150 réponses à ce sujet

[Durontan]

I decided to stay out of plot comments 90% of the time. I'll just add that I DOUBT that things plot wise won't be important in ME3. I'll just give few little examples, and I do not mean on major plot choices like in ME1 with Saving or sacrificing the council or ME2 Saving or destroying the base.



Let's take a look at the Quarian trial to Tali. In the end you can tell them go to war or try to find a peaceful solution with Geth. One sentance you said in one part of the game and might be entire game-changing experience in ME3 as Quarians might go to war or try to make peace. Same goes for Legion's quest, do you incorporate more geth or destroy them? I am 100% sure if you take them out you will have a weaker force of geth in final battle, but might also go that quarians went to war with them and cause of your choice had bigger losses then expected so again you'll have weaker force.



And that is only two "main" plot quests that might have huge impact on ME3. I can go on with examples but think you get where I am going with this.



So saying that plot quests won't matter in final showdown is by experience with bioware a load of BS.

[Phaedon]

TK Dude wrote...

Well, some people expected ME2 to be truly a sequel that continues the overarching plot against the Reapers.
It's up to ME3 if ME2 events will matter.

I believe that some people should watch this:

Extra Credits - Trilogy Story Structure

[didiware]

Wow, it's a really good and sopt-on analysis, it shaped some of my own thoughts I've had. Killing Shepard and Baby reaper, does not make sense.



But after all, ME2 is an awesome game, and well, Bioware can't perform miracles. But I think they've "learned their lesson".



Btw, did they change writers or something?

[Spectre Collecter]

Whatever the case, BioWare wouldn't ship it knowing the plot of their critically acclaimed franchise would damage it as a whole. Although there are a few things many of us can't seem to pin-point in terms of validity or end result, the company wouldn't be where it is today without planning. That's the beauty of stories like Mass Effect's, you're left with both confusion and some disdain as to what's been established for far. Bridges are often disappointing (not that ME2 is, I personally loved it) but it's what's on the other bank that sheds new light on the entire story and offers it closure. Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but I have confidence in the company.

[Phaedon]

Spartas Husky wrote...
That is true... middle games have to set up for the final stuff... which I sincerely hope it iwll be 4 games instead of 3. but suggesting this game is a setup for something greater is excusing lazy storytelling. Many games that are "middle" are incredibly well done, and explain things in detail to build up for future things while still delivering a powerful and immersive experience.


Mass effect 2 was all set up not a lot fo meaninful eperiences... aside from the occasional teary moment.

What you guys don't understand is that that is not a disadvantage of middle games/movies, but a necessary part of the story curve.

[TK Dude]

NVM.

Modifié par TK Dude, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:22 .

[Phaedon]

TK Dude wrote...
So what's the point with it?

I can't really post a tl;dw, because the whole point is in the video.

[TK Dude]

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...
So what's the point with it?

I can't really post a tl;dw, because the whole point is in the video.

Okay, so the whole video talks about story structure and amnesia.
I still don't understand how it's related to ME2.

[Phaedon]

TK Dude wrote...
Okay, so the whole video talks about story structure and amnesia.
I still don't understand how it's related to ME2.

While not directing it to the Mass Effect series, they suggest that the second act of a trilogy is the place where you gather everyone and prepare for the third act, the final climax? 

[TK Dude]

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...
Okay, so the whole video talks about story structure and amnesia.
I still don't understand how it's related to ME2.

While not directing it to the Mass Effect series, they suggest that the second act of a trilogy is the place where you gather everyone and prepare for the third act, the final climax? 

Hm, so I guess ME2 was about gathering 12 squadmates, earn their loyalty and keep them prepared for the thrid act, yes?

[Sentox6]

Phaedon wrote...
What you guys don't understand is that that is not a disadvantage of middle games/movies, but a necessary part of the story curve.

I'm a big fan of Extra Credits (incidently, the author of the articles I posted produces content for The Escapist as well). Nevertheless, I believe his overall point about ME2's main plot stands:

But even if you accept all the events that I’ve nitpicked in this series, the worst part of Mass Effect 2 is that nothing happens. The plot does not move forward. It moves sideways, loops through a cul-de-sac, and ends right where it began. By the end of the game we’ve got the same captain, same ship, same problems, same setup. Council is still useless. Alliance is still apathetic. Shepard & Co are the only ones who care. The Reapers are still out there. And if you did the paragon ending, you don’t even have any proof or tech to show for it. (Which means that the choice will very likely have minimal consequence in the next game.) None of the important questions posed in Mass Effect 1 are addressed.
In a trilogy, I don’t think Act II is disposable like this.

Taking the classic example from the video of The Empire Strikes Back, the movie succeeded in providing the requisite action and practical developments needed to set up the third act while still moving core aspects of the plot forward (e.g. Luke and Vader's relationship). ME2 moves nothing critical forward from the first act; it just pulls over to a rest stop and tramps around in the bush for a while.

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:39 .

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...
And therefore, the collect your team plot is not a plot!!!! 

Not so much a plot as twelve seperate plots with little to no overlap.

There's no cohesiveness.  No sense of teambuilding.  Nothing that ties them together except "I owe Shepard a favor"  Not even the enemies you fight.

The choices you make in their quests may have an effect on ME 3.  But that doesn't do anything to help the plot of ME 2 from being a very weak, disjointed story.  Each game was supposed to stand on it's own, after all.  ME 1 does.  ME 2 doesn't, imo.  This really ruins my ability to enjoy the game.

[wulf3n]

Phaedon wrote...
While not directing it to the Mass Effect series, they suggest that the second act of a trilogy is the place where you gather everyone and prepare for the third act, the final climax? 

In terms of the Overarching plot, ME2 wasn't really a second act, it was more Destroy the original first act, and then redo the first 2 acts. Everything that was setup in ME1 was overwritten in ME2.


The 3 act structure applies better to ME2 by itself.
Act 1: Kill/resurrect shepard to show collector threat
Act 2: Gather squad needed to defeat collectors
Act 3: Suicide mission

but just because it follows the 3 act structure doesn't mean its good.

[Phaedon]

TK Dude wrote...
Hm, so I guess ME2 was about gathering 12 squadmates, earn their loyalty and keep them prepared for the thrid act, yes?

Do not even attempt what you are thinking of.

"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3...' 

wulf3n wrote...
In terms of the Overarching plot, ME2 wasn't really a second act, it was more Destroy the original first act, and then redo the first 2 acts. Everything that was setup in ME1 was overwritten in ME2.


The 3 act structure applies better to ME2 by itself.
Act 1: Kill/resurrect shepard to show collector threat
Act 2: Gather squad needed to defeat collectors
Act 3: Suicide mission

but just because it follows the 3 act structure doesn't mean its good.

Except that the first act was Mass Effect, the second ME2 and the third ME3.

Modifié par Phaedon, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:42 .

[InvaderErl]

Phaedon wrote...


"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3...'

Talk about being on the nose.

[Babli]

Phaedon wrote...

TK Dude wrote...
Okay, so the whole video talks about story structure and amnesia.
I still don't understand how it's related to ME2.

While not directing it to the Mass Effect series, they suggest that the second act of a trilogy is the place where you gather everyone and prepare for the third act, the final climax?

Yeah and thats exactly what ME 2 did. But problems are with continuity. Liara no longer cares about the Reapers because of some petty revenge, with Wrex, Reapers are again not mentioned. VS? Not again.
And then there is whole main plot about Collectors. Shepard dies and is ressurected? Yes, its a sci-fi ...or I should say space opera. But wasnt there some more believable way to reset Shepards skills and getting him work with Cerberus? Wasnt there some more believable way to delay climax of third game then Collectors and their plan which doesnt make much sense, since their plan wouldnt work as stated in many plot analysis(even the positive ones)? There are many flaws in plot of ME 2 one can see even without nitpicking.

Not to mention that unlike other trilogies, where in second act we are at least closer to the answering of the main question, in ME2, we didnt move anywhere. ME 2 ended at the exact place as ME 1. Reaoers are coming, we dont know how to defeat them. As Harbinger says, we changed nothing.

[Phaedon]

Sentox6 wrote...

But even if you accept all the events that I’ve nitpicked in this series, the worst part of Mass Effect 2 is that nothing happens. The plot does not move forward. It moves sideways, loops through a cul-de-sac, and ends right where it began. By the end of the game we’ve got the same captain, same ship, same problems, same setup. Council is still useless. Alliance is still apathetic. Shepard & Co are the only ones who care. The Reapers are still out there. And if you did the paragon ending, you don’t even have any proof or tech to show for it. (Which means that the choice will very likely have minimal consequence in the next game.) None of the important questions posed in Mass Effect 1 are addressed. 
In a trilogy, I don’t think Act II is disposable like this.

Taking the classic example from the video of The Empire Strikes Back, the movie succeeded in providing the requisite action and practical developments needed to set up the third act while still moving core aspects of the plot forward (e.g. Luke and Vader's relationship). ME2 moves nothing critical forward from the first act; it just pulls over to a rest stop and tramps around in the bush for a while.

I'll just striked through what should not be expected in the middle part.

And if you did the paragon ending, you don’t even have any proof or tech to show for it. (Which means that the choice will very likely have minimal consequence in the next game.) 

Huh.

None of the important questions posed in Mass Effect 1 are addressed.

The Reapers are still random machines killing for fun then, and the Protheans is a race that disappeared randomly 50,000 years ago. Or does the author want an answer to the overreaching question?

[wulf3n]

Phaedon wrote...
Except that the first act was Mass Effect, the second ME2 and the third ME3.

But as a second act ME2 falls flat on its ass. If we accept that act 2 is gathering the neccessary resources to defeat the threat setup in Act 1, then ME2 does that by coincidence. In ME2 your not gathering resources to combat the reaprers, your gathering resources to stop the collectors, and if we assume what we've done will affect ME3, then we've managed to stop the Reapers with pure luck. Had they not sent the collectors after humans, we wouldn't have done what we have to stop the reapers.

I mean thats our second act?  we managed to get what we needed to destroy the reapers by mere chance? 

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:53 .

[AlanC9]

wulf3n wrote...
Everything that was setup in ME1 was overwritten in ME2.

 What do you mean by this? Last time I checked Shepard and the Reapers were still around in ME2.

[Phaedon]

Babli wrote...
Yeah and thats exactly what ME 2 did. But problems are with continuity. Liara no longer cares about the Reapers because of some petty revenge, with Wrex, Reapers are again not mentioned. VS? Not again.

Yup

And then there is whole main plot about Collectors. Shepard dies and is ressurected? Yes, its a sci-fi ...or I should say space opera. But wasnt there some more believable way to reset Shepards skills and getting him work with Cerberus? Wasnt there some more believable way to delay climax of third game then Collectors and their plan which doesnt make much sense, since their plan wouldnt work as stated in many plot analysis(even the positive ones)? There are many flaws in plot of ME 2 one can see even without nitpicking.

Well, I can't think of any better ways right now. Shepard being pissed off and joining an unsuccesful yet wealthy criminal group just doesn't cut it. (Not that Shepard's ressurection is impossible, but you still have a point.)

Not to mention that unlike other trilogies, where in second act we are at least closer to the answering of the main question, in ME2, we didnt move anywhere. ME 2 ended at the exact place as ME 1. Reaoers are coming, we dont know how to defeat them. As Harbinger says, we changed nothing.

The main question is why the Reapers want to reap us, correct?
Did ME2 not make baby steps towards that by revealing their true nature and hinting at their motives?
Did you not assemple a team for the final climax?

[Sentox6]

InvaderErl wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3...'

Talk about being on the nose.

It's not really the case, though. ME2 doesn't really fit that definition inasmuch as the protagonist is not really any better situated to deal with the overreaching question (the Reapers) at the end than he or she was at the conclusion of the first game. (If you chose the Paragon choice at the end of the game, in fact, the net result of ME2 is that you have done absolutely nothing in terms of finding a way to stop the Reapers.)

Again, taking the example of Empire Strikes Back; it fits that definition very well, yet we get to develop our understanding of both the protagonists and antagonists while circumstances change in the galaxy. In ME2, we learn very little about the antagonists (except for the cheesy and rather silly human reaper), and Shepard is just doing the same old stuff as the first time around. This is besides all the actual holes and inconsistencies in the plot to boot.

To be honest, the only way in which ME2 has really added anything to over-arching plot at this point is through your ancillary interactions with the Quarians and Geth. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Phaedon]

wulf3n wrote...
But as a second act ME2 falls flat on its ass. If we accept that act 2 is gathering the neccessary resources to defeat the threat setup in Act 1, then ME2 does that by coincidence. In ME2 your not gathering resources to combat the reaprers, your gathering resources to stop the collectors, and if we assume what we've done will affect ME3, then we've managed to stop the Reapers with pure luck. Had they not sent the collectors after humans, we wouldn't have done what we have to stop the reapers.

I mean thats our second act?  we managed to get what we needed to destroy the reapers by mere chance? 

Wait, so you claim that the story writers had you recruit all of your squad just for the CB and nothing else. What proof do you have to suggest that? And if so, how can you claim that ME2 failed as a second act without the third one confirming your claims?

[wulf3n]

AlanC9 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...
Everything that was setup in ME1 was overwritten in ME2.

 What do you mean by this? Last time I checked Shepard and the Reapers were still around in ME2.

A bit of an exaggeration and not very thought out, but the main thing was we had convinced the council of the reapers existence and were on our way to try and stop them.
ME1 was there to setup the threat and ME2 was supposed to be about figuring out how to stop them, instead the Council has back flipped for no apparent reason and we spend our time foiling another reaper ploy to come out with nothing more than proof of reaper existence.

Im sure there's more i just couldn't be bothered thinking of any. 

Phaedon wrote...
Wait, so you claim that the story writers had you recruit all of your squad just for the CB and nothing else. What proof do you have to suggest that? And if so, how can you claim that ME2 failed as a second act without the third one confirming your claims?

You're the one who said the 2nd act is where we collect the things we need to stop the threat from act 1. So if ME is following the 3 act structure then either the squad we collected, or the allegiances we made during are going to be what defeats the reapers, and that was all done for another purpose making our defeat of the reapers purely coincidental.

Now if we collect new things in ME3 then ME2 was even less of 2nd act.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:00 .

[AlanC9]

wulf3n wrote...
In ME2 your not gathering resources to combat the reaprers, your gathering resources to stop the collectors, and if we assume what we've done will affect ME3, then we've managed to stop the Reapers with pure luck. Had they not sent the collectors after humans, we wouldn't have done what we have to stop the reapers.

I mean thats our second act?  we managed to get what we needed to destroy the reapers by mere chance? 

You're talking like there's a difference between the Reapers and the Collectors. There isn't -- they're the same thing, since the Collectors are just a Reaper tool.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

You're talking like there's a difference between the Reapers and the Collectors. There isn't -- they're the same thing, since the Collectors are just a Reaper tool.

The thing is the Collectors where a bad plot device that was used to give this a game purpose in the Mass effect Trilogy.