815 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Yeled wrote...


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.

I think this is pretty much the whole problem summed up right here.

[Yeled]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

I think that's fair, but in ME1 Shepard doesn't really fit the callow youth description, either.  Shepard is who she needs to be at the beginning, but she is given access to unique information and a unique perspective that motivates her to act.  She alone drives the story, leaning on the other characters to help her along the way.  She really changes only insofar as the world around her frustrates her wants.

What is your response to my contention that ME2 doesn't address any of Shepard's wants or motivations; that its not really a story about or from Shepard but rather a story in which Shepard is only an active participant?  Someone above rightly claimed that what people mean by "it didn't feel like Shepard's story" is in fact "it didn't address things my Shepard would care about"? (I admit I may have bastardized that quote.)  I go a step further because I claim it didn't address anything Shepard would care about, and in fact went out of its way to gloss over or ignore anything Shepard would care about.

Do you contend that good story doesn't need to address its protagonist's wants?  Or do you disagree with my assertion that it doesn't deal with Shep's wants?

[KotOREffecT]

Brodyaha wrote...

That, and because pretty much every other comment on these ME forums is how ME1 was so much better than ME2.

And a lot of the time, the criticism isn't constructive, it's just negative.

Pretty much this... What's been said has been said, and the constructive criticism has been constructed and ME 3 is underway. Honestly at this point, its like beating a dead horse, its just some people who are mad that some things did not go their way, and they know it. "Ohhh I had to work with Cerberus, plot sucks!" Or "ZOMG the Collectors didn't show up enough". "Waaahhhhhhh I want the Mako back wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".. CRY MOAR!

Not to mention the nostlagic ones, some of them are the worst, but I do agree, ME 1 had a better story no doubt and was awesome, but so was ME 2 and its characters and ME themed stories like the Genophage, Quarians, Humans-Reapers,etc.. Some ME 1 elitists think every little thing in ME 2 was done wrong and that ME 1 did it better, but thats really not true now is it? From things like the inventory to sidequests and gameplay and even plot pacing, ME 2 did it just as good if not better than ME 1 and you know it.

Sure ME 2 could of done some of those things better no doubt but nothing is perfect and thats what we have ME 3 for. But in the end ME 2 was for the best and did pretty much everything better aside from story(middle chapter) and maybe the "vast openess" that the Citadel and Uncharted Worlds nailed in ME 1.

Both games are awesome and its hard to look at ME 1 without 2 and vise versa, in the end were all playing a trilogy here and to me ME 2 is ME 1, ME 2 takes the epicness of ME 1 and builds upon it for better or for worse, and ME 3 will hopefully combine the strengths of both games and end this trillogy on a great connecting note.

[Frybread76]

Yeled wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

I think that's fair, but in ME1 Shepard doesn't really fit the callow youth description, either.  Shepard is who she needs to be at the beginning, but she is given access to unique information and a unique perspective that motivates her to act.  She alone drives the story, leaning on the other characters to help her along the way.  She really changes only insofar as the world around her frustrates her wants.

What is your response to my contention that ME2 doesn't address any of Shepard's wants or motivations; that its not really a story about or from Shepard but rather a story in which Shepard is only an active participant?  Someone above rightly claimed that what people mean by "it didn't feel like Shepard's story" is in fact "it didn't address things my Shepard would care about"? (I admit I may have bastardized that quote.)  I go a step further because I claim it didn't address anything Shepard would care about, and in fact went out of its way to gloss over or ignore anything Shepard would care about.

Do you contend that good story doesn't need to address its protagonist's wants?  Or do you disagree with my assertion that it doesn't deal with Shep's wants?

A character does not have to start at the same point as another character to exprience growth or change.  Obviously, Shepard does not start ME1 an inexeprienced youth like Luke Skywalker.  Instead, Shepard is a highly trained special forces soldier who, at 29 in ME1, has been in the military for a decade or more.

[Frybread76]

KotOREffecT wrote...

Brodyaha wrote...

That, and because pretty much every other comment on these ME forums is how ME1 was so much better than ME2.

And a lot of the time, the criticism isn't constructive, it's just negative.

Pretty much this... What's been said has been said, and the constructive criticism has been constructed and ME 3 is underway. Honestly at this point, its like beating a dead horse, its just some people who are mad that some things did not go their way, and they know it. "Ohhh I had to work with Cerberus, plot sucks!" Or "ZOMG the Collectors didn't show up enough". "Waaahhhhhhh I want the Mako back wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".. CRY MOAR!

Not to mention the nostlagic ones, some of them are the worst, but I do agree, ME 1 had a better story no doubt and was awesome, but so was ME 2 and its characters and ME themed stories like the Genophage, Quarians, Humans-Reapers,etc.. Some ME 1 elitists think every little thing in ME 2 was done wrong and that ME 1 did it better, but thats really not true now is it? From things like the inventory to sidequests and gameplay and even plot pacing, ME 2 did it just as good if not better than ME 1 and you know it.

Sure ME 2 could of done some of those things better no doubt but nothing is perfect and thats what we have ME 3 for. But in the end ME 2 was for the best and did pretty much everything better aside from story(middle chapter) and maybe the "vast openess" that the Citadel and Uncharted Worlds nailed in ME 1.

Both games are awesome and its hard to look at ME 1 without 2 and vise versa, in the end were all playing a trilogy here and to me ME 2 is ME 1, ME 2 takes the epicness of ME 1 and builds upon it for better or for worse, and ME 3 will hopefully combine the strengths of both games and end this trillogy on a great connecting note.

If this bugs you guys so much then why do you keep reading and responding to the "negative" posts?  Are you that offended by what is said that you feel you have to respond?

[Xeranx]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

May I please get an example of what you're talking about here?  If there's potential for learning something then I'd like to see what's out there.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Yeled wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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.

I think that's fair, but in ME1 Shepard doesn't really fit the callow youth description, either.  Shepard is who she needs to be at the beginning, but she is given access to unique information and a unique perspective that motivates her to act.  She alone drives the story, leaning on the other characters to help her along the way.  She really changes only insofar as the world around her frustrates her wants.

What is your response to my contention that ME2 doesn't address any of Shepard's wants or motivations; that its not really a story about or from Shepard but rather a story in which Shepard is only an active participant?  Someone above rightly claimed that what people mean by "it didn't feel like Shepard's story" is in fact "it didn't address things my Shepard would care about"? (I admit I may have bastardized that quote.)  I go a step further because I claim it didn't address anything Shepard would care about, and in fact went out of its way to gloss over or ignore anything Shepard would care about.

Do you contend that good story doesn't need to address its protagonist's wants?  Or do you disagree with my assertion that it doesn't deal with Shep's wants?

I would say that this is far more valid criticism of ME2 than the oft-repeated "where's the growth!?!" refrain.

[KotOREffecT]

Frybread76 wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

Brodyaha wrote...

That, and because pretty much every other comment on these ME forums is how ME1 was so much better than ME2.

And a lot of the time, the criticism isn't constructive, it's just negative.

Pretty much this... What's been said has been said, and the constructive criticism has been constructed and ME 3 is underway. Honestly at this point, its like beating a dead horse, its just some people who are mad that some things did not go their way, and they know it. "Ohhh I had to work with Cerberus, plot sucks!" Or "ZOMG the Collectors didn't show up enough". "Waaahhhhhhh I want the Mako back wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".. CRY MOAR!

Not to mention the nostlagic ones, some of them are the worst, but I do agree, ME 1 had a better story no doubt and was awesome, but so was ME 2 and its characters and ME themed stories like the Genophage, Quarians, Humans-Reapers,etc.. Some ME 1 elitists think every little thing in ME 2 was done wrong and that ME 1 did it better, but thats really not true now is it? From things like the inventory to sidequests and gameplay and even plot pacing, ME 2 did it just as good if not better than ME 1 and you know it.

Sure ME 2 could of done some of those things better no doubt but nothing is perfect and thats what we have ME 3 for. But in the end ME 2 was for the best and did pretty much everything better aside from story(middle chapter) and maybe the "vast openess" that the Citadel and Uncharted Worlds nailed in ME 1.

Both games are awesome and its hard to look at ME 1 without 2 and vise versa, in the end were all playing a trilogy here and to me ME 2 is ME 1, ME 2 takes the epicness of ME 1 and builds upon it for better or for worse, and ME 3 will hopefully combine the strengths of both games and end this trillogy on a great connecting note.

If this bugs you guys so much then why do you keep reading and responding to the "negative" posts?  Are you that offended by what is said that you feel you have to respond?

This tends to happen when people post threads like these with a lot of unwanted negative energy. Peope tend to respond to these threads afterwhile because it gets old and there is already a topic on "the great many dissapointments and failures of ME2 Teh Worst Game Eva For Teh Dumbed Down Crowdz"......

Honestly though, what did you expect, offended? No, just amused to see the same lame rants over and over again even after 6 months already, and then some go and get mad because the designers don't want to interact esp with topics like these, what do you expect?

[wizardryforever]

Frybread76 wrote...

If this bugs you guys so much then why do you keep reading and responding to the "negative" posts?  Are you that offended by what is said that you feel you have to respond?

Back at ya.  Why do you guys feel the need to complain incessantly about ME2's problems (real and imagined)?  Are you that offended that the game didn't cater to your whims?  Enough to come to a forum and complain for months on end about how you don't like the plot?

The ME2 haters started this cycle.

[khevan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I would say that this is far more valid criticism of ME2 than the oft-repeated "where's the growth!?!" refrain.

I honestly think that both criticisms stem from the same place.  Smudboy has constantly asserted that if you replaced Shepard with just about anyone with combat experience, the story wouldn't really have changed.  This makes Shepard replaceable, and a replaceable protagonist doesn't make for a good story.

Whether or not Shepard "grows" or not, s/he's not integral to the plot, and that, to me, is the source of the complaints about Shepard as the protagonist.

[Yeled]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

If this bugs you guys so much then why do you keep reading and responding to the "negative" posts?  Are you that offended by what is said that you feel you have to respond?

Back at ya.  Why do you guys feel the need to complain incessantly about ME2's problems (real and imagined)?  Are you that offended that the game didn't cater to your whims?  Enough to come to a forum and complain for months on end about how you don't like the plot?

Yes, actually.  I am that offended.  Or maybe offended isn't the right word.  That implies I feel BioWare's actions were somehow directed at me personally.  Disappointed is a better word.  I'm that disappointed.

And I'm disappointed because I put BioWare and their storytelling on a very high pedestal.  I like their games.  A lot.  I look forward to them.  There are no other companies I can say that about.  They are in a unique position.  And I look forward to their games because they tell great interactive stories.

When they fall short of where I think they could be, though, it means I feel let down.  Frankly that's a great compliment most of us are giving them.  If we didn't think they were capable of so much more we'd simply be apathetic.

I think we also gripe about things like this because we know they listen.  LotSB is a great example.  They had to be listening to do everything they did in that dlc.  And because they listen, we post in an effort to effect change for the better.  Sitting around silently hoping they'll fix things to our liking isn't a good policy for affecting change.

[Yeled]

khevan wrote...

Whether or not Shepard "grows" or not, s/he's not integral to the plot, and that, to me, is the source of the complaints about Shepard as the protagonist.

I just think you say it backward.  If the writers incorporated a plot or even elements that took Shepard's wants into account, she would be inherently integral to the plot.  Its not that she's not integral to the plot, its that she is not integral to the plot because the writers didn't take her character motivations into account when writing the plot.

[Killjoy Cutter]

khevan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I would say that this is far more valid criticism of ME2 than the oft-repeated "where's the growth!?!" refrain.

I honestly think that both criticisms stem from the same place.  Smudboy has constantly asserted that if you replaced Shepard with just about anyone with combat experience, the story wouldn't really have changed.  This makes Shepard replaceable, and a replaceable protagonist doesn't make for a good story.

Whether or not Shepard "grows" or not, s/he's not integral to the plot, and that, to me, is the source of the complaints about Shepard as the protagonist.

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Joseph Campbell must be very proud of you, Smudboy. 

I've never read his mythopoeic, but I understand the concepts, as we would understand the archetypes of a villain, guide, aide, etc.

[Therion942]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

Really? Do you really believe that? Does the narrative make you believe that in any way? Because I don't think it does. I don't think any mission in ME2 would have failed if you replaced Zaeed with Shepard, or Jacob with Shepard, or Miranda with Shepard because it has nothing to do with Shepard's will or needs or wants, it's all spoonfed to you by TIM and EDI, in fact you could probably put EDI in a mobile platform and it'd be exactly the same. Well maybe not exactly, maybe more people would die on the SM, but who cares? 

[Yeled]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

But none of the things you mentioned played a part in ME2.  That's the problem.  That's exactly it.  They didn't even use her former squadmates, like Liara.  If you based ME2's plot on the fact that Shepard had experienced all those things, it would have been very different.

The only thing they really drew upon is that Shepard is "the baddest of the bad."  And honestly they could have made another bad ass character and it would have worked just fine.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

khevan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I would say that this is far more valid criticism of ME2 than the oft-repeated "where's the growth!?!" refrain.

I honestly think that both criticisms stem from the same place.  Smudboy has constantly asserted that if you replaced Shepard with just about anyone with combat experience, the story wouldn't really have changed.  This makes Shepard replaceable, and a replaceable protagonist doesn't make for a good story.

Whether or not Shepard "grows" or not, s/he's not integral to the plot, and that, to me, is the source of the complaints about Shepard as the protagonist.

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

So?  You're just describing Shepard. Those qualities do not make them integral to ME2.  It certainly sounds good.  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding?  So what?  How does Shepard's understanding of what's at stake have anything to do with 1) their motivations, 2) the plot of ME2?

Does ME2 express Shepard's motivations?  Nope.
Does ME2 express Shepard's understanding of what's at stake? Nope.
Do either of these things have anything to do with the events of ME2?

So the real question is, what if we just have some guy who's good with a gun, who has no motivations, and no understanding, but is good at following TIM's orders?  What difference is there between Shepard and this ersatz soldier?

Answer: "n_____g".

Modifié par smudboy, 13 octobre 2010 - 06:50 .

[khevan]

Yeled wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

But none of the things you mentioned played a part in ME2.  That's the problem.  That's exactly it.  They didn't even use her former squadmates, like Liara.  If you based ME2's plot on the fact that Shepard had experienced all those things, it would have been very different.

The only thing they really drew upon is that Shepard is "the baddest of the bad."  And honestly they could have made another bad ass character and it would have worked just fine.

^This.  All of the Cipher / Beacon / Liara mind-meld stuff happened in ME1.  Which had an awesome plot.

In ME2, none of those things are referenced, touched upon, used in the story in any way, except for a completely optional N7 mission where you can find another Prothean beacon.  If ME2 had used those plot devices from ME1, and referenced them somehow in ME2, that alone would have tied Shepard into the story.  I would still have had some issues with certain things about the plot that I won't go into here, but at least Shepard would have been integral to the story.

[khevan]

Yeled wrote...

khevan wrote...

Whether or not Shepard "grows" or not, s/he's not integral to the plot, and that, to me, is the source of the complaints about Shepard as the protagonist.

I just think you say it backward.  If the writers incorporated a plot or even elements that took Shepard's wants into account, she would be inherently integral to the plot.  Its not that she's not integral to the plot, its that she is not integral to the plot because the writers didn't take her character motivations into account when writing the plot.

I think we're talking about the same thing here, or at least two different ways to "fix" the problem.  As it stands right now, Shepard isn't integral to the plot.  Whether that's because the plot doesn't fit Shepard, or Shepard doesn't fit the plot makes no difference, except in viewpoint on how to fix the problem.

[Yeled]

khevan wrote...

I think we're talking about the same thing here, or at least two different ways to "fix" the problem.  As it stands right now, Shepard isn't integral to the plot.  Whether that's because the plot doesn't fit Shepard, or Shepard doesn't fit the plot makes no difference, except in viewpoint on how to fix the problem.

I agree.  I think we're actually just debating chicken/egg.

[khevan]

Yeled wrote...

khevan wrote...

I think we're talking about the same thing here, or at least two different ways to "fix" the problem.  As it stands right now, Shepard isn't integral to the plot.  Whether that's because the plot doesn't fit Shepard, or Shepard doesn't fit the plot makes no difference, except in viewpoint on how to fix the problem.

I agree.  I think we're actually just debating chicken/egg.

Eggs are delicious.

But so is chicken.

I think you're right, here.  Both are related, just differing viewpoints.  At any rate, we agree that something needs to be done! 

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

khevan wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I would say that this is far more valid criticism of ME2 than the oft-repeated "where's the growth!?!" refrain.

I honestly think that both criticisms stem from the same place.  Smudboy has constantly asserted that if you replaced Shepard with just about anyone with combat experience, the story wouldn't really have changed.  This makes Shepard replaceable, and a replaceable protagonist doesn't make for a good story.

Whether or not Shepard "grows" or not, s/he's not integral to the plot, and that, to me, is the source of the complaints about Shepard as the protagonist.

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

So?  You're just describing Shepard. Those qualities do not make them integral to ME2.  It certainly sounds good.  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding?  So what?  How does Shepard's understanding of what's at stake have anything to do with 1) their motivations, 2) the plot of ME2?

Does ME2 express Shepard's motivations?  Nope.
Does ME2 express Shepard's understanding of what's at stake? Nope.
Do either of these things have anything to do with the events of ME2?

So the real question is, what if we just have some guy who's good with a gun, who has no motivations, and no understanding, but is good at following TIM's orders?  What difference is there between Shepard and this ersatz soldier?

Answer: "n_____g".

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  So far, you keep saying these things but offering little to none of the "back it up" you've demanded from others. 

As I said, I highly doubt that "random Cerberus hotshot" is going to be even half as motivated, driven, or focused on seeing this through, and no one Cerberus is going to find will be either.

TIM and Miranda do point out that they're bringing back Shepard precisely because of what he/she did in ME1.  They go to all the trouble and expense because, at least to them, it's Shepard, not some random guy.  

We don't need the in-game universe or one Act out of a 3+ Act story to slobber on Shepard and make it clear over and over again just how oh-so-special Shepard is to make Shepard important and central to the story.

Of all the issues that ME2 has in terms of continuity, consistency, and storycraft in general, "Shepard isn't special enough" isn't one of them.

EDIT:  And we don't need the game to beat us over the head with Shepard's motivations or understanding, they're clear enough.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 13 octobre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

If this bugs you guys so much then why do you keep reading and responding to the "negative" posts?  Are you that offended by what is said that you feel you have to respond?

Back at ya.  Why do you guys feel the need to complain incessantly about ME2's problems (real and imagined)?  Are you that offended that the game didn't cater to your whims?  Enough to come to a forum and complain for months on end about how you don't like the plot?

The ME2 haters started this cycle.

You're so transparent

One, I do not hate ME2.  I just don't like it as much as ME1.

Two, you said you created this topic with the alleged intent of soliciting information from people on why they might like ME1 more than ME2.  But by the way you act, I think you created this to poke fun at people and to start a fight.

Three, if you don't like our criticism then don't create a topic like this and don't visit the other "What's wrong with ME2" threads if they offend you.  Problem solved.

[Frybread76]

Yeled wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I really doubt that you could make that swap.  It's still Shepard, it's still the person who touched the Beacons and received the Cipher and melded with Liara multiple times to integrate the information.  It's still the first human Spectre, and the baddest of the bad, humanities finest N7 Marine.  Who else is going to be that driven, that focused on stopping the Reapers or anyone working for the Reapers?  The only other people who have close to the level of understanding of what's at stake are those who were closest to Shepard in ME1, especially Liara (romance or not). 

But none of the things you mentioned played a part in ME2.  That's the problem.  That's exactly it.  They didn't even use her former squadmates, like Liara.  If you based ME2's plot on the fact that Shepard had experienced all those things, it would have been very different.

The only thing they really drew upon is that Shepard is "the baddest of the bad."  And honestly they could have made another bad ass character and it would have worked just fine.

This.

I would have loved to have ME2 explore Shepard and what information from the Cipher he has stored in his brain.  Since the Protheans are no no longer Protheans but soulless Collectors, along with the Thorian being dead, Shepard is the ME universe's only link to the Prothean's lost culture and legacy.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  So far, you keep saying these things but offering little to none of the "back it up" you've demanded from others. 

Spare me the arguer's lament.

Yet in all of my scenarios, they are completely true.  Replace Shepard with a guy with a gun, and voila.  The same outcome.  The plot keeps going on.

Yet you keep saying Shepard is intrinsic to the plot,  but offering no evidence aside from saying "Shepard is instrinsic." or "Of course it's Shepard's story", without showing me any evidence in the narrative as to how this is true.

As I said, I highly doubt that "random Cerberus hotshot" is going to be even half as motivated, driven, or focused on seeing this through, and no one Cerberus is going to find will be either.

Zaeed.
Miranda.
Jacob.
Garrus.
etc.

TIM and Miranda do point out that they're bringing back Shepard precisely because of what he/she did in ME1.  They go to all the trouble and expense because, at least to them, it's Shepard, not some random guy.  

And yet the point remains: So what?  I said, if you're going to argue anything, you need to argue their Chosen status.  This is granted by Miranda and TIM. Now, show me where in the narrative their Chosen status gets proven by the plot.

We don't need the in-game universe or one Act out of a 3+ Act story to slobber on Shepard and make it clear over and over again just how oh-so-special Shepard is to make Shepard important and central to the story.

Yes!  Yes you do! You need evidence from the damn narrative! Your opinion is complete rubbish if you can't back it up.  Either get with the proof or shut up.

Of all the issues that ME2 has in terms of continuity, consistency, and storycraft in general, "Shepard isn't special enough" isn't one of them.

It's not an issue of Shepard being special.  It's an issue of them being complete replaceable.  Which they are.

EDIT:  And we don't need the game to beat us over the head with Shepard's motivations or understanding, they're clear enough.

So?  What does that have to do with the plot?  Does the plot ever tell us why Shepard's doing what they're doing?  The only time we get a feeling for it are in LOTSB, and that one time where EDI asks whether Shepard wants to go through the Omega 4 relay, and the Renegade response is "The Collectors are gonna see what happens when they ****** me off."

So what?  Is this a plot of revenge?  It is a plot of "pissing Shepard off?"  No.  So then the comment is useless.  This is a tale of Stop the Collectors,  Produced by TIM, main lead, Shepard.  Shepard is replaceable by anyone who follows TIM's orders.  Miranda.  Jacob.  Garrus, etc.