672 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Forsythia wrote...

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.

Oh, you mean we should compare a 20-40 game to a show that ran for 176 episodes over seven seasons?  Yeah, that makes sense. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:00 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Team interaction separates characters from being fluff or over glorified cannon fodder. By expressing their opinion, they develop and grow as characters and if this were implemented during the main plot. The results of said plot would further develop their character. This would make them individual and not merely a faceless NPC. Now before you scream foul upon that remark, note I am referring only to when the character is not standing on center stage; when they are the third squad mate or throughout the majority of the main plot.

Correct, but no one has any opinion? This does not necessarily equate to Thane walking up to Garrus during his calibration marathon but if taken on his loyalty mission he is silent. For a character driven story, this is poor writing because the characters become irrelevant the moment they are divorced from their arc.

To further touch upon the individualization argument, I cite the Suicide Mission. No matter whom I choose to lead the second fire squad, everyone does an equally successful job. The Tech Expert is killed due to a stray rocket and bad luck. This means they are not individuals but one in the same and nothing changes.

For Mass Effect, the plot is better because the character develop during it. I am essentially repeating myself at this juncture but lass; we talk to Wrex about the genophage and what has become of his people. Upon reaching Virmire, the main objective is to destroy Saren’s base to prevent an apparent cure for the genophage. Wrex’s story was brought into the main plot and he reacts because of it. Consequently, Ashley reacts because of Wrex. This is all during the main plot and involves two characters who have little to no connection between one another. That is an example of a good plot and character development.

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.

To express their opinion, why is that so difficult to fathom? We have this immensely diverse group and they remain completely silent. An actual good example is if Jack is brought along during Miranda’s loyalty mission. When Captain Enyala makes a snide remark about Miranda’s outfit, Jack laughs and mockingly asks Shepard if they are still recruiting. This is good Jack is expressing her opinion. Unfortunately, it is remarkably rare.

Why I specifically highlighted the Miranda/TIM exchange is because that is a significantly defining character moment for Miranda. It would have been better if it happened after the SM and was not optional, excluding of course if she is dead. Regardless, it happened during the main plot, which almost unheard of. So I am not overly vexed by the result.

Other stuff

You are missing the point. I am not arguing about the character that is in the limelight. I am arguing for the lack of opinions from the others, who merely stand around saying nothing. If this was the exception and not the rule, it would be much less an issue however when the main plot resurfaces, everyone reacts this way. They hardly say two words and are completely irrelevant.

Allow a comparison, between the end game decisions of ME and ME2.When we are deciding whether to save the Council, your squad offers an opinion. Admittedly, the dialogue is recycled but that is a ME flaw. In ME2 they say nothing until the epilogue. A better example is if Wrex is brought to Noveria, he has a unique opinion due to his backstory, where millions of Krogan lost their lives because of the Rachni. This angers him and he expresses this anger my mocking you if you sent the Queen free.

Samara during Zaeed’s loyalty is akin to Wrex being completely silent and not giving a damn what you do about the Rachni, despite it being heavily out of character for him to do so. She may not be capable of preventing the deaths of those innocents but she would have an opinion.

When it comes to the squad, they simply do not acknowledge each other’s existence, excluding few moments. For a character driven plot, this equates to poor writing.

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.

No, I believe the Virmire and Noveria instances speak for themselves. Regardless, separate character development is not what the issue amongst people who criticize ME2 is. It is the complete lack of development outside their brief arc. They do nothing throughout the main plot and nothing in a loyalty mission not their own. There are few diamonds in the rough and I have mentioned a few but again, they are extremely rare.

Bamboozalist wrote...

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.

The problems with this are numerous. It requires the player to either miss content or loss half their crew. This is essentially the game informing you that in order to view arguably the best example of character development in the game. You will have to be punished. That is a horrendously poor design option. On and basing it on luck of the draw is simply facepalm worthy. No company should brag about you narrowly avoiding being punished. Furthermore, it is not widely apparent. The average person would not consider in order to view content, they have to play Russian Roulette.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:12 .

[ZLurps]

I did my ME2 play trough with all the DLC story missions (including Kasumi, Zaheed and LotSB where you do mission with Liara, even though she's not part of your crew.) and had really good time playing the game. When I did SM mission for a first time Jack died. While watching ending credits rolling I felt I weren't completely satisfied, I had to go and reload, choose different biotic and get my whole team survive. I didn't do do it because I just had to get achievement for having your entire party survive, but because I just wanted to have her survive.

So yes, for me characters were the story and I applaud for Bioware how they executed the idea.
Another thing though not character, was how the world was implemented, I stopped at places, especially on Illum just to watch surrounding world, traffic, etc.

I didn't really thought or felt "it's about characters" when I played the game and enjoyed it. When I think about it now, it was perhaps good thing I weren't aware how it's about characters, because last time I read how "It's about characters" it was related to new Battlestar Galactica and I kept watching it just because sometimes I find wrecks interesting or perhaps I'm a masochist.


Also...

Pacifien wrote...

adam_grif wrote...
You sound bitter, Pacifien.

You'd be bitter, too, if you spent 4 months of your life rewriting Return of the Jedi.

:D:D

[Marta Rio]

cachx wrote...
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:

*snip

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

It ain't meaningless; it's quite interesting.  But information does not equal plot.  I'll use the novel Rendevous with Rama as an example - lots of interesting information is presented, but it basically has a non-existent plot.  Each scene in that narrative is just a way of getting information across about a piece of alien technology.

ME2 of course, is different from that.  You could argue that all of the things you mention above color the character development, and what we're arguing about here is whether the character development in ME2 constitutes a coherent story.  I'm leaning toward the argument it doesn't really, because you could take certain character modules out and the overall story wouldn't change all that much.

People have offered the Empire Strikes back as a point of comparison: it's a character-based story in which not much, other than the characters, changes over the course of the movie.  However, take out Luke, Han, or Leia, and the entire character development arc falls apart.  But in ME2, if you remove Thane or Garrus, or Tali, or whomever, not much happens.  And as people have pointed out, this is due to a lack of interactions between the characters.

Modifié par Marta Rio, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:14 .

[Bamboozalist]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

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.

The problems with this are numerous. It requires the player to either miss content or loss half their crew.

IFF -> Tali's Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4.
IFF -> Tali's Loyalty -> Legion's Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4

Explain to me how you lose half your crew with either of those.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:15 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Bamboozalist wrote...

IFF -> Tali's Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4.

This results in the half your crew dying. If someone is playing a Paragon, they are forced to decide between Legion's loyalty mission or their crew.

IFF -> Tali's Loyalty -> Legion's
Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4

You admitted yourself, this is based on luck. It is more probable the Crew Abduction plot will initiate immediately subsequent to the conclusion of another mission.

I answered both of these already.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:18 .

[Moiaussi]

In Exile wrote...


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.

If on the final approach to Berlin, the allies had to fight a demon supporting the Germans, then maybe the plan wouldn't have seemed quite so crazy, would it?

You also seem to be forgetting that the Reapers really are coming. Shepard isn't crazy. Liara already had evidence of the Reaper cycles before meeting Shepard.

Flash back to WWII, though. A British politician had been raving about Hitler and the Germans for years. There was actual reason to consider him a madman, since the last time he was in control of the navy, he sent them on a disasterous plan to take Turkey out of WWI (Galipoli, which by all accounts was a pretty spectacular failure).

And yet when the Germans attacked, he not only was put back into power, but promoted to Prime Minister and led the British spectacularly well.

Not to mention there would have been huge benefits to using the Reapers as a political reason to justify rebuilding the fleets. Could play down the threat from its full extent (supported by the fact that they did win at the Citadel), but there was no reason to simply dismiss it, even if they didn't believe it.

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.

Well other than the fact that the US weren't claiming any such divine strategic power and that the science behind such weapons was known by others, including the Germans, the western allies and if not immediately, soon after, the Russians.

And there was no Prothean 'early warning' warning of weapons such as A-bombs coming from Zeus, or aliens, or anywhere.

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.

So you are saying that the fleet took orders from an inexperienced ship's pilot rather than from the ship's inexperienced captain despite the pilot being with the fleet and having no better information than they do other than any instructions from Shepard?

Not to mention you keep saying 'clearly insane' despite the fact the Reapers are coming and Shepard isn't insane, his doctor on the Normandy doesn't consider him insane, and no Alliance doctor nor any other has declared him insane, rendering your cardiologist example just another straw man.

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.

Umm.. Vigil isn't on the citadel and wasn't able to insert the override program, otherwise Shepard wouldn't have to have fought his way to the interface. You really love your straw men, don't you? I agree that any such actions on the part of humanity would have been foolish, but there are many on the boards here who were defending them anyway. Keep in mind that not only would humanity have controlled the relays, but would also (at least temporarily) have had the largest fleet. War wouldn't have been a cakewalk for the other races. At any rate, any such war certainly wouldn't have been resolved within two years.

And again, that you personally disagree with such a decision doesn't make it a plot hole.

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.

Your 'logical way' is to dismiss them as if it was the Council or Udina that had a mommentarly lapse of insanity in supporting Shepard.  You don't like the ending of ME1, so you don't mind it being completely tossed out the window.

[Bamboozalist]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

IFF -> Tali's Loyalty -> Crew Abduction -> Omega 4.

This results in the half your crew dying.

NO IT DOESN'T! See how Omega 4 is right after Crew Abduction? That means that none of your crew dies.

As for being forced to chose? Do the suicide mission and then do legion's loyalty mission. He doesn't instantly die from not being loyal. In fact I've gone into the SM with out Tali or Legion being loyal because I wanted to recruit Tali with Legion in my party and still had both of them survive.

The "I can't bring Legion to do X" BS doesn't fly, you can and you can have everyone including your crew live.

[Elite Midget]

Wait? The Characters were the story and not Shepard and his/her quest to save the Universe?



The heck? /sarcasm

[Phaedon]

Team interaction separates characters from being fluff or over glorified cannon fodder. By expressing their opinion, they develop and grow as characters and if this were implemented during the main plot. The results of said plot would further develop their character. This would make them individual and not merely a faceless NPC. Now before you scream foul upon that remark, note I am referring only to when the character is not standing on center stage; when they are the third squad mate or throughout the majority of the main plot.

Regardless of that being already done by recruitment and loyalty missions, dialogue and squad banter (out of which, these things either didn't exist in ME1, or just were less), how Mass Effect 1 was better when it comes to team interaction? All we got was Ashley questioning what Liara said after a mission while everybody else just stood there.

Correct, but no one has any opinion? This does not necessarily equate to Thane walking up to Garrus during his calibration marathon but if taken on his loyalty mission he is silent. For a character driven story, this is poor writing because the characters become irrelevant the moment they are divorced from their arc.

I agree that this was something that Bioware should have paid more attention to, but this doesn't apply to the whole game.

To further touch upon the individualization argument, I cite the Suicide Mission. No matter whom I choose to lead the second fire squad, everyone does an equally successful job. The Tech Expert is killed due to a stray rocket and bad luck. This means they are not individuals but one in the same and nothing changes.

And I am going to remind you of the 'Hold the line' part of the Suicide Mission. A loyal Mordin could die because he was not good enough in combat, and an unloyal Grunt could die because he was too arrogant.

For Mass Effect, the plot is better because the character develop during it. I am essentially repeating myself at this juncture but lass; we talk to Wrex about the genophage and what has become of his people. Upon reaching Virmire, the main objective is to destroy Saren’s base to prevent an apparent cure for the genophage. Wrex’s story was brought into the main plot and he reacts because of it. Consequently, Ashley reacts because of Wrex. This is all during the main plot and involves two characters who have little to no connection between one another. That is an example of a good plot and character development.

Excuse me? Mass Effect had better character development?

Well let's see, Wrex was the only one who had something to do with the plot, whereas in Mass Effect 2, every squaddie from the start is supposed to be recruited in order to attack the Collector Base. Where's the rest of character development? The squad banter and the ship banter were very disappointing, whereas Mass Effect 2 had 2 whole missions devoted for each squaddie's character development.

To express their opinion, why is that so difficult to fathom? We have this immensely diverse group and they remain completely silent. An actual good example is if Jack is brought along during Miranda’s loyalty mission. When Captain Enyala makes a snide remark about Miranda’s outfit, Jack laughs and mockingly asks Shepard if they are still recruiting. This is good Jack is expressing her opinion. Unfortunately, it is remarkably rare.

I do think that they should have not been frequent. Maybe not so much rare, but that really doesn't support your argument. How did Mass Effect have better character development because of this?

Why I specifically highlighted the Miranda/TIM exchange is because that is a significantly defining character moment for Miranda. It would have been better if it happened after the SM and was not optional, excluding of course if she is dead. Regardless, it happened during the main plot, which almost unheard of. So I am not overly vexed by the result.

Miranda already had 2 missions devoted to her character development. Losing a few seconds isn't as harmful as you claim for it to be.

You are missing the point. I am not arguing about the character that is in the limelight. I am arguing for the lack of opinions from the others, who merely stand around saying nothing. If this was the exception and not the rule, it would be much less an issue however when the main plot resurfaces, everyone reacts this way. They hardly say two words and are completely irrelevant.



Allow a comparison, between the end game decisions of ME and ME2.When we are deciding whether to save the Council, your squad offers an opinion. Admittedly, the dialogue is recycled but that is a ME flaw. In ME2 they say nothing until the epilogue. A better example is if Wrex is brought to Noveria, he has a unique opinion due to his backstory, where millions of Krogan lost their lives because of the Rachni. This angers him and he expresses this anger my mocking you if you sent the Queen free.

That's wrong. Not so frequent as it should have been? Maybe. 'Not until the epilogue?' definitely not. Squaddies to express their opinion, 'That was too extreme Commander' etc.

When it comes to the squad, they simply do not acknowledge each other’s existence, excluding few moments. For a character driven plot, this equates to poor writing.

Poor writing as a whole? No. Poor writing moments? Maybe, but those were present in both games.

No, I believe the Virmire and Noveria instances speak for themselves. Regardless, separate character development is not what the issue amongst people who criticize ME2 is. It is the complete lack of development outside their brief arc. They do nothing throughout the main plot and nothing in a loyalty mission not their own. There are few diamonds in the rough and I have mentioned a few but again, they are extremely rare.

Again, no. Maybe not as frequent as it should have been. I don't see what you are trying to prove by mentioning Virmire and Noveria. The writing was certainly not exceptional in either.

[Marta Rio]

Phaedon wrote...

For Mass Effect, the plot is better because the character develop during it. I am essentially repeating myself at this juncture but lass; we talk to Wrex about the genophage and what has become of his people. Upon reaching Virmire, the main objective is to destroy Saren’s base to prevent an apparent cure for the genophage. Wrex’s story was brought into the main plot and he reacts because of it. Consequently, Ashley reacts because of Wrex. This is all during the main plot and involves two characters who have little to no connection between one another. That is an example of a good plot and character development.

Excuse me? Mass Effect had better character development?
Well let's see, Wrex was the only one who had something to do with the plot, whereas in Mass Effect 2, every squaddie from the start is supposed to be recruited in order to attack the Collector Base. Where's the rest of character development? The squad banter and the ship banter were very disappointing, whereas Mass Effect 2 had 2 whole missions devoted for each squaddie's character development.

I don't think the person you're quoting is arguing that ME1 has "better" character development (where better = more, I guess).  He/she is arguing that the strength of the ME1 plot is aided by the fact that the character development fits in organically in the main story.  ME1's character development doesn't need to hold up the plot.  ME2's character development does, because it "is the plot".

[didymos1120]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
 The Tech Expert is killed due to a stray rocket and bad luck. This means they are not individuals but one in the same and nothing changes.

The techie is killed because under that pressure of constant fire, they screw up when bypassing the door systems, resulting in a jam, which requires Shep to help them force the doors closed.  They then expose their head in the closing gap, and get nailed in the face with the rocket at the last moment.  It's directly related to their technical ability.  You simply didn't pick up on that fact.

[Lotto]

maybe if the "characters' stories" actually advanced the plot, i'd like it. instead, i'll have to shell out twenty extra dollars on bridging dlc.

[Archereon]

Nightwriter wrote...

Inspired by Casey Hudson’s statement that people who speak of ME2’s lack of story do not understand that the characters are the story. I think this deserves some thought and respect. Actual quote I paraphrased is here.

To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

With Casey's interpretation, all this will be ruined if it is announced that most if not all of our companions from the previous games are gone.

In my opinion, if we keep the squad, and they are relevant to the plot, Mass Effect 2 had a satisfactory, if overly episodic story.

If we drop the squad: Ruined Forever.  Seriously.

If the squad comes back, but is essentially a bunch of cardboard cutouts that do nothing for the story: Mass Effect 2 had a s***y story.

[Bamboozalist]

didymos1120 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
 The Tech Expert is killed due to a stray rocket and bad luck. This means they are not individuals but one in the same and nothing changes.

The techie is killed because under that pressure of constant fire, they screw up when bypassing the door systems, resulting in a jam, which requires Shep to help them force the doors closed.  They then expose their head in the closing gap, and get nailed in the face with the rocket at the last moment.  It's directly related to their technical ability.  You simply didn't pick up on that fact.

He was saying the fire team leader still results in them dying. Which I can understand in the sense that they're not experienced enough to provide ample covering fire?

[Il Divo]

Moiaussi wrote...

If on the final approach to Berlin, the allies had to fight a demon supporting the Germans, then maybe the plan wouldn't have seemed quite so crazy, would it?

 Sovereign's existence as a giant space ship however does not let us point to it and say "See! Reapers do exist!".   The Council knew of Sovereign's existence and had a crude idea of what it was capable of based on footage from Eden Prime and Virmire, yet they still dismissed it as merely a geth supership considering the Geth had not been seen beyond the Veil for 200 years. Shepard  was not even able to identify that Sovereign was a Reaper until the AI addressed him directly. Why should the Council be any different?

You also seem to be forgetting that the Reapers really are coming. Shepard isn't crazy. Liara already had evidence of the Reaper cycles before meeting Shepard.

Except this is irrelevant. Shepard believing/knowing that the Reapers are coming does not equal the Council, Hackett, or the Alliance believing it is so. They are coming from the perspective that everything Shepard says about the Reapers is insane. To counter your counter, even if Satan is coming and I'm not insane my words alone can't be used as evidence to prove this to other people. Something external to all of us has to be considered.
 
What you are suggesting is the rough equivalent of me having  a vision of God speaking to me in my dreams and attempt to use this to prove to other people that God exists. Saying "He spoke to me in a dream!" won't quite cut it for most others.

Evidence regarding Liara is also suspect since even before she met Shepard, no one would take her seriously due to her age and lack of experience.

Flash back to WWII, though. A British politician had been raving about Hitler and the Germans for years. There was actual reason to consider him a madman, since the last time he was in control of the navy, he sent them on a disasterous plan to take Turkey out of WWI (Galipoli, which by all accounts was a pretty spectacular failure).

And yet when the Germans attacked, he not only was put back into power, but promoted to Prime Minister and led the British spectacularly well.

This is a completely different example however. Even if people refused to believe that Hitler and Germany would attack, it still considered to be in the realm of 'possibility'. People can fathom the possibility of Hitler/Germany attacking even if they believed it would never happen. Demons invading from Hell occupies a completely different level of insane though. If after becoming Prime Minister, that same British Politician attempted to tell us that Demons are coming he would still be removed from office despite his earlier credibility because what he is now suggesting to us goes above and beyond the realm of believability.

Shepard's situation is much the same. He proved he was right regarding Saren and the Conduit, both of which are contained within the realms of possibility. A Spectre going rogue has happened before, as other characters admit, so it's within the realms of possibility only Shepard did not have evidence of that at the time. Shepard being right about Saren however does not entitle his every unsupported claim to be believed.

Not to mention there would have been huge benefits to using the Reapers as a political reason to justify rebuilding the fleets. Could play down the threat from its full extent (supported by the fact that they did win at the Citadel), but there was no reason to simply dismiss it, even if they didn't believe it.

Why are the Reapers necessary in the first place to justify rebuilding the fleets? All they have to say is "We were attacked by the Get - we need to rebuild our forces". Reapers are unnecessary.

Well other than the fact that the US weren't claiming any such divine strategic power and that the science behind such weapons was known by others, including the Germans, the western allies and if not immediately, soon after, the Russians.

And there was no Prothean 'early warning' warning of weapons such as A-bombs coming from Zeus, or aliens, or anywhere.

The warning to which you refer however was only available to Shepard himself. The Council does not have access to Shepard's visions so that can't be used to prove to them that Reapers exist. Remember, they think the beacon scrambled Shepard's brain.

Not to mention you keep saying 'clearly insane' despite the fact the Reapers are coming and Shepard isn't insane, his doctor on the Normandy doesn't consider him insane, and no Alliance doctor nor any other has declared him insane, rendering your cardiologist example just another straw man.

Shepard's POV does not equal the Council's POV. Even if I have seen the demons and know they are coming, I can't expect anyone to take me at my word. Plus, if someone had told me that a race of super-intelligent machines were coming to cull the galaxy of all life and that they'd done this without fail since the start of time, I'd label whoever made such a claim as 'insane'. So no, Inexile is not using a strawman.

Your 'logical way' is to dismiss them as if it was the Council or Udina that had a mommentarly lapse of insanity in supporting Shepard.  You don't like the ending of ME1, so you don't mind it being completely tossed out the window.

The ending, as he says, doesn't make the least bit of sense. It's not an issue of 'like' or 'dislike'. The ending was suitably epic, the Council is grateful that Shepard saved from Saren and the Geth, but what new evidence appeared in the immediate aftermath of the attack to suggest that Sovereign was anything but  a geth warship, as they believed previously? We are not told or shown that Shepard brings any new evidence to their attention.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 janvier 2011 - 08:13 .

[Moiaussi]

Phaedon wrote...

Regardless of that being already done by recruitment and loyalty missions, dialogue and squad banter (out of which, these things either didn't exist in ME1, or just were less), how Mass Effect 1 was better when it comes to team interaction? All we got was Ashley questioning what Liara said after a mission while everybody else just stood there.

Ashley was also part of the scene with Wrex on Vermire. Also, because the characters were tied to the central plot, and the central plot was stronger and more prominent, reduced interaction was less an issue, less noticable.

ME2 is a great series of strong, but unrelated short stories, with a token, throwaway plot tossed in at the end. And after all that character building, you still end up with characters being interchangable when put into situations where they should shine, or be spotlighted and tied into the main plot.

Excuse me? Mass Effect had better character development?
Well let's see, Wrex was the only one who had something to do with the plot, whereas in Mass Effect 2, every squaddie from the start is supposed to be recruited in order to attack the Collector Base. Where's the rest of character development? The squad banter and the ship banter were very disappointing, whereas Mass Effect 2 had 2 whole missions devoted for each squaddie's character development.

Garrus' development not only was his development, but reflected Shepard's own development as a spectre, developing both characters in paralell. In ME2, all that developement is tossed out the window in favour of a 'cannon' personality. Even if you convince him not to go through with the assassination in ME2, it doesn't feel like he changes much from it if at all.

Liara had bits to contribute, from being giddy over Shepard as a source of Prothean lore to a romantic interest to being a source of Prothean lore herself. She is pretty close to a non-entity in ME2 other than LotSB. 

Wrex had the whole Krogan history thing, something very underplayed with Grunt (who seems to have been programmed with a lot less useful information than one would think). There is some Wrex development via his ME2 cameo though, and it does arguably tie into the overall plot.

Tali's development is mostly set aside in ME1 and shows up in ME2. Tali's loyalty mission was one of the few that could be said to advance the overall plot.

Ashley has similar development to Garrus.

And in ME1 there were the elevator scenes, plus there were other times between missions where the crew interacted. They may not have all had things to say, but at least they were all there. On the ship, while they weren't all together, at least they were at comprehensible stations rather than stuck in storage bays or life support, or engineering craw spaces, and it was reasonable to assume that there were barracks somewhere on the ship where they slept.

ME2, the areas they were stuck in were so secure, Shepard isn't even allowed to enter them without the presence of these nigh complete strangers.

Poor writing as a whole? No. Poor writing moments? Maybe, but those were present in both games.

That is a very subjective issue, but I found ME1 felt very immersive. ME2, not so much.

Again, no. Maybe not as frequent as it should have been. I don't see what you are trying to prove by mentioning Virmire and Noveria. The writing was certainly not exceptional in either.

Noveria's big momment was the Queen, which was one of the most hotly debated scenes on the boards. The collector base is close for ME2, but not sure quite equal. For ME1, there were many threads commenting how great the game was. ME2, many criticizing it. If ME1 was so poorly written, why the huge differences there?

[didymos1120]

Bamboozalist wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
 The Tech Expert is killed due to a stray rocket and bad luck. This means they are not individuals but one in the same and nothing changes.

The techie is killed because under that pressure of constant fire, they screw up when bypassing the door systems, resulting in a jam, which requires Shep to help them force the doors closed.  They then expose their head in the closing gap, and get nailed in the face with the rocket at the last moment.  It's directly related to their technical ability.  You simply didn't pick up on that fact.

He was saying the fire team leader still results in them dying. Which I can understand in the sense that they're not experienced enough to provide ample covering fire?

Ah, I though it was about the tech person's loyalty status only.  Well, in the fireteam leader's case, they really should have had an alternate death for the techie where it's shown to result from a different screwup. Instead, they went with the time-honored "Uh, let's just re-use that other thing" solution.

[Googlesaurus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Inspired by Casey Hudson’s statement that people who speak of ME2’s lack of story do not understand that the characters are the story. I think this deserves some thought and respect. Actual quote I paraphrased is here.

To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

If the characters constituted the story, then what exactly was the story? As I recall there's a general overarching threat (Reaper invasion) and the ME2 main storyline was dealing with an extension of that threat (Collector abductions), so the character stories fell into this black hole of oblivion where they didn't affect the plot and the plot didn't directly affect them with a few exceptions (Legion). Other recruitment/loyalty missions was the result of other plot threads that weren't personal but still unconnected to the Reapers (Grunt/Tali/Jack/Mordin). Still others meant absolutely nothing but in terms of personal responsibility (Samara/Thane). 

Good stories about characters generally de-emphasize the outer plot (the context it takes within) in exchange for how that outer plot affects the characters/how the characters affect the plot. Saving Private Ryan was a character story: we don't need an introduction to WWII and the story doesn't bother with informing us with the other changes in the European Theater of Operations. It's a group of men looking for one particular man in a warzone. In Mass Effect's place you can't do that. Potential galactic annihilation is not something you can simple push aside so you deal with Miranda's personal issues. It will always be the big awkward gorilla in the room.  

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

It's not unfair. A supposedly core plot was introduced right after you escape the station, and then it stopped being the focus of the story. Unless it was deliberate on the part of the writers (and there are good examples in all mediums that use such radical shifts in narrative) it stands out as a weakness. 

[Bamboozalist]

didymos1120 wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

He was saying the fire team leader still results in them dying. Which I can understand in the sense that they're not experienced enough to provide ample covering fire?

Ah, I though it was about the tech person's loyalty status only.  Well, in the fireteam leader's case, they really should have had an alternate death for the techie where it's shown to result from a different screwup. Instead, they went with the time-honored "Uh, let's just re-use that other thing" solution.

They should have, but in context of the situation they both make sense in why the techie dies.

[Vaenier]

Bamboozalist wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

He was saying the fire team leader still results in them dying. Which I can understand in the sense that they're not experienced enough to provide ample covering fire?

Ah, I though it was about the tech person's loyalty status only.  Well, in the fireteam leader's case, they really should have had an alternate death for the techie where it's shown to result from a different screwup. Instead, they went with the time-honored "Uh, let's just re-use that other thing" solution.

They should have, but in context of the situation they both make sense in why the techie dies.

It would make more sense for the unloyal person to cause someone elses death. When you gain sombodies loyalty, they are willing to go out of their way for you. an unloyal person will be more interested in themself though and neglect their duties. An unloyal fireteam leader would kill the techie, an unloyal techie would kill the fire team leader. Its how I would have done it.

[Bamboozalist]

Googlesaurus wrote...

It's not unfair. A supposedly core plot was introduced right after you escape the station, and then it stopped being the focus of the story. Unless it was deliberate on the part of the writers (and there are good examples in all mediums that use such radical shifts in narrative) it stands out as a weakness. 

Yeah but you're building a team up against that threat so the recruitment missions are related to that plot. In regards to loyalty missions Shepard being the good commander s/he is s/he would make sure she did everything in him/her power to make sure the team survived the mission.

Personally I think all of ME2's "plot problems" could have been solved if you had all 10(12) people recruitable from the start and after every say 4 missions a "plot" mission would show up, it would make it have a stronger feel of gathering a complete team and the time crunch your under.

[Bamboozalist]

Vaenier wrote...

It would make more sense for the unloyal person to cause someone elses death. When you gain sombodies loyalty, they are willing to go out of their way for you. an unloyal person will be more interested in themself though and neglect their duties. An unloyal fireteam leader would kill the techie, an unloyal techie would kill the fire team leader. Its how I would have done it.

But a loyal wrongly chosen Techie would get themselves killed. It's not just about unloyal, it's about someone with the wrong skill set.

[Vaenier]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Vaenier wrote...

It would make more sense for the unloyal person to cause someone elses death. When you gain sombodies loyalty, they are willing to go out of their way for you. an unloyal person will be more interested in themself though and neglect their duties. An unloyal fireteam leader would kill the techie, an unloyal techie would kill the fire team leader. Its how I would have done it.

But a loyal wrongly chosen Techie would get themselves killed. It's not just about unloyal, it's about someone with the wrong skill set.

badly chosen loyal people would get themselves killed. badly chosen unloyal people would just hide and make someone else risk their life to fix the mess.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Bamboozalist wrote...

NO IT DOESN'T! See how Omega 4 is right after Crew Abduction? That means that none of your crew dies.

As for being forced to chose? Do the suicide mission and then do legion's loyalty mission. He doesn't instantly die from not being loyal. In fact I've gone into the SM with out Tali or Legion being loyal because I wanted to recruit Tali with Legion in my party and still had both of them survive.

The "I can't bring Legion to do X" BS doesn't fly, you can and you can have everyone including your crew live.

My mistake, I had meant to say you lose doing Legion's loyalty mission. I am aware he does not die if you play your cards correctly. What I am arguing is a person should not be required to go through all these loops or be forced to do one content after the final mission. It should be made available devoid of all these hurdles.

Phaedon wrote...
stuff

I am going to say this one more time. Everything I am discussing is for character development in the main plot, interaction, or dialogue during the main plot. The other angle of my debate is squad banter and acknowledgment of their existence when playing the third wheel role or again during the main plot. This seemingly eludes you in virtually every post. I never once claimed ME had superior character development as whole. What I did claim was it was superior during the main plot. Virmire was mentioned for this precise reason. Wrex reacts based on the main plot, Ashley reacts to Wrex’s hostility, and Kaidan, Garrus, Tali and Liara all have dialogue about the eventual results.

And I am going to remind you of the 'Hold the line' part of the Suicide Mission. A loyal Mordin could die because he was not good enough in combat, and an unloyal Grunt could die because he was too arrogant.

No, Grunt is always arrogant. His loyalty does not alter this. It simply provides him with faux plot armor. Mordin can only die because you chose not to leave the proper people beyond, had them killed or he does not have his loyalty. None this is determined by his combat capabilities. If anything, it would be his endurance or lack thereof. Admittedly, Hold the Line is a better example of individualization. The qualm with it is the hidden values that the player is never made aware of it. That is a mechanical issue though.

Miranda already had 2 missions devoted to her character development. Losing a few seconds isn't as harmful as you claim for it to be.

The problem with this it is affirmed her loyalty to Shepard and betrayal of Cerberus. This character spent the entire game arguing for Cerberus and attempting to convince whoever would listen, they were not as ‘evil’ as perceived. That is a significant development of her character. So yes, it being optional is harmful.

That's wrong. Not so frequent as it should have been? Maybe. 'Not until the epilogue?' definitely not. Squaddies to express their opinion, 'That was too extreme Commander' etc.

When I chose to keep the Collector Base, my squad said absolutely nothing until I had finished watching the credits and reloaded the game. This would be the epilogue.

The entire argument that has been made in this thread is the only time a character develops in any noticeably way or seemingly existences. Is when you recruit them or do their loyalty mission. Samara is silent after she is aboard the Normandy, in any mission not her own and hardly acknowledges any of the other characters exist. For a character driven story, which ME2 claims to be. That is poor writing for a main plot.

Marta Rio wrote...

I don't think the person you're quoting is arguing that ME1 has "better" character development (where better = more, I guess).  He/she is arguing that the strength of the ME1 plot is aided by the fact that the character development fits in organically in the main story.  ME1's character development doesn't need to hold up the plot.  ME2's character development does, because it "is the plot".

Edit: Moiaussi, you look at that picture to.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 10 janvier 2011 - 08:35 .