815 réponses à ce sujet

[Frybread76]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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. 

Stopped the Reapers?  He stopped the Collectors, the Reapers' henchmen, not the Reapers themselves.  They are still coming.

[Frybread76]

allankles wrote...

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.

But the piece-by-piece narrative doesn't go anywhere.

[smudboy]

iakus wrote...

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"

Man.  Manly tears.  Of irony.

Almost made me wonder wtf happened to that resurrection machine.  And then me wishing there was one...:*

[Nightwriter]

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.

Most people who say "this didn't feel like Shepard's story" mean "I felt really disconnected from my Shepard in ME2, what's the deal?"

[Therion942]

smudboy wrote...

Man.  Manly tears.  Of irony.

Almost made me wonder wtf happened to that resurrection machine.  And then me wishing there was one...:*

There probably was a resurrection machine that produced the blue goo that could BRING SOMATIC CELLS BACK TO LIFE. But it got blown up. Maybe Cerberus should stop doing that, so then we could get some exposition. Just a little. Really I don't demand a lot. I don't think anyone else was disappointed does either - I surely don't expect a great, monumental task of writing genius that resonates with my inner-most thoughts and changes my life forever.

One or two lines of dialogue, a few investigative paragraphs, that's all I want. Just link your stuff together with some sort of identifiable thread.

[Xeranx]

The problem is if they give any info on the ressurrection later it will be an admission to a failing in ME2 which it seems Bioware doesn't want to do. That seems obvious with the many, seemingly, snide comments made about different elements of Mass Effect in various parts of ME2.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Frybread76 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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. 

Stopped the Reapers?  He stopped the Collectors, the Reapers' henchmen, not the Reapers themselves.  They are still coming.

"OR AT LEAST THEIR LATEST PLAN"

[Killjoy Cutter]

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 posted that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, based on the fact that the Omega 4 mission goes far better if you've helped the squadies with their problems so that they can focus on the task at hand.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

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.

You keep coming back to this "character development" thing, as if that's the only way to tell "good" stories.  ME2 is not a paint-by-numbers Cambellian setpiece (and thank goodness it's not). 


Whose perspective is the story told from?  Shepherd's.

Who is the main character, the protagonist?  Shepherd. 

Therefore, Shepherd's story.  That's it.  That's all it takes. 


Shepherd is integral to ME2 in the same way that you're intergral to your own life.  No smudboy, and that story doesn't happen. 

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You keep coming back to this "character development" thing, as if that's the only way to tell "good" stories.  ME2 is not a paint-by-numbers Cambellian setpiece (and thank goodness it's not). 

Good short stories: focus on plot.
Good long stories: focus on characters and plot.

If the character doesn't change and grow with the story, and it is their story, then the character is not a character.  They are a brick.

Whose perspective is the story told from?  Shepherd's.

Is it?  I don't think so.  The plot is coming from TIM, and we just go with it.  Things are definitely happening to Shepard, but they're not instigating the plot.  The perspective is 3rd person omniscient, so I don't see how that's Shepard's story.  You can compare this to anyone else being the player character.  The perspective does not equate to protagonist.

Additionally, this could've been Shepard's story, even without them being the protagonist.  Shepard could've been a crew mate, or That Man you're hot on the heels of, a story of chasing him/her down, where you learn about their plans and plots along the way.  But Shepard doesn't really do anything toward the plot, that can't be done by anyone else.

Who is the main character, the protagonist?  Shepherd. 

I've no doubt Shepard is the protagonist, I just don't know why.  Neither of which make it their story.

Therefore, Shepherd's story.  That's it.  That's all it takes. 

No. That's not all it takes.  How is it Shepard's story?  Where is your evidence?  Saying "A=A" means nothing.

Shepherd is integral to ME2 in the same way that you're intergral to your own life.  No smudboy, and that story doesn't happen. 

No.  Shepard is not integral to ME2.  You have not shown an example in the plot where Shepard is integral to it.  Please provide an example.  That is, if you remove Shepard from any event, then the plot cannot continue.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You keep coming back to this "character development" thing, as if that's the only way to tell "good" stories.  ME2 is not a paint-by-numbers Cambellian setpiece (and thank goodness it's not). 

Good short stories: focus on plot.
Good long stories: focus on characters and plot.

If the character doesn't change and grow with the story, and it is their story, then the character is not a character.  They are a brick.

So you say.  *shrug*  Personally, I think the whole "character growth" thing is highly over-rated, and more often than not gives us not a well-written book/movie/story, but the navel-gazing plotless limp turkeys of Modern High Literature.

Whose perspective is the story told from?  Shepherd's.

Is it?  I don't think so.  The plot is coming from TIM, and we just go with it.  Things are definitely happening to Shepard, but they're not instigating the plot.  The perspective is 3rd person omniscient, so I don't see how that's Shepard's story.  You can compare this to anyone else being the player character.  The perspective does not equate to protagonist.

Additionally, this could've been Shepard's story, even without them being the protagonist.  Shepard could've been a crew mate, or That Man you're hot on the heels of, a story of chasing him/her down, where you learn about their plans and plots along the way.  But Shepard doesn't really do anything toward the plot, that can't be done by anyone else.

Who is the main character, the protagonist?  Shepherd. 

I've no doubt Shepard is the protagonist, I just don't know why.  Neither of which make it their story.

Therefore, Shepherd's story.  That's it.  That's all it takes. 

No. That's not all it takes.  How is it Shepard's story?  Where is your evidence?  Saying "A=A" means nothing.

Shepherd is integral to ME2 in the same way that you're intergral to your own life.  No smudboy, and that story doesn't happen. 

No.  Shepard is not integral to ME2.  You have not shown an example in the plot where Shepard is integral to it.  Please provide an example.  That is, if you remove Shepard from any event, then the plot cannot continue.

You're ignoring the many moments in the game where almost anyone else would end up dead if they tried what Shep makes look easy. 

And of course the fact that it's Shep's story because it's his/her life we're playing out.

[Nightwriter]

I just don't agree that it's Shepard's story just because Shepard's experiencing it.

That's like saying it's my world just because I'm the one seeing it. The protagonist can perceive the story without the story necessarily being about them.

[Iakus]

Xeranx wrote...

The problem is if they give any info on the ressurrection later it will be an admission to a failing in ME2 which it seems Bioware doesn't want to do. That seems obvious with the many, seemingly, snide comments made about different elements of Mass Effect in various parts of ME2.

Oh, I dunno.  I think Bioware is realizing that ME 2 has been...lacking...in certain respects.  And is surreptitiously been doing "story patches" via DLC.

I mean, in LoTSB we finally got:
 
A reason why Wilson betrayed Cerberus

Someone who acknowledged that Shepard has been through some stuff that might be considered stressful, and wants to know how he/she is handling it.

An excuse (however weak) why Thane dresses the way he does.

More character depth (in written dossiers) than one sees of the squad in the entire game outside their loyalty missions.

I think it's possible that info on the Cure for Death may eventually be forthcoming.  We'll just have to pay extra for it.

[Nightwriter]

You forgot:

- An address of the total “wtf” factor that was Liara’s oh-hi-help-me-hack-terminals cameo.
- Acknowledgement of the fact that the defeat of the Collectors felt meaningless.
- Finally some unique comments for sole survivors and Cerberus’s ties to Akuze.
- Mention of Kahoku (AT LAST).
- Liara acknowledging that it was odd she felt so strongly about finding Feron, since many people said the comics showed no friendship.

[lazuli]

smudboy wrote...
If the character doesn't change and grow with the story, and it is their story, then the character is not a character.  They are a brick.

I think you are placing too great an emphasis on characters changing.  An effective story could very well tell the tale of a character who cannot change despite repeated attempts or outside stimuli, perhaps resulting in tragedy.  A character can be more accurately described as a sum of wants than a sum of changes.

[Therion942]

lazuli wrote...

smudboy wrote...
If the character doesn't change and grow with the story, and it is their story, then the character is not a character.  They are a brick.

I think you are placing too great an emphasis on characters changing.  An effective story could very well tell the tale of a character who cannot change despite repeated attempts or outside stimuli, perhaps resulting in tragedy.  A character can be more accurately described as a sum of wants than a sum of changes.

If that were the case then, in the main game - the primary form of narrative truth that we the audience receives - there should damn well be a piece of storytelling depicting the struggle and the why of how the character doesn't change/can't change.

Like for the morale of your crew. There is no such situation in the main game giving depth to that concept. In LoTSB there is, but that should have been in the primary narrative work, not some outside thing that cost $10 to play. Paying $10 for exposition is... seedy.

[lazuli]

Therion942 wrote...

If that were the case then, in the main game - the primary form of narrative truth that we the audience receives - there should damn well be a piece of storytelling depicting the struggle and the why of how the character doesn't change/can't change.

Like for the morale of your crew. There is no such situation in the main game giving depth to that concept. In LoTSB there is, but that should have been in the primary narrative work, not some outside thing that cost $10 to play. Paying $10 for exposition is... seedy.

Are you talking about your squadmates or the crew of the ship?  You can walk around and some of the nameless ensigns will rattle off recently attacked colonies, talk about lost loved ones, or express their faith in Shepard and Miranda.

I don't think that's what you're getting at, though.  Which character's lack of change are we addressing?

[Phobius9]

Wow, this is certainly some of the more interesting and better written posting I've seen on a forum for some time. Kudos guys.



Personally I don't see that much of an issue with the plot of ME2. You're right, it didn't have the same engagement with Shepard as the first one did, and we didn't see the same character development in Shepard as ME1, but maybe that wasn't the point.



The whole Stopping the Emeny Threat!TM thing is the overall story, sure, but i can't see why that means we have to exclude other ideas to. The way I see it is that ME2 was about building that team that will help you stop the enemy in ME3. It was about finding out about your crew, it was about finding out why THEY are willing to fight for YOU in ME3. It was about laying the foundation for ME3.



I believe it's hard to judge ME2's place in the bigger picture without the trilogy being complete. I believe (hope) that there will be more development of Shepard's character and the effect of the games on him in ME3, but it will involve your crew helping you through this, after you did the same thing for them in ME2. People would be pretty pissed if ME2 and ME3 where all about your crew leaping to your aid all the time without any justifiable reason as to why they're willing to put their lives on the line for someone they've just met.



Don't get me wrong, it could have been done MUCH better, but I don't think Biowares choice of making ME2 more about the supporting cast was a bad one, when you consider it's place in the trilogy as a whole.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Nightwriter wrote...

You forgot:

- An address of the total “wtf” factor that was Liara’s oh-hi-help-me-hack-terminals cameo.
- Acknowledgement of the fact that the defeat of the Collectors felt meaningless.
- Finally some unique comments for sole survivors and Cerberus’s ties to Akuze.
- Mention of Kahoku (AT LAST).
- Liara acknowledging that it was odd she felt so strongly about finding Feron, since many people said the comics showed no friendship.

This one makes me want to believe that the writers are well aware of where the story is at and where it is going.

[Nightwriter]

Or (cynical version) they just heard all the complaints about the meaninglessness of the Collectors and were doing a little damage control by "hanging a lantern" on it.

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...

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

And some can consider ^that 'bias'. Behold the internet.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Nightwriter wrote...

Or (cynical version) they just heard all the complaints about the meaninglessness of the Collectors and were doing a little damage control by "hanging a lantern" on it.

That would have been my other guess.

[MIGGZ187]

 My main problem with ME2 is the collectors. We stopped them because they were bad, ok... so what? They weren't a giant threat like sovereign releasing the rest of the reapers from dark space. There was almost no reason to even care about the collectors aside from the fact that what they were doing was bad. It did nothing to further the story that got started in ME1. 
I think the only things that mattered were this. Mordin keeping or destroying the genophage research, telling the quarians whether or not to go to war, reprogramming or destroying the heretic geth. Those things furthered the plot IMO. Of course the collector base too. MAYBE the cerberus info you can keep/send to alliance/send to cerberus, but thats a maybe. Now some people might say thats the point of ME2, building the team and making those choices. I say no, those are good things to have and they are important, but they aren't (or shouldn't be) the major reason for ME2. The main plot should have had something to do that would further the story. The collectors didn't, they were just there. Not to mention Harbinger sucks. Sovereign actually seemed like a villain. It told Shepard he would fail, it made threats, it was actually doing something that would kick off the reaper invasion. WTF was Harbinger doing trying to make a baby reaper? Was he like lonely and wanted to adopt or something? That was so lame. I would have rather seen him trying to build like an army of foot soldier reapers or building a new relay that some how would bring in the reapers, just anything that would be a threat to the galaxy.
 Aside from this, combat/biotics/graphics are greatly improved in ME2. I do think we need to bring back inventory and squad armor though. Plus the weapon system kind of bothered me. In ME1 no matter what class you were you at least got to look badass with all those guns on you're back. I think you should be able to use all the weapons but get a penalty or less damage dealt type of thing for using one that you're untrained in. And omg... get rid of reloading. That made zero sense to me. ME1, it's the future, you don't reload but your weapon can overheat, enough upgrades and you can fire almost forever. Now it's ME2, two years into the future from when you started and using "new technology" we reload our guns again... that was stupid.