1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

EDI is shown scanning the Collector base at the very beginning, when Shepard is plotting his advance through the base.  She's even able to point out consoles and such at that preliminary stage.

[Whatever42]

Almostfaceman wrote...

EDI is shown scanning the Collector base at the very beginning, when Shepard is plotting his advance through the base.  She's even able to point out consoles and such at that preliminary stage.

I have a bad feeling one of these days we're going to be embroiled in a vicious debate about whether Miranda's red toenail polish is a plothole or a retcon.

I think I'll switch sides on that one. It's clearly a plothole.

[piemanz]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

EDI is shown scanning the Collector base at the very beginning, when Shepard is plotting his advance through the base.  She's even able to point out consoles and such at that preliminary stage.

I have a bad feeling one of these days we're going to be embroiled in a vicious debate about whether Miranda's red toenail polish is a plothole or a retcon.

I think I'll switch sides on that one. It's clearly a plothole.

Actually, they are red in the very first cutscene.Which takes place 2 years before the events of ME2.

Modifié par piemanz, 01 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[Whatever42]

piemanz wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

EDI is shown scanning the Collector base at the very beginning, when Shepard is plotting his advance through the base.  She's even able to point out consoles and such at that preliminary stage.

I have a bad feeling one of these days we're going to be embroiled in a vicious debate about whether Miranda's red toenail polish is a plothole or a retcon.

I think I'll switch sides on that one. It's clearly a plothole.

Actually, they are red in the very first cutscene.Which takes place 2 years before the events of ME2.

See, that's clearly wrong. Blue is a much better color on Miranda. Red doesn't match her complexion at all. Do we know whether she's tried blue? Why doesn't Shepard ask about it?

[squee913]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

EDI is shown scanning the Collector base at the very beginning, when Shepard is plotting his advance through the base.  She's even able to point out consoles and such at that preliminary stage.

I have a bad feeling one of these days we're going to be embroiled in a vicious debate about whether Miranda's red toenail polish is a plothole or a retcon.

I think I'll switch sides on that one. It's clearly a plothole.

Actually, they are red in the very first cutscene.Which takes place 2 years before the events of ME2.

See, that's clearly wrong. Blue is a much better color on Miranda. Red doesn't match her complexion at all. Do we know whether she's tried blue? Why doesn't Shepard ask about it?

How could she try blue? We are never told that blue nail polish exsists in the game! And if they throw it in there, it is a plot hole because it is a new concept. Everyone knows you can't introduce new concepts in the second game!!

[Jzadek72]

Oh, god, please don't bring up that ego-loving arse again. He seems to think his opinion is law and that those who disagree are either blind fanboys, morons or trolls. Calls them immature, and then swears at them.

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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?

In particular, I'm referring to where she drops the knowledge bomb on Shepard about Reapers in fact being semi-organic "sentient constructs" when we've been told time and time again all through ME1 and up until that point in ME2 that Reapers are machines. The fact that she simply says "Incorrect. Reapers are sapient constructs." by way of explanation and that's it--that there's no exploration or inquisition from Shepard on the subject and they just move on with the conversation--makes it feel to me like it was just common knowledge and not some sort of incredible revelation.

Modifié par JKoopman, 01 avril 2011 - 10:29 .

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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?

In particular, I'm referring to where she drops the knowledge bomb on Shepard about Reapers in fact being semi-organic "sentient constructs" when we've been told time and time again all through ME1 and up until that point in ME2 that Reapers are machines. The fact that she simply says "Incorrect. Reapers are sapient constructs." by way of explanation and that's it--that there's no exploration or inquisition from Shepard on the subject and they just move on with the conversation--makes it feel to me like it was just common knowledge and not some sort of incredible revelation.

That is no more a retcon than finding out Darth Vader is Luke father was. No one ever said he wasn't, and no one ever stated the reapers were pure machines, because no one knew. Everyone thought the Protheans were wiped out, but we found out they were turned into collectors. Was that a retcon too? I give you that Shep could have had a bigger reaction to it, but how would that bigger reaction have any real impact on the story? Does it change anything? Does a bigger reaction move the story along somehow?

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

That is no more a retcon than finding out Darth Vader is Luke father was. No one ever said he wasn't, and no one ever stated the reapers were pure machines, because no one knew. Everyone thought the Protheans were wiped out, but we found out they were turned into collectors. Was that a retcon too? I give you that Shep could have had a bigger reaction to it, but how would that bigger reaction have any real impact on the story? Does it change anything? Does a bigger reaction move the story along somehow?

Neither are retcons, they are reveals.  Extremely poorly done reveals done with all the emotional impact of finding a stop sign at an intersection that previously didn't have one.

"Collectors are repurposed Protheans"

"Huh.  That's odd.  Well let's go shoot something!"

"You aren't going to ponder horror of such an existence, how someone could do something like this to an entire race?  The ramifications of opposing a race that could do something like this, how this is in fact the best case scenerio if you lose?"

"Mordin will handle thathen we get back.  Fo now, though, I see some waist high cover over there..."

"Reapers are cybornetic beings using human genetic material to create another of it's kind"
"So I aim for the things marked "WeakPoints" right?

"Umm, this is the reason for the cycle of destruction.  Hundreds of thousands of humans are dead because of this thing.  Milllions more on the chopping block.  It's exact construction is beyond human understanding, but the price in human lives is horrific in scale.  This is what the Reapers have in mind for humanity.

"Right, right   So is this going to be a phased fight, or are there waves of enemies or what?"

[piemanz]

Sure all these things may help people understand the plot, but all these things are what you as the  player should be pondering.Do you really need to have Bioware legitimise your ponderings by having a conversation in game?.Not to mention that to me it would become extremely tedious.

Take for instance the collector base..

iakus wrote...

"Collectors are repurposed Protheans"

"Huh.  That's odd.  Well let's go shoot something!"

If i'm sitting at my pc thinking "Hmmm thats odd" i dont really need the game to repeat exactly what i'm thinking, it serves no purpose, other than to hand feed us plot points.After a while i could imagine it becoming tedious if every time Bioware set up a whoa! moment, they then proceed to explain it to me like i'm some kind of moron.

In certain situations obviously more infomation is needed, like with the baby Reaper. EDI explains what you need to know, thus giving you infomation you need without bogging you down with infomation you don't need.But you don't then need a conversation with Squadmates discussing the merits of the Reaper.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 03:37 .

[Iakus]

piemanz wrote...

Sure all these things may help people understand the plot, but all these things are what you as the  player should be pondering.Do you really need to have Bioware legitimise your ponderings by having a conversation in game?.Not to mention that to me it would become extremely tedious.

Take for instance the collector base..

iakus wrote...

"Collectors are repurposed Protheans"

"Huh.  That's odd.  Well let's go shoot something!"

If i'm sitting at my pc thinking "Hmmm thats odd" i dont really need the game to repeat exactly what i'm thinking, it serves no purpose, other than to hand feed us plot points.After a while i could imagine it becoming tedious if every time Bioware set up a whoa! moment, they then proceed to explain it to me like i'm some kind of moron.

Yes you know how you react.  How does Grunt react?  Thane?  Jacob? Tali?   What options do you have in conversation options reflecting on that?  In other words what roleplaying opportunities does this revelation offer?

Did anyone here used to watch Stargate SG-1?  Towards the end of 8th season, an army of Replicators was swarming the human, Jaffa, and Goa'uld forces into galaxy.  Everyone was making a last stand trying to slow them down while a superweapon was being constructed to stop them.  FInally, in a supreme effort, Daniel Jackson managed to grapple the Replicator leader and gain temporary control of the hordes.  Everyone watches in stunned amazement as the advancing forces stop.  Except O'Neill, who was making a last stand at the Stargate on Earth.  He just goes "Huh" and continues shooting.

Now that scene was funny.  Once.  But when it happens every time in a game that's supposed to be full of cosmic mystery, twists and reveals and emotional moments, Shepard going "Huh" gets old fast. 

[Zahxia]

Another debate falls victim to regurgitating plot points and imaginary reasons and speculation to try to organise conflicting information or a lack of information into a cohesive storyline. If the game is failing to convey its story in an effective way then it's not good story telling.

If you're arguing *for* Mass Effect 2 stop making little imaginary threads: It's not as deep as you think it is. It's a kiddie-pool deep story and whats presented is all there really is: Don't 'coulda-woulda-shoulda' your arguments... because the game 'didn't'. Even Lair of the Shadowbroker's videos and dossiers are a little subtle acknowledgement and 'in jokes' for the fans. Mass Effect 2 was a game made because game development is a business and a fanbase wanted more not a game where Bioware wanted to push story-telling forward like they hyped it to be. Something both sides of the argument need to reconcile.

Mass Effect 2 is a game where any one event that takes place is completely unrelated to another. It's almost like every mission, every event, every codex is created in almost complete disregard to something else someone may be working on it's why there is so little conflict between squad members and so little reference to events outside the mission that take place in or from the squadmate (or NPC) they affected. Making strands between these disconnected events that were only created to give the player something to do until they can actually finish the fight in ME3 and saying there's a consistent story or setting here is absurd.

[Clonedzero]

i watched all your response videos and mostly agreed, good job sir
(directed towards squee)

though i'd work more video clips into the backround video of your voice over instead of slide after slide, but other than that i thought it was pretty well done.

[Iakus]

BTW, Smudboy posted his next response

[piemanz]

Zahxia wrote...

Another debate falls victim to regurgitating plot points and imaginary reasons and speculation to try to organise conflicting information or a lack of information into a cohesive storyline. If the game is failing to convey its story in an effective way then it's not good story telling.

If you're arguing *for* Mass Effect 2 stop making little imaginary threads: It's not as deep as you think it is. It's a kiddie-pool deep story and whats presented is all there really is: Don't 'coulda-woulda-shoulda' your arguments... because the game 'didn't'. Even Lair of the Shadowbroker's videos and dossiers are a little subtle acknowledgement and 'in jokes' for the fans. Mass Effect 2 was a game made because game development is a business and a fanbase wanted more not a game where Bioware wanted to push story-telling forward like they hyped it to be. Something both sides of the argument need to reconcile.

Mass Effect 2 is a game where any one event that takes place is completely unrelated to another. It's almost like every mission, every event, every codex is created in almost complete disregard to something else someone may be working on it's why there is so little conflict between squad members and so little reference to events outside the mission that take place in or from the squadmate (or NPC) they affected. Making strands between these disconnected events that were only created to give the player something to do until they can actually finish the fight in ME3 and saying there's a consistent story or setting here is absurd.

The thing is you're assuming ME2 has to be one story, it's not.It's over 12 mini storys wrapped in an overarching plot.All of which make sense with a littler imagination or thought.Now you might say "but you shouldn't need to imagine, you should just know " but you totally forget that the ME series was always going to be trilogy, meaning we're only 2 3rds of the way through the story, so of course there will be 'coulda, woulda shoulda' moments.

Would you read 2/3rds of a book and expect to know what happens at the end, or how the events that you know of will all tie in.No of course not, you just carry on reading until the end.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 04:05 .

[Whatever42]

Zahxia wrote...

Another debate falls victim to regurgitating plot points and imaginary reasons and speculation to try to organise conflicting information or a lack of information into a cohesive storyline. If the game is failing to convey its story in an effective way then it's not good story telling.

If you're arguing *for* Mass Effect 2 stop making little imaginary threads: It's not as deep as you think it is. It's a kiddie-pool deep story and whats presented is all there really is: Don't 'coulda-woulda-shoulda' your arguments... because the game 'didn't'. Even Lair of the Shadowbroker's videos and dossiers are a little subtle acknowledgement and 'in jokes' for the fans. Mass Effect 2 was a game made because game development is a business and a fanbase wanted more not a game where Bioware wanted to push story-telling forward like they hyped it to be. Something both sides of the argument need to reconcile.

Mass Effect 2 is a game where any one event that takes place is completely unrelated to another. It's almost like every mission, every event, every codex is created in almost complete disregard to something else someone may be working on it's why there is so little conflict between squad members and so little reference to events outside the mission that take place in or from the squadmate (or NPC) they affected. Making strands between these disconnected events that were only created to give the player something to do until they can actually finish the fight in ME3 and saying there's a consistent story or setting here is absurd.

When did gaming get hipsters? Damn, I loathe hipsters.

[PurePareidolia]

I'm slightly confused as to why people are bothering trying to argue that ME2's plot was actually good.
Even a cursory glance should make it clear otherwise - I mean, is the Cerberus railroading really something that doesn't stick out as contrived? even when you're a sole survivor? or space Arnie something that made perfect sense? Without writing chapters of personal fanfiction I'm just not seeing how those things strike people as great writing. Even if you consider Smudboy to be smug and nitpickey (not that I do, and I actually really enjoy his videos) he's not wrong about it and it doesn't mean Mass Effect 2 is a bad game or anything, it's just a bad installment in the narrative regardless of it's other content.

So really, what makes mass Effect 2's story good? can someone tell me what I'm missing that has so many people saying that?

[Whatever42]

PurePareidolia wrote...

I'm slightly confused as to why people are bothering trying to argue that ME2's plot was actually good.
Even a cursory glance should make it clear otherwise - I mean, is the Cerberus railroading really something that doesn't stick out as contrived? even when you're a sole survivor? or space Arnie something that made perfect sense? Without writing chapters of personal fanfiction I'm just not seeing how those things strike people as great writing. Even if you consider Smudboy to be smug and nitpickey (not that I do, and I actually really enjoy his videos) he's not wrong about it and it doesn't mean Mass Effect 2 is a bad game or anything, it's just a bad installment in the narrative regardless of it's other content.

So really, what makes mass Effect 2's story good? can someone tell me what I'm missing that has so many people saying that?

Neither ME1 or ME2 is great writing. Both games have a few plot holes. Both games have cliches. ME2 has a weak main plot but good writing on the character missions. ME1 has a decent main plot but weak writing on the characters, for the most part.

I will argue if you say ME1 is great. It's not. I will argue if you point to something that is obviously not a plothole and call it a plothole or point to something that is not a retcon and call it a retcon. If you don't like it, just say you don't like it. Don't misuse terms like plothole in an effort to explain it. It's fine to just not like it.

I also laugh when people think they can do better. Smudboy's reimagining was ridiculously bad.

[Almostfaceman]

PurePareidolia wrote...

I'm slightly confused as to why people are bothering trying to argue that ME2's plot was actually good.
Even a cursory glance should make it clear otherwise - I mean, is the Cerberus railroading really something that doesn't stick out as contrived? even when you're a sole survivor? or space Arnie something that made perfect sense? Without writing chapters of personal fanfiction I'm just not seeing how those things strike people as great writing. Even if you consider Smudboy to be smug and nitpickey (not that I do, and I actually really enjoy his videos) he's not wrong about it and it doesn't mean Mass Effect 2 is a bad game or anything, it's just a bad installment in the narrative regardless of it's other content.

So really, what makes mass Effect 2's story good? can someone tell me what I'm missing that has so many people saying that?

What makes you think anyone can tell you that?  You have your opinion and we have ours.  Different strokes for different folks.  Two movie critics can watch the same movie and come to two completely different ratings.  I'm not sure why you would be slightly puzzled by this completely ordinary phenomenon.

[Il Divo]

As a random tangent, has anyone heard anything on Smudboy's plot analysis of Arrival yet?

[Fiery Phoenix]

Il Divo wrote...

As a random tangent, has anyone heard anything on Smudboy's plot analysis of Arrival yet?

It's on the way.

[Il Divo]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

As a random tangent, has anyone heard anything on Smudboy's plot analysis of Arrival yet?

It's on the way.

Damn well better be. It's already been half a week. Smud's slacking.  

[Fiery Phoenix]

Smud's response to 3-3.

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

Sure all these things may help people understand the plot, but all these things are what you as the  player should be pondering.Do you really need to have Bioware legitimise your ponderings by having a conversation in game?.Not to mention that to me it would become extremely tedious.

Take for instance the collector base..

iakus wrote...

"Collectors are repurposed Protheans"

"Huh.  That's odd.  Well let's go shoot something!"

If i'm sitting at my pc thinking "Hmmm thats odd" i dont really need the game to repeat exactly what i'm thinking, it serves no purpose, other than to hand feed us plot points.After a while i could imagine it becoming tedious if every time Bioware set up a whoa! moment, they then proceed to explain it to me like i'm some kind of moron.

In certain situations obviously more infomation is needed, like with the baby Reaper. EDI explains what you need to know, thus giving you infomation you need without bogging you down with infomation you don't need.But you don't then need a conversation with Squadmates discussing the merits of the Reaper.

Actually, it's quite important to storytelling. It might actually be the most important part of storytelling. If important and fantastic events are happening to and around the protagonist (in other words, "whoa" moments) but the protagonist doesn't react to those events as if they're important or fantastic, not only does it devalue those events and make them seem less important and fantastic but it causes the character(s) to become wooden. To use a prior example, would you have thought it at all strange if Darth Vader said to Luke, "I am your father!" and Luke merely looked at him with a blank stare and replied "OK." before jumping into the abyss? Wouldn't people be wondering why he would do something so drastic when it didn't seem like it was a big deal to him, even if it did seem like a big deal to the audience?

Lack of characterizing emotional conflict is fine when you're playing a Faceless Action Hero like Master Chief in a shooting-gallery game. In a role-playing game who's primary selling point is story, I cannot understand how someone would say that something akin to character development is unnecessary.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Sure all these things may help people understand the plot, but all these things are what you as the  player should be pondering.Do you really need to have Bioware legitimise your ponderings by having a conversation in game?.Not to mention that to me it would become extremely tedious.

Take for instance the collector base..

iakus wrote...

"Collectors are repurposed Protheans"

"Huh.  That's odd.  Well let's go shoot something!"

If i'm sitting at my pc thinking "Hmmm thats odd" i dont really need the game to repeat exactly what i'm thinking, it serves no purpose, other than to hand feed us plot points.After a while i could imagine it becoming tedious if every time Bioware set up a whoa! moment, they then proceed to explain it to me like i'm some kind of moron.

In certain situations obviously more infomation is needed, like with the baby Reaper. EDI explains what you need to know, thus giving you infomation you need without bogging you down with infomation you don't need.But you don't then need a conversation with Squadmates discussing the merits of the Reaper.

Actually, it's quite important to storytelling. It might actually be the most important part of storytelling. If important and fantastic events are happening to and around the protagonist (in other words, "whoa" moments) but the protagonist doesn't react to those events as if they're important or fantastic, not only does it devalue those events and make them seem less important and fantastic but it causes the character(s) to become wooden. To use a prior example, would you have thought it at all strange if Darth Vader said to Luke, "I am your father!" and Luke merely looked at him with a blank stare and replied "OK." before jumping into the abyss? Wouldn't people be wondering why he would do something so drastic when it didn't seem like it was a big deal to him, even if it did seem like a big deal to the audience?

Lack of characterizing emotional conflict is fine when you're playing a Faceless Action Hero like Master Chief in a shooting-gallery game. In a role-playing game who's primary selling point is story, I cannot understand how someone would say that something akin to character development is unnecessary.

ME2 is an RPG.....You, the player, are meant to be taking the 'role' of shepard.Meaning the character of your shep is meant to be formulated by you.If the game and specifcy your character is reacting to things in ways that are different to yours, then you're no longer role playing and you might aswell just be playing COD.

Comparing a game where you are actively participating as the protagonist, and playing the role of them is not even close to watching a movie where you are merely a spectator.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 05:00 .