292 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Phaedon wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Yes, but one should not be required to move the other forward. Say I don't do any loyalty missions for role playing purposes, what then? Can the main story hold it's own or does it rely (a lot) on those loyalty missions for support? I think the answer is very clear.

And how do you know that the Reaper plot is the main story?

Because it's the sequel to Mass Effect.

[88mphSlayer]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Why? They are seperate from the main story. If you peel those away, you are left with a mediocre story that leaves much to be desired.

pretty much, which is why i think they should've put alot more of their storytelling abilities into making the main story resonate more with players... the fact that you DIE because of the collectors had less and less impact as the game wore on because the main story was partitioned so much and you spent more game time playing recruitment/loyalty missions... Freedom's Progress should've been really memorable because of what the collectors did - instead it was memorable because Tali was there... Horizon had promise but not having Kaiden/Ashley abducted meant the player had little personal investment in the collectors getting away, etc. etc. the momentum of the story just fell apart after your death and only got going again when you went to get the reaper IFF and that's only because the game was near the end

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 15 janvier 2011 - 02:30 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

88mphSlayer wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Why? They are seperate from the main story. If you peel those away, you are left with a mediocre story that leaves much to be desired.

pretty much, which is why i think they should've put alot more of their storytelling abilities into making the main story resonate more with players... the fact that you DIE because of the collectors had less and less impact as the game wore on because the main story was partitioned so much and you spent more game time playing recruitment/loyalty missions... Freedom's Progress should've been really memorable because of what the collectors did - instead it was memorable because Tali was there... Horizon had promise but not having Kaiden/Ashley abducted meant the player had little personal investment in the collectors getting away, etc. etc. the momentum of the story just fell apart after your death and only got going again when you went to get the reaper IFF and that's only because the game was near the end

Spot on.

[darth_lopez]

i haven't seen smudboy around for a while on these here forums XD, But yeah He has some good points. Someone Needs to fire the writer for ME 2., lest it was karpyshyn then you need to seriously have a talk with him. This guy knows what he's talking about.

[Phaedon]

Fixers0 wrote...
And how do you know that the Reaper plot is the main story?

Because the Game is called Mass Effect 2.

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Because it's the sequel to Mass Effect. 

And... ?

The Reapers are still part of the plot, but why should they be the main?

Quantity-wise, the Reaper missions were not the main plot.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 janvier 2011 - 05:03 .

[SithLordExarKun]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Why? They are seperate from the main story. If you peel those away, you are left with a mediocre story that leaves much to be desired.

Yes, do the same for DAO(which is an RPG 100x better than ME1 imo) and you're left with another LOTR ripoff.

[Il Divo]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Why? They are seperate from the main story. If you peel those away, you are left with a mediocre story that leaves much to be desired.

Yes, do the same for DAO(which is an RPG 100x better than ME1 imo) and you're left with another LOTR ripoff.

Although the art style feels very LOTR, I do thing DA: O evokes more A Song of Ice and Fire, which isn't a bad thing. But his point is that if you were to remove Mass Effect 2's character/recruitment missions, you are truthfully left with very little. It's hard to point to one element of DA:O and say "if you remove this, it all falls apart" because on the whole between characters and plot, DA:O was a very cohesive story/world.

[Fixers0]

Phaedon wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
And how do you know that the Reaper plot is the main story?

Because the Game is called Mass Effect 2.

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Because it's the sequel to Mass Effect. 

And... ?

The Reapers are still part of the plot, but why should they be the main?

Quantity-wise, the Reaper missions were not the main plot.

And that why i wonder why this game is called Mass effect 2, if most of the Event's don't have anything to do with continuing the plot set by Mass effect 1,This is also the Reason why Mass effect works as a game but not as a part of a trilogy.

[Phaedon]

Fixers0 wrote...
And that why i wonder why this game is called Mass effect 2, if most of the Event's don't have anything to do with continuing the plot set by Mass effect 1,This is also the Reason why Mass effect works as a game but not as a part of a trilogy.

No sorry, the Reapers themselves weren't the main plot in ME1 either. What was the main plot was to stop the geth from helping Saren to help Sovereign to help the rest of the Reapers return. 

Let me understand here, you are either going to whine about ME2 not being a good sequel for not having a good Reaper plot, or whine about ME2 not being a good sequel because it didn't have a long enough Reaper plot. Something tells me that there must be a logical flaw somewhere there...

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Phaedon wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
And that why i wonder why this game is called Mass effect 2, if most of the Event's don't have anything to do with continuing the plot set by Mass effect 1,This is also the Reason why Mass effect works as a game but not as a part of a trilogy.

No sorry, the Reapers themselves weren't the main plot in ME1 either. What was the main plot was to stop the geth from helping Saren to help Sovereign to help the rest of the Reapers return. 

Let me understand here, you are either going to whine about ME2 not being a good sequel for not having a good Reaper plot, or whine about ME2 not being a good sequel because it didn't have a long enough Reaper plot. Something tells me that there must be a logical flaw somewhere there...

Nonsense. As soon as you become a Spectre, the plot swithces to finding the Conduit, which is all about the return of the Reapers. Don't try to spin it to support your arguement. The Reapers were the plot. Saren and the Geth were subplots. That's why the game isn't over when you defeat Saren.

I'd say ME2 was a spectacular game on it's own. But it didn't feel like a sequel to the first game, it felt like a spin off. ME3, based on the trailer, looks to be a direct sequel to the first game.

[shinobi602]

furryfox96 wrote...

Why can't people just accept the story for what it is. You don't need to criticize the flaws at all. Just go with it and enjoy what Bioware wants the story to be about. Not what you want the story to be about.If so go write your own story and be happy with that and not tell others what it should of been.

This.

I'm just along for the ride, I really enjoy the story. I don't really care that "wtfomgs SCIENCE says this is incorrectz#@$!!"

It's a game....

[Fixers0]

Phaedon wrote...

No sorry, the Reapers themselves weren't the main plot in ME1 either. What was the main plot was to stop the geth from helping Saren to help Sovereign to help the rest of the Reapers return. 

Let me understand here, you are either going to whine about ME2 not being a good sequel for not having a good Reaper plot, or whine about ME2 not being a good sequel because it didn't have a long enough Reaper plot. Something tells me that there must be a logical flaw somewhere there...

Mass Effect 1 was about constantly discovering pieces of a puzzle, everyone and everything that happens is part of a larger story the Reapers, where both the question and anwser in that story, and it isn't finished yet we expected this story to contiue in Mass effect 2, but it didn't

In Mass effect 2 added nothing really imported to this story, as i said before the whole goal of the game is to show us a footage of the Reapers returning, at the end none of the events really  mattered or can be cared about.

The Collectors were not an serious addition to the over arching story of Mass Effect at all because they fail both from a story perspective and a developer perspective.


 

[smithgroup]

I LOVED ME2 but some of the points in the video were right. If you take out the reaper group cutscene at the end of the game, and the quick 5-6 references to them, then ME2 could be totally un-reaper related.

BUT from the looks of the trailer, ME3 will give us all the reapers we want!

...Well hopefully.

Modifié par smithgroup, 15 janvier 2011 - 06:46 .

[redshift87]

I just watched the first video and found that he gave pretty eloquent voice to many of my issues with the beginning of ME2. My hugest issue with ME2 in general, and which I felt he did a good job pointing out, was how BioWare completely missed the bus on an incredible narrative chance they had with Shepard's resurrection.

Rather than exploring the emotional and mental issues Shepard would have dealt with after dying and being brought back two years later (by an organization they have plenty of reasons to hate), BioWare glossed right over this part of the story. This unfortunately made it feel like a purely game-mechanic driven decision to plausibly reset our characters to level 1, and not the hugely important character developing moment it should have been for our Shepards.

Modifié par redshift87, 15 janvier 2011 - 07:24 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

^ Unfortunately some players feel their sheps are too busy or too great to be bothered with the simple act of question how he/she died and how he/she was brought back. Sucks for all of us who wanted that for at least a few lines.

[Iakus]

redshift87 wrote...

I just watched the first video and found that he gave pretty eloquent voice to many of my issues with the beginning of ME2. My hugest issue with ME2 in general, and which I felt he did a good job pointing out, was how BioWare completely missed the bus on an incredible narrative chance they had with Shepard's resurrection.

Rather than exploring the emotional and mental issues Shepard would have dealt with after dying and being brought back two years later (by an organization they have plenty of reasons to hate), BioWare glossed right over this part of the story. This unfortunately made it feel like a purely game-mechanic driven decision to plausibly reset our characters to level 1, and not the hugely important character developing moment it should have been for our Shepards.

Very much this.

"If the hero of the galaxy comes back from the dead, that should mean something.  To everyone who knew him and what he did.  For several reasons, not just get discounts at stores."

[RiouHotaru]

redshift87 wrote...

I just watched the first video and found that he gave pretty eloquent voice to many of my issues with the beginning of ME2. My hugest issue with ME2 in general, and which I felt he did a good job pointing out, was how BioWare completely missed the bus on an incredible narrative chance they had with Shepard's resurrection.

Rather than exploring the emotional and mental issues Shepard would have dealt with after dying and being brought back two years later (by an organization they have plenty of reasons to hate), BioWare glossed right over this part of the story. This unfortunately made it feel like a purely game-mechanic driven decision to plausibly reset our characters to level 1, and not the hugely important character developing moment it should have been for our Shepards.

Except that Bioware can't.  Not every Shepard will react in the same way.  Many people on the boards have wildly varying interpretations of how their particular Shepards react to any situation.  To force a reaction out of Shepard over his/her death would obviously conflict with people's interpretation of Shepard's character.  This is one of the big problems with WRPGs.  If this were a JRPG, such an introspection would be perfect for this game.  But WRPG protagonists tend to not be fleshed-out characters due to what those protagonists are supposed to represent.

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Except that Bioware can't.  Not every Shepard will react in the same way.  Many people on the boards have wildly varying interpretations of how their particular Shepards react to any situation.  To force a reaction out of Shepard over his/her death would obviously conflict with people's interpretation of Shepard's character.  This is one of the big problems with WRPGs.  If this were a JRPG, such an introspection would be perfect for this game.  But WRPG protagonists tend to not be fleshed-out characters due to what those protagonists are supposed to represent.

If that is the case (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, necessarilly) then I think Bioware should have gone another route.  One that is not so potentially frought with emotion.  You don't toss death and ressurection into a story without being willing to run with it.  That just cheapens the whole plot.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...


If that is the case (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, necessarilly) then I think Bioware should have gone another route.  One that is not so potentially frought with emotion.  You don't toss death and ressurection into a story without being willing to run with it.  That just cheapens the whole plot.

What bothers me about the resurrection is not Shepard's reaction, which I actually find perfectly acceptable. Dr. Chakwas when you first meet her in Mass Effect 2 discusses how most people would be changed by death, emotionally drained, etc, but not Shepard. The way he was designed as a character, no matter what happens Shepard was never intended as a character who spends his time overthinking things, whether death, evil robots, etc. Most people if presented with the Reaper spoiler would probably have gone insane, in typical Cthulhu fashion. What does Shepard say? "I'm going to stop you". Same with his reaction upon meeting rachni, mind controlling plants, the Prothean Beacon, etc. He's not intended as someone who will let give up his convictions.

I'm more bothered by the lack of reactions from everyone around you. Sure, Miranda doesn't seem the type to be perturbed by anything. But Captain Bailey? The random shopowners? The Citadel as a whole? There really should have been a huge commotion, even with Jacob telling us that the Alliance downplayed Shepard's death.

[Praetor Knight]

iakus wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Except that Bioware can't.  Not every Shepard will react in the same way.  Many people on the boards have wildly varying interpretations of how their particular Shepards react to any situation.  To force a reaction out of Shepard over his/her death would obviously conflict with people's interpretation of Shepard's character.  This is one of the big problems with WRPGs.  If this were a JRPG, such an introspection would be perfect for this game.  But WRPG protagonists tend to not be fleshed-out characters due to what those protagonists are supposed to represent.

If that is the case (and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, necessarilly) then I think Bioware should have gone another route.  One that is not so potentially frought with emotion.  You don't toss death and ressurection into a story without being willing to run with it.  That just cheapens the whole plot.

That's why I'm starting to prefer to believe that Shep did not really die, and the claims that he was dead was so that no one would try to go look for Shep.

I wouldn't trust what TIM or the Shadow Broker has to say anymore anyway.

The problem would be how long did Shep stay on that planet before he was taken from there and then being brought to Cerberus, and what Jacob said about seeing meat and tubes (maybe Jacob never really saw Shep and Miranda never bothered to correct him), but that's just my speculation also.


Edit: Shep's body was broken, but the skull seemed intact, maybe comatose?

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 15 janvier 2011 - 10:01 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

What bothers me about the resurrection is not Shepard's reaction, which I actually find perfectly acceptable. Dr. Chakwas when you first meet her in Mass Effect 2 discusses how most people would be changed by death, emotionally drained, etc, but not Shepard. The way he was designed as a character, no matter what happens Shepard was never intended as a character who spends his time overthinking things, whether death, evil robots, etc. Most people if presented with the Reaper spoiler would probably have gone insane, in typical Cthulhu fashion. What does Shepard say? "I'm going to stop you". Same with his reaction upon meeting rachni, mind controlling plants, the Prothean Beacon, etc. He's not intended as someone who will let give up his convictions.

I'm more bothered by the lack of reactions from everyone around you. Sure, Miranda doesn't seem the type to be perturbed by anything. But Captain Bailey? The random shopowners? The Citadel as a whole? There really should have been a huge commotion, even with Jacob telling us that the Alliance downplayed Shepard's death.

I wouldn't ask for a lot of crying, moping, or even a drinking binge (well, maybe the last could be optional.  Guess I'll have to settle for the Chakwas talk)

What I would like to have, is a scene or two acknowledging what an incredible event it is that someone who's been dead for two years is back.  I mean, even if Shep just shrugs and keeps on doing his job, he can't deny that Cerberus having a Cure for Death is a Big Deal.

[Destroy Raiden_]

^ My shep just became an alcoholic sense BW won't let her ask any questions she'll just die a premature death during 3 from liver poisoning way to go BW!

[samurai crusade]

redshift87 wrote...

I just watched the first video and found that he gave pretty eloquent voice to many of my issues with the beginning of ME2. My hugest issue with ME2 in general, and which I felt he did a good job pointing out, was how BioWare completely missed the bus on an incredible narrative chance they had with Shepard's resurrection.

Rather than exploring the emotional and mental issues Shepard would have dealt with after dying and being brought back two years later (by an organization they have plenty of reasons to hate), BioWare glossed right over this part of the story. This unfortunately made it feel like a purely game-mechanic driven decision to plausibly reset our characters to level 1, and not the hugely important character developing moment it should have been for our Shepards.

Side quests in ME1 were purely optional.. so it's possible some Shepards never knew of Cerberus or their military actions.
As we've read in Cerberus Daily News.... with Earths President being on a machine, people seem more concerned with whether or not you are competent than how it's possible.
The first Mass Effect novel stated that Earths religions took a hit with the discovery of the Prothean ruins on Mars... so mentioning resurection from a religious stand-point would be silly.
Could they have described the resurection process? Sure... what difference would it make if they said chemical X restores static DNA while enzyme B revives stem-cells and hormone Alpha restarts higher brain function?    The fact is they had the technology and it was expensive.
Shepard is a soldier, unless Doctor Chakwas is a clinical psycologist... or Kelly wants to explore Shepards emotions... it's not going to happen.  Shepard would much rather hear about his squadmates or the universe than talk about himself.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

darth_lopez wrote...
i haven't seen smudboy around for a while on these here forums XD, But yeah He has some good points. Someone Needs to fire the writer for ME 2., lest it was karpyshyn then you need to seriously have a talk with him. This guy knows what he's talking about.

I really thought the balance between story, dramatic effect, pace, fps and rhythm was good in ME2... I'm really can't make the jump to "you failed because you failed to use story elements the traditional way".
Smuds points don't make sense to me. But then Drew Karpyshan and his latest novel didn't really excite me either.

[samurai crusade]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...
i haven't seen smudboy around for a while on these here forums XD, But yeah He has some good points. Someone Needs to fire the writer for ME 2., lest it was karpyshyn then you need to seriously have a talk with him. This guy knows what he's talking about.

I really thought the balance between story, dramatic effect, pace, fps and rhythm was good in ME2... I'm really can't make the jump to "you failed because you failed to use story elements the traditional way".
Smuds points don't make sense to me. But then Drew Karpyshan and his latest novel didn't really excite me either.

If you are curious about indoctrination... the latest novel was fantastic.    The subtlety of it all. How Grayson thought he was doing what he wanted but it really played into the Reaper plans.  Truely amazing.  It kinda gave me a new respect for Saren how he was so blinded by twisted logic.