fairly well-realized beings without everybody having random, idle conversations during a mission with people they might have met for the first time in the shuttle, but others differ.[/quote]

I'm inclined to agree, the squad is too big for the game's purpose.  I found the ideas beind them interesting.  But the characters themselves, outside their own missions to be windup toys.  They only talk to Shepard  They don't interact except to shoot things sooting at Shepard.  They're going to be counting on each other to stay alive in the Suicide mission, they should really get to know each other.



[quote]As does going along with the Council position on the issue. As I say, that contemptible little weasel is, to my eyes, only trustworthy so long as you both want exactly the same thing. And once the first game is over, what he wants is to position humanity as a decision-making body. If that means closing ranks with the Council over backing a lone war hero who shows up after a two year disappearance in a terrorist vessel and thus might have faked her own death, he will. [/quote]

I'll still chalk it up to "Everyone in the Presidium except Anderson eats paint chips for breakfast"



[quote]I'm not saying your relationship didn't evolve, just that it was completely one-sided the first time so why expect more now?[/quote]

Because Shepard was proven to be 100% right about everything he claimed in ME 1?

[quote]I'm ultimately not that interested in the position of those bits on a given disc of plastic so much as I am the device's position in the story, which I'm quite happy with. Your mileage, based on different criteria, may vary.
[/quote]

Indeed. Empire Strikes Back did not open with Luke Skywalker dangling over Bespin, physically and emotionally battered, missing his right hand, and begging for aid from a ghost.  You work your way up to that.



[quote]I suppose we're just assessing the story on different grounds. I'm looking at it without taking the video game parts into account, just the narrative flow, the whole picture from a step back. That they might have had gameplay-centric motives for it simply doesn't matter to me. Taking what we're given as the sequence of in-universe events, does it feel 'authentic' enough to me? And yes, it does. [/quote]

I'm looking at the game as the middle portion of a three part story.  I know gameplay is going to change because, well, it's a game.  But what a good rpg does is try to conceal the "gameness" and make it feel like an interactive story.  A story that maintains flow and continuity from chapter to chapter.  Despite some flaws, ME 1 did that fairly well.  ME 2 feels like an entirely different story, not a continuation at all.  They want you cut off from your old allies.  Fine.  They want you to work for "bad guys"  Okay.  But the method they go about it feels forced and unreal.  There's no moment of transition.  No buildup to a huge disaster.  No slow slide into obscutity.  Just "Boom! All you were is swept away!"  Maybe this helps for people who are not familiar with ME 1 and makes things less confusing for new players.  But for me it's nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying.



[quote]Shepard's story contains Shepard. The story of Shepard vs. the Reapers contains both Shepard and Reapers in both acts. We're dealing with galaxy-sized matters here, the little details don't bother me so much.[/quote]

That's...a remarkably laid back attitude to have about a series.  If for Mass Effect 3 htey decide to add some Guitar Hero elements into the game and muscal numbers, but kept Shepard and Reapers in some capaacity...?

(note:  not knocking Guitar Hero at all, just making a point about radically changing story and gameplay, but keeping Shepasrd and the reapers in it)



[quote]Death is the cessation of autonomic function resulting in deoxygenation of the brain, cell death, and eventual decay. This was, evidently, reversed. It's impressive - damn impressive - but it's not supernatural. Perhaps Shepard's just geniunely rational as opposed to the lingering superstition that plagues western culture. Memories are just chemical tags, after all. [/quote]

A very clinical view of Death.  But another view, neither religious nor philosophical, is that Dead is Dead!  Something that, beyond a short window, cannot be fixed.  Two years is well beyond it.  Shepard was Meat.  Now Shepard is Not Meat.  This may not be supernatural, but it's as close to it as you're likely to find in a science fiction story.  Very Clarke's Law.  Separd's taking it so instride you'd have thought he had the flu.



[quote]To Shepard, there's no gap. There's blacking out in high orbit over Alchera, a hazy scene in a med bay, and waking up during an assault. She could, as easily, simply not believe them. Would you put it past Cerberus to hastily recover Shepard, keep her on ice for two years, and fake some logs on conveniently unlocked terminals during a likely staged attack on the space station?[/quote]

To be honest it's not beyond them.  However, it seems that the backstory for ME 2 (Liara's whole story and whatnot) disproves that idea.  If somehow in ME 3 they find a way to prove Cerberus was lying, I'll be both surprised and pleased (if it's done well)



[quote]Well, my friend, frogs either way I fear. The second act begins with Shepard's death and reconstruction. That either works for you or it doesn't.[/quote]

It doesn't.  There's a raisin in my cookie.  Actually, there's a lot of em.

Modifié par iakus, 17 juillet 2010 - 11:42 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Here's the thing about these types of threads. They are extremely polarizing. Why is this? Because things are subjective and open to interpretation. This means that once a human mind has settled on something shaking that core belief they have in their head is almost impossible. I've seen time and time again, people bringing up good points on both sides and then people just sort of ignoring it or answering a different question then was asked.

I don't see why you continue with these "discussions" because no one ever changes their minds about anything. Heck people barely concede points. I know it's just something to do with your time. However, unless people are actually willing to dive down to the heart of the issue and always calmly state what they think and concede when someone has a good point, yet counter that point with yet another good point, this becomes worthless. An (arguably) better use of time is coming up with what you liked about both games, and what you didn't like about both games. Then you could attempt to find out what is objectively the worst part about both games and present it in a constructive fashion in some sort of attempt to make the third game better. All I see here is overzealous defense of your own personal outlook of the game. Granted that entertainment is supposed to elicit strong responses from the people who buy into it. However, if you want to see the next step in the process be better, try not to go over the top either way. Because when that happens we get a game where the developers pick a side of the argument, then make the game according to what those people want. This leaves us with some justifiably frustrated people who enjoy the franchise but simply wanted something a little different.

Now as for my suggestion. From a design standpoint Mass Effect's worst part was the actual combat as it felt loose. Whereas almost all of the other elements were tight, such as the story mission structure, and flow of the game. Mass Effect 2's worst part from a design standpoint is the flow of the game. A lot if it was just jerking the player around from point to point with only a very vague idea as to why it was being done.

Mass Effect's strong point was the story. Even though it was slightly contrived, convenient, and silly at times; it was very engrossing. Mass Effect 2's strong point was the combat. It felt very satisfying and was fairly entertaining.

Finally to make it clear. I absolutely love both games for what they are and how they made me feel. I just want to see the third installment be better than the sum of its parts and be a truly exquisite game. I know chances are somewhat low on that, but I am an eternal optimist.

In before no one really reads this or cares.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 18 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .