1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

No, you misunderstand.

[Il Divo]

Nightwriter wrote...

No, you misunderstand.

It is very possible.

[Nightwriter]

Lol.

Well, the end of ME1 makes you think big changes are on the way. Humanity now has a seat on the Council, you have finally proven yourself as a Spectre, and everyone knows about the Reapers now.

An ME1 player wants to know what will happen now that these things have been achieved.

Yet in ME2, we learn humanity's seat on the Council is meaningless, we are no longer a Spectre, we earned no respect, and the galaxy still denies the Reapers.

[Il Divo]

Nightwriter wrote...

Lol.

Well, the end of ME1 makes you think big changes are on the way. Humanity now has a seat on the Council, you have finally proven yourself as a Spectre, and everyone knows about the Reapers now.

Alright, I'm with you so far.

An ME1 player wants to know what will happen now that these things have been achieved.

Makes sense to me.

Yet in ME2, we learn humanity's seat on the Council is meaningless, we are no longer a Spectre, we earned no respect, and the galaxy still denies the Reapers.

And I'm now lost. Your point is clear, but I dispute several claims, particularly the first and third. Humanity's seat on the Council is not meaningless; it is simply of no practical use to Commander Shepard at this current time. Killing/saving the Council however does have consequences for galactic civilization. I would also say that Shepard has definitely earned respect on a general level evidenced by his war hero status and conversations with Jacob, Illusive Man, Anderson, and the Cerberus Crew.

Now considering your second and fourth arguments, I recall when I played Mass Effect 2, I had the same kind of vibe as when I first played Kotor 2. Your character wakes up in an unknown location trying to put together what the is going on and what happened in the previous installment. Yes, Mass Effect 1 left us in a triumphant light. If anything, that is why I enjoyed Mass Effect 2's approach. You are no longer baby Spectre. You don't have special status and the world will not kowtow to you. Shepard is forced to rely on himself rather than a special status by some government in the Terminus Systems where no one cares who you are. It is this contrast with Mass Effect 1 that allowed me to enjoy ME2 so much.

[Nightwriter]

I call it meaningless because it has no practical use. I thought we had proven we were equals. I thought I'd see action, movement, change. Yet humanity's seat on the Council is just... there. They've simply been incorporated into the uselessness that is the Citadel Council. Besides, the game spends like 10 minutes addressing the fact that humanity is now a part of the Council.

When I say Shepard is not respected, I mean by the Council. All throughout ME1 the Council treats you like the odd man out, you're this rookie Spectre they treat with grudging indulgence. In ME1 I thought I'd overcome that and proven myself, won their respect. In ME2, the Council is telling me I'm a lunatic, questioning my mental health, and saying it wants nothing to do with me. So I achieved nothing.

Thing is, I thought you already relied on yourself PLENTY in ME1. I pretty much felt like I was on my own most of the time. I hated that they just scrapped the whole Spectre thing. Decided they weren't going to run with it anymore. One of my favorite parts of the game was the political aspect of it, talking to the Council, being a Spectre, etc. That part is gutted in ME2. I'm working with a rogue organization I don't know why I'm with. It all feels wrong.

[MrFob]

Il Divo wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Lol.

Well, the end of ME1 makes you think big changes are on the way. Humanity now has a seat on the Council, you have finally proven yourself as a Spectre, and everyone knows about the Reapers now.

Alright, I'm with you so far.

An ME1 player wants to know what will happen now that these things have been achieved.

Makes sense to me.

Yet in ME2, we learn humanity's seat on the Council is meaningless, we are no longer a Spectre, we earned no respect, and the galaxy still denies the Reapers.

And I'm now lost. Your point is clear, but I dispute several claims, particularly the first and third. Humanity's seat on the Council is not meaningless; it is simply of no practical use to Commander Shepard at this current time. Killing/saving the Council however does have consequences for galactic civilization. I would also say that Shepard has definitely earned respect on a general level evidenced by his war hero status and conversations with Jacob, Illusive Man, Anderson, and the Cerberus Crew.

Now considering your second and fourth arguments, I recall when I played Mass Effect 2, I had the same kind of vibe as when I first played Kotor 2. Your character wakes up in an unknown location trying to put together what the is going on and what happened in the previous installment. Yes, Mass Effect 1 left us in a triumphant light. If anything, that is why I enjoyed Mass Effect 2's approach. You are no longer baby Spectre. You don't have special status and the world will not kowtow to you. Shepard is forced to rely on himself rather than a special status by some government in the Terminus Systems where no one cares who you are. It is this contrast with Mass Effect 1 that allowed me to enjoy ME2 so much.

I'd say that is fair enough as far as ME2s premise goes (You still can criticizes the game for it's premise though).
I think the way the consequences were handled in ME2 is also understandable from a technical perspective (permutations is the word here). However, I do expect Bioware to remedy the situation in ME3.
1. Shep obviously can't fight the reapers on his (I'll leave the her out) own. He has to activate every recourse he can get, from the quarian flotilla to the alliance to the council. This is the perfect setup to show that all the decisions we have made in parts 1 & 2 truly have observable consequences and I would be very disappointed if they don't do that.
2. Shepard is a hero (a bloody icon ) who has saved the galactic civilization twice over now. He should be in the middle of things at the culmination of the story, not at some backwater planet to make the job easier for the dev team.
3. The technical issues are no longer that relevant since we are talking about the final installment with no further permutations that will be carried over into other games.
4. There is no reason whatsoever to accommodate newcomers to the trilogy beyond the old codex articles and maybe the "what happened so far" trailer that is already out there (could be played if you start a new character). In the game itself, we can't get enough references to the old games (and the books,too, I expect to see Anderson together with Sanders in ME3). It's the only way to create the experience of a coherent universe.

Well, I guess what I am saying is that BW can be excused for not going too hard on the consequences in EM2 but they really should deliver in ME3 ...and I think they will..

Modifié par MrFob, 25 octobre 2010 - 01:20 .

[Nightwriter]

All I'm asking is for them to make the induction into Cerberus not feel rushed and totally immersion breaking, for them to not reset the whole game just to make their story work, for them to not make all my allies turn on me as a cheap plot device to excuse my having to work with Cerberus, for them to actually address the fact that I died, and for them to allow me to ask the Council for help before I agreed to work with Cerberus, as that would've helped a lot.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Lol.

Well, the end of ME1 makes you think big changes are on the way. Humanity now has a seat on the Council, you have finally proven yourself as a Spectre, and everyone knows about the Reapers now.

An ME1 player wants to know what will happen now that these things have been achieved.

Yet in ME2, we learn humanity's seat on the Council is meaningless, we are no longer a Spectre, we earned no respect, and the galaxy still denies the Reapers.

yes, yes and no - hardly anyone knew the vanguard of the gteh fleet was a reaper, and as was explained in me2, it was pretty much hushed up as it would have been in real life. the council is also more than about spectres - it is the seat of government for much of the galaxy, they have a lot of things to deal with besides 'shepard'. the back-pedalling when you resurface is disappointing, but almost understandable (doubly so when you think of politicians in RL).

[Xeranx]

Jebel Krong wrote...

comparing me1 character to me2 characters is also ridiculous - you have so much more meaningful content in the sequel, and none of the characters are alike. garrus was boring as hell in me1, yet by me2 they made him cool. people complain about characters not interacting in both games, but it was even more limited in the first - and no the odd "random" comment in a crappy elevator does not add "depth."

Of course compared with his ME2 treatment he'd come off not being cool in ME, but then that's what many people have a problem with.  Cool works if that's all you're looking for, but if you want something deeper then just being cool isn't going to cut it.

Mentioning that interaction was limited even moreso in ME doesn't help your cause considering that ME wasn't billed as being about the characters while ME2 was/is.  It's about as apt as saying a family sedan is inferior because it's 0-60 is achieved in 30 seconds while its sports sedan counterpart's 0-60 is achieved in 28 seconds.
The sports sedan is supposed to outshine the family sedan in speed.  That is what it's built for.  That it barely does it better doesn't make the sporty version any shinier.  In fact, it would highlight the faults of the car company.

ME2 highlights Bioware's desire to have ME2 be greater than its prequel, but that ME2 only succeeds in some aspects is terrible.  I would take that as a crushing blow.  That in all other public statements they feel the need to sweep anything negative under the carpet and yet release the stats they did is mind boggling.

[Jebel Krong]

Xeranx wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

comparing me1 character to me2 characters is also ridiculous - you have so much more meaningful content in the sequel, and none of the characters are alike. garrus was boring as hell in me1, yet by me2 they made him cool. people complain about characters not interacting in both games, but it was even more limited in the first - and no the odd "random" comment in a crappy elevator does not add "depth."

Of course compared with his ME2 treatment he'd come off not being cool in ME, but then that's what many people have a problem with.  Cool works if that's all you're looking for, but if you want something deeper then just being cool isn't going to cut it.

Mentioning that interaction was limited even moreso in ME doesn't help your cause considering that ME wasn't billed as being about the characters while ME2 was/is.  It's about as apt as saying a family sedan is inferior because it's 0-60 is achieved in 30 seconds while its sports sedan counterpart's 0-60 is achieved in 28 seconds.
The sports sedan is supposed to outshine the family sedan in speed.  That is what it's built for.  That it barely does it better doesn't make the sporty version any shinier.  In fact, it would highlight the faults of the car company.

ME2 highlights Bioware's desire to have ME2 be greater than its prequel, but that ME2 only succeeds in some aspects is terrible.  I would take that as a crushing blow.  That in all other public statements they feel the need to sweep anything negative under the carpet and yet release the stats they did is mind boggling.

it was about the characters - character interaction is part of that, but not the most important part - which they nailed. Garrus became cool, yes, but they managed to make him interesting by establishing the history of conflict he'd gone through in shepard's absence - before that he was just the "ex-CSEC" guy.... now he's the renegade, ex-CSEC ex-team leader with the battle scars to show for it.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 01:35 .

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

yes, yes and no - hardly anyone knew the vanguard of the gteh fleet was a reaper, and as was explained in me2, it was pretty much hushed up as it would have been in real life. the council is also more than about spectres - it is the seat of government for much of the galaxy, they have a lot of things to deal with besides 'shepard'. the back-pedalling when you resurface is disappointing, but almost understandable (doubly so when you think of politicians in RL).

We expect fiction to follow logic and to show us a cohesive progression of events.

In real life this would just be the Council being politicians, but in fiction what they did comes off as bad writing.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

yes, yes and no - hardly anyone knew the vanguard of the gteh fleet was a reaper, and as was explained in me2, it was pretty much hushed up as it would have been in real life. the council is also more than about spectres - it is the seat of government for much of the galaxy, they have a lot of things to deal with besides 'shepard'. the back-pedalling when you resurface is disappointing, but almost understandable (doubly so when you think of politicians in RL).

We expect fiction to follow logic and to show us a cohesive progression of events.

In real life this would just be the Council being politicians, but in fiction what they did comes off as bad writing.

why would you expect the fiction not to follow fact? 

you also obviously missed Jacob's pretty reasonable explanation for all this at the beginning of me2 - and the very reason he even considered Cerberus - having worked in the civil service, i can well understand.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 01:44 .

[Nightwriter]

Why would I expect the fiction to be cohesive? Because good fiction should be cohesive.

It's also important to understand that fiction should not always follow fact. Writing a good and satisfying story is what's important.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Why would I expect the fiction to be cohesive? Because good fiction should be cohesive.

It's also important to understand that fiction should not always follow fact. Writing a good and satisfying story is what's important.

the fiction is cohesive. (and that's not what i said anyway).

politicians will always be that, in fiction or otherwise - not everything has to change just because it's science fiction, and the story is satisfying anyway. Actually it'd be weird if they did act differently 

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:00 .

[Nightwriter]

The story is not satisfying.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...

Why would I expect the fiction to be cohesive? Because good fiction should be cohesive.

Indeed.

Nightwriter wrote...
It's also important to understand that fiction should not always follow fact. Writing a good and satisfying story is what's important.

The difference between versimilitude and hardline "realism".

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

The story is not satisfying.

your opinion. the story is also not about the council acting/not acting like politicians. so your complaint is, what exactly?

[freestylez]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

 The end of ME 1 has you thinking you know where the story's going.  Though ME 2 really pulls the rug out from under you.  The game ends with no idea where things are going in ME 3.  There's no real connection between the games except in both you play a character who happens to be called "Commander Shepard."

I see this statement everywhere on these forums and, for the life of me, I still do not understand it. Where precisely does Mass Effect's ending show me the story will go? The ending between Shepard and Udina/the Council tells me that 1) The Reapers are still out there and 2) Shepard must deal with them in some capacity.

What happens in Mass Effect 2?

1) The Reapers retaliate with the Collector threat.
2) Shepard deals with this new threat, which is a result of the Reapers. 

I would say this covers all the major points. 
 

What I and many have in issue with is:

1) A new mindless threat (Collectors) that are introduced, fought, and defeated all in the course of the game
2) Your sudden death that basically rendered your work convincing the coucil about the reapers useless
3) Your death that shoehorns you into working with an organziation which you spent time killing in side missions in ME1

So when people say they had a sense of where the story was going, they are talking about continuity. Consider the major events that occured a the end of ME1 - one would expect that Shepard would be working closely with the Council (whether the new or old one) to explore the Reaper threat.

Instead, you talk to the Council for 3 minutes (or not at all) and they suddenly have disregarded everything you worked for in ME because of buch of zombies amubushed you. The weight of the decisions from ME1 mean nothing - you're playing almost a new game with the same characters.

Modifié par freestylez, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:06 .

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

The story is not satisfying.

your opinion. the story is also not about the council acting/not acting like politicians. so your complaint is, what exactly?

They shouldn't have used a plot restart like this.
They shouldn't have the Council holding the Idiot Ball again just to make the story work.
They should've kept the Council in the game more, I liked the political aspect of it.
They shouldn't have trashed the Spectre plotline, it was cool.
They should've created better feelings of threat, the Collectors were unmotivating.
They shouldn't have made me feel like I'd gotten thrown out of the Galactic Clubhouse, it was lame.

[Jebel Krong]

freestylez wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

 The end of ME 1 has you thinking you know where the story's going.  Though ME 2 really pulls the rug out from under you.  The game ends with no idea where things are going in ME 3.  There's no real connection between the games except in both you play a character who happens to be called "Commander Shepard."

I see this statement everywhere on these forums and, for the life of me, I still do not understand it. Where precisely does Mass Effect's ending show me the story will go? The ending between Shepard and Udina/the Council tells me that 1) The Reapers are still out there and 2) Shepard must deal with them in some capacity.

What happens in Mass Effect 2?

1) The Reapers retaliate with the Collector threat.
2) Shepard deals with this new threat, which is a result of the Reapers. 

I would say this covers all the major points. 
 

What I and many have in issue with is:

1) A new mindless threat (Collectors) that are introduced, fought, and defeated all in the course of the game
2) Your sudden death that basically rendered your work convincing the coucil about the reapers useless
3) Your death that shoehorns you into working with an organziation which you spent time killing in side missions in ME1

So when people say they had a sense of where the story was going, they are talking about continuity. Consider the major events that occured a the end of ME1 - one would expect that Shepard would be working closely with the Council (whether the new or old one) to explore the Reaper threat.

Instead, you talk to the Council for 3 minutes (or not at all) and they suddenly have disregarded everything you worked for in ME because of buch of zombies amubushed you. The weight of the decisions from ME1 mean nothing - you're playing almost a new game with the same characters.

1. they aren't mindless and if you'd paid attention to the game it told you exactly what they were. why is it a problem that you actually deal with one threat over the course of one game, especially given what they are and the nature of the real threat?
2. one does not necessarily involve the other (though it could conceivably influence them).
3. which is explained and makes for interesting moral conflict.

the fact that the game didn't follow the oh-so-carefully charted course in your mind does not render reality invalid, or bad.

the weight of decisions do mean something (otherwise you wouldn't be able to get reinstated), but as the council say: they have to weigh up the impact on trillions, not just one guy.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:14 .

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

The story is not satisfying.

your opinion. the story is also not about the council acting/not acting like politicians. so your complaint is, what exactly?

They shouldn't have used a plot restart like this.
They shouldn't have the Council holding the Idiot Ball again just to make the story work.
They should've kept the Council in the game more, I liked the political aspect of it.
They shouldn't have trashed the Spectre plotline, it was cool.
They should've created better feelings of threat, the Collectors were unmotivating.
They shouldn't have made me feel like I'd gotten thrown out of the Galactic Clubhouse, it was lame.

reads like an "i want" list befitting a child throwing toys out of his pram, tbh (and the sad thing is i agree with some of it - spectre plots particularly). <_<

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:17 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well it depends, are we talking uncharted worlds or hub worlds?

If we're talking about uncharted worlds then lack of open space was not the issue in ME2, it was lack of side story missions of any entertainment value whatsoever. All the open space in the ME1 worlds was actually very monotonous.

If we're talking hub worlds, definitely, they felt really confined and small. My world felt shrunken.

Having played ME2 first, when I started walking around the Citadel in ME1, I was thinking "This is more like it!"

[Jebel Krong]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Having played ME2 first, when I started walking around the Citadel in ME1, I was thinking "This is more like it!"

like loading pauses, do you? 

actually the presidium is conceptually and visually stunning, but game-wise the whole place is technically a mess, something you can't say about any of the hubs in me2 (which are much denser and technically much better).

[Nightwriter]

Killjoy, as someone who played ME2 first, how did you feel ME1's story compared with ME2's?

Jebel Krong wrote...

reads like an "i want" list befitting a child throwing toys out of his pram, tbh (and the sad thing is i agree with some of it - spectre plots particularly). <_<

You sounded like you needed it put bluntly, so I put it bluntly, and didn't sugarcoat it. 

These things are true, Jebel. I'm not saying ME2 was a piece of trash, it was very good, so if that's what you're defending, you needn't. But it's always been important to me to recognize and accept the flaws of both games for what they are. I don't want you to feel like you must always take the opposing stance to me because any criticism of ME2 is bad criticism.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Killjoy, as someone who played ME2 first, how did you feel ME1's story compared with ME2's?

Jebel Krong wrote...

reads like an "i want" list befitting a child throwing toys out of his pram, tbh (and the sad thing is i agree with some of it - spectre plots particularly). <_<

You sounded like you needed it put bluntly, so I put it bluntly, and didn't sugarcoat it. 

These things are true, Jebel. I'm not saying ME2 was a piece of trash, it was very good, so if that's what you're defending, you needn't. But it's always been important to me to recognize and accept the flaws of both games for what they are. I don't want you to feel like you must always take the opposing stance to me because any criticism of ME2 is bad criticism.

i certainly don't defend me2 because it doesn't warrant criticism - what gets me is people stating personal opinion as fact and, particularly, when people ignore the self-same same failings in me1 and state me2 sucks because of that very thing.

this whole thread reads like a child's tantrums because BW didn't write the story to suit their particular tastes, at times, you never see balanced criticism: it's all "me1 was so perfect and me2 totally screwed everything up! forever!!" so in that case i will defend it, yes.

btw - you certainyl aren't nearly as bad as some, night, and i know that.