175 réponses à ce sujet

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

The wardens are actually one hero. That's why they are such a presence. But depending on which Origin you play through, you're unique to specific plots.

Cousland's and uniqueness with Howe's treachery.

Aeducan by being betrayed by the potential king candidate.
These are seperate narratives from the larger, overall narrative. Which is actually a story about grey wardens, since the "hero" in that narrative can change.

Sometimes the uniquness of a character can stem from ability, but not always.

Think of it this way. Take the three more important aspects of Shepard.

1. Exceptional combat skills
2. Charisma
3. Cipher

Now, the hero needs the cipher to progress the ME story, yes? lets not speak hypotheticals or what ifs.
now the other two attributes are nice, but don't progress the plot. We could have 
1. John, Special forces commando with the fight abilities
2. jane, A beautiful charismatic speaker
3. Nebachanezzar, the 12-year-old kid who gained the cipher by accident

Only Neb is able to progress the story. The others may help out to varying degrees, but neb is crucial to the plot. there is only ONE Neb, there can be more of the other two, but Neb has the "power" so to speak.

Now take the same three character and put them in ME2. ME2 lacks need for Neb, the ONE special guy. it doesn't have to specifically be the cipher that makes shepard special, but it does need to present because this is how the series is being set up. If it were a SPR, then it would need to be from the start, or it falls flat.

Now you argue that Shepard defeating soveriegn makes him special for ME2? It switched genres altogether! They could have had a new hero, who would rise up and defeat the collectors. Shepard's involvement is just as meaningless as Chakwas's excuse for being in the game!

Dude, why do you think his last name is Shepard? He's the reincarnation of Jesus the son of God, the chosen One!

Seriously, I agree with what you said. Cerberus could easily have used all that money to assemble themselves a team of the best of the best. Shepard is "essential" only for being charismatic. And I really don't see how much his supposed charisma helped, since it had nothing to do with recruiting any of the teammates. But thing is, it would make much more sense if Shepard never died, because they wouldn't have wasted the money and the first place and easily could consider the only human Specter for the commanding officer. Though Shepard did die.

And seriously, Shepard dying is an utterly weak plot device. Anyone with half a brain knows Shepard would've been a bag of dust the moment he would reach the planet's atmosphere. I can understand reviving a pile of organs as sci-fi needs us to accept some things are possible, but a bag of dust looks like (and is chemically like) any other bag of dust, thus reviving Shepard would've been completely impossible. Plus, how the **** woud they have recovered ANYTHING. And someone with half a brain would also know that the Normandy would've been disintegrated to pieces in the atmosphere (even more considering it would be subject to total free fall from a certain distance of the planet) and that the pieces would certainly not be scattered this close but likely up to hundreds of kilometers apart. Yeah it's science fiction, but good science fiction usually takes things for granted that can't be outright proven false with the most basic knowledge of physics.

Exactly. It would have been a lot more concealed if they didn't kill shepard. Then TIM literally has to tell us why he is important and falls flat. Had it not happened, it wouldn't have been so blatant.

[Ship.wreck_]

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...
Anyone with half a brain knows Shepard would've been a bag of dust the moment he would reach the planet's atmosphere.

Not necessarilly. They're already working on a "space diving" suit right now that you could escape a space station or shuttle in orbit with and freefall into the earths atmoshpere and land on the planet. That's in the works now, no reason to suspect the technology wouldn't be functional and standard for any space / armor suit thing that Shepard / the Alliance / Cerberus / most people would be using by time the plot of ME starts.

In fact just because I had just recently seen news reports / nat geo about the space diving suit, that's the first thing I thought when I saw Shepard get spaced. That he would simply fall to the planet deploy a regular old parachute at a reasonable altitude (or jetpack or whatever the future equivelent of a parachute is) and safely escape. Just have to be rescued later and survive in the meantime.

But that's besides the point, point is, with future tech a body living or dead could easily survive re-entry if our current tech is any indicator of what's to come, and I don't know that it was ever specifically mentioned that Shepard's body was recovered from a planet surface. The Normandy was trying to escape a cruiser when it got hit, he easily could've been moving fast enough to achieve orbit at that point, or even sling shot out of the orbit into space space as in non orbital space...

[Iakus]

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

Exactly. It would have been a lot more concealed if they didn't kill shepard. Then TIM literally has to tell us why he is important and falls flat. Had it not happened, it wouldn't have been so blatant.

Not only that, the reasons would have been a lot easier to swallow.  Leaving it at "You're out best hope" is a lot easier to buy when Shep is alive and kicking.   When you have to spend billions of credits, not to mention writing new chapters in the fields of medicine, science, philosophy, and religion by bringing said hope back from the grave.  At that point we need a  much more concrete reason. 

The focus could then shift to "Shepard and TIM need each other"  TIM needs Shepard's influence and access.  Shepard needs TIM's money and resources.  Thus making both of them "special snowflakes"  The way it played out in ME 2, Shepard became not a snowflake so much as  the galaxy's most expensive errand boy..

[Evil Johnny 666]

Ship.wreck wrote...

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...
Anyone with half a brain knows Shepard would've been a bag of dust the moment he would reach the planet's atmosphere.

Not necessarilly. They're already working on a "space diving" suit right now that you could escape a space station or shuttle in orbit with and freefall into the earths atmoshpere and land on the planet. That's in the works now, no reason to suspect the technology wouldn't be functional and standard for any space / armor suit thing that Shepard / the Alliance / Cerberus / most people would be using by time the plot of ME starts.

In fact just because I had just recently seen news reports / nat geo about the space diving suit, that's the first thing I thought when I saw Shepard get spaced. That he would simply fall to the planet deploy a regular old parachute at a reasonable altitude (or jetpack or whatever the future equivelent of a parachute is) and safely escape. Just have to be rescued later and survive in the meantime.

But that's besides the point, point is, with future tech a body living or dead could easily survive re-entry if our current tech is any indicator of what's to come, and I don't know that it was ever specifically mentioned that Shepard's body was recovered from a planet surface. The Normandy was trying to escape a cruiser when it got hit, he easily could've been moving fast enough to achieve orbit at that point, or even sling shot out of the orbit into space space as in non orbital space...

Thing is Shepard had a pretty normal suit. Unless all suits can be usable as a "space diving suit". Plus, the thing would be automated? How? Shepard died long before attaining the planet's atmosphere, so unless the equipment would be automated in some very obscure way, his equipment wouldn't have worked. Adding to the suit looking normal, a "space diving suit" would obviously be a lot bigger to contain anything to go against gravity for so long without burning up. Shepard was relatively far from the planet (at least from a human perspective) and the distance is just too huge. A space diving suit would be destined for low orbit jumps. I assume Shepard would end up falling on the planet because of how close (from a space perspective) he was from it, if moons can be attracted by a planet's gravity pull, I bet a person would and much more strongly. Plus, the Normady did crash on the planet, so it's very likely the same thing would've happened to Shepard. Plus, if Shepard could have indeed been "slingshotted", the force would have to be stronger than the planet's (which was close) gravitational pull. And how would've the body been found? That adds another question, even if Shepard did not became a bag of dust, regardless of if he landed or not on the planet, how the hell did anyone found him?

Look, I think it's pretty evident. Shepard is obviously dying, getting close enough to the planet to not slingshot, his suit is too tiny to have anything enable him to either not disintegrate upon reaching the atmosphere or the planet's surface. And even if he did not disintegrate, he would've never survived the impact, even with a space diving suit intended for planetary re-entry rather than in space emergencies he would be killed by the insane deceleration by hitting the planet's surface.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure Bioware didn't think of the implications and just used Shepard's death as a plot device to work with Cerberus and get new players in. Plus, it's just so useless, it's the kind of thing you put at the END of a game. As it is it just feels entirely disconnected from the rest of the game. There's a reason I never encountered any good piece of story beginning with in such an oblivious manner, it's because it's poor. Personally, I think ME2's story is a wreck. It's like they intended to write a story both to ME1 and sci-fi fans, as well shooter fans (they did say they wanted to make the game appeal to CoD fans) who don't want a too complicated story, but something with a clear goal from the get go. What resulted is a lacklustre story where you know 90% what's happening after the first mission. It's like most of the game (the recruiting and loyalty missions part) is a glorified single ME1 mission where you'd need to assemble a crew. It really feels like that, it feels like most of what the game should have been is already finished by the time you start to find your first squad mates.

[Phaelducan]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right...

1. You are totally dead on. That mission with the 3 Ymir's and the crates really detracted from the other 99.9% of the game.
2. Yeah, my immersion was ruined when I had to control the other main PC, Pikachu.
3. Fully, the leveling, equipment upgrading, research, and resource collection just didn't say "hey, I'm a RPG!"

A standing ovation? Really. The criteria for a game doing just fine now is a standing ovation? Not the 300 million in sales.... as a rated M sci-fi game...

Sink or swim? Dude Bioware build a luxury liner out of this IP. It's called the SS GOTOLOLZ, and it is fueled by the tears of your hate.

3. except screens which only give you the option to either press A or B has nothing to do with RPGs. I mean, how does opening a research computer (which is the same thing as the equipment upgrading system by the way) and pressing A everywhere until you run out of credits, go get some more credits and then rinse and repeat does have anything to do with RPGs?

Most of the sales result directly from pre-game hype. Even then, it's not everyone who rents games before buying one and "professional" reviews are based on first impressions. I sure as hell had no opinion on ME2 when I handed over my 60 bucks in exchange for it.

Phaelducan wrote...

Yes yes, belittle, generalize, over-simply, claim fact, label opinion... I get it.

Sure
it's everyone of the 5 million people who played the game and the 93%
who gave it great reviews who agree with you, I got ya.

Surely
since we can't agree... it MUST mean that I'm uninformed and I should go
consult random 3rd party "official" knowledge to see the light.

I thought you were better than that Yojimbo. Bring your A game if you want to do this again.

Man, don't you know constantly bringing the reviews and sale thing to be completely ridiculous? I could write a novel on that. Having a opinion which is held by a minority instantly makes it not valid? Do you think every single person who bought ME2 conducted critical thoughts on the game (critical is not exclusively negative you know, can be exclusively positive) using logic (and emotions) rather than solely emotions (like you tend to do when writing first impression like those "professional" reviewers).

And then, if your "arguments" could be more ridiculous... "Bring your A game if you want to do this again"? What the hell with this non-argument only kids or people who didn't develop their critical skills use? It's like saying you can't criticize a band or album because you're not a musician or can't record anything. Does that disables us from having an opinion, from criticizing any form of art? I could say the same thing, you can't say ME2 is good since you can't make A games yourself. Fact is, the sole difference between developper's "quality" in tastes and anyone else is just that the developpers have to ability to put them into an actual game.

Seriously, I thought it was obvious how ME2's story telling is vastly inferior from ME1's. Most of the time spent is recruiting characters rather than advancing the plot. In fact, most of the plot is already advanced by the time you finish the very first mission. How is that good story telling? Wandering the galaxy finding people rather than actually taking part of an awesome sci-fi story as in ME1. ME2's story is just a very simple one and poorly written one, diluting itself a lot. The books and ME1 are vastly superior to ME2 story-wise.

From the back of the game box:
"Two years after Commander Shepard repelled invading Reapers bent on the
destruction of organic life, a mysterious new enemy has emerged. On the
fringes of known space, something is silently abducting entire human
colonies. Now Shepard must work with Cerberus, a ruthless organization
devoted to human survival at any cost, to stop the most terrifying
threat mankind has ever faced. To even attempt this perilous mission,
Shepard must assemble the galaxy’s most elite team and command the most
powerful ship ever built. Even then, they say it would be suicide.
Commander Shepard intends to prove them wrong. "

That's basically the whole plot. Oh, add a few twists here and there, with the "something" being almost completely unveiled (the rest being those few twists) after the very first mission. You'd think there was something more to the "perilous mission" rather than a small fraction of the whole game time, and that the "assemble a team" part was the small fraction, rather than the big majority of the play time. How is that good story telling again? If Bioware did something good in regards to story telling it has to be about characters (which they always did right mostly). But even then, the sheer number of squad mates made a few generic and personality less (I look at you Grunt) ones.

Blah blah blah. It's the same as pushing "A" and opening a treasure chest with the best sword in Final Fantasy. Your arguments are tired and boring. Your opinions on how the game developed its strong sales are sophomoric... and quite frankly ignorant. 5 millions in sales is not due to pre-sale hype. That's ridiculous.

Bringing your A game is in reference to anyone who stokes an argument (which he did) and then when they can't bring a logical argument to answer someone's retort, they bring in some vaunted third-party pseudo-expert "source" to give their argument weight. Why are you even here? Are you mad because that other thread got locked and wanted to keep arguing with me over the same thing over and over? Move on with your life Johnny, it will be ok. It's FINE for you to have your opinions, just as it's fine for anyone else to have theirs. What isn't ok (which I will restate for the umpteenth time on the off-chance you actually read it this time) is to state your argument as fact when you label someone else's as opinion.

Fact: Oak is a type of tree.
Opinion: ME1 had a better story than ME2.

See what I did there? 

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Phaelducan wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Right...

1. You are totally dead on. That mission with the 3 Ymir's and the crates really detracted from the other 99.9% of the game.
2. Yeah, my immersion was ruined when I had to control the other main PC, Pikachu.
3. Fully, the leveling, equipment upgrading, research, and resource collection just didn't say "hey, I'm a RPG!"

A standing ovation? Really. The criteria for a game doing just fine now is a standing ovation? Not the 300 million in sales.... as a rated M sci-fi game...

Sink or swim? Dude Bioware build a luxury liner out of this IP. It's called the SS GOTOLOLZ, and it is fueled by the tears of your hate.

3. except screens which only give you the option to either press A or B has nothing to do with RPGs. I mean, how does opening a research computer (which is the same thing as the equipment upgrading system by the way) and pressing A everywhere until you run out of credits, go get some more credits and then rinse and repeat does have anything to do with RPGs?

Most of the sales result directly from pre-game hype. Even then, it's not everyone who rents games before buying one and "professional" reviews are based on first impressions. I sure as hell had no opinion on ME2 when I handed over my 60 bucks in exchange for it.

Phaelducan wrote...

Yes yes, belittle, generalize, over-simply, claim fact, label opinion... I get it.

Sure
it's everyone of the 5 million people who played the game and the 93%
who gave it great reviews who agree with you, I got ya.

Surely
since we can't agree... it MUST mean that I'm uninformed and I should go
consult random 3rd party "official" knowledge to see the light.

I thought you were better than that Yojimbo. Bring your A game if you want to do this again.

Man, don't you know constantly bringing the reviews and sale thing to be completely ridiculous? I could write a novel on that. Having a opinion which is held by a minority instantly makes it not valid? Do you think every single person who bought ME2 conducted critical thoughts on the game (critical is not exclusively negative you know, can be exclusively positive) using logic (and emotions) rather than solely emotions (like you tend to do when writing first impression like those "professional" reviewers).

And then, if your "arguments" could be more ridiculous... "Bring your A game if you want to do this again"? What the hell with this non-argument only kids or people who didn't develop their critical skills use? It's like saying you can't criticize a band or album because you're not a musician or can't record anything. Does that disables us from having an opinion, from criticizing any form of art? I could say the same thing, you can't say ME2 is good since you can't make A games yourself. Fact is, the sole difference between developper's "quality" in tastes and anyone else is just that the developpers have to ability to put them into an actual game.

Seriously, I thought it was obvious how ME2's story telling is vastly inferior from ME1's. Most of the time spent is recruiting characters rather than advancing the plot. In fact, most of the plot is already advanced by the time you finish the very first mission. How is that good story telling? Wandering the galaxy finding people rather than actually taking part of an awesome sci-fi story as in ME1. ME2's story is just a very simple one and poorly written one, diluting itself a lot. The books and ME1 are vastly superior to ME2 story-wise.

From the back of the game box:
"Two years after Commander Shepard repelled invading Reapers bent on the
destruction of organic life, a mysterious new enemy has emerged. On the
fringes of known space, something is silently abducting entire human
colonies. Now Shepard must work with Cerberus, a ruthless organization
devoted to human survival at any cost, to stop the most terrifying
threat mankind has ever faced. To even attempt this perilous mission,
Shepard must assemble the galaxy’s most elite team and command the most
powerful ship ever built. Even then, they say it would be suicide.
Commander Shepard intends to prove them wrong. "

That's basically the whole plot. Oh, add a few twists here and there, with the "something" being almost completely unveiled (the rest being those few twists) after the very first mission. You'd think there was something more to the "perilous mission" rather than a small fraction of the whole game time, and that the "assemble a team" part was the small fraction, rather than the big majority of the play time. How is that good story telling again? If Bioware did something good in regards to story telling it has to be about characters (which they always did right mostly). But even then, the sheer number of squad mates made a few generic and personality less (I look at you Grunt) ones.

Blah blah blah. It's the same as pushing "A" and opening a treasure chest with the best sword in Final Fantasy. Your arguments are tired and boring. Your opinions on how the game developed its strong sales are sophomoric... and quite frankly ignorant. 5 millions in sales is not due to pre-sale hype. That's ridiculous.

Bringing your A game is in reference to anyone who stokes an argument (which he did) and then when they can't bring a logical argument to answer someone's retort, they bring in some vaunted third-party pseudo-expert "source" to give their argument weight. Why are you even here? Are you mad because that other thread got locked and wanted to keep arguing with me over the same thing over and over? Move on with your life Johnny, it will be ok. It's FINE for you to have your opinions, just as it's fine for anyone else to have theirs. What isn't ok (which I will restate for the umpteenth time on the off-chance you actually read it this time) is to state your argument as fact when you label someone else's as opinion.

Fact: Oak is a type of tree.
Opinion: ME1 had a better story than ME2.

See what I did there? 

Please keep it civil my friend. there's no need for rudeness and childishness.

Did you actually respond to my third party source? It is valid to the conversation. Story-archs are mostly similar. I compare ME2 to most stories because that's why we create stories. To relate to its target audience: each other. believability is crucial in a Sci-fi. Doesn't have to be realistic, but it has to make sense in the context of the story. TIM's decision doesn't make sense to a lot of people, not just me. This is a mode of address.

If you can retort to the argument without arbitrarily belittling it, or belittling me, I would love to hear it. If you could convince me otherwise, that is the mark of a good point. please contribute to point if you so desire.

[Phaelducan]

Fair enough Yojimbo, most of that sarcasm is due to another thread, which isn't fair to you anyway.



I never got your actual opinion on the Campbell thing, what was your point? I felt that ME2 was fairly similar to many other story structures, were you disagreeing with that? Based on what part of Campbell?

[TuringPoint]

Fixers0 wrote...

 Hello everyone.


1. The Collector Cruiser.

2. The Reason Shepard's Resurrection/Recruited ment.

3. Preparing for the Suicide mission.

After all these examples the question is. What are the effects these Internal Contradictions. Well the answer is: Because all these contradictions  effectively neutralize all the value and tension of the scene and turing it into a boring predictable scene. this is probably also the reason why  after playing the game a few times i felt like it was some kind of production machine that allows the player to make choices into which production tube the player proceeds next and what happens there.

1.  Yeah.  It's odd.  I guess Joker is ready for their tactics and maybe EDI/Garrus make the most of Normandy's guns  as well.  It's heroic fiction, in any case.  The way they did it was very fun and satisfying.  

2.  Cerberus isn't discussing needing Shepard in their organization - just the importance of keeping Shepard alive.  It's their mission to make sure humanity "doesn't lose him." Also, while Shepard didn't get official help from the council, his legendary status and pull with other races made him an integral part of the suicide mission's success.  So I think TIM was just aware the council would be unlikely to help him openly, even if he did have their races respect.  I think that's what we're supposed to think, though they didn't ever tell us that clearly.

On the Cipher, you have a point.  I do wish that had played a bigger role in the plot, but there wasn't any integral need for it to.  It just would've made ME2 follow better from the events of ME1.

3.  Yeah... I can see that.  Still, it doesn't break the plot for me because I can still rationalize that when EDI says "powerful" she means "powerful enough to blow those doors,"  while not blowing up everything around it.  There was a charge powerful enough to effectively start the chain reaction to blow up the collector base, but  that needed to be saved I imagine.


I also want to say that Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games of all time.  Mass Effect 1, one of the better ones, but not among the best.  Maybe top ten instead of top three.  I love RPG's, but to me whether or not a game is an RPG or not is beside the point of whether it's a good game or not.   There have been more RPG's released which were formulaic, bland, humorless, than there have been good RPG's, so breaking the mold a bit once in a while is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.  Maybe not so for the people who like all those RPG's that I never cared for.  

Bioware has always stretched the limits of a CRPG.  I hope they continue to do so, since that makes their games special.

Modifié par Alocormin, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:20 .

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Campbell and other scholars use the monomyth to descirbe similarities between stories. They use common examples Such as Jesus, Buddha, and Osiris. Jesus and buddha follow the hero's journey perfectly, which is why those stories touch deep within the human pysche. Take it a bit farther to see the similarities between the two characters. Buddha was unique to everyone in the land because he became "enlightened" to the truth of human existance. Within his story, he was the one. Because of this "enlightenment" the story progresses as he lays a foundation for life that others eventually follow. Similar to Jesus and his apotheosis, because of Jesus's relationship with God (His unique attribute) he progressed the plot by changing the world.

Now as you've argued before, you believe shepard's uniqueness is his experiences with the reapers. But can you provide an actual point in the narrative where that specific attribute allowed the story to progress? If you can't, then shepard's role isn't non-important, but simply interchangeable with another character.

and thank you 

Modifié par Yojimbo_Ltd, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:18 .

[TuringPoint]

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

Campbell and other scholars use the monomyth to descirbe similarities between stories. They use common examples Such as Jesus, Buddha, and Osiris. Jesus and buddha follow the hero's journey perfectly, which is why those stories touch deep within the human pysche.  

I think it's telling that many people have compared Shepard's story to various prophets, such as Jesus, also.  Trying to determine who would be ME3 Judas was the big fad in story discussion for quite a while, if it isn't still going on.

Shepard's uniqueness does play a role in moving the plot forward. It's a big part of the motivation for the Reaper's taking interest in humanity. Shepard is the one character totally driven to deal with the Reapers' plans and in a place to do so. It is a weakness that this previous experience was underplayed in preference to Shepard being a great leader. I see no evidence that Shepard isn't a great leader. Playing as Shepard, you might not understand the importance of that, or perhaps as a narrative Bioware hasn't expressed this very much.

In Aliens, Ripley's involvement with a previous encounter with the species plays a big part because she's the right person at the wrong time. Shepard has previous experience with the Reapers which makes it more effective as a story with Shepard at the center of it all, wherever the story takes place. Maybe it's not logical to use Shepard, but it wasn't terribly logical to use Ripley either. It just made emotional sense, and it makes the story leave a stronger impression.

So if you wanted to say Shepard has no logical reason for being the center of the story specifically, you've yet to present anything which compelling says so.  Prophet stories tend to be very illogical, which is a lot of their charm, speaking to the heart instead of the mind.

What makes Campbell the all-knowing?  The monomyth is just one species of idea that many people have come up with to organize our understanding of storytelling.  It's more important to use your eyes - if you can't do that such concepts as the monomyth lose all real meaning.

Modifié par Alocormin, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:36 .

[Phaelducan]

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

Campbell and other scholars use the monomyth to descirbe similarities between stories. They use common examples Such as Jesus, Buddha, and Osiris. Jesus and buddha follow the hero's journey perfectly, which is why those stories touch deep within the human pysche. Take it a bit farther to see the similarities between the two characters. Buddha was unique to everyone in the land because he became "enlightened" to the truth of human existance. Within his story, he was the one. Because of this "enlightenment" the story progresses as he lays a foundation for life that others eventually follow. Similar to Jesus and his apotheosis, because of Jesus's relationship with God (His unique attribute) he progressed the plot by changing the world.

Now as you've argued before, you believe shepard's uniqueness is his experiences with the reapers. But can you provide an actual point in the narrative where that specific attribute allowed the story to progress? If you can't, then shepard's role isn't non-important, but simply interchangeable with another character.

and thank you 

Actually I think you are confusing my posts with another... I never argued about Shepard being unique for any particular reason. Experience with the Reapers is a non-issue really. I think the idea that Shepard is a metaphysical force isn't really accurate anyway. Lots of stories have a regular joe in an extraordinary set of circumstances (think Predator, for example). Being special forces in a setting such as Mass Effect is enough of an entry into the plot, and in ME1 Hackett, Andersen, and Udina go one step further by saying essentially that Shepard is the best of the best, and he is the only one who fits the bill.

Now, what bill is that? It is important to note that in BOTH ME1 and ME2 the setting and origin of the plot have NOTHING to do with what eventually happens. Shepard is pegged as "the guy" for Spectre candidacy... not to stop the Reapers. The Reapers have nothing to do with Shepard's origins or background. In fact, if Saren isn't on Eden Prime then it's Nihlus who makes it to the beacon first.

In ME2, TIM doesn't go after Shep to wipe out the Collectors, he wants him to investigate the disappearance of the colonies. No one knows what is on the other side of the Omega-4 relay.

I guess your paradigm just doesn't fit the logical reasons for slamming the ME plot lines. The Cipher is a secondary event, and although it is critical to the progression of the plot of ME1, once the conduit is used and the initial invasion is halted... it's a non-issue.

In ME2, we are dealing with the premises already established, and it isn't a true hero-arc anymore, it's just a continuance of things we already know about. The same logic doesn't apply, as it's not the story of a Jesus or a Buddha, it's just the continuance of pre-existing stories.

[Ship.wreck_]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Thing is Shepard had a pretty normal suit. Unless all suits can be usable as a "space diving suit". Plus, the thing would be automated? How? Shepard died long before attaining the planet's atmosphere, so unless the equipment would be automated in some very obscure way, his equipment wouldn't have worked. Adding to the suit looking normal, a "space diving suit" would obviously be a lot bigger to contain anything to go against gravity for so long without burning up. Shepard was relatively far from the planet (at least from a human perspective) and the distance is just too huge. A space diving suit would be destined for low orbit jumps. I assume Shepard would end up falling on the planet because of how close (from a space perspective) he was from it, if moons can be attracted by a planet's gravity pull, I bet a person would and much more strongly. Plus, the Normady did crash on the planet, so it's very likely the same thing would've happened to Shepard. Plus, if Shepard could have indeed been "slingshotted", the force would have to be stronger than the planet's (which was close) gravitational pull. And how would've the body been found? That adds another question, even if Shepard did not became a bag of dust, regardless of if he landed or not on the planet, how the hell did anyone found him?

Look, I think it's pretty evident. Shepard is obviously dying, getting close enough to the planet to not slingshot, his suit is too tiny to have anything enable him to either not disintegrate upon reaching the atmosphere or the planet's surface. And even if he did not disintegrate, he would've never survived the impact, even with a space diving suit intended for planetary re-entry rather than in space emergencies he would be killed by the insane deceleration by hitting the planet's surface.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure Bioware didn't think of the implications and just used Shepard's death as a plot device to work with Cerberus and get new players in. Plus, it's just so useless, it's the kind of thing you put at the END of a game. As it is it just feels entirely disconnected from the rest of the game. There's a reason I never encountered any good piece of story beginning with in such an oblivious manner, it's because it's poor. Personally, I think ME2's story is a wreck. It's like they intended to write a story both to ME1 and sci-fi fans, as well shooter fans (they did say they wanted to make the game appeal to CoD fans) who don't want a too complicated story, but something with a clear goal from the get go. What resulted is a lacklustre story where you know 90% what's happening after the first mission. It's like most of the game (the recruiting and loyalty missions part) is a glorified single ME1 mission where you'd need to assemble a crew. It really feels like that, it feels like most of what the game should have been is already finished by the time you start to find your first squad mates.

Why would all the suits not be integrated? In the Navy you don't get advanced warning that you're going to accidently go overboard so that you can go change your tactical vest for your life preserver. So your tactical vest damn well better have some kind of integrated floatation device, or at least neutral boyancy so it doesn't actually sink your ass, cause when you go that tac vest is all you're gonna have.

Likewise in the future space Navy you wouldn't get any advanced warning your about to get spaced so you have time to go change your general combat / space suit for your space diving suit. So again it damn well better be integrated into whatever suit you're usually wearing.

Shepard's usuall suit obviously protects him from the vacuum and radiation of space as demonstrated on the outside of the Citadel in ME1 and as he walks through the breached CIC deck in the begining of ME2, so why wouldn't it also incorporate at least some protection from unexpected re-entry?  And actually the prototypes or designs they were showing of the actuall space diving suit were really not that bulky at all in fact they reminded me in a major way of the ME armor which is why I thought it was so cool. No idea how they do it and yes seems a little sketchy at present but still, it's the future man.

I said I hoped that Shepard would be able to space dive to safety, not thought. Granted he was obviously having serious issues before he hit the atmosphere, but even without necessarily having been purpose built for re-entry it's not out of the question that his suit could've kept him in tact enough to "re-build" It's not like he's an astroid blazing in at like Mach30 from the depths of intersteller space, he fell out of a space shuttle. And even if he is moving fairly quick upon re-entry he doesn't have the inertia of those astroids you see cratering planetary surfaces, he's just a little human body, he'd almost certainly be slowed by drag to terminal velocity before impact (Assuming an earth-like atmoshpher and why not? the joint's blue right?) which won't be more than a couple hundred miles per hour. Not at all out of the question to think he be a mushed up badly burnt / frozen puddle that's mostly all their when they got to him.

As for his speed, our perception of speed is based on relative movements between objects and refrence points... in space there aren't any. The only reference point we get is the planet a few thousand miles away, at that range he and the ship could be whiping past the planet at thousands upon thousands of miles per hour and still look like they're just drifting past... and that would make sense considering that they got hit and taken out on the run attempting evasive manuvers. Which would make slingshoting or achieving orbit easily plausible based on the info from the intro. Now based on our knowledge of the DLC we know the ship did eventually land on the planet but that doesn't mean it fell straight down, it could've been moving just barely too slow to achieve orbit. which would result in a possibly very slowly "decaying" orbit which would be a loooooonnnnngggg sloooooowwww spiral into the center before finally hiting the atmosphere slowingdown and droping in. Which could leave plenty of time to recover Shepards body before re-entry. And again even if he did re-enter not necessarily an unquestionable incineration.

As for finding him, although it's suggested by Li'Ara to have been difficult might not have been exactly impossible. In todays Navy most tactical, floatation, and flight quarters vests have integrated gps beacons automatically activated upon submersion in salt water, it's not really super high tech stuff, and that's todays not really super high tech stuff. You go in the drink, conscious or not, dead or alive, that thing goes off notifies every GPS satelite in line of sight that you're lost at sea and those tell the appriate agency right where to pick you up... namely any gps equiped vessel in range. So is it really too much to think Shepard's (and every space faring op including your run of the mill freighter) wouldn't have some extrememly simple low tech similar technology to say, "Hey what's that? The vacuum of space? You didn't tell me we were going into the vacuum of space, this must be an emergency, I'll notify everyone in the area!" and BLEEP, you're a bleep on someone's screen already.

None of this is really that sci fi or hi tech, it all exists in some form or another right now, so it's not even really a stretch to assume it exists in ME2. I mean (Edit) socks and underpants aren't specifically mentioned in the codex either but some things can just be logically assumed...

Modifié par Ship.wreck , 12 décembre 2010 - 04:01 .

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Alocormin wrote...

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

Campbell and other scholars use the monomyth to descirbe similarities between stories. They use common examples Such as Jesus, Buddha, and Osiris. Jesus and buddha follow the hero's journey perfectly, which is why those stories touch deep within the human pysche.  

I think it's telling that many people have compared Shepard's story to various prophets, such as Jesus, also.  Trying to determine who would be ME3 Judas was the big fad in story discussion for quite a while, if it isn't still going on.

Shepard's uniqueness does play a role in moving the plot forward. It's a big part of the motivation for the Reaper's taking interest in humanity. Shepard is the one character totally driven to deal with the Reapers' plans and in a place to do so. It is a weakness that this previous experience was underplayed in preference to Shepard being a great leader. I see no evidence that Shepard isn't a great leader. Playing as Shepard, you might not understand the importance of that, or perhaps as a narrative Bioware hasn't expressed this very much.

In Aliens, Ripley's involvement with a previous encounter with the species plays a big part because she's the right person at the wrong time. Shepard has previous experience with the Reapers which makes it more effective as a story with Shepard at the center of it all, wherever the story takes place. Maybe it's not logical to use Shepard, but it wasn't terribly logical to use Ripley either. It just made emotional sense, and it makes the story leave a stronger impression.

So if you wanted to say Shepard has no logical reason for being the center of the story specifically, you've yet to present anything which compelling says so.  Prophet stories tend to be very illogical, which is a lot of their charm, speaking to the heart instead of the mind.

What makes Campbell the all-knowing?  The monomyth is just one species of idea that many people have come up with to organize our understanding of storytelling.  It's more important to use your eyes - if you can't do that such concepts as the monomyth lose all real meaning.

Ok, How does shepard's experience with the reapers affect, at all, his experience with the collectors? Is there anything that he learned in the first game, that affected his journey in the second game?

that is the compelling example.

I never implied that campbell was all knowing. It is simply part of my argument.

Ripley, though, is a good point. But they didn't have to bring her back to life after being pulverized and flash-torched.... her uniqueness is also in a different form from shepard's

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Phaelducan wrote...

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

Campbell and other scholars use the monomyth to descirbe similarities between stories. They use common examples Such as Jesus, Buddha, and Osiris. Jesus and buddha follow the hero's journey perfectly, which is why those stories touch deep within the human pysche. Take it a bit farther to see the similarities between the two characters. Buddha was unique to everyone in the land because he became "enlightened" to the truth of human existance. Within his story, he was the one. Because of this "enlightenment" the story progresses as he lays a foundation for life that others eventually follow. Similar to Jesus and his apotheosis, because of Jesus's relationship with God (His unique attribute) he progressed the plot by changing the world.

Now as you've argued before, you believe shepard's uniqueness is his experiences with the reapers. But can you provide an actual point in the narrative where that specific attribute allowed the story to progress? If you can't, then shepard's role isn't non-important, but simply interchangeable with another character.

and thank you 

Actually I think you are confusing my posts with another... I never argued about Shepard being unique for any particular reason. Experience with the Reapers is a non-issue really. I think the idea that Shepard is a metaphysical force isn't really accurate anyway. Lots of stories have a regular joe in an extraordinary set of circumstances (think Predator, for example). Being special forces in a setting such as Mass Effect is enough of an entry into the plot, and in ME1 Hackett, Andersen, and Udina go one step further by saying essentially that Shepard is the best of the best, and he is the only one who fits the bill.

Now, what bill is that? It is important to note that in BOTH ME1 and ME2 the setting and origin of the plot have NOTHING to do with what eventually happens. Shepard is pegged as "the guy" for Spectre candidacy... not to stop the Reapers. The Reapers have nothing to do with Shepard's origins or background. In fact, if Saren isn't on Eden Prime then it's Nihlus who makes it to the beacon first.

In ME2, TIM doesn't go after Shep to wipe out the Collectors, he wants him to investigate the disappearance of the colonies. No one knows what is on the other side of the Omega-4 relay.

I guess your paradigm just doesn't fit the logical reasons for slamming the ME plot lines. The Cipher is a secondary event, and although it is critical to the progression of the plot of ME1, once the conduit is used and the initial invasion is halted... it's a non-issue.

In ME2, we are dealing with the premises already established, and it isn't a true hero-arc anymore, it's just a continuance of things we already know about. The same logic doesn't apply, as it's not the story of a Jesus or a Buddha, it's just the continuance of pre-existing stories.

That's why I don't like it. You hit it on the dot.

I used a lot more examples earlier than just Jesus and Buddha by the way... If it two pages ago, it doesn't exist i guess. lol

If it was that way from the start, I would have no problem. But it wasn't.

Also the beacon told them where the conduit was, what was the ultimate threat, and the basis for other characters disbelief ( a central theme ). It was not a secondary thing. without the visions, the plot went nowhere.

Modifié par Yojimbo_Ltd, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:01 .

[TuringPoint]

I just didn't see the point of talking about Campbell, just to throw a big intellectual name in there? Ah well. It's your argument, can't tell you what to present.

I was also trying to leave out the fourth Aliens movie on principle, although there's a similarity there.

Anyway, it is suggested repeatedly that, as well as Shepard being the one in that role of fighting the Reapers by chance, Shepard has a strength of will to accomplish things. This is incredibly common in all heroic RPG's, I suppose. Certainly in all of Bioware's RPG's. Shepard is tested and tried throughout ME1, and then again in ME2. If Shepard had been anyone else it would have failed. It's not logical, it's not reasonable, it just is, like any other hero's story.

My point with Ripley is not that they're the same character - Ripley is a civilian, Shepard is a soldier.  But Ripley was effective as the heroine of the series, despite having nothing about her except bravery and ability to survive and be in the right place at the wrong time.  So even if Shepard were a civilian, simply being in the right place at the wrong time and having the will to succeed is enough to be an effective, irreplaceable hero.  Everything about such a hero becomes, against all logic, the reason they are irreplaceable as the center of the action.  

Do you have some way to refute that?  I don't think Cerberus could've pulled off what they did, multi-species team and all that, without Shepard.  Shepard is the one who wrote the reports about the Reapers which tipped off Cerberus, which we see at the introduction of ME2.  Shepard's experiences and value as a symbol of respect by the other races and hope for humanity initiate Cerberus' mission against the Collector's.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:11 .

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Alocormin wrote...

I just didn't see the point of talking about Campbell, just to throw a big intellectual name in there? Ah well. It's your argument, can't tell you what to present.

I was also trying to leave out the fourth Aliens movie on principle, although there's a similarity there.

Anyway, it is suggested repeatedly that, as well as Shepard being the one in that role of fighting the Reapers by chance, Shepard has a strength of well to accomplish things. This is incredibly common in all heroic RPG's, I suppose. Certainly in all of Bioware's RPG's. Shepard is tested and tried throughout ME1, and then again in ME2. If Shepard had been anyone else it would have failed. It's not logical, it's not reasonable, it just is, like any other hero's story.

ninja'd:ph34r:

Modifié par Yojimbo_Ltd, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:09 .

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Alocormin wrote...

I just didn't see the point of talking about Campbell, just to throw a big intellectual name in there? Ah well. It's your argument, can't tell you what to present.

I was also trying to leave out the fourth Aliens movie on principle, although there's a similarity there.

Anyway, it is suggested repeatedly that, as well as Shepard being the one in that role of fighting the Reapers by chance, Shepard has a strength of will to accomplish things. This is incredibly common in all heroic RPG's, I suppose. Certainly in all of Bioware's RPG's. Shepard is tested and tried throughout ME1, and then again in ME2. If Shepard had been anyone else it would have failed. It's not logical, it's not reasonable, it just is, like any other hero's story.

My point with Ripley is not that they're the same character - Ripley is a civilian, Shepard is a soldier.  But Ripley was effective as the heroine of the series, despite having nothing about her except bravery and ability to survive and be in the right place at the wrong time.  So even if Shepard were a civilian, simply being in the right place at the wrong time and having the will to succeed is enough to be an effective, irreplaceable hero.

Do you have some way to refute that?

Yes i do.

We arn't arguing the same thing. I really don't have it in me to explain again, i'm sorry.

[Phaelducan]

I disagree. It's secondary to the origin of the character in that the reason Shepard is chosen to be going to Eden Prime is to see if he can be the first human spectre. It has nothing to do with the beacon. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Yes, the beacon became the catalyst for the continuance of the plot, but the origin of Shepard has nothing to do with anything of the sort. He's just elite military.



As to the overall point I think you are trying to make... I think it would be useful to think of non-traditional heroes. Not that Shepard isn't a proto-typical archetype, but his background does not qualify him for the expectations it appears you are heaping on him.



I'll use my earlier example of The Dude in the Big Lebowski. Nothing special about him, he's lazy, not very smart, and his only reason for being the protagonist is that he shares the name of the other Lebowski. There doesn't have to be a reason for a hero to be a hero. Sometimes, they just are because it's the way it is. If we get into the habit of constantly second-guessing even the motives of the storyteller.... what's the point of reading/watching/playing the story anyway?

[Xaijin]

Jamin101 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

lazuli wrote...

Here are the Illusive Man's exact words on the subject of Shepard's resurrection:

"You're unique.  Not just in ability, or in what you've experienced, but in what you represent."
"You stood for humanity at a key moment.  You're more than a soldier- you're a symbol."
"And I don't know if the Reapers understand fear, but you killed one.  They have to respect that."

Thats just it though...Shepard didn't ACTUALLY kill any reaper. The Alliance fleet/Joker did. All Shepard did was destroy a mechinized corpse. While I admit symbol's are powerful weapons (a reason I save the DA) they aren't all that important in regards to the story of ME2 since everyone just dismisses their glorious "symbol" as a complete basket case.

and yet the collectors want him and not hackett or joker...di you notice killing saren is what dropped the shields in me1

Killing Saren made the entire ship collapse; Saren was Sovereign's Primary Control Unit.

[TuringPoint]

You said you were arguing about the literary merit of Shepard at the center of the story as a heroic epic? I was arguing that Shepard is effective at the center of that story.  As effective as a character can be when they are being played by the "reader" and thus designed to be a little generic.

I agree that using the beacon would've served to connect the stories better.  Whatever.

Modifié par Alocormin, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:15 .

[Epic777]

Alocormin wrote...

You said you were arguing about the literary merit of Shepard at the center of the story as a heroic epic? I was arguing that Shepard is effective at the center of that story.  As effective as a character can be when they are being played by the "reader" and thus designed to be a little generic.

I agree that using the beacon would've served to connect the stories better.  Whatever.

One thing isn't that a problem for all western RPGs?

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Phaelducan wrote...

I disagree. It's secondary to the origin of the character in that the reason Shepard is chosen to be going to Eden Prime is to see if he can be the first human spectre. It has nothing to do with the beacon. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Yes, the beacon became the catalyst for the continuance of the plot, but the origin of Shepard has nothing to do with anything of the sort. He's just elite military.

As to the overall point I think you are trying to make... I think it would be useful to think of non-traditional heroes. Not that Shepard isn't a proto-typical archetype, but his background does not qualify him for the expectations it appears you are heaping on him.

I'll use my earlier example of The Dude in the Big Lebowski. Nothing special about him, he's lazy, not very smart, and his only reason for being the protagonist is that he shares the name of the other Lebowski. There doesn't have to be a reason for a hero to be a hero. Sometimes, they just are because it's the way it is. If we get into the habit of constantly second-guessing even the motives of the storyteller.... what's the point of reading/watching/playing the story anyway?

That's his uniquenes, yes. the why though, isn't really important. you're right about that.
the origin of shepard doesn't, that's true.
but it isn't the story of shepards whole life. Just his life during the start of the reaper era. Which is why the story starts with the beacon discovery.

Alocormin wrote...

You said you were arguing about the literary merit of Shepard at the center of the story as a heroic epic? I was arguing that Shepard is effective at the center of that story.  As effective as a character can be when they are being played by the "reader" and thus designed to be a little generic.

I agree that using the beacon would've served to connect the stories better.  Whatever.

they arn't seperate stories. They are the same story. Hence a trilogy. that's all i'm saying

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Epic777 wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

You said you were arguing about the literary merit of Shepard at the center of the story as a heroic epic? I was arguing that Shepard is effective at the center of that story.  As effective as a character can be when they are being played by the "reader" and thus designed to be a little generic.

I agree that using the beacon would've served to connect the stories better.  Whatever.

One thing isn't that a problem for all western RPGs?

Example? I don't really get out there with games these days i'm afraid...

[Epic777]

Yojimbo_Ltd wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

You said you were arguing about the literary merit of Shepard at the center of the story as a heroic epic? I was arguing that Shepard is effective at the center of that story.  As effective as a character can be when they are being played by the "reader" and thus designed to be a little generic.

I agree that using the beacon would've served to connect the stories better.  Whatever.

One thing isn't that a problem for all western RPGs?

Example? I don't really get out there with games these days i'm afraid...

KOTOR, KOTOR II,Arcanum, Oblivion, Fallout 3 for starters. Traditionally RPG charactesr are pigeon holed into being an amoral, anti social psychopath or a 50s style comic superhero.
For me RPGs rarely give the player options of creating characters, the player character becomes less of a character and more the player personal avatar. This character never does anything outside the players whims. Allowing the player full control like everything is a double edged sword; on the one hand the player has full control of the characters/avatars on the other hand the player's character becomes a players puppet.

Modifié par Epic777, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[Phaelducan]

I think that's a strength of Western RPG's. In allowing the story to play out with subtle variations on each playthrough (or not so subtle ones, I'm,looking at you Megaton), it allows the idea of the story itself to take center stage. Shepard, as far as Western RPG's go, is one of the most fleshed out main characters I can think of. Full voice acting and a concrete class (1 of 6) and background story (1 of 3, twice) gives more framework and context than many other great Western RPG's. Yes, Shepard can only develop along strict options for quest completions and dialog options... but in all fairness that is more than most Western RPG's give.



Rarely do NPC's give two crams about earlier choices you made, and even if they do you can usually do some hokey morality junk (donate water, food, money, whatever) and erase earlier consequences.



I really feel that's what the whole spectrum of arguing boils down to, is the preference of the player about whether they like the Bioware/Bethesda style or the Square/Enix style. I still maintain there is room for both types, and god forbid there only be one style of RPG out there, but when it comes down to it... I believe strongly that when you go buy an RPG developed by a North American company... there are some conventions that you expect to be in the game.