87 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Council supposedly believes you at the end of ME1. Why not go "ah yes 'Reapers'." then?  Why believe Shepard about Saren's attacks if they didn't think in some small part the Reaper threat might be valid? The only one who was completely a douche was that damn Turian but all of them turn into idiots in ME2.

1. Shepard's been dead for two years.
2. Admitting the apocalypse is nigh would cause widespread panic.
3. The whole Reaper thing sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory anyway, so it's not that hard to dismiss.
4. Denial can lead to a sense of security, and repeatedly telling the same lie can eventually alter your perception of the truth.
5. Bioware may have intended to frustrate you there for the sake of putting you in Shep's shoes.
6. Meme gold.

[Ryzaki]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The Council supposedly believes you at the end of ME1. Why not go "ah yes 'Reapers'." then?  Why believe Shepard about Saren's attacks if they didn't think in some small part the Reaper threat might be valid? The only one who was completely a douche was that damn Turian but all of them turn into idiots in ME2.

1. Shepard's been dead for two years.
2. Admitting the apocalypse is nigh would cause widespread panic.
3. The whole Reaper thing sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory anyway, so it's not that hard to dismiss.
4. Denial can lead to a sense of security, and repeatedly telling the same lie can eventually alter your perception of the truth.
5. Bioware may have intended to frustrate you there for the sake of putting you in Shep's shoes.
6. Meme gold.

1. And that stops the Reapers from existing...how exactly?
2. Yes because telling Shepard to go after the Reapers is the same thing. Just like they announced Saren attacked Eden Prime when they sent Shep after him...oh wait.
3. So did Saren trying to bring them back. Yet they let Shep go after him. Not only that but the only ones flat out dismissing anything was always that one douche turian. The salarian and asari were always pretty neutral and willing to let Shepard attempt to find *proof*. There's no real reason they would change from that stance.
4. Ah I see the point there
5. It didn't work. Just made me feel that the council had been handed the idiot all.
6. Well it was gold. "Ah yes 'memes'. We have dismissed claims of them being amusing." 

[SSV Enterprise]

A reboot?  Let's see...

The Reapers are still out there, we know more about them, and the Collectors were working for them, not an entirely new enemy.  Also the Collectors were first mentioned in Mass Effect: Ascension.

Every major character from the first game makes an appearance, provided they survived -- some more major than others.  The ship's still called the Normandy and everyone's favorite pilot still flies it.

It's the same universe, with the same political entities and history.  The specific setting -- the Terminus Systems -- was mentioned significantly in the first game.  Omega was introduced in Mass Effect: Ascension.

Cerberus appeared multiple times in the first game, and got further development in Mass Effect: Ascension.

The science all works the same (well, except for heat sinks.  In that sense it's a reboot, but more of a gameplay reboot than a story one.)

I'm failing to see how ME2 is a reboot.  Sure, there are a few bits that suffer without the novel providing background, but that's all the more reason to buy the novels.  It's all the same continuity.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 04 février 2011 - 07:18 .

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The Council supposedly believes you at the end of ME1. Why not go "ah yes 'Reapers'." then?  Why believe Shepard about Saren's attacks if they didn't think in some small part the Reaper threat might be valid? The only one who was completely a douche was that damn Turian but all of them turn into idiots in ME2.

1. Shepard's been dead for two years.
2. Admitting the apocalypse is nigh would cause widespread panic.
3. The whole Reaper thing sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory anyway, so it's not that hard to dismiss.
4. Denial can lead to a sense of security, and repeatedly telling the same lie can eventually alter your perception of the truth.
5. Bioware may have intended to frustrate you there for the sake of putting you in Shep's shoes.
6. Meme gold.

7. The Council spent the first game mocking your "vision", the idea that Saren would be involved with trying to exterminate organic life, the existence of the "Reapers", etc.  Remember how they F'ed up the defense of the Citidel.  They are merely settling back into their old patterns of denial and stupidity.

[AdmiralCheez]

Pardon the post spam >_<;

Ryzaki wrote...

Where did Garrus say he reapplied? I missed that.

Either when you first meet him on Omega or shortly after on the Normandy (first or second potentially calibrations-inducing conversation, I think).

Ah I was referring more the sidequests that might actually make a difference (sparing Rachni Queen, Toombs and the like).

The rachni queen was not a sidequest, but part of one of the core missions.  As for Toombs, if they wanted him to have more importance, he would not be so far removed from the core quest.  Generally, if you find it in a room full of boxes in an underground bunker between a thresher nest and a cliff of death on some godforsaken planet no one's ever heard of, it probably isn't going to make a huge difference if you skip it.

Really though just meeting Toombs face to face could've been some decent development. Instead we get...an email. Yay.

Everyone hates the emails, dear.  Granted, running into every single NPC you ever spared might get annoying, but emails are still fail.

[Ryzaki]

Odd...I never got that convo :/ Guess it's time for a replay.



XD Lol



They really are.



Ah well. I personally feel it's a reboot. I'm not going to change anyone's mind or vice versa so no need for walls of text on my part.

[AdmiralCheez]

Ryzaki wrote...

1. And that stops the Reapers from existing...how exactly?
2. Yes because telling Shepard to go after the Reapers is the same thing. Just like they announced Saren attacked Eden Prime when they sent Shep after him...oh wait.
3. So did Saren trying to bring them back. Yet they let Shep go after him. Not only that but the only ones flat out dismissing anything was always that one douche turian. The salarian and asari were always pretty neutral and willing to let Shepard attempt to find *proof*. There's no real reason they would change from that stance.
4. Ah I see the point there
5. It didn't work. Just made me feel that the council had been handed the idiot all.
6. Well it was gold. "Ah yes 'memes'. We have dismissed claims of them being amusing." 

1. It doesn't, but generally things seem like less of a problem if some human nutjob isn't shoving it in your face all the time.
2. Going after a secret agent on a power trip is a lot more believeable than going after giant robot cuttlefish that build giant skeletons out of your goo.  They believed Saren was a threat, but never bought the Reaper thing, not even in the end (I think--gotta watch the last conversation with them before the end credits).
3. The believed Saren made it up to get the geth on his side.  Again, Saren was a legitimate threat, but the beings he claimed to serve could have been a bunch of BS.  The only evidence they ever had was when Sovereign parked itself on their doorstep, and even that wasn't conclusive.
4. Damn straight.
5. But you were frustrated, right?
6. Lulz.

Ah well. I personally feel it's a reboot. I'm not going to change
anyone's mind or vice versa so no need for walls of text on my part.

Understood.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 04 février 2011 - 07:33 .

[Ulzeraj]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

1. And that stops the Reapers from existing...how exactly?
2. Yes because telling Shepard to go after the Reapers is the same thing. Just like they announced Saren attacked Eden Prime when they sent Shep after him...oh wait.
3. So did Saren trying to bring them back. Yet they let Shep go after him. Not only that but the only ones flat out dismissing anything was always that one douche turian. The salarian and asari were always pretty neutral and willing to let Shepard attempt to find *proof*. There's no real reason they would change from that stance.
4. Ah I see the point there
5. It didn't work. Just made me feel that the council had been handed the idiot all.
6. Well it was gold. "Ah yes 'memes'. We have dismissed claims of them being amusing." 

1. It doesn't, but generally things seem like less of a problem if some human nutjob isn't shoving it in your face all the time.
2. Going after a secret agent on a power trip is a lot more believeable than going after giant robot cuttlefish that build giant skeletons out of your goo.  They believed Saren was a threat, but never bought the Reaper thing, not even in the end (I think--gotta watch the last conversation with them before the end credits).
3. The believed Saren made it up to get the geth on his side.  Again, Saren was a legitimate threat, but the beings he claimed to serve could have been a bunch of BS.  The only evidence they ever had was when Sovereign parked itself on their doorstep, and even that wasn't conclusive.
4. Damn straight.
5. But you were frustrated, right?
6. Lulz.

Ah well. I personally feel it's a reboot. I'm not going to change
anyone's mind or vice versa so no need for walls of text on my part.

Understood.

The "ah yes reapers" can be undestandable if you think they're lying. After all, you dont want to call general doomsday panic and also, if its important you wont give any data about it to the guy who happens to work with the terrorists now. Thats my only theory for ME3: I don't think the council is that stupid. 

Lying or not note that this is one of the reasons ME2 can be Empire Strikes Backish because it may make more sense when the trilogy is complete.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 04 février 2011 - 07:44 .

[Sentox6]

InvaderErl wrote...
Judith Martin of The Washington Post complained of the film's "middle-of-the-story" plot, which featured no particular beginning or end, in her opinion.[36]

The problem is that ME2 does have a beginning and an end. It's entirely ancillary to the overarching problem, that's all.

If Mass Effect is a road trip, ME2 is the stop at an amusement park. Lots of fun, but when you leave you haven't actually gotten any closer to your destination.

The other problem with it is that it's just bad. Too often the argument devolves into the issue of whether ME2 fulfills the traditional role of a second act. I don't care if it does so perfectly; that doesn't change the fact that being railroaded into working with Cerberus, the retarded Human Reaper, the ridiculously constructed final choice, etc, are all horrible

[Dexi]

Not horrible, but could be better...

[bjdbwea]

That's very true. It wouldn't even matter that much that ME 2 is not a continuation of ME 1, if it would at least be good as a stand-alone game. But trilogy or not, the flaws of the game remain. And especially the main story would be just as bad if ME 2 would be a stand-alone game. In fact, it would be even worse, because ME 2 still benefits from the atmosphere and connection to the universe and to Shepard as our player character that ME 1 created.

[didymos1120]

That Yellow Bastard wrote...

I didn't feel like reading all that... so...

...I'll just say ME 1 had an amazing story and we need Drew back.

Kthnxbai

Why does no one seem to get that the story of either game was not the work of the Lead Writer alone?  People keep saying these things like they know what parts of ME1's plot were Drew's ideas, but the only ones who know are the people at Bioware.  I certainly have no clue who came up with what plot points for either of the games, and I've yet to see anything posted here that has any information about that.  Sure, we know who wrote the dialogue for this or that character in some cases, but the actual plotting of, well, any part of the games?  None of us really know a thing about that.

[SSV Enterprise]

I love how some people say ME2 has little or no contribution to the overall plot, and we haven't even seen how ME3 ties it all together.

People complain that certain decisons from ME1 have little effect in ME2. However, they didn't really have an effect in ME1 either. Does that suddenly make ME1 not contribute to the main plot? Also, a bunch of decisions in ME1 are left unresolved, just like in ME2. Again, does this make ME1 not contribute to the overall plot? Third, technically the galaxy is in the same condition at the end of ME1 as it was at the beginning: the Reapers are still coming. Sure, Sovereign was destroyed, but how is that any more significant than destroying the HR larva? Humanity can be poised to dominate the galaxy at the end of ME1 -- just like Cerberus can be poised to gain domination within the Alliance thanks to Reaper technology at the end of ME2.

Oh, and as for the complaints about being "railroaded" into working with Cerberus -- you were railroaded into being a Spectre in ME1, and no one complained then.  Although I for some I guess it was more satisfying to blow up the Council rather than essentially give TIM the finger.

If you're going to say ME2 did not contribute to the overall plot, you have to apply the same criteria to ME1; in that case, it contributes just as "little". Makes you wonder about the reasoning behind saying something doesn't contribute...

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 04 février 2011 - 10:33 .

[InvaderErl]

What ME2 did was it did a lot of building for the 3rd, which is what a second part SHOULD do.

Harbinger, Reaper reproduction, Dark Energy, the Geth-Quarian war and Admiral Xen as a likely antagonist, setting up alliances with possible future factions (the Krogan, Geth and Omega), introducing EDI, the whole Shadowbroker situation (pre and post DLC) and that's off the top of my head.

Some people have issue with moreso the direction the story took, which is ultimately a subjective experience but there's really little doubt ME3 is going to have more to do with ME2 than anything else.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 04 février 2011 - 12:30 .

[Sentox6]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
Oh, and as for the complaints about being "railroaded" into working with Cerberus -- you were railroaded into being a Spectre in ME1, and no one complained then.  Although I for some I guess it was more satisfying to blow up the Council rather than essentially give TIM the finger.

ME1 didn't have a prequel setting up the Spectres as an unambiguously evil and power-oriented terrorist organisation. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

If you're going to say ME2 did not contribute to the overall plot, you have to apply the same criteria to ME1; in that case, it contributes just as "little". Makes you wonder about the reasoning behind saying something doesn't contribute...

This argument would hold some merit if we knew the ME universe prior to the first game. As it was, the game served to introduce the entire plot and flesh out the universe. While it's true that within the universe events may not have critically advanced in ME1, we were constantly making discoveries as we progressed. ME2 mulls around largely with ancillary details, and its key contribution to the primary antoganists only serves to undermine Sovereign's assertions and render them a great deal more camp. This, of course, is ultimately subjective.

[InvaderErl]

Sentox6 wrote...

ME1 didn't have a prequel setting up the Spectres as an unambiguously evil and power-oriented terrorist organisation. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

The Paragon ending +  Overlord + Jack's mission + numerous references throughout the game make it clear that Cerberus is still quite nasty.

However what ME2 does is develop them past being one-dimensional goons/military extremists of the week that they were in ME1 by showing that the organization is actually staffed by human beings. That they develop what was once a bunch of faceless goons into a more three dimensional entity is a sign of good writing.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 04 février 2011 - 11:50 .

[ianmcdonald]

Cerberus existing in a moral gray area makes them way more interesting. ME1 paints them as a brutal terrorist group from a fairly limited perspective, but ME2 shines a different light on them. Viewing a group or character in a different light does not mean they've changed at all.

In fact, I feel like almost every character in the Mass Effect universe as morally gray. I wouldn't be too surprised if we found out things about the Reapers that we don't really expect.

Edit: I'm not saying Cerberus isn't nasty. They're definitely on the more evil side of things, but we shouldn't view things as just black and just white.

Modifié par ianmcdonald, 04 février 2011 - 11:51 .

[InvaderErl]

ianmcdonald wrote...

In fact, I feel like almost every character in the Mass Effect universe as morally gray. I wouldn't be too surprised if we found out things about the Reapers that we don't really expect.

The blurb that gets tossed your way near the end of the game leads me to believe that as well.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 04 février 2011 - 11:54 .

[InvaderErl]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
ME1 had many "independent short stories."  Heck, take a look at the core plot worlds.  How much of Noveria's plot was really relevant to the main plot of the game?  They even left Feros out of the comic and there was surprisingly little impact. 

Most importantly: In Feros Shepard gets the Cipher (which is... the most important thing after Shepard's assignment onto the first attacked colony) that allows him to understand the beacons.

It lets Shepard understand spoken Prothean and makes his vision SLIGHTLY clearer and if you take it out it does absolutely nothing to the story of ME1. If you were to remove it from the story Liara would still use her archaelogical know how to figure out the Conduit is on Iilos. Feros and the whole Cipher plot element was completely artifical and superfluous.  You can glance right over those facts and the person you were relating the story to wouldn't miss a thing.

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
He also got the knowledge of Protheans in his head. Also, the Thorian and its research station - big chunk of intel on what's actually going on with all these relics and whatnot

In what way? How does it tell you what's going on with what relics? Please elaborate. All it does is let you "think like a prothean" i.e. clean up the static from the vision (again something that could have been completely cut without making a difference to the plot).

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
corporations, research, technological advancements,

You're talking about Noveria I assume here, the corporate intrigue has absolutely no effect on the plot of even ME1 in a greater sense aside from somebody not letting you leave via the garage.

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
no or very minimal daddy issues.  Just useful information on how mentioned things and the ME universe operate in general, their motivation, goals and history.

3/12 characters quests had something to do with their fathers. That's hardly some overwhelming number not to mention ME1 had 2 characters whose relationship with their father was a pretty major part of their character one of which was a returning character whose loyalty quest keys us into the greater workings of the ME universe than Feros ever did.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 05 février 2011 - 01:50 .

[didymos1120]

InvaderErl wrote...
 That's hardly some overwhelming number not to mention ME1 had 2 characters whose relationship with their father was a pretty major part of their character one of which was a returning character whose loyalty quest keys us into the greater workings of the ME universe than Feros ever did.

More than just two:

Garrus talks about how he joined C-Sec mainly to please his father, but never quite felt it fit him, and talks about how his father didn't like Spectres.  Wrex's backstory is completely tied up with his father, and his "loyalty mission" is all about a promise to his grandfather.  Then there's Ash, whose grandfather's surrender caused her father to get screwed over career-wise, which in turn affected her Alliance career and fed her resentment towards and distrust of other species. 

And of course Tali, who has her own "loyalty mission" in ME1, which was to bring back something awesome from her Pilgrimage because she'd had a lot of pressure and expectation put on her due to father's status.  Plus a big part of her dialogue tree is about how her mom is dead and her dad wasn't that great a parent. 

Liara certainly has parental issues too: mommy number one is Saren's indoctrinated slave who you end up killing and mommy number two was another asari, which resulted in Liara feeling socially isolated.  Not to mention she never really got along very well with Benezia, she never knew "daddy" and worries about why she never got that chance. 

Even Kaidan fits into the general pattern: his big backstory element involves a major, and ultimately violent, conflict with a male authority figure when Kaidan was a teenager.  Gee, I wonder if that's modeled on anything from your typical real-world adolescence....no, of course not.  I'm sure it's just coincidence.

So basically, every ME1 character qualifies for what people around here like to label "daddy issues".

Modifié par didymos1120, 05 février 2011 - 02:19 .

[InvaderErl]

I COMPLETELY forgot about everyone outside of Tali and Ash. Very good points made.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 05 février 2011 - 02:17 .

[MassEffect762]

Dear Bioware,



The sole reason I own a 360 is ME3, if only one thing is Awesome about the finale I pray it's the story and its execution.



Shooter and RPG mechanics wont mean squat to me if the story is as lame as ME2.



My 00.2

[InvaderErl]

Man, I spend too much time on these forums. I can predict posts based on the avatar! O_O

[SSV Enterprise]

Sentox6 wrote...

ME1 didn't have a prequel setting up the Spectres as an unambiguously evil and power-oriented terrorist organisation. I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Saren in Revelation?  After reading about that monster in action, who would want to be a Spectre?  In fact, Spectres as a whole don't seem to be very friendly people.  According to Samara Nihlus was responsible for the deaths of innocents, and Tela Vasir worked with the Shadow Broker.

Being forced to work for an alien government which would not hesitate to put their own needs ahead of humanity's can be just as problematic to some as being forced to work for a radical "terrorist" group which puts the needs of humanity above everything else.

This argument would hold some merit if we knew the ME universe prior to the first game. As it was, the game served to introduce the entire plot and flesh out the universe. While it's true that within the universe events may not have critically advanced in ME1, we were constantly making discoveries as we progressed. ME2 mulls around largely with ancillary details, and its key contribution to the primary antoganists only serves to undermine Sovereign's assertions and render them a great deal more camp. This, of course, is ultimately subjective.

"Constantly making discoveries", hm?

-Discovered the Collectors on Freedom's Progress.  (Analogous to encountering the geth on Eden Prime.)
-Encountered Husks on Horizon, confirming the Reaper connection.
-Learned the truth about the Collectors on the Collector ship.
-Encountered the HR, which gives more insight to the nature of the Reapers and also establishes their interest in humanity (which as the trailer shows will be a big deal in ME3)

Seems like constantly making discoveries to me.