150 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Sentox6 wrote...
 In ME2, we learn very little about the antagonists (except for the cheesy and rather silly human reaper)

Halt. Do not underestimate that plot reveal. 

It's one thing to be fighting machines, and another to be fighting demi-organics who have emotions as suggested both in-game but in the novels too. It's a completely different thing. Machines make logical calculations, the Reapers do not.

A completely different philosophy is introduced. The overreaching questions has been intensified, 'Since it's not just the outcome of a calculation, what are the true motivation of the Reapers?'

[Phaedon]

wulf3n wrote...
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.

First of all, 'not even less', because ME2 so far fits the definition of second act. If the collection in ME2 does not have a consequence in ME3, then yes, we do have a problem. And only in that case is the collection coincidental.

[Sentox6]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

That's not really true though. The second act isn't supposed to solve the key problem, sure, but that doesn't mean total stagnation. When you really break it down, the situation at the end of ME1 is exactly the same as the situation at the end of ME2. Whereas our protagonists and antagonists were looking much different when you compare the end of A New Hope to Empire Strikes Back.

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?

Well, read the article yourself:

The game hinted the Reapers were still out there, and they certainly weren’t going to just give up. But where were they? Did they leave themselves other routes into the galaxy from wherever they are? (If they didn’t, they’re idiots.) How long will it take them to get here and how many are there? What happened to their Geth slaves? What drives the cycle of destruction and how did it get started?

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:06 .

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

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

thx for that

Modifié par Mesina2, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:06 .

[AlanC9]

wulf3n wrote...
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.

Not very well thought out, indeed. 

Anderson believes you at the end of ME1. Or Udina. Not the Council. 

[wulf3n]

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.

While the collectors may be a reaper tool, but they aren't reapers. When you're building up your squad to defeat the collectors shepard/tim isn't thinking hey these guys will be good at taking down a reaper. All I can see ME2 doing to setup ME3 is the alliegences you can make.

AlanC9 wrote...

Not very well thought out, indeed. 

Anderson believes you at the end of ME1. Or Udina. Not the Council. .

how many times am i going to have to do this.

go to about 6:40 here the council acknowledges the reapers. Sometimes i wonder how many ppl here actually played ME1

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:18 .

[Phaedon]

Sentox6 wrote...
That's not really true though. The second act isn't supposed to solve the key problem, sure, but that doesn't mean total stagnation. When you really break it down, the situation at the end of ME1 is exactly the same as the situation at the end of ME2.

Incorrect, imho, you now have the "resources" to move to the third act.

Whereas our protagonists and antagonists were looking much different when you compare the end of A New Hope to Empire Strikes Back.

Well, read the article yourself:

The author appears to be focused exclusively on the ending, during which the Reapers decide to start their travel to the Milky Way.

[AlanC9]

Sentox6 wrote...

That's not really true though. The second act isn't supposed to solve the key problem, sure, but that doesn't mean total stagnation. When you really break it down, the situation at the end of ME1 is exactly the same as the situation at the end of ME2. Whereas our protagonists and antagonists were looking much different when you compare the end of A New Hope to Empire Strikes Back.

Exactly the same? How so? Shepard's on a new ship, with a mostly new crew, working for a new organization. The Reapers are about where they were, but that's the case in ESB as well.

The game hinted the Reapers were still out there, and they certainly weren’t going to just give up. But where were they? Did they leave themselves other routes into the galaxy from wherever they are? (If they didn’t, they’re idiots.) How long will it take them to get here and how many are there? What happened to their Geth slaves? What drives the cycle of destruction and how did it get started?

Not a great quote, since we know  where the Reapers are, what happened to their Geth slaves, and what drives the cycle of destruction. We also have a minimum figure for their numbers.

As for alternate routes, we know of one because we closed it. Presumably there are others since there's going to be an ME3.

[Iakus]

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.

By that logic, so were the Heretic geth.  In fact, the geth were a far more powerful tool, since they came way closer towards succeeding at the Reaper's plan.  The Collectors were years, if not decades from completing the Reaper.  And we still aren't clear on what their ultimate goal was.

That's one bog advantage ME 1 had over ME 2.  The villaIns had a clear end goal. 

[Sentox6]

Phaedon wrote...
Halt. Do not underestimate that plot reveal. 

It's one thing to be fighting machines, and another to be fighting demi-organics who have emotions as suggested both in-game but in the novels too. It's a completely different thing. Machines make logical calculations, the Reapers do not.

A completely different philosophy is introduced. The overreaching questions has been intensified, 'Since it's not just the outcome of a calculation, what are the true motivation of the Reapers?'

I'm not suggesting that discovering the Reapers are an organic-synthetic synthesis is meaningless, but the human reaper is so ludicrous it can't help but distract from that.

The other problem while you argue learning the reapers don't just destroy life but also appropriate is a development, all it does is create more questions, unfortunately.

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:16 .

[Phaedon]

Sentox6 wrote...
I'm not suggesting that discovering the Reapers are an organic-synthetic synthesis is meaningless, but the human reaper is so ludicrous it can't help but distract from that.

That is a valid point, but I don't believe that the problem with the Reaper in question has to do with the plot.

The other problem while you argue learning the reapers don't just destroy life but also appropriate is a development, it it does is create more questions, unfortunately.

Maybe it was an intended cliffhanger? I think that the writers could have given us a bigger reveal, but keep in mind that it's omission could have been in purpose.

[AlanC9]

wulf3n wrote...


go to about 6:40 here the council acknowledges the reapers. Sometimes i wonder how many ppl here actually played ME1

On other endings she doesn't mention the Reapers, only the geth. I never saw the ending you posted myself.

[AlanC9]

Sentox6 wrote...

I'm not suggesting that discovering the Reapers are an organic-synthetic synthesis is meaningless, but the human reaper is so ludicrous it can't help but distract from that.

Saying that you don't like how the plot developed simply isn't the same argument as saying that it didn't develop.

The other problem while you argue learning the reapers don't just destroy life but also appropriate is a development, all it does is create more questions, unfortunately.

What's unfortunate about it?

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

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.

By that logic, so were the Heretic geth.  In fact, the geth were a far more powerful tool, since they came way closer towards succeeding at the Reaper's plan.  The Collectors were years, if not decades from completing the Reaper.  And we still aren't clear on what their ultimate goal was.

That's one big advantage ME 1 had over ME 2.  The villaIns had a clear end goal. 

I don't see it as a big advantage, if it's an advantage at all. But as we discovered in that other thread, my preferred level of ambiguity is much higher than yours. See the above post.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:24 .

[wulf3n]

AlanC9 wrote...
On other endings she doesn't mention the Reapers, only the geth. I never saw the ending you posted myself.

Interesting... I apologize for my previous condescension.

[Sentox6]

AlanC9 wrote...
Exactly the same? How so? Shepard's on a new ship, with a mostly new crew, working for a new organization. The Reapers are about where they were, but that's the case in ESB as well.

These are more design variations than anything else. How Shepard any better equipped to deal with the Reapers? Multiple fleets could barely stop one Reaper before. Cerberus is rich, but it's not galactic-size fleet rich. Normandy 2 is a little better than Normandy 1, but come on.

And again, this really makes the Paragon ending look ridiculous, because if you take it, you destroy your first chance at getting some insight in Reaper tech and give the finger to TIM, so now you have nothing to work with and even less resources at your disposal than ME1. Wut.

Not a great quote, since we know  where the Reapers are, what happened to their Geth slaves, and what drives the cycle of destruction. We also have a minimum figure for their numbers.

As for alternate routes, we know of one because we closed it. Presumably there are others since there's going to be an ME3.

We have some theories about the Reapers, mainly based around the revelation that they use organic material in their production. There's still infinitely more questions than answers though.

AlanC9 wrote...
What's unfortunate about it?

We knew so, so little about the Reapers in ME1. At the end of ME2, I find myself with more questions, not less. At the end of ME1, I stopped the Reapers. At the end of ME2, I stopped a Reaper subplot that wouldn't have succeeded anyway. Hooray.

The only way I can say I've accomplished anything is when I make the renegade choice. Otherwise, I've got my ship, a crew, and no one really believes me. Hence the second act has failed to meet its goal of preparing the protagonist to deal with the major problem.

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:31 .

[Babli]

Phaedon wrote...

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

We reach an agreement? Thats probably the first time

Phaedon wrote...
The main question is why the Reapers want to reap us, correct?

No, its how to defeat them.

[AlanC9]

wulf3n wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
On other endings she doesn't mention the Reapers, only the geth. I never saw the ending you posted myself.

Interesting... I apologize for my previous condescension.

Well, we've both learned something. Makes me wonder what's going on in that convo. I can't imagine why they had different versions of that line.

Maybe the writers got confused as to what happened in ME1 too.

[Phaedon]

Babli wrote...
No, its how to defeat them. 

Guns, lots of guns. 

I don't really think that that's the question,imo. I mean, it's not exactly 'overreaching'.

[wulf3n]

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, we've both learned something. Makes me wonder what's going on in that convo. I can't imagine why they had different versions of that line.

Maybe the writers got confused as to what happened in ME1 too.

Especially considering how important that 1 word is.

[AlanC9]

Sentox6 wrote...
And again, this really makes the Paragon ending look ridiculous, because if you take it, you destroy your first chance at getting some insight in Reaper tech and give the finger to TIM, so now you have nothing to work with and even less resources at your disposal than ME1. Wut.

Oh, sure. I can't believe any player would take the P option, and I have no idea how they're going to deal with that later. Unless Harbinger was running a Xanatos Gambit the whole time, which I'd love to see but don't find likely.

We have some theories about the Reapers, mainly based around the revelation that they use organic material in their production. There's still infinitely more questions than answers though.

Sure. I like having lots of questions as long as there's a game left. I wouldn't mind having a few that never get answered.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

Babli wrote...
No, its how to defeat them. 

Guns, lots of guns. 

I don't really think that that's the question,imo. I mean, it's not exactly 'overreaching'.

Actually, I'd simply modify the question to be "What will it take to defeat them?"  SImilar, but not quite the same.  And potentially far more overreaching

[Sentox6]

Phaedon wrote...

Babli wrote...
No, its how to defeat them.

Guns, lots of guns. 

I don't really think that that's the question,imo. I mean, it's not exactly 'overreaching'.

That's the main question to my mind. Look at the effect of Sovereign in ME1. Then look at the number of Reapers shown at the end of ME1. It's clear as daylight that at present, we have absolutely nothing capable of so much as scratching their paint if they turn up. So in lieu of answering that question, it would be nice to learn more about the Reapers along the way.

The only way ME2 can contribute is if the base provides us with counters to their tech, and since the Paragon choice blows the damn thing up, that can't be a lynchpin for the story.

On this basis alone, I don't see ME2 fulfilling its job of preparing the protagonists to achieve victory.

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
Actually, I'd simply modify the question to be "What will it take to defeat them?"  SImilar, but not quite the same.  And potentially far more overreaching

Sentox6 wrote...
That's the main question to my mind. Look at the effect of Sovereign in ME1. Then look at the number of Reapers shown at the end of ME1. It's clear as daylight that at present, we have absolutely nothing capable of so much as scratching their paint if they turn up. So in lieu of answering that question, it would be nice to learn more about the Reapers along the way.

The only way ME2 can contribute is if the base provides us with counters to their tech, and since the Paragon choice blows the damn thing up, that can't be a lynchpin for the story.

On this basis alone, I don't see ME2 fulfilling its job of preparing the protagonists to achieve victory.

Has this question not been answered already? Kill their avatars. 

Why I find the question about the origin of the Reapers much more over-reaching is because not only is it much more intriguing, but it has been a part from the games since the very beginning. The Protheans and their extinction. Their beacons and their fate. 

Because let's face it, should a new Reaper-killing way be introduced, it wouldn't be until the very end of ME3.

Modifié par Phaedon, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:42 .

[Gabey5]

i loved the plot. It was good as the reapers were in darkspace