815 réponses à ce sujet

[Phobius9]

You know, saying Shepard is a replaceable protagonist seems something of an odd criticism. I mean, dosn't that apply to pretty much every protagonist ever? You could replace any lead character with any other character and still have the same story because a protagonist is not character specific, they just need to be the main lead.



Yes you could replace Shepard with Marcus Fenix if you wanted, but so what? Mass Effect isn't Mass Effect: Shepard's Tale, its Mass Effect: Featuring Shepard. At the end of the day a protagonist is only there for us to view the story through. In computer game terms they're only there to act as a mobile camera we wheel around in order to view the next story progressing cut-scene.



If you replaced him with Sonic the damn Hedgehog you'd still have Mass Effect, you'd still have the same Reaper threat, Mordin would still be the model of a scientist Silerian and Garrus would still be doing bloody calibrations.



You're right, Shepard isn't an intrinsic part of the story, but then no-one is. They're just a mechanism to hang the story on for us, as viewers, to watch it.



Or am I missing the argument here?

[Nozybidaj]

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.

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 don't think there are words to say how much I agree with this, especially the last paragraph.

If I wanted to play a game with better shooter gameplay and more explosions I'd just go play GoW (which still does all the gameplay and explosions far-far better than ME2 even with the improvements done there).  While I don't mind them fixing up those elements of the game it is definitely not worth what we had to give up to get it.

[Jebel Krong]

except for the fact that, y'know, bioware has stated that the mass effect trilogy is "shepard's story."

the only reason shepard seems like a "replaceable protagonist" is because he(/she) is kept undefined as much as possible to accomodate the 3 back-story- and all the class- possibilities/combinations. asserting that the character is replaceable is absurd.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 14 octobre 2010 - 01:45 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

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.

Wow, it's like you completely ignored what you were responding to. 

Why, again, do the Collectors attack Horizon?

[bjdbwea]

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.

This.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

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.

Wow, it's like you completely ignored what you were responding to. 

Why, again, do the Collectors attack Horizon?

Wow.  It's like you don't understand why the Collectors attacked Horizon.

Shepard: "Ash said the Alliance got a tip from me and Cerberus.  Was that you?"
TIM: "I may have let if slip that you were alive, and with Cerberus."
Shepard: "You risked the lives of my friend, my crew, and that entire colony, just to lure the Collectors there?"
TIM: "A calculated risk.  I suspected the Collectors were looking for you, or people connected to you.  Now I know for certain.  (cut)"

As I stated before, Ash/Kaidan and the Collectors didn't know Shepard was alive.  TIM sent a rumor to the Alliance.  In no way does Shepard need to be alive for TIM to send a rumor about anything.  The Collectors were looking "for you, or people connected to you."

We clear?

[Mecha Tengu]

......

I thought this was literally a thread to discussed red glasses....

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

smudboy wrote...

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.

Wow, it's like you completely ignored what you were responding to. 

Why, again, do the Collectors attack Horizon?

Wow.  It's like you don't understand why the Collectors attacked Horizon.

Shepard: "Ash said the Alliance got a tip from me and Cerberus.  Was that you?"
TIM: "I may have let if slip that you were alive, and with Cerberus."
Shepard: "You risked the lives of my friend, my crew, and that entire colony, just to lure the Collectors there?"
TIM: "A calculated risk.  I suspected the Collectors were looking for you, or people connected to you.  Now I know for certain.  (cut)"

As I stated before, Ash/Kaidan and the Collectors didn't know Shepard was alive.  TIM sent a rumor to the Alliance.  In no way does Shepard need to be alive for TIM to send a rumor about anything.  The Collectors were looking "for you, or people connected to you."

We clear?

You think that works if Shepard hasn't already been seen all over Omega and other worlds, to lend credence to the rumor? 

And even if it does, if Shepard isn't there to run the Collectors off, do the Collectors try the trap with the "crippled" ship later, allowing the IFF system to be confirmed and other data to be mined by EDI? 

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You think that works if Shepard hasn't already been seen all over Omega and other worlds, to lend credence to the rumor? 

Yes.

You'd have to be an idiot to not understand "spreading a rumor" doesn't involve "telling the truth."

And even if it does, if Shepard isn't there to run the Collectors off, do the Collectors try the trap with the "crippled" ship later, allowing the IFF system to be confirmed and other data to be mined by EDI? 

Irrelevant to the point above, and still irrelevant into making Shepard integral to the plot.

[Jebel Krong]

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.

nice analogy, and quite right.

[wizardryforever]

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 can understand this point of view in a limited way.  Personally I don't think the tradeoff is worth it.  I don't see the ME1 story as that much better to be worth all the headache when that headache is avoidable.  Gameplay is what makes a game a game and not a novel or a movie.  I would love to have squad interaction.  That's one of the main things I enjoyed about Dragon Age.  But I don't think it's realistic to expect Bioware to continually top or even equal their previous works in all ways.  Nobody (and no developer) is perfect, and expecting them to be is what causes all this disappointment that people have.

Story is more important to me than gameplay, but not that much.  And when gameplay improves across the board by leaps and bounds, it's acceptable to me that the story won't be as strong.  Again, my opinion.  People have different priorities I guess.

[u21]

Jebel Krong wrote...

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.

nice analogy, and quite right.

Seconded.
Pacer: best contribution to the thread thus far. Especially the last sentence.

[Frybread76]

Phobius9 wrote...

You know, saying Shepard is a replaceable protagonist seems something of an odd criticism. I mean, dosn't that apply to pretty much every protagonist ever? You could replace any lead character with any other character and still have the same story because a protagonist is not character specific, they just need to be the main lead.

Yes you could replace Shepard with Marcus Fenix if you wanted, but so what? Mass Effect isn't Mass Effect: Shepard's Tale, its Mass Effect: Featuring Shepard. At the end of the day a protagonist is only there for us to view the story through. In computer game terms they're only there to act as a mobile camera we wheel around in order to view the next story progressing cut-scene.

If you replaced him with Sonic the damn Hedgehog you'd still have Mass Effect, you'd still have the same Reaper threat, Mordin would still be the model of a scientist Silerian and Garrus would still be doing bloody calibrations.

You're right, Shepard isn't an intrinsic part of the story, but then no-one is. They're just a mechanism to hang the story on for us, as viewers, to watch it.

Or am I missing the argument here?

Not always.  In ME1, Shepard was neccessary because he had Prothean data from the beacon and cipher burnt into his brain.  No one else had that, so he was needed to complete the story.

In ME2, Shepard is just a "bad ass" space marine who is told he is special by TIM, but we never see how he is neccessary for the story.  Having been brought back to life with cybernetic enhancements makes him unique, but does not make him integral or neccessary for the story to occur, IMO.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You think that works if Shepard hasn't already been seen all over Omega and other worlds, to lend credence to the rumor? 

Yes.

You'd have to be an idiot to not understand "spreading a rumor" doesn't involve "telling the truth."

What good does a rumor do in that instance if the Alliance and the Collectors both decide it's not worth looking into, because they have no corroboration, no reason to believe that it's true?

And even if it does, if Shepard isn't there to run the Collectors off, do the Collectors try the trap with the "crippled" ship later, allowing the IFF system to be confirmed and other data to be mined by EDI? 

Irrelevant to the point above, and still irrelevant into making Shepard integral to the plot.

Relevent, in that if Shep isn't really alive, then Shep is not at Horizon even if the Alliance and the Collectors both fall for it.  Thus, also relevent, in that if the Collectors don't know Shep is alive, they don't try the "disable ship" trap, and the data about the IFF is not gained.

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
What good does a rumor do in that instance if the Alliance and the Collectors both decide it's not worth looking into, because they have no corroboration, no reason to believe that it's true?

Who knows?  More importantly, so what?  The narrative is clear on why the Collectors went to Horizon.  Not only does this answer your question, it shows why your line of thinking is irrelevant.  You inventing some other kind of relationship is a work of fiction, and has no bearing as to the validity of why they went to Horizon.

Let's try this again in really simple words.

Ash/Kaidan went to Horizon because of the rumor TIM left.
The Collectors went to Horizon because Ash/Kaidan would be there.

See those two sentences?  None of them involve Shepard being alive.  It's just information.

Relevent, in that if Shep isn't really alive, then Shep is not at Horizon even if the Alliance and the Collectors both fall for it.  Thus, also relevent, in that if the Collectors don't know Shep is alive, they don't try the "disable ship" trap, and the data about the IFF is not gained.

How is that relevant?  The Alliance knows Shepard died 2 years ago.  All of a sudden?  A rumor comes in saying Shepard's alive.  Tada!  So they go send out Ash/Kaidan.  The Collectors get wind of this, and they show up too.

Telling a rumor does not involve Shepard being alive, or being involved at all.  Only the rumor itself is important.

Completely irrelevant whether they did or didn't bring Shepard back.

The Disabled Collector Cruiser trap could be relevant if our antagonists motives were clear, but because we don't know what the hell the Collectors were doing when they played dead, let alone, how that involved Shepard, it's completely speculative.  We still have no idea why they want Shepard, why they want the Normandy, why they want to destroy Shepard, or why they want to destroy the Normandy.  It's all over the place.

Still no evidence showing how Shepard is relevant to the plot, or couldn't be replaced by anyone else.

Keep trying though.  It's highly entertaining.

[Killjoy Cutter]

smudboy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
What good does a rumor do in that instance if the Alliance and the Collectors both decide it's not worth looking into, because they have no corroboration, no reason to believe that it's true?

Who knows?  More importantly, so what?  The narrative is clear on why the Collectors went to Horizon.  Not only does this answer your question, it shows why your line of thinking is irrelevant.  You inventing some other kind of relationship is a work of fiction, and has no bearing as to the validity of why they went to Horizon.

Let's try this again in really simple words.

Ash/Kaidan went to Horizon because of the rumor TIM left.
The Collectors went to Horizon because Ash/Kaidan would be there.

See those two sentences?  None of them involve Shepard being alive.  It's just information.

A sudden influx of multiple independant reports from all over the Terminus and quite possibly even the Citadel*  which indicate that Shepard might actually be alive, then there's this rumor of a Cerberus connection?  Alliance decides to check it you, sends Ash/Kaiden, Collectors obligingly show up.

Just an isolated rumor that Shepard is supposedly alive and working with Cerberus?  Alliance decides it's not worth pulling Ash/Kaiden off other duty and sending them out to the Terminus.  No Ash/Kaiden, Collectors don't hit a predictable target. 

* You can go recruit Kasumi and visit Anderson and have your ID reactivated BEFORE Horizon -- in which case the Alliance KNOWS Shep is alive.

Relevent, in that if Shep isn't really alive, then Shep is not at Horizon even if the Alliance and the Collectors both fall for it.  Thus, also relevent, in that if the Collectors don't know Shep is alive, they don't try the "disable ship" trap, and the data about the IFF is not gained.

How is that relevant?  The Alliance knows Shepard died 2 years ago.  All of a sudden?  A rumor comes in saying Shepard's alive.  Tada!  So they go send out Ash/Kaidan.  The Collectors get wind of this, and they show up too.

Telling a rumor does not involve Shepard being alive, or being involved at all.  Only the rumor itself is important.

Completely irrelevant whether they did or didn't bring Shepard back.

The Disabled Collector Cruiser trap could be relevant if our antagonists motives were clear, but because we don't know what the hell the Collectors were doing when they played dead, let alone, how that involved Shepard, it's completely speculative.  We still have no idea why they want Shepard, why they want the Normandy, why they want to destroy Shepard, or why they want to destroy the Normandy.  It's all over the place.

Still no evidence showing how Shepard is relevant to the plot, or couldn't be replaced by anyone else.

Keep trying though.  It's highly entertaining.

How are we supposed to know what the Collectors are really and truely up to unless we're given some kind of forced, contrived cutscene or conversation?  Why do we even need to know what the Collectors are up to, when our point-of-view character in an RPG has no idea at that point? 

If Shepard is still dead, the Alliance has no reason to go chase ghosts.  It's only with corroborating evidence that it becomes worth looking into.  As you say yourself, the Alliance knows that Shepard is dead.  They need more than some fanciful rumor to do more than blow it off.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:19 .

[khevan]

You know, I can almost buy the Horizon collector attack as showing Shepard is connected to the plot. Not necessarily integral, but at least connected. I'm not fully convinced yet.

Horizon could easily have happened either way, TIM could have spread enough rumors thru enough sources that it'd be worth it for the Alliance to investigate, and thus the Collector attack, but if Harbinger hadn't seen Shepard on Horizon, the Collectors may well have not set the DCS up as a trap to catch Shepard, and thus we wouldn't have had the information that led us to needing the IFF, which TIM conveniently had access to via the Derelict Reaper.

So, yes, without Shepard the story might have changed...but it's still flimsy enough that I wish there was more.

Edit:  Wow that was one long compound sentence.   Not gonna change it though, 'cause it's neat looking. 

Modifié par khevan, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:17 .

[Slayer299]

wizardryforever wrote...
[I can understand this point of view in a limited way.  Personally I don't think the tradeoff is worth it.  I don't see the ME1 story as that much better to be worth all the headache when that headache is avoidable.  Gameplay is what makes a game a game and not a novel or a movie.  I would love to have squad interaction.  That's one of the main things I enjoyed about Dragon Age.  But I don't think it's realistic to expect Bioware to continually top or even equal their previous works in all ways.  Nobody (and no developer) is perfect, and expecting them to be is what causes all this disappointment that people have.

Story [i]is[/i] more important to me than gameplay, but not that much.  And when gameplay improves across the board by leaps and bounds, it's acceptable to me that the story won't be as strong.  Again, my opinion.  People have different priorities I guess.

I don't think I can understand your reasoning here, because I don't see how its unrealistic to expect Bioware to top or just equal their previous works. Because that sounds like its okay for any company to put a crappy product but we can be happy when they do put out something good every other title or two. Bioware has a huge track record of successful titles versus misses, so why would I expect *less* from them and then not be disappointed when that happens?
 
No-one is expecting Bioware to be perfect, but the disappoinment (that has been said by many) is that ME2 fell under the bar of the quality Bioware puts out on a regular basis.  

[smudboy]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Just an isolated rumor that Shepard is supposedly alive and working with Cerberus?  Alliance decides it's not worth pulling Ash/Kaiden off other duty and sending them out to the Terminus.  No Ash/Kaiden, Collectors don't hit a predictable target. 

Yup.  Just a single rumor.

Ashley: "Alliance intel said Cerberus could be behind our missing colonies.  We got a tip that this one could be the next to get hit."

Or apparently more?  Seems there was more intel about the colonies getting hit, and thus Shepard wasn't the only reason Ash/Kaidan went to Horizon.

* You can go recruit Kasumi and visit Anderson and have your ID reactivated BEFORE Horizon -- in which case the Alliance KNOWS Shep is alive.

Which is completely optional, thus the LCD is still "TIM tipped off the Alliance."

How are we supposed to know what the Collectors are really and truely up to unless we're given some kind of forced, contrived cutscene or conversation?  Why do we even need to know what the Collectors are up to, when our point-of-view character in an RPG has no idea at that point? 

What, exposition?  Dozens of ways.

Our POV is third person omniscient.  "Prepare these humans for ascension."  Harbinger didn't say. "Dammit!  Where the f*ck is Shepard?  His brain will prove...invaluable to our 'Ascendance.'"

If Shepard is still dead, the Alliance has no reason to go chase ghosts.

Apparently they do.  Oh and protect Terminus colonies, unofficially.

It's only with corroborating evidence that it becomes worth looking into.  As you say yourself, the Alliance knows that Shepard is dead.  They need more than some fanciful rumor to do more than blow it off.

What other evidence? Oh wait there is none, because the narrative never gave us any. Ash/Kaidan had other reasons going to Horizon.  However, it is the tip off from TIM that somehow makes its way to the Alliance and thus the Collectors, and as to why they go to Horizon.  This isn't clear how this works, but that's what the narrative tells us happened.

You speculating that because of the events prior there are other rumors, and such, this one is followed?  Ah huh.  Keep fishing.

And we're done with this point of contention.

Modifié par smudboy, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:43 .

[spacehamsterZH]

khevan wrote...
So, yes, without Shepard the story might have changed...but it's still flimsy enough that I wish there was more.

This may have been addressed previously, but I honestly just can't stomach another 22 pages of "check me out, I like ME1 more than ME2 because I'm smarter than you dumb, dumb shooter fans", so I'll just jump in here and risk making a fool of myself.

The problem with Shepard's connection to the main plot is that you get the impression that there was meant to be more, but it fell by the wayside at some point. The fact that the Collectors are after Shepard specifically is referred to several times; "the same ship dogging me for two years", numerous combat lines from Harbinger telling the Collectors to focus their attack on Shepard, etc. But then the game doesn't do anything with this. We never even find out why they were after him/her, they just were, and there's a few allusions to the fact that maybe it's just because Shepard killed Sovereign - which (s)he actually didn't. Instead, there's the baby Terminator made of human smoothie, which doesn't really have anything to do with Shepard. That's always been my biggest issue with ME2's main plot.

If you forget that, though, I think the Illusive Man's reasons for bringing Shepard back from the dead make about as much sense as this kind of explanation is going to make in a videogame, even a well written one, and the whole angle that Shepard's after the Reapers and almost nobody else even believes the Reapers exist works pretty well for the type of story that ME2 set out to tell.

Although it still leaves the problem that there really isn't a single good reason to kill Shepard off in the first place, there's any number of less contrived ways he/she could've ended up working with Cerberus. Y'know, the Illusive Man being the only one with access to information about the Reapers, for example.

[smudboy]

khevan wrote...

You know, I can almost buy the Horizon collector attack as showing Shepard is connected to the plot. Not necessarily integral, but at least connected. I'm not fully convinced yet.

Horizon could easily have happened either way, TIM could have spread enough rumors thru enough sources that it'd be worth it for the Alliance to investigate, and thus the Collector attack, but if Harbinger hadn't seen Shepard on Horizon, the Collectors may well have not set the DCS up as a trap to catch Shepard, and thus we wouldn't have had the information that led us to needing the IFF, which TIM conveniently had access to via the Derelict Reaper.

So, yes, without Shepard the story might have changed...but it's still flimsy enough that I wish there was more.

Edit:  Wow that was one long compound sentence.   Not gonna change it though, 'cause it's neat looking. 

:huh:The Collectors arrived on Horizon, and then saw Shepard there.

Oh wait you're referring to the Disabled Collector Cruiser.  Still, there's no indication why they did that because of Shepard.

Modifié par smudboy, 14 octobre 2010 - 06:45 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

It seemed pretty obvious to me on the first playthrough that the Collectors were interested specifically in Shepard, and set the DCS trap specifically to catch Shepard and crew.

Why?  We don't need to know exactly why. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 14 octobre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

I can understand this point of view in a limited way.  Personally I don't think the tradeoff is worth it.  I don't see the ME1 story as that much better to be worth all the headache when that headache is avoidable.  Gameplay is what makes a game a game and not a novel or a movie.  I would love to have squad interaction.  That's one of the main things I enjoyed about Dragon Age.  But I don't think it's realistic to expect Bioware to continually top or even equal their previous works in all ways.  Nobody (and no developer) is perfect, and expecting them to be is what causes all this disappointment that people have.

Don't get me wrong.  Good gameplay and good story are the best of all possible worlds.  But I can forgive a lot of gameplay problems if the story is gripping.   But a game that plays well but has a dull story is, well, boring.  Mass Effect 1 had some gameplay problems, but had a good enough story that I didn't mind.  ME 2 had much improved graphics, etc, but a story that played out like a DLC bundle more than a sequel.  

I don't expect Bioware to top itself in all ways every time.  Dragon Age is the closest they've ever come to topping BG2, imo.  But they have always, consistently, created a top-notch rpg story.  Except for ME 2, where story took a distinct backseat to cinematics and gameplay.  This is so unlike Bioware I felt compelled to visit these boards for the first time (yes, ME 2 is the only reason I came here, it was such a major disappointment)  Thus, I wish they had focused more on the story than the gameplay.  Particularly for  the middle portion of a three game project, where there are going to be expectations no matter what.  

Story is more important to me than gameplay, but not that much.  And when gameplay improves across the board by leaps and bounds, it's acceptable to me that the story won't be as strong.  Again, my opinion.  People have different priorities I guess.

Indeed.  I buy Bioware games specifically for the story. 


If I finish a game going "What was the point?" instead of "what happens next?" there's a problem.  Mass Effect 1 left me asking "What happens next?"  guess what ME 2 had me thinking.

Modifié par iakus, 14 octobre 2010 - 08:24 .

[Iakus]

[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...

[quote]khevan wrote...
So, yes, without Shepard the story might have changed...but it's still flimsy enough that I wish there was more.
[/quote]

This may have been addressed previously, but I honestly just can't stomach another 22 pages of "check me out, I like ME1 more than ME2 because I'm smarter than you dumb, dumb shooter fans", so I'll just jump in here and risk making a fool of myself.

The problem with Shepard's connection to the main plot is that you get the impression that there was meant to be more, but it fell by the wayside at some point. The fact that the Collectors are after Shepard specifically is referred to several times; "the same ship dogging me for two years", numerous combat lines from Harbinger telling the Collectors to focus their attack on Shepard, etc. But then the game doesn't do anything with this. We never even find out why they were after him/her, they just were, and there's a few allusions to the fact that maybe it's just because Shepard killed Sovereign - which (s)he actually didn't. Instead, there's the baby Terminator made of human smoothie, which doesn't really have anything to do with Shepard. That's always been my biggest issue with ME2's main plot.[/quote]

That is a big one yes.  Both TIM and Harbringer have a great interest in Shepard, yet no reason is given (aside from vague "symbol" "icon" "leader" statements).  Why is Shepard special?  The only reason in ME 2 is "because the player is controling Shepard."  ME 1 had a definable reason:  Beacon, Cipher.

[/quote]
If you forget that, though, I think the Illusive Man's reasons for bringing Shepard back from the dead make about as much sense as this kind of explanation is going to make in a videogame, even a well written one, and the whole angle that Shepard's after the Reapers and almost nobody else even believes the Reapers exist works pretty well for the type of story that ME2 set out to tell.[/quote]

Shepard being an ideal leader to take the fight to the Collectors is one thing.  But can it justify spending enough to put a substantial dent in Cerberus' coffers to bring him/her back from the dead?  A mercenary army or one dead hero?   I can't buy it.  Too comic book-ey. 

[quote]
Although it still leaves the problem that there really isn't a single good reason to kill Shepard off in the first place, there's any number of less contrived ways he/she could've ended up working with Cerberus. Y'know, the Illusive Man being the only one with access to information about the Reapers, for example.
[/quote]

Agreed.  I can think of at least three right now.

[Nightwriter]

I want everyone to know I am NOT wearing rose-colored glasses. I am NOT, I say.

I am insulted at the suggestion. Insulted, I say.

Nothing even looks remotely rosy. Nothing, nothing.