815 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

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.

Well yeah, Shepard as a protagonist is extremely flat and shallow, but it's also YOUR character.  You created him/her, gave them a background,  a history.  YOU, the player, make the decisions.  Shepard is a blank slate that's intended for the PLAYER to fill in the blanks.  Many people have in topics long turned to dust written detailed accounts of their Shepard's lives within the context of the choices and setting.

I don't think the game should have to fill in all the blanks for the player though a few moments done here and there (Part of Jacob's romance and LotSB) are great.  But it's mostly up to player to put themselves in Shepard's shoes and decide on judgment calls and important moments.  To expect the game to lead you around by the hand is just lazy.

[wizardryforever]

Frybread76 wrote...

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.

Am I?  I think you're seeing what you want to see again.  I'll steal a line from TIM that fits the situation: "you know very little about me.  Don't pretend to understand my motivations."  Maybe that line is a bit arrogant for my point, but it's still relevant.

Ditto, except exchange ME1 and ME2 and voila.

I did create this topic for that reason, and notice that everyone who proclaims ME1 better has jumped down my throat long before I said anything provocative.  This thread has mutated into another "let's discuss the plot of ME2 without addressing the plot of ME1" thread, and frankly I was content to let it die when it dropped off the grid a while back.  I wanted an academic discussion on nostalgia and how it colors our viewpoints.  Instead I got blunt, hostile refusals to even consider it while at the same time suggesting that I somehow provoked such a response.

I don't visit such threads and certainly don't post in them because I know that those people don't want to hear an opposing viewpoint.  Besides, those same people point out their dislike in almost every thread, like it's their civic duty to inform everyone of their opinion at every possible opportunity.

[ADLegend21]

RiouHotaru 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.

Well yeah, Shepard as a protagonist is extremely flat and shallow, but it's also YOUR character.  You created him/her, gave them a background,  a history.  YOU, the player, make the decisions.  Shepard is a blank slate that's intended for the PLAYER to fill in the blanks.  Many people have in topics long turned to dust written detailed accounts of their Shepard's lives within the context of the choices and setting.

I don't think the game should have to fill in all the blanks for the player though a few moments done here and there (Part of Jacob's romance and LotSB) are great.  But it's mostly up to player to put themselves in Shepard's shoes and decide on judgment calls and important moments.  To expect the game to lead you around by the hand is just lazy.

this. the reason I even got mass effect 2 (never played ME1 prior) was becauseI heard that you could make Shepard however you wanted and it wasn't just some already fleshed out character doing what you told them to do until the cutscenes when the were their own person again. Mass effect as a series is one of the most immersing games ever so Sheaprd's development is up to you, it was that way in ME1 and it's the same in ME2 yet it's a bad thing in ME2 for whatever reason Smudboy says. Also to the aformentioned smudboy, you can't replace Shepard with anyone with cmobat experience because noone besides shepard and her crew know about the reapes since the council backslid so heavily about the reapers, Shepard's the only person to ever kill a reaper which is something million of species failed to do so replacing Shepard is impossible within the ME universe.

[Therion942]

RiouHotaru wrote...


Well yeah, Shepard as a protagonist is extremely flat and shallow, but it's also YOUR character.  You created him/her, gave them a background,  a history.  YOU, the player, make the decisions.  Shepard is a blank slate that's intended for the PLAYER to fill in the blanks.  Many people have in topics long turned to dust written detailed accounts of their Shepard's lives within the context of the choices and setting.

I don't think the game should have to fill in all the blanks for the player though a few moments done here and there (Part of Jacob's romance and LotSB) are great.  But it's mostly up to player to put themselves in Shepard's shoes and decide on judgment calls and important moments.  To expect the game to lead you around by the hand is just lazy.

There isn't a single opportunity in the game, LoTSB not withstanding, where the player is given a chance to show how he has grown. Or how your interactions have changed you, if Mass Effect 2 is my DM, he's not doing a very good job of letting me express myself.

[Killjoy Cutter]

RiouHotaru 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.

Well yeah, Shepard as a protagonist is extremely flat and shallow, but it's also YOUR character.  You created him/her, gave them a background,  a history.  YOU, the player, make the decisions.  Shepard is a blank slate that's intended for the PLAYER to fill in the blanks.  Many people have in topics long turned to dust written detailed accounts of their Shepard's lives within the context of the choices and setting.

I don't think the game should have to fill in all the blanks for the player though a few moments done here and there (Part of Jacob's romance and LotSB) are great.  But it's mostly up to player to put themselves in Shepard's shoes and decide on judgment calls and important moments.  

There is that, as well.  It's not a book, it's an RPG, where the main character is a player character, and has to leave plenty of room for the player to play their character, not watch someone else's character.

[Killjoy Cutter]

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.

Come to think of it, the game can't really fill in all the motivations, Shepard is the player character, the player is the one providing the underlying motivations for their specific version of Shepard. 

What I don't want is one of those "cinema" games where the player is really just a director for a mixable crate of canned scenes.

[Killjoy Cutter]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]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. 
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

And you never present any evidence that Shepard is interchangable and meaningless, you just keep saying it.  Over.  And over.  And over.  And over.


And over.


[quote][quote]
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.
[/quote]
Zaeed.
Miranda.
Jacob.
Garrus.
etc.
[/quote]

What makes you think so?

[quote][quote]
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.  
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

Why do you need it to be "proven" in an obvious and concrete way by some magic event in the game that leaves no doubt?   And why does it matter if Shep is "chosen"?

[quote][quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

Why is it so important to you to be beaten over the head with it?

If nothing else, remember that ME2 is a computer RPG, not a mystery novel or Lit Crit navel-gazer.

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

So you keep saying.  

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

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.
[/quote]

So you keep saying.

[Frybread76]

ADLegend21 wrote...

RiouHotaru 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.

Well yeah, Shepard as a protagonist is extremely flat and shallow, but it's also YOUR character.  You created him/her, gave them a background,  a history.  YOU, the player, make the decisions.  Shepard is a blank slate that's intended for the PLAYER to fill in the blanks.  Many people have in topics long turned to dust written detailed accounts of their Shepard's lives within the context of the choices and setting.

I don't think the game should have to fill in all the blanks for the player though a few moments done here and there (Part of Jacob's romance and LotSB) are great.  But it's mostly up to player to put themselves in Shepard's shoes and decide on judgment calls and important moments.  To expect the game to lead you around by the hand is just lazy.

this. the reason I even got mass effect 2 (never played ME1 prior) was becauseI heard that you could make Shepard however you wanted and it wasn't just some already fleshed out character doing what you told them to do until the cutscenes when the were their own person again. Mass effect as a series is one of the most immersing games ever so Sheaprd's development is up to you, it was that way in ME1 and it's the same in ME2 yet it's a bad thing in ME2 for whatever reason Smudboy says. Also to the aformentioned smudboy, you can't replace Shepard with anyone with cmobat experience because noone besides shepard and her crew know about the reapes since the council backslid so heavily about the reapers, Shepard's the only person to ever kill a reaper which is something million of species failed to do so replacing Shepard is impossible within the ME universe.

Great.  Then let's set Shepard against the Reapers and let someone else deal with the squad mates' personal issues.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

And you never present any evidence that Shepard is interchangable and meaningless, you just keep saying it.  Over.  And over.  And over.  And over.

And over.

See any pink elephants in ME2?  No?  Neither is there any protagonist integrity to Shepard.  How do I prove the absence of something?

The onus is on YOU to prove there IS protagonist integrity with Shepard.

What makes you think so?

They have basic leadership skills and know how to fight.  Bam.  ME2 protagonist.

Why do you need it to be "proven" in an obvious and concrete way by some magic event in the game that leaves no doubt?   And why does it matter if Shep is "chosen"?

Because that's how stories work.

Because it grants the character value.  Meaning.

Shepard could be anyone.  Because there's no reason to actually have Shepard.

The plot PROVES that Mordin is integral to it.  It's a silly little countermeasure, but without Mordin, the plot cannot continue.

The plot DOES NOT PROVE Shepard is integral as a protagonist.

Why is it so important to you to be beaten over the head with it?

I'm not ASKING TO BE BEATEN OVER THE HEAD WITH IT.

I want SOMETHING.

ANYTHING.

That makes Shepard plot integral.

Show me.

If nothing else, remember that ME2 is a computer RPG, not a mystery novel or Lit Crit navel-gazer.

It still has a story.  And in this story?  GUESS WHAT?  Shepard ain't needed.

So you keep saying.  

I've yet to see any evidence there is.  Show me the evidence where Shepard is integral.

Again, the onus is on you.

So you keep saying.

Well you're either blind, a moron, or can't read.

ME1 Shepard: Plot integral.  Why?  Ilos.
ME2 Shepard: Non-plot integral?  Why?  Because the plot doesn't care about Shepard.
LOTSB Shepard: Plot integral.  Why?  Liara's picture frame.

Modifié par smudboy, 13 octobre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Frybread76]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

RiouHotaru 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.

Well yeah, Shepard as a protagonist is extremely flat and shallow, but it's also YOUR character.  You created him/her, gave them a background,  a history.  YOU, the player, make the decisions.  Shepard is a blank slate that's intended for the PLAYER to fill in the blanks.  Many people have in topics long turned to dust written detailed accounts of their Shepard's lives within the context of the choices and setting.

I don't think the game should have to fill in all the blanks for the player though a few moments done here and there (Part of Jacob's romance and LotSB) are great.  But it's mostly up to player to put themselves in Shepard's shoes and decide on judgment calls and important moments.  

There is that, as well.  It's not a book, it's an RPG, where the main character is a player character, and has to leave plenty of room for the player to play their character, not watch someone else's character.

Shepard is far from a blank slate.  No matter what you choose, you are still ex-Alliance soldier, former/current Spectre who was brought back to life and is now working for/with Cerberus.

[glacier1701]

ADLegend21 wrote...

snip.....
this. the reason I even got mass effect 2 (never played ME1 prior) was becauseI heard that you could make Shepard however you wanted and it wasn't just some already fleshed out character doing what you told them to do until the cutscenes when the were their own person again. Mass effect as a series is one of the most immersing games ever so Sheaprd's development is up to you, it was that way in ME1 and it's the same in ME2 yet it's a bad thing in ME2 for whatever reason Smudboy says. Also to the aformentioned smudboy, you can't replace Shepard with anyone with cmobat experience because noone besides shepard and her crew know about the reapes since the council backslid so heavily about the reapers, Shepard's the only person to ever kill a reaper which is something million of species failed to do so replacing Shepard is impossible within the ME universe.

In ME1 replacing Shepard is not an option ONCE you get to the beacon on Eden Prime. For the rest of ME1 until the end scene Shepard is vital. Yet once the threat has been dealt with Shepard then becomes replaceable. More importantly as presented in ME2 we are not dealing with the Reapers we are dealing with the Collectors who have none of the abilities of the Reapers. Indeed the knowledge gained in ME1 about the Reapers does not come into play in any single moment in ME2. So this means that any leader could have replaced Shepard since defeating the Collectors did not need information about the Reapers to accomplish. That is the point that has been made in other threads.


 Personally I feel that ME1 was better overall than ME2 that that is not looking through rose-coloured glasses. There were expectations that ME2 had to meet when it came out. It failed to meet most of the ones I believed should have been there. This does not make ME2 a 'bad' game but it failed to go above the bar that ME1 set even with the many problems ME1 had. In essence ME2 did not build upon ME1 but tried a reset. Quite frankly with suitable changes BioWare could have released ME2 first, then gave us the ME1 story and we'd have an amazing franchise that most of us would be just dying for to see more of.

[KotOREffecT]

Yeled wrote...

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.

lmao Your that offended? And you think BioWare was directing something at you? That's a little to overdramatic dont you think? Come on now....

Yeled wrote...

And I look forward to their games because they tell great interactive stories.

Funny because thats exactly what ME 2 did...

Yeled wrote...

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.

Compliment? You call beating a dead horse for over 6 months a compliment? More like a nightmare.. I'd hate to see what you guys insults would be...

Yeled wrote...

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.

I thought LotSB was inside the ME 2 database, it just didn't launch when ME 2 did, just like Kasumi DLC for example. So that DLC was pretty much done before ME 2 came out, they maybe messed around with it a bit though. Also, nobody said you had to sit around silently hoping they will fix things, the planet scanner is an example of this. We spoke, they fixed it. So they do listen, but saying the same things bashing ME 2 and its story for over 6 months is not going to matter to them or help, whats done is done.
 
I'm sure they know what they got wrong, and how ME 3 will go down and since its the final chapter where everything comes together. Expect nothing less but epicness and realize ME 2 was just the middle chapter that did the best it could setting things up for now.

[Pocketgb]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
There is that, as well.  It's not a book, it's an RPG, where the main character is a player character, and has to leave plenty of room for the player to play their character, not watch someone else's character.

That's been the 'problem' for role-playing since ME1, and the quotations are there because it's more-or-less intentional. Shepard has always had limited input from the player, allowing the player to only go so far as to 'nudge' him into a certain direction. While the RPing is definitely limited, it's made up for via the cinematic feel.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 octobre 2010 - 09:37 .

[wizardryforever]

As for Shepard being integral to the story, I'll say one thing, then I'm dropping out of this particular argument.

The Reapers are interested in humanity, but especially in Shepard.  Presumably it may have something to do with the fact that he/she facilitated the death of their vanguard, Sovereign.  I'm guessing that it may be the first time in many cycles that a species has forestalled the invasion so spectacularly.  They may also be interested in his/her resurrection by Cerberus, as a specimen to be studied.  Whatever the reasons, the Reapers (or just Harbinger) are interested in Shepard. 

For this reason, Shepard is integral to the plot.  If Shepard had not been brought back by Cerberus, no one would have been able to save the Terminus colonies.  Horizon was targeted because the Virmire survivor was there.  The Virmire survivor was there because he/she got a tip about Horizon being next to be hit, and that Shepard was with Cerberus out in the Terminus.  You can't replace Shepard with the Virmire survivor because Horizon was attacked purely because they were there, and only by dealing them a blow like that do the Collectors know that Shepard is back and a threat.  This is why they do the Collector ship trap.  If it weren't for Shepard, the whole Collector ship setup would not have been possible, since the Reapers don't care enough about other individuals to go to that much effort to capture them (or their bodies).

Modifié par wizardryforever, 13 octobre 2010 - 09:54 .

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...
For this reason, Shepard is integral to the plot.  If Shepard had not been brought back by Cerberus, no one would have been able to save the Terminus colonies.  Horizon was targeted because the Virmire survivor was there.  The Virmire survivor was there because he/she got a tip about Horizon being next to be hit, and that Shepard was with Cerberus out in the Terminus.  You can't replace Shepard with the Virmire survivor because Horizon was attacked purely because they were there, and only by dealing them a blow like that do the Collectors know that Shepard is back and a threat.  This is why they do the Collector ship trap.  If it weren't for Shepard, the whole Collector ship setup would not have been possible, since the Reapers don't care enough about other individuals to go to that much effort to capture them (or their bodies).

Nope.  The Collectors, and Ash/Kaidan, didn't even know Shepard was alive.  TIM didn't need Shepard to be alive in order to coerce them into going there.  Lazarus could've been a complete failure, and Miranda and Jacob could've escaped, having any of them take Shepard's place, and Horizon would've occurred just fine.

Besides, the intentions of the Collectors/Reapers toward Shepard are completely irrelevant.  The Collectors also have an on again/off again relationship with Shepard and the Normandy: whether one day they want to capture, kill or ignore them the next is anyone's guess.

[Yeled]

KotOREffecT wrote...

Yeled wrote...

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.

lmao Your that offended? And you think BioWare was directing something at you? That's a little to overdramatic dont you think? Come on now....

Try reading what I said again.

Yeled wrote...

And I look forward to their games because they tell great interactive stories.

Funny because thats exactly what ME 2 did...

I disagree.

Yeled wrote...

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.

Compliment? You call beating a dead horse for over 6 months a compliment? More like a nightmare.. I'd hate to see what you guys insults would be...

I didn't realize I had that much impact.  You think BioWare has nightmares about us?

Yeled wrote...

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.

I thought LotSB was inside the ME 2 database, it just didn't launch when ME 2 did, just like Kasumi DLC for example. So that DLC was pretty much done before ME 2 came out, they maybe messed around with it a bit though. Also, nobody said you had to sit around silently hoping they will fix things, the planet scanner is an example of this. We spoke, they fixed it. So they do listen, but saying the same things bashing ME 2 and its story for over 6 months is not going to matter to them or help, whats done is done.

LotSB was not inside the ME2 database.  If that's what you thought you were wrong.  There was some Liara/SB related dialogue in the original game, but it wasn't even close to LotSB.  As someone who has hung out on the Liara fan threads quite a bit, LotSB plays out like a wishlist for most Liara fans.  I'm pretty sure they listened.

 
I'm sure they know what they got wrong, and how ME 3 will go down and since its the final chapter where everything comes together. Expect nothing less but epicness and realize ME 2 was just the middle chapter that did the best it could setting things up for now.

I disagree that was the best they could do.  Also...what exactly did it set up?  I've no idea.  Do you?

*somehow I messed the hell out of these quote boxes.  Ah well...too lazy to fix it.

Modifié par Yeled, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

As for Shepard being integral to the story, I'll say one thing, then I'm dropping out of this particular argument.

The Reapers are interested in humanity, but especially in Shepard.  Presumably it may have something to do with the fact that he/she facilitated the death of their vanguard, Sovereign.  I'm guessing that it may be the first time in many cycles that a species has forestalled the invasion so spectacularly.  They may also be interested in his/her resurrection by Cerberus, as a specimen to be studied.  Whatever the reasons, the Reapers (or just Harbinger) are interested in Shepard. 

For this reason, Shepard is integral to the plot.  If Shepard had not been brought back by Cerberus, no one would have been able to save the Terminus colonies.  Horizon was targeted because the Virmire survivor was there.  The Virmire survivor was there because he/she got a tip about Horizon being next to be hit, and that Shepard was with Cerberus out in the Terminus.  You can't replace Shepard with the Virmire survivor because Horizon was attacked purely because they were there, and only by dealing them a blow like that do the Collectors know that Shepard is back and a threat.  This is why they do the Collector ship trap.  If it weren't for Shepard, the whole Collector ship setup would not have been possible, since the Reapers don't care enough about other individuals to go to that much effort to capture them (or their bodies).

How do you know no one else but Shepard couldn't have saved the Terminus colonies?  Are you telling me there is no other Cerberus operative, Alliance Corsair, mercenary or Spectre who couldn't have led a large ground force on Horizon?

Modifié par Frybread76, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Nightwriter]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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? 

No.

... What?

It just wasn't. The story was so much quieter. A few human colonies going missing (they never convinced me Earth was in danger, ever).

And for what? To make a human goo-baby Reaper.



For no apparent reason, really. Just to make one.



Sovereign's threat and Sovereign's intentions were so much more apparent. Find a back door into the Citadel to open the relay and let in the vast Reaper hoards to take over the galaxy.

It makes so much sense. It's so readily understandable.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
There is that, as well.  It's not a book, it's an RPG, where the main character is a player character, and has to leave plenty of room for the player to play their character, not watch someone else's character.

That's been the 'problem' for role-playing since ME1, and the quotations are there because it's more-or-less intentional. Shepard has always had limited input from the player, allowing the player to only go so far as to 'nudge' him into a certain direction. While the RPing is definitely limited, it's made up for via the cinematic feel.

I'm inclined to agree, things were a little flat in ME 1.  But I gave it a pass.  Why?  Because it was the first act.  I figured we're setting the stage.  Things will pick up in ME 2 and three, with less exposition needed.  Consequences will come around.  Ill  be navigating a story that takes up three games, I just need to give it a little more time to develop.

The problem was, things got worse in ME 2, not better.  ME 1 looks good in comparison.  Not from a technical standpoint, obviously.  Characters that don't speak up too much in ME 1, are now almost totally silent.  Shepard goes from "right place, right time" action hero who is allowed a single moment of despair;  to a godlike super-soldier  who comes back from the dead and doesn't even blink about it.

I'd take all the cinematic advances, all the updated graphics, sound, and gameplay that went into ME 2 and give it back in exchange for a truly worthy Bioware story.  In fact, I'd downgrade to Alpha Protocol level of gameplay and graphics.  I'll take omnigelling hundred of suits of armors if the squad would just interact with each other.  I'll take cut and paste terrain if we got clear advancement of plot.  I'll take incremental skillups if it meant character development for the squad during the main story.

[pacer90]

Heh, I thought of something the other day. The WHOLE lead up was about how dark, and dirty ME2 was going to be. They compared it to ME1 saying that ME1 was the big introduction, but now that you were there you had to peel back layers and see this ugly underneath, the mean details of the universe.



Well, that's what you got. The delivered on every word.



- ME1 classic "fellowship of the ring" situation. HUGE new world running around things are mostly on the up and up, decent resolution at the end. Very satisfying for most people, much like how most people play paragon.



- ME2 REALLY does have the "dark two towers" thing going on. 2 towers was my favorite movie of the trilogy. Everyone else I know complained because it was so dark, so focused and never let you see much of the outside world. Well? If the trilogy is all sunshine and roses you won't feel like you kicked the **** out of them at the end.







Personally... the story struck me a really good way. ME1 I hated Saren, the reapers were fringe. The cool part of the game was unraveling it all. (The discovery part of the trilogy) But he's gone now, and we pwned the Reaper pretty bad. Doesn't really seem to have a whole lot of threat at the end to be honest.



ME2? Well I get killed. Pretty pissed. I watch colonists get carried off... people getting liquified, a few of my teammates got killed in the suicide mission (don't make fun, I thought Miranda would be a perfect Biotic...)



Well now I REALLY hate the Reapers. All my elves in helms deep are dead, half of my favorite characters are dead, and we still don't really have a good handle on how to beat them. But we know that we have to, we know that they are coming, and it's all thanks to ME2.





Which is why I love both of them equally. They can't be the same, or we shaft ME3.

[Xeranx]

pacer90 wrote...

Heh, I thought of something the other day. The WHOLE lead up was about how dark, and dirty ME2 was going to be. They compared it to ME1 saying that ME1 was the big introduction, but now that you were there you had to peel back layers and see this ugly underneath, the mean details of the universe.

Well, that's what you got. The delivered on every word.

- ME1 classic "fellowship of the ring" situation. HUGE new world running around things are mostly on the up and up, decent resolution at the end. Very satisfying for most people, much like how most people play paragon.

- ME2 REALLY does have the "dark two towers" thing going on. 2 towers was my favorite movie of the trilogy. Everyone else I know complained because it was so dark, so focused and never let you see much of the outside world. Well? If the trilogy is all sunshine and roses you won't feel like you kicked the **** out of them at the end.



Personally... the story struck me a really good way. ME1 I hated Saren, the reapers were fringe. The cool part of the game was unraveling it all. (The discovery part of the trilogy) But he's gone now, and we pwned the Reaper pretty bad. Doesn't really seem to have a whole lot of threat at the end to be honest.

ME2? Well I get killed. Pretty pissed. I watch colonists get carried off... people getting liquified, a few of my teammates got killed in the suicide mission (don't make fun, I thought Miranda would be a perfect Biotic...)

Well now I REALLY hate the Reapers. All my elves in helms deep are dead, half of my favorite characters are dead, and we still don't really have a good handle on how to beat them. But we know that we have to, we know that they are coming, and it's all thanks to ME2.


Which is why I love both of them equally. They can't be the same, or we shaft ME3.

I'm glad you got all that.  What I got that was dark and gritty about ME2 was PG-13 just like Hudson said he was aiming for.  Juvenile sexual innuendo (LOTSB I'm definitely looking at you).  Four letter words that do nothing but make me wonder what the rating on the box says.  I was thinking T for teen rather than M for mature.  Extreme sexualization of women to the point that I, as a heterosexual male, felt insulted.  In short, there was nothing dark or gritty about it for me.  

When I hear dark, gritty I think of being led (not forced) to a place I'd rather not be but have to in order to get a job done.  I would have rather, if I was going to have to work for with Cerberus, have to do it reluctantly.  A basic deal with the devil kind of thing so I can overcome the large obstacle that exists in front of me.  If Cerberus had been the one group to approach because they might be on the cusp of having something that will thwart the reapers I would have been happy with that...kind of.  <_<  Then we would have to overlook TIM's heinous projects in order to determine what Cerberus has that will help our overall goal of stopping the Reapers from committing mass genocide.

[Slayer299]

KotOREffecT wrote...
I'm sure they know what they got wrong, and how ME 3 will go down and since its the final chapter where everything comes together. Expect nothing less but epicness and realize ME 2 was just the middle chapter that did the best it could setting things up for now.

I think your missing the point, because if this was the best that they could do, than that's very sad. Bioware set the bar pretty high with ME1, (which had its share of faults, but those could be overlooked, mostly because the story carried it past them). But with ME2 it felt like they'd set the bar of what to accomplish lower, you had the Reaper threat replaced with their stand-ins, the Collectors. The plot didn't move any so that you learned *anything* more about the Reapers or how to stop them or anything else useful.

You spend 99.9% of the game finding mercs, shooting mercs and killing mercs as you recruit old team members (Garrus, Tali) and new (Grunt, Mordin, Miranda, Kasumi, etc,) and dealing with all their private issues. Now, some of them had interesting loyalty missions (Tali - Dark Matter, Mordin - Genophage and Legion - Heretics) which had some definite down the road consequences.

ME2 didn't suck as a game, it had some good improvements, it just failed to meet the bar set by ME1. I played ME1 for the 1st time in Dec 2009, so, no "rose colored glasses" apply.

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...
I'm inclined to agree, things were a little flat in ME 1.  But I gave it a pass.  Why?  Because it was the first act.  I figured we're setting the stage.  Things will pick up in ME 2 and three, with less exposition needed.  Consequences will come around.  Ill  be navigating a story that takes up three games, I just need to give it a little more time to develop.

The problem was, things got worse in ME 2, not better.  ME 1 looks good in comparison.  Not from a technical standpoint, obviously.  Characters that don't speak up too much in ME 1, are now almost totally silent.  Shepard goes from "right place, right time" action hero who is allowed a single moment of despair;  to a godlike super-soldier  who comes back from the dead and doesn't even blink about it.

That's...an interesting post, but has little to do with what I was saying in regards to the actual role-playing of what is supposedly an RPG series.

iakus wrote...
I'd take all the cinematic advances, all the updated graphics, sound, and gameplay that went into ME 2 and give it back in exchange for a truly worthy Bioware story.  In fact, I'd downgrade to Alpha Protocol level of gameplay and graphics.  I'll take omnigelling hundred of suits of armors if the squad would just interact with each other.  I'll take cut and paste terrain if we got clear advancement of plot.  I'll take incremental skillups if it meant character development for the squad during the main story.

I wouldn't, thus the predicament.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

The problem was, things got worse in ME 2, not better.  ME 1 looks good in comparison.  Not from a technical standpoint, obviously.  Characters that don't speak up too much in ME 1, are now almost totally silent.  Shepard goes from "right place, right time" action hero who is allowed a single moment of despair;  to a godlike super-soldier  who comes back from the dead and doesn't even blink about it. 

When does Shepard have time to blink?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Xeranx wrote...
I'm glad you got all that.  What I got that was dark and gritty about ME2 was PG-13 just like Hudson said he was aiming for.  Juvenile sexual innuendo (LOTSB I'm definitely looking at you).  Four letter words that do nothing but make me wonder what the rating on the box says.  I was thinking T for teen rather than M for mature.  Extreme sexualization of women to the point that I, as a heterosexual male, felt insulted.  In short, there was nothing dark or gritty about it for me.  

There's a complaint I can agree with to some extent -- especially if we've just been shown the butt-shot of Miranda or the shot of Kasumi talking that happens to be taken directly across FemShep's chest....

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 14 octobre 2010 - 01:28 .