292 réponses à ce sujet

[JeanLuc761]

iakus wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Reading threads like this, I do have to wonder about something: Does nobody understand that Mass Effect 2 was designed specifically to focus on the characters rather than the overarching plotline and, in that respect, was a success? The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't sidequests, they were the focus of the game!

Focused on character?

Which characters favored destroying the genophage cure?  Which characters favored keeping it?

At what point did Tali express uneasiness at having a geth or an AI on board the Normandy?

What does Samara have to say about Thane wanting to save Kolyat?  What does Thane have to say about Samara wanting to kill Morinth?

How do the following characters respond to Zaed setting the refinery on fire?  Garrus.  Legion.  Miranda.

Which characters counseled against killing Sidonis?  Which ones egged Garrus on?

Which characters favored arresting Jacob's father?  Which favored leaving him to his fate?  Which favored killing him?

At what point did Mordin request to examine the following?  Miranda.  Grunt.  Shepard.

The characters only came to life within their own little stories.  Outside, they were lifeless dolls..

I will grant you that the game would have been improved if that kind of character interaction was present, but the lack of that element honestly didn't take away from the overall experience, in my opinion. 

Though I will admit, I did enjoy those "After-mission" meetings with the whole crew in Mass Effect 1.  Bring em back Bioware!

[Praetor Knight]

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Scudboy? You mean Smudboy?

I watched all of his videos, sometimes it's pretty funny how he ridiculizes some aspects of the game. I feel like he's harsh but not unreasonable, I can understand his point of view.

Why do people hate him so much?

I did not approve of some of his disingenuous assertions. Or his tone of voice.

[Archereon]

bobobo878 wrote...

I thought the story quality was about the same between ME1 and ME2. Now if only I could say the same about the Starcraft series :'(

Starcraft to SCII is like ME to ME2.  The stories are both good by a certain standard, but those standards appeal to different people.

[Angel-Shinkiro]

iakus wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Eh, the problem I had with Saren is that he was introduced FAR too early in the story.  His motivations are established within the first few hours, and then BLAM.  Off we go Saren-hunting.  Then you spend the ENTIRE game with him always two or more steps ahead of you, despite the fact you seemingly score some major victories.  Only to catch up to him and actually deal him a decisive blow RIGHT at the end of the game.  And only because he's about a few steps from winning.

Actually, Saren's motives are not what you think they are.  You only learn his real reasons at Virmire, where you learn he isn't even the Big Bad at all.  The whole game you've essentially been chasing the wrong villain! 

As to dealing the decisive blow right at the end:  I'd still take that over fighting a baby Reaper.

ME2's enemy, The Collectors, being far more nebulous and unknown felt better to me.  There was always this uncertainty, this question of: "Why are they doing this?  What do they possibly gain?"  We start gathering a team, then come across the fact that the Collectors ARE in fact working for the Reapers, and have this nebulous leader known as Harbinger who has an unhealthy obsession with Shepard, but can't be killed.

Yes, nebulous and unknown are good.  Ignored, not so good.  An unknown enemy is supposed to spur you on to learn about them, find out their motives,strengths, weaknesses.  Shepard doesn't do that.  A mysterious enemy should be omnipresent, but never really there.  Their presence is felt, but never directly.  Collector presence is almost never felt at all (I don't care how many times Harbringer says "I know you feel this").  That's not mysterious.  That's conspicuously absent.

The fact that we discover things like "Collectors = Protheans" and "Collectors work for Reapers" is just icing on the cake.  The cake itself is the attempt to go through the Omega-4 Relay and stop the collectors from taking any more humans.  TIM had that set has his goal from the start: Stop the immediate Reaper plot, which could be the prelude to something sinister.  Which as it turns out, it was.  What was that plot?  We'll never know for sure, because the Reaper's Blue and Orange morality makes their intentions uncomprehendible.

The point was "build a team and prepare them for the Suicide Mission"  Except, when was there any preparation? The loyalty missions?  Those were nice "get to know the squaddie" missions.  But how did that prepare them, other than provide the artificial "don't kill me" flag?  They were side quests shifted one column over.  There was no teambuilding.  No intelligence gathering.  The only preparation I saw was upgrading the Normandy.  That means MINING PLANETS had more to do with the story than about half the game.

Did we do anything to stop the incoming invasion?  No.  Did we put an end to their scheme which could've have unknown but potentially disasterous consequences?  Yes.  And THAT, was the point of ME2.

So ME2's tagline shouldn't have been "FIght for the Lost" so much as "Killing Time Until Mass Effect 3"?

As for the loyalty missions?  Perhaps some slight integration into the plot.  But for the most part they made sense to me.  They were disconnected because of how the characters in question start them.  For example, you can't really integrate Jacob's mission into the plot.  It requires Miranda to find the distress call and route it to Jacob, or it doesn't happen.  Garrus [and also by default, Thane], have to have their contacts on the Citadel find someone important.  So me personally, I didn't have a problem with how the missions were established.

How about involving the third squadmate in something other than fire support?  Or even better, how about:

Garrus:  "Shepard, I have the chematics for a weapon that could really upgrade the Normandy's firepower.  But we need some components.  I know of a Blue Suns base that may have what we need"

Shepard:  "All right, we'll make a stop there and 'aquire' what we need"

After a fun-filled romp of shooting various mercenaries and gathering components for the thanix.  Garrus is accessing a computer

Garrus:  Shepard!  You remember I told you a member of my squad sold us out?  Turns out the Blue Suns have kept tabs on that traitor!  He's on the Citadel! I want a piece of his hide!"

Same for Jack.  She knows the Teltin facility was planning to fit her with a super-amp that could boost her power for the Suicide Mission.  They make a stop to se if the place still exists.  It does, and she wants to blow the place up when they're done.  And so forth.  Tie the loyalty mission into the main story.  Make it about actually preparing for the Suicide Mission.

I don't know any other way on how I can express my love for you especially the stuff in bold.

[Archereon]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Scudboy? You mean Smudboy?

I watched all of his videos, sometimes it's pretty funny how he ridiculizes some aspects of the game. I feel like he's harsh but not unreasonable, I can understand his point of view.

Why do people hate him so much?

I did not approve of some of his disingenuous assertions. Or his tone of voice.

I agree with only two points of his.

1. That Shepard's ressurection was a wall banger of epic proportions (mostly because it was completely pointless, and has that campy, comic book feel to it.)

2. The main plot of the game, the collector plot, had no substance, and honestly didn't make much sense.

[kmcd5722]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Reading threads like this, I do have to wonder about something: Does nobody understand that Mass Effect 2 was designed specifically to focus on the characters rather than the overarching plotline and, in that respect, was a success? The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't sidequests, they were the focus of the game!
 

This is a valid point, and needs to be stressed in threads like this.  Yes, it was a success as you said for the characters.  However, to many, this game didn't feel like a sequel for this exact reason, as you said, because the main plot was pushed to the back seat.  It could have been a ME spinoff, or something similar, but not a sequel in the sense of the plot, as the only parts of the game that relate to the plot come with essentially the last mission.  

I for one still hold ME1 is a better experience, while ME2 is a better game.  Story-wise, goes to ME1.

[Busomjack]

wulf3n wrote...

Busomjack wrote...

wulf3n, you haven't done anything to point out Mass Effect 2's lack of quality. All you've done is explain why you don't like it and really that's your loss considering almost everyone else loves it..

Compared to all the points made by the people that love ME2 without question?

I'm sorry if i can't accept unclear motives, gaping plot holes, and missions that have no relevance to the game.

What story DOESN'T have flaws?  Those gaping plot holes and unclear motives are not plot holes.  Mass Effect 2's role in the underlying Mass Effect plot is to bridge the gap between Mass Effect 1 and 3 so therefore it doesn't have to answer every single question.  It's like you just watched the Empire Strikes Back and you're complaining that the movie didn't explain why The Emperor was willing to sacrifice so much to capture Luke Skywalker.  Your argument would be valid in a standalone film but this is a TRILOGY!  Get that through your head!
The fact that you can say something as short-sighted as "the missions have no relevance to the game" shows how short-sighted you are.
Mass Effect 2 is a personal tale which deals with the struggle of facing almost certain death for the greater good.  Have you ever experienced what it's like to almost die?  Well, I have many times and let me tell you that I have NO fear of death but you damn well better believe that if I am about to die then I sure as Hell am going to seek some closure before I do.
You can't empathize with the characters in Mass Effect 2 because you in your sheltered, pampered existence have never even come close to facing death straight in the face so don't give me this "no relevance crap."  Frankly, you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

[Luigitornado]

And I would have to disagree. I found that ME2 was a better experience because it was paced better, and the world was more immersive.

[Praetor Knight]

Archereon wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Scudboy? You mean Smudboy?

I watched all of his videos, sometimes it's pretty funny how he ridiculizes some aspects of the game. I feel like he's harsh but not unreasonable, I can understand his point of view.

Why do people hate him so much?

I did not approve of some of his disingenuous assertions. Or his tone of voice.

I agree with only two points of his.

1. That Shepard's ressurection was a wall banger of epic proportions (mostly because it was completely pointless, and has that campy, comic book feel to it.)

The whole resurrection aspect has been talked about in other threads,
and I personally feel that the only viable way that Shep survives is,
besides luck, is that his skull and brain had to be intact for there to
even be a Shep in the rest of ME2, from there, there are various
theories as to how that has to happen, and again luck, I won't go into
those, since that discussion takes on a life of its own.

2. The main plot of the game, the collector plot, had no substance, and honestly didn't make much sense.

I guess that goes with how both games had their strengths and weaknesses. The story arcs of both games focused on different elements of storytelling.

[Iakus]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I will grant you that the game would have been improved if that kind of character interaction was present, but the lack of that element honestly didn't take away from the overall experience, in my opinion. 

Though I will admit, I did enjoy those "After-mission" meetings with the whole crew in Mass Effect 1.  Bring em back Bioware!

I would say that is the focus of the game is on the characters, the characters need that kind of interaction.  ME 1 was kinda light on it too, but since the focus was more on Saren and the Conduit, it could get by lacking a bit in the character department.  But ME 2 needed more than what ME 1 had, and we got much, much less.

[Luigitornado]

iakus wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I will grant you that the game would have been improved if that kind of character interaction was present, but the lack of that element honestly didn't take away from the overall experience, in my opinion. 

Though I will admit, I did enjoy those "After-mission" meetings with the whole crew in Mass Effect 1.  Bring em back Bioware!

I would say that is the focus of the game is on the characters, the characters need that kind of interaction.  ME 1 was kinda light on it too, but since the focus was more on Saren and the Conduit, it could get by lacking a bit in the character department.  But ME 2 needed more than what ME 1 had, and we got much, much less.

Less? How?

[Busomjack]

Name any video game that has ever been made and I can give you a list of ways the plot could've been improved provided I've played it. If you check out developer diaries you'll see that every game has a huge list of amazing ideas that don't make it into the final product due to time and budget constraints and Mass Effect 2 is no different. This BS pedantic idealism is what results in disasters like Duke Nukem Forever.

We as gamers just got to suck it up and accept the fact that nothing is going to be perfect or we can wait 12 years for every friggin game because a bunch of obsessive-compulsive gamers think taking a check list and marking off things that didn't fullfill their wet dream fantasy version of the game they were expecting can't be satisfied.

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I will grant you that the game would have been improved if that kind of character interaction was present, but the lack of that element honestly didn't take away from the overall experience, in my opinion. 

Though I will admit, I did enjoy those "After-mission" meetings with the whole crew in Mass Effect 1.  Bring em back Bioware!

I would say that is the focus of the game is on the characters, the characters need that kind of interaction.  ME 1 was kinda light on it too, but since the focus was more on Saren and the Conduit, it could get by lacking a bit in the character department.  But ME 2 needed more than what ME 1 had, and we got much, much less.

Less yes, but I don't know about "much, much less."  The only time squadmates in ME1 talked to or about each other was in elevator rides on the Citadel, and that wasn't even every time.  They also sometimes interacted when those "talk to X" locations pop up in various places (or however that mechanic worked) which is something that they also do in ME2, so I don't think it was that much less.  I would love to see more squad interaction/banter, and that's one of the few beefs I have with ME2.  For most everything else I think it was magnificent.

[wulf3n]

Busomjack wrote...
What story DOESN'T have flaws? 

these aren't minor flaws that don't really matter, they're the reason you're playing the game.

Busomjack wrote...
Those gaping plot holes and unclear motives are not plot holes.

Then what is? if the whole reason for the game being moot isn't a plot hole what is?

Busomjack wrote...
Mass Effect 2's role in the underlying Mass Effect plot is to bridge the gap between Mass Effect 1 and 3 so therefore it doesn't have to answer every single question.

I never said it had to answer any question, It could be entirely self contained and have nothing to do with ME1 or ME3 and still be a great game...if the plot made sense.

Busomjack wrote...
It's like you just watched the Empire Strikes Back and you're complaining that the movie didn't explain why The Emperor was willing to sacrifice so much to capture Luke Skywalker. 

It's pretty obvious even without watching episode 4 that luke skywalker is important.

Busomjack wrote...
Your argument would be valid in a standalone film but this is a TRILOGY!  Get that through your head!
The fact that you can say something as short-sighted as "the missions have no relevance to the game" shows how short-sighted you are.

I think you've misunderstood what i've meant by missions having no relevance. I'll try to explain clearer.
The game sets up your objective "stop the collectors" cool i can do that. Then goes and tells you the only way to do this is a hasty unnecessary  suicide mission ... ok, im not really sure why this is the only solution but i'll run with it. To complete this suicide mission you'll need various experts, that makes a little sense, still not sure why we're going through the relay but never mind. collect all the characters, do all their loyalty missions, ok now for the suicide mission. first hurdle open a locked door, cool theoretically only my techs should be able to accomplish that ... no everyone can, hmm why did i need techs then. next squad leaders again, should only be proven leaders but no everyone can accomplish the task, admittedly  to varying levels of success but still completed. Same with the biotic, you'd think only samara or jack but again, despite your choice the task is still accomplished, bringing in to question the necessity of the previous 20 hours. sure it was a fun ride, but ultimately served no purpose.

Same goes for the loyalty missions, i go to all that trouble acquiring their loyalty and its not their loyalty thats tested, but their not being worried about their own baggage, to do the job right.

Busomjack wrote...
Mass Effect 2 is a personal tale which deals with the struggle of facing almost certain death for the greater good. 

Poorly, due to the suicide mission being unnecessary and not that suicidal. Ilos in ME1 did it so much better, even though most people didn't realize it was practically a suicide mission.

Busomjack wrote...
 Have you ever experienced what it's like to almost die?  Well, I have many times and let me tell you that I have NO fear of death but you damn well better believe that if I am about to die then I sure as Hell am going to seek some closure before I do.

Good for you, but thats not whats in dispute.

Busomjack wrote...
You can't empathize with the characters in Mass Effect 2 because you in your sheltered, pampered existence have never even come close to facing death straight in the face so don't give me this "no relevance crap."  Frankly, you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

When have i said i didn't empathize with the characters?

[Luigitornado]

Busomjack wrote...

Name any video game that has ever been made and I can give you a list of ways the plot could've been improved provided I've played it. If you check out developer diaries you'll see that every game has a huge list of amazing ideas that don't make it into the final product due to time and budget constraints and Mass Effect 2 is no different. This BS pedantic idealism is what results in disasters like Duke Nukem Forever.
We as gamers just got to suck it up and accept the fact that nothing is going to be perfect or we can wait 12 years for every friggin game because a bunch of obsessive-compulsive gamers think taking a check list and marking off things that didn't fullfill their wet dream fantasy version of the game they were expecting can't be satisfied.

Dude, you're awesome. 

Couldn't say it better myself.

[Iakus]

Busomjack wrote...

What story DOESN'T have flaws?  Those gaping plot holes and unclear motives are not plot holes.  Mass Effect 2's role in the underlying Mass Effect plot is to bridge the gap between Mass Effect 1 and 3 so therefore it doesn't have to answer every single question.  It's like you just watched the Empire Strikes Back and you're complaining that the movie didn't explain why The Emperor was willing to sacrifice so much to capture Luke Skywalker.  Your argument would be valid in a standalone film but this is a TRILOGY!  Get that through your head!

Indeed, no game is perfect.  I've played my share of winners and stinkers.  But this is the first game that actually inspired me to go online and speak my mind.  Of course, this is the first Bioware game to fail me so completely. 

Given that Mass Effect 2 is a "bridge" between stories, you would expect it to continue ME 1's story even as it lays the groundwork for ME 3.  I fail to see how it accomplishes this.  Any consequences for your actions in ME 1 are either swept under the rug, retconned away, or are purely cosmetic.  Oh, and emails, lots and lots of emails.  After playing ME 2, I honestly have no clue what's going to happen in ME 3 because quite frankly, I don't see how anything my Shepard accomplished is going to matter.  At all.

BTW ESB did explain why the Emperor was willing to go through so much trouble to capture Luke.  What was left unexplained was how Luke was going to handle that knowledge

The fact that you can say something as short-sighted as "the missions have no relevance to the game" shows how short-sighted you are.
Mass Effect 2 is a personal tale which deals with the struggle of facing almost certain death for the greater good.  Have you ever experienced what it's like to almost die?  Well, I have many times and let me tell you that I have NO fear of death but you damn well better believe that if I am about to die then I sure as Hell am going to seek some closure before I do.
You can't empathize with the characters in Mass Effect 2 because you in your sheltered, pampered existence have never even come close to facing death straight in the face so don't give me this "no relevance crap."  Frankly, you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

That's just it, it's not a personal tale, it's the personal tales of the squadmates, all isolated from each other.  The personal missions were nice, don't get me wrong.  But they couldn't carry the story.  And the story is supposed to be Shepard's.  Shepard didn't just face certain death.  Shepard died and came back to life.  And is being asked to risk his life again!  If the Lazarus Project could be reworked to actually make sense, that's the groundwork fro a really good personal story, and nothing was done with it.  Shepard was a guest star in his own game.

[Luigitornado]

@wulf3n

Loyalty to Shepard? Why can't it be called loyalty to the mission? Which would be basically saying that they are focused only on the mission.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 02 décembre 2010 - 01:20 .

[Iakus]

Luigitornado wrote...

Less? How?

Talking to characters in ME 1 while out of combat would have them comment on their surroundings.

The companions would often talk to each other on elevator rides.  Almost like a precursor to DAO, which I think sets a new standard in character banter.

Characters would sometimes interject themselves into conversations.  I notice this in ME 2 occasionally, but nowhere near as frequently as in ME 1 (Mainly it's Tali if you're in a conversation involving a quarian)

When you have to make a major decision, characters would give their input.  The only time I saw this in ME 2 was the final choice, destroying or keeping the base.

Like I said, it's kinda light in ME 1, but ME 2 is worse, when it should have been better.  Characters need character development.

[wulf3n]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
Pointing out faults and then coming up with solutions is priceless. 

I believe exact opposite. The reason i let the artists develop the new artistic stuff IS because i have no skill. The majority of ideas that fans come up with are complete crap, even when the majority of people seem to back them. I pray to whatever god might be listening that bioware don't take these forums too seriously.

Basically what im trying to say is you don't need to be an expert to point out whats bad, but you do, if you wan't to propose any ideas to make things better, otherwise  you're just making things worse.

Luigitornado wrote...
Loyalty to Shepard? Why can't it be called loyalty to the mission? Which would be basically saying that they are focused only on the mission.

While that comes closer it's still not "loyalty" it would have been easier just to call it focus. To me loyalty is about not choosing your own agendas over those of who/what you're supposedly loyal to.

Modifié par wulf3n, 02 décembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Siegdrifa]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...

You don't have to know how to make something better to point out what makes it bad.

Very true, but it makes your opinion useless.

The usefullness of opinion is linked to his construction arguement.

Stating a opinion is not usefull only because he is not soppused to do better is stupide, especialy if the critics is good and bring logical concerne.

If you work in creative industries (writing, painting, music etc), you look for constructive critics to help you make a better work or a more "fitting" work.
You don't care from who it comes from, if it make you realise "... yhea that's right! makes sens".

And don't forget that most product from creative industri is meant to be bought by people who don't deal professionaly with your curency of knowledge 99,999% of the time.




... not to mentien that in some case, critics from "pro" are not better, "pro" are human being like everyone, they are not omnipotant god with knwoldge and wisedome flowing from their mouth.

It's always worth the time to listen argument  of other people (especialy from other domain) when it's not "i don't like it because it's bad, so, because it's bad, i don't like it".

[Luigitornado]

wulf3n wrote...

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
Pointing out faults and then coming up with solutions is priceless. 

I believe exact opposite. The reason i let the artists develop the new artistic stuff IS because i have no skill. The majority of ideas that fans come up with are complete crap, even when the majority of people seem to back them. I pray to whatever god might be listening that bioware don't take these forums too seriously.

Basically what im trying to say is you don't need to be an expert to point out whats bad, but you do, if you wan't to propose any ideas to make things better, otherwise  you're just making things worse.

Luigitornado wrote...
Loyalty to Shepard? Why can't it be called loyalty to the mission? Which would be basically saying that they are focused only on the mission.

While that comes closer it's still not "loyalty" it would have been easier just to call it focus. To me loyalty is about not choosing your own agendas over those of who/what you're supposedly loyal to.

So.."to you."

I even think TIM calls it loyalty to the mission.

You are being nitpicky.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 02 décembre 2010 - 01:29 .

[wulf3n]

Luigitornado wrote...
So.."to you."

I even think TIM calls it loyalty to the mission.

You are being nitpicky.

In terms of the name, perhaps, but you don't even need the crews loyalty to complete the mission. so if time is an important factor in stopping the collectors why bother getting they're loyalty?

You can call it nitpicking if you wan't but im merely asking that a feature of the game that is supposedly important plays an important role in the game.

[Luigitornado]

iakus wrote...

Luigitornado wrote...

Less? How?

Talking to characters in ME 1 while out of combat would have them comment on their surroundings.

The companions would often talk to each other on elevator rides.  Almost like a precursor to DAO, which I think sets a new standard in character banter.

Characters would sometimes interject themselves into conversations.  I notice this in ME 2 occasionally, but nowhere near as frequently as in ME 1 (Mainly it's Tali if you're in a conversation involving a quarian)

When you have to make a major decision, characters would give their input.  The only time I saw this in ME 2 was the final choice, destroying or keeping the base.

Like I said, it's kinda light in ME 1, but ME 2 is worse, when it should have been better.  Characters need character development.

Worse would imply that ME was bad for not having enough of it. That's my problem...with you whiners. Saying "I think I would have liked more character input," would be constructive criticism, saying something is bad, is not.

[Busomjack]

To wulf3e and all the misguided people who agree with him...

Obviously they are minor flaws since hardly anyone other than you is complaining about it.  What?  You think everyone else is just too stupid to be as brilliant as you?  Get off your high horse. 
Oh, so now you're backtracking about what you said regarding the plot.  Earlier you were complaining about plot holes, unanswered questions, etc.  Well no kidding!  This is the not the final chapter in the saga.  It's the third game when we're supposed to get cloture.  The second game's role was to develop the characters so that the third game can focus most of it's time explaining the backstory regarding the reapers and the collectors.  This focus on character driven plot was intentional by the writers because why should we care if the reapers/collectors/Geth kill everyone if we don't learn to like the characters?  You've missed the point of this game entirely!
What I meant about Luke Skywalker is that it seems strange that the emperor would waste so many resources trying to track one man, even if he is a Jedi and the resolution to this mystery is that the emperor intends to replace Vader.  This resolution wouldn't have been nearly as powerful had it been thrown at us in Empire.  You don't seem to realize that Mass Effect 2's purpose is to build up to an immensely satisfying conclusion.  You're supposed to feel like there is a lot missing, that is what Mass Effect 3 will be for.
And do NOT dodge the issue of the suicide mission.  You called them irrelevent and compared them to Illos.  There is a big difference though since in Mass Effect 2 the people actually think they are going to die.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's actually easy to save them because as far as the characters are concerned, they will die.  So of course the side missions are relevant!  They're like a last meal of a prisoner before an execution.  It's the last thing they wish to seek closure on before they die! 
How can you say Thane not wanting to save his son from going down the same destructive path as he is "irrelevent!?"  IT'S HIS ONLY FRIGGIN SON!  The CHILD of his DEAD WIFE!  The only thing good thing he believes he has ever added to the world!
DON'T LIE TO ME AND TELL ME YOU WEREN'T MOVED BY THAT SCENE!  I'M AS BAD*** as they come and even I wanted to hug Thane and cry on his shoulder!  He was my BROMANCE!