1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Bamboozalist]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

More and more I'm starting to wonder if the while problem is just Mac Walters' writing. He was responsible for ME2's plot; is (apparently) the one behind Arrival's story, and is the one who wrote those awful comics -- all of which are heavily criticized on these forums and beyond. I certainly didn't see the same complaints about ME1's story (Drew K.) and Lair of the Shadow Broker (Patrick Weekes).

There are problems with ME1's story as well they just tend to get burried under the "MASS EFFECT 1 IS PERFECT AND CAN DO NO WRONG, ME2 IS HITLER!" jargon.

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Something that people seem to be overlooking or misunderstanding is that it's not necessarily that everything in the plot isn't explained to the player (and by extension, Shepard) in Act 2; it's that the lack of explanation apparently satisfies Shepard and co. They simply accept the [lack of] explanation without the slightest hint of curiosity.

I can accept--if not necessarily like--that some aspects of the plot/story are "not supposed to make complete sense yet" because the exposition and explanation is forthcoming in Act 3 provided the protagonist(s) display the same level of incredulity and bewilderment as the player. They do not. For example, EDI pulls her infodump revelations and suppositions out of thin air and Shepard just goes along with it like it's a matter of course. When EDI points out the method and purpose of the Human-Reaper and explains that Reapers are actually semi-organic and not purely mechanical, rather than saying "Wait. What!? How do you know this? Everything we've seen up until now has painted them as being completely artificial. And what possible use could this thing be? This doesn't make any sense!" he's just like "Oh. OK. *shrug*" and goes back to shooting.

I would sincerely love it if everything that makes no sense in ME2 were to be fully explained in ME3 but, judging by the way BioWare wrote the character reactions to these unexplained events, I have the distinct impression that BioWare believes the current exposition to be sufficient.

This.

It's not the lack of explanation, it's the lack of curiosity.  It's like Shepard and the others know they're characters in a story, and just go with it.

I can get behind this.

I think that shorter, more concise conversations are intentional and more a design issue than a writing issue. Bioware seems to be trying to get away from long expositions and explanations. The answers are there but they don't want characters talking for an hour explaining every nuance.

This is a departure from previous Bioware games, absolutely. In KotoR HK would go on and on about how to kill a Jedi. In DAO we could eventually get Leliana to tell her what colour underwear she wore in Orlais on Wednesdays.

Now, I don't disapprove of reducing the amount of exposition (throw it in a codex entry) but there are some things about the universe which will really get us RPG players interested and excited and to have Shepard simply ask a basic question or two (he often does ask some questions) and move on is unsatisfying. We want to know more! And our avatar seems barely interested!

[Cancer Puppet]

I think we can attribute the third eye to a poor descision by the art team and leave it at that.

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Magically knows on her own?  She's already explained it to me (through the dialogues) that she conducts cyber-warfare by hacking into enemy networks and gathering data/controlling enemy systems.  Then she demonstrats the ability several times, like the "disabled" collector ship.  So I've gotten it now.  This is how she works. For me, she doesn't have to implicity tell me every single time she's conducting cyberwarfare on my target - I've gotten the point already after she's done it several times in the past.  May not be the same for you, but that's how it is for me.  There's only one place she could have gotten the facts - from the same place she's gotten it before many times - her infiltrating the enemy computers.  I don't need that extra dialogue that you need.

Yes she explains that is what she does.  And in previous istances, she explains what she is doing/has done.  Such as on Horizon and the Collector Ship.  We get audio cues from her that she is hacking teh systems.  Here she is simply talking, citing no references to where she got this information.  This is very much unlike her previous cyberwarfare attacks.

Okay, I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear about the melding.  I'll try one more time.  Melding = human/reaper skull.  Reapers may have a third eye.  Or five eyes.  Maybe... you're thinking that the Reaper is a metal construct with human goo paint - I'm not sure how you see it.  For all I know, the Reaper metal is not truly metal - it could be composed of tightly compacted nano machines that have merged with another species cells and this is how the "metal" and the "goo" meld.  I know the Reapers involve sophisticated nano technology - supposedly that has something to do with indoctrination as well.  This could also explain why some "pieces" of Reapers in the story indoctrinate organics.  This is speculation of course, but this is how I imagine the process "may" work.  So to me, the skull with the third eye is a combo of humanity and Reaper.  Humans have two eyes, Reapers may have multiple eyes, thus a compromise in the melding process results in three eyes.  *shrug*

Well part of it is I don't know how the construct and goo interact.  Maybe the goo is paint.  Maybe it gets molded into a cpu for the Reaper.  Maybe it's just stored in a huge drum in the center of the Reaper.  Heck maybe the metal construct is really crystalized goo.  It's just another sign of something that didn't get explained, but we're just supposed to go with it.  Because it's Awesome!

Again, you didn't see as much of the overlapping Reaper plot as you wanted.  I did.  I don't mind them resolving all that in ME3.  That's what 3 acts are for. 

The game didn't addres the overarching Reaper plot as much as I'd wanted.  But even worse, much of what was addressed didn't advance anything, just raised more questions.  This game simply cannot stand on its own like ME 1 did.  And if ME 3 once again does a catastrophic restart, these questions may go forever unanswered.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

More and more I'm starting to wonder if the while problem is just Mac Walters' writing. He was responsible for ME2's plot; is (apparently) the one behind Arrival's story, and is the one who wrote those awful comics -- all of which are heavily criticized on these forums and beyond. I certainly didn't see the same complaints about ME1's story (Drew K.) and Lair of the Shadow Broker (Patrick Weekes).

There are problems with ME1's story as well they just tend to get burried under the "MASS EFFECT 1 IS PERFECT AND CAN DO NO WRONG, ME2 IS HITLER!" jargon.

Of course there are problems with it; I don't think there is a perfect story in existence. The thing is, ME2's story has received significant amounts of complaints. Not just from our forum, but also other sites. Surely that makes you question something.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 01 avril 2011 - 08:03 .

[Bamboozalist]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...
Of course there are problems with it; I don't think there is a perfect story in existence. The thing is, ME2's story has received significant amounts of complaints. Not just from our forum, but also other sites. Surely that makes you question something.

It also was praised for being better than ME1's from other sites and ME2 has won countless best writting, way more than ME1 won, awards so that doesn't really prove anything.

[Iakus]

Bamboozalist wrote...
I think ME2 works much better if you look at it as the 2nd part of the Trilogy a chapter designed to get you emotionally attached to the characters since 90% of the game is about that.

Don't get me started on ME 2 getting me emotionally attatched to the characters.  Either Dragon Age game id a far better job than either Mass Effect could hope to accomplish

[Fiery Phoenix]

Bamboozalist wrote...
I think ME2 works much better if you look at it as the 2nd part of the Trilogy a chapter designed to get you emotionally attached to the characters since 90% of the game is about that.

That's how I see it myself. I hope it's BioWare's vision as well.

[Bamboozalist]

iakus wrote...
Don't get me started on ME 2 getting me emotionally attatched to the characters.  Either Dragon Age game id a far better job than either Mass Effect could hope to accomplish

That doesn't change the fact that it suceeded for many other people.

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

When EDI is guessing she clearly says so. When she knows something she simply states it. How did she get the info? She has constantly mined any collector computer she has gotten near. It is logical to assume from past events that she has been finding stuff out about the collectors from the moment she got to the collector base. Are you guys really saying that EDI actually has to remind you every time that she is mining data from the collectors? should she pause every 30 seconds and say, "This info is brought to you by the Collectors. Remember If you need collecting, we are there for you."

"Cite your sources" has long been drilled into my mind.  IT's a basic way of showing your information is accurate.  Or if it isn't, the mistake isn't on your end.  If EDI has information, she should share where it came from.  Such as when she ID-ed the cruiser, she compared it to other known Collector ship profiles.  She didn't just blurt out "Yep, it's the same ship"

Of course Shepard is not Asking EDI 100 questions about why the reapers are a mix of organic and non organic. He is standing in the middle of an enemy base! He has other things to worry about.

I for one would not blame SHepard at all if he says "What?  How?"  Even if no answer is forthcoming, it at least emphasized that This Is Not Normal.  This Is, In Fact, Some ::expletive:: Up ::expletive::

I understand a lot of your arguments about the game not giving us needed info, but here is the game giving you info through an established source (EDI has been learning about the collectors from their computers before) and you guys are hand waving it away simply becasue the game did not feel it necessary to remind you EDI mines the collectors computers.

Like I said, if EDI is mining information, she tells you that.  She did not tell you this time, and acts like it's all something that can be learned on the Extranet version of the  Disscovery Channel   No, it's not a plot hole, because EDI could have in fact gotten this information by data mining.  But it is sloppilly done.  Poor writing.

[squee913]

I will go with you guys that I wish these things had been explored more, but I can't call foul until the end of the story. Mass Effect 2 was never meant to stand on it's own. It's Act 2 of a 3 act play. How many second acts have a satisfying conclusion?

[JKoopman]

squee913 wrote...

When EDI is guessing she clearly says so. When she knows something she simply states it. How did she get the info? She has constantly mined any collector computer she has gotten near. It is logical to assume from past events that she has been finding stuff out about the collectors from the moment she got to the collector base. Are you guys really saying that EDI actually has to remind you every time that she is mining data from the collectors? should she pause every 30 seconds and say, "This info is brought to you by the Collectors. Remember If you need collecting, we are there for you."

Of course Shepard is not Asking EDI 100 questions about why the reapers are a mix of organic and non organic. He is standing in the middle of an enemy base! He has other things to worry about.

I understand a lot of your arguments about the game not giving us needed info, but here is the game giving you info through an established source (EDI has been learning about the collectors from their computers before) and you guys are hand waving it away simply becasue the game did not feel it necessary to remind you EDI mines the collectors computers.

Aboard the Collector ship, Shepard had to create a physical bridge between EDI and the Collector data banks before she could begin mining data. Even on Horizon, Shepard had to hack the targeting console before EDI could interface with it. I recall no such scene anywhere aboard the Collector base, so why should the player automatically assume that EDI has been mining data from their systems and that this is where the mysterious info she's dumping on us originated; least of all with no referrence or allusion to having interfaced with their computers, unlike on Horizon and the Collector ship where she clearly indicates as such both times?

It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to excuse unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Modifié par JKoopman, 01 avril 2011 - 08:29 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

When EDI is guessing she clearly says so. When she knows something she simply states it. How did she get the info? She has constantly mined any collector computer she has gotten near. It is logical to assume from past events that she has been finding stuff out about the collectors from the moment she got to the collector base. Are you guys really saying that EDI actually has to remind you every time that she is mining data from the collectors? should she pause every 30 seconds and say, "This info is brought to you by the Collectors. Remember If you need collecting, we are there for you."

Of course Shepard is not Asking EDI 100 questions about why the reapers are a mix of organic and non organic. He is standing in the middle of an enemy base! He has other things to worry about.

I understand a lot of your arguments about the game not giving us needed info, but here is the game giving you info through an established source (EDI has been learning about the collectors from their computers before) and you guys are hand waving it away simply becasue the game did not feel it necessary to remind you EDI mines the collectors computers.

Aboard the Collector ship, Shepard had to create a physical bridge between EDI and the Collector data banks before she could begin mining data. Even on Horizon, Shepard had to hack the targeting console before EDI could interface with it. I recall no such scene anywhere aboard the Collector base, so why should the player automatically assume that EDI has been mining data from their systems and that this is where the mysterious info she's dumping on us originated; least of all with no referrence or allusion to having interfaced with their computers (unlike on Horizon and the Collector ship where she clearly indicates as such both times)?

It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to fit unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Shepard doesn't have to create a "physical" bridge for EDI to mine Krogan records on Tuchanga.  I think we can agree to disagree on this.  What you consider needed exposition I consider insulting my intelligence slightly.  No big deal.  Different strokes for different folks.

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

I will go with you guys that I wish these things had been explored more, but I can't call foul until the end of the story. Mass Effect 2 was never meant to stand on it's own. It's Act 2 of a 3 act play. How many second acts have a satisfying conclusion?

+1

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

When EDI is guessing she clearly says so. When she knows something she simply states it. How did she get the info? She has constantly mined any collector computer she has gotten near. It is logical to assume from past events that she has been finding stuff out about the collectors from the moment she got to the collector base. Are you guys really saying that EDI actually has to remind you every time that she is mining data from the collectors? should she pause every 30 seconds and say, "This info is brought to you by the Collectors. Remember If you need collecting, we are there for you."

Of course Shepard is not Asking EDI 100 questions about why the reapers are a mix of organic and non organic. He is standing in the middle of an enemy base! He has other things to worry about.

I understand a lot of your arguments about the game not giving us needed info, but here is the game giving you info through an established source (EDI has been learning about the collectors from their computers before) and you guys are hand waving it away simply becasue the game did not feel it necessary to remind you EDI mines the collectors computers.

Aboard the Collector ship, Shepard had to create a physical bridge between EDI and the Collector data banks before she could begin mining data. Even on Horizon, Shepard had to hack the targeting console before EDI could interface with it. I recall no such scene anywhere aboard the Collector base, so why should the player automatically assume that EDI has been mining data from their systems and that this is where the mysterious info she's dumping on us originated; least of all with no referrence or allusion to having interfaced with their computers (unlike on Horizon and the Collector ship where she clearly indicates as such both times)?

It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to fit unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Shepard doesn't have to create a "physical" bridge for EDI to mine Krogan records on Tuchanga.  I think we can agree to disagree on this.  What you consider needed exposition I consider insulting my intelligence slightly.  No big deal.  Different strokes for different folks.

She also specifically points out that krogan data banks contain weak encryption, which also has the benefit of explaining to the player where she's getting the information from. Regardless, all we can infer from that is that krogan systems are less secure (and/or more compatible) than Collector systems.

Modifié par JKoopman, 01 avril 2011 - 08:36 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

When EDI is guessing she clearly says so. When she knows something she simply states it. How did she get the info? She has constantly mined any collector computer she has gotten near. It is logical to assume from past events that she has been finding stuff out about the collectors from the moment she got to the collector base. Are you guys really saying that EDI actually has to remind you every time that she is mining data from the collectors? should she pause every 30 seconds and say, "This info is brought to you by the Collectors. Remember If you need collecting, we are there for you."

Of course Shepard is not Asking EDI 100 questions about why the reapers are a mix of organic and non organic. He is standing in the middle of an enemy base! He has other things to worry about.

I understand a lot of your arguments about the game not giving us needed info, but here is the game giving you info through an established source (EDI has been learning about the collectors from their computers before) and you guys are hand waving it away simply becasue the game did not feel it necessary to remind you EDI mines the collectors computers.

Aboard the Collector ship, Shepard had to create a physical bridge between EDI and the Collector data banks before she could begin mining data. Even on Horizon, Shepard had to hack the targeting console before EDI could interface with it. I recall no such scene anywhere aboard the Collector base, so why should the player automatically assume that EDI has been mining data from their systems and that this is where the mysterious info she's dumping on us originated; least of all with no referrence or allusion to having interfaced with their computers (unlike on Horizon and the Collector ship where she clearly indicates as such both times)?

It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to fit unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Shepard doesn't have to create a "physical" bridge for EDI to mine Krogan records on Tuchanga.  I think we can agree to disagree on this.  What you consider needed exposition I consider insulting my intelligence slightly.  No big deal.  Different strokes for different folks.

She also specifically points out that krogan data banks contain weak encryption. Regardless, all we can infer from that is that krogan systems are less secure (and/or more compatible) than Collector systems.

That's beside the point.  It still makes the point that EDI automatically engages other systems to mine data for us.  Sometimes she can break the encryption, sometimes she can't.  She does the same thing on Omega - she hacks Omega systems to look for other routes to Archangel.  She hacks Omega systems to look for patterns of death to try and help us find Morinth.  It's just something she does.  So when she pronounces facts about something to help me - that's what I assume she's doing.

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

When EDI is guessing she clearly says so. When she knows something she simply states it. How did she get the info? She has constantly mined any collector computer she has gotten near. It is logical to assume from past events that she has been finding stuff out about the collectors from the moment she got to the collector base. Are you guys really saying that EDI actually has to remind you every time that she is mining data from the collectors? should she pause every 30 seconds and say, "This info is brought to you by the Collectors. Remember If you need collecting, we are there for you."

Of course Shepard is not Asking EDI 100 questions about why the reapers are a mix of organic and non organic. He is standing in the middle of an enemy base! He has other things to worry about.

I understand a lot of your arguments about the game not giving us needed info, but here is the game giving you info through an established source (EDI has been learning about the collectors from their computers before) and you guys are hand waving it away simply becasue the game did not feel it necessary to remind you EDI mines the collectors computers.

Aboard the Collector ship, Shepard had to create a physical bridge between EDI and the Collector data banks before she could begin mining data. Even on Horizon, Shepard had to hack the targeting console before EDI could interface with it. I recall no such scene anywhere aboard the Collector base, so why should the player automatically assume that EDI has been mining data from their systems and that this is where the mysterious info she's dumping on us originated; least of all with no referrence or allusion to having interfaced with their computers (unlike on Horizon and the Collector ship where she clearly indicates as such both times)?

It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to fit unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Shepard doesn't have to create a "physical" bridge for EDI to mine Krogan records on Tuchanga.  I think we can agree to disagree on this.  What you consider needed exposition I consider insulting my intelligence slightly.  No big deal.  Different strokes for different folks.

She also specifically points out that krogan data banks contain weak encryption. Regardless, all we can infer from that is that krogan systems are less secure (and/or more compatible) than Collector systems.

That's beside the point.  It still makes the point that EDI automatically engages other systems to mine data for us.  Sometimes she can break the encryption, sometimes she can't.  She does the same thing on Omega - she hacks Omega systems to look for other routes to Archangel.  She hacks Omega systems to look for patterns of death to try and help us find Morinth.  It's just something she does.  So when she pronounces facts about something to help me - that's what I assume she's doing.

Beside the point? It's directly relevant to the point. Again, her ability to wirelessly interface with systems aboard Omega does nothing to explain her ability to interface with Collector data banks aboard their base without a bridge when the only other example of her interfacing with a Collector system previously required one.

I also must point out that in both additional examples she clearly states where she's getting the information from, unlike on the Collector base. This is how we know that she was interfacing with those systems. She says, "I'm receiving quarantine warnings about the slums where Dr. Mordin Solus runs a clinic." She doesn't simply say, "Mordin Solus is running a clinic in the slums" and leave the player scratching their heads about how she knows this.

Modifié par JKoopman, 01 avril 2011 - 08:50 .

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...
It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to excuse unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Name a story, any long complicated story, that does not make you fill in the blanks sometimes. Hell even Blues Clues makes you draw conclusions.

I think a lot of people attribute everything to lazy story writing when there are a ton of other elements it could be. Games have a set budget. If they add dialog of EDI telling you she is again mining a computer, they would have to take dialog away from something else. For all we know, these "plot holes" and connect the dots were not the writers fault, but necessary cuts due to game constraints.

[JKoopman]

squee913 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to excuse unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Name a story, any long complicated story, that does not make you fill in the blanks sometimes. Hell even Blues Clues makes you draw conclusions.

I think a lot of people attribute everything to lazy story writing when there are a ton of other elements it could be. Games have a set budget. If they add dialog of EDI telling you she is again mining a computer, they would have to take dialog away from something else. For all we know, these "plot holes" and connect the dots were not the writers fault, but necessary cuts due to game constraints.

I well and truly find it hard to believe that prefixing EDI's conversation aboard the Collector base with "According to the data I've received..." would've taken any dialog away or significantly impacted the budget, unless Tricia Helfer was charging by the syllable.

Modifié par JKoopman, 01 avril 2011 - 09:02 .

[Whatever42]

Did EDIs lack of sourcing her data really confuse anyone?

[Almostfaceman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Did EDIs lack of sourcing her data really confuse anyone?

Not me.

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Did EDIs lack of sourcing her data really confuse anyone?

I was certainly left with the impression that this was all just common knowledge that EDI was dropping on me; like Shepard was just some ignorant misinformed schoolboy and EDI was educating him. That left the whole conversation with a distinct "retcon-y" aftertaste.

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
It, again, is just an example of you arguing after the fact and inventing an explanation that isn't alluded to anywhere in the game in order to excuse unexplained events and "fill in the blanks" of ME2's lazy story (because if it wasn't lazy, there wouldn't be blanks like this to fill in).

Name a story, any long complicated story, that does not make you fill in the blanks sometimes. Hell even Blues Clues makes you draw conclusions.

I think a lot of people attribute everything to lazy story writing when there are a ton of other elements it could be. Games have a set budget. If they add dialog of EDI telling you she is again mining a computer, they would have to take dialog away from something else. For all we know, these "plot holes" and connect the dots were not the writers fault, but necessary cuts due to game constraints.

I well and truly find it hard to believe that prefixing EDI's conversation aboard the Collector base with "According to the reports I've received..." would've taken any dialog away, unless Tricia Helfer was charging by the syllable.

Because either of us know what goes into making a game right? Everything takes up space and money. When you are trying to fit things, you cut the smaller, less important things first. And like it or not, EDI telling you where she got her data from after already demonstrating it her abilities is small potatoes. You bring up a good point when you say she has always told us this before. But the fact that she omits it this time, is not a reason to start doubting her every word when everything else she has told you is accurate. Look, I'm not saying you are wrong, Simply that we can not just cry, lazy writing when we do not have any idea what it takes to make a game like this.
 

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Did EDIs lack of sourcing her data really confuse anyone?

I was certainly left with the impression that this was all just common knowledge that EDI was dropping on me; like Shepard was just some ignorant misinformed schoolboy and EDI was educating him. That left the whole conversation with a distinct "retcon-y" aftertaste.

I'm not sure what she retconned? I'll read back to see what I missed. EDI seemed to be describing things; I assumed she was simply giving me her opinion on the data she received. There was one point when she gave the numbers of colonists and I went "huh?" but nothing contradicted what I thought I knew. It was mostly new data and analysis to me.

What did she say that was a retcon?

[squee913]

And you still did not answer the question. Name one Story (preferably a video game story) That did not expect you to connect the dots from time to time? Does that mean every video game story ever had lazy writing?