I have just finished playing through both ME1 and ME2. After reading alot of these post (i'll be honest, there is way to many to read) i would have to agree with the general consensus. Both games were great and derserved the ratings they got but ME2 was definately missing something.
The best way i can describe this (which hasn't been done too much on this thread) is by defining the games by how i felt playing them.
ME1: The story was intense. i only original wanted to play it for the first time for 1 hour. The next time i looked at the clock, 6 hours had passed. The story sucked me in. I was intrigued. I had questions i wanted answers to. I wanted to keep playing so that the plot would unravel. Yes, i thought some things had no meaning but then when i had finished the game, those small things that didn't really fit left me questioning / theorising. The plot slowly unfolded in ways i was not expecting. Having the council not support me openly and having to struggle and convince them. open their eyes. I felt that is what i needed to do.
All of the above experiances made me as a player feel directly responsible.
The side missions really were a bit of a distraction than anything but i still felt as if they had some meaning to them.
I felt attached to my squad members. I cared about holding the future of the Krogan race in my hands. I hated Kaiden and had no problem killing him off. I was more than happy to kill him off. Having met my squad members by chance made me feel that they were someone. Seeing the effects of the indoctrination and having Saren and Benezia struggle against it made me feel for them.
ME2: The prologue was great. I felt the same intensity as i did from ME1. When i finshed the initial escape plot that is where my immersion ended. I felt like my hand was being held after that point.
The gameplay / combat is awesome but the plot is not. It was like watching a bad movie where the what the character just did 10 minutes ago has no relevence to anything. All this talk about "the characters are the story" is not evident enough in the game. I only got attached to Thane and Legion. The characters had no reason to be with me. I only have them because i was told to get them. I don't know why i need them. I didn't know a lot of things in ME2. Why was the original cerebus base attacked / sabotaged? I don't know... Why did i need the Reaper IFF when all the other ships seemed to make it thorugh only to be attacked by drones on the other end? Why did EDI have to know everything and not give me a chance to think about something before shoving the answer to me. Why by using the Collecters and then telling me they were the Protheans did you just throw out the ME1 story? Soverign should of known where the conduit was as he/the reapers had the Protheans under control.... Nothing really makes sense to me yet all the pieces of the puzzle just landed in the right place.. that's how i felt playing ME2.
I felt like i was being told to do everything i had to do instead of feeling like i needed to do it.
The one thing that mainly sticks out for me is. If YOU were dead for 2 years and then ressurected, wouldn't you want to know what happened in 2 years? That's the one thing i felt like i couldn't do in ME2. I think they should of scraped "the illusive man" and had a bread crumb trail going through the time you were dead. If they wanted to focus on character as the plot driver then they should of reduced the amount of charcters and developed 4 or 5 of them in depth.
my 2 cents.
"The characters WERE the story."
Débuté par
Nightwriter
, janv. 09 2011 01:32
Retour en haut
#502
Posté 12 janvier 2011 - 11:59
Interactive Civilian
-
- Members
- 713 messages
I agree with a lot of the above... However, there is one thing I'll address:
It was my impression from Vigil's description that only the Protheans on Ilos knew about the conduit and the plot to alter the keepers' signal. So, even with the Collectors originally being Prothean, there wouldn't be any reason for them to know about it, and therefore Sovereign wouldn't know about it.
Unless I missed some details or misunderstood something in the conversation with Vigil?
Why by using the Collecters and then telling me they were the Protheans did you just throw out the ME1 story? Soverign should of known where the conduit was as he/the reapers had the Protheans under control....
It was my impression from Vigil's description that only the Protheans on Ilos knew about the conduit and the plot to alter the keepers' signal. So, even with the Collectors originally being Prothean, there wouldn't be any reason for them to know about it, and therefore Sovereign wouldn't know about it.
Unless I missed some details or misunderstood something in the conversation with Vigil?
#503
Posté 12 janvier 2011 - 04:09
-Skorpious-
-
- Members
- 3 081 messages
I didn't like the "character driven" story for three reasons -
1) By focusing on several sub-plots, the main story as a whole failed to make significant plot advances off of ME's original ending. Remarkably little was revealed during the events of ME2, a fact made worse when one considers that ME3 has to include the reaper origins, purpose, motivations, way to defeat the reapers, implement and execute said anti-reaper plan, and so forth. In short, ME3 has a lot of plot-related content to fit into one game. I know its not my place to give Bioware story advice, but ME2 (in my opinion) should have had the following revelations on top of those already included in the game-
-Backstory on reaper origins
-What compels the reapers to commit galactic genocide
-Possible reaper weakness discovered
2) Individual story arcs are barely connected to the main plot. Why does Garrus' revenge matter when the collectors are harvesting colonies? What purpose does Jack's blowing up of an abandoned Cerberus facility serve in the long run? Does Thane's son really matter in the grand scheme of things? Getting to the point, we had a lot of "useless" sub-plots in ME2. What we should have had is more character missions such as Mordin's (connection to the genophage and the fate of an entire species in ME3 and beyond), Legion's (obvious plot importance beyond ME2 is obvious) and Tali's (hints at possible war/alliance with the Geth); missions such as those ensure that individual importance is easily recognized as both a stand-alone aspect and a plot advancing aspect which has the potential to affect outcomes across multiple games.
3) The decision to incorporate a suicide mission. This needs little explanation, as ME2 was hyped as a game all about the characters and your interaction with said characters. The problem is that the possibility exists that every single one of them can potentially die, thus, the majority of them would either A) have next to no role in ME3 or
appear as a brief cameo.
This is a disturbing thought, since ME2 already accomplished little in terms of plot value. Why is this disturbing? We recruited the "best in the galaxy"; the fact that we spent to much of the game recruiting the best, only to have them completely ignored in ME3, is disturbing. Why play ME2 at all if nothing we do in the game really matters?
4) I know I said three, but I loved when Garrus did calibrations during his character driven sub-plot.
1) By focusing on several sub-plots, the main story as a whole failed to make significant plot advances off of ME's original ending. Remarkably little was revealed during the events of ME2, a fact made worse when one considers that ME3 has to include the reaper origins, purpose, motivations, way to defeat the reapers, implement and execute said anti-reaper plan, and so forth. In short, ME3 has a lot of plot-related content to fit into one game. I know its not my place to give Bioware story advice, but ME2 (in my opinion) should have had the following revelations on top of those already included in the game-
-Backstory on reaper origins
-What compels the reapers to commit galactic genocide
-Possible reaper weakness discovered
2) Individual story arcs are barely connected to the main plot. Why does Garrus' revenge matter when the collectors are harvesting colonies? What purpose does Jack's blowing up of an abandoned Cerberus facility serve in the long run? Does Thane's son really matter in the grand scheme of things? Getting to the point, we had a lot of "useless" sub-plots in ME2. What we should have had is more character missions such as Mordin's (connection to the genophage and the fate of an entire species in ME3 and beyond), Legion's (obvious plot importance beyond ME2 is obvious) and Tali's (hints at possible war/alliance with the Geth); missions such as those ensure that individual importance is easily recognized as both a stand-alone aspect and a plot advancing aspect which has the potential to affect outcomes across multiple games.
3) The decision to incorporate a suicide mission. This needs little explanation, as ME2 was hyped as a game all about the characters and your interaction with said characters. The problem is that the possibility exists that every single one of them can potentially die, thus, the majority of them would either A) have next to no role in ME3 or
appear as a brief cameo. This is a disturbing thought, since ME2 already accomplished little in terms of plot value. Why is this disturbing? We recruited the "best in the galaxy"; the fact that we spent to much of the game recruiting the best, only to have them completely ignored in ME3, is disturbing. Why play ME2 at all if nothing we do in the game really matters?
4) I know I said three, but I loved when Garrus did calibrations during his character driven sub-plot.
Modifié par -Skorpious-, 12 janvier 2011 - 04:10 .
#504
Posté 12 janvier 2011 - 09:14
Il Divo
-
- Members
- 9 769 messages
[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
Sovereign wasn't a chocolate marshmallow. It was a ship far more advanced than any known vessels, including anything else in the Geth fleet. That you personally don't consider that evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Noone had really looked hard at Liara's evidence before either, since it seemed implausable and she was young. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence either, and now they had more reason to look.
Again, that they didn't take it seriously before the Citadel battle is understandable, but so is them deciding to do so after. [/quote]
Again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding in what constitutes 'evidence'. The point of the example is that both raining chocolate marshmallows and mind-controlling space ships are equally implausible. No one denies that Sovereign's the most advanced ship in existence, but what you suggest is still lunacy.
Let's say I'm walking down the street and come across a dog. A friend of mine points to it and says "Look! It's a talking dog!" I turn to him and say "No...it's just a dog. It's clearly not talking. It hasn't said a single word. I've never seen a dog talk before".
That's the equivalent of what you're suggesting. There is absolutely nothing about Sovereign to indicate that it contains a super-advanced AI planning to kill us all. All the Council is able to see is an extremely powerful space ship. If we could deduce that Sovereign was a Reaper just on sight/abilities alone, then Shepard could have done it on Eden Prime. Sovereign would never have had to confront Shepard directly. However, that wasn't the case. You learn on Virmire that Sovereign is a Reaper because Sovereign tells you "I'm a Reaper". The Council does not have access to this and cannot reach so easy a conclusion. I do not believe a dog is able to talk until I see it with my own eyes and neither do I believe a space ship is sentient until evidence is shown of the same.
[quote]
Shepard wasn't Asari and hadn't even met the Consort yet, so how could he use information he didn't yet have in his defence? The council at the time were not even allowing the investigator they assigned access to the files neccessary to investigate Saren. Saren obviously didn't want it taken seriously.. he knew it was real and not just a dream. If you want an actual plot hole, how about Shepard raving OMG REAPERS! like a madman, rather than comprehending he actually had to make a case? [/quote]
Irrelevant as there were other Asari, including the Councilor, with whom he could have mind melded. My point about the Consort is that dreams, visions, whatever, are nowhere as 'respected' as you make them out to be. Shepard's "visions" whether after acquiring the Cipher or when the Normandy is locked down is never presented as evidence to the Council that Reapers exist.
[quote]
Listen to yourself. Send the fleets into darkspace, where, exactly? It isn't like there was a note attached to Sovereign's corpse with a map. Hackett always took Shepard seriously and never treated him like a madman. Again, the fleet was not just ready, but acted on Shepard's first hand assessment. [/quote]
*sigh* That's the point. You just put Anderson down as an example of someone who believes in the Reapers
but is not thrust aside. The reason this is the case is because he's not making insane claims every which way or demanding outrageous actions. He believes in the Reapers and keeps it to himself for the most part. Shepard is the one demanding that the Council send its fleet out, go here, do this, etc. The point being that Shepard doesn't really keep a cool head in politics.
We also aren't fully made aware on what basis the fleet took action. Hackett, Anderson, the Council all knew that Saren was in search of the Conduit and that he was leading Geth to the Citadel. Shepard saying "Saren's attacking the Citadel" is a distinct possibility on all accounts. But once more, where are we shown that Hackett or the Alliance as a whole believed in anything Shepard said about the Reapers prior to the ending?
[quote]
You don't really know about Galipoli do you? Australia and New Zealand have a separate holiday just to mourn the losses. He was kicked out of politics for it. Shepard on the other hand has a solid record. [/quote]
Again, a solid record doesn't mean anything in the slightest. If I have a solid military record while making plausible claims, and then start telling people outrageous claims, I'm not lauded for that.
Shepard's claim: Saren is a rogue Spectre. He's betrayed the Council.
This is a 'plausible' claim, but simply has no proof at the start of Mass Effect. Saren exists. Spectres exist. People understand the concept of betrayal. The notion of a Spectre 'going rogue' is generally regarded as an acceptable possibility, if one that requires proof.
Shepard's other claim: A race of millenia old machines is responsible for manipulating our technological existence. They come every ten thousand years and wipe the galaxy clean of all life using the citadel as a giant mass relay.
This is an 'implausible' claim for the galaxy at large. The protheans are regarded as the creators of the Mass Relays. Most Prothean experts, Liara aside, don't place almost any stock in the Reapers or the existence of other civilizations. No one is aware of these 'Reapers' which they have never seen nor do they believe the Citadel is a relay since they cannot access it.
The point is that it doesn't matter how 'solid' my record is making plausible claims. There is little to no accepted basis for the existence of Reapers any more than if I started claiming that fairies exist.
[quote]
Define 'laws of physics.' Sovereign was vastly more powerful than any known ship, including the geth vessels. Its weapons were based on much more advanced concepts. We know from the thanix cannon that that they could have been adapted to Geth ships easily, yet were were not. Why if they were Geth designs?
"Comfortable' in this case is 'willful denial.' More to the point, you are saying it is impossible to conclude anything other than Sovereign being a Geth vessel. On what basis do you make that claim? [/quote]
'Willful denial'? Once more, you need to prove the Reapers have sentience, that they are coming to kill us all. 'Advanced technology' doesn't cut it. The Protheans had 'advanced technology'. I believe it is also put forward at one point that Sovereign may have been a 'Reaper warship' before Shepard learns the truth on Virmire (that Sovereign is an actual Reaper).
The truth is that Sovereign came leading an army of Geth, not an army of Reapers. I'm not saying that it isn't an issue of confusion. "Hmm, its technology is more advanced than your typical Geth fighter" is certainly a possible thought for the Council and other experts. "Hmm, its technology is more advanced...it must be a sentient Reaper coming to free its brethren from dark space" however has no logical basis and contradicts what many experts have said regarding the Protheans. Remember, the Reapers are looked on as a 'quasi-myth'.
[quote]
Look, it really WAS a Reaper, so saying it is an 'impossible event' or 'outlandish claim' is simply wrong. It sounded outlandish til it happened. And it wasn't merely that Churchill was right about Germany, it is that they put him in charge even though the last time he was in charge of anything important he cost the empire considerable lives and resources with nothing to show for it.[/quote]
Yet again, it will never matter how many times you say "Sovereign was a Reaper". You are still approaching this from the perspective of Commander Shepard, who saw the visions and conversed with Sovereign/Vigil directly, which no one else has access to.
If I know for a fact that Satan and his armies are coming to scorch the Earth, people will still regard it as 'impossible' or 'outlandish' unless I can present them with the same evidence that convinced me otherwise. At one point, the Earth was considered round and although true, any thought to the contrary was considered 'impossible'/ 'outlandish' by most at one point.
[quote]
1. Given one of those politicians is an Asari matriarch who not just might have been able to predict the future, but had lived through the Rachni war, which consisted of a race of supergalactic 'bugs' coming to kill us all, and given the other two councillors would have at least studied the Rachni war, on what grounds is this as far fetched as you present it? In other words, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED ONCE IN KNOWN HISTORY. The Rachni weren't as advanced as Sovereign, but were still able to force an intergallactic war that was lasting hundreds of years, and which the Council races nearly lost.
2. And that was a hostile race showing up completely by surprise.
3. So this is completely unbelievable, why, exactly?[/quote]
1. ....No. You still present an invalid conclusion. Statement: "Supergalactic space bugs exist and they're coming to kill us all". Evidence: Supergalactic space bugs actually came to kill us. Before the Rachni were discovered, their existence might have been regarded as 'implausible'.
2. And there still was a precedent for their existence. Once more, Occam's Razor comes into play. Sovereign appeared at the head of a Geth fleet. Statement: "Superintelligent computer space ships are coming to kill us all". Evidence: "A highly advanced ship and a fleet of Geth led by Saren Arterius attacked the Citadel and tried to kill us all". The evidence does not support your conclusion based on what everyone, Council or otherwise, could see.
3. There is no basis for Reapers existing, only a superpowerful space ship. Evidence is needed to prove that something exists, not the other way around. 'Rachni exist' is a positive statement proven by people witnessing the Rachni attack. 'Reapers exist' is a positive statement unsupported by people witnessing space ships attack.
Nothing exists until proven otherwise by evidence. I could say Sovereign was crewed by demons from another realm, but unless we actually saw demons piloting Sovereign from the inside it remains an unsupported conclusion.
[quote]
It appearantly takes a long time to rebuild these warships. What you think should be priority, isn't always. what countries have agreed is historicly priority. Even the US doesn't have WWII level troops strength currently. Most nations have nowhere near their WWII troop levels. Again, if the DA goes down, the Asari DE-mobilize, which flies in the face of your insistance. [/quote]
So the potential loss of the Destiny Ascension, a large part of the Citadel Fleet, and the Alliance fleet is 'not' enough motivation for people to think "Gee, the Geth caught us with our pants down. Maybe we should rebuild before they do it again." but only 'Reaper theory' will make that a priority?
[quote]
If someone had warned them of the Rachni, would they still have considered that person a madman after the first Rachni encounter? There doesn't have to be absolute conclusive proof that it was a Reaper for them to at least consider the possiblity. [/quote]
Of course not, but the 'madman' was proven to be not so mad by evidence of the Rachni attacking. Shepard's claim that 'Reapers will kill us' has no such defense. The Council saw Sovereign from Eden Prime. Several theories were put forth: Reaper Warship, geth vessel, etc. There is no standing basis to conclude hyper-intelligent AI however. Or at least none that you have shown yet. That is the kind of conclusive evidence you need if you're to maintain this position that the Council believing Reapers makes logical sense.
[quote]
1. Based on that, all nations should de-mobilize entirely, since there is no proof anyone would ever attack in the future. There is a difference between panicing the people and treating this as a possibility, and investigating properly rather than outright dismissing. Giving Shepard at least the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean sending fleets randomly into darkspace in the hopes they might actually accidentally stumble across an enemy.
2. You say they cannot afford to rely on instinct. They cannot afford to be unprepared if there really are reapers too. Or of the Geth come back with a fleet of Sovereign class vessels. Even if it was a Geth ship, it was tech and the Geth could presumably build more. [/quote]
1. Plausible vs. implausible. Nations militarize perhaps because it dissuades other nations from attacking. Go look up 'MAD' theories on nuclear armaments. Mutually assured destruction prevents people from launching nuclear warheads because other countries also have nukes. Same with a potential attack. If China attacks the U.S., we are better placed to defend ourselves/counter attack if we have an army/weapons ready.
'Hey, someone may attack us in the future' is a plausible theory; it merely requires evidence to back it up. Attacks exist, nations exist, such things have happened in the past, etc. "Hey, Reapers may attack us in the future" is implausible. Attacks exist, have happened in the past, etc. But Reapers have not been proven to exist. It's like me saying "Mr. President, we have reports that the nation of Narnia is preparing to launch nuclear warheads. " But Narnia doesn't exist, so how could it be preparing nuclear warheads?
Keeping in mind the problem with your statements that they could let Shepard prove to them that Reapers exist is that we never see this proof. Before attack: Reapers are a lie. After attack: Reapers exist. We never see a discussion or anything. What new evidence was shown that the Council believes in Reapers now?
2. We cannot afforad to be unprepared if vampires exist. However, we don't go out and place stakes and garlic in every household across the world. We cannot prepare for every 'potential', real or imaginary, that we might face. But until proven otherwise, the Reapers constitute an imaginary threat.
[quote]
And yet, if someone who shows no other signs of insanity, all blood tests show nothing out of the ordinary, all brain scans normal, who has had contact with a device that might have had 'inside knowledge', just as it did about the Ilos facility, who is by all accounts a competent commander, who has a crew also swearing to having witnessed the same things, including a Doctor and a former CSEC officer who retired in good standing, and despite the fact that there has already been contact with an alien race of at least similar threat level in the past (the Rachni), the claims 'do not fall within the realms of plausability?'
You would have done great in the role of the man Churchill replaced.... [/quote]
Geez...really? Rachni are not Reapers. Turians are not Reapers. Asari are not Reapers. Proving the existence of Rachni proves the existence of Rachni, that is all. Potentiality does not under any circumstances equal actuality in terms of proving something's existence. No race's existence was proven until that race was encountered. 'Krogan exist' would be implausible until people met actual Krogans.
Saying "The Rachni existed and they're very dangerous, therefore Reapers must exist" is a logical fallacy. I could replace 'Reapers' with 'demons' or any number of supernatural creatures. The Rachni's existence was proven by the Rachni attacking us. A Reaper's existence would be proven by a Reaper attacking us. Unfortunately, a Reaper is defined as 'a sentient space ship which has existed for thousands of years' which has not been shown to be the case. We know it's a space ship, but 'sentience' has not been proven which is the key word that constitutes a Reapers. That is why Shepard and we the audience were surprised that Sovereign is a Reaper. Yes, Sovereign was incredibly strong. But it was the knowledge that it was sentient and manipulating Saren (not the other way around) which produced the true threat. 'Super strong space ship' doesn't meet your burden of proof for 'Reaper'.
[quote]
[quote] You keep saying they need absolute proof before even taking precautions or investigating. Why? it is like saying 'there is something to what you say, but we need proof' then 'By the way, because we have no proof, we forbid you from trying to find any.'
[/quote]
[/quote]Because as of Mass Effect's ending there is no new evidence which would logically show why the Council should suddenly believe in Reapers. How does Sovereign's thanix cannon or that it is able to cruise through a dreadnought unharmed prove that it is sentient or that it intended to manipulate Saren into releasing other Reapers? How can any of that possibly be concluded?
Two statements:
1) China is preparing to attack the U.S.
2) Narnia is preparing to attack the U.S.
Which do you think is harder to prove? We know China exists. We know the U.S. exists. We know nations can attack each other. It is a 'plausible' claim. Narnia is not even known to exist. It is 'implausible'. In order to prove statement # 2 true, someone would have to prove that there is a nation called Narnia in existence and that it is planning to attack us.
That's why 'absolute proof' is suddenly necessary. These are leaders of galactic civilization, their word will shape galactic policy. They will basically be admitting that we face the greatest threat in existence with a distinct possibility of extinction. It would probably mean that we have to march every organic into battle, need to make peace with the Terminus Systems, Krogan, whatever. Belief in Reapers will involve action/preparation of such magnitude that you cannot afford to be wrong. That's why the standard of proof is so high. The consequences of preparing for a non-existent Reaper threat must be considered thoroughly, including political suicide.
Sovereign wasn't a chocolate marshmallow. It was a ship far more advanced than any known vessels, including anything else in the Geth fleet. That you personally don't consider that evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Noone had really looked hard at Liara's evidence before either, since it seemed implausable and she was young. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence either, and now they had more reason to look.
Again, that they didn't take it seriously before the Citadel battle is understandable, but so is them deciding to do so after. [/quote]
Again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding in what constitutes 'evidence'. The point of the example is that both raining chocolate marshmallows and mind-controlling space ships are equally implausible. No one denies that Sovereign's the most advanced ship in existence, but what you suggest is still lunacy.
Let's say I'm walking down the street and come across a dog. A friend of mine points to it and says "Look! It's a talking dog!" I turn to him and say "No...it's just a dog. It's clearly not talking. It hasn't said a single word. I've never seen a dog talk before".
That's the equivalent of what you're suggesting. There is absolutely nothing about Sovereign to indicate that it contains a super-advanced AI planning to kill us all. All the Council is able to see is an extremely powerful space ship. If we could deduce that Sovereign was a Reaper just on sight/abilities alone, then Shepard could have done it on Eden Prime. Sovereign would never have had to confront Shepard directly. However, that wasn't the case. You learn on Virmire that Sovereign is a Reaper because Sovereign tells you "I'm a Reaper". The Council does not have access to this and cannot reach so easy a conclusion. I do not believe a dog is able to talk until I see it with my own eyes and neither do I believe a space ship is sentient until evidence is shown of the same.
[quote]
Shepard wasn't Asari and hadn't even met the Consort yet, so how could he use information he didn't yet have in his defence? The council at the time were not even allowing the investigator they assigned access to the files neccessary to investigate Saren. Saren obviously didn't want it taken seriously.. he knew it was real and not just a dream. If you want an actual plot hole, how about Shepard raving OMG REAPERS! like a madman, rather than comprehending he actually had to make a case? [/quote]
Irrelevant as there were other Asari, including the Councilor, with whom he could have mind melded. My point about the Consort is that dreams, visions, whatever, are nowhere as 'respected' as you make them out to be. Shepard's "visions" whether after acquiring the Cipher or when the Normandy is locked down is never presented as evidence to the Council that Reapers exist.
[quote]
Listen to yourself. Send the fleets into darkspace, where, exactly? It isn't like there was a note attached to Sovereign's corpse with a map. Hackett always took Shepard seriously and never treated him like a madman. Again, the fleet was not just ready, but acted on Shepard's first hand assessment. [/quote]
*sigh* That's the point. You just put Anderson down as an example of someone who believes in the Reapers
but is not thrust aside. The reason this is the case is because he's not making insane claims every which way or demanding outrageous actions. He believes in the Reapers and keeps it to himself for the most part. Shepard is the one demanding that the Council send its fleet out, go here, do this, etc. The point being that Shepard doesn't really keep a cool head in politics.
We also aren't fully made aware on what basis the fleet took action. Hackett, Anderson, the Council all knew that Saren was in search of the Conduit and that he was leading Geth to the Citadel. Shepard saying "Saren's attacking the Citadel" is a distinct possibility on all accounts. But once more, where are we shown that Hackett or the Alliance as a whole believed in anything Shepard said about the Reapers prior to the ending?
[quote]
You don't really know about Galipoli do you? Australia and New Zealand have a separate holiday just to mourn the losses. He was kicked out of politics for it. Shepard on the other hand has a solid record. [/quote]
Again, a solid record doesn't mean anything in the slightest. If I have a solid military record while making plausible claims, and then start telling people outrageous claims, I'm not lauded for that.
Shepard's claim: Saren is a rogue Spectre. He's betrayed the Council.
This is a 'plausible' claim, but simply has no proof at the start of Mass Effect. Saren exists. Spectres exist. People understand the concept of betrayal. The notion of a Spectre 'going rogue' is generally regarded as an acceptable possibility, if one that requires proof.
Shepard's other claim: A race of millenia old machines is responsible for manipulating our technological existence. They come every ten thousand years and wipe the galaxy clean of all life using the citadel as a giant mass relay.
This is an 'implausible' claim for the galaxy at large. The protheans are regarded as the creators of the Mass Relays. Most Prothean experts, Liara aside, don't place almost any stock in the Reapers or the existence of other civilizations. No one is aware of these 'Reapers' which they have never seen nor do they believe the Citadel is a relay since they cannot access it.
The point is that it doesn't matter how 'solid' my record is making plausible claims. There is little to no accepted basis for the existence of Reapers any more than if I started claiming that fairies exist.
[quote]
Define 'laws of physics.' Sovereign was vastly more powerful than any known ship, including the geth vessels. Its weapons were based on much more advanced concepts. We know from the thanix cannon that that they could have been adapted to Geth ships easily, yet were were not. Why if they were Geth designs?
"Comfortable' in this case is 'willful denial.' More to the point, you are saying it is impossible to conclude anything other than Sovereign being a Geth vessel. On what basis do you make that claim? [/quote]
'Willful denial'? Once more, you need to prove the Reapers have sentience, that they are coming to kill us all. 'Advanced technology' doesn't cut it. The Protheans had 'advanced technology'. I believe it is also put forward at one point that Sovereign may have been a 'Reaper warship' before Shepard learns the truth on Virmire (that Sovereign is an actual Reaper).
The truth is that Sovereign came leading an army of Geth, not an army of Reapers. I'm not saying that it isn't an issue of confusion. "Hmm, its technology is more advanced than your typical Geth fighter" is certainly a possible thought for the Council and other experts. "Hmm, its technology is more advanced...it must be a sentient Reaper coming to free its brethren from dark space" however has no logical basis and contradicts what many experts have said regarding the Protheans. Remember, the Reapers are looked on as a 'quasi-myth'.
[quote]
Look, it really WAS a Reaper, so saying it is an 'impossible event' or 'outlandish claim' is simply wrong. It sounded outlandish til it happened. And it wasn't merely that Churchill was right about Germany, it is that they put him in charge even though the last time he was in charge of anything important he cost the empire considerable lives and resources with nothing to show for it.[/quote]
Yet again, it will never matter how many times you say "Sovereign was a Reaper". You are still approaching this from the perspective of Commander Shepard, who saw the visions and conversed with Sovereign/Vigil directly, which no one else has access to.
If I know for a fact that Satan and his armies are coming to scorch the Earth, people will still regard it as 'impossible' or 'outlandish' unless I can present them with the same evidence that convinced me otherwise. At one point, the Earth was considered round and although true, any thought to the contrary was considered 'impossible'/ 'outlandish' by most at one point.
[quote]
1. Given one of those politicians is an Asari matriarch who not just might have been able to predict the future, but had lived through the Rachni war, which consisted of a race of supergalactic 'bugs' coming to kill us all, and given the other two councillors would have at least studied the Rachni war, on what grounds is this as far fetched as you present it? In other words, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED ONCE IN KNOWN HISTORY. The Rachni weren't as advanced as Sovereign, but were still able to force an intergallactic war that was lasting hundreds of years, and which the Council races nearly lost.
2. And that was a hostile race showing up completely by surprise.
3. So this is completely unbelievable, why, exactly?[/quote]
1. ....No. You still present an invalid conclusion. Statement: "Supergalactic space bugs exist and they're coming to kill us all". Evidence: Supergalactic space bugs actually came to kill us. Before the Rachni were discovered, their existence might have been regarded as 'implausible'.
2. And there still was a precedent for their existence. Once more, Occam's Razor comes into play. Sovereign appeared at the head of a Geth fleet. Statement: "Superintelligent computer space ships are coming to kill us all". Evidence: "A highly advanced ship and a fleet of Geth led by Saren Arterius attacked the Citadel and tried to kill us all". The evidence does not support your conclusion based on what everyone, Council or otherwise, could see.
3. There is no basis for Reapers existing, only a superpowerful space ship. Evidence is needed to prove that something exists, not the other way around. 'Rachni exist' is a positive statement proven by people witnessing the Rachni attack. 'Reapers exist' is a positive statement unsupported by people witnessing space ships attack.
Nothing exists until proven otherwise by evidence. I could say Sovereign was crewed by demons from another realm, but unless we actually saw demons piloting Sovereign from the inside it remains an unsupported conclusion.
[quote]
It appearantly takes a long time to rebuild these warships. What you think should be priority, isn't always. what countries have agreed is historicly priority. Even the US doesn't have WWII level troops strength currently. Most nations have nowhere near their WWII troop levels. Again, if the DA goes down, the Asari DE-mobilize, which flies in the face of your insistance. [/quote]
So the potential loss of the Destiny Ascension, a large part of the Citadel Fleet, and the Alliance fleet is 'not' enough motivation for people to think "Gee, the Geth caught us with our pants down. Maybe we should rebuild before they do it again." but only 'Reaper theory' will make that a priority?
[quote]
If someone had warned them of the Rachni, would they still have considered that person a madman after the first Rachni encounter? There doesn't have to be absolute conclusive proof that it was a Reaper for them to at least consider the possiblity. [/quote]
Of course not, but the 'madman' was proven to be not so mad by evidence of the Rachni attacking. Shepard's claim that 'Reapers will kill us' has no such defense. The Council saw Sovereign from Eden Prime. Several theories were put forth: Reaper Warship, geth vessel, etc. There is no standing basis to conclude hyper-intelligent AI however. Or at least none that you have shown yet. That is the kind of conclusive evidence you need if you're to maintain this position that the Council believing Reapers makes logical sense.
[quote]
1. Based on that, all nations should de-mobilize entirely, since there is no proof anyone would ever attack in the future. There is a difference between panicing the people and treating this as a possibility, and investigating properly rather than outright dismissing. Giving Shepard at least the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean sending fleets randomly into darkspace in the hopes they might actually accidentally stumble across an enemy.
2. You say they cannot afford to rely on instinct. They cannot afford to be unprepared if there really are reapers too. Or of the Geth come back with a fleet of Sovereign class vessels. Even if it was a Geth ship, it was tech and the Geth could presumably build more. [/quote]
1. Plausible vs. implausible. Nations militarize perhaps because it dissuades other nations from attacking. Go look up 'MAD' theories on nuclear armaments. Mutually assured destruction prevents people from launching nuclear warheads because other countries also have nukes. Same with a potential attack. If China attacks the U.S., we are better placed to defend ourselves/counter attack if we have an army/weapons ready.
'Hey, someone may attack us in the future' is a plausible theory; it merely requires evidence to back it up. Attacks exist, nations exist, such things have happened in the past, etc. "Hey, Reapers may attack us in the future" is implausible. Attacks exist, have happened in the past, etc. But Reapers have not been proven to exist. It's like me saying "Mr. President, we have reports that the nation of Narnia is preparing to launch nuclear warheads. " But Narnia doesn't exist, so how could it be preparing nuclear warheads?
Keeping in mind the problem with your statements that they could let Shepard prove to them that Reapers exist is that we never see this proof. Before attack: Reapers are a lie. After attack: Reapers exist. We never see a discussion or anything. What new evidence was shown that the Council believes in Reapers now?
2. We cannot afforad to be unprepared if vampires exist. However, we don't go out and place stakes and garlic in every household across the world. We cannot prepare for every 'potential', real or imaginary, that we might face. But until proven otherwise, the Reapers constitute an imaginary threat.
[quote]
And yet, if someone who shows no other signs of insanity, all blood tests show nothing out of the ordinary, all brain scans normal, who has had contact with a device that might have had 'inside knowledge', just as it did about the Ilos facility, who is by all accounts a competent commander, who has a crew also swearing to having witnessed the same things, including a Doctor and a former CSEC officer who retired in good standing, and despite the fact that there has already been contact with an alien race of at least similar threat level in the past (the Rachni), the claims 'do not fall within the realms of plausability?'
You would have done great in the role of the man Churchill replaced.... [/quote]
Geez...really? Rachni are not Reapers. Turians are not Reapers. Asari are not Reapers. Proving the existence of Rachni proves the existence of Rachni, that is all. Potentiality does not under any circumstances equal actuality in terms of proving something's existence. No race's existence was proven until that race was encountered. 'Krogan exist' would be implausible until people met actual Krogans.
Saying "The Rachni existed and they're very dangerous, therefore Reapers must exist" is a logical fallacy. I could replace 'Reapers' with 'demons' or any number of supernatural creatures. The Rachni's existence was proven by the Rachni attacking us. A Reaper's existence would be proven by a Reaper attacking us. Unfortunately, a Reaper is defined as 'a sentient space ship which has existed for thousands of years' which has not been shown to be the case. We know it's a space ship, but 'sentience' has not been proven which is the key word that constitutes a Reapers. That is why Shepard and we the audience were surprised that Sovereign is a Reaper. Yes, Sovereign was incredibly strong. But it was the knowledge that it was sentient and manipulating Saren (not the other way around) which produced the true threat. 'Super strong space ship' doesn't meet your burden of proof for 'Reaper'.
[quote]
[quote] You keep saying they need absolute proof before even taking precautions or investigating. Why? it is like saying 'there is something to what you say, but we need proof' then 'By the way, because we have no proof, we forbid you from trying to find any.'
[/quote]
[/quote]Because as of Mass Effect's ending there is no new evidence which would logically show why the Council should suddenly believe in Reapers. How does Sovereign's thanix cannon or that it is able to cruise through a dreadnought unharmed prove that it is sentient or that it intended to manipulate Saren into releasing other Reapers? How can any of that possibly be concluded?
Two statements:
1) China is preparing to attack the U.S.
2) Narnia is preparing to attack the U.S.
Which do you think is harder to prove? We know China exists. We know the U.S. exists. We know nations can attack each other. It is a 'plausible' claim. Narnia is not even known to exist. It is 'implausible'. In order to prove statement # 2 true, someone would have to prove that there is a nation called Narnia in existence and that it is planning to attack us.
That's why 'absolute proof' is suddenly necessary. These are leaders of galactic civilization, their word will shape galactic policy. They will basically be admitting that we face the greatest threat in existence with a distinct possibility of extinction. It would probably mean that we have to march every organic into battle, need to make peace with the Terminus Systems, Krogan, whatever. Belief in Reapers will involve action/preparation of such magnitude that you cannot afford to be wrong. That's why the standard of proof is so high. The consequences of preparing for a non-existent Reaper threat must be considered thoroughly, including political suicide.
Modifié par Il Divo, 12 janvier 2011 - 09:16 .
#505
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 05:21
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
Oooh. QFT.bruunz3 wrote...
I felt like i was being told to do everything i had to do instead of feeling like i needed to do it.
Though admittedly, I have no idea why I felt that way. I think it has something to do with the game feeling very rushed in the beginning. When you think about it, ME1's main mission wasn't even nailed down until you'd completed Eden Prime, gone to the Citadel, chased leads for forever, proved Saren's guilt and been made a Spectre. ME2's main mission is delivered very quickly in comparison.
But I don't pretend that's the whole reason. It can't just be that it was rushed. Parts of ME1 felt rushed at times, too.
Modifié par Nightwriter, 13 janvier 2011 - 05:22 .
#506
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 05:28
Element_Zero
-
- Members
- 295 messages
Wow Nightwriter this post has grown considerably.
#507
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 06:06
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 313 messages
Nightwriter wrote...
Oooh. QFT.bruunz3 wrote...
I felt like i was being told to do everything i had to do instead of feeling like i needed to do it.
Though admittedly, I have no idea why I felt that way. I think it has something to do with the game feeling very rushed in the beginning. When you think about it, ME1's main mission wasn't even nailed down until you'd completed Eden Prime, gone to the Citadel, chased leads for forever, proved Saren's guilt and been made a Spectre. ME2's main mission is delivered very quickly in comparison.
But I don't pretend that's the whole reason. It can't just be that it was rushed. Parts of ME1 felt rushed at times, too.
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation Consider::
Shepard: Why should we team up?
TIM: Because the Reapers are involved
Shepard: If what you say is true, then I believe you. Even without proof that anything you just told me is true.
TIM: The Force can have a strong influence on the weak minded. Did you know that?
Shepard: I have to find out who's abducting these colonists!
Veetor: No need, I got it all on video. See, it's the Collectors
Shepard: Well, that was easy,
Shepard: Okay now that we've infiltrated the Collector Ship, let's look for something interesting about them
EDI: By the way, I just found out the Collectors were once Protheans
Shepard: Not now, EDI, I'm looking for clues!
TIM: We need you to get the IFF from a disabled Reaper we found. We've had a research team investigating it. Oddly enough, we haven't heard from them lately. Hmm
Shepard: A Reaper? Really? This is great! We finally have proof to show the Alliance and the Council! With them at our backs, we could rig an entire fleet with the IFF and take on whatever's at the other end of the Re
TIM ::waves his hand:: You want to do this on your own
Shepard: On second thought, I can do this on my own. Joker! New coordinates for the galaxy map!
Exact dialogue somewhat modified for humerous effect.
#508
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 06:14
Fiery Phoenix
-
- Members
- 18 965 messages
It reminds me of the Rose-colored Glasses thread from a few months ago.Element_Zero wrote...
Wow Nightwriter this post has grown considerably.
#509
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 06:19
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
Rofl. I think iakus has hit the nail on the head. Amusingly. Especially this:
This is so very true. Also, I think it could contribute to why people felt like they didn't really do anything in ME2.iakus wrote...
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation.
#510
Guest_NewMessageN00b_*
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 06:20
Guest_NewMessageN00b_*
Guest_NewMessageN00b_*
-
- Guests
iakus wrote...
[...]
Shepard: Why should we team up?
TIM: Because the Reapers are involved
Shepard: If what you say is true, then I believe you. Even without proof that anything you just told me is true.
TIM: The Force can have a strong influence on the weak minded. Did you know that?
Shepard: I have to find out who's abducting these colonists!
Veetor: No need, I got it all on video. See, it's the Collectors
Shepard: Well, that was easy,
Shepard: Okay now that we've infiltrated the Collector Ship, let's look for something interesting about them
EDI: By the way, I just found out the Collectors were once Protheans
Shepard: Not now, EDI, I'm looking for clues!
TIM: We need you to get the IFF from a disabled Reaper we found. We've had a research team investigating it. Oddly enough, we haven't heard from them lately. Hmm
Shepard: A Reaper? Really? This is great! We finally have proof to show the Alliance and the Council! With them at our backs, we could rig an entire fleet with the IFF and take on whatever's at the other end of the Re
TIM ::waves his hand:: You want to do this on your own
Shepard: On second thought, I can do this on my own. Joker! New coordinates for the galaxy map!
Exact dialogue somewhat modified for humerous effect.
I guess they were just caught off-guard when it turned out ME2 has to include some sort of... um... main plot...
Who needs them, anyway. We just hop into the next cab and drive to next street. I do that all the time...
Modifié par NewMessageN00b, 13 janvier 2011 - 06:25 .
#511
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 06:39
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
BioWare's writers are as good as ever. They have mad skills. Their main plot could've been great, but you can't develop what you don't pay attention to. I don't fault their skill, I only disagree with the decisions they made about where to put their focus.
All of which could potentially have no significance whatsoever if their goal was never to advance the plot in the first place, only dally around a bit until ME3. In which case the question is: is that okay to do?
All of which could potentially have no significance whatsoever if their goal was never to advance the plot in the first place, only dally around a bit until ME3. In which case the question is: is that okay to do?
I like analytical discussion. Guess I'm not the only one. Good times.Element Zero wrote...
Wow Nightwriter this post has grown considerably.
Modifié par Nightwriter, 13 janvier 2011 - 06:43 .
#512
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 06:45
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 187 messages
Sadly, it seems that ME3 will be more of the same. Or worse. Apparently we've come to know the objective of the game one year before release.Nightwriter wrote...
Rofl. I think iakus has hit the nail on the head. Amusingly. Especially this:This is so very true. Also, I think it could contribute to why people felt like they didn't really do anything in ME2.iakus wrote...
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation.
I certainly hope the Reapers will have a few surprises in store to make an interesting plot, or ME3 will be just as disappointing story-wise.
#513
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 07:38
InvincibleHero
-
- Members
- 2 676 messages
I think part of the problem was in ME2 the recruitment was handed to you. You knew who to get an where to go to get them.
ME 1 you gathered people with similar goals along the way. It was a surprise who you could recruit. It was a discovery, and it felt more special.
ME 1 you gathered people with similar goals along the way. It was a surprise who you could recruit. It was a discovery, and it felt more special.
#514
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 07:39
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
Why will ME3 be more of the same? And why does knowing the objective beforehand make the game worthless?Ieldra2 wrote...
Sadly, it seems that ME3 will be more of the same. Or worse. Apparently we've come to know the objective of the game one year before release.
I certainly hope the Reapers will have a few surprises in store to make an interesting plot, or ME3 will be just as disappointing story-wise.
I mean, if I didn't want to know the objective beforehand I guess I shouldn't have hung around here watching trailers. Even ME2, which told us the objective of the game before release, delivered some surprises, like the Prothean = Collector revelation. It was just an oddly unmoving revelation...
#515
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 07:51
Terraneaux
-
- Members
- 1 123 messages
Nightwriter wrote...
Rofl. I think iakus has hit the nail on the head. Amusingly. Especially this:This is so very true. Also, I think it could contribute to why people felt like they didn't really do anything in ME2.iakus wrote...
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation.
Exactly. A huge part of the reason the 'character-driven' plot failed in ME2 is that Shepard didn't have any agency; a lot of time, you didn't even have the ability to react to what your squaddies did; the story was about the squaddie going off and doing something, not about shep and the squaddie interacting. Shep has the consciousness of the Prothean race in his/her head, and somehow it's EDI who figured out that they were Protheans? Some more 'visions' might have given the story more of a feel of it being pushed along by Shep, but I guess that would have violated the protocal of 'TIM time.'
#516
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 07:58
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
Nightwriter wrote...
Why will ME3 be more of the same? And why does knowing the objective beforehand make the game worthless?Ieldra2 wrote...
Sadly, it seems that ME3 will be more of the same. Or worse. Apparently we've come to know the objective of the game one year before release.
I certainly hope the Reapers will have a few surprises in store to make an interesting plot, or ME3 will be just as disappointing story-wise.
I mean, if I didn't want to know the objective beforehand I guess I shouldn't have hung around here watching trailers. Even ME2, which told us the objective of the game before release, delivered some surprises, like the Prothean = Collector revelation. It was just an oddly unmoving revelation...
I think a lot of signs are pointing to ME3 basically being like ME2 except that instead of gathering individuals we're gathering whole species/races to help us. Or basically that it'll be closer to Dragon Age: Origins storywise. It seems as if the trilogy is going to basically be this:-
ME1: Gradually unfolding story that pieces together until the mystery is unfolded and the main crux is reached.
ME2: Gathering a bunch of individuals and then helping them with family issues to succeed.
ME3: Gathering a bunch of groups and then helping get their space cats our of space trees to succeed.
Of course this is all speculation, but that's where the evidence seems to point so far.
Modifié par Terror_K, 13 janvier 2011 - 08:01 .
#517
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 08:14
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
iakus wrote...
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation Consider:
Honestly, I don't think it's a bad thing. With Saren and the Geth there was clear evidence, and Shepard got first-hand experience on the issue via Eden Prime. The problem lie with convincing the Council of Saren's wrongdoing, not with discovering anything on your own. Also, beyond the first few hours there's really not much "investigating" that goes on, at least compared to ME2
Shepard: Why should we team up?
TIM: Because the Reapers are involved
Shepard: If what you say is true, then I believe you. Even without proof that anything you just told me is true.
TIM: The Force can have a strong influence on the weak minded. Did you know that?
I take a bit of offense to this bit. You CAN select a Paragon statement that questions the validity of his claim, and he tells you, "Just go to Freedom's Progress. If you don't find anything, then we'll part ways." NO part of that insinuates you're taking his claim at face value. Even if this is a joke, I feel people take the whole "You don't have a choice but to go along with TIM." thing out of context.
Shepard: I have to find out who's abducting these colonists!
Veetor: No need, I got it all on video. See, it's the Collectors
Shepard: Well, that was easy.
Also, there's a good reason for this. Without some obvious clue or dead giveaway, you'd be left with...nothing. The Collectors are enigmatic enough and usually very thurough in their cleaning out colonies. Without Veetor's videos as a plot device the story wouldn't go ANYWHERE. Unlike ME1, where you knew what was going on, but you had to convince the third party your claims had merit. Big difference.
Shepard: Okay now that we've infiltrated the Collector Ship, let's look for something interesting about them
EDI: By the way, I just found out the Collectors were once Protheans
Shepard: Not now, EDI, I'm looking for clues!
...I don't see how this is evidence of anything relating to story weakness. The Collectors being Protheans was a HUGE development, but you were still on the Collector Ship looking for a way to find strategic information (like the location of their Base), so while the origin revelation was big, it wasn't the intended purpose of your trip.
TIM: We need you to get the IFF from a disabled Reaper we found. We've had a research team investigating it. Oddly enough, we haven't heard from them lately. Hmm
Shepard: A Reaper? Really? This is great! We finally have proof to show the Alliance and the Council! With them at our backs, we could rig an entire fleet with the IFF and take on whatever's at the other end of the Re
TIM ::waves his hand:: You want to do this on your own
Shepard: On second thought, I can do this on my own. Joker! New coordinates for the galaxy map!
Except that you're allied with Cerberus, and the Council made it dead clear that while you're with Cerberus they can't do anything to help you. Openly working with known terrorists doesn't exactly do much to inspire unity. And I'm sure the Alliance would say the same thing. I find it a bit grating how people bring up this particular point as a plothole when there's very good reasons why you wouldn't go running off to the dudes upstairs with this. It's why Anderson doesn't tell you about the VS on Horizon. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
#518
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 08:29
Terraneaux
-
- Members
- 1 123 messages
RiouHotaru wrote...
Except that you're allied with Cerberus, and the Council made it dead clear that while you're with Cerberus they can't do anything to help you. Openly working with known terrorists doesn't exactly do much to inspire unity. And I'm sure the Alliance would say the same thing. I find it a bit grating how people bring up this particular point as a plothole when there's very good reasons why you wouldn't go running off to the dudes upstairs with this. It's why Anderson doesn't tell you about the VS on Horizon. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
Yes. TIM somehow believes Shep; why can't the Council believe with the same evidence.
#519
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 08:40
Collider
-
- Members
- 17 165 messages
The plot demands that the Council be impotent. It's frustrating. Especially since the 180 the Council does about the reapers - it's as if ME2 was planned very well ahead of time.Terraneaux wrote...
RiouHotaru wrote...
Except that you're allied with Cerberus, and the Council made it dead clear that while you're with Cerberus they can't do anything to help you. Openly working with known terrorists doesn't exactly do much to inspire unity. And I'm sure the Alliance would say the same thing. I find it a bit grating how people bring up this particular point as a plothole when there's very good reasons why you wouldn't go running off to the dudes upstairs with this. It's why Anderson doesn't tell you about the VS on Horizon. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
Yes. TIM somehow believes Shep; why can't the Council believe with the same evidence.
Even something as simple as the Council helping you in some way (Spectrehood is more symbolic than anything) else may have sufficed.
#520
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 08:46
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
Wow, I suggested an idea very much along these lines in this thread: What would you have done with ME2? (I know this is on a separate site, but the site is for in depth BioWare story discussion among other things, I'd really love to hear your ideas there).Terraneaux wrote...
Exactly. A huge part of the reason the 'character-driven' plot failed in ME2 is that Shepard didn't have any agency; a lot of time, you didn't even have the ability to react to what your squaddies did; the story was about the squaddie going off and doing something, not about shep and the squaddie interacting. Shep has the consciousness of the Prothean race in his/her head, and somehow it's EDI who figured out that they were Protheans? Some more 'visions' might have given the story more of a feel of it being pushed along by Shep, but I guess that would have violated the protocal of 'TIM time.'
I really agree that as Shepard, I really did not feel very needed or involved. It was a privelege and a joy to accompany my squadmates on loyalty missions, but my involvement in them tended to vary. I firmly believed that Samara would not have caught Morinth if not for me, but I felt like nothing more than a spectator in Jacob's mission, and a guest in Thane's. Though Thane's gets bonus points for the line: "I don't need your help; I want it." I liked that line. I felt personally involved in both Tali and Garrus's for obvious reasons; they were long time friends and those missions capitalized on that. Very well done imo.
But all in all, I did not feel like I had known the characters long enough to offer anything more than the advice of a relative stranger. What's more, the bonding experience of the missions felt... I don't know. Tinged by the presence of necessity.
Modifié par Nightwriter, 13 janvier 2011 - 08:51 .
#521
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 09:04
miro42
-
- Members
- 14 messages
I'm sure everything I'll say has been covered in this long thread but I want to throw my two cents in as well.
ME1 didn't have a weak plot, it just had a generic one. It was the unraveling of that plot that made it so interesting and wonderful. Look at the beloved Star Wars. It was boy dreams of being a knight. He becomes a knight to go save the princess. Then he has to slay the dragon. Very basic fantasy but it was told very well, just like ME1.
The problem I see with ME2 is that while it had an interesting plot, it was not only developed in an uninteresting way, it didn't have the epic feel that ME1 had. In ME1 you save the council races (whether you saved the council or not) but then in ME2 you're only saving the human race? And you're forced to work with Cerberus? If I were Shepard I'd have had Joker disable EDI somehow and just jetted. Then I would have gone and found my lost companions and recruited them, cause they kicked total arse. Not that the new crew isn't cool, but I found myself mostly playing with Tali and Garrus, because I felt more comfortable with them. Also, less is more, especially when it comes to the amount of characters. If I had never played an RPG before maybe I might have lost some of my crew but I never felt Shepard or the crew was ever in any danger of dying. Maybe if BioWare hadn't stressed that you could lose some crew I might have not payed as much attention to beefing them up and then felt some connection when someone died.
Regardless, I'll play ME3 but I'm not holding out much hope for the greatness that was the original Mass Effect.
ME1 didn't have a weak plot, it just had a generic one. It was the unraveling of that plot that made it so interesting and wonderful. Look at the beloved Star Wars. It was boy dreams of being a knight. He becomes a knight to go save the princess. Then he has to slay the dragon. Very basic fantasy but it was told very well, just like ME1.
The problem I see with ME2 is that while it had an interesting plot, it was not only developed in an uninteresting way, it didn't have the epic feel that ME1 had. In ME1 you save the council races (whether you saved the council or not) but then in ME2 you're only saving the human race? And you're forced to work with Cerberus? If I were Shepard I'd have had Joker disable EDI somehow and just jetted. Then I would have gone and found my lost companions and recruited them, cause they kicked total arse. Not that the new crew isn't cool, but I found myself mostly playing with Tali and Garrus, because I felt more comfortable with them. Also, less is more, especially when it comes to the amount of characters. If I had never played an RPG before maybe I might have lost some of my crew but I never felt Shepard or the crew was ever in any danger of dying. Maybe if BioWare hadn't stressed that you could lose some crew I might have not payed as much attention to beefing them up and then felt some connection when someone died.
Regardless, I'll play ME3 but I'm not holding out much hope for the greatness that was the original Mass Effect.
#522
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 09:25
Nightwriter
-
- Members
- 9 800 messages
I'm not sure what you mean. Every plot mission we go on in ME1 is a mission of investigation. We know Saren's goal but we need his plan, and we investigate that plan on every world.RiouHotaru wrote...
iakus wrote...
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation Consider:
Honestly, I don't think it's a bad thing. With Saren and the Geth there was clear evidence, and Shepard got first-hand experience on the issue via Eden Prime. The problem lie with convincing the Council of Saren's wrongdoing, not with discovering anything on your own. Also, beyond the first few hours there's really not much "investigating" that goes on, at least compared to ME2
#523
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 09:34
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
Nightwriter wrote...
I'm not sure what you mean. Every plot mission we go on in ME1 is a mission of investigation. We know Saren's goal but we need his plan, and we investigate that plan on every world.RiouHotaru wrote...
iakus wrote...
I think it had something to do with Shepard not really discovering anything on his/her own. Everyone else does all that work. Shep's just there to shoot stuff. While in ME 1, Shepard's at the pointy end of the investigation Consider:
Honestly, I don't think it's a bad thing. With Saren and the Geth there was clear evidence, and Shepard got first-hand experience on the issue via Eden Prime. The problem lie with convincing the Council of Saren's wrongdoing, not with discovering anything on your own. Also, beyond the first few hours there's really not much "investigating" that goes on, at least compared to ME2
And in ME2 we know that the Collectors are on the other side of the Omega-4 Relay and we need a way to get there and good team to back us up.
I'd argue that no investigation of his plan occurs on Virmire, but that's just semantics. I'm just trying to argue that not everything in ME2 is handed to Shepard on a silver platter as much as Iakus would have people believe. If Feros and Noveria alone are "investigating" and that ME2 apparently has everything spelled out to you then something about the initial argument is flawed.
#524
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 09:38
RiouHotaru
-
- Members
- 4 059 messages
Terraneaux wrote...
RiouHotaru wrote...
Except that you're allied with Cerberus, and the Council made it dead clear that while you're with Cerberus they can't do anything to help you. Openly working with known terrorists doesn't exactly do much to inspire unity. And I'm sure the Alliance would say the same thing. I find it a bit grating how people bring up this particular point as a plothole when there's very good reasons why you wouldn't go running off to the dudes upstairs with this. It's why Anderson doesn't tell you about the VS on Horizon. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
Yes. TIM somehow believes Shep; why can't the Council believe with the same evidence.
Because the Council has to represent more than just their own species' self-interests, they also affect policy, law, and stability for the galactic community as a whole. It's been discussed over and over, the Council does NOT have the Idiot Ball. The issue is that they're dealing with a claim about a nigh-invincible foe lurking in darkspace with no evidence to support the claim, or even the barest idea of a timetable. All they have is Shepard's word. And his/her word alone is simply not enough. The Asari and Salarian Councilor are at least diplomatic about saying as such.
#525
Posté 13 janvier 2011 - 09:40
Zan Mura
-
- Members
- 476 messages
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?
**THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS**
Of course not. It's completely fair. ME2 was the superior game of the two ME's by far, in my opinion, and the character stories were incredible in the very essence of the word. Thing is, the problem wasn't that the main story was short, it's that to be honest it kinda sucked considering BW's typical track record and the promises of ME. I honestly can't even tell whether it was the delivery that failed, or the very idea, but the whole Collector thing seemed just so detached and rushed in from ME... and the climax being that they were producing a Human-Reaper hybrid seemed ridiculous to be honest. It was like a cheap rip-off from the Fly.
That a superior race of machines, incredibly advanced and potentially millions of years old, supposedly couldn't themselves manufacture whatever genetic material they wanted, but had to gather thousands of humans and grind them into a soup. Not just the methods that to even us would seem stone-aged, but even the very idea that a species that advanced would need Human DNA for anything. It paints the picture that our heritage is somehow uniquely powerful and significant, when pretty much every non-religious person alive knows just how insanely flawed a human being actually is. That a galaxy full of aliens, smarter, more powerful and far far more advanced would be deemed inferior to our genetic material... I mean sure, the whole part about the variation in the human genome was a good explanation but still. The idea seemed too self-centered, too simple, and just altogether too underwhelming compared to what one might have been expecting from ME. It was more like the plot of an episode for some saturday morning cartoon, than a triple-A roleplaying game by the best RPG company on the planet.
As said, ME2 was still a frigging awesome game, because the character stories really worked. But the main story being such a letdown (again, this is MY opinion, that's all) makes me fearful of ME3. It's not that I don't believe BW couldn't produce a better story. A part of me is afraid that they CHOOSE not to. Because, well, to put it bluntly maybe the mass markets wouldn't appreciate an intelligent plot, but instead want something a little more simple that's more easy to understand. The whole lack of same-sex romances in ME2 partially plays into this. There's this nagging feeling that while the game was awesome, the style is being aimed more towards another type of consumer, a type away from my own.
This could just be my paranoia talking.
