672 réponses à ce sujet

[glacier1701]

RiouHotaru wrote...

.....snip...

See, I disagree.  Without any leads, where would you go from there?  Ironically, minus Freedom's Progress the game would likely progress as per normal until Horizon, and then you'd have the moment where you reveal the antagonist...at the halfway mark of the game.  And then that's a stretch since TIM arranged for Horizon to get attacked by leaking information about Shepard.  Without any way to put together a connection, you have no way to proceed.  I mean really, I don't see how you could "unravel the mystery" when the culprits keep committing the perfect crime and otherwise leaving no evidence.  Really, ME2 does the exact same thing ME1 did, by revealing the antagonist within the first hour or so of the game.  So why is it worse with ME2?

Read your other posts and so on and personally don't agree with your stance. While I do feel you are completely wrong I'll let others post. However I have an issue here with the part that I've underlined in your latest post. Quite frankly it is totally unbelievable that the Collectors doing what they are shown to do within the game leave NO TRACE. 
 
 - The Seeker Swarms simply do not work. How do they get into enclosed spaces?
 - On Freedom's Progress we get security camera footage yet why NOT any from previous encounters? Just looking at HOW people react today to things going on today disaster may be looming but many will try to film it.
So where is all that?
 - On Horizon when the Collector ship leaves it uses 'reaction' rockets which produce enough of a blast that Shepard feels it. It would appear that this is how it leaves other planets so why don't we get to see the evidence of that on other planets?
 - Just the amount of time it takes to 'manually' load people onto their ship and we are asked to believe that NOTHING pops up in the days it takes to do this?


 I could carry on but the point is that we are being asked to believe in a perfect crime yet the tools used to commit that crime, when we see it, are so badly flawed as to not be able to carry it out. In other words I would say that ONLY having one group getting it right as to what is happening is not credible and EVERYONE should have realised what was going WAY before Shepard even comes up on the scene. I suppose what I am saying is that your arguements and stance about ME are based on flawed presentations that dont hold up under scrutiny.

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...
And yet, Shepard had no special talents or unique insights in ME1.  Sure, there was that bit in the beginning about Shepard's background, but that shouldn't need to be relevant again in ME2.  And I know you'll bring up the Prothean Beacon, but it could have easily been either Ashley or Kaidan who saw the vision instead.  Shepard has the unfortunate luck of being the stereotypical Western RPG Protagonist, which is a 'blank slate', the purpose being that by being blank, the players use their imagination to create elements to their own Shepard.

Ability?  No.  Shepard was an exceptional marine, but still a mere mortal.  A mortal who survived contact with a Prothean beacon warning of the return of the Reapers. (yes, I brought that up)  Sure it could have been Ashley or Kaiden.  One of them could perhaps have survived it too.  But that would have made for a different game, with the Shepard role divided between two characters.

How does this factor into the ME 2 role?  Well, Shepard didn't have such a purpose.  That in itself doesn't make for a weaker story, necessarilly.  As has been pointed out, the galaxy at large still doesn't believe in or even know about the Reapers (the fact that the Citadel Council doesn't believe is a seperate issue)  However. combined with the fact that Shepard was brought back from the dead at a huge investment of time and money, something more than knowledge that the Reapers are coming should have been a reason for Shep to be dragged into this fight.

Well, we don't know for how long the Collectors have been snatching colonists, and TIM even admits after Freedom's progress that he already suspected the Collectors.  How does he know it's the Reapers?  I doubt TIM was 100% confident in his assumption, but if you think about it, it makes sense.  Who else would possibly have a motive for snatching tens of thousands of human colonists?  Who else would have the technology?  Also, knowing what Cerberus did in the past doesn't change the fact that TIM's statement holds merit.  Cerberus aren't known for being liars, just scumbag terrorists.  Also, again, you're not just going along complicitly, there's plenty of dialogue for Shepard that states how uncomfortable he/she feels about the current arrangement.

That doesn't answer how TIM knew Reapers were involved.  No one else believes in them, remember.  What makes the Illusive Man different/more perceptive than The Citadel Council, Alliance military, C-Sec, the STG, Turian Hierarchy, or any other group that has had contact with Shepard's reports or Sovereign, direclty or indirectly?  The Collectors were already an advanced race.  How did TIM make the leap from them to Reapers?

See, I disagree.  Without any leads, where would you go from there?  Ironically, minus Freedom's Progress the game would likely progress as per normal until Horizon, and then you'd have the moment where you reveal the antagonist...at the halfway mark of the game.  And then that's a stretch since TIM arranged for Horizon to get attacked by leaking information about Shepard.  Without any way to put together a connection, you have no way to proceed.  I mean really, I don't see how you could "unravel the mystery" when the culprits keep committing the perfect crime and otherwise leaving no evidence.  Really, ME2 does the exact same thing ME1 did, by revealing the antagonist within the first hour or so of the game.  So why is it worse with ME2?

Now we're getting into how the story unfolds.  Yes, we see the villain early on in ME 1.  But Saren stayed the main focus of the game.  In ME 2 the Collectors pretty much drop off the map after being introduced.   Where would I have gone?  I would have focused more "Freedom's Progress" type missions where you look for traces of the mysterious aliens abducting the colonists.  More Collector ambushes.  Like the Collector Ship.  IMO, Shepard should not have known for certain that the Collectors were involved until Horizon (or a Horizon approximation)

Recruitment criteria would include people with some sort of insight into the disappearances.  Mordin was a good choice.  But I would have included more Okeers and less Grunts.  More involvement with the central story for everyone.  Shepard and the squad.

How could it have been such a game changer?  I mean, it's like learning what the Reapers were in ME1 or what Saren was planning for, the overall mission didn't change, you simply knew more about your enemy.  In the same regards the revelation here has the same effect.  We learn that the Collectors are Protheans, who can't be saved, who were repurposed by the reapers as a labor force.  What exactly were you expecting?

It was a game changer, as far as the story went.  Saren was not the Big Bad, as it were.  In fact, in his own twisted way, he was trying to save the galaxy.  With the Sovereign reveal, you see the game in an entirely different way.  The Collector reveal changed nothing.  No talk of whether the Reapers have that in mind for other races.  No discussion of why the Reapers repurposed the Protheans.  How this might affect strategy against the Reapers.How this fits into the Reapers'  plans.  Mordin gets one bit of dialogue later about what an abomination this is.  The other characters have absolutely nothing to say.  Shouldn't they?  I mean, this is what they're supposed to be fighting, isn't it?

Like I said, it came down to, essentially "Not now, EDI, I'm looking for clues"

I get it, it's a vicious cycle.  But that doesn't make it a weakness of the story.  The Council doesn't appear to have believed you from the start anyway, and the Alliance wants to arrest you and interrogate you about where you've been the last two years.  The whole idea behind the Cerberus affiliation is that you're in a 'deal-with-the-devil' type arrangement.  You're doing it because they're the only people willing to do anything at all.

But that's not how it was established.  You join Cerberus first  then find out the Alliance is after you, the Council doesn't trust/believe you, and so on.  You don't get to find out those doors are locked before you've already made your choice.  Believe me, I would have loved it if the deal with TIM was more Faustian in nature.

I guess what this wall of text comes down to is:  Neither Shepard nor the squadmates had any real connection to each other.  In theory that should have been through the main story, the Collectors and the Reapers as well as the Suicide Mission.  As the story progressed, we could have seen them come together in a commonn cause to save the galaxy.  They may have had different opinions on how to go about that.  They may have liked or disliked different members of the squad, or decisions Shepard made.  But in the end, they become a team and fight as one.  That's my thought behind "The characters were the story"  But that proved to not be the case at all.  It was, more accurately "the characters were the storieS"  Twelve characters, twelve stories.  None of them touched on any other.  No team.  Just one ship with twelve people on it.  And Shepard playing guest star.  This is especially sad because there was a thireenth, perfectly serviceable story sitting there going to waste.

[RiouHotaru]

While you make some decent arguments Iakus, I have to disagree, but I feel that if we continue posting and quoting each other that we won't get anywhere. I just happen to think differently than you do about it, and I don't think either of us are going to agree on these points. Still, it's good that we can have a civil discussion. I just don't think there's the problem with the story that you have.

[Lewie]

glacier1701 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

.....snip...

See, I disagree.  Without any leads, where would you go from there?  Ironically, minus Freedom's Progress the game would likely progress as per normal until Horizon, and then you'd have the moment where you reveal the antagonist...at the halfway mark of the game.  And then that's a stretch since TIM arranged for Horizon to get attacked by leaking information about Shepard.  Without any way to put together a connection, you have no way to proceed.  I mean really, I don't see how you could "unravel the mystery" when the culprits keep committing the perfect crime and otherwise leaving no evidence.  Really, ME2 does the exact same thing ME1 did, by revealing the antagonist within the first hour or so of the game.  So why is it worse with ME2?

Read your other posts and so on and personally don't agree with your stance. While I do feel you are completely wrong I'll let others post. However I have an issue here with the part that I've underlined in your latest post. Quite frankly it is totally unbelievable that the Collectors doing what they are shown to do within the game leave NO TRACE. 
 
 - The Seeker Swarms simply do not work. How do they get into enclosed spaces?
 - On Freedom's Progress we get security camera footage yet why NOT any from previous encounters? Just looking at HOW people react today to things going on today disaster may be looming but many will try to film it.
So where is all that?
 - On Horizon when the Collector ship leaves it uses 'reaction' rockets which produce enough of a blast that Shepard feels it. It would appear that this is how it leaves other planets so why don't we get to see the evidence of that on other planets?
 - Just the amount of time it takes to 'manually' load people onto their ship and we are asked to believe that NOTHING pops up in the days it takes to do this?


 I could carry on but the point is that we are being asked to believe in a perfect crime yet the tools used to commit that crime, when we see it, are so badly flawed as to not be able to carry it out. In other words I would say that ONLY having one group getting it right as to what is happening is not credible and EVERYONE should have realised what was going WAY before Shepard even comes up on the scene. I suppose what I am saying is that your arguements and stance about ME are based on flawed presentations that dont hold up under scrutiny.

Freedoms progress already had gardian lasers that the community complained about which beggars the same question. Why didn't they work? That makes me question what the alliance are up to. Horizon makes me ask many questions installing a weapon system that is dud is bull considering they have built them before, maybe cerberus intervened at a 'convenient'  time so they come out on top, i wouldn't put it past TIM anyway.

A colony in stasis though makes sense as to why the collectors were able to 'take their time'. At the start Miranda and Jacob already knew enough about the collectors when you meet Veetor but this is i think, the cerberus path the game has you follow. I have so many contradictions that im not sure what my main save for 3 will be.

[Il Divo]

Terraneaux wrote...

That's exactly the issue; ME1 was written for a 'blank slate' protagonist, in a way that the protagonist was central to the story.  For ME2 it seemed like the writers would rather write something like a jrpg, except that Shep didn't fit into this model, so he/she was just ignored.  It's painfully obvious in Samara and Jack's stories, in particular, that the writer really wanted that character to be the hero/main character, not Shepard.  ME1 had a good handling of a 'blank slate' protagonist that made the story seem real and made it easy to get invested in it, in ME2 unless you had a huge hard-on for one of the new characters it was pretty meh.  Me, I liked Garrus and Tali's stories the most, because they by necessity involved Shep, as Shep was one of their close friends.

Mass Effect 2's problem has to do with the fact that Shepard is given a back seat role in terms of the story, barring his relationship with TIM. The problem also stems from the fact that so many missions focus on some companion, as opposed to the protagonist Shepard.

Having said that, I do feel your bolded statement is mistaken. The very purpose of a companion mission is for that side character to be the star, as has been the case with most Bioware companion quests. When you help Carth confront Dustil on Korriban, you are strictly there in a supporting role, as a friend/ally. The quest is intended that Carth Onasi have an emotional experience, not the protagonist. That Samara the Justicar is the 'hero' of Samara the Justicar's loyalty mission is perfectly sensible. Every companion should be the star of their own loyalty mission, bar none. The problem is that the 12 loyalty missions + 8 recruitment missions eclipse the main story of Commander Shepard. It's one reason why Lair of the Shadowbroker was handled so well because you actually had the opportunity to explore Shepard's character.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 janvier 2011 - 11:34 .

[Lewie]

Il Divo wrote...

Terraneaux wrote...

That's exactly the issue; ME1 was written for a 'blank slate' protagonist, in a way that the protagonist was central to the story.  For ME2 it seemed like the writers would rather write something like a jrpg, except that Shep didn't fit into this model, so he/she was just ignored.  It's painfully obvious in Samara and Jack's stories, in particular, that the writer really wanted that character to be the hero/main character, not Shepard.  ME1 had a good handling of a 'blank slate' protagonist that made the story seem real and made it easy to get invested in it, in ME2 unless you had a huge hard-on for one of the new characters it was pretty meh.  Me, I liked Garrus and Tali's stories the most, because they by necessity involved Shep, as Shep was one of their close friends.

Mass Effect 2's problem has to do with the fact that Shepard is given a back seat role in terms of the story, barring his relationship with TIM. The problem also stems from the fact that so many missions focus on some companion, as opposed to the protagonist Shepard.

Having said that, I do feel your bolded statement is mistaken. The very purpose of a companion mission is for that side character to be the star, as has been the case with most Bioware companion quests. When you help Carth confront Dustil on Korriban, you are strictly there in a supporting role, as a friend/ally. The quest is intended that Carth Onasi have an emotional experience, not the protagonist. That Samara the Justicar is the 'hero' of Samara the Justicar's loyalty mission is perfectly sensible. Every companion should be the star of their own loyalty mission, bar none. The problem is that the 12 loyalty missions + 8 recruitment missions eclipse the main story of Commander Shepard. It's one reason why Lair of the Shadowbroker was handled so well because you actually had the opportunity to explore Shepard's character.  

LOTSB was good but you didn't explore Shepards character you found out how you came to be with cerberus and tell Liara you are peeved or whatever your response is. It answered a question or 2. Deciding whether or not for eg. to shoot Jacobs father in the head, or let Mordin kill one of his own, while supporting who? If these decisions are not just paragon or renegade for Shepards own character then they have to have an impact on 3? Or am i just deciding on being a hero or a ****** who shoots everyone in my way.

Edit: As Shepard when Liara leaves, if you tell her you are fighting for everyone it didn't fit with shooting people in the face so you could get renegade points. So i have to change what i say? Its probably because i can't play one or the other so i find the middle ground confusing at times.

Modifié par louise101, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:06 .

[Il Divo]

louise101 wrote...

LOTSB was good but you didn't explore Shepards character you found out how you came to be with cerberus and tell Liara you are peeved or whatever your response is. It answered a question or 2.

And yet, it presented exactly what people were looking for in terms of character development. The focus invariably turned back to Shepard, which was a key aspect. Liara's pointed questions into Shepard's mind reminded us that this was in fact Shepard's story. It's something that should have played a larger role on the whole in Mass Effect 2. 
 

Deciding whether or not for eg. to shoot Jacobs father in the head, or let Mordin kill one of his own, while supporting who? If these decisions are not just paragon or renegade for Shepards own character then they have to have an impact on 3? Or am i just deciding on being a hero or a ****** who shoots everyone in my way.

During a companion quest? Yeah, it really is just an issue of hero vs. ******. The main quest occupies what is intended to be 'Shepard's story', as Mass Effect did. Shepard's development should come from the main plot, for the most part. The companion quests are there to explore those companions, not Commander Shepard. Killing Dr. Saleon was about Garrus and changing his outlook on the world. Convincing Mordin to save the genophage is a similar example. Companion quests have never been about the protagonist of the story (your character). Their goal is to explore someone other than Commander Shepard.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:00 .

[Lewie]

Il Divo wrote...

louise101 wrote...

LOTSB was good but you didn't explore Shepards character you found out how you came to be with cerberus and tell Liara you are peeved or whatever your response is. It answered a question or 2.

And yet, it presented exactly what people were looking for in terms of character development. The focus invariably turned back to Shepard, which was a key aspect. Liara's pointed questions into Shepard's mind reminded us that this was in fact Shepard's story. It's something that should have played a larger role on the whole in Mass Effect 2. 
 

Deciding whether or not for eg. to shoot Jacobs father in the head, or let Mordin kill one of his own, while supporting who? If these decisions are not just paragon or renegade for Shepards own character then they have to have an impact on 3? Or am i just deciding on being a hero or a ****** who shoots everyone in my way.

During a companion quest? Yeah, it really is just an issue of hero vs. ******. The main quest occupies what is intended to be 'Shepard's story', as Mass Effect did. Shepard's development should come from the main plot, for the most part. The companion quests are there to explore those companions, not Commander Shepard. Killing Dr. Saleon was about Garrus and changing his outlook on the world. Convincing Mordin to save the genophage is a similar example. Companion quests have never been about the protagonist of the story (your character). Their goal is to explore someone other than Commander Shepard.

When i said hero vs ****** i meant in general due to the point system. Garrus believes eliminate the threat regardless after you kill Dr. Saleon. Companion quests do let you explore these characters but ultimately Shepard is making the decisions for them.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Ability?  No.  Shepard was an exceptional marine, but still a mere mortal.  A mortal who survived contact with a Prothean beacon warning of the return of the Reapers. (yes, I brought that up)  Sure it could have been Ashley or Kaiden.  One of them could perhaps have survived it too.  But that would have made for a different game, with the Shepard role divided between two characters.

How does this factor into the ME 2 role?  Well, Shepard didn't have such a purpose.  That in itself doesn't make for a weaker story, necessarilly.  As has been pointed out, the galaxy at large still doesn't believe in or even know about the Reapers (the fact that the Citadel Council doesn't believe is a seperate issue)  However. combined with the fact that Shepard was brought back from the dead at a huge investment of time and money, something more than knowledge that the Reapers are coming should have been a reason for Shep to be dragged into this fight.

This is Commander Shepard, bear in mind. Survivor of Akuze, Butcher of Torfan, first human Spectre (of which there are at most 100 in existence). The same man who proved Saren's guilt, who destroyed an army of Krogan on Virmire, rediscovered/potentially eliminated the Rachni on Noveria, stopped the ancient Thorian on Feros, defied his superiors by leading his team to the lost Mu Relay on Ilos, and fought his way through an army of Geth to singlehandedly defeat Saren while Joker led an Alliance fleet against Sovereign under Shepard's orders, saving the Citadel and the galaxy.

That sounds more than any mere mortal could do, and I can't think of many other characters in Mass Effect who have such a fantastic resume on hand. Add on top of that, Shepard becomes the human idea at the conclusion of Mass Effectl. In the eyes of the Illusive Man, it's easy to see why someone would consider dragging Shepard back into the fight.

That doesn't answer how TIM knew Reapers were involved.  No one else believes in them, remember.  What makes the Illusive Man different/more perceptive than The Citadel Council, Alliance military, C-Sec, the STG, Turian Hierarchy, or any other group that has had contact with Shepard's reports or Sovereign, direclty or indirectly?  The Collectors were already an advanced race.  How did TIM make the leap from them to Reapers?

The problem here Iakus is you're making an inquiry into what is essentially an unnecessary aspect of a character. The point of TIM's role is that of the myserious benefactor, the information broker, etc. In other words, it is not necessary to know the exact details of how TIM discovered the Reapers any more than we need to know the details of how the Shadowbroker comes to possesse information on every politician on the Citadel; it's an accepted facet of that character. The closest we get to a response from TIM on this point is "The lines are there, if you can see them". It's lampshading, but it basically means "you don't need to know". It's the equivalent of asking how/why Liara (a mere child in Asari eyes) was able to discover the pattern of disappearing civilizations when every other major Prothean scholar could not. It's not necessary to understanding the story.

It was a game changer, as far as the story went.  Saren was not the Big Bad, as it were.  In fact, in his own twisted way, he was trying to save the galaxy.  With the Sovereign reveal, you see the game in an entirely different way.  The Collector reveal changed nothing.  No talk of whether the Reapers have that in mind for other races.  No discussion of why the Reapers repurposed the Protheans.  How this might affect strategy against the Reapers.How this fits into the Reapers'  plans.  Mordin gets one bit of dialogue later about what an abomination this is.  The other characters have absolutely nothing to say.  Shouldn't they?  I mean, this is what they're supposed to be fighting, isn't it?

Like I said, it came down to, essentially "Not now, EDI, I'm looking for clues"

I've always been confused by this and I think it stems from people building up the Protheans = Collectors to be an equivalent spoiler to Sovereign = Reaper. I never looked at the Protheans being Collectors as intended to change the function of the story, rather it was meant as backstory into the enemy Shepard is facing, like knowing the origins of the Geth which doesn't change the function of the story at all. Shepard himself says exactly as you do 'It doesn't matter, they're no longer the Protheans'. It was never meant to be some mind numbing spoiler in the first place. Mordin's dialogue fills the same role, simple background exposition. Interesting, but not necessary.

But that's not how it was established.  You join Cerberus first  then find out the Alliance is after you, the Council doesn't trust/believe you, and so on.  You don't get to find out those doors are locked before you've already made your choice.  Believe me, I would have loved it if the deal with TIM was more Faustian in nature.

Hmm, there is more to the story than that however. The doors essentially become 'locked' by nature of Shepard's death. It's not so simple as Shepard waking up and deciding to go work for the bad guys. It came down to the 'good guys' (a loaded word) refused to do anything without further proof and preferring to focus on rebuilding the Citadel/humanity securing dominance. Again, in the aftermath of Sovereign's assault, Shepard is sent to wipe out Geth resistance, not fight Reapers. As of Mass Effect 2's intro, we are told that the Council also wants Shepard to find more evidence regarding the Reapers' existence. Illusive Man does not require such proof. He's willing to provide Shepard (who is now a stranger to the galaxy) a ship, crew, and pay for any other resources while also serving as his information dealer. It's hardly a decision worth considering, trusting TIM aside which is why he allows you the opportunity to explore Freedom's Progress. And considering he did resurrect Shepard, he should at least have the opportunity to be heard.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:38 .

[Il Divo]

louise101 wrote...

When i said hero vs ****** i meant in general due to the point system. Garrus believes eliminate the threat regardless after you kill Dr. Saleon. Companion quests do let you explore these characters but ultimately Shepard is making the decisions for them.

Right, but the point is that even when Shepard makes a decision, the focus is placed on the companion, not on Shepard. After Alistair's companion quest in Dragon Age, you have the opportunity to harden him into a stronger person, but it's not intended as an opportunity to explore your warden's emotions (which is done throughout the rest of the game via main quest, romances, etc), but to explore how this action affects a companion. When you kill Dr. Saleon, the concluding thought isn't "Hmm, I wonder how Shepard feels about this" but rather "Hmm, how does Garrus feel about this?". That's the intended purpose of most, if not all companion quests.

[Lewie]

Il Divo wrote...

louise101 wrote...

When i said hero vs ****** i meant in general due to the point system. Garrus believes eliminate the threat regardless after you kill Dr. Saleon. Companion quests do let you explore these characters but ultimately Shepard is making the decisions for them.

Right, but the point is that even when Shepard makes a decision, the focus is placed on the companion, not on Shepard. After Alistair's companion quest in Dragon Age, you have the opportunity to harden him into a stronger person, but it's not intended as an opportunity to explore your warden's emotions (which is done throughout the rest of the game via main quest, romances, etc), but to explore how this action affects a companion. When you kill Dr. Saleon, the concluding thought isn't "Hmm, I wonder how Shepard feels about this" but rather "Hmm, how does Garrus feel about this?". That's the intended purpose of most, if not all companion quests.

Its not always how does Shepard feel about this. Mordins loyalty mission is a good example i guess i did wonder would that have an influence in 3? If i stop Mordin from killing Maelon or let him, what is the consequence? Just telling Mordin that he is not a murderer which already contradicts in a way what the genophage has done, or handing Jacobs father over to the alliance and disagreeing with what he did, yet cerberus could use him against Jacob if you tell TIM to shove it so the loose end is his father, which is probably a renegade response after a bullet to the head?

Does any decision have an influence or is it solely to clear their head for the mission?

Edit: There has to be something with the various data you can keep, hand to the alliance, cerberus or keep for yourself and other you can wipe.

Modifié par louise101, 14 janvier 2011 - 01:12 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

That's only because ME1 wasn't afraid to take its time and not rush things too much, like most good classic sci-fi. ME2 is too fast-paced and action-packed, like a modern Hollywood action movie. It needs to sit back and take a breath now and then. It's a style thing, and I happen to prefer ME1's far more because it's better paced. ME2 just rushes things too much.

ME1 didn't have very much worthwhile content. Theron is just a drive to Liara. Feros has two sections: the colony+Thorian and the detour.

The only semi-decent content re: pacing you have is the aliens homage in Noveria and Virmire, which is by far the best part of ME1.

[Heimdall]

My opinion?



The character stories of ME2 were utterly fantastic, each and every one. The main plot had a few issues, mostly that the whole Collector issue seemed a bit detached from ME1's story at times and the human Reaper bothered me a little, not a game breaker to me though. The lack of character interaction was also bad and made it hard to see the characters as a team, ME1 had a similar problem but somehow it seemed less acute, probably because there were fewer characters.



Overall the character stories were good enough that I still think ME2 is great game.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

That sounds more than any mere mortal could do, and I can't think of many other characters in Mass Effect who have such a fantastic resume on hand. Add on top of that, Shepard becomes the human idea at the conclusion of Mass Effect. In the eyes of the Illusive Man, it's easy to see why someone would consider dragging Shepard back into the fight.

Shepard does indeed have an impressive resume.  "But bringing back from the dead"-worthy?  "Spending as much as an army of mercs" and "a brand new warship" worthy?  For a symbol?  A symbol now seen as a crackpot, if not an outright traitor?  You say yourself later, Shepard is now a stranger to the galaxy.  What us is he/she as a symbol?  There needs to be another reason.  Even if it's only hinted at as forshadowing for ME 3.  Heck this cvould have been character development for Shepard and maybe the crew:  Why was the Illusive Man so insistint on bringing Shepard back to life?  What does he know?  What might Shepard know, but not realize?  You don't just raise people from the dead on the off chance they might be useful again.  Not unless you live in a world where eating the right mushroom allows you to start over again

The problem here Iakus is you're making an inquiry into what is essentially an unnecessary aspect of a character. The point of TIM's role is that of the myserious benefactor, the information broker, etc. In other words, it is not necessary to know the exact details of how TIM discovered the Reapers any more than we need to know the details of how the Shadowbroker comes to possesse information on every politician on the Citadel; it's an accepted facet of that character. The closest we get to a response from TIM on this point is "The lines are there, if you can see them". It's lampshading, but it basically means "you don't need to know". It's the equivalent of asking how/why Liara (a mere child in Asari eyes) was able to discover the pattern of disappearing civilizations when every other major Prothean scholar could not. It's not necessary to understanding the story.

Given the timing of the revelation, I find it very highly relevent.  This is the point where the Illusive Man is trying to win Shepard's trust.  Cerberus is, after all a terrorist organization.  Shepard is likely to have run across several of their projects in ME 1, and reacted violently to them.  Shepard may in fact have been a victim in one of their little experiemtns on Akuze.  This is not the time for handwaving.  This is the time for TIM to lay cards on the table, or tell a convincing lie.  Or both.  Anything less is an obvious attempt to push Shepard's buttons.  Itmakes Shepard look foolish and credulous

I've always been confused by this and I think it stems from people building up the Protheans = Collectors to be an equivalent spoiler to Sovereign = Reaper. I never looked at the Protheans being Collectors as intended to change the function of the story, rather it was meant as backstory into the enemy Shepard is facing, like knowing the origins of the Geth which doesn't change the function of the story at all. Shepard himself says exactly as you do 'It doesn't matter, they're no longer the Protheans'. It was never meant to be some mind numbing spoiler in the first place. Mordin's dialogue fills the same role, simple background exposition. Interesting, but not necessary.

It can't be a coincidence that the writers chose the Collectors to be Protheans repurposed.  Any other race could have been made up.  Even a variation of Keepers would have made sense.  But they chose Protheans,  I don't have to tell you that Protheans hold a special place in the ME universe.  They were the last race to fight the Reapers.  They were the creators of the Conduit, the beacons, Vigil, and had a galaxy-wide empire.  It's largely because of them that this cycle has gone off the rails.  Heck the Hanar worship them.  To see such a people, who were once the pinnacle of civilization in the galaxy, fall so far, if that doesn't mean something, it should.  Both Shepard and any squadmate brought with should react with horror and revulsion.  EIther becasue this is the remains of he people other civilizations strive to be like, or fear that this may be their future. 

Hmm, there is more to the story than that however. The doors essentially become 'locked' by nature of Shepard's death. It's not so simple as Shepard waking up and deciding to go work for the bad guys. It came down to the 'good guys' (a loaded word) refused to do anything without further proof and preferring to focus on rebuilding the Citadel/humanity securing dominance. Again, in the aftermath of Sovereign's assault, Shepard is sent to wipe out Geth resistance, not fight Reapers. As of Mass Effect 2's intro, we are told that the Council also wants Shepard to find more evidence regarding the Reapers' existence. Illusive Man does not require such proof. He's willing to provide Shepard (who is now a stranger to the galaxy) a ship, crew, and pay for any other resources while also serving as his information dealer. It's hardly a decision worth considering, trusting TIM aside which is why he allows you the opportunity to explore Freedom's Progress. And considering he did resurrect Shepard, he should at least have the opportunity to be heard.

I'm not saying that Shepard working for Cerberus wasn't inevitable, or even a bad move, story-wise.  What I'm saying is the process was done backwards.  Shepard had not had an oportunity to see just how bad things had gotten with the Alliance or the CItadel.  In fact, before encountering Tali on Freedom's Progress, Shepard doesn't speak to any nonCerberus personel.  He doesn't try to verify that anything TIM said is true, aside from the fact that, yes, at least one colony seems to have disappeared. 

Shepard clearly forgot the old saying: "Trust everybody, but cut the cards"

[SithLordExarKun]

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

[Remus Artega]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

Since when are the critics praised for the field of their criticism?

Modifié par Remus Artega, 14 janvier 2011 - 08:29 .

[Zeke01231]

I have to say I found the Prothean/Collector reveal very disturbing and this comes from a long time fairly jaded gamer... I'm hoping the Protheans have one last "Wrath of Kahn" type moment in 3..one last spat from a long ago proud dead race *salute*.

[didymos1120]

Remus Artega wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

Since when are the critics praised in the field of their critic?

If by that you mean "Since when are critics also successful participants in the field they criticize" then I'd answer: pretty common in written SF actually.  Damon Knight, Thomas Disch, Samuel Delany, etc.  Happens a fair bit in film as well.

Modifié par didymos1120, 14 janvier 2011 - 08:32 .

[khevan]

Why do those of use who feel that ME2's story was lacking in certain regards need to be accomplished writers? If you go to a movie you didn't like, do you need to be a filmmaker to say so? Why can we not voice our criticisms in a thread devoted to such criticisms without being hounded by people who think we're "haters?"



Seriously, people. Use your heads. If you liked the game and the story, GOOD FOR YOU! I personally loved ME2, but there were elements to the story side that I didn't like. Doesn't make my opinion better than yours, or yours better than mine. You're free to laud Bioware for what you feel is a masterpiece, and I'm free to say "Eh, didn't care for this part, I'd have prefered to see this."



This thread was intended to be a civil discussion on what we felt was lacking about ME2's story, why we felt that way, and what we'd have preferred to see differently. If you have a problem with that, DON'T READ THE DAMNED THREAD.



/rant

[SithLordExarKun]

Remus Artega wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

Since when are the critics praised for the field of their criticism?

Since when i have i said that critics are praised of their criticism?

I love how one sly remark gets you RPG elitists like yourself all butthurt.

[Remus Artega]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Remus Artega wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

Since when are the critics praised for the field of their criticism?

Since when i have i said that critics are praised of their criticism?

I love how one sly remark gets you RPG elitists like yourself all butthurt.

I've expressed myself in wrong way...I completely omitted the word "participants" (it is very early in the morning here)...

And I love how all these threads seem to attract all the ME2 defenders with all their need to convince us "RPG elitists" of the eternal truth...

[Moiaussi]

In Exile wrote...

ME1 didn't have very much worthwhile content. Theron is just a drive to Liara. Feros has two sections: the colony+Thorian and the detour.

The only semi-decent content re: pacing you have is the aliens homage in Noveria and Virmire, which is by far the best part of ME1.

How much 'content' does the Star Wars trilogy have? It has a very basic plot, yet for many it is very immersive. This was even more so when the movies first opened.

For many of us, ME1 was similarly immersive. Other than the surveys and collects, the missions really feel connected. Even to the extent they are not related to the central plot, they do tend to relate better.

There were incidents that felt like real moral dilemmas... whether to kill a helpless but potentially exceedingly dangerous prisoner, whether to let those compromised by an enemy (Shiara) have a second chance. Whether a child should undergo gene therapy.

ME2's 'big dilemmas' were whether to unlock Grunt or Legion (after sticking Legion in the mainframe room, which is arguably the highest risk since we know later that the the ships AI can be manually disengaged from that room. Grunt was pretty much a non-issue because there was no reason to believe him hostile. 

Oh, and whether or not to blow up an enemy base vs capturing it. A dilemma definately, but didn't really feel on the same scale.

Tali's trial had its momments, but there was no option to actually destroy the data rather than distract from it and hope for the best.

Oh, and a completely artificial dilemma created simply becase crack mercenary Zaeed never learned how to use a sniper rifle, or even to recognize that his commander might know how to use a sniper rifle.  

[Moiaussi]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

Pretty sure there is more criticism for ME2's writing than acclaim, at least on these boards. Yet ME1 there was a lot of acclaim for.

If as consumers, we are not allowed to be critical of what we watch or read, then I would like the royalty cheques for my posts here. Personally I think they are fantastic, and that you in particular should be entertained immensely and sending me scads of cash.

Strangely, I suspect you don't consider my posts worthy of such acclaim.

Strangely, we don't consider ME2's writing worthy of much acclaim either. I will concede that it is better than my posts, but that is not saying much

[SithLordExarKun]

Remus Artega wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Remus Artega wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.

Since when are the critics praised for the field of their criticism?

Since when i have i said that critics are praised of their criticism?

I love how one sly remark gets you RPG elitists like yourself all butthurt.

I've expressed myself in wrong way...I completely omitted the word "participants" (it is very early in the morning here)...

And I love how all these threads seem to attract all the ME2 defenders with all their need to convince us "RPG elitists" of the eternal truth...

Really??? I was defending ME2 by posting what i feel? Seriously, the sword cuts both ways  brah, this thread attracts the RPG elitists as much as it attracts the pro ME2 guys.

For the record : And I love how all these threads seem to attract all the ME21 defenders lunatics
with all their need to convince us "RPG elitists   ME2 defenders" of the eternal
truth...