The Purpose Of The Thread
This thread is designed to be a discussion of the story, plot, themes, dialogue... in short, the writing of Mass Effect 2. Specifically, it is designed as a place to discuss the areas where the writing fell short of reaching its full potential, and how those mistakes can be addressed and avoided in Mass Effect 3. The goal is to share our concerns, as a gaming community, with the writers in the hopes that they will produce a superior game and a fitting and satisfying end to the trilogy that is the story of Commander Shepard.
Rules
- There will be no bashing the writers. We don't need to hear about the supposed conflicts between personalities during the writing of the game; these are rumors that are impossible to confirm, and they add nothing to the discussion. We don't need to hear about how superior Karpashyn may be as lead writer and how dumb BioWare is for moving him to other projects, or how Walters sucks at sweeping epic plots should really stick to comic books, or how Weekes saved Mass Effect 2 and corrected the hackjob on Liara with Lair of the Shadow Broker. Both games had multiple writers for multiple characters over multiple drafts. If you want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of what you percieve as a particular writer's style or contribution on a particular character or storyline, that's fine, but don't denegrate them for their profession. Each one is a professional for a reason.
- This is not the "Disappointment with Mass Effect 2" thread. We don't need to hear about how thermal clips suck, how shared power cooldowns suck, or how the Mako sucks (or conversely how much better all these make Mass Effect 2 than the first game). This is a thread to discuss the writing and the story, and only the writing and story.
- Treat other posters with respect. I know, I know, this is included in the all board rules, but I'm not talking about flaming, necessarily. I'm talking about dismissing someone's point out of hand or treating them as if they're overlooking something so obvious and how could they be that dumb. "I can see why you feel that way, but here's why I think they did X" will be a lot more useful in furthering the discussion.
Why Bother?
Good question!
This thread was inspired by a discussion that has cropped up a few times previously in other threads and groups I read and participate in. While analyzing or gushing about characters, the discussion will inevitably turn to their desires and motivations. Often times, this gets into their relationships with other characters and why they behave the way they do. The specific case that prompted me to start this thread occured in The Official FemShep Fan Thread, where a question about what would motivate individual player's Shepards would work with Cerberus naturally veered into discussion of Cerberus itself.
sagequeen wrote...
Sable Phoenix wrote...
Sialater wrote...
Interesting point about Joker and Chakwas being hostages for Shep's good behavior, Sable.
Yeah, I while back I said that the entire story in ME2 could've made sense if they'd just added a single line of dialogue from the Illusive Man:
"Of course you're free to leave us whenever you wish, Shepard -- just remember, you're responsible for the continued good health of your associates, as well."
Not an overt threat, a simple statement that could be taken a few different ways, but the implication would be enough.
but that would mean cerberus is evil. and they're not evil. they're the good guys, right? {smilie}
seriously, i'd have FAR more respect for cerberus if they just FLAT OUT were evil and yet got results. democratic, idealistic alliance beaurocracy which sometimes gets results and has low collateral damage vs. cerberus which is just about always has massive collateral damage and yet usually get results would be an INTERESTING DICHOTOMY.
^ THAT would be something worth going renegade over. it would be worth debating, worth roleplaying, and either way, shep could be a hero and have good reasons behind his or her actions. as it was, cerberus is just as "derp" as the council AND has collateral damage and shep feels like she's a tool no matter whose hands she's in.
What's notable about this particular interaction is how a two glaring inconsistencies in the story are brought up, addressed, and "fixed" (that is, a satisfactory solution is proposed, a sort of "if only" scenario) within the course of a few sentences. Naturally, you can't discuss Cerberus without then discussing the Lazarus Project, which brings up issues with the way an actual bon-fide honest-to-god resurrection is handled (or not handled) by the writing. It all becomes dreadfully off-topic very quickly, but this has happened frequently enough, both there and other places on the boards, that I felt it was time to devote an entire thread to the weaknesses and missed opportunities that crop up all over the story of Mass Effect 2.
The Russian playwright Chekhov once famously said, "If there is a gun upon the wall in act one, it must be fired in act three. If a gun is fired in act three, it must have been seen upon the wall in act one." This rule of writing has become known, appropriately, as Chekhov's Gun. Mass Effect 2 is full of Chekhov's Guns on the wall in Act 1. Unfortunately, by Act 3 most of them remain unfired, and in fact, are treated as if they never even existed. Perhaps in this thread we can move some of the box lights around to highlight these unfired guns, in the hopes that they will be used in Mass Effect 3 and give us a more sensible and satisfying story.
I realize the chances of anyone at BioWare taking notice of this, much less the writers themselves, are probably tiny. But maybe, just maybe, if enough of us make this improtant, we can alert the writers to the things in Mass Effect 2 that just fell short, and they can give us a fitting end to the trilogy.
Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:25 .
Retour en haut
