815 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...
So what do you call it with the posters who have played ME 1 and ME 2 back to back and like ME 1 better?

Edit:  And those of us who have replayed ME 1 just to make sure it isn't just nostalgia?

What of people who prefer ME2?

/shrug

I wouldn't call that nostalgia either

[Raizo]

On paper, ME1 is an amazing game and there are alot of minor things about it that I feel it does better than ME2. There have been many moments when I have said to myself that I am going to replay ME1 but every time I try I lose interst right about when I go to the Citadel for the first time. Rose colored glasses or not, I can't play ME1 because the whole entire game feels very rough around the edges as well as very tedious at times, very basic things feel like they take forever to do.

[spacehamsterZH]

To me, it breaks down like this.



Mass Effect 1:

+superior main plot

+vastly more compelling main villains

+cohesive 80s action movie feel

-combat is practically broken, AI nonexistent

-sidequests are as good as identical

-innumerable technical problems

-some dialogue so bogged down with exposition it makes me want to scream

-Mako: arrgh.

-unusable inventory, unnecessarily complicated leveling, too much pointless loot



Mass Effect 2:

+vastly superior combat

+few if any technical issues

+no boring copy/paste sidequests

+most loyalty missions very interesting

+far less unnecessary exposition

-main plot stale and boring

-final boss/ending laughably stupid

-issues with inventory, Mako, leveling and loot solved by neutering or flat-out removing the mechanics altogether, leading to an oversimplified feel

-general feel of the game is out of sync with the 80s movie vibe of ME1



In the end, it more or less balances out for me. Mass Effect 1 plays like the beta version of a much better game, and while ME2 isn't that game but a different, more streamlined one, it maintains a lot of the series' strengths without being as hair-pullingly frustrating as ME1 is at times.

[Yeled]

Mongerty wrote...

smudboy wrote...

But instead, at the end of ME2, we're in exactly the same position we were in at the end of ME1, the Reapers are coming.  Although now, the Council has gone stupid, our pistols run out of "ammo", and we can sell a live Geth and blow up a base that makes the enemy we're trying to stop.  Woo.  Nice development.

Well, you don't really know how the allies and choices you made in Mass Effect 2 will affect Mass Effect 3.
Including, but not limited to:
Fate of Collector Base
Geth and Quarian conflict
Shadow Broker  (Liara)
Cerberus Support/ Opposition
Sheperd cybernetic implants
Geth in General (Legion's mission)


Going by your standards, the Rebellion wasn't any closer to defeating the Empire at the end of Empire Strikes back, so it was a terrible movie according to how the trilogy works.

I know I'm a bit late to the debate, but this isn't precisely true.  The original Star Wars trilogy was about Luke's journey to become a man/Jedi.  He begins his journey as an innocent farm boy and ends his journey by confronting his father (classic journey to become a man stuff) and redeeming him.  In so doing, he saves the galaxy.

So from the perspective of Luke's journey, Empire Strikes Back was precisely about how Luke went from farm boy to a man/Jedi capable of confronting his father and saving the galaxy.  Sure, the rebels weren't any closer to winning.  But Luke got a lot closer.  He stopped being a naieve farmboy by 1) training to become a Jedi and 2) learning what his true test to become a man would be (ie, facing his father).  It set up and made possible this confrontation in Return of the Jedi.

In that context Empire very much fits into Smudboy's requirements of how a trilogy should work.  Its almost a perfect example.

/reply to long forgotten argument

Modifié par Yeled, 12 octobre 2010 - 04:31 .

[CalJones]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

To me, it breaks down like this.

Mass Effect 1:
+superior main plot
+vastly more compelling main villains
+cohesive 80s action movie feel
-combat is practically broken, AI nonexistent
-sidequests are as good as identical
-innumerable technical problems
-some dialogue so bogged down with exposition it makes me want to scream
-Mako: arrgh.
-unusable inventory, unnecessarily complicated leveling, too much pointless loot

Mass Effect 2:
+vastly superior combat
+few if any technical issues
+no boring copy/paste sidequests
+most loyalty missions very interesting
+far less unnecessary exposition
-main plot stale and boring
-final boss/ending laughably stupid
-issues with inventory, Mako, leveling and loot solved by neutering or flat-out removing the mechanics altogether, leading to an oversimplified feel
-general feel of the game is out of sync with the 80s movie vibe of ME1

In the end, it more or less balances out for me. Mass Effect 1 plays like the beta version of a much better game, and while ME2 isn't that game but a different, more streamlined one, it maintains a lot of the series' strengths without being as hair-pullingly frustrating as ME1 is at times.

This.

I loved ME when I first played it - enough that I replayed it numerous times. My initial thoughts on ME2 was that the game, as a hole, felt very dumbed down, and although it was nice not to have the cookie-cutter environments of the first game, it lacked ME's overall epic feel.

About a week ago I decided to revisit ME, (I'd not managed to import a Spacer Shepard into ME2, or one who had spared Fist, so I wanted to see those outcomes).

Initial thought was "God this is clunky." Combat is more unwieldy and you spend far too long rearranging your inventory - often in the middle of a firefight. Despite coming to the franchise as a role-player, I think the decision to streamline the interface was a good one.

What I miss, though, is the epic feel of the first game. Replaying Virmire, lockdown, Ilos and the final battle through the ruined Citadel brought it home to me how much better the first game was from a story point of view. Even knowing the outcomes, I was genuinely excited to be playing these missions again.

ME2 doesn't have that. A lot of the missions are fun from a combat point of view, but whilst the game has its moments (escaping the Collector ship, Joker defending the Normandy), overall it just doesn't have the same impact.

I also miss the music of the first game. I miss having music when I walk around the Normandy, and I miss the thuming techno you heard in Therum, Ilos and Virmire (although at least the Virmire tune is on the sound sytem in your cabin). Most of the music in ME2 is more atmospheric/dramatic, which is fine, but it's, well, not the same.

[Yeled]

smudboy wrote...

The funny thing is, I think of LOTSB as ME2 more than ME2. It didn't quite do what it should've done (reaction from Liara about Shepard, Shepard's reaction about themselves, squad interaction, etc.) but it had the better idea: a more personal, character driven narrative at each turn, even during the drawn out ship hull level.  You could even say it was Liara's loyalty mission done right; it all tied into the main story arc of the Reapers, even if that wasn't the goal.  People say that is usually a contrived ending, that it all comes to a "help the plot" conclusion, but ME2 could really use some of that with all of its multiple Threads to Nowhere.

You know, I've been thinking about the loyalty missions in ME2 and how people point to them as examples of good character development (this is usually the argument used to counter the story-in-ME1-was-better argument) .  While many of them were very well written and enjoyable, I disagree that they were good development stories.  And its LotSB that made me see where they failed in this regard.

See, in my opinion the biggest failing of ME2 was not its lack of good story.  Yes, its story arc was poor compared to other BioWare gems.  But where it truly failed from a story point of view was that it stopped being about its main character. 

ME1 is Shepard's story.   Sure, there is soveirgn and seren et al, but what truly sets ME1 apart from other games is the emotional resonance of the story and the main character.  You grow attached to Shepard, and set backs feel like set backs to Shepard.  The locker scene, for example.

ME2 is not Shepard's story.  Instead, its a series of mostly unrelated incidents in which Shepard takes part as an active observer.  Sure, Shep kicks ass and takes names, and has some great dialogue and the occassional decision to make.  But overall each part of the story is its own little isolated pocket in which you could remove Shep and replace her with any one else and it wouldn't really matter.  

Miranda needs Shep to save her sister.  Grunt needs to become a true krogan.  Tali needs to redeem her father.  All great little stories, but they have no bearing on Shepard or Shep's personal, emotional character. To add to that, the world really doesn't react to Shepard or her prediciment in a realistic
way, making it feel even less about the main protagonist with whom the
player is meant to identify.

Although LotSB is actually quite similar to the loyalty missions--its a side quest for Liara--Shepard and her relationship (I don't necessarily mean romance) with Liara is central to the mission.  In fact I'd go so far as to say that rescuing Feron and killing the SB is only an excuse to explore the relationship between Shepard and one of her key allies/friends/lover from ME1.  Ever interaction with Liara feels meaningful to the player because its personal to Shepard, unlike any of the loyalty missions.

So yeah, I prefer ME1 to ME2 because it resonates with me emotionally.  Its not rose-colored glasses.  I've played ME1 since ME2, and I have felt the same.  LotSB actually helped me enjoy the entirety of ME2 more because finally I felt connected to the game in some way, which allowed me to feel connected to all the disparate elements of  the overall story.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

First, that's nonsense. It's the character's story because the events happened to that character, because of that character, or while that character was involved.  Maybe it could be someone else's story, but it wasn't, because that someone else wasn't there. 

Second, many of the examples of things that people touting this standard put out as "anyone could have done", well, one, that's often not the case and it would have taken someone like Shep and not just anyone, and two, at some level of detail, almost every event takes place exactly as it does because of every person involved in particular.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 octobre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Yeled]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

First, that's nonsense. It's the character's story because the events happened to that character.

Second, many of the examples of things that people touting this standard put out as "anyone could have done", well, one, that's often not the case and it would have taken someone like Shep and not just anyone, and two, at some level of detail, almost every event takes place exactly as it does because of every person involved in particular.

What I mean is that none of it matters to Shepard, except insofar as its a team building excersise.  Its everyone else's issues.  Its not the main character's issues. 

Imagine a book or a movie like that.  It doesn't work, because the audience needs to identify with the problems the protagonist is having.  In ME2 the protagonist doesn't have or doesn't deal with any of her own issues.  They are glossed over in favor of everyone else's problems.  Even saving the human colonies from the collectors isn't really Shep's issue, except that she can't stand idly by and watch it happen.  Its Cerberus' issue that they bring to Shepard, rather than the main protagonist discovering it on her own and internalizing it as her personal mission (like she does in ME1 when she learns Saren's gone rogue).

[Therion942]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

First, that's nonsense. It's the character's story because the events happened to that character, because of that character, or while that character was involved.  Maybe it could be someone else's story, but it wasn't, because that someone else wasn't there. 

Second, many of the examples of things that people touting this standard put out as "anyone could have done", well, one, that's often not the case and it would have taken someone like Shep and not just anyone, and two, at some level of detail, almost every event takes place exactly as it does because of every person involved in particular.

No you're absolutely right. The story was a bout Shepard. It was about Shepard who put on his Dr. Phil hat and helping people with their problems. The only problem is that there was nothing backing this premise, no exposition, no internal reflection, nothing affecting emotion, mien or anything of that sort that you regularly see in character-helping-other-characters-to-further-understand-onesself stories. It's just brickbrickbrickbrickbrickbrickbrick. Not to mention, that being Dr. Phil does not help stop the Reapers.

Modifié par Therion942, 12 octobre 2010 - 05:45 .

[Nozybidaj]

Therion942 wrote...
Not to mention, that being Dr. Phil does not help stop the Reapers.

Aside from all the very specific complaints (why this, how is that type stuff) the biggest general complaint really is, we didn't actually do or learn anything.  At this point I can go straight from ME1 to ME3 and not really missed anything.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

You've never seen the standard where a story is about the main character?

First, that's nonsense. It's the character's story because the events happened to that character, because of that character, or while that character was involved.  Maybe it could be someone else's story, but it wasn't, because that someone else wasn't there. 

First, telling a story about a person and how they change is not nonsense.  I'd go to say that's the best way to tell a story.  It's probably the most widely used concept when telling a tale.  'cause writers are people.  They write best from experience.

And you're missing the point.  We can start replacing main characters in some stories because there is nothing intrinsically special about them.  This is related to a plot, that is to say, a character exists in a story, if the plot says they are part of the story, and thus, how much meaning is behind that reason.  For example, Shepard, at certain point in ME can't be replaced, because in order for the plot to continue, it needs Shepard.  In ME2, we can kill off Shepard and things roll along just fine.

Now ME2 tried something special: it was a frame story.  That is, we have a base story that acts as a platform and envelops others.  Take the movie The Yellow Rolls Royce, a frame story about the various owners of a car over the years.  In order for that to be effective, the value of the Rolls Royce (to the characters) must be very high, and the reasons why they select that car have to be identified and proven in their plot.  Some reasons are just because "It looks like a classy car to tour Italy", or it simply helps someone get from A to B, but that's fine: the plot becomes the peoples reason to have the car, and voila, the car is used as such.  ME2 had a completely different plot, with a very specific, though completely unknown and undeveloped goal.  Whereas the point of The Yellow Rolls Royce is to tell a bunch of stories that involve a car, the point of ME2 is to stop the bad guys.  The reasonings at the beginning from Miranda and TIM do not get realized, as well as TIM prattling off a bunch of platitudes of why Shepard was The Chosen.

How do solving random peoples daddy issues stop the bad guys?
How is loyalty ever a theme?  (If we are to believe the main theme (what a story is about) of ME2 is solving daddy issues, where is loyalty constantly tested?)
How do going on all these side stories develop the the plot?

You see, things like stories in a coffee shop, or some platform for storytelling is literally that sole function.  We get that.  The author has a bunch of things they want to say, and in a certain way.  If that was ME2's case, then we didn't really need a plot, or for it to be about Stopping the Collectors.  Shepard could've easily been on a sole journey, a story of discovery, revenge, or even of amnesia: trying to figure out what's going on with themselves, or about some other guy.  Or even Stopping the Collectors.  The problem is all these stories have to be woven into the plot as seamlessly as possible.  They need to connect, to resonate to the purpose of the story.

Another failure was the lack of mystery.  If we've got a goal we're hunting for, and we learn nothing, well, what the hell are we doing?

Second, many of the examples of things that people touting this standard put out as "anyone could have done", well, one, that's often not the case and it would have taken someone like Shep and not just anyone, and two, at some level of detail, almost every event takes place exactly as it does because of every person involved in particular.

Miranda.  Jacob.  Garrus.  Anderson.  Hackett.  Any old competent guy with a gun, really.  Seriously.  Look at each example in the narrative and see where Shepard, and only Shepard, could've done the job, or kept the plot going.

As for your second point, I suggest you look to every event, as I asked before.  You will soon discover that only Tali, Liara and Wrex's reactions is all that might be different, but in no way prevent the events of ME2 from happening.  Tali might not join the SR2 (so what), Liara might not want you to hack terminals (so what), Wrex might not give you a warm greeting (game breaking, I know, but so what.)

Modifié par smudboy, 12 octobre 2010 - 06:32 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Therion942 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

First, that's nonsense. It's the character's story because the events happened to that character, because of that character, or while that character was involved.  Maybe it could be someone else's story, but it wasn't, because that someone else wasn't there. 

Second, many of the examples of things that people touting this standard put out as "anyone could have done", well, one, that's often not the case and it would have taken someone like Shep and not just anyone, and two, at some level of detail, almost every event takes place exactly as it does because of every person involved in particular.

No you're absolutely right. The story was a bout Shepard. It was about Shepard who put on his Dr. Phil hat and helping people with their problems. The only problem is that there was nothing backing this premise, no exposition, no internal reflection, nothing affecting emotion, mien or anything of that sort that you regularly see in character-helping-other-characters-to-further-understand-onesself stories. It's just brickbrickbrickbrickbrickbrickbrick. Not to mention, that being Dr. Phil does not help stop the Reapers.

Only in this case, "being doctor Phil" did help stop the Reapers, or at least their latest plan. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

You've never seen the standard where a story is about the main character?

No moving the goalposts. 

"Is about the main character" and "cannot take place without the main character' are NOT the same standard.

First, that's nonsense. It's the character's story because the events happened to that character, because of that character, or while that character was involved.  Maybe it could be someone else's story, but it wasn't, because that someone else wasn't there. 

First, telling a story about a person and how they change is not nonsense.  I'd go to say that's the best way to tell a story.  It's probably the most widely used concept when telling a tale.  'cause writers are people.  They write best from experience.

And you're missing the point.  We can start replacing main characters in some stories because there is nothing intrinsically special about them.  This is related to a plot, that is to say, a character exists in a story, if the plot says they are part of the story, and thus, how much meaning is behind that reason.  For example, Shepard, at certain point in ME can't be replaced, because in order for the plot to continue, it needs Shepard.  In ME2, we can kill off Shepard and things roll along just fine.

And that's where you're wrong about Shepherd in ME2. 

It's a continuation of Shepherd's story because these are things that are happening to and because of Shepherd.  That's all that's needed.  Unless what you're really saying is that you want the story to be about the character, AND you want the character to be absolutely vital to the story ever taking place at all.

(And really, no matter what, the events of ME2 can't take place without Shep, because the Reapers took the Citadel and are wiping out all the spacefaring species of the galaxy if there were no Shep in ME1.  )

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 octobre 2010 - 06:57 .

[Nozybidaj]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Only in this case, "being doctor Phil" did help stop the Reapers, or at least their latest plan. 

Heh, this got me thinking how everyone in ME2, including the Reapers, are really just caricatures of themselves from ME1.  What would the Reapers from ME1 (ancient space faring beings that have controlled the progress of the galaxy for millenia) say to the Reapers in ME2 (behold our human reaper baby) about their plan?  What would Shepard from ME1 say?

ME2 Reapers:  Fear our giant Terminator, I know this hurts you.
ME1 Shepard:  <_<

Or the ME1 reapers to the ME2 Shepard:
ME1 Reapers:  Organics exist because we allow it, you will die because we demand it.
ME2 Shepard:  Technically I'm undead.
ME1 Reapers: <_<

[Yeled]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

You've never seen the standard where a story is about the main character?

No moving the goalposts. 

"Is about the main character" and "cannot take place without the main character' are NOT the same standard.

No, see, you moved the goal posts.  I didn't say "cannot take place without."  I said its not about her or her personal motivations.  Its emotionally meaningless to Shepard, and therefore doesn't resonate to me.

I'm sure if you removed Shepard and just put Miranda in her place things would have happened differently.  But that's not the point.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Yeled wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I'm not sure I understand this standard I see repeated, that a story can only be a certain character's story if the events therein could only have ever taken place with that one particular character's unique participation.

You've never seen the standard where a story is about the main character?

No moving the goalposts. 

"Is about the main character" and "cannot take place without the main character' are NOT the same standard.

No, see, you moved the goal posts.  I didn't say "cannot take place without."  I said its not about her or her personal motivations.  Its emotionally meaningless to Shepard, and therefore doesn't resonate to me.

I'm sure if you removed Shepard and just put Miranda in her place things would have happened differently.  But that's not the point.

You said:

But overall each part of the story is its own little isolated pocket in which you could remove Shep and replace her with any one else and it wouldn't really matter.

Which is pretty much the same thing that Smudboy keeps saying about ME2, and you'll note who else responded to my post.

I stand the fact that the standard was being changed here, and not be me.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 octobre 2010 - 07:24 .

[Burdokva]

smudboy wrote...

The funny thing is, I think of LOTSB as ME2 more than ME2. It didn't quite do what it should've done (reaction from Liara about Shepard, Shepard's reaction about themselves, squad interaction, etc.) but it had the better idea: a more personal, character driven narrative at each turn, even during the drawn out ship hull level.  You could even say it was Liara's loyalty mission done right; it all tied into the main story arc of the Reapers, even if that wasn't the goal.  People say that is usually a contrived ending, that it all comes to a "help the plot" conclusion, but ME2 could really use some of that with all of its multiple Threads to Nowhere.

That's because LotSB is a rehash of the original Mass Effect. It is what Mass Effect 2 should have been. I'm still making the occasional face-palm when I read the forums and see people who trash ME's game concept praise LotSB.

Let's see:
1. Story-driven vehicle sections - the Make on all core-story worlds after Eden Prime; LotSB has a speeder chase that's integrated into the rest of the Illium section and not a separate mission. Mind you, whether you liked 
the Mako or not is subjective and completely irrelevant, the concept is the same.

2. Shadow Broker ship - "inspired" by Mass Effect's Citadel assault, to put it mildly. And I have nothing against this, because that was one of the best and most memorable scenes n the franchise, so its nice to see it rehashed. It feels different, more open and just better than ME2's shooter galleries.

3. Atmosphere and design - again, far closer to the original in tone and execution.

In my humble opinion, LotSB is a quiet admittance by BioWare that they messed a lot of ME2 by needlessly cutting key game concepts to "streamline" it, something which nobody needed. Better inventory, better vehicle (for some) and more varied worlds to explore, sure, but not cutting them entirely.  

Modifié par Burdokva, 12 octobre 2010 - 07:37 .

[Yeled]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You said:

But overall each part of the story is its own little isolated pocket in which you could remove Shep and replace her with any one else and it wouldn't really matter.

Which is pretty much the same thing that Smudboy keeps saying about ME2, and you'll note who else responded to my post.

True.  I did say that.  But that line, by itself, is really out of context.  I also said:

ME2 is not Shepard's story.  Instead, its a series of mostly unrelated
incidents in which Shepard takes part as an active observer.  Sure, Shep
kicks ass and takes names, and has some great dialogue and the
occassional decision to make.

and

All great little stories, but they have no bearing on Shepard or Shep's personal, emotional character.

and

...Shepard and her relationship (I don't necessarily
mean romance) with Liara is central to the mission.  In fact I'd go so
far as to say that rescuing Feron and killing the SB is only an excuse
to explore the relationship between Shepard and one of her key
allies/friends/lover from ME1.  Every interaction with Liara feels
meaningful to the player because its personal to Shepard, unlike any of
the loyalty missions.

What I meant by the statement you quoted was not that everything would play out identically if you replaced Shep, but that you could replace Shep because Shep and her motivations weren't driving those stories.  The only reason any of it matters to Shepard is because its team building.  Whereas Shep has a personal stake in LotSB, as well as in most of the main plot of ME1.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Only in this case, "being doctor Phil" did help stop the Reapers, or at least their latest plan. 

Show me where in the story "being doctor Phil" helped stop the Collectors.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

No moving the goalposts. 

"Is about the main character" and "cannot take place without the main character' are NOT the same standard.

Okay.

Why not?  Those are not mutually exclusive.

We could argue if there was actual development from a certain character.  But because Shepard is a brick, so any old brick will do.

And that's where you're wrong about Shepherd in ME2. 

It's a continuation of Shepherd's story because these are things that are happening to and because of Shepherd. 

Explain to me one thing that happens as a result of Shepard that couldn't have happened any other way.

That's all that's needed.  Unless what you're really saying is that you want the story to be about the character, AND you want the character to be absolutely vital to the story ever taking place at all.

The more involved a character is, the more they develop, the more they and only they can be present in the story, and thus, allow the plot to continue: then the more we connect, the more meaning, the more value the story has.

As soon as you can replace the protagonist with any old random guy, the story is flawed.

(And really, no matter what, the events of ME2 can't take place without Shep, because the Reapers took the Citadel and are wiping out all the spacefaring species of the galaxy if there were no Shep in ME1.  )

And this is where you're wrong.

The narrative proves that you're wrong.  Because there are no instances where Shepard is integral to it.  None.

Although I'm still waiting for examples.

[Yeled]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Only in this case, "being doctor Phil" did help stop the Reapers, or at least their latest plan. 

Show me where in the story "being doctor Phil" helped stop the Collectors.

I think the issue here is that being Dr. Phil helps stop the collectors because it helps you complete the suicide mission.  Although you could argue that it mostly helps you complete it without losing squad members.

I'd argue that this isn't a story element but is rather a mechanical aspect of the end sequence (I was going to say gimmick but that's got a negative connotation).  But someone could argue they are one and the same.  And I suppose in ME2 they kind of are, since the story derives from the mechanic in the end sequence.

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

And that's where you're wrong about Shepherd in ME2. 

It's a continuation of Shepherd's story because these are things that are happening to and because of Shepherd.  That's all that's needed.  Unless what you're really saying is that you want the story to be about the character, AND you want the character to be absolutely vital to the story ever taking place at all.

(And really, no matter what, the events of ME2 can't take place without Shep, because the Reapers took the Citadel and are wiping out all the spacefaring species of the galaxy if there were no Shep in ME1.  )

This is why I say ME 2 is a sequel only because Bioware says it's a sequel.

Let's play Mass Effect Alternate History.

What if Ashely or Kaiden had gone after Joker instead of Shepard?  He or she ended up getting spaced and revived in Cerberus' Ressurection Machine.  Would anything of substance have changed?

Say there was no Ressurection Machine.  What if, shortly after Shep's death, former Alliance marine Jacob Taylor had approached disillusioned C-Sec agent Garrus Vakarian?  He comes bearing an offer from a "wealthy benefactor" to carry on Shepard's fight against the Reapers in the Terminus Systems.  Would anyhting of substance have happened differently?

Say there was anoter Alliance soldier, whom for this exercise we'll call Hawke.  Hawke is in a nasty pickle.  Perhaps about to be spirited away by the Collectors, when Jacob and Miranda show up to the rescue.  They are interested in recruiting theis decorated soldier to lead a "suicide mission" to stop the Collectors.  Hawke would be provided with all the equipment and personell he/she could need.  What in the story changes?

ME 1, Shepard received the warning from the Beacon, and became the first human Spectre.  Shep had the warning that no one else in authority took seriously, and the independant  authority to do something about it.  In ME 2 Shep had...TIM's instructions and a squad full of personal issues.  This wasn't "Shepard's story" It was "TIM's story as told by Shepard"

[Saremei]

Ch40sFox wrote...

I love how when anyone tries to complain about the original Mass Effect, all they can really do, is diss the Mako. It just wasnt Halo standard driving, took some getting used to.

Gah, I love the Mako for the very reason that they didn't make it control like the retarded warthog.  That was one of the biggest letdowns of the first halo when I played it. give me direct control of turning the wheels, not pointing in a direction for the game to drive in.  If they made the Mako like the Warthog I'd most likely have never finished ME1.

[allankles]

I liked both games and thought ME 2 was the better experience. ME 2 took away the grind and the clunky combat: also the narrative on a piece by piece basis was better told and presented than the first game. I think the first game had the neater overarching story, but ME2 had better story telling.

Modifié par allankles, 12 octobre 2010 - 10:47 .