672 réponses à ce sujet

[Stephanis_mirabar]

I think that most of us here understand that the game was deliberately focused on building up the team, and that Bioware took a risk by doing so. Unfortunately the manner in which Bioware executed that decision was rather underwhelming.



The emphasis of the game is supposed to be on recruiting a group of highly trained fighters for the mission, equipping them, and then getting them to form into a cohesive team. The last step on there especially has potential for great moments where Shepard would have opportunities to shape the loyalties and motivations of his team members which would have consequences for their performance in the final mission. Instead we got two brief confrontations which ultimately made no substantial difference in the final outcome of the game. And (seemingly) because so much time and emphasis was spent on the underwhelming "team building" parts of the game, the main story was left rather underwhelming.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
Aside from some news reports and  an overall different feeling on The Citadel (which I actually admit was fairly well done) you don't really see that much difference at all though. Everywhere else everybody is in the same places doing the same things in either case, and it's all cheaply swept under the rug with a throwaway line from Jacob early in the game as if the writers knew it was a half-assed job and were trying to explain it away and get away with it by acknowledging it.

I think the problem is expectation. Bioware had the BS-train going full on about how dramatic their choices will be and how there will be differences or so on (I'm assuming) and so people expected massive swaths of exclusive content. It just isn't cost-justified to handle it that way, and it would mean to different games.

Just what would you expect a bloodless coup d'etat to look like? Armed bands of humans beating turians in the streets? And conversely, what should retaining the status quo look like?

What would you have done differently in terms of showing the Council choice?

Admittedly we're more in The Terminus Systems than we are in Council Space, but unless there are massive differences in ME3 I just don't see any real impact on your final ME1 decision of The Council on the Mass Effect universe, and it really should have made a big difference.

It made a huge decision. But how can it make a visible difference? If Clinton lost the election to Bush Sr., would America have looked differently in the 90s? The difference would be in policy, on the news, etc.

You're kidding, right? The entire first game is you serving The Council. That's what Spectres do.

No. In ME1 you're going after Saren. You could be doing it because you want to serve the Council. But you could be doing it solely to advance human interests and you could be using your political appointment for the sake of humanity.

Being a Spectre was important to the story, but the Council itself wasn't. Just look at all the ME1 human supremacist renegade dialogue.

They're a major part of the first section of the game before you can even leave The Citadel and a constant presence throughout the rest. Even you simply being a Spectre is a direct and constant reminder of their presence and influence.

Not really. Unless you think (for example) being a police officer is a constant and direct reminder of the presence and authority of a city mayor.

They're basically your bosses in ME1, just like how TIM basically is in ME2. On top of that you've got that whole tension of "do I serve The Council or The Alliance first and foremost?" They're just as important to ME1 as TIM is to ME2.

They're not your boses per se. Some Shepards could see it that way, but the game doesn't make the Council so strick and crucial you need to see it that way. That was ME1's strength that was absolutely lost with ME2 and Cerberus, I agree with you there.

As to your second point, that isn't related to the Council, because it isn't about the Council. It's about humanity's role in the galaxy. It's a question of ''Should humanity cooperate or dominate?''

The council is incidental to that question. Look at the paragon/renegade endings with a dead Council to see the difference. The problem was that the ME1 ending on this thematic was incoherent becasue it had humanity lead the way.

In fact, I actually wish I had as many opportunities to ignore, insult and cut off TIM in ME2 as I did with The Council in ME1.

I agree with you completely. Being forced to take orders from TIM was aggravating. And then you have this incoherent ending where Shepard grows a backbone and tells TIM to shove it, even when you give him the Collector base and might want to be a loyal Cerberus drone.

Yes he was. He dominated the first sections of the game, had a previous history with the main antagonist, is pretty much Shepard's mentor and father-figure, as well as his whole "almost the furst human Spectre" angle, the fact that he's the only one who really sticks up for Shepard and believes in him/her, and finally plays a major role in your escape after Lockdown. In ME2 he's a shadow of what he was in ME1.

No, he didn't. He was a footnote after the assault on Eden Prime, got a desk job for being a liability, and that ended his role in the story.

Shepard doesn't have to see Anderson as a father figure - you can be quite the jerkass to him. Anderson looks to Shepard as a son/daughter, but that's his deal.

Yeah, he has beef with Saren, but that doesn't make him important to the plot. His cameo as human Councillor/Udina's aide and his involvement with Alenko is about as important as anything he actually did - versus what you imagine he means - in ME1.

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it, the actual transition to Spectre is one of the most defining moments in the original game. It's a key moment for Shepard that changes him/her forever and defines him/her throughout the rest of the game. In ME2 it's treated like a cheap prize found in the bottom of a cereal box.

No, it isn't. You think it is because that's how you've built up for your Shepard. If you play it as a human supremacist, it's a political appointment that Shepard is taking to hunt down Saren. It means about as much as buying a new gun.

Not to mention it had the most ridiculous and lame speech and cringe-worthy music in the game short of Liara's ''it's not bestiality if you sleep with me!'' speeches.

[glacier1701]

Pacifien wrote...



Actually, the video I'm thinking about I believe predates the release of ME2 and it wasn't Casey Hudson. Dammit, now I have to devote time to finding it.

Not sure I recall such a video but I have a vague tingling in my spider sense that says we got some info in posts on the old forum and that that came through during the discussion on the boards about the Thane reveal and issues Paragon Shepards would have with that sequence. Not saying I am correct by any means but there or perhaps something that we got from Patrick Weekes while he was active on the boards during the time he broke his arm?

[Bourne Endeavor]

Pacifien wrote...

Not that it actually adds much to the discussion, but I'm looking at the 2009 E3 Reveal Trailer where Preston Watamaniuk says quite specifically "the squadmates are the focus of the game." Eventually I'll find the video where another developer mentions they were deliberately taking a risk with the focus of their game.

Not to nitpick or quote smudboy, who touched on this a while back but... Bioware is nigh blatantly lying to people in that video. A few noticeable examples?

"Surviving the SM depends on decisions you make during the game and when you get there."

See, that is not true. Shepard can survive the SM without upgrading the ship or doing any loyalty missions. While you will certainly loss at least half your squad. You will survive.

"He (Thane) is the most dangerous assassin in the galaxy. He is not the type of assassin who is going to kill someone with a sniper rifle."

... so then, why is Thane's weapon a sniper rifle?

Like I said, Smudboy already did this, noting about not being required to be in cover (you are) and among many other things. I merely find it incredibly ironic how inaccurate half of what they say is.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 10 janvier 2011 - 04:49 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
In fact, I actually wish I had as many opportunities to ignore, insult and cut off TIM in ME2 as I did with The Council in ME1.

Except your relationship with TIM was intended to serve as a foil to the relationship you previously had with the Council. TIM is a very pro-active individual. As Jacob tells us, Cerberus doesn't waste time with committees and bureaucracy. The very reason why Shepard joins up with TIM is because he has no other option available - the Council doesn't believe him and the galaxy assumes he is dead. TIM is effectively his only option and he's willing to foot the bill for a ship, a crew, and whatever else Shepard might need by way of resources. On top of that, he's got a large information network capable of identifying just what the Reapers are doing. It's not particularly wise to insult your sole benefactor, especially one who leads a terrorist organization, when you're trying to fight a war against mutant space ships. This is an example of picking and choosing your battles.  

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it, the actual transition to Spectre is one of the most defining moments in the original game. It's a key moment for Shepard that changes him/her forever and defines him/her throughout the rest of the game. In ME2 it's treated like a cheap prize found in the bottom of a cereal box.

It was purposely meant to be a cheap prize. The truth is that in Mass Effect 2, you are not the Council's baby spectre, you do not have immunity to the law, you are not some special little cupcake. You are operating in the Terminus Systems where no one cares about your name and the only law is your gun. This is quite different from Mass Effect where Shepard is able to show off his Spectre status everywhere he goes and effectively say "I can do whatever I want".

By Mass Effect 2, all that doesn't matter. You're dead and everyone's forgotten about you. Spectre status is no longer Shepard's claim to fame, but rather all his other accomplishments. When Anderson/the Council offers you Spectre status, the stipulation is that you remain outside of Council Space. They're basically trying to bribe you to stay out of the way. It was intended to be a hollow title at this point and I think it served its purpose rather well for character development. It's why I had my Shepard reject it from both Anderson and the Council because I knew that it was just a waste of time given the circumstances. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that you don't like what they did with it, but it's the equivalent of pointing to Empire Strikes back and saying the film was "too dark" compared to Episode IV; that was largely the point behind it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 janvier 2011 - 04:53 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

Not that it actually adds much to the discussion, but I'm looking at the 2009 E3 Reveal Trailer where Preston Watamaniuk says quite specifically "the squadmates are the focus of the game." Eventually I'll find the video where another developer mentions they were deliberately taking a risk with the focus of their game.

Not to nitpick or quote smudboy, who touched on this a while back but... Bioware is nigh blatantly lying to people in that video. A few noticeable examples?

"Surviving the SM depends on decisions you make during the game and when you get there."

See, that is not true. Shepard can survive the SM without upgrading the ship or doing any loyalty missions. While you will certainly loss at least half your squad. You will survive.

"He (Thane) is the most dangerous assassin in the galaxy. He is not the type of assassin who is going to kill someone with a sniper rifle."

... so then, why is Thane's weapon a sniper rifle?

Like I said, Smudboy already did this, noting about not being required to be in cover (you are) and among many other things. I merely find it incredibly ironic how inaccurate half of what they say is.

More or less.

Here is Smudboy's video:


EDIT: Most of the stuff in this video was said back in 2009 and consequently doesn't quite fit the final game, which makes sense considering how game development in general works, so I don't agree with everything Smudboy mentions. But I've posted the video anyway.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:36 .

[CroGamer002]

^I can debunk that sh*t easily.

[Bamboozalist]

If Mass Effect 2 doesn't work as a sequel than neither does The Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers. Let's look at the similarities.

All three trilogies have a single "unavoidable" death in the first act (Boromir, Obi-wan, and the Virmire Non-Survivor) and no deaths in the second act (you don't have any required deaths of squad mates in ME2)

All three trilogies have the original team splitting up in the second act and getting new allies/companions.

The second act of all three stories ends on an unresolved note with the main plot barely moved forward. (The rebellion is no closer to defeating the Empire, All Frodo and Sam did was get closer to Mordor, The Reapers are still coming)

All three are more focused on the characters and what they're going through emotionally than the more story driven first act.

Edit - @Smudboy's video: I stopped watching after he said pull and lift were the same thing. I guess I missed the part where lift pulled enemies to me. I don't care if they're similar, they're two different powers.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:08 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Are people really invoking the name of Smudboy in this thread? About promotional videos? You do realize Thane was a more emotional and somewhat ruthless character before the game came out right? Heck Thanes voice even changed. Things do change in development. These things happen. That is why I have never put much stock in pre release promotional videos. A large amount of the time they turn out to be false. I mean it happened with Mass Effect. It has happened with every Fable game. You know, plant an acorn, watch a tree grow. It happened with Ocarina of Time, It happened with Wind Waker. It happened with Twilight Princess.

I could go on and on but I assume you get the idea. I can't believe the argument got this petty. Oh wait no I've seen this happen at least 12 times on this forum. I'm no longer surprised. I get some people were upset. However some people loved the game and enjoyed the story. Regardless of anyones opinion Mass Effect 2 was a success critically. I know some fans would like to see change for ME 3 and they are welcome to seek it out. However calling Bioware blatant liars, blaming EA, blaming shooter fans, or blaming anyone for everything is not effective in my mind. I know civil discourse is not the norm on this forum but I really wish it was.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Quoted when I meant to edit.

Modifié par Sparda Stonerule, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:08 .

[Bamboozalist]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I could go on and on but I assume you get the idea. I can't believe the argument got this petty. Oh wait no I've seen this happen at least 12 times on this forum. I'm no longer surprised. I get some people were upset. However some people loved the game and enjoyed the story. Regardless of anyones opinion Mass Effect 2 was a success critically. I know some fans would like to see change for ME 3 and they are welcome to seek it out. However calling Bioware blatant liars, blaming EA, blaming shooter fans, or blaming anyone for everything is not effective in my mind. I know civil discourse is not the norm on this forum but I really wish it was.

3 humans, 6 opinions, etc...

In terms of discussing something of entertainment value consensus is very, very bad. With out disagreement entertainment stagnates and becomes even more of a repeativite stream of the same garbage over and over and over and over again, because if everyone likes it, there is no reason to change anything. Perfection is bad, if something is prefect than it can't be improved in the sequel, only copied.

[slimgrin]

Lol. That video has some good points actually. That cheesy promotional stuff is pretty painful to watch in hindsight.

Modifié par slimgrin, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:16 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I could go on and on but I assume you get the idea. I can't believe the argument got this petty. Oh wait no I've seen this happen at least 12 times on this forum. I'm no longer surprised. I get some people were upset. However some people loved the game and enjoyed the story. Regardless of anyones opinion Mass Effect 2 was a success critically. I know some fans would like to see change for ME 3 and they are welcome to seek it out. However calling Bioware blatant liars, blaming EA, blaming shooter fans, or blaming anyone for everything is not effective in my mind. I know civil discourse is not the norm on this forum but I really wish it was.

3 humans, 6 opinions, etc...

In terms of discussing something of entertainment value consensus is very, very bad. With out disagreement entertainment stagnates and becomes even more of a repeativite stream of the same garbage over and over and over and over again, because if everyone likes it, there is no reason to change anything. Perfection is bad, if something is prefect than it can't be improved in the sequel, only copied.

I never said people had to agree. I said they could disagree without blaming anything they can think of. They could also lay off on the personal insults. Like I said people can seek change for ME 3 if they think it will make the game better. I just grow weary of the exact same grindstones coming out about the exact same things and not adding anything, but instead wish to insist that ME 2 is inferior to ME. Helpful ideas are nice and I enjoy reading ideas about the Ammo and Talent systems. I don't like axe grinding though.

[Phaedon]

Aye, and excluding their individual arcs. How does the game acknowledge their existence? Samara and Garrus’ conflict are never again referenced to or even mentioned subsequent to their conclusion. When the focal point of a storyline is the characters and not the main plot; these characters should transcend and be predominant throughout the game. Samara’s code is in absolute contrast to virtually everyone aboard the Normandy, yet she has no words to express her opinion. Using the demonstration between Ash and Shepard, both characters develop during the main story, and in only mere seconds of dialogue. If Samara had questioned the crew or even herself for having to be apart of injustice based upon her perspective. She would grow and develop as a character outside of her loyalty mission. This would be an example of a character story. What ME2 can be described as is an episodic story. The qualm is it has a primary plot to adhere to; the Reapers. This was underdeveloped and frequently ignored to focus on episodic stories that are forgotten upon their conclusion.

Huh? I am not sure if I understand here, but why do you insist on implying that team interaction is the only thing that matters when it comes to individualization, when I ask you why? In fact, why do you think that ME1 had a better plot when there was even less team interaction?
As for your examples, Garrus' conflict is supposed to have been put behind for the sake of the mission, while Samara threatens to kill you if you go renegade. But what if it is their business? And, well, that's why squaddies interact with you in Legion's loyalty mission.

Every one of your rebuttals mentioning individualization is in regards to only when that character is on center stage. In every story excluding their own, they are almost entirely silent. No one says anything during another squad’s loyalty mission with few exceptions. Miranda is a hilarious example because a large portion of her character development is optional. She is arrogant enough to mention Veetor being returned unharmed if brought along for Tali’s loyalty mission, yet has no opinion beyond that? The Suicide Mission is even worse. She has a critical, character defining moment that is completely optional. If she is not in your party, you will never witness her development; that she has affirmed her loyalty to Shepard over TIM. This should be an essential part of her character but anyone not using her during the final boss will never see it.

Same here, you are arguing that the characters are poor because they only cared for their business? Why would Tali say anything about Niket for example? Shepard makes the decisions, they have no right to intervene at that point. As for Miranda's example which seems to be rather unrelated, you want her to reply to TIM when she is not even present.

Arguably, one of the worst examples is Legion during Tali’s loyalty mission. If brought, the entire early portion of the mission is altered. The Quarian guard is hostile immediately upon your arrival, Tali is weary of Shepard’s decision to bring Legion, Admiral Koris insinuates Tali is attempting to coerce support by bringing a Geth, each Admiral will offer their opinion of Legion and finally, Legion will answer their opinions with his own. This is the fundamental example of cause and effect in a narrative. Legion’s presence was the cause of hostility and as a result, it affect Tali’s loyalty mission because dialogue and character interaction was changed. Even better, Legion grew and Tali grew as characters, which is made apparent when Tali agrees with Legion after hearing Admiral Xen’s desire to dissect him. This is all exquisite development because every plot arc is addressed and developed. There is one significant problem. It was removed from the actual game and only accessible through modding. One of the best development moments of the entire game was removed and you wonder why we criticize the main story.

Well? Squaddies do comment on Shepard's decisions in their loyalty missions by default. And Legion only reacts because it's now his business as well.

What I described above should have been the standard. No, not every character would have an opinion of that magnitude but at least one or two would. Samara would have never walked away silently when innocents were stranded because of Zaeed’s selfish desire to pursue Vido. She may have accepted it because of her oath to Shepard but she most certainly should have commented.

As you said, she can't intervent, it's Shepard's decision. She can't act on her own.

This almost never happens and in a character driven storyline, it should be the absolute. Take away my quotes from your post and you have nearly as much content in ME2 where characters offer opinions outside their own arc.

This is the point where I get the feeling that we have played a different game. Most of the loyalty missions have moments like this where you ask your squaddies how they feel, try to comfort them, and this often happens after their mission, when you talk to them.

Lazuli actually offered a rather accurate description of ME2. The story coincides with a television series and is episodic in structure, as aforementioned. There would nary a qualm if there was not a main plot and that these characters were supposed to be that plot. A television show like Friends or Law & Order’s ‘main plot’ as it were, is about everyday life. They frankly, do not have a plot that leads outside of each episode. Coincidently, each character acknowledges one another, has discusses about what is transpiring in that specific episode and if there is a subsequent reference later into the series in another episode; the characters are all aware of or become aware of it. This does not happen in Mass Effect 2 and it has a main plot, hence why people criticize it.

And if you read my earlier post, this description applies to ME1 just as well. As for the story being criticized, well heh, we must be reading different kinds of reviews as well.

Correct, yet once they step outside the limelight. They no longer have an opinion or seem to exist. If I again reference to television. Friends has six characters, all of whom have an opinion regardless of who that episode is focusing on. Joey is a lady’s man and the remaining five cast always have an opinion about this, mostly negative. No one has an opinion other than Shepard about Garrus and Sidonis. It is never even mentioned afterward. I have already addressed this above but made the TV reference to drive home the point.

I believe there is something you are misconstruing. I do not believe Mass Effect’s story is the end all be all, hardly. It has numerous perplexing moments where my eyebrow raises, most noticeably about how inept Shepard is ay providing evidence. In addition, I do not dislike the recruitment or loyalty missions by their lonesome. It is both the main plot and how the characters interact in said plot, loyalty, and recruitment missions.

This has already been addressed.


Also, this video makes me angry. Arguing over semantics ftw. Had I not know the person who made that video I'd say that it was just a person with a lot of free time, but the motivation is different.

Modifié par Phaedon, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:24 .

[Moiaussi]

In Exile wrote...

They are plot holes becase they are incoherent unjustified implications (and possible contradictions) within ME1 lore by itself.

Shepard is seen as a stark-raving, frothing at the mout lutantic the entire game by everyone not named Anderson whenever it comes to the reapears. Then, with no new evidence whatsoever, they start to take him at his word. That's a completely unjustified 180. The Council (and Udina) never have proof that Sovereign is an actual repear. They just have proof that Saren attacked the Citadel with his massive geth warfleet and supership.

We also know that the entire turian, asari and salarian political and industrial base is completely unharmed. The council is dead, and the council fleet is broken, but these are not the political leaders of each species and the council fleet is not their entire military might.

So humanity taking over in ME2, like was suggested by the Council is dead endings (whether leading heroically or by force) is silly. That ME2 takes the Council as being dead as Always Human Powergrab is a good move, because regardless of Shepard's motives it makes sense for the move to be perceived that way.

I use the word plot hole because, relative to only things we know in ME1, both endings in ME1 are plot holes.

It is really that far fetched to you that they might start treating Shepard as something other than a madman? They were not just in denial about the reapers. They also denied the concept that Saren was an actual threat, or that Ilos was anything of importance at all. They figured simply having the fleet there would ensure victory and they nearly lost simply because they were unwilling to trust Shepard.

In other words, they were completely wrong about everything else Shepard (and Anderson) were saying, so why not reconsider whether they were wrong about the rest too?

And yes, Saren showed up on a super warship, but it was one they had no answer for that was as far beyond the Geth warships as it was beyond the Council warships, and of which the suggestion that it was merely a Geth ship was just another blind assumption.

Furthermore, the Alliance trusted Shepard. Upon achieving Spectre status, Shep could have turned his back on the Alliance, but he supports them 100% and vis versa. There is no indication at any point that the Alliance disbelieves him (other than Udina, who seems to act like he has a lot more authority than a mere ambassador). Besides contact in the field, the Alliance are literally ready on a momments notice and even take command instructions from Shep as to how to approach the battle. That isn't the kind of thing thing you hand over to a madman.

I agree that the suggestion of humanity taking over was a bit silly, but they would have controlled the citadel and now known they could use it to switch off (or on) the relays, which in turn controls communications, too. Shepard had to have had such information to have been able to turn them back on after cutting Sovereign off from the controls. There is no implication that they even tried in ME2. Or that it was even considered.

I repeat what I said earlier. Political decisions that are explainable but you simply don't agree with aren't plot holes. Radical statements or events at the end of a movie aren't either. The only reason they can be considered plot holes is the fact they are essentially tossed out the window in ME2.

Oh, and you want a plot hole? Shepard finds more beacons and more evidence in ME2, but does he take the intact beacon he finds to the Council? Of course not. That might upset TIM.....

[Bamboozalist]

Arguably, one of the worst examples is Legion during Tali’s loyalty mission. If brought, the entire early portion of the mission is altered.The Quarian guard is hostile immediately upon your arrival, Tali is weary of Shepard’s decision to bring Legion, Admiral Koris insinuates Tali is attempting to coerce support by bringing a Geth, each Admiral will offer their opinion of Legion and finally, Legion will answer their opinions with his own. This is the fundamental example of cause and effect in a narrative. Legion’s presence was the cause of hostility and as a result, it affect Tali’s loyalty mission because dialogue and character interaction was changed. Even better, Legion grew and Tali grew as characters, which is made apparent when Tali agrees with Legion after hearing Admiral Xen’s desire to dissect him. This is all exquisite development because every plot arc is addressed and developed. There is one significant problem. It was removed from the actual game and only accessible through modding. One of the best development moments of the entire game was removed and you wonder why we criticize the main story.

No it is not. There is nothing that prevents you from doing Tali's loyalty mission after you get the IFF nor will you be punished for not having a loyal legion in the suicide mission as long as you don't chose him for anything. It is perfectly possible to bring Legion to Tali's loyalty mission and have everyone survive the suicide mission. (Sometimes I get to do both Tali's loyalty mission and Legions before the Collectors abduct the crew)

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:32 .

[Aeowyn]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Arguably, one of the worst examples is Legion during Tali’s loyalty mission. If brought, the entire early portion of the mission is altered.The Quarian guard is hostile immediately upon your arrival, Tali is weary of Shepard’s decision to bring Legion, Admiral Koris insinuates Tali is attempting to coerce support by bringing a Geth, each Admiral will offer their opinion of Legion and finally, Legion will answer their opinions with his own. This is the fundamental example of cause and effect in a narrative. Legion’s presence was the cause of hostility and as a result, it affect Tali’s loyalty mission because dialogue and character interaction was changed. Even better, Legion grew and Tali grew as characters, which is made apparent when Tali agrees with Legion after hearing Admiral Xen’s desire to dissect him. This is all exquisite development because every plot arc is addressed and developed. There is one significant problem. It was removed from the actual game and only accessible through modding. One of the best development moments of the entire game was removed and you wonder why we criticize the main story.

No it is not. There is nothing that prevents you from doing Tali's loyalty mission after you get the IFF nor will you be punished for not having a loyal legion in the suicide mission as long as you don't chose him for anything. It is perfectly possible to bring Legion to Tali's loyalty mission and have everyone survive the suicide mission. (Sometimes I get to do both Tali's loyalty mission and Legions before the Collectors abduct the crew)

But you lose half your crew in the meantime

[Moiaussi]

In Exile wrote...

With regard to the Collectors - sure, it's about an enemy we never heard of, but there was no enemy to take up in ME2 short of the reapers invading that would provide continuity with ME1. Unless you wanted the geth to remain cut-out anatagonists?

The issue with the collectors is that they were already here, and should have had much better tech than the Geth, particularly since they are Prothean and been reaper puppets rather a lot longer.

So why were the Geth used, again? Or used alone? If a Prothean navy had supplemented the Geth, they could have won at the Citadel. Instead, even though they are a known race (who collect things, who noone, Shepard or otherwise, even considers trying to ask if they know anything about Reapers, Protheans, or Conduits) they suddenly turn out to be not just a second Reaper ally but modified Protheans.

Say what?

And I suppose the counter might be that they only have the one base, but if that is true... why is it true? Why no redundancy in the plan?

[Bamboozalist]

Aeowyn wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Arguably, one of the worst examples is Legion during Tali’s loyalty mission. If brought, the entire early portion of the mission is altered.The Quarian guard is hostile immediately upon your arrival, Tali is weary of Shepard’s decision to bring Legion, Admiral Koris insinuates Tali is attempting to coerce support by bringing a Geth, each Admiral will offer their opinion of Legion and finally, Legion will answer their opinions with his own. This is the fundamental example of cause and effect in a narrative. Legion’s presence was the cause of hostility and as a result, it affect Tali’s loyalty mission because dialogue and character interaction was changed. Even better, Legion grew and Tali grew as characters, which is made apparent when Tali agrees with Legion after hearing Admiral Xen’s desire to dissect him. This is all exquisite development because every plot arc is addressed and developed. There is one significant problem. It was removed from the actual game and only accessible through modding. One of the best development moments of the entire game was removed and you wonder why we criticize the main story.

No it is not. There is nothing that prevents you from doing Tali's loyalty mission after you get the IFF nor will you be punished for not having a loyal legion in the suicide mission as long as you don't chose him for anything. It is perfectly possible to bring Legion to Tali's loyalty mission and have everyone survive the suicide mission. (Sometimes I get to do both Tali's loyalty mission and Legions before the Collectors abduct the crew)

But you lose half your crew in the meantime

No, you don't. IFF - > Tali's Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4. Or sometimes if you're lucky IFF -> Tali's Loyalty -> Legion's Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4.

There is literally NOTHING in the game preventing you from bringing Legion to Tali's loyalty. Even if Legion isn't loyal during the SM you can still get EVERYONE out alive as long as you don't chose Legion for any task or bring him to the final boss.

[Moiaussi]

Aeowyn wrote...

But you lose half your crew in the meantime

There is a thread here in which people discuss considering that a blessing rather than a punishment and revelling in how they killed off all the characters they personally don't like.

[In Exile]

Moiaussi wrote...
It is really that far fetched to you that they might start treating Shepard as something other than a madman? They were not just in denial about the reapers. They also denied the concept that Saren was an actual threat, or that Ilos was anything of importance at all. They figured simply having the fleet there would ensure victory and they nearly lost simply because they were unwilling to trust Shepard.

In other words, they were completely wrong about everything else Shepard (and Anderson) were saying, so why not reconsider whether they were wrong about the rest too?

Let's flash back to WWII. Let's say Roosevelt has a top CIA operative working on investigating the Japanese. This man tells Roosevelt that another American CIA has betrayed the US, and is working with Japan to attack Pearl Harbour and bring Satan and his demons into the world from hell.

Even if you're totally right about all the non-crazy parts of your plan, you're still spouting off something insane at the end of it. Even if everything happens the way you've said so far, none of that is proof for anything else you say. At best, it adds to your credibility... but it still comes down to your word.

Believing the reapers are coming is equivalent to believing Satan is coming to bring about the apocalypse.

And yes, Saren showed up on a super warship, but it was one they had no answer for that was as far beyond the Geth warships as it was beyond the Council warships, and of which the suggestion that it was merely a Geth ship was just another blind assumption.

It's reasonable speculation. When Nagasaki and Hiroshima was nuked, the Japanese could have assumed Zeus was pissed off and threw a thunderbolt. Certainly no known weapon could have done that alone. But extraordinary claims require evidence.

This is why, for example, people are disinclined to believe leprechauns stole their socks when they can't find one.

ETA:

If my best friend is right about a lot of normal things (like why my gf dumped me, or how I should dress to get a job at an interview) that doesn't mean he's right if he tells me aliens replaced his family.

Furthermore, the Alliance trusted Shepard. Upon achieving Spectre status, Shep could have turned his back on the Alliance, but he supports them 100% and vis versa. There is no indication at any point that the Alliance disbelieves him (other than Udina, who seems to act like he has a lot more authority than a mere ambassador). Besides contact in the field, the Alliance are literally ready on a momments notice and even take command instructions from Shep as to how to approach the battle. That isn't the kind of thing thing you hand over to a madman.

Speaking of absolutely unjustifiable moves, this was one of them. ME2 tried to at least fix how absolutely ridiculous this was by saying the fleet took the lead from the Normandy, but keep in mind that Shepard did not tell Hackett what to do. He told Joker what to do, and it seems the alliance just followed the lead of the Normandy.

Again - backing up Shepard when he says stuff that isn't insane is different than backing up Shepard when he says stuff that is clearly insane.

If I have heart disease, I will trust my cardiologist when he tells me to take beta-blockers. If he calls a priest over and says they need to exorcise a demon that's taken possesion of my soul, suddenly the fact I respect his medical expertiese is no longer as relevant.

This is the same thing. Even if the Alliance is going to allow Shepard to make tactical decisions, that's a little different from taking (from their PoV) his insane ramblings to heart.

I agree that the suggestion of humanity taking over was a bit silly, but they would have controlled the citadel and now known they could use it to switch off (or on) the relays, which in turn controls communications, too. Shepard had to have had such information to have been able to turn them back on after cutting Sovereign off from the controls. There is no implication that they even tried in ME2. Or that it was even considered.

No, they couldn't have done any of these things. Not even Vigil could control the Citadel to that extent. All they could do was cut Sovereign out of the citadel.

That humanity could control the relays might justify why the turians/asari/salarians didn't just start and out and out war with humanity over what happened, but it certainly won't justify the human renessaince ME was trying to pull.

I repeat what I said earlier. Political decisions that are explainable but you simply don't agree with aren't plot holes. Radical statements or events at the end of a movie aren't either. The only reason they can be considered plot holes is the fact they are essentially tossed out the window in ME2.

No, they aren't. ME2 addresses both in a logical way. They are plot holes in ME1. You haven't managed to explain either of them. You've just offered an explanation for them, which if that was some kind of meaningful standard, we could wipe away all plotholes in ME2 by saying there is an explanation for them, no matter how bad.

Oh, and you want a plot hole? Shepard finds more beacons and more evidence in ME2, but does he take the intact beacon he finds to the Council? Of course not. That might upset TIM.....

That I am saying ME1 had crappy writting does not mean I think ME2 was any better.

Modifié par In Exile, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:56 .

[In Exile]

Moiaussi wrote...

The issue with the collectors is that they were already here, and should have had much better tech than the Geth, particularly since they are Prothean and been reaper puppets rather a lot longer.

So why were the Geth used, again? Or used alone?

That's totally a plot hole. I'm not disagreeing with you. My point was rather that ME1 did not really leave it open for any old enemy to show up other than the Geth or reapers.

If a Prothean navy had supplemented the Geth, they could have won at the Citadel. Instead, even though they are a known race (who collect things, who noone, Shepard or otherwise, even considers trying to ask if they know anything about Reapers, Protheans, or Conduits) they suddenly turn out to be not just a second Reaper ally but modified Protheans.

Say what?

And I suppose the counter might be that they only have the one base, but if that is true... why is it true? Why no redundancy in the plan?

The whole plot is just spinning its wheels. Honestly, ME2 should have been about investigating dark energy, and that should have basically been how the reapers returned. Shepard tries to stop the repears, and maybe blows up one star or whatever that apparently stops the wormhole, and the we cut away to tens of other starts opening up the same way, and the reaper fleet entering the galaxy.

That would be a dark ending to a bridge game.

[cachx]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...
Bioware: LOOK AT OUR AWARDS!!!
Fan: [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

That's hilarious! specially when you think that a lot of the awards were actually Fan Voted. I pointed this out earlier in the thread, but I'm saying it again, you know, for emphasis...

Now let me ask you guys a question.
Through the recruitment / loyalty missions, we also got to learn and experience a lot of stuff related to the ME universe, including stuff like:

+The migrant fleet
+The true/heretic geth
+The escalating conflict between the previous 2
+The Krogan culture and how they're dealing with the genophage (wich can vary depending on ME1 decisions).
+Life on the terminus systems (Illium, Omega) or "why is the council is scared ****less of it".
+The various merc groups.
+Cerberus, and more stuff they had done.
+The Shadow Broker

Is all that stuff meaningless to you? does it really not advance or impact the Mass Effect universe at all?

[khevan]

cachx wrote...

*minorquotesnippage*

Now let me ask you guys a question.
Through the recruitment / loyalty missions, we also got to learn and experience a lot of stuff related to the ME universe, including stuff like:

+The migrant fleet
+The true/heretic geth
+The escalating conflict between the previous 2
+The Krogan culture and how they're dealing with the genophage (wich can vary depending on ME1 decisions).
+Life on the terminus systems (Illium, Omega) or "why is the council is scared ****less of it".
+The various merc groups.
+Cerberus, and more stuff they had done.
+The Shadow Broker

Is all that stuff meaningless to you? does it really not advance or impact the Mass Effect universe at all?

All of this stuff is not meaningless.  It's all good stuff, and I've previously mentioned that in and of themselves, the Loyalty missions and recruitment missions were very well done with interesting stories.  Hopefully the stuff you mention will have a large effect in ME3, or at least something more than an email you can't respond to.

The big problem with ME2's plot is that it's supposed to be a mission focused on the characters, and how Shepard recruits this disparate band of dangerous individuals for what amounts to a suicide mission.  In any story like that, there should be some element of how the team learns to work together.  A team isn't a team if it's just a collection of individuals.  ME2 simply had no elements of team-building, no missions where squad-mates learn to trust each other, learn to watch each others backs, etc.  There's almost no character interaction amongst a squad in a game that should be all about squad interaction.

This isn't a "This is why ME1 was so much better" post, because ME2 actually did more with the squad than ME1 did.  It's just that ME1 wasn't supposed to be about the squad, and ME2 was.  ME2 just felt more disappointing to me because of this point.

[Forsythia]

Yeah, the story was about the characters. The problem I have is that the team doesn't feel like a team at all. It could've helped if they interacted more, or even had a standard uniform. I wanted my team to be a family I cared for, where I would do anything to save them. Other than a few favourites, I don't care if one of the characters gets his face blown off.



Compare it to an amazing show like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The characters feel like one big family. And while I don't like some characters, I don't want any of them to die.



Too many characters in ME2 feel like cannon fodder. Maybe it's because there are too many characters to begin with.