292 réponses à ce sujet

[Praetor Knight]

Maybe I'm just easily confused, but what is the plot of ME2 compared to THE plot of ME2?
How do we know if the game is not moving forward?
Who guessed that Shep would work with Cerberus for example?

From the wiki:

Plot is a literary term for the events a story comprises, particularly as they relate to one another in a pattern, a sequence, through cause and effect, or by coincidence.

Maybe ME2 is simply more coincidental than what would be ideal? I'm not sure honestly.


*******************************

The other term that I'm still not sure on how it applies to the ME universe is retcon. From the wiki:

Retroactive continuity refers to the alteration of previously established facts in a literary work.

Much of the ME universe is vague, left undefined, and assumed, IMHO, for me to be sure that something is a retcon or not.


*******************************

Either way, literary criticism makes my head spin most of the time.

[JamieCOTC]

Phaedon wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

I liked his analysis on the ME2 marketing, not so much for his analysis, but that one of the commentators compared ME2 to Asimov.  ME1, okay, there's a smidgen of Asimov mixed in w/ some Phillip K Dick, but ME2 is mostly Micheal Bay.

Smudboy also said at some point that ME2 didn't give him the Bladerunner feeling, unlike ME1. I facepalmed.

Omega anyone?

I don't agree w/ all his issues either and some were nitpicking to an extreme. And yeah, I agree w/ you.  Combine Omega w/ Ilium and you get the Bladrunner like feel.  ME1 didn’t give me a Bladrunner feel at all, btw, though there are some PKD concepts w/ cybernetics and organics melding going on especially w/ Saren.   ME2 did a better job w/ the BR feel, however and we did get the whole Geth schism which was probably the most interesting part of the game. But the points I agree w/ him the most are …

1.The Resurrection: Okay, I know why they did it.  It’s a cool intro and it gives the player a reason to redo the face or gives new players a fresh start.  Now, I don’t need an emo Shep or a dream sequence or Shep finding his/her spirit guide, but some character development would have been nice.  That said, femShep does get to vent about her “time away” in the Jacob romance, but it is then quickly brushed aside.  I understand that Shepard is Buck Rogers, Captain Kirk and James Bond all rolled up into one and those kinds of characters don’t go crying in their beer, but the characters around them do.  Easy fix – Kasumi gossiped about everyone including Shepard.  It was fun, so why couldn’t she have said, “Shep, my god, you were dead. How does that feel?”   Now, granted the player could not have answered and yes everyone always wants moar, but it would give the player something to think about (or dismiss) and it would have been acknowledged outside the worst romance in the game. All that said, the thing that irritates me the most about this plot device is that most everything that bugs me about the game, the Cerberus railroading, Liara’s split personality and the VS Horizon disaster, all stem from this one element.  I have to agree w/ smudboy on this. All BW had to do was have Shep go to the Council and Alliance, get rejected and then sign up w/ Cerberus.  They really didn’t even have to change the opening much, but just have Shepard survive that attack. BW could have had an injured Shepard captured by Cerberus and nursed back to health over a few months and have virtually the same facial restart.   Cerberus makes the offer, which the player could then accept or decline.  Ultimately, Paragon Shepard will go back w/ them as the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And since BW did nothing w/ the death anyway, why put in there?  A cool plot device does not a cool plot point make.  But, if “ifs” and “ands” were pots and pans the world would be a kitchen.  Shepard died and was resurrected in the game and we’re stuck w/ it.  Maybe ME3 will go somewhere w/ it and the whole cyber-Shep thing too.  Maybe. 

2.Liara: We seem to have four different Liaras in the whole arc of Mass Effect.  The socially naïve, yet powerful Asari scientist of ME1, the revenge seeking information broker of ME2, the shy, super heroine of ME: Redemption and finally the more complex, more socially capable would-be Shadow Broker of LotSB DLC. Now, let’s just gloss all that over and deal w/ one point that really bugs people about Liara in LotSB.  Shepard is nice to her, no matter what.  I say, well, she did save your sorry renegade, kitten killing *ss, so I suppose BW thought you might just be grateful. Does it make any sense?  No.  Guess what, it made even less sense for Liara to risk her life in order to save your sorry renegade, kitten killing *ss in the first place. Take Shepard’s death out of the picture and there’s no need for gratitude.  Now, I realize that not everyone who disliked Liara was a renegade.  We all like and dislike characters for our own reasons.  No one is right or wrong on that.  That was just an exaggerated example. 

3.VS:   -

1.Ashley: Where were you?  I thought you were dead. 
2.Shepard: I was. Cerberus rebuilt me.
3.Ashley: You’re w/ Cerberus now? You’re a traitor!!
4.Shepard: Ash, I came back from the dead.
5.Ashley: You turned your back on everything we stood for!! You betrayed us all!!
6.Shepard: Ash, I was brought back from the dead! The DEAD. You know that place no one has ever come back from in the history of the universe!
7.Ashley: I can’t trust you anymore.
8.Shepard: Don’t you get it; I’m a Cyber-Jesus! I’m undead! I’m a zombie without the brain hunger! I was all dead and now I’m not! I was the subject of the greatest scientific breakthrough since the creation of fire!!
9.Ashley: I’ll never join Cerberus
10.Shepard: Can we not do the Cerberus thing right now and concentrate more on the “I came back from the @&*%$#ING DEAD?!” 
11.Ashley: Good luck Commander. 
12.Shepard:  *facepalm*

4. The Baby Reaper: Why?  Why does it look like a terminator and not like this?  Granted, this has nothing to do w/ Shepard's death, but it still bugs the hell out of me.  I don't agree w/ all of smudbgoy's points on this, however.  I can buy the humans as Reaper chow.  I can buy that it would look human in form, just not a Terminator form ... that has a terribly fatal flaw. 

Like I said, I don't buy into all of his arguments. Take the Collector base.  He makes a compelling argument for keeping it, though there is a fatal flaw in his argument.  Shepard doesn’t get the base. TIM gets the base and would most likely only share it w/a Cerberus loyalist. If Shepard got to keep the base to him or herself, like smudboy seems to assume, I got no problem w/ that.  But that’s not an option and I’m not giving it up to Mr. “Cerberus IS Humanity” as that seems like a war waiting to happen.  Still, I agree w/ him on some points, especially about the Cyber-Jesus.  Now, I’m willing to give BW the benefit of the doubt and say that ME3 may come up and answer all those nagging questions, fill those holes, give those who want it the *option* of more Shep  character development, and  blow us all away in the process. So, until next December, fingers crossed.  

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 15 janvier 2011 - 03:55 .

[Iakus]

JamieCOTC wrote...

3.VS:   -

1.Ashley: Where were you?  I thought you were dead. 
2.Shepard: I was. Cerberus rebuilt me.
3.Ashley: You’re w/ Cerberus now? You’re a traitor!!
4.Shepard: Ash, I came back from the dead.
5.Ashley: You turned your back on everything we stood for!! You betrayed us all!!
6.Shepard: Ash, I was brought back from the dead! The DEAD. You know that place no one has ever come back from in the history of the universe!
7.Ashley: I can’t trust you anymore.
8.Shepard: Don’t you get it; I’m a Cyber-Jesus! I’m undead! I’m a zombie without the brain hunger! I was all dead and now I’m not! I was the subject of the greatest scientific breakthrough since the creation of fire!!
9.Ashley: I’ll never join Cerberus
10.Shepard: Can we not do the Cerberus thing right now and concentrate more on the “I came back from the @&*%$#ING DEAD?!” 
11.Ashley: Good luck Commander. 
12.Shepard:  *facepalm*

Ah, The Cure for Death and the Horizon confrontation, two of the biggest things that kill any desire for me to play ME 2 again rolled into one.  Yet you combined them in a way that made me laugh.  Bravo!

Me, I miss Smudboy.  He was nitpicky, he was...undiplomatic... He let people bait him.  But if there was anyone who critisized ME 2 that I thought Bioware should listen to, it was him.  He made very good points that were well thought out.  He was also willing to talk about what he did like as well (as seen in his Shadow Broker review)

[Doctah T]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Maybe I'm just easily confused, but what is the plot of ME2 compared to THE plot of ME2?
How do we know if the game is not moving forward?
Who guessed that Shep would work with Cerberus for example?

What I mean is, ME2's plot is completely self-reliant. It doesn't draw from the plot of ME1, and when everything's said and done, not a lot came out of it. It's like the kid in gym class that runs around in circles while everyone else is playing basketball. He might have a blast, but he's not helping his team.

I'm saying that the plot of Mass Effect 2 doesn't have a lot to do with the plot of the Mass Effect trilogy as a whole. But maybe I'm just not looking deep enough, or BioWare will tie it all together spectacularly in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Doctah T, 15 janvier 2011 - 05:00 .

[Praetor Knight]

Epic777 wrote...

And people wonder why Bioware developers rarely post.......

Agreed. 

[88mphSlayer]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

I liked his analysis on the ME2 marketing, not so much for his analysis, but that one of the commentators compared ME2 to Asimov.  ME1, okay, there's a smidgen of Asimov mixed in w/ some Phillip K Dick, but ME2 is mostly Micheal Bay.

Smudboy also said at some point that ME2 didn't give him the Bladerunner feeling, unlike ME1. I facepalmed.

Omega anyone?

1.The Resurrection: Okay, I know why they did it.  It’s a cool intro and it gives the player a reason to redo the face or gives new players a fresh start.  Now, I don’t need an emo Shep or a dream sequence or Shep finding his/her spirit guide, but some character development would have been nice.  That said, femShep does get to vent about her “time away” in the Jacob romance, but it is then quickly brushed aside.  I understand that Shepard is Buck Rogers, Captain Kirk and James Bond all rolled up into one and those kinds of characters don’t go crying in their beer, but the characters around them do.  Easy fix – Kasumi gossiped about everyone including Shepard.  It was fun, so why couldn’t she have said, “Shep, my god, you were dead. How does that feel?”   Now, granted the player could not have answered and yes everyone always wants moar, but it would give the player something to think about (or dismiss) and it would have been acknowledged outside the worst romance in the game. All that said, the thing that irritates me the most about this plot device is that most everything that bugs me about the game, the Cerberus railroading, Liara’s split personality and the VS Horizon disaster, all stem from this one element.  I have to agree w/ smudboy on this. All BW had to do was have Shep go to the Council and Alliance, get rejected and then sign up w/ Cerberus.  They really didn’t even have to change the opening much, but just have Shepard survive that attack. BW could have had an injured Shepard captured by Cerberus and nursed back to health over a few months and have virtually the same facial restart.   Cerberus makes the offer, which the player could then accept or decline.  Ultimately, Paragon Shepard will go back w/ them as the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And since BW did nothing w/ the death anyway, why put in there?  A cool plot device does not a cool plot point make.  But, if “ifs” and “ands” were pots and pans the world would be a kitchen.  Shepard died and was resurrected in the game and we’re stuck w/ it.  Maybe ME3 will go somewhere w/ it and the whole cyber-Shep thing too.  Maybe. 

i think as far as the whole resurrection thing goes, i think Horizon was mishandled

when you look at the main story - Horizon was really the first time you're in combat with the collectors since they killed you 2 years prior, but the way the story is told you spend so much time in between the two events - both game time and real time - that the two events are sort of disconnected a bit (naturally)

i think they should've used some storytelling to ground the player again by one simple change - Kaiden/Ashley get abducted and you go on that mission to board the collector ship way earlier - that would've given players that reminder of what the Collectors did to you at a time when the players kind of needed it - i mean all those separate little recruitment missions on new worlds really breaks up the story too much that you start to forget what the game is about, after awhile you even forget that you friggin died at the beginning because of the collectors and the fact that you died really doesn't play into any of your dealings later on with the collectors so i think if that simple gap had been bridged then the game's main plot would've resonated a little more

[Phaedon]

Babli wrote...

Blade Runner feeling in Mass Effect 2? First time I read about this. If Omega was supposed to bring that feeling, it failed really hard. Dont get me wrong, I like Omega, although it could been bigger hub world, but Blade Runner? No.

Well, that your opinion, I respect it. But you don't think that ME1 did a better job at it, did it?

And Epic777, Praetor, check Jesse Hudson's wall, makes me sick.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 janvier 2011 - 08:52 .

[Sable Phoenix]

I have to say, the criticisms in those videos are all pretty much spot on from a literary perspective.  The people who dump on them tend come across as, for the most part, BioWare fanboys (or fangirls) who don't understand literature or writing or the construction of a good story -- or who at least cannot differentiate those things from gameplay.  Good gameplay (which Mass Effect 2 does have, in several aspects) is not the same thing as a good story.  I started a thread dealing with these weaknesses a while back, and I think there have been a few others as well.

Overall, BioWare could have made Mass Effect 2 not just a fun game, but a great game, if they had thought out these issues before actually writing it.  Mass Effect 2's story is unsalvageable and it's too late to do anything to help it (by this point there is pretty much a zero percent chance it will actually be relevant to, or have any impact on, the outcome of the trilogy as a whole), but hopefully, repeatedly highlighting the massive and numerous shortcomings in this game will get them to avoid the same kind of thing in the third.

Hope, small and dwindling though it may be, springs eternal.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 15 janvier 2011 - 09:58 .

[Fraevar]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I have to say, the criticisms in those videos are all pretty much spot on from a literary perspective.  The people who dump on them tend come across as, for the most part, BioWare fanboys (or fangirls) who don't understand literature or writing or the construction of a good story -- or who at least cannot differentiate those things from gameplay.  Good gameplay (which Mass Effect 2 does have, in several aspects) is not the same thing as a good story.  I started a thread dealing with these weaknesses a while back, and I think there have been a few others as well.

Overall, BioWare could have made Mass Effect 2 not just a fun game, but a great game, if they had thought out these issues before actually writing it.  Mass Effect 2's story is unsalvageable and it's too late to do anything to help it (by this point there is pretty much a zero percent chance it will actually be relevant to, or have any impact on, the outcome of the trilogy as a whole), but hopefully, repeatedly highlighting the massive and numerous shortcomings in this game will get them to avoid the same kind of thing in the third.

Hope, small and dwindling though it may be, springs eternal.

This. Excellent points, Sable.

[Phaedon]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I have to say, the criticisms in those videos are all pretty much spot on from a literary perspective.  The people who dump on them tend come across as, for the most part, BioWare fanboys (or fangirls) who don't understand literature or writing or the construction of a good story -- or who at least cannot differentiate those things from gameplay.  Good gameplay (which Mass Effect 2 does have, in several aspects) is not the same thing as a good story.  I started a thread dealing with these weaknesses a while back, and I think there have been a few others as well.

Overall, BioWare could have made Mass Effect 2 not just a fun game, but a great game, if they had thought out these issues before actually writing it.  Mass Effect 2's story is unsalvageable and it's too late to do anything to help it (by this point there is pretty much a zero percent chance it will actually be relevant to, or have any impact on, the outcome of the trilogy as a whole), but hopefully, repeatedly highlighting the massive and numerous shortcomings in this game will get them to avoid the same kind of thing in the third.

Hope, small and dwindling though it may be, springs eternal.

Just because I don't like sarcasm and arrogance, even if the narrator has valid points, doesn't make me a fanboy. Any hopes for real constructive criticism are crushed when he adopts that tone. 

Both ME1/2's plot and smudboy's videos share one thing in common; they are both projects. This means that someone put effort into making them, and has made some mistakes. Imagine how a video pointing out smudboy's multiple mistakes narrated by someone with a dismissive voice would make him feel.

Did you get my point? Errors will always be made, pointing them out is okay, although not terribly helpful, I think. Making fun of someone else's work with comments now and there is bad.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 janvier 2011 - 10:38 .

[RiouHotaru]

Smudboy was also a huge hypocrite.  Whenever he made arguments, and someone would provide logical counterpoints and counterarguments, he'd resort to ad hominem attacks and moving the goalposts.  There was no way to ever get him to admit to the flaws in his own statements, and he'd disregard or ignore you if you didn't agree with him.  Not to mention he argued in circles.  Sometimes with himself.  He rips ME2 a new one, but completely glosses over or ignores the inconsistencies of ME1, which is ridiculous for someone who claimed to be an objective, unbiased critical thinker.

Phaedon wrote...
Oh look it's a thread with a smudboy video.

Since you guys agreed with each other mostly, you haven't seen some of the ridiculous things he did in order to prove that his opinion was right. (Books, comics, DLC are not canon etc)

Oh god don't get me started on this bit.  Yeah, he made the egregious and silly claim that the Codex and all supplementary material was not valid as evidence, as the game apparently had to support itself with only it's own exposition.  His character analysis' were complete rubbish as well, calling Samara the only "valid and believeable" romance and overanalyzing every little bit and detail to death.

Honestly, if he was permabanned, I can only guess it was for his ad hominem attacks or something.  But good riddance.  He was not a likeable person whatsoever.  I always got the feeling he had his nose in the air whenever he argued a point.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's... less of a substantiated claim and comes off far more as a desperate pleading. 'You care! You have to care!'

I have no idea what this means or what it is referring to.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Shepard, and his importance, were always tangental. Even making him Spectre was a political bone to be thrown to humanity: give a newbie Spectre a nigh-impossible task of taking down the Best of their Best. If he succeeded, all well and good. If he failed, it 'proves' Humanity isn't ready for advancement.

It was never the Council who felt or called Saren the galactic threat it was. It was Anderson and Shepard, Anderson in large part because of his own personal history, and Shepard because of the visions. And while the visions were nice, they got resolved in ME1: there was no more purpose or reason for them afterwards, unless you want a different set of visions. Otherwise, for the vast majority of the game what was at stake? Geth fighting a low-scale war with the Humans? Saren looking at an army of Rachni, which was a disaster?

The Reaper end-goal, IE galactic threat, was always the same in ME2. The means were just different: you had no idea what the conduit was in ME1, and no idea why they were taking human colonies in ME2.

Chasing after Saren felt like a high profile mission, whereas the Collector threat was something no one really cared about, not even the Alliance.

I felt no sense of threat, little urgency. I am not saying ME1 presented epic threat and urgency of a kind never seen before in gaming, but it did all right. Not too shabby. I knew my mission and I felt like I needed to stop the enemy. In ME2, I felt like I was told to stop the enemy.

[Nightwriter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Because from the beginning they implant you with the idea that Saren's bringing back the race that's going to wipe out galactic civilization. You feel like the threat is big. The Collectors are simply abducting fringe colonies. You don't feel like the galaxy's at stake.

You don't? Even knowing the Collectors are working for the Reapers?

Even knowing the Collectors are working for the Reapers. This has nothing to do with any failure on the writers' part really, it's actually just a side effect of the way they presented the game in ME2.

[Babli]

Phaedon wrote...

Babli wrote...

Blade Runner feeling in Mass Effect 2? First time I read about this. If Omega was supposed to bring that feeling, it failed really hard. Dont get me wrong, I like Omega, although it could been bigger hub world, but Blade Runner? No.

Well, that your opinion, I respect it. But you don't think that ME1 did a better job at it, did it?

Well, on the Citadel a little. Mainly thanks to music which was heavily inspired by BR.

[Phaedon]

 The Citadel? 

The Citadel is nothing like Bladerunner.

[Nightwriter]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

I have to say, the criticisms in those videos are all pretty much spot on from a literary perspective.  The people who dump on them tend come across as, for the most part, BioWare fanboys (or fangirls) who don't understand literature or writing or the construction of a good story -- or who at least cannot differentiate those things from gameplay.  Good gameplay (which Mass Effect 2 does have, in several aspects) is not the same thing as a good story.  I started a thread dealing with these weaknesses a while back, and I think there have been a few others as well.

Overall, BioWare could have made Mass Effect 2 not just a fun game, but a great game, if they had thought out these issues before actually writing it.  Mass Effect 2's story is unsalvageable and it's too late to do anything to help it (by this point there is pretty much a zero percent chance it will actually be relevant to, or have any impact on, the outcome of the trilogy as a whole), but hopefully, repeatedly highlighting the massive and numerous shortcomings in this game will get them to avoid the same kind of thing in the third.

Hope, small and dwindling though it may be, springs eternal.

Actually, that's kind of what I dislike about smud's work. I don't need my games to be bulletproof from a hardcore literary perspective. I just need them to be enjoyable.

He spends too much time explaining why the story doesn't fit literary etiquette and not enough time talking about why it wasn't enjoyable.

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...
Actually, that's kind of what I dislike about smud's work. I don't need my games to be bulletproof from a hardcore literary perspective. I just need them to be enjoyable.

He spends too much time explaining why the story doesn't fit literary etiquette and not enough time talking about why it wasn't enjoyable.

Did he even find the games enjoyable in the first place?

[Phaedon]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Did he even find the games enjoyable in the first place?

Only ME1 and LotSB, I think.

[didymos1120]

Phaedon wrote...

 The Citadel? 

The Citadel is nothing like Bladerunner.

But the music is, which is what he was talking about. 

[Phaedon]

didymos1120 wrote...
But the music is, which is what he was talking about.  

I can't see how audio can do a better work than visuals when creating an atmosphere,imo. Not to mention, that as a concept, the Citadel is possibly the exact opposite of BR. It's the 'Citadel of civilization'. 

[RiouHotaru]

Phaedon wrote...
Only ME1 and LotSB, I think.

I'm not surprised.

Also, I can't recall the Citadel's music being inspired by, or sounding anywhere similar to Blade Runner.  I should know, I own the VHS and did a report on the movie for a college class.  Really, there's a stark difference between the two.  If you want to compare BGMs, Deus Ex and Blade Runner have more in common.

[Nightwriter]

He praises ME1's story in the videos, and he says ME2's characters and their stories were quite well written, so I'm guessing he enjoys some of them, yes.

I'm betting he criticizes most fiction he partakes of, so I wouldn't necessarily take criticism as indication he didn't enjoy it.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 15 janvier 2011 - 11:56 .

[rodgerage]

Wow that guy was so boring i nearly fell a sleep i dont know why he hates mass effect 2

[Phaedon]

Nightwriter wrote...

He praises ME1's story in the videos, and he says ME2's characters and their stories were quite well written, so I'm guessing he enjoys some of them, yes.

I'm betting he criticizes most fiction he partakes of, so I wouldn't necessarily take criticism as indication he didn't enjoy it.

Possibly, but if I remember correctly he implies that ME2 was a bad game in the introduction of his ME1 analysis.

[Babli]

Phaedon wrote...

 The Citadel? 

The Citadel is nothing like Bladerunner.

And thats also just your opinion.