1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Turin_4]

Mad props to Babylon 5 reference. Some people just don't understand good writing, or how absolutely unbelievable the Shepard resurrection scene is, because "it's a game" or "it's science fiction" or some completely nonsensical bias they have.

What was 'absolutely unbelievable' about it? This is a test, btw, smudboy. I'm interested in the conversation, but only if you can go about it without being over-the-top smug and insulting. Y'know, like a grown up and civilized human being, because people who are actually as qualified and intelligent as your smugness proclaims you to be aren't?

[kaimanaMM]

Getorex wrote...

I agree with the consensus (in THIS thread) that there were some lost opportunities for interesting story points, case in point: The Protheans being Collectors really is a Big Deal and deserved much more than a "Well, that's a shame. Let's go".  The Protheans are near-mythic greats in the ME universe.  Their sudden disappearance a mystery.  The revelation that they didn't quite disappear should be quite big. 

There were very few things that disappointed me in ME2, but this ... like I said in another thread, this should have been a Very Big Deal ™.  But all we got was a nod, a shrug and we're on our way.  No one really seems to care, even Shepard.  What could have been a real one two punch turned into barely a blip on the radar.  Had we encountered the Collectors more often or maybe if we had felt an actual connection to the colonists being abducted - but ultimately we rarely see or even interact with the Collectors and the only colony we ever go to where we encounter actual people the only person we talk to is a complete ass.  The Collector plot had major potential to make us feel pity, feel sadness, feel resolve, feel compelled to succeed because what happened (Protheans being turned into the Collectors) could be the price humanity pays if Shepard fails.  But because the connection is never fully realized, it's like a watered down cup of coffee, the taste and the aroma are there, but it lacks body and substance.

[Getorex]

smudboy wrote...

Getorex wrote...
That all said, it IS a game, the game engine DOES have limitations, the designers DO have constraints (hardware, software, time, and economic) that they must work within.  Sure, they may have benefited the story and its unfolding if they had gone all Babylon 5 with it first:  Babs 5 didn't begin filming before the ENTIRE story arc had been thorougly mapped out.  Straczynski, the creator, had mapped out the entire story and knew precisely when the series would end and how.  THEN filming began and the story unfolded according to the map with room for side stories that never conflicted with the main story arc to fill in the episodes (consider them side missions and DLC equivalents).  Game designers and producers would REALLY have to be dedicated to a particular game to go to this extent - but they can't know if the game will click and support itself until they get it out there so they can't necessarily expend all the money/effort to do a complete prelim job on a full story beforehand.  I give Bioware credit for what they've done and understand that it is difficult and, by nature, has to be somewhat ad-hoc.  They simply cannot make the game all things to all people.  The game engine isn't up to the task, nor are the other factors involved with the entire enterprise. 

I do not recall writers being limited by their imagination, only their knowledge of reality and being able to mesh those two together properly.

Mad props to Babylon 5 reference.  Some people just don't understand good writing, or how absolutely unbelievable the Shepard resurrection scene is, because "it's a game" or "it's science fiction" or some completely nonsensical bias they have.

It is a not a massive act of effort to write a sentence, and to have a voice actor say that sentence, that clarifies wtf is going on.  The problem with resurrection is you might need a few more sentences to explain it.  Or pay a modeler to create a Lazarus Machine or something.

Well, because it IS a game and I had to (WANTED to) play it through, I had to simply swallow the resurrection...and self-justify that there was some intact cellular material - mainly DNA - from which a clone/stem cell rebuild could be produced.  Keeping memories/history in the final Shepard mind is still problematic no matter how you slice it.  The only way it could work, but which would almost totally eliminate actual death entirely due to logical consistency, would be nano-replicator/assemblers/disassemblers, ala Charles Stross' "Glasshouse".  People periodically back themselves up by stepping into a booth and hitting the backup button.  They are knocked out, disassembled atom-by-atom, with all the atomic coordinates and connections recorded and stored, and then reassembled.  If they're body dies/gets killed, their latest backup is used to resurrect them.  Any memories/experiences that occurred after the last backup are lost.  This mechanism, plausible in theory, would also have so many repercussions that the ME story would have to be carefully rewritten and continually referenced to these repercussions to keep consistency.  But I digress...

There are ways to write the story and play it out where there is logical consistency and no self-contradiction, but it takes a LOT of effort beforehand and diligence while doing the actual coding and final writing.  I think that is pretty tough to get from video game developers and companies. 

[Getorex]

yorkj86 wrote...

Shepard's death and resurrection were superfluous.  If you change Shepard's appearance, it's assumed that he always looked that way, and people will recognize him.  The very same thing could have been done with Shepard's class, without needing the death and resurrection conceit.  He's always been a Soldier/Adept/Sentinel/Vanguard/Infiltrator/Engineer.  It's a minor retcon that means nothing to the story. 

They did nothing with the death and resurrection conceit, except for Shepard sounding a little distressed about the knowledge that he's been dead for two years.  After a while, he's even nonchalant about the fact that everyone is surprised that he's dead.

Well, it did have the effect of taking away all of your old crew except Joker.  It also did put you into Cerberus.  They could have tried a different tack to the same end but it was quicker to just kill you and bring you back 2 years later.  Poof!

I'd like to hear about how much content was cut to make the game work for the 360.  If the developers have to work around a console's limitations, then I'll learn to expect little of ME3.

Ugh.  This is my biggest fear - that consoles are being placted/catered to at the expense of the potential of the game.  I'd rather it be written for the PC and then dumbed down for consoles rather than made for consoles and PC users expected to accept less than otherwise necessary.

Modifié par Getorex, 27 septembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Nah, Smud's right. A few extra lines of dialogue wouldn't have broken the 360 version.  Glossing over the resurrection plot was a writing choice.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 27 septembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[Turin_4]

I'd rather a better game too. But then again, I'm not the one standing to make a ****-ton more money off of the deal either, so. *shrug* Opportunity costs. Anyway, I wasn't asking about dialogue, Cap, I was asking what was 'absolutely unbelievable' about the resurrection.



It also didn't put you 'into' Cerberus. You have the option of accepting Cerberus assignments or not, and when you go on those assignments, sometimes you can help Cerberus interests - such as siding with the Quarians - or not. Shepard makes it quite clear, as a Paragon, that she is working alongside Cerberus because it's been a long time and desperation makes her desperate. Much like, "Hey, Stalin's bad, but here's these ****s."

[Gibb_Garrus]

Ah yes, damn those console. Mass Effect was brought to life on the 360, but damn them all to hell. ME3 will now be a shallow, low-quality experience because of those darn consoles!!!



*facepalm*

[Getorex]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

Ah yes, damn those console. Mass Effect was brought to life on the 360, but damn them all to hell. ME3 will now be a shallow, low-quality experience because of those darn consoles!!!

*facepalm*

Explains the less-than-ideal control system on the PC.  They got it fairly strong in ME2.

The console types often cry out for a single disk.  A single disk means a pared down game.  It means LESS in order to accomodate a console.  Then there's the CPU.  Quadcore on the PC vs how many in a console (seriously, I want to know because I don't know)?  It is also likely that consoles could hold back graphics improvements because, well, the GPU is OLD and unupgradeable.  On this point, so long as they make graphics capabilities up to PC standards, with the top end taking advantage of the latest/greatest GPU then no problem there...just no dumbing it down for the console and inflicting that on the rest please. 

Modifié par Getorex, 27 septembre 2010 - 03:55 .

[AceTrilby101]

Getorex wrote...
This is my biggest fear - that consoles are being placted/catered to at the expense of the potential of the game.  I'd rather it be written for the PC and then dumbed down for consoles rather than made for consoles and PC users expected to accept less than otherwise necessary.

I don't think that's the case. After all, the first Mass Effect was created specifically for the Xbox 360 and then ported to PC. When they ported it the made slight adjustments such as the inventory system, but otherwise the game was more or less unchanged. And yet no-one refers to the original being 'dumbed down'.
The second game was designed with both systems in mind, so what might/would/should have been different about the PC version? I'm assuming that the end product of the game was what the developers intended both ways - many people had problems with the inventory micromanagement, gunplay and so on, so they changed it. That's what I see as the reason for change. The 'potential' was realised, in BioWare's eyes.
However, I have no point of reference, as my PC is nowhere near good enough to run ME2, so I just have to stick to the console version. Usually it just seems that people accusing ME2 of 'dumbing down for consoles' (an unfair phrase at the best of times, I feel) are PC elitists, but I could be wrong. I just don't think that BioWare are ruining the game by making it console friendly in any way, shape or form.

[AceTrilby101]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

Ah yes, damn those console. Mass Effect was brought to life on the 360, but damn them all to hell. ME3 will now be a shallow, low-quality experience because of those darn consoles!!!

*facepalm*

Exactly

[Getorex]

AceTrilby101 wrote...

Getorex wrote...
This is my biggest fear - that consoles are being placted/catered to at the expense of the potential of the game.  I'd rather it be written for the PC and then dumbed down for consoles rather than made for consoles and PC users expected to accept less than otherwise necessary.

I don't think that's the case. After all, the first Mass Effect was created specifically for the Xbox 360 and then ported to PC. When they ported it the made slight adjustments such as the inventory system, but otherwise the game was more or less unchanged. And yet no-one refers to the original being 'dumbed down'.
The second game was designed with both systems in mind, so what might/would/should have been different about the PC version? I'm assuming that the end product of the game was what the developers intended both ways - many people had problems with the inventory micromanagement, gunplay and so on, so they changed it. That's what I see as the reason for change. The 'potential' was realised, in BioWare's eyes.
However, I have no point of reference, as my PC is nowhere near good enough to run ME2, so I just have to stick to the console version. Usually it just seems that people accusing ME2 of 'dumbing down for consoles' (an unfair phrase at the best of times, I feel) are PC elitists, but I could be wrong. I just don't think that BioWare are ruining the game by making it console friendly in any way, shape or form.

Not a PC elitist but just not a console owner/user.  I've CONSIDERED a console (x360) now and again just for some of the games that are available there but not for the PC but always back off.  I am stymied by the unupgradeability of the console and wonder about having to buy a new console every 2 years or so to get the most out of graphics capabilities, etc.  If they made it so you could crack the case and pull out the old GPU/card and slap in the latest/greatest nVidia hardware, then no problem...it is just an issue I have but haven't resolved, is all.

[Godeskian]

Bring on the four disc version of ME3, two discs for story, two discs for all the various endings

Mind you, I was slightly perturbed when your first conversation with Joker in the cockpit of the new Normandy involves a 'i died' joke between them,

Of course, somewhere along the line I realised that it's what Shepard does. He deals and carries on. You can even see it a bit in the backgrounds. Whatever **** he went through, he just dusts himself off and keeps moving.

Also, given that the collectors are mythical in the MassVerse, the revelation is only really a big deal for the Normandy and her crew.

I actually don't have many complains about Mass 2 though. About the only thing I was dissapointed with was the fact that it doesn't feel like you've made strategic progress against the Reapers. Sure, you've made loads of tactical progress, your team, new weapons, dealing with the collectors (one way or another), but those are minor things overall. Remember the old quote, amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Sure there were bits of this, being able to seed more alliances and the like, but it still feels like more should have been done to begin preparing the galaxy for the arrival of the reapers.

[8T8]

the only thing that i did not like was sorting everyones problems, i felt like i was jerry springer at times, but other than that, it was good

[Nightwriter]

8T8 wrote...

the only thing that i did not like was sorting everyones problems, i felt like i was jerry springer at times, but other than that, it was good

I really don't mind it, to be honest. I've always considered it a bit of a privilege to go on a private, personal journey with a character.

I do somewhat object, however, when these journeys are made into tasks. Bonding with a character should not be a chore.

[Moiaussi]

betd2 wrote...

Really?  what you looked at a situation and Said, 'You know Assault Rife A has 4 less points in it's accuaracy rating than Assault Rife B.  I'm gonna switch to it now.  but A doesn't overheat as fast so afterward I'm gonna switch back."
Seriously?  
I prasied god when the invintory wasn't there.  no longer did I have to convert all this extra crap into omni-gel or spend time just selling **** to the Reqesiton officer.  I would cry if ME3  had an inventory system in it

When you are in a full battlesuit, which should have a HUD capable of doing any such calculations for you on the fly. There should have been an ability to mass convert or highlight and sell a bundle of items at once, and it does make sense to limit how much you are carrying, but otherwise, field customization makes some sense.

[Kavadas]

Moiaussi wrote...

...field customization makes some sense.

Not really.  Customization happens in the planning stages of an operation.  Equipment adjusments on the individual level mid-battle are quite ridiculous.  No soldier on the modern battlefield is going to be swapping their M4's M68 Aimpoint for an ACOG mid-firefight (they'd be seriously reprimanded if they were that stupid).

Things of that nature are factored into section and squad loadout designations which are all planned in advance by way of a unit's (M)TOE.  It's this type of diversified squad loadout specialization which offers true tactical flexibility, not some silly mechanic like switching between two ARs which trade damage for accuracy, and vice versa, that we experienced in ME1; I'm glad to see those days gone.

You can make exceptions to this, sometimes, in the form of weapons systems like the XM307/XM312

I'm cool with having an inventory so long as it's tied to the ship.  The equipment choices made pre-mission should be an interesting part of the game that rewards/punishes players who approach objectives with some true insight.

But there's absolutely no way Shepard should have a "pocket" inventory ala-ME1.  It's just an arcane fantasy mechanic that a few die-hard Arr-Pee-Geers QQ about every now and then.

Anyways, queue the inevitable "U R so dum, this is a game!!!  U cant use RL 2 pik a-part gaym mekaniks!!!" peeps...

Modifié par Kavadas, 27 septembre 2010 - 08:50 .

[Xeranx]

Terror_K wrote...

With character it depends. ME2's characters were more larger than life and came across as a little superpowered and more like ideal stereotypes with a theme than real characters, but I can forgive that because you really were supposed to be gathering the best of the best. ME1's characters weren't as exciting, but I would never call them dull or boring. They were just more down to earth and more average, and as such they actually felt a little more real to me than ME2's. That's basically my take on characters in both games.

My issue is "best-of-the-best" doesn't mean "Justice League" or "Avengers".  Mass Effect is a story of top-rated underdogs going against what no one has been able to stop before.  The protheans tired and almost failed.  I say almost because of the beacon and Vigil giving Shep and co a leg up so they can at least delay what is supposed to be an onslaught.  If we manage to defeat the reapers in ME3 my statement of protheans "almost failing" will be fulfilled, but that's an aside.

I don't view Shepard as a superhero.  If you go the default route, Shepard has one of the most homely beginnings there is and then his/her rise through the ranks is of a soldier who decided he/she wanted to excel.  Even then the beginning of ME has Hackett, Anderson, and Udina discussing whether or not Shepard is what they want with Udina have one, many, or no misgivings depending on your Shepard's background.

Branching off that, if I may, I want to bring up Ashley who's noted for her exemplary record and how she can actually choose any fleet she wants to serve with.  The way it's referenced I'm hard pressed not to believe that she's the better fit for a Spectre.  Also, she's a regular person with a regular background.  She is a human being with human problems doing exemplary work.  The closest we get to a superhero is Kaiden who's brought down to earth with migraines because of his L2 implants though they have L3s.  I don't remember if there was anything said about why he didn't get the L3 implants.  Maybe it was a greater risk than sticking with the L2s.

Fact of the matter is these are regular people.  Some were handicapped in some way, shape, or form, but they all perform admirably.  Compare this to ME2 where one out of three people on your squad is a biotic whose only limitation(s) may be gameplay and the ability to handle tech.  It's like heroes where you have one Peter too many when one is already too much.

[Iakus]

Turin_4 wrote...
Absolute zero temperatures?   It seemed like a big deal because of the people who were missing from Shepard's life and the crew who was gone, not because of the impact on Shepard's medical life personally.  The opening cutscenes conveyed, to me, quite well that this is The Future and in feats of incredible medical science, many of the issues simply don't matter much.  Religion?  When did that play much of a role in either ME1?  Philosophically?  Yes, they could have played that up a bit more, sure.  They could have done a lot of things.  It's a valid criticism.  Is it a game-breaking, "It's now a terrible plot-device," thing?  No, I don't think it is.

Yup.  It gets cold in space with a ruptured suit

As to the people in Shep's life, As to the people gone from Shep's life.  Who missed him? Who's suprised he's back?  Wrex is understandable, given he didn't know about the Normandy's dstruction.  But the Virmire Survivor?  Garrus?  His own mother simply sends an email saying "Why haven't you called?"  It's a shame that the only people seriously suprised  at Shep being not-dead were Nassana Dantius  and the C-Sec security system (not the officers, the equipment!)

Yes, there are, but remember: video game.  You're demanding an incredible amount of nuance here from what has to also be an exploration game, a shooter game, and an other-character driven dialogue game.  You're really starting to stray into, IMO, "They didn't make the absolutely perfect infinitesimally detailed game they should have made game," criticisms here.  I'm reminded a bit of people complaining that Tom Bombadil didn't make it into the LotR movies.

I admit i bang my head agsinst the wall about some stuff that was left out of the LoTR movies, but Tom Bombadil is distinctly not one of them

But yes, it is a lot to put onto the plate of a game.  That's the point.  Death is a Big Deal.  Don't introduce such a topic as death and ressurection unless you're willing to run with it.  Any number of easier and more logical explanations could have been used.  Long-term mission outside of Citadel space.  Discredited and pushed aside byt the Council.  Prisoner of war.  Heck, captured by the Collectors and had hideous medical experiments performed for two years before Cerberus to the rescue!

And other games have dealt with return from death well.  Geralt's mysterious reappearance was a thread throughout The Witcher, as he tries to reestablish his identity and wonders why and how he's come back.

And who could forget Planescape: Torment.?  "What can change the nature of a man?"

Bioware's own Jade Empire did it better.  Of course, the whole plot of the game involved the balance of life and death being thrown out of whack.

This is a more reasonable criticism, I think.  The mechanics and some of the dirty deeds Cerberus must have done to accomplish the resurrection (what an interesting moral dilemma that poses) is something Shepard would naturally be interested in, a Paragon Shepard anyway.  Though I do think you're overstating Moridin's case a bit.  He's fascinated by religion, but not quite interested.

Mordin describes the Wheel of Life belief in Salarian culture when asked how he can justify the genophage:

"Refuse to believe life ends here.  Too wasteful.  Have more to offer.  Mistakes to fix.  Cannot end here.  Could do so much more"

How strongly Mordin believes is debatable, but I think he's at least studied it a bit, to ease his conscience if nothing else.

Besides, as a doctor, you'd think he'd be interested in Shepard as a medical miracle.  Two year old corpse one day, kiling armies of mercs the next

Ah, smudboy.  How would that particular if-only be expressed in the game?  Visiting everyone you encountered in the first game and have them give iterations of, "OMG it's Shepard!"

Actually, yeah.  That would be a totally appropriate reaction if someone you thought was dead for two years turns out not to be quite so dead after all.  Particularly if you were a friend or loved one.  One of those effects I mentioned earlier.

I think in this game they were still a cut above other game developers, but y'all are expecting them to be like, ******-sapiens above neanderthals above.  And I believe the game was character-centric.  Your the extent of your success in the game depends on how character-driven you decide Shepard is, but when you say you want more character interaction, what do you mean in practice?  For instance, when Shepard is talking with some random person somewhere and her two squad mates are with her...will they be interjecting random back chatter or something?  Even disagreeing or some such?  I mean, get specific with your criticism, or else it's just typical Internet complaining, seriously man.

Yes, exactly.   Random chatter.  With Shepard and more importantly with each other.  Argue, compare war stories.  debate methods.  They talk about their past with Shepard, how about with each other?  This is a Suicide Mission.  Their lives are going to be in each others hands.  They will be totally dependant on each other.  Not just Shepard.  We need to see this team come together.  The scene with Garus and Tali at the Citadel talking about elevators is the only situation I can recall from ME 2.

  I also want them to give their thoughts on  particular events.  Give some information they may know about.  Argue.  Agree.  Disagree.  Offer some insight. 

Examples:

Garrus wants Sidonis dead.  What does Samara have to say about that, as a justicar?  How about Morinth?  Thane, the super-assassin?  Tali, an old comrade in arms?  Jacob?  Zaed?  Legion?  Twelve personalities, individual and distinct, yet universally mute.

Genophage data, keep or destroy?  Which squadmates say keep it?  Which are uncomfortable with that?  Who don't care one way or the other?  Offhand, I'd say all of them, cause nobody speaks up.

What are the squads' thoughts on TIM using Horizon and the Virmire Survivor as bait for the Collectors?  How about sending them into the Collector ship knowing it was a trap?  Well, at least Mordin can voice his opinion on that.

How about N7 missions?  I can't really mention them too much since even Shepard's pretty silent on those.

Ironically, Bioware's other recent game, Dragon Age, pretty much set a new bar in level of squad banter.  And that wasn't nearly as charactar-centric as ME 2 supposedly was.. 

If I remember, you can put up quite blunt resistance to Cerberus, outside the Collector/Reaper missions.  You can forward Cerberus intel to the Alliance and, of course, ultimately keep the Collector base out of Cerberus hands.

Blunt resistance?  In ME 1, Shepard can insult, threaten, or cut off the Council in addition to being respectful or businesslike towards them.  Almost all Shepard's responses to TIM in ME 2 sound more like  "Thank you sir, may I have another?" in comparisson.  Sure TIM footed the bill for your accute case of Death, but come on!  And like I said, any past crimes you bring up to him (or Miranda) are handwaved away as "rogue cells" or "misunderstandings"

Yes you can forward Cerberus info to the Aliiance and it does...precisely nothing.  Not even an email, if I remember correctly (I may be wrong, there are so very many emails) I suspect it will prove to be just as impactful as the Cerberus data in the Hades Dogs mission in ME 1.

The last one was the only one I, as a paragon player actually felt satisfaction at doing.  And even then, I kinda wished for a third option.

[Darth Drago]

Getorex wrote...

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

Ah yes, damn those console. Mass Effect was brought to life on the 360, but damn them all to hell. ME3 will now be a shallow, low-quality experience because of those darn consoles!!!

*facepalm*

Explains the less-than-ideal control system on the PC. They got it fairly strong in ME2.

The console types often cry out for a single disk. A single disk means a pared down game. It means LESS in order to accomodate a console. Then there's the CPU. Quadcore on the PC vs how many in a console (seriously, I want to know because I don't know)? It is also likely that consoles could hold back graphics improvements because, well, the GPU is OLD and unupgradeable. On this point, so long as they make graphics capabilities up to PC standards, with the top end taking advantage of the latest/greatest GPU then no problem there...just no dumbing it down for the console and inflicting that on the rest please.

-I don’t by the X-Box 360 system limitations excuse at all. As shown in my example list below from my collection of games there are a ton of old games that use 2 discs and quite a few that use more than 2 discs. I‘m sure my list isn’t even close to complete as well for all game systems and none of them include PC games since my experience with tem has you install the discs and use one of them is used as a play disc.

If Mass Effect 2 was to big for 2 discs then they should have made it a 3 disc game. We already know that BioWare reshuffled some content or even removed some things like recruiting Thane, Tali, Legion and probably Samara. That should have been a warning to them right there. In my opinion the game developers probably got to lazy to make the game 3 discs, it got to big for them to know what to do with or more likely were forced by EA to keep the game a 2 disc game.

Would any one really care if it had been a 3 disc game? Those of us who have been around since the early days of video game system gaming probably wouldn’t care if the game was 4 or 5 discs. None of these games were ruined because they were more than a disc long.

All PlayStation 1 games except as noted.

Two Discs:
-Parasite Eve
-Parasite Eve 2
-Grandia
-Metal Gear Solid
-Xenogears
-Star Ocean
-Chrono Cross
-Lunar Silver Star Story
-Resident Evil 4 (Nintendo Game Cube)
-Resident Evil Zero (Nintendo Game Cube)
-Resident Evil (Nintendo Game Cube)

Three Discs:
-Final Fantasy VII
-Shenmue (Sega Dreamcast)
-Lunar 2 Eternal Blue

Four Discs:
-D-2 (Sega Dreamcast)
-The X-Files
-Final Fantasy VIII
-Final Fantasy IX

Five Disc:
-Riven

Modifié par Darth Drago, 27 septembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[Turin_4]

Yup.  It gets cold in space with a ruptured suit../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

Not, as I expect you know, anywhere near (relatively speaking) that cold:p.

As to the people in Shep's life, As to the people gone from Shep's
life.  Who missed him? Who's suprised he's back?  Wrex is
understandable, given he didn't know about the Normandy's dstruction. 
But the Virmire Survivor?  Garrus?  His own mother simply sends an email
saying "Why haven't you called?"  It's a shame that the only people
seriously suprised  at Shep being not-dead were Nassana Dantius  and the
C-Sec security system (not the officers, the equipment!)

This is a valid criticism, and something Bioware definitely should have handled better.  I hope their storytelling is better on subjects like these, though I went the orphaned war hero route for my shepard.  Goodness, that email from mom sounds dumb.  But honestly, though, in ME1, does your mother actually play much of a role at all?

But yes, it is a lot to put onto the plate of a game.  That's the
point.  Death is a Big Deal.  Don't introduce such a topic as death and
ressurection unless you're willing to run with it.  Any number of easier
and more logical explanations could have been used.  Long-term mission
outside of Citadel space.  Discredited and pushed aside byt the
Council.  Prisoner of war.  Heck, captured by the Collectors and had
hideous medical experiments performed for two years before Cerberus to
the rescue!

Well, some of those easier and more logical explanations were on the way to being used en route to Shepard's death, bear in mind.  Specifically, the long-term mission outside Citadel space and discredited and pushed aside by the Council.  Remember how the game starts: the whitewashing has begun, and she's out on the ass-end of nowhere hunting Geth.  That's how the Collectors were able to so easily take a crack at her in the first place, remember?

Those two things are, incidentally, two story elements which I feel could have been relatively easily and painlessly included more substantially into ME2 that would have made Shepard's involvement (even if she never decided to actually work with or for) Cerberus much easier to swallow as a Paragon.  The good guys do strange things when their balls are really in a vise and circumstances start spinning the crank, y'know?  Like say, "Hey, Marshal Stalin, sure, it was the Germans who killed those officers, not you..."  That sort of thing.

Besides, as a doctor, you'd think he'd be interested in Shepard as a
medical miracle.  Two year old corpse one day, kiling armies of mercs
the next../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

I agree, though that's not really what happened either.  She was a corpse for awhile, then getting worked on for I don't know how long - many many many months - and THEN killing armies of mercs and platoons of Collectors (I would have been happier if the proportions had been reversed).  But I'm sufficiently happy with Moridin's characterization that I'm not going to complain.  Seriously, we got a good look at a genuinely fleshed out angsty mad scientist in a video game.  Don't go Internet Critic crazy here!

Actually, yeah.  That would be a totally appropriate reaction if
someone you thought was dead for two years turns out not to be quite so
dead after all.  Particularly if you were a friend or loved one.  One of
those effects I mentioned earlier.

It would be appropriate, I'm just picturing the reaction of the Internet Critic:)

Ironically, Bioware's other recent game, Dragon Age, pretty much set
a new bar in level of squad banter.  And that wasn't nearly as
charactar-centric as ME 2 supposedly was..

This right here.  A new bar has been set.  Now that it has, presumably ME3 will capitalize and improve upon it.  It's just, man, the things you're talking about...that's a lot of dialogue.  Not that I wouldn't love it, because I would!  But let's not kid ourselves that it would be magically easy, or cheap, or straightforward, or marketable to, y'know, the markets Bioware actually has to appeal to, which isn't us hardcore 3x+ replay guys like we are around here.

Blunt resistance?  In ME 1, Shepard can insult, threaten, or cut off
the Council in addition to being respectful or businesslike towards
them.  Almost all Shepard's responses to TIM in ME 2 sound more like 
"Thank you sir, may I have another?" in comparisson.  Sure TIM footed
the bill for your accute case of Death, but come on!  And like I said,
any past crimes you bring up to him (or Miranda) are handwaved away as
"rogue cells" or "misunderstandings"

As I recall, in ME2 when you go on Cerberus assignments sometimes you get various intelligence that you can either keep for yourself, give to Cerberus, the public, or the Alliance.  You can send the Quarian back to the Quarians, give him to Cerberus, or something.  You can put down tIM in front of the crew even in a combat situation or not, and in meetings with him express hostility and distrust, or not.  And when push comes to shove, at the end of the game, you can basically say, "Screw you, screw this base, I'm blowing it up, stealing this enormously expesive state-of-the-art warship, AI, and formerly loyal crew of yours that I've suborned over the past few months."

Did anyone else not see the subtext there?  Who do you think Miranda, the 'Cerberus cheerleader', will be loyal to after her sister is saved?  Cerberus or Shepard?  If Cerberus wants to play hardball with Shepard in ME3, well there's EDI, who knows an [i]awful lot about Cerberus and tIM and who just likes Shepard and particularly Joker to pieces.  

[Nightwriter]

People will always feel like they got to defy the Council more than they did TIM. And rightly so.

- You can cut the Council off (but never TIM).
- You can make the Council unhappy, consistently, throughout ME1, depending on your decisions. (you get to make TIM unhappy with ONE decision)
- You are never told exactly what to do by the Council (they only give you helpful locations just, you know, if you wanna check it out).
- None of your defiance against TIM means anything, until the very end. It's totally impotent.
- The Council never tells you when to do something, or in what order. Not so with TIM. When he snaps his fingers, you jump.
- Your entire relationship with the Council was based on conflict right from the very beginning.

When you think about it, the plot is born with you defying the Council. You had to fight for the right to pursue Saren. Another reason you feel much more involved in ME1's plot - you are the very cause of its existence.

But TIM, he tells you about the Collectors, and tells you they're important. You don't have to fight for the right to pursue them. You're just told to. Right from the beginning, TIM tells you what to do, and you do it. You feel much more forced.