672 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

It never gets old seeing Godwin's Law at work.

[Il Divo]

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

The problem here is that, Wrex and your love interest aside, the character development in Mass Effect is so utterly poor as to be non-existent. Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions ensure that every single character has their 'moment in the sun' which allows us a huge insight into how they perceive the world, which is largely lacking in Mass Effect. In this respect, Mass Effect 2 is closer to previous Bioware games such as Kotor which really allowed you to explore your companions' backgrounds, such as Carth's and Mission's quests.

Tali as the walking Quarian encyclopaedia is the worst offender in this regard, but other examples such as Liara interacting with Benezia could also have been handled much better. Of course, Mass Effect 2's "Show, don't tell" policy also helps quite abit for this. Watching Miranda cry after rescuing her sister said more to me than words ever could. And the mission as a whole made me feel like I actually had an impact. Garrus' development with Dr. Saleon which involved merely walking through a spaceship felt extremely lacking in comparison, although this could be due to Mass Effect reusing every environment which made Garrus' 'loyalty' mission seem generic.    

[Googlesaurus]

Bamboozalist wrote...

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.

Key words: "against that threat". What the Collectors are doing is supposed to be the primary motivation for creating such a team. But some selections seem backwards (Jack), nonsensical (Garrus), and potentially disastrous (Tali). Others make sense in light of the actual situation (Miranda, Legion, Mordin). 

Haven't these people heard of "sucking it up"? A good leader does not go out of his way in an attempt to please everybody under his command. And it's only possible because the game's mechanics allow you to complete all loyalty missions before the big showdown. 

Bamboozalist wrote...

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.

It would still have the same problem: the "main" plot suddenly becomes the secondary plot. This wouldn't be a problem except the main plot is always emphasized and never actively expounded upon.  

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 10 janvier 2011 - 08:45 .

[Il Divo]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

It never gets old seeing Godwin's Law at work.

I just googled it. I never thought this was a law. This puts so many things in perspective though.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Il Divo wrote...

The problem here is that, Wrex and your love interest aside, the character development in Mass Effect is so utterly poor as to be non-existent. Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions ensure that every single character has their 'moment in the sun' which allows us a huge insight into how they perceive the world, which is largely lacking in Mass Effect. In this respect, Mass Effect 2 is closer to previous Bioware games such as Kotor which really allowed you to explore your companions' backgrounds, such as Carth's and Mission's quests.

Tali as the walking Quarian encyclopaedia is the worst offender in this regard, but other examples such as Liara interacting with Benezia could also have been handled much better. Of course, Mass Effect 2's "Show, don't tell" policy also helps quite abit for this. Watching Miranda cry after rescuing her sister said more to me than words ever could. And the mission as a whole made me feel like I actually had an impact. Garrus' development with Dr. Saleon which involved merely walking through a spaceship felt extremely lacking in comparison, although this could be due to Mass Effect reusing every environment which made Garrus' 'loyalty' mission seem generic.    

I agree and I felt the same, although it still doesn't change the fact that those characters mostly felt in a whole different world in regards to the main plot (i.e. Collectors and Reapers). If only they had been more relevant, ME2 would have been perfection.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 10 janvier 2011 - 08:50 .

[Moiaussi]

Il Divo wrote...

 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?

it isn't proof that Shepard is right, but it is evidence that he might be right. The proverbial 'german demon' might also have been dismissed as bioengineering, but might also have been a demon. Dismissing someone who had no access to any german notes on such a demon predicting its existance and power level simply because the concept seems outlandish may seem human, but accepting the rest of their predictions after that one came true is also plausable.

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 inmy 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.

You are forgetting that this is a universe where such predictions really do exist. The Asari have individuals with such powers (such as the Consort). Again, when key elements start proving true, and there is no evidence of any actual medical condition or other signs of insanity, it is not far fetched for people to actually consider that the person may legitimately see a threat coming.

Liara's evidence was dismissed before, but there is reason to reexamine it now.

And there is no evidence that the Alliance (other than Udina) ever doubted Shepard. if you have such evidence, please present it. Anderson certainly still believes it, yet wasn't demoted nor quietly shipped off to some out of the way assignement where he couldn't make waves.

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.

Even recognizing Germany as a threat does not equate to putting the man behind Galipoli in charge, even if he did predict the German threat. And again, if a demon had actually attacked England, it would have been a lot harder to dismiss any claims of insanity, even if they had another explaination (such as bioengineering).

What I am saying is, you (and the council) are going out of their way to consider Shepard's claims unsupported. They don't even seem to be trying to look at the evidence. Also, they could have simply decided to trust him on instinct, other information, whatever at the end of ME1. That they might have been doing so with insufficient evidence to conclude conclusively that Shepard was right is beside the point. Plenty of important decisions are made in the world and in politics based on gut feelings rather than hard facts, including a lot of bad decisions.

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.

Because rebuilding them all at once is a huge expense and a huge hit to economies. If the DA goes down, the Asari go the other way and pull out of even having a navy, turning the responsibility entirely over to the Turians ala the Volus (which would really beg the question as to whether the Asari should lose council status or whether they should reconsider the status of the volus..... speaking of plot holes).

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.

That is beside the point. Shepard got the warning and passed it on to the Council. If a Japanese scholar or theologan had done the same, maybe they would have been taken seriously after the fact. They thought the beacon scrambled Shep's brain partly because he didn't have the cypher yet so couldn't process the information properly initially. By the end, he is the only known living person able to understand prothean (another fact that gets completely tossed aside in ME2).

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.

He wasn't objecting to the council dismissing shepard though. He was objecting to the council accepting shepard's vision by the end of ME1. That's a judgement call on the part of the Council (or Udina if the council are dead). Saying there was reason to reject the visions doesn't equate to it being completely unbelievable that they would accept them. Hence a straw man.

More specificly, saying that because his cardeologist comes up with a diagnosis, blaming his condition on demons would be rejected is a strawman in that in this case, no doctor has actually ruled Shepard insane. The Normandy's doctor stands by Shepard and hasn't reported him insane or unfit for command, nor has any other doctor. Chakwas is even serving as Shepard's medic on the Normandy 2, having left the Alliance to do so.

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.

Even if the ending in ME1 doesn't make sense to you, nonsensical political decisions happen all the time. You are twisting the question again though. It isn't 'what new evidence proved Sovereign wasn't Geth?" The Council seemed to accept that at the end of ME1. So the question is.... "what new evidence proved Sovereign was just Geth after all?"

We are not given any evidence showing similarity with the Geth either. If the Geth ships were of comperable technology, they would have been similarly invulnerable and the Council fleet wouldn't have stood a chance, even with Alliance support. Even if they had comperable weaponry it would have been a different outcome. Where is your evidence of similarity?

[Bamboozalist]

Googlesaurus wrote...
It would still have the same problem: the "main" plot suddenly becomes the secondary plot. This wouldn't be a problem except the main plot is always emphasized and never actively expounded upon.  

But the main plot is building the team to eventually go on the mission. The collectors work as a mysterious villian that we really no nothing about and can't even really prepare for so all we can do is build our team while we wait.

[Il Divo]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I agree and I felt the same, although it still doesn't change the fact that those characters mostly felt in a whole different world compared to the main plot (i.e. Collectors and Reapers). If only they had been more relevant, ME2 would have been perfection.

No doubt. Having played Dragon Age, I feel like this is how companion interactions should always be handled. I love it how after completing Alistair's side mission, other characters would comment on it. And even Mass Effect 2 has some flaws in terms of how the loyalty missions are delivered. Each individual quest was great, but all had the exact same 'introduction' where at some random point you get a journal entry saying that "Companion X wishes to speak with you" which makes it feel very contrived...for 12 companions 

To use a Kotor example (once again), you have a few characters like Mission and Canderous whose backstories are delivered entirely as side quests where you run into some character they knew from the past. You have Zaalbar whose backstory is tied to the entire main question mission on Kashyyk. Then there's Jolee whose side quest doesn't even require that he be present, but simply puts a different spin on its delivery, and you even have Carth whose backstory revolves around killing one of the central antagonists, Saul Karath.  The variety lets you get to know all your companions while keeping the delivery fresh (somewhat).

[Moiaussi]

Il Divo wrote...

The problem here is that, Wrex and your love interest aside, the character development in Mass Effect is so utterly poor as to be non-existent. Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions ensure that every single character has their 'moment in the sun' which allows us a huge insight into how they perceive the world, which is largely lacking in Mass Effect. In this respect, Mass Effect 2 is closer to previous Bioware games such as Kotor which really allowed you to explore your companions' backgrounds, such as Carth's and Mission's quests.

Tali as the walking Quarian encyclopaedia is the worst offender in this regard, but other examples such as Liara interacting with Benezia could also have been handled much better. Of course, Mass Effect 2's "Show, don't tell" policy also helps quite abit for this. Watching Miranda cry after rescuing her sister said more to me than words ever could. And the mission as a whole made me feel like I actually had an impact. Garrus' development with Dr. Saleon which involved merely walking through a spaceship felt extremely lacking in comparison, although this could be due to Mass Effect reusing every environment which made Garrus' 'loyalty' mission seem generic.    

Pardon, but Garrus is neither Wrex nor your love interest, and I admit in another post that Tali has no character development in ME1.

The loyalty quests in ME2 were for the most part well written, but they felt out of place or a distraction from the main plot.

As I have said, ME2 feels like a collection of well written but otherwise irrelevant short stories, like a companion piece to a series, providing side information rather than an actual part of a series. If they had presented ME2 as something closer to ME1, with a stronger core plot, and the loyalty missions as optional DLC's, it could have been amazing. As a stand alone product, it feels wanting. One ends up feeling "Wow, these are great stories, but is there a point to all this?"

[Googlesaurus]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...
It would still have the same problem: the "main" plot suddenly becomes the secondary plot. This wouldn't be a problem except the main plot is always emphasized and never actively expounded upon.  

But the main plot is building the team to eventually go on the mission. The collectors work as a mysterious villian that we really no nothing about and can't even really prepare for so all we can do is build our team while we wait.

The main plot is defeating the Collectors in the vaguest sense of the term. The team-building is at best silly since, as you so deftly noted, the Collectors are supposedly be enigmatic to the point which we know literally nothing about them. If this is true, why are building a team instead of building an army or a bunch of researchers? Building a team presupposes the notion that the team is being built to deal with the specifics of a threat. Why are we picking up Tali instead of another quarian with tech skills who doesn't have a hatred of Cerberus? Why aren't we creating viruses to kill the Collectors, collecting information and schematics on the Collectors, consistently following leads on the Collectors instead of piece-meal missions?

And this leaves the loyalty missions detached from the main plot. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:23 .

[HTTP 404]

addressing OP: Its a middle story in a trilogy. It tends to always be character driven whether by choice or coincidence.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:20 .

[HTTP 404]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...
It would still have the same problem: the "main" plot suddenly becomes the secondary plot. This wouldn't be a problem except the main plot is always emphasized and never actively expounded upon.  

But the main plot is building the team to eventually go on the mission. The collectors work as a mysterious villian that we really no nothing about and can't even really prepare for so all we can do is build our team while we wait.

The main plot is defeating the Collectors in the vaguest sense of the term. The team-building is at best silly since, as you so deftly noted, the Collectors are supposedly be enigmatic to the point which we know literally nothing about them. If this is true, why are building a team instead of building an army or a bunch of researchers? Building a team presupposes the notion that the team is being built to deal with the specifics of a threat. Why are we picking up Tali instead of another quarian with tech skills who doesn't have a hatred of Cerberus?

And this leaves the loyalty missions detached from the main plot. 

*sigh* this argument again? Gathering the team was the main plot of the story, even though the collectors were the antagonists, the main theme of the game was character development

thats usually a sign you need to take a break from the forums for a month or two when you see same argument again.   I was gone for a bit and now everything looks new!

[Googlesaurus]

thurmanator692 wrote...

*sigh* this argument again? Gathering the team was the main plot of the story, even though the collectors were the antagonists, the main theme of the game was character development

Getting tired of good arguments? I don't blame you.

Character development is not a theme. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:25 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

Moiaussi wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

The problem here is that, Wrex and your love interest aside, the character development in Mass Effect is so utterly poor as to be non-existent. Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions ensure that every single character has their 'moment in the sun' which allows us a huge insight into how they perceive the world, which is largely lacking in Mass Effect. In this respect, Mass Effect 2 is closer to previous Bioware games such as Kotor which really allowed you to explore your companions' backgrounds, such as Carth's and Mission's quests.

Tali as the walking Quarian encyclopaedia is the worst offender in this regard, but other examples such as Liara interacting with Benezia could also have been handled much better. Of course, Mass Effect 2's "Show, don't tell" policy also helps quite abit for this. Watching Miranda cry after rescuing her sister said more to me than words ever could. And the mission as a whole made me feel like I actually had an impact. Garrus' development with Dr. Saleon which involved merely walking through a spaceship felt extremely lacking in comparison, although this could be due to Mass Effect reusing every environment which made Garrus' 'loyalty' mission seem generic.    

Pardon, but Garrus is neither Wrex nor your love interest, and I admit in another post that Tali has no character development in ME1.

The loyalty quests in ME2 were for the most part well written, but they felt out of place or a distraction from the main plot.

As I have said, ME2 feels like a collection of well written but otherwise irrelevant short stories, like a companion piece to a series, providing side information rather than an actual part of a series. If they had presented ME2 as something closer to ME1, with a stronger core plot, and the loyalty missions as optional DLC's, it could have been amazing. As a stand alone product, it feels wanting. One ends up feeling "Wow, these are great stories, but is there a point to all this?"

Pretty much says it all concisely. A collection of short stories and side quests, no matter how amazing they are, will never be a main plot. Something that Casey Hudson just doesn't want to admit to others. (and possibly himself)

If I wanted an entire game based on recruiting squad members, then I would have gone and not bought one. I got ME2 because I wanted to fight the REAPERS.

Remeber those???

REEAAAAAPERSSSSSS.

but it's ok, as long as Miranda's sister is doing O.K. then we can move on....<_<

[Bamboozalist]

Googlesaurus wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

*sigh* this argument again? Gathering the team was the main plot of the story, even though the collectors were the antagonists, the main theme of the game was character development

Getting tired of good arguments? I don't blame you.

Character development is not a theme. 

But it's not a good argument. The game is about building a team, the collector crap is background stuff for why you're building a team. Should you be building an Army? No, not really I mean this is an adventure into the unknown, why would you waste an army going through the omega 4 relay when you have a stealth ship specifically designed for scouting? The game is clearly about gathering up a bunch of people to go do a suicide mission. You can't argue what is and what is not main and sub plot. You can argue that you didn't like how it was handled but sorry, the recruitment missions and loyalty missions are the main plot. It's like trying to say that World War II was the main plot of Saving Private Ryan and not a group of people going to get a guy and the turmoil they endure.

Edit: @ Bianco: Trilogy structure. The middle part never advances the main plot that much because that's what the third act is for. The middle act is about the characters and expanding/finishing up sub plot. No one should have expected to fight the Reapers in ME2. That's like expecting to fight the Emperor in Empire or Sauron in Two Towers.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:34 .

[blackashes411]

thurmanator692 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...
It would still have the same problem: the "main" plot suddenly becomes the secondary plot. This wouldn't be a problem except the main plot is always emphasized and never actively expounded upon.  

But the main plot is building the team to eventually go on the mission. The collectors work as a mysterious villian that we really no nothing about and can't even really prepare for so all we can do is build our team while we wait.

The main plot is defeating the Collectors in the vaguest sense of the term. The team-building is at best silly since, as you so deftly noted, the Collectors are supposedly be enigmatic to the point which we know literally nothing about them. If this is true, why are building a team instead of building an army or a bunch of researchers? Building a team presupposes the notion that the team is being built to deal with the specifics of a threat. Why are we picking up Tali instead of another quarian with tech skills who doesn't have a hatred of Cerberus?

And this leaves the loyalty missions detached from the main plot. 

*sigh* this argument again? Gathering the team was the main plot of the story, even though the collectors were the antagonists, the main theme of the game was character development

thats usually a sign you need to take a break from the forums for a month or two when you see same argument again.   I was gone for a bit and now everything looks new!

I cant help it lol, im in my senior year at high school and have nothing to do but surf the net all day on a mostly locked net access

Lol, same boat dude! SENIOR YEAR!! My school's network doesn't allow Youtube/Facebook, so I'm here sometimes.

Excuse randomness and off-topic response, just found this coincedence funny.

[Googlesaurus]

Bamboozalist wrote...

But it's not a good argument. The game is about building a team, the collector crap is background stuff for why you're building a team.

So I'm right in saying the Collector threat was initially presented as the main plot (and being the primary motivation for assembling a team) and fell to the wayside as the team-building became the dominant focus? 

Bamboozalist wrote...

Should you be building an Army? No, not really I mean this is an adventure into the unknown, why would you waste an army going through the omega 4 relay when you have a stealth ship specifically designed for scouting?

Why would you build a team of techies, fighters, assassins, and biotic powerhouses for a scouting mission? Wouldn't you want to get people who fall under the umbrella of ... scouts? BTW the Normandy is not a scouting vessel. 

Why not a group of researchers/information brokers for research, then a team of fighters once we know the capabilities of the Collectors? Because you know, Cerberus really doesn't help in this regard. 

Bamboozalist wrote...

The game is clearly about gathering up a bunch of people to go do a suicide mission. You can't argue what is and what is not main and sub plot.

Why are you mistaking the advertisements for the actual plot? Until the Collector ship captured the Normandy's crew, this point is not directly confronted. It's repeatedly said throughout the recruitment missions but these are inconsistent claims made for emotional effect since, as we already agree on, no one know enough about the Collectors to claim such a thing.  

Bamboozalist wrote...

You can argue that you didn't like how it was handled but sorry, the recruitment missions and loyalty missions are the main plot. It's like trying to say that World War II was the main plot of Saving Private Ryan and not a group of people going to get a guy and the turmoil they endure.

They became the main plot. How many times must I reiterate this point? 

Nice try but I already explained why SPR is different from ME2. Mostly because SPR never tries to pull this plot-switch in the first place. 

[wulf3n]

Bamboozalist wrote...
this is an adventure into the unknown, why would you waste an army going through the omega 4 relay when you have a stealth ship specifically designed for scouting?

But the stealth doesn't work against the collectors, so you effectively have a lightly(possibly highly) armed luxury yacht. forgive us for wanting an actual warship.

[Bamboozalist]

Googlesaurus wrote...

So I'm right in saying the Collector threat was initially presented as the main plot (and being the primary motivation for assembling a team) and fell to the wayside as the team-building became the dominant focus? 

Yes, but the collector plot is the "focus" for all of two seconds so we can lead into the main plot.

Why would you build a team of techies, fighters, assassins, and biotic powerhouses for a scouting mission? Wouldn't you want to get people who fall under the umbrella of ... scouts? BTW the Normandy is not a scouting vessel. 

Why not a group of researchers/information brokers for research, then a team of fighters once we know the capabilities of the Collectors? Because you know, Cerberus really doesn't help in this regard.

Krogan definition of scouting. It counts as a "scouting" mission because it's both "scounting/sabatouge" if they got through the Omega 4 relay and there was nothing there beyond that station why wouldn't they destroy it? At the same time if they came through and there was an entire fleet I highly doubt the Normandy would go in guns blazzing like they did.

Until the Collector ship captured the Normandy's crew, this point is not directly confronted. It's repeatedly said throughout the recruitment missions but these are inconsistent claims made for emotional effect since, as we already agree on, no one know enough about the Collectors to claim such a thing. 

More of an example of why it's sub plot.

They became the main plot. How many times must I reiterate this point? 

Nice try but I already explained why SPR is different from ME2. Mostly because SPR never tries to pull this plot-switch in the first place. 

You must reiterate it as many times as it takes for you to understand that you're wrong. They didn't become the plot any more than the characters in SPR "became" the plot 30 minutes into the movie. The first 30 minutes of the is just us watching a beach landing at Omaha and the horrors of war, it like the collector threat serves as something to introduce us to the main story. SPR could have started with them getting the assignment and the plot would not have changed one bit. So just like Freedom's Progress the first part of the story is not directly connected to the main plot. Sorry.

Edit: I would like to point out that I'm not saying you're wrong in your opinion that it was handled poorly because that is subjective, I'm saying that you're wrong in saying that it's not the main plot because you don't like how it was handled. What is and is not the plot is an objective fact determined by how the story is told. ME2 is told with the characters as the main plot. Is it handled poorly? That's not my place to say but it IS the main plot.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:25 .

[Il Divo]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

it isn't proof that Shepard is right, but it is evidence that he might be right. The proverbial 'german demon' might also have been dismissed as bioengineering, but might also have been a demon. Dismissing someone who had no access to any german notes on such a demon predicting its existance and power level simply because the concept seems outlandish may seem human, but accepting the rest of their predictions after that one came true is also plausable. [/quote]

You're still making a mistaken assumption here with the bolded though. If I were to make a prediction that chocolate marshmallows are going to fall from the sky tomorrow and kill us all, and it comes true, then people might be inclined to believe I am right that demons are coming. The primary reason being that both predictions occupy something that we currently believe to be impossible. No one believes in evil chocolate marshmallows falling from the sky any more than they believe demons are coming. Shepard's claims about Saren and the Conduit are considered possible, but unproven. The Council can comprehend the idea of Saren going rogue and the Protheans building a second relay onto the Citadel even if they didn't believe it was true. Shepard's presenting evidence of something plausible does not give credibility to his unplausible theories.


[quote]
You are forgetting that this is a universe where such predictions really do exist. The Asari have individuals with such powers (such as the Consort). Again, when key elements start proving true, and there is no evidence of any actual medical condition or other signs of insanity, it is not far fetched for people to actually consider that the person may legitimately see a threat coming. [/quote]

As Saren says "Are we admitting dreams into evidence now?" The Asari failing to mindmeld with Shepard has been a plothole from the start, but where are all these visions the Consort sees coming true and why had they not been admitted as evidence during Shepard's accusations at Saren?

[quote]
And there is no evidence that the Alliance (other than Udina) ever doubted Shepard. if you have such evidence, please present it. Anderson certainly still believes it, yet wasn't demoted nor quietly shipped off to some out of the way assignement where he couldn't make waves. [/quote]

Aside from Anderson, did the Alliance believe it? Anderson, based on what was shown, kept his opinions relatively low key. He did not go rushing into the streets screaming "Reapers are coming!" or demand the Alliance to send its fleets into dark space. That is a key difference.  





[quote]Even recognizing Germany as a threat does not equate to putting the man behind Galipoli in charge, even if he did predict the German threat. And again, if a demon had actually attacked England, it would have been a lot harder to dismiss any claims of insanity, even if they had another explaination (such as bioengineering). [/quote]

How are the two not equated? A man who is  able to recognize the true threat is best able to counter-act it and often shows a greater understanding of what's going on. If I make an announcement on national television that chocolate marshmallows will fall from the sky, and it does happen, you can bet people will expect I have answers on these evil chocolate marshmallows, for whatever reason. Prime Minister or whatever, the person who accurately predicted the German threat is not going to be set aside once the prediction has been proven.  

The difference between your demon and the Reaper is rather subtle. Dismissing a demon as simple biotechnology raises certain questions. Is the demon sentient? Did it speak? Was it shooting fire from its fingertips and breaking the laws of physics? Did it summon other demons from a pit in hell, which would make it harder to dismiss as 'biotechnology'. How advanced was biotechnology at the time? Can we believe that someone could feasibly create this monstrous creature? The Reaper can feasibly remain within the sphere of "advanced technology" since the Council has some idea of its abilities based on Eden Prime and Virmire, yet they still  felt comfortable dismissing Sovereign as Geth technology, mainly because they'd not been seen for 200 years past.


[quote]
What I am saying is, you (and the council) are going out of their way to consider Shepard's claims unsupported. They don't even seem to be trying to look at the evidence. [/quote]

Politicians don't go out of their way validating outlandish claims. Going back to the British politician example. The notion that Hitler could attack is within the realm of believability, simply unsubstantiated. If this same politician after told us there are mutant space ships coming to kill us all, people will not 'go out of their way' to endure this.

[quote]
Also, they could have simply decided to trust him on instinct, other information, whatever at the end of ME1. That they might have been doing so with insufficient evidence to conclude conclusively that Shepard was right is beside the point. Plenty of important decisions are made in the world and in politics based on gut feelings rather than hard facts, including a lot of bad decisions. [/quote]

Really? I don't know many politicians in this day and age who expect to hold onto their appointments while maintaining outrageous claims. You're saying that the Council, leaders of the known galaxy, are going to believe in a race of supergalactic machines coming to kill us and the basis for this decision is instinct? When politicians make 'gut feelings', this usually involves things like "Oh, this policy looks like it will work" or "I think we should move troops to this location". What you are suggesting is not making a bad decision but rather political suicide. All because of 'instinct'. If I'm expected to take action (and you can bet belief in the Reapers would require action), then I better be damn certain that I'm right. There is no room for 'insufficient evidence'. Not in this.

I mean, if it's that simple, then in Mass Effect 2 instinct allowed the Council to change their mind again and decide that Shepard is still a raving lunatic.

[quote]
Because rebuilding them all at once is a huge expense and a huge hit to economies. If the DA goes down, the Asari go the other way and pull out of even having a navy, turning the responsibility entirely over to the Turians ala the Volus (which would really beg the question as to whether the Asari should lose council status or whether they should reconsider the status of the volus..... speaking of plot holes).[/quote]

National security takes priority. Always. If a fleet of Geth ships appearing completely out of nowhere is not enough motivation to convince the populus that we need to rebuild, nothing is likely to do it. You don't need a Reaper theory to convince people that we need to restore our naval strength.

[quote]
That is beside the point. Shepard got the warning and passed it on to the Council. If a Japanese scholar or theologan had done the same, maybe they would have been taken seriously after the fact. They thought the beacon scrambled Shep's brain partly because he didn't have the cypher yet so couldn't process the information properly initially. By the end, he is the only known living person able to understand prothean (another fact that gets completely tossed aside in ME2). [/quote]

They thought the beacon scrambled Shepard's brain because he told them that a race of Super machines had manipulated our entire existence and will soon extinguish all life from the galaxy. After the fact, a Japanese scholar or theologian would only be taken seriously if they believed the claims they maintained. Shepard, for example, tells us that Reapers are coming, but even after the attack we do not have proof that we are dealing with Reapers, so he still can't be taken seriously.

[quote]
He wasn't objecting to the council dismissing shepard though. He was objecting to the council accepting shepard's vision by the end of ME1. That's a judgement call on the part of the Council (or Udina if the council are dead). Saying there was reason to reject the visions doesn't equate to it being completely unbelievable that they would accept them. Hence a straw man. [/quote]

A reason to reject the visions is the equivalent of it being unacceptable that they would accept them if we have reason to believe the Council would be stubborn. Again, these are leaders of galactic civilization and their decisions will impact the entire galaxy. They cannot afford to rely on 'instinct' or 'trust'.

[quote]
More specificly, saying that because his cardeologist comes up with a diagnosis, blaming his condition on demons would be rejected is a strawman in that in this case, no doctor has actually ruled Shepard insane. The Normandy's doctor stands by Shepard and hasn't reported him insane or unfit for command, nor has any other doctor. Chakwas is even serving as Shepard's medic on the Normandy 2, having left the Alliance to do so. [/quote]

Then you missed the point of his cardeologist example. This (once more) delves into a plausible vs. implausible theory. I will trust a cardeologist if he says that I'm suffering from heart problems, provided that I have cause to think there i a problem. This falls within the realm of 'plausibility'. I will be less inclined if he thinks I'm possessed by a demon, which falls into the 'implausible' category. Shepard is much the same way. Proving Saren guilty and the existence of the Conduit were both considered plausible but unsupported theories. I can believe a Spectre can go rogue once proof is given. Likewise, with the Conduit the Council believes that the Protheans created the relays and we accept that it is possible that a relay could be connected to the Citadel. The Reaper does not fall within the realms of plausibility; it requires making an extremely large leap in understanding.

[quote]
Even if the ending in ME1 doesn't make sense to you, nonsensical political decisions happen all the time. You are twisting the question again though. It isn't 'what new evidence proved Sovereign wasn't Geth?" The Council seemed to accept that at the end of ME1. So the question is.... "what new evidence proved Sovereign was just Geth after all?" [/quote]

No, the issue is regarding plot holes in Mass Effect. The Council goes from a belief that Sovereign 'is Geth' via Occam's Razor to a belief that Sovereign 'is Reaper' at the conclusion of Mass Effect. I'm not required to prove to you what was the status quo (that Sovereign was a geth vessel). You must prove to me what evidence there was for them to change their beliefs. Whenever there is change, the change must be explained.

[quote]
We are not given any evidence showing similarity with the Geth either. If the Geth ships were of comperable technology, they would have been similarly invulnerable and the Council fleet wouldn't have stood a chance, even with Alliance support. Even if they had comperable weaponry it would have been a different outcome. Where is your evidence of similarity?[/quote]

A fair point, but one which is addressed. The Council dismissed Sovereign, past and present, as a 'Geth warship' because it is simply easier as Anderson tells us. From a technological perspective, yes we can say that Sovereign obviously was something out of this world, but the Council on Eden Prime and Virmire showed that they were willing to turn a blind eye to such evidence as Sovereign's landing on a planet and maneuverability, despite Shepard and the Salarian commandos as evidence. There is enough evidence that we might question Sovereign's status as a geth vessel, but still far less to prove that he is a Reaper. This is besides the point that if Sovereign is considered a 'super geth ship', he can potentially considered in the same way that one might compare an Alliance Fighter and Dreadnaught, or in Dragon Age what the Archdemon is to a normal darkspawn. Also taking into account that the Geth had not been seen beyond the Veil in over 200 hundred years, and the time at which they do surface they bring Sovereign with them.    

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:24 .