815 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
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.

If you don't have a story about someone discovering what it means to be alive, and accepting/disregarding that reality as they struggle, you have a very boring, disconnected tale, probably being shown by the wrong character and wrong series of events.  Events have to either change the character, or the character has to change the events.  If the struggle results in "Person + Event = Nothing of any importance", then the story is meaningless toward plot and character (unless the story's point is to show the banality of it all, which is more of a farcical or introspective tale.)

Again, short stories don't have time to get into character backgrounds, where we have a basis to show change as the plot unravels.  With novels, novellas, and the like, the audience needs to care.  We do this through identifying with characters, more so than with events.  It's called being human.


When the struggles of the protagonist interact with their ideals, we get to see something interesting.  (Yes, the big generic word.)  That simple question of "how would this character deal with this situation?" becomes answered.  Aside from the style of prose, that's what makes the writer worth their ink.


To the plot of ME2, I can safely say, the writers either weren't in charge, or had no clue what they were doing.

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. 

What does Shepard do to make things look easy?  And what exactly is it that would cause the plot to only go the way it did, had someone else simply done what they did?  You're failing to identify what makes Shepard special, and why Shepard -- and only Shepard -- can be the protagonist.

Your best bet is to look at why Shepard was The Chosen.  And then determine if those reasons for being The Chosen are answered or at least contested.  (Hint: the two speeches by TIM, and the one by Miranda.)

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

Tell me why, and show me where, that that makes it Shepard's story.  I'm still looking for an answer that you keep telling me there is.  All you have to do is back it up.

[smudboy]

MIGGZ187 wrote...

 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.

The fundamental problem with Harbinger is he's not just "Sovereign Lite", he's Sovereign "Super-Stupid-Lite."

A plot, or a video game for that matter, if it introduces similar elements, needs to go beyond the similarities of the previous elements.  (A cool gun->an even cooler gun.)  If Harbinger truly is Plan B, well, we're already in ho-hum land.  It has to be more exciting, more lethal, more repugnant and powerful to the audience.  And make goddamned sense.  In some cases the horror of watching people get captured and melted is horrific, and taking 100k people away is bad, but what about ME1?  Where were there scenes of people being impaled on spikes?  Where were the big threats of destroying all life?

Instead of a God like message of Doom we get a taunting school yard bully.
Instead of a galaxy destroying event we get mysterious bugs taking humans to make a skeleton for no reason.
Instead of a human becoming an above the law agent to protect the galaxy, we get retconned/lampshaded "terrorist" group that makes you Cyber Jesus only for the purpose of resurrection (despite many reasons that don't get fulfilled.)
Instead of chasing down a rogue Spectre from getting to the Conduit first, we just jump into a relay without knowing the scope of our "hired hit-galactic style" mission.
Instead of having a side mission on our protagonist or scene where it looks like All Hope is Lost (the slump), we have to wait for DLC to retcon something that attempted to tell a story with an external narrative, with a comic book, just get someone to ask "How you doin?"

[Xeranx]

iakus wrote...

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.

I'm happy that Bioware wants to make things right, but I don't think it should be on my dime.  Software development is the only industry I've seen (or comes to mind really) that is allowed to make mistakes and later charge people for rectifying said mistakes.

I'm still of the mind that Wilson is ambiguous.  Did Wilson work for the deposed Shadow Broker or the new one?  I think it was made mention that the new one was in place for less than a year.

[morrie23]

The yahg!Broker was in power for several decades, Wilson worked for him.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Therion942 wrote...

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.

Or, we could be looking at a story that doesn't require Protagonist Growth. 

[adembroski11]

I'm in the ME1 camp, but not by a lot I guess.

I have a unique perspective on ME2, I think. Where as ME1 plays out like a long film, ME2 plays out like a television series. To be perfectly honest, I think ME2 finally found the story-form that works best for video games. To me, the structure of ME2 makes perfect sense because I think of it episodically rather than as one elongated story.

That said, I preferred ME1 in the sense that it was further to the RPG side of the RPGShooter continuum. There are a number of reasons...

* ME2 skills make no sense. How do I become "better" at loading a certain type of ammo into my weapon? ME1 had a very RPG-ish skill system and it worked. I got a sense of accomplishment with seeing my reticule shrink as the game went on (indicating my Shepard was becoming better at using the weapons).

* Yes, the combat was "better" in ME2, but that wasn't because of the RPG system, but because of AI improvements. Combat could be made just as good in ME1 with the appropriate AI adjustments.

* Didn't like the addition of "armor". The hardsuits make sense in the context of supporting a Mass Effect generator for the shields, but what material is going to stop mass-accelerated slugs? Ridiculous.

* Holographic crap on the enemy captains. How is that in any way practical?

* Thermal clips felt like technology had backslid in 2 years. Hated that change, still do.

* Levels became completely linear.

* No exploration. Look, the Mako was a pain in the ass, but it was something to open up the environment and that means a lot to me.

* With exploration came planets with personality... though I constantly wished there'd be tangible differences... ballistics and simple movement should be affected by gravitational and weather issues.

* "Engineer" and "Biotic" are simply Soldiers with different kinds of guns in ME2. I had to make decisions in ME1 that never came to mind in ME2. In ME1, taking Tali along was a risky investment... it means I'd be able to hack or bypass anything I came across, but she was a combat liability. I preferred that cost/benefit analysis that is gone in ME2.

* Choke points were organic. Yes, ME1 had a lot of repeated environments, but the positive of that is that they were organic. Nothing was designed specifically for this particular encounter. Rather, I had to approach different enemies in different "dug in" positions differently, even within the same cookie cutter building. In ME2, it all feels very staged. Set pieces are designed with combat in mind and it kills the suspension of disbelief.

Again, there are things I like better about ME2. I actually don't mind the change in inventory because 90% of what I picked up was useless anyways. I do miss being able to have each character customize their armor, and seeing Jack with a plastic thingy over her mouth and nose in the cold vacuum of space doesn't exactly help suspension of disbelief, but this could be corrected simply by adding a full-body suit for each character.

I'd really like to see helmets become a 1-button toggle in ME3. Annoys me that I have to go up to my room before the mission if I want to wear it for a given mission.

Modifié par adembroski11, 13 octobre 2010 - 03:24 .

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Therion942 wrote...

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.

Or, we could be looking at a story that doesn't require Protagonist Growth. 

That makes it a sh*t story.

A story can be about anything.  If it doesn't relate to a viewer on a basic level?  Zzz.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

The fundamental problem with Harbinger is he's not just "Sovereign Lite", he's Sovereign "Super-Stupid-Lite."

A plot, or a video game for that matter, if it introduces similar elements, needs to go beyond the similarities of the previous elements.  (A cool gun->an even cooler gun.) 

Really?  Isn't that approach a part of what's given us all the runaway escalation and Next Kewler/Bigger/Baddassier Thing that makes so much of what the overall media puts out so, so bad?

If Harbinger truly is Plan B, well, we're already in ho-hum land.  It has to be more exciting, more lethal, more repugnant and powerful to the audience.  And make goddamned sense.  In some cases the horror of watching people get captured and melted is horrific, and taking 100k people away is bad, but what about ME1?  Where were there scenes of people being impaled on spikes?  Where were the big threats of destroying all life?

MORE MORE MORE? 

Meh. 

The intent to turn the entire human race into raw material for the reproduction process of an ancient race of monsters from space isn't big enough for you? 

Instead of a God like message of Doom we get a taunting school yard bully.

Sovereign and Harbinger actually strike me as quite similar.  I wanted an option to tell Sovereign "whatever" and close the channel during the "big talk" on Ilos.  "Oh, we're so ancient and powerful, you'll never understand us!  Oh, here we come, we're going to get you!"  

Again, meh.

Instead of a galaxy destroying event we get mysterious bugs taking humans to make a skeleton for no reason.

I thought it was the core of a new Reaper, see above.

Instead of a human becoming an above the law agent to protect the galaxy, we get retconned/lampshaded "terrorist" group that makes you Cyber Jesus only for the purpose of resurrection (despite many reasons that don't get fulfilled.)

I'll largely give you that one, pending where they go with it in ME3.  Especially the odd transformation of Cerberus between ME1 and ME2.

Instead of chasing down a rogue Spectre from getting to the Conduit first, we just jump into a relay without knowing the scope of our "hired hit-galactic style" mission.

How would you have presented that differently?  Or would you have no used the Omega 4 Relay concept at all?

Instead of having a side mission on our protagonist or scene where it looks like All Hope is Lost (the slump), we have to wait for DLC to retcon something that attempted to tell a story with an external narrative, with a comic book, just get someone to ask "How you doin?"

Why do we need "The Slump" to appear in the story?  It's not as if every story has to have a moment where the protagonist wants to give up, or almost gives up, or doubts what they're doing in some way, is it?  "All Hope Is List" sounds like formula writing again. 

I do agree with your disdain for making external media central to the storytelling, though.  It's crass marketing at the expense of good writing craft.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Therion942 wrote...

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.

Or, we could be looking at a story that doesn't require Protagonist Growth. 

That makes it a sh*t story.

A story can be about anything.  If it doesn't relate to a viewer on a basic level?  Zzz.

Funny, I don't need to see the Ordained Stages of Protagonist Growth" to relate to a protagonist or a story.  At all. 

And in fact, I find many attempts to "humanize" the protagonist, make them "relateable", to be transparent, forced, contrived, and hackneed. 

[Frybread76]

Outside of being a stereotypical "bad ass" hero, what makes Shepard special is he inherited the Prothean cipher in ME1. I was hoping ME2 was going to touch on that since, you know, Shepard now has the entire cultural knowledge and ancestral memory of the Protheans, making him Prothean in a way. But, alas, like other things, it was completed removed from ME2.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
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.

If you don't have a story about someone discovering what it means to be alive, and accepting/disregarding that reality as they struggle, you have a very boring, disconnected tale, probably being shown by the wrong character and wrong series of events.  Events have to either change the character, or the character has to change the events.  If the struggle results in "Person + Event = Nothing of any importance", then the story is meaningless toward plot and character (unless the story's point is to show the banality of it all, which is more of a farcical or introspective tale.)

Again, short stories don't have time to get into character backgrounds, where we have a basis to show change as the plot unravels.  With novels, novellas, and the like, the audience needs to care.  We do this through identifying with characters, more so than with events.  It's called being human.


When the struggles of the protagonist interact with their ideals, we get to see something interesting.  (Yes, the big generic word.)  That simple question of "how would this character deal with this situation?" becomes answered.  Aside from the style of prose, that's what makes the writer worth their ink.

From here, this seems to be a recipe for creating formula fiction, the kind that gives transparent, forced writing that leaves me, at least, feeling utterly unmoved.  My reaction could be summed up as a bit like the internet meme, "I see what you did there". 

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. 

What does Shepard do to make things look easy?  And what exactly is it that would cause the plot to only go the way it did, had someone else simply done what they did?  You're failing to identify what makes Shepard special, and why Shepard -- and only Shepard -- can be the protagonist.

Your best bet is to look at why Shepard was The Chosen.  And then determine if those reasons for being The Chosen are answered or at least contested.  (Hint: the two speeches by TIM, and the one by Miranda.)

You keep asking for what makes Shep "The Chosen", although not always in those words. 

Not every story is about the metaphorical Savior. 

As for things Shep makes look easy -- the retaking of the Alerai would be the first and easiest example.  Whole platoons of Quarian marines can't get past the first room, but Shep and two others go through the entire ship like crap through a goose.  That kind of thing happens over and over again in the game.

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

Tell me why, and show me where, that that makes it Shepard's story.  I'm still looking for an answer that you keep telling me there is.  All you have to do is back it up.

Who is the point of view character?  Who do you play the game as?  What is there to prove or "back up"?  It's right there as you're playing.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


Really?  Isn't that approach a part of what's given us all the runaway escalation and Next Kewler/Bigger/Baddassier Thing that makes so much of what the overall media puts out so, so bad?

There are many ways to make something interesting in fiction.  The first is content, the next is context.

MORE MORE MORE? 

Huh?

The intent to turn the entire human race into raw material for the reproduction process of an ancient race of monsters from space isn't big enough for you?

The idea is fine (content).  How that is presented is the issue (context.)  We don't know what they're doing with all those people, or why they're building a Reaper.

Sovereign and Harbinger actually strike me as quite similar.  I wanted an option to tell Sovereign "whatever" and close the channel during the "big talk" on Ilos.  "Oh, we're so ancient and powerful, you'll never understand us!  Oh, here we come, we're going to get you!"  

Again, meh.

What's meh?  The comparison is one of an actual dialog with a machine god, and the other is a rambling disembodied voice of stupid taunter.  Or at least that's how it comes across

I thought it was the core of a new Reaper, see above.

Huh?

How would you have presented that differently?  Or would you have no used the Omega 4 Relay concept at all?

It's called exposition.  Plot development.  Literally hundreds of ways to do this.

Why do we need "The Slump" to appear in the story?  It's not as if every story has to have a moment where the protagonist wants to give up, or almost gives up, or doubts what they're doing in some way, is it?  "All Hope Is List" sounds like formula writing again. 

It's usually the start of an "arc."  But you don't seem to like those.

The formula is merely an observation of what works in writing over the years.  Seemingly, you don't seem to enjoy "Writer's Craft", so apparently everything involving discipline, style and technique mean nothing to you, or at least almost every single idea I bring up.

I do agree with your disdain for making external media central to the storytelling, though.  It's crass marketing at the expense of good writing craft.

It also has no place in arguments toward another media!

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

From here, this seems to be a recipe for creating formula fiction, the kind that gives transparent, forced writing that leaves me, at least, feeling utterly unmoved.  My reaction could be summed up as a bit like the internet meme, "I see what you did there". 

Formula fiction?  I've never heard the term.  If one is learning to write, it's good to write about what one knows.  Short stories are the best example of this, since it involves writing small prose on situations the author is intimately familiar with. It keeps the writing clean, simple and clear, allowing the author to be as stylized or as accurate as they wish.  Whether that follows what someone else can come up with isn't important.  If you find similar stories to be unattractive, well that's your taste.  But there's nothing wrong with a method that appears similar if it conveys the motives of the characters, and plot, through conflict.

I mean, what, are you going to next argue "Oh, conflict is so last season?"

You keep asking for what makes Shep "The Chosen", although not always in those words. 

Not every story is about the metaphorical Savior. 

ME2 is.  Miranda and TIM CHOOSE SHEPARD.  They make them Cyber Jesus.

Shepard.  12 followers.  Resurrection...?

Should we get them crucified next?  Would the metaphor still be lost on you?  I'm not saying I like the imagery, but it's pretty obvious.

As for things Shep makes look easy -- the retaking of the Alerai would be the first and easiest example.  Whole platoons of Quarian marines can't get past the first room, but Shep and two others go through the entire ship like crap through a goose.  That kind of thing happens over and over again in the game.

That has nothing to do with Shepard, and more to do with stupid plot conventions.  In fact you're just describing how inept the Quarians are.

Do you honestly believe an entire army of Quarians can't retake one of their own ships, ON the Flotilla?  Of course not.  It's a plot convention to give the player something to do.  Like, shoot things.  It's pretty stupid, but it's just as clear as getting everyone on a shuttle to have Joker waltz around.

Who is the point of view character?  Who do you play the game as?  What is there to prove or "back up"?  It's right there as you're playing.

Point of view character?  Do you mean perspective? We don't see the game through Shepard's eyes, if that's what you mean.  We see Shepard mostly through 3rd person omniscient, and that's pretty much what all stories or media presented lately have been in.

Whether you play the game as Shepard or Joker is irrelevant.

I'm talking about what makes Shepard integral to the plot.  Not the fact that there's a camera sitting behind them or you're moving Joker or Shepard around.  I would imagine in your mind, moving Joker around would make that little part of the story, Joker's Story?  It's ridiculous.

Look at the plot and tell me where and when we cannot remove Shepard, and thus the plot cannot continue.

Also tell me where and when this is about Shepard's development, an arc, etc.

[smudboy]

Frybread76 wrote...

Outside of being a stereotypical "bad ass" hero, what makes Shepard special is he inherited the Prothean cipher in ME1. I was hoping ME2 was going to touch on that since, you know, Shepard now has the entire cultural knowledge and ancestral memory of the Protheans, making him Prothean in a way. But, alas, like other things, it was completed removed from ME2.

Exactly.  Shepard was special because of the visions, and the cipher.  This also made Liara integral, since without those two things, she wouldn't have been able to get to Ilos.

Having (do we know even how much or what kind of data on the Protheans was put into their brain?) all that data could've been a huge plot device with the story, showcasing that Shepard -- and only Shepard -- could've been required by the plot in ME2.

[Yeled]

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.

I agree with this, actually.  While I like character development, its not essential for good storytelling.  But its because I agree with this that I feel ME2 is lacking.  A character is a sum of wants.  Things progress in a story not because a character changes, but because a character acts upon or is frustrated by her wants.  This is called character motivation, and its integral to a story if you want said story to be about said character.

The question I have, and the question I feel Smudboy and others should ask (if he didn't), is what part of ME2 is driven by Shepard's wants?  I actually can't think of a single one, other than what occurs in LotSB.  You could say that Shepard wants to help her friends Garrus and Tali, but that's about as far as it goes.

That's why I say its not Shepard's story.  The story and the side missions do not deal with Shepard acting upon her wants.  They deal with her acting upon a crisis, but that crisis doesn't really coincide with her wants at all.  Sure, Shepard wants to save humanity.  But this desire stems from Shep being a hero and not from anything integral to Shep's character.  Its Cerberus' wants, really.  Shepard is simply the tool they wield to accomplish their goals.

[Slayer299]

Shandepared wrote...

smudboy wrote...

 It has to be more exciting, more lethal, more repugnant and powerful to the audience.

On the Collector ship last night Harbringer said this, "Your worlds will be our lavitories."

I found that repugnant.

Sovereign had class!

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but Harbinger didn't say 'lavatories', he said 'laboratories', which to be quite honest makes about as much sense<_<

[smudboy]

Yeled wrote...

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.

I agree with this, actually.  While I like character development, its not essential for good storytelling.  But its because I agree with this that I feel ME2 is lacking.  A character is a sum of wants.  Things progress in a story not because a character changes, but because a character acts upon or is frustrated by her wants.  This is called character motivation, and its integral to a story if you want said story to be about said character.

The question I have, and the question I feel Smudboy and others should ask (if he didn't), is what part of ME2 is driven by Shepard's wants?  I actually can't think of a single one, other than what occurs in LotSB.  You could say that Shepard wants to help her friends Garrus and Tali, but that's about as far as it goes.

That's why I say its not Shepard's story.  The story and the side missions do not deal with Shepard acting upon her wants.  They deal with her acting upon a crisis, but that crisis doesn't really coincide with her wants at all.  Sure, Shepard wants to save humanity.  But this desire stems from Shep being a hero and not from anything integral to Shep's character.  Its Cerberus' wants, really.  Shepard is simply the tool they wield to accomplish their goals.

This summarizes the best response.

It doesn't matter what the result of conflict is, but that there is a conflict that changes and challenges them.  It's that there is a struggle they are faced with, and that we can understand: 1) basis of the character, 2) struggle they go through, 3) result of that struggle.  If ME2 was lazuli depicted, that an effective story with Shepard as protagonist that doesn't change, then the story would still be about Shepard and where they're coming from, going through their conflicts, showing us why they made a choice to go a certain path (and not changing, as Therion942 expresses.)  It would also have very good, and clear reasons, as to why this is.  Hell, Zaeed gets this, and he's DLC!  I always liked the Babylon 5 concept, where the soldier must eventually take the role of politician, which is what I was thinking The Saviour of the Citadel would've become.

But ME2 has nothing to do with that.  Even though we have these psych and origin backgrounds of Shepard, they mean nothing.  The fact that Tali gets more exposition and meaningful scenes boggles my mind.  Why aren't we playing as Tali?  She seems more involved in things.  I would've loved to see my ME1 Shepard import be a crew mate to pick up, or be hunting down.

As to your question, we don't know Shepard's motives, aside from "helping stop the bad guys", which they express when they first talk to TIM.  And that's fine and good for all hero type stories.  Shepard is simply not invested in this plot.  TIM and Miranda bring them back, but for no reason save "I think we'll really need them for something" (and a bunch of gibberish from TIM.)  Shepard has less involvement than Zaeed: at least he's getting paid.

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
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.

But a character centered story needs its characters to grow and change.  Otherwise, what difference does it make if you're playing Mass Effect or Space Invaders?  "Build a team and earn their loyalty" that was the whole point of the game.  Sounds like a game that should have some emotional involvement and change.  The whole cinematic look, the pains taken to make kewl graphics, the voice acting, the movements.  If Shepard and the crew look like people, talk like people, maybe they should act like people too?

You keep asking for what makes Shep "The Chosen", although not always in those words. 

Not every story is about the metaphorical Savior. 

TIM to Shepard:  

"You're unique. Not just in ability or experience, but in what you represent. You stood for humanity at a key moment. You're more than a soldier, you're a symbol"


Shepard is Chosen, but for what?  What did Shepard do that no other marine, no other combat leader, could do?  The Beacon and the Cipher made Shep unique in the last game, gave Shepard an understanding of the oncoming threat no one else had.  What made Shep worth sinking billions of credits into Sufficiently Advanced Technology to bring him/her back from the dead?  Shepard couldn't even use that "your a symbol" thing because, well, most of the galaxy believes Shepard dead.  And almost everyone recruited didn't care who he/she was

Modifié par iakus, 13 octobre 2010 - 04:44 .

[khevan]

ME2 honestly feels like a Hollywood action movie, the kind that has just enough plot to fill in the gaps between the action.



I liked ME2, don't get me wrong. It's in my top 10 list of most favorite games of all time. But it has flaws, and many of those flaws are glaring.



Early on, I was seduced by the simple fact that ME2 was a continuation of the trilogy, it was MORE MASS EFFECT!. The more I've played the game though, the more obvious the flaws become. I honestly think that Bioware, when creating a better "gameplay" experience, wrote in just enough story to link the gameplay together.



It appears from the LotSB DLC that Bioware may be realizing this, and introducing more story elements to make for a more satisfying experience on that end, rather than having all the focus be on the gameplay. Hopefully this means good things for future ME2 DLC and ultimately for ME3 itself.

[Yeled]

khevan wrote...

ME2 honestly feels like a Hollywood action movie, the kind that has just enough plot to fill in the gaps between the action.

I liked ME2, don't get me wrong. It's in my top 10 list of most favorite games of all time. But it has flaws, and many of those flaws are glaring.

Early on, I was seduced by the simple fact that ME2 was a continuation of the trilogy, it was MORE MASS EFFECT!. The more I've played the game though, the more obvious the flaws become. I honestly think that Bioware, when creating a better "gameplay" experience, wrote in just enough story to link the gameplay together.

It appears from the LotSB DLC that Bioware may be realizing this, and introducing more story elements to make for a more satisfying experience on that end, rather than having all the focus be on the gameplay. Hopefully this means good things for future ME2 DLC and ultimately for ME3 itself.

Agreed.  I think they overcompensated for their weaknesses.  BioWare games have always been about story and character.  Gameplay and technical competetance has always been their weakest traits.  ME1 got dinged for this, and in many cases rightly so.

But the problem was they seemed to have forgotten their strengths in the process of shoring up their weaknesses.  They forgot who they were.  They were great storytellers.  Its what got them where they are today.  Use it.  Embrace it.  Concentrate on story first, as you always have, and fit the gameplay around it.

Companies and brands who forget who they are eventually lose their core audience--the audience that stuck with them through thick and thin.  And when the fickle masses stop being interested in what they are doing they have no one left to turn to.

[Zan51]

FYI formula fiction is what fuels the Romance Fiction publishers. If you want to write for them, they send you a crib sheet and CD explaining exactly how the main male character will behave and develop, and that the main female must be independent, a go-getter, etc. They tell you how to write, and almost what to write. Similar to that were the pot boilers of the pulp fiction age in the 1950s, when some folk wrote 5-6 bookss a year, none of which were worth reading, but all were published.

A character must grow. Even if you want him not to change, he grows in that he can show or tell why he won't change. Unless that at the least happens, the reader is going to lose all interest in him. This is why I dislike nearly all of Arthur C. Clark's modern fiction - cardboard characters with stereotypical lines to spout just to provide a backdrop for his latest spiffy science idea, Go back and read City and the Starts and you can see the man could once write extremely well.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Joseph Campbell must be very proud of you, Smudboy. 

[Frybread76]

Zan51 wrote...

FYI formula fiction is what fuels the Romance Fiction publishers. If you want to write for them, they send you a crib sheet and CD explaining exactly how the main male character will behave and develop, and that the main female must be independent, a go-getter, etc. They tell you how to write, and almost what to write. Similar to that were the pot boilers of the pulp fiction age in the 1950s, when some folk wrote 5-6 bookss a year, none of which were worth reading, but all were published.

A character must grow. Even if you want him not to change, he grows in that he can show or tell why he won't change. Unless that at the least happens, the reader is going to lose all interest in him. This is why I dislike nearly all of Arthur C. Clark's modern fiction - cardboard characters with stereotypical lines to spout just to provide a backdrop for his latest spiffy science idea, Go back and read City and the Starts and you can see the man could once write extremely well.

Unfortunately a lot of science fiction novels are like as you describe: Bricks or static characters that are there just for the writer to explore a scientific concept.  But for geeks like me who love theoretical physics, this formula can work sometimes.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zan51 wrote...

FYI formula fiction is what fuels the Romance Fiction publishers. If you want to write for them, they send you a crib sheet and CD explaining exactly how the main male character will behave and develop, and that the main female must be independent, a go-getter, etc. They tell you how to write, and almost what to write. Similar to that were the pot boilers of the pulp fiction age in the 1950s, when some folk wrote 5-6 bookss a year, none of which were worth reading, but all were published.

I would also include fiction written to any fixed set of expectations -- such as Campbell's "Hero's Journey" analysis which so many writers since have taken not as an observation, but a declaration.  (See also, Star Wars.)

Zan51 wrote...
A character must grow. Even if you want him not to change, he grows in that he can show or tell why he won't change. Unless that at the least happens, the reader is going to lose all interest in him. This is why I dislike nearly all of Arthur C. Clark's modern fiction - cardboard characters with stereotypical lines to spout just to provide a backdrop for his latest spiffy science idea, Go back and read City and the Starts and you can see the man could once write extremely well.

The characters has to "grow"?  What if the character is already who the story needs them to be?  What if the story itself isn't about the character's "change"? 

This is why I keep making snide references to Campbell.  It's as if you're all calling for the character to start out in need of change, and then go on a journey that brings that change about while also advancing the plot and resolving the conflict. 

You can have conflict galore, a complete story arc, and a compelling character, without that character changing in any real way over the course of the story.  But between accademia and the formula approach of both "high" and "low" fiction, the "cult of change" has firmly taken root in most minds at this point.

Honestly, I'm not all that interested in callow farm youths who start out largely inept, or in their discovery of their inner heroic potential.  Give me a competent character with believable motivations and personality, who gets the job done. 

I don't need to see the characters suffer and endure loss and generally be tortured by the author along the way.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 13 octobre 2010 - 05:46 .