133 réponses à ce sujet

[Dionkey]

smudboy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I had a longer post originally, but it was rambling and incoherent, so I'll just say this: loyalty and recruitment missions in ME2 should not have been optional, and neither squad- nor crewmates should have been able to die. The fact that all of this is optional makes a coherent plot that works from all possible outcomes much harder to design for ME3 without making a bunch of new characters; a process that would be unnecessary if the old ones were available.

A coherent plot has nothing to do with possible crew death.  Who says squadmates have anything to do with ME3?

ME3 will have new squadmates and new characters.  Bioware can make and retcon anything they want.  Of course I'd laugh and point out their horrible craftsmanship...

I personally have never found what is so damn bad about ME2's plot. Sure, it isn't very creative and has quite a few holes, but thats not what it was made for. ME2 was the filler and the bridge, the collectors were placeholders to introduce the needed theories and character development. The plot did its job and nothing else. Anything hard hitting or major that was left out will be answered regardless of how cliche ME3's ending is. The collectors fufilled their spot and answered the questions about the protheans along with a motive to keep it rolling.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Saibh wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

It is like that. If default was just taking the middle option. The Rachni queen would have been released (and perhaps Shiala spared), but they aren't. The default Shepard kills all possible character because that will mean less cameos and less refernce to the previous games, which is what the default Shepard is all about, giving new players the most enjoyable experience by making it as little confusing as possible.

Are we sure it's that Shiala and the Rachni queen died, and it's not that in a default playthrough the game just doesn't make any random cameo appearances that confuse you? I almost always play an imported save file, so I'm not sure. I mean, do we get a reference about killing them, or is the flagged raised if you look into the save game file?

Ah yes. Forgot that 8 un-loyal squadmates/no ship upgrades result in Shepard dying.

At any rate, I think we both can agree on that default Shepard=  few squadmates and no sidequest done (loyalty mission).

PS: I'm sure that default Shepard kills both Rachni queen and Shiala, destroyed Feros colony, killed council, killed Wrex.

Basicly. All the choices that will make it as easy as possible for new players to understand and enjoy the game.

[Slayer299]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I disagree - too many things are mandatory. I really, really don't want to recruit Jack or Grunt.
And because of the timer for the boarding mission Shepard is forced to either a) deal with everybody's personal issues or doing missions of no importance whatsoever (risking Shepard's life to recover some data from a crashed ship, taking out every mercenary base in the Traverse)

I don't follow on how recruiting Jack or Grunt is optional, just don't get them and get Zaeed, Garrus and Mordin. Or is there something that you have to? 

[Skyblade012]

Dionkey wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I had a longer post originally, but it was rambling and incoherent, so I'll just say this: loyalty and recruitment missions in ME2 should not have been optional, and neither squad- nor crewmates should have been able to die. The fact that all of this is optional makes a coherent plot that works from all possible outcomes much harder to design for ME3 without making a bunch of new characters; a process that would be unnecessary if the old ones were available.

A coherent plot has nothing to do with possible crew death.  Who says squadmates have anything to do with ME3?

ME3 will have new squadmates and new characters.  Bioware can make and retcon anything they want.  Of course I'd laugh and point out their horrible craftsmanship...

I personally have never found what is so damn bad about ME2's plot. Sure, it isn't very creative and has quite a few holes, but thats not what it was made for. ME2 was the filler and the bridge, the collectors were placeholders to introduce the needed theories and character development. The plot did its job and nothing else. Anything hard hitting or major that was left out will be answered regardless of how cliche ME3's ending is. The collectors fufilled their spot and answered the questions about the protheans along with a motive to keep it rolling.

Writing any story specifically to be a middle part of a trilogy has a tendency to ruin that particular story.  ME2 tried to have a decent plot, with the fixture on saving the colonies and stopping the Collectors.  But that plot is slaughtered because the Collectors are almost non-existent in most missions.  You get to fight them a total of three times, and they only even have a periphery relationship with one additional mission (being the ones who engineered the plague on Omega).  The Collectors are terribly implemented.  They should have been present in much more missions, you should have felt that you were fighting them much more than you do in the game.

[Slayer299]

Dionkey wrote...
I personally have never found what is so damn bad about ME2's plot. Sure, it isn't very creative and has quite a few holes, but thats not what it was made for. ME2 was the filler and the bridge, the collectors were placeholders to introduce the needed theories and character development. The plot did its job and nothing else. Anything hard hitting or major that was left out will be answered regardless of how cliche ME3's ending is. The collectors fufilled their spot and answered the questions about the protheans along with a motive to keep it rolling.

ME 2 had a plot? Okay, it wasn't quite that bad, but still, the Collectors weren't a serious threat throughout the entire game and 99% of your time was filled chasing down your squadmates, killing upteenmillion mercs on your way to getting them loyal and the odd N7 mission. However I will say that I did really like Kasumi's loyalty mission and Overlord, but those were the exception and not the rule.
THe Suicide Mission was anything but really, since if you did the upgrades and the loyalty quests and followed Miranda's advice about choosing the specialists it was not impossible to get by without anyone dying. (sorry the the italics, I can't get it off).

Actually Skyblade nailed it right on the head.

edit - addendum

Modifié par Slayer299, 03 octobre 2010 - 06:56 .

[xSTONEYx187x]

http://www.computera...e.php?id=258534



Has no one read this? Casey Hudson states there will be over 1000 variables carried over into ME 3.

[smudboy]

Dionkey wrote...

I personally have never found what is so damn bad about ME2's plot. Sure, it isn't very creative and has quite a few holes, but thats not what it was made for. ME2 was the filler and the bridge, the collectors were placeholders to introduce the needed theories and character development. The plot did its job and nothing else. Anything hard hitting or major that was left out will be answered regardless of how cliche ME3's ending is. The collectors fufilled their spot and answered the questions about the protheans along with a motive to keep it rolling.

And if you never paid attention, then you wouldn't discover what's so bad about it.  That's because it's barely there, and what is there commits suicide every chance it gets.

-The entire premise of the plot is never explained (get some people to do something.)  But we never find out why we need these people right now and what that something is.
-We don't know what our goal is aside from "Stop the Bad Guys from taking human colonies."
-TIM pulls crap out of his ass whenever he the plot thinks it's important ("Go to Horizon!  Go to a dead Reaper!  Go collect some people again!")
-The story did what it was supposed to, that is, tell a story about someone collecting people, taking care of their daddy issues, so they can go somewhere and do something, which magically all works in the end.  The only reasonable plot we can get is "Shepard is stopping the Collectors from taking Human Colonies out of heroism", but that's not what the story is about.
-The theme of the story has nothing to do with this (daddy issue solving.)
-Then there's the massive number of plot holes, retcons, lack of exposition on alternate paths, etc.

Now the OP stated a potential flaw in the storytelling, that is, that picking up these people and doing their loyalty mission should be mandatory, because in ME3 these people might not even exist.  Well that's erroneous at the start: making a part of the narrative mandatory where people are already optionally going to exist is the problem (Samara/Morinth, Zaeed, Kasumi, Grunt, Legion.)  It also undermines the concept of a Suicide Mission, because they musn't die in order to tell a story of them later in ME3, or that they can't even be imported.  So the criteria becomes 1) Death, 2) Recruitment, 3) Loyalty, 4) Import, to achieve what the OP wants: a coherent plot with ME2 characters in ME3.  Probably because they want to see all the ME2 squadmates back in ME3 as squadmates.

Regardless, a "coherent plot" has nothing to do with any of this.  A plot of the story tells us why the story is going the path it is, why the characters are behaving that way, and not others.  A story can just be any disconnected series of events; but the plot of that story has to not only make sense (within the context of the situation and world it's in and the characters motives thereof), it has to explain why it's taking that path.

For a coherent plot, we need to be shown or told why a certain path is taken and not others, we need that path choice to make sense, and the motives of the characters on that path to be believable.  The side characters must be relevant if not integral to the plot, or they're simply fluff; they must also support the protagonist in their journey, which is the whole point of the story.  Character development must come from the protagonist first, or as a result, then allow side characters to grow and change.  If a protagonist doesn't grow and change, then their motives have no personal value: they're just a plot device like any other, and may as well be a robot.  A coherent plot must also not shoot itself in the foot.  If there're retcons or errors in how the universe operates (point to point defenses, thermal clips, Blue Suns leaders, etc.), then there's a fundamental problem in the world itself, which implies a poorly thoughout vision from the beginning.

[Dionkey]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I had a longer post originally, but it was rambling and incoherent, so I'll just say this: loyalty and recruitment missions in ME2 should not have been optional, and neither squad- nor crewmates should have been able to die. The fact that all of this is optional makes a coherent plot that works from all possible outcomes much harder to design for ME3 without making a bunch of new characters; a process that would be unnecessary if the old ones were available.

A coherent plot has nothing to do with possible crew death.  Who says squadmates have anything to do with ME3?

ME3 will have new squadmates and new characters.  Bioware can make and retcon anything they want.  Of course I'd laugh and point out their horrible craftsmanship...

I personally have never found what is so damn bad about ME2's plot. Sure, it isn't very creative and has quite a few holes, but thats not what it was made for. ME2 was the filler and the bridge, the collectors were placeholders to introduce the needed theories and character development. The plot did its job and nothing else. Anything hard hitting or major that was left out will be answered regardless of how cliche ME3's ending is. The collectors fufilled their spot and answered the questions about the protheans along with a motive to keep it rolling.

Writing any story specifically to be a middle part of a trilogy has a tendency to ruin that particular story.  ME2 tried to have a decent plot, with the fixture on saving the colonies and stopping the Collectors.  But that plot is slaughtered because the Collectors are almost non-existent in most missions.  You get to fight them a total of three times, and they only even have a periphery relationship with one additional mission (being the ones who engineered the plague on Omega).  The Collectors are terribly implemented.  They should have been present in much more missions, you should have felt that you were fighting them much more than you do in the game.

True but you have to think about this. While the collectors were abducting colonies you were recruiting people. You go to 2 colonies throughout the game, other than that they seem to have little interest. If you went to colony after colony finding them it would get tedious. If they placed them always in Shepards path it wouldn't make sense. Some people might argue that they would because they wanted his body but thats not entirely true, harbringer even says "Preserve his body if you can". If it was a prime objective they would be chasing him everywhere, they were certainly interested but had other more important goals.

The geth were in our way in ME1 because they were with Saren who had a personal beef with Shepard and was impeading his process. Soverign didn't seem to really care until Virmire and even then he didn't go after Shepard, he just went to the Citadel. Also people assume that collectors will just show themselves, thats not true. They put effort into remaining discreet, showing up on omega or some loyalty mission would be forced.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

http://www.computera...e.php?id=258534

Has no one read this? Casey Hudson states there will be over 1000 variables carried over into ME 3.

And according to Bioware. ME1 carried 700 variables into ME2!

http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1077468p1.html

And we all know how that turned out....

[Elite Midget]

I bet the ME2 Squadmates will only get short cameo roles like Ashley/Kaiden and Wrex since they can all die!



BWAHAHAHAHAHA~!

[Saibh]

smudboy wrote...

-The entire premise of the plot is never explained (get some people to do something.)  But we never find out why we need these people right now and what that something is.

Stop the Collector's from abducting human colonies, for which you need a team of the best people available to get you in and out of the Omega 4 Relay. Cerberus is not Alliance and can't just pick soldiers up--even if they could, the Cerberus Operatives probably aren't the best combatants the galaxy has to offer.

What is ME1's plot?

Go here, here, here, and here, because we're pretty sure we'll find out things about Saren there. It wasn't bad, don't get me wrong, but it was no more or less coherent, and I can generalize it in such a way that it makes it clear that ME1's plot is not explained either.

-We don't know what our goal is aside from "Stop the Bad Guys from taking human colonies."

The ultimate goal is stop the Reapers. You know the Omega-4 relay exists, but you need the Reaper IFF. You may choose to get the Reaper IFF right after getting off the Collector Ship. You may choose to build your team.

-TIM pulls crap out of his ass whenever he the plot thinks it's important ("Go to Horizon!  Go to a dead Reaper!  Go collect some people again!")

Collecting people was an overarching goal. Horizon was suddenly attacked--not a whole lot different then Virmire suddenly being presented to you, or Ilos. You needed to go there then. Why TIM presents you with the information when he does is a plot point and a character trait. He knew the Collector Ship was a trap, but he sends you anyway. Again, it's not that different than finding out suddenly about Virmire or Ilos, only it's mandatory that you go. I don't consider that bad storytelling.

Getting the Reaper IFF can be stalled indefinitely.

-The story did what it was supposed to, that is, tell a story about someone collecting people, taking care of their daddy issues, so they can go somewhere and do something, which magically all works in the end.  The only reasonable plot we can get is "Shepard is stopping the Collectors from taking Human Colonies out of heroism", but that's not what the story is about.

Why is Shepard supposed to be stopping Saren? Because...he's...attacking human colonies. No other reason. At that point, you don't really know what the Reapers are and why you need to stop them. You find out over the course of the game. You are fairly sure from the moment you get out of Freedom's Progress that the Collector's and the Reapers are linked. For whatever reason they're being attacked, that's your goal.

However, I agree that ME2's main weakness was the fact it was so disjointed from another. I won't argue with you on that. While I found that the ME2-style of short doses of story, instead of the long draught of it, was more compelling than ME1's, I would have preferred cohesiveness.

-The theme of the story has nothing to do with this (daddy issue solving.)

You mean purely optional daddy issue solving. Extended versions of solving Wrex and Garrus' problems in the first game. If you recruit all of your team mates in ME2, you will survive the Suicide Mission. You don't need their loyalty. You only get their loyalty if you want them to survive by making them focused on the mission.

As I said though, I agree that ME2 had weaknesses. Hopefully ME3 will combine the strengths of the two games. But I don't think it's fair to say that ME2 was poor or more poorly written than ME1. It was very different.

Modifié par Saibh, 03 octobre 2010 - 07:49 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Saibh wrote...

You mean purely optional daddy issue solving. Extended versions of solving Wrex and Garrus' problems in the first game. If you recruit all of your team mates in ME2, you will survive the Suicide Mission. You don't need their loyalty. You only get their loyalty if you want them to survive by making them focused on the mission.

As I said though, I agree that ME2 had weaknesses. Hopefully ME3 will combine the strengths of the two games. But I don't think it's fair to say that ME2 was poor or more poorly written than ME1. It was very different.

And that is one of my problems with ME2. Unless you want all the characters to die on you (which you won't), then you have to go out of your way and do side-missions. Now this wouldn't be a problem if all those missions felt like they had some relevance to the main-plot (only Legion, Mordin and Tali felt like their loyalty mission would affect the greater picture), unfortunely they are just isolated missions with no real connection to each other.

You didn't have to complete Garrus's own little personal problem, he would still do just fine.

You didn't have to complete Wrex's own little personal problem, he would still do just fine (althrough it will require some extra effort from the players part).

[Dionkey]

EDIT:Reply to Smudboy but it got messed up, must have deleted the Quotes by accident.

Squadmates:
If you want those squadmates in ME3 then you can. We are running off borrowed time here with this argument. Bioware is going to show ME3 news soon and when they do I doubt they will confirm all squadmates returning. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. I think fans look at these characters surface personality too much. If Samara were to die in the CB do you think it will have a major role in ME3? No, of course not. She may be a squadmate but she is a minor part of the story. A good example is the Vorcha on Omega, he says some weird ass stuff to you about Sidonis and then you never hear from it again. Maybe its a bug? Or is it a sign that Shepard as the protaginist cannot effect every piece of matter in the galaxy. I gurantee that some of these characters won't even be mentioned in ME3. Thats because its human nature, people forget things or simply have more pressing issues which others don't want to assist in. You cant look at Shepard or the collectors as some ultimate being. The collectors cant be every where at once, they dont need to and Shepard doesn't need to care about everyone of his squadmates. Whether it be the writers messing up or they just dont want to show you it now or ever it doesnt matter, the fact is that nothing is perfect, no matter how many things they missed on the squadmates it did its job.

Main Plot:
TIM and Shepard both realize the collectors are a problem. To say they pull stuff out of his ass is a little far. The Colonies are an intro. You confirm its collectors, no need to keep running into them, you wont catch all of them. You then start your recruitment process and begin to prepare for the Omega 4 relay.  But then you might say well why aren't they trying to stop you? They aren't all knowing or all seeing, any game that puts the same threat in front of you constantly is un realistic and just plain trying too hard. At this point you board the collector ship and figure out their protheans (Pretty easy to figure out) and then steal the IFF to cross the relay. They then board your ship and take your crew. Here is a sign of motive, you realize you have to act now. (At this point not only have they abducted multiple colonies but also killed you once, destroyed your original ship, took your crew and are working with the reapers. That is plenty of motive to a mediocre enemy). You go to the collector base, (possibley take some losses) figure out how the reapers are made and then give TIM the bird or cash in the reward.

Nitpicking:
Thermal Clips, of course they dont make sense. Has any game EVER not had ammo around? Sure they could put corpses or some battle signs beside them ( Which they have done, sometimes) but is it really necessary? If your doing a mission and you just randomly see bodies throughout the mission (Some which have very little combat or wouldn't fit in) you wouldn't call that poor design? It would happen both ways and to complain about something like this is to complain about why Shepard cant jump, its not really needed.

The Blue Suns leaders are explained for the most part in quite a few missions. Sure not all of them but again, superhuman abilties were talking about. This would require Shepard always being able to explain why something is there, you are asking to much out of a simply placeholder, it doesnt have to make sense. If you really want BW to waste time on that then be my guest, but I would much rather have them make some fun missions and interesting twists.

When it comes down to it ME2's plot wasnt bad, it wasnt that good either. But thats not why its there, its a filler. You don't need to be a English Major to tear it apart but at the same time all the real interesting story comes from the side characters.Look at it like this.

ME1: Main Threat, Motive
ME2: Support Characters, Semi Motive
ME3: (This is a theory of course) Testing the Alliance you have made throughout the other 2 and Shepards character himself.

Anyway thats my two cents. Sorry for the long wall of text. I broke it up the best I could.:happy:

Modifié par Dionkey, 03 octobre 2010 - 08:01 .

[CroGamer002]

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

The old characters are still available. If you lost members on the suicide mission, you should have to miss out on content. Simple.
I still say people are freaking out too much about squadmates in ME3. Then again, our roles as fans are to look too deeply into things

Let's see.
Liara is Shadow Broker.
Wrex can die in ME1. If not he is leader of clan Urdnot.
Garrus can die in ME2.
Tali can die in ME2.
Kaidan/Ashley are for now unknown but one of them dies in ME1.
So yeah, not much of replacements.

[Saibh]

Lizardviking wrote...

Saibh wrote...

You mean purely optional daddy issue solving. Extended versions of solving Wrex and Garrus' problems in the first game. If you recruit all of your team mates in ME2, you will survive the Suicide Mission. You don't need their loyalty. You only get their loyalty if you want them to survive by making them focused on the mission.

As I said though, I agree that ME2 had weaknesses. Hopefully ME3 will combine the strengths of the two games. But I don't think it's fair to say that ME2 was poor or more poorly written than ME1. It was very different.

And that is one of my problems with ME2. Unless you want all the characters to die on you (which you won't), then you have to go out of your way and do side-missions. Now this wouldn't be a problem if all those missions felt like they had some relevance to the main-plot (only Legion, Mordin and Tali felt like their loyalty mission would affect the greater picture), unfortunely they are just isolated missions with no real connection to each other.

You didn't have to complete Garrus's own little personal problem, he would still do just fine.

You didn't have to complete Wrex's own little personal problem, he would still do just fine (althrough it will require some extra effort from the players part).

I definitely see where you're coming from, and I do sort of agree. But I don't think of it like that. You need to save human colonies, even at the expense of your crew. The game tells you over and over, people are going to die. If you want to save them, you need to go out of your way. It might feel like a waste of time or non-relevant, but that's your choice to make sure your squad survives. All of your squadmates, when assigned to a task, will correctly do it, even if non-loyal. But something goes wrong. The only thing you really need to do is build your team, which is the premise of much of the game.

No One Left Behind is a victory on your part earned through dedication and leadership--I'd call it the "best ending", but not the "good ending". Good ending is you get out of there alive, which is the ultimate goal.

That's simply how I think of it, at least, which is why it bothers me less. I'm making a conscious effort to go out of my way to ensure the survival of my squad. Maybe I believe that I won't succeed in the mission if they're not loyal (and I could be right to think so), or maybe I simply believe I'll need these people for the ultimate threat: the Reapers. Either way, the option is presented.

Did that make any sense? It felt rambly. 

Modifié par Saibh, 03 octobre 2010 - 08:09 .

[Dionkey]

Mesina2 wrote...

CheeseEnchilada wrote...

The old characters are still available. If you lost members on the suicide mission, you should have to miss out on content. Simple.
I still say people are freaking out too much about squadmates in ME3. Then again, our roles as fans are to look too deeply into things

Let's see.
Liara is Shadow Broker.
Wrex can die in ME1. If not he is leader of clan Urdnot.
Garrus can die in ME2.
Tali can die in ME2.
Kaidan/Ashley are for now unknown but one of them dies in ME1.
So yeah, not much of replacements.

THEN DONT LET THEM DIE! Its your story. Thats like saying : I chopped my leg off and now I only have one LEG!

[CroGamer002]

smudboy wrote...

And if you never paid attention, then you wouldn't discover what's so bad about it.  That's because it's barely there, and what is there commits suicide every chance it gets.

-The entire premise of the plot is never explained (get some people to do something.)  But we never find out why we need these people right now and what that something is.

Build the team to stop Collectors from abducting colonists.
Seems clear to me.

-We don't know what our goal is aside from "Stop the Bad Guys from taking human colonies."

Stop the bad guys( Collectors) who work with your main enemy in ME trilogy from abducting colonists which Reapers wanted to use to make another Reaper and possibly they own army( husk with conventional weapons).

-TIM pulls crap out of his ass whenever he the plot thinks it's important ("Go to Horizon!  Go to a dead Reaper!  Go collect some people again!")

He never ordered you to collect some people. Game order me to to that( pre-Horizon, not DLC characters). He didn't order me to go to Horizon nor Derelic Collector ship. Game did. Dead Reaper was optional to go whenever you want.

-The story did what it was supposed to, that is, tell a story about someone collecting people, taking care of their daddy issues, so they can go somewhere and do something, which magically all works in the end.  The only reasonable plot we can get is "Shepard is stopping the Collectors from taking Human Colonies out of heroism", but that's not what the story is about.

"Daddy issues" are optional. And yes! ME2 story is about saving the colonists!

-The theme of the story has nothing to do with this (daddy issue solving.)

How come theme is then optional?

-Then there's the massive number of plot holes, retcons, lack of exposition on alternate paths, etc.

Let's see:
I can olny name two plotholes.
Wilson and when Shepard leaves Normandy for some reason.

Oh right, Wilson is Shadow Broker agent so is just one.



Also didn't bother to read rest below.

Modifié par Mesina2, 03 octobre 2010 - 08:25 .

[CroGamer002]

Dionkey wrote...

THEN DONT LET THEM DIE! Its your story. Thats like saying : I chopped my leg off and now I only have one LEG!

When did I say I let them die.
Also only replacement from old crew is only Ashley or Kaidan since Tali and Garrus joined you in ME2.
ME3 is going to need 2-4 new squadmates for balance.

[CroGamer002]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Smuddy would fit just fine in here.

You just had to say that.<_<

[Icinix]

I can understand the logic behind having them as mandatory, but enjoy that they are not.



It would be like if they had made Virmire optional, it would work either way but could have dramatic consequences if it isn't completed - Which is precisely why the loyalty missions are not mandatory. BioWare is trying to pull off this awesome experience by giving players as much choice as possible to create this massive story based on what you choose to do.

So kudos to BioWare for not taking the easier path and providing the option to choose.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Saibh wrote...


I definitely see where you're coming from, and I do sort of agree. But I don't think of it like that. You need to save human colonies, even at the expense of your crew. The game tells you over and over, people are going to die. If you want to save them, you need to go out of your way. It might feel like a waste of time or non-relevant, but that's your choice to make sure your squad survives. All of your squadmates, when assigned to a task, will correctly do it, even if non-loyal. But something goes wrong. The only thing you really need to do is build your team, which is the premise of much of the game.

No One Left Behind is a victory on your part earned through dedication and leadership--I'd call it the "best ending", but not the "good ending". Good ending is you get out of there alive, which is the ultimate goal.

That's simply how I think of it, at least, which is why it bothers me less. I'm making a conscious effort to go out of my way to ensure the survival of my squad. Maybe I believe that I won't succeed in the mission if they're not loyal (and I could be right to think so), or maybe I simply believe I'll need these people for the ultimate threat: the Reapers. Either way, the option is presented.

Did that make any sense? It felt rambly. 

I know i'm going off-topic.

But what ultimativly makes me dissapointed in ME2 is that it had so much more potential to it. ME2 was alot of good ideas, but most (if not all) was excecuted horribly. And the result is that ME2 is nothing more than a connection of short stories, who's only connection to each other is what can laughably be called a main-plot.

Granted most of these short stories are good, but some are just okay, and a few are just a waste of time.

In the end the game lacks focus. Instead of having 12 squadmates (and their side-stories), Bioware should have just cut them down to say... 8 squadmembers and spend the freed-up resources to give a better main-plot, more interaction between the crew.

[Dionkey]

Mesina2 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

THEN DONT LET THEM DIE! Its your story. Thats like saying : I chopped my leg off and now I only have one LEG!

When did I say I let them die.
Also only replacement from old crew is only Ashley or Kaidan since Tali and Garrus joined you in ME2.
ME3 is going to need 2-4 new squadmates for balance.

While I see replacements I dont think they will be optional, you will either have more squad members or you wont. If you lost a bunch in ME2 you will have less in ME3. Anything else would feel like a episode of Power rangers.

[CroGamer002]

Dionkey wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

THEN DONT LET THEM DIE! Its your story. Thats like saying : I chopped my leg off and now I only have one LEG!

When did I say I let them die.
Also only replacement from old crew is only Ashley or Kaidan since Tali and Garrus joined you in ME2.
ME3 is going to need 2-4 new squadmates for balance.

While I see replacements I dont think they will be optional, you will either have more squad members or you wont. If you lost a bunch in ME2 you will have less in ME3. Anything else would feel like a episode of Power rangers.

I believe half of crew will leave plus Mordin who will just retire from combat.
For more details see How Should ME3 start in my sig.

Modifié par Mesina2, 03 octobre 2010 - 08:31 .

[Dionkey]

Mesina2 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

THEN DONT LET THEM DIE! Its your story. Thats like saying : I chopped my leg off and now I only have one LEG!

When did I say I let them die.
Also only replacement from old crew is only Ashley or Kaidan since Tali and Garrus joined you in ME2.
ME3 is going to need 2-4 new squadmates for balance.

While I see replacements I dont think they will be optional, you will either have more squad members or you wont. If you lost a bunch in ME2 you will have less in ME3. Anything else would feel like a episode of Power rangers.

I believe half of crew will leave plus Mordin who will just retire from combat.
For more details see How Should ME3 start in my sig.

Interesting read but I don't see BW making a small ammount of squadies in ME3. I see more cameos from before whether they were squadies or not.

[smudboy]

Mesina2 wrote...

Build the team to stop Collectors from abducting colonists.
Seems clear to me.

That's more or less a premise.  A plot needs a good premise and a good reason, or complication, as to why they're going that way.  So you could say "Build the team to stop the Collectors from abducting colonists, out of heroism/revenge", but those themes are never present.  You see the theme also needs to change the character, and Shepard never changes.

Stop the bad guys( Collectors) who work with your main enemy in ME trilogy from abducting colonists which Reapers wanted to use to make another Reaper and possibly they own army( husk with conventional weapons).

No you're missing what I'm getting at.

The story involves stopping the Collectors, but we don't know what that involves.  It's a pretty generic thing to say "stop the bad guys", so we need a clear, measurable target.  The plot never gives us that until the end.  It's like the quest for the Golden Fleece; but we don't know how big it is, that's it's broken into 16 different pieces, or it's the size of the moon.

He never ordered you to collect some people. Game order me to to that( pre-Horizon, not DLC characters). He didn't order me to go to Horizon nor Derelic Collector ship. Game did. Dead Reaper was optional to go whenever you want.

And how did the game order you to go to Horizon, the Derelict Reaper, and collect people?

"Daddy issues" are optional. And yes! ME2 story is about saving the colonists!

Well it certainly has some colony saving activities in there, but that's not what the story is about.  The theme is what a story is about.  Now if ME2 was about saving colonists, well, there'd be lots more colonies to save, and colonists to pull out of pods.

How come theme is then optional?

Sad but true.

Let's see:
I can olny name two plotholes.
Wilson and when Shepard leaves Normandy for some reason.

Oh right, Wilson is Shadow Broker agent so is just one.

Also didn't bother to read rest below.

Well there are quite a few plot holes...of course you'd know all about that, wouldn't you Mesina? 

Modifié par smudboy, 03 octobre 2010 - 08:55 .