555 réponses à ce sujet

[wulf3n]

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history.

That says more about the state of plots in video games, more than it shows how good ME1 and ME2 plots were.

[The Unfallen]

squee913 wrote...

Delta_Echo wrote...

squee913 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...


they had the Reaper IFF installed on the Normandy TIM doesn't have it.  for some reason TIM seems to overlook he needs Reaper IFFs for entry. and that the normandy is the only ship with an integrated one. Shep could go freely between collector base and Omega and the rest of the galaxy. unless it had a fail safe that shut down the Relay (in which case why did ship even get out of the relay?)  upon destruction of the facility. he could have contacted the alliance if they included the option.cerberus can try as they like to get by with out the Reaper IFF they'll end up  missing like everyone else. 

though a possible reason why he  didn't do that is because it would be very dangerous to send other ships thorugh the relay due to the sheer amount of debris we see and other various 'threats' that could be present inside the debris field.

It is not hard to think that TIM copied the IFF in some way. I do not think he would have sent the Normandy through without retaining the ability to go through. This is also shown when you keep the base. As soon as TIM finishes talking to shep, he watches several Cerberus ships arrive at the collector base (with a creepy smile I might add). This means that TIM had the ability to send multiple ships through without the IFF that was still aboard Normandy
And for everyone who says shepard did not grow, that’s your own fault. It is your Shepard. You make the choices. If you wanted Shep could grow from a Cerberus hater to a man/woman that understand they may not be as bad as you think. He could change his view on the genophage. He could change in a lot of ways if you make him.

Not to pick on you personally squee913, but this is rather typical type of answer when ever one brings up a plot hole or continuity disconnect. 
"It could've been this..." Is almost always the answer when one of us jerks brings up a plot hole. What exactly are your basing this on? It doesn't fit so you ( not just you but I hope you get my meaning) speculate an answer to our question, and expect it to be accepted or just hand wave it and say " its not important". Details matter in good story telling. And all the flash bang gee wiz in the world  won't keep me immersed and distracted when the building blocks of the narrative don't fit together.

I don't mind if you pick on me. I don't even mind if you prove me wrong, that's why I debate these things. But for pity's sake, at least read my post before you do it. What do I base this on? did you compltly skip the part where I said, "This is also shown when you keep the base. As soon as TIM finishes talking to shep, he watches several Cerberus ships arrive at the collector base (with a creepy smile I might add)." This conversation happened right after the suicide mission. There would have been no time for the IFF to be loaded onto another ship, so it stands to reason that TIM got the data from the IFF and used it to send SEVERAL ships through the omega 4 relay very quickly after the base was taken. Proving that TIM had the ability to go through the omega 4 relay and claim the base before you could do much about it. Hence my statement that if you did not destroy it, TIM gets it.

But if you DID destroy it no other ships can go through and the Illusive Man does not get the base, yes?

[The Unfallen]

wulf3n wrote...

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history.

That says more about the state of plots in video games, more than it shows how good ME1 and ME2 plots were.

Yeah I take back what I said, Mass Effect has one of the best plots, period.

^.^

[squee913]

wulf3n wrote...

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history.

That says more about the state of plots in video games, more than it shows how good ME1 and ME2 plots were.

So you agree that it was one of the best video game plots, but just think it still isn't good enough? Isn't that like having the best piece of cake you've ever had and then complaining to the chef that it is not good enough?

[squee913]

That Yellow Bastard wrote...


But if you DID destroy it no other ships can go through and the Illusive Man does not get the base, yes?

No it just means that TIM had no reason to send ships through becasue there was no base. That does not mean that he could not if he wanted to.

[Raxxman]

squee913 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history.

That says more about the state of plots in video games, more than it shows how good ME1 and ME2 plots were.

So you agree that it was one of the best video game plots, but just think it still isn't good enough? Isn't that like having the best piece of cake you've ever had and then complaining to the chef that it is not good enough?

No, it's more like saying this is the best rice ****** you've ever had. The best rice ****** in the world is rather bland and tasteless compared to an average piece of cake.

[squee913]

Raxxman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history.

That says more about the state of plots in video games, more than it shows how good ME1 and ME2 plots were.

So you agree that it was one of the best video game plots, but just think it still isn't good enough? Isn't that like having the best piece of cake you've ever had and then complaining to the chef that it is not good enough?

No, it's more like saying this is the best rice ****** you've ever had. The best rice ****** in the world is rather bland and tasteless compared to an average piece of cake.

But it IS a rice ******! If you want a cake go eat a cake. Don't expect he rice craker to be something it is not. In other words don't get mad at a games story becasue it was not as good as the best book you read. It is a game and should be judged as a game. If you say it has a good story for a GAME then whats the problem? You got what you paid for. Read a good book if you want a better story.

Modifié par squee913, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:40 .

[wulf3n]

squee913 wrote...
But it IS a rice ******! If you want a cake go eat a cake. Don't expect he rice craker to be something it is not. In other words don't get mad at a games story becasue it was not as good as the best book you read. It is a game and should be judged as a game. If you say it has a good story for a GAME than whats the problem? You got what you paid for. Read a good book if you want a better story.

But why can't a game have a good story? If done right the Story in a game can be more powerful than any book, yet story is generally one of the least focused on aspects of games.

Edit: For example, deciding who lived and who died on Virmire in ME1. While i would have cared about who lived and who died while reading, the fact that it's out of my hands lessens the impact, that emotion doesn't even compare to ME actually having to decide who lived and who died. 

Modifié par wulf3n, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:48 .

[squee913]

wulf3n wrote...

squee913 wrote...
But it IS a rice ******! If you want a cake go eat a cake. Don't expect he rice craker to be something it is not. In other words don't get mad at a games story becasue it was not as good as the best book you read. It is a game and should be judged as a game. If you say it has a good story for a GAME than whats the problem? You got what you paid for. Read a good book if you want a better story.

But why can't a game have a good story? If done right the Story in a game can be more powerful than any book, yet story is generally one of the least focused on aspects of games.

See, now I can not argue with you. It's not that I agree with you, becasue I feel Mass 1 and 2 were fantastic and powerful stories but becasue I respect hat fact that you don't think so. I just feel that if it is a game it should be held to the standards of a game. By those standereds you agree that the story is a good one.

[squee913]

wulf3n wrote...

squee913 wrote...
But it IS a rice ******! If you want a cake go eat a cake. Don't expect he rice craker to be something it is not. In other words don't get mad at a games story becasue it was not as good as the best book you read. It is a game and should be judged as a game. If you say it has a good story for a GAME than whats the problem? You got what you paid for. Read a good book if you want a better story.

But why can't a game have a good story? If done right the Story in a game can be more powerful than any book, yet story is generally one of the least focused on aspects of games.

Edit: For example, deciding who lived and who died on Virmire in ME1. While i would have cared about who lived and who died while reading, the fact that it's out of my hands lessens the impact, that emotion doesn't even compare to ME actually having to decide who lived and who died. 

I would argue that (for me) Mass 2 trump Virmire. I spent 10 minutes trying to decide who went down the vent because I love tali and legion and I was afraid I was sending one to their death. The fact ha the game took the time to let me really learn about my team made the suicide mission, where anyone could die, far more exhilarating than any book.

[wulf3n]

squee913 wrote...
See, now I can not argue with you. It's not that I agree with you, becasue I feel Mass 1 and 2 were fantastic and powerful stories but becasue I respect hat fact that you don't think so. I just feel that if it is a game it should be held to the standards of a game. By those standereds you agree that the story is a good one.

I'm not really arguing for or against ME1 and ME2 plots. All i'm saying is that as long as we keep accepting that games don't have to have good stories, we'll never see the industry evolve in that direction, which is disappointing considering the power good stories can have in games.

[squee913]

wulf3n wrote...

squee913 wrote...
See, now I can not argue with you. It's not that I agree with you, becasue I feel Mass 1 and 2 were fantastic and powerful stories but becasue I respect hat fact that you don't think so. I just feel that if it is a game it should be held to the standards of a game. By those standereds you agree that the story is a good one.

I'm not really arguing for or against ME1 and ME2 plots. All i'm saying is that as long as we keep accepting that games don't have to have good stories, we'll never see the industry evolve in that direction, which is disappointing considering the power good stories can have in games.

Well, I can't hate ona a guy just becasue he does not agree with me.
I think the games and thier stories from bioware are fantastic, and I hope they make you feel that way someday too.

[smudboy]

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history. And it is incorrect to look at ME and ME 2 as individual stories, and it is incorrect to compare them, as they are all a part of one plot, the Galaxies races banding together to stop the Reaper threat, and thus, are both equally badass.

Please explain how ME1 had a non-horrible plot, then do the same for ME2.

It is not incorrect to compare ME1 to ME2, nor see them as individual stories.  Why would this ever be incorrect to do so?

Please also explain how ME2 is part of ME1.  I do not recall the "galaxy" races banding together to stop the Reaper threat in either story, or how that makes them (galaxy races, the stories) badass.

[Delta_Echo]

 Honestly to me it seemed like the writers, you know the ones with creative vision  and skill in developing an engaging narrative that fits together and moves in focused direction, were not the ones makings decisions about what actually happens. Within each each sub story of ME2 for the most part the writing was pretty good and in some cases excellant. The problem is in the context of the larger story arc, there are way too many things things that make absoloutely  no sense at all or had no point! It sometimes seems as if the writers hardly knew anything about the first game. 

My speculation is, the artists, the programmers, the marketing dept, etc. all had their "cool projects" they wanted to make happen and dictated to the writers, " we want this to happen, make it happen." If what was done in this sequal had been done in any other story telling medium ( book, movie, tv series) there would have been a lot more outrage. Bioware is one of the few developers that even cares about storytelling, we who are bitterly voicing our disappointment are doing so because we know they can do better and choose not to. 

ME2 was filler, it did not advance the story, it introduced a number of contradictions and at the end we  have not moved from where we were at the end of the first game( we have in fact regressed).
 And Smud is right about one thing (well a lot of things) , you will not being seeing your team in anything other than minor roles for the next game, the development logistics are prohibative. 

Modifié par Delta_Echo, 21 juillet 2010 - 03:47 .

[Il Divo]

wulf3n wrote...

squee913 wrote...
See, now I can not argue with you. It's not that I agree with you, becasue I feel Mass 1 and 2 were fantastic and powerful stories but becasue I respect hat fact that you don't think so. I just feel that if it is a game it should be held to the standards of a game. By those standereds you agree that the story is a good one.

I'm not really arguing for or against ME1 and ME2 plots. All i'm saying is that as long as we keep accepting that games don't have to have good stories, we'll never see the industry evolve in that direction, which is disappointing considering the power good stories can have in games.

This is a very good point. It reminds me of Alan Moore's comment that every medium (movies, comic books, novels, etc) has its own unique way of communicating with the audience. That's why he hated the Watchmen film adaptation; it was always meant to function like a graphic novel. The Mass Effect series (and most Bioware games) while good, has yet to fully take advantage of this; there are fairly unique ways that story and gameplay can be combined into one for a far more personal experience than any book.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 juillet 2010 - 04:21 .

[Nightwriter]

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I disagree with everyone who said ME and ME 2 had a horrible plot. It is one of the best plots in video game history. And it is incorrect to look at ME and ME 2 as individual stories, and it is incorrect to compare them, as they are all a part of one plot, the Galaxies races banding together to stop the Reaper threat, and thus, are both equally badass.

Well, sure you can look at them separately. They're separate games.

I can say I enjoyed the plot of ME1 better than the plot of ME2. And I do. I can even say one part of a given story was better than another part. Which I do. I can say I think a given part of that story went in an unfortunate direction. Which I do.

Why did you feel like this was one of the best plots in videogame history? Or the best plots ever?

[Xeranx]

Delta_Echo wrote...

My speculation is, the artists, the programmers, the marketing dept, etc. all had their "cool projects" they wanted to make happen and dictated to the writers, " we want this to happen, make it happen." If what was done in this sequal had been done in any other story telling medium ( book, movie, tv series) there would have been a lot more outrage. Bioware is one of the few developers that even cares about storytelling, we who are bitterly voicing our disappointment are doing so because we know they can do better and choose not to.

To be honest, I don't think it was the fault of the programmers or artists that had anything to do with this. This whole process feels exactly the same as it did when SOE put out Star Wars Galaxies and the NGE.  Just like there was reduced developer contact during the changes that occurred there, there's reduced developer contact with people voicing their opinions of what exists in ME2.  Now all they do is post patch notes like they did on SOE's boards and shuffle posts to condensed areas so all the detractors can be kept in a nice neat corral.  I'm sorry to be snide with that last remark, but it's all too similar.

With the NGE (New Game Enhancement) SOE was looking to tap into a new market so they could compete with WoW and they stripped rpg elements from that game and made it more shooter-like to tap into the shooter market because they seem to be a large percentage of gamers.  They did this after taking broad strokes in changing the way the game worked due to public opinion despite the fact that so many pinpointed what and what they felt was wrong and the developers could have made changes piecemeal and see what really works and what doesn't.  So as I did then, I will do so now and blame the suits.  I blame EA.  I mean why blow millions of dollars on a commercial spot during the most watched football game of the season?  Especially for a developer that has progressed as much as it has mostly due to word of mouth?  

[Delta_Echo]

 The inconsistancies produced in the story by the change in gameplay mechanics I can live with. Combat does flow better now, and appeals more to the FPS market. The change  in the inventory system is mostly for the better even though I'm not a fan of the squad "super hero" costumes and prefer the combat armor of the first game. The bare flesh exposed to vacum (collector ship entrance) for so many characters kind of disgusted me though. 

I can understand altering the game to appeal a broader audience, but you can do that without turning the story into the equivilent quality of Transformers 2.  

I was optimistic after EA purchased BW that they would continue to run things their way without "suit interferance", I'm not sure how much input EA actually had to do with the development of the main game I still think the changes were all BW as much as I would prefer to blame it on EA.  

I don't think BW is like SOE in that they will just shuffle the criticizers out of the way so we don't  disturb anyone else, I still have faith that they can listen to reasoned rational and constructive criticism

[Whatever42]

BW won't listen to you because most people disagree with you. I think the armor in ME1 for the most part was ass ugly and I prefer the super-hero costumes. Things like sounds in space, communication through quantum entanglement, and exposure to vacuum doesn't rankle me - this is fantasy, not real sci fi. If things like this disgust you, I'd recommend staying away from space opera. Star Trek and Star Wars are equally, if not more, ridiculous and those are foundations of ME.
If you really want, you can imagine solutions - their biotics protect them. But mostly, I'm not obsessive enough to dwell on such inconsquential things.
The writing in ME was top notch. If this was a movie, I would say the problem was simply with the editting. If they had a couple fewer characters and another mission that advanced the main story then the pacing would have been great and I wouldn't have any complaints. But don't blame the writers for that - again, thats the "director" and the editors.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:11 .

[Delta_Echo]

But ME1 was real sci-fi, ME2 was as you say much more hand waving fantasy. And I know I'm going to draw a lot of antagonism, but it was dumbed down to have more mass appeal. They don't even bother with fictional explanations for the nonsense that happens. Which is why whenever we bring up any issues we are flooded with explanations from players fabricated from their own imaginations. Feel free to do that but this isn't fan fiction and my suspension of disbelief only go so far. Sci-fi changes the rules of reality but you still need rules for any fictional universe. ME1 sets its framework and rules rather well, ME2 trashes this framework with no explanation in too many cases, and some really bad ones in others. And I don't blame the writers, the writing itself was good within each short story of ME2, but who decided what would be written? I suspect the writers had very little input in the "grand" direction of the story.

[Il Divo]

Delta_Echo wrote...

But ME1 was real sci-fi, ME2 was as you say much more hand waving fantasy. And I know I'm going to draw a lot of antagonism, but it was dumbed down to have more mass appeal. They don't even bother with fictional explanations for the nonsense that happens.

Calling something "element zero" (Mass Effect) is not much better off than providing little to no explanation for it. I would say this was already handled for mass appeal and to create a 'magic' system for the game.  

[Delta_Echo]

Il Divo wrote...

Delta_Echo wrote...

But ME1 was real sci-fi, ME2 was as you say much more hand waving fantasy. And I know I'm going to draw a lot of antagonism, but it was dumbed down to have more mass appeal. They don't even bother with fictional explanations for the nonsense that happens.

Calling something "element zero" (Mass Effect) is not much better off than providing little to no explanation for it. I would say this was already handled for mass appeal and to create a 'magic' system for the game.  

 In this I disagree.
This is the basis  for making the impossible possible in this universe while its "magic like"  its still subject to limitations. How things work in regards to eezo is very well structured and explained, at least in the first game. And Mass Effects have limits which is key!  For anything to have meaning in Fiction there must be rules and limits otherwise consequences become meaningless ( like Death for instance? gee)

 In the second it begins to morph into something disturbingly like "the Force" becoming more magic like and breaking the framework established in the first game, with no explanations or  BS explanations. So much for continuity.

[tonnactus]

Delta_Echo wrote...

I can understand altering the game to appeal a broader audience, but you can do that without turning the story into the equivilent quality of Transformers 2.  

Breather helmets in the collector ship.I would compare this with Lexx the Darkzone.But this film has never the aim to be taken seriuos. But shepardt has as much emotions as kai...

Modifié par tonnactus, 21 juillet 2010 - 08:43 .

[Whatever42]

I love real sci fi. I get annoyed when awesome series like Firefly fail because they don't have the pew pew of Star Wars lasers. That said, I do still love Star Wars. So I do feel ya here.



Was ME1 more sci fi than ME2? Maaybe. You still had sound in space and killer robots and aliens who were really just humans spray-painted blue. To me they might as well be elves and hobbits throwing fireballs and magic missles. But I totally understand that mileage may vary in this regard. I will never tell anyone what they should like. I just respectfully say it doesn't really matter to me and I still think its great fun.



BTW, why did they build the death star with a vent that led directly to the reaction chamber so that a single torpedo could blow the whole thing?

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I love real sci fi. I get annoyed when awesome series like Firefly fail because they don't have the pew pew of Star Wars lasers. That said, I do still love Star Wars. So I do feel ya here.

Was ME1 more sci fi than ME2? Maaybe. You still had sound in space and killer robots and aliens who were really just humans spray-painted blue. To me they might as well be elves and hobbits throwing fireballs and magic missles. But I totally understand that mileage may vary in this regard. I will never tell anyone what they should like. I just respectfully say it doesn't really matter to me and I still think its great fun.

BTW, why did they build the death star with a vent that led directly to the reaction chamber so that a single torpedo could blow the whole thing?

Both ME 1 and ME 2 are science fantasy really.  The sheer number of suprisingly humanoid-looking aliens clinches it by itself.  The thing is, ME 1 had at least a nodding aquaintence with real-world reality (shields more kinetic barriers like Dune than force fields from Star Trek, helmets in hostile enviroments, armor).  Aside from the Mass Effect field "magic system", it tried to stay somewhat within the laws of reality as we understand them.   ME 2 was far more "reroute auxillary power through Jeffries tube 4 to align the main deflector dish!"

I swear if there's a half-quarian first officer in ME 3...