1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Ah, the eternal dichotomy of whether to characterize Shepard or allow the audience to characterize Shepard...there are advantages to both, I say.

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

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 you're player is meant to 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.

Mass Effect isn't Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Shepard isn't just some transparent voiceless looking glass through which the player interacts with the game world, and the player doesn't create their own story like an old-school PnP tabletop RPG. Shepard is his own unique character and Mass Effect has it's own story to tell. You merely choose which dialog options come out of Shepard's mouth and have the ability to slightly influence certain events in marginal ways.

So yes, lack of characterization on Shepard's part is a problem. If the main character in your story is an emotionless rock, it undermines the narrative.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 05:07 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Ah, the eternal dichotomy of whether to characterize Shepard or allow the audience to characterize Shepard...there are advantages to both, I say.

This is one area where I thought DA2 was far, far, superior to ME 2.  Both had plots that were pretty much on rails.  But at least DA2 let me define who the Champion was and his relationships with the companions.  Even if I couldn't really affect what was going on, I and my "squadmates" could (usually) react to them in a somewhat realistic manner.

I wonder if Smudboy will compare the two games?

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

This is one area where I thought DA2 was far, far, superior to ME 2.  Both had plots that were pretty much on rails.  But at least DA2 let me define who the Champion was and his relationships with the companions.  Even if I couldn't really affect what was going on, I and my "squadmates" could (usually) react to them in a somewhat realistic manner.

I wonder if Smudboy will compare the two games?

In many ways, DA2 took the voiced protagonist farther than the Mass Effect series. While I enjoy Shepard, it's certainly true that I felt more emotion from Hawke while still having the ability to make him "mine".
 
With Mass Effect, it feels more like the developers are being very cautious; the purpose of the voiced protagonist is to allow the PC to express more emotion making him more 'defined' which was Shepard's purpose, but at the same time they still want to keep Shepard as an uncarved block (relatively) which everyone can role-play in the style of the silent protagonist. It's tough to hit the nail right on what to do with a VA, moreso than a silent PC.

I also thought DA2's plot was superior to DA:O's, excluding the handling of Orsino. But that's just me.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 avril 2011 - 05:16 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...


Mass Effect isn't Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Shepard isn't just some transparent voiceless looking glass through which the player interacts with the game world, and the player doesn't create their own story like an old-school PnP tabletop RPG. Shepard is his own unique character and Mass Effect has it's own story to tell. You merely choose which dialog options come out of Shepard's mouth and have the ability to slightly influence certain events in marginal ways.

So yes, lack of characterization on Shepard's part is a problem. If the main character in your story is an emotionless rock, it undermines the narrative.

It's been pretty obvious throught both games that Bioware have chosen to allow the player to characterize Shepard as much as possible.While i can see how you would dislike this aproach it doesn't necsecerily make it wrong.This isn't something new to ME2, it was the same in the first game too, it's not like Shepard was full of emotion in the first game and then they suddenly made him/her emotionless in ME2 is it.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 05:18 .

[piemanz]

iakus wrote...

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. 

There are plenty of opotunitiies to interact with you're crew on the normandy and genrally you can talk to them about the mission and get an idea of their thoughts on it.Stopping and having a chat in the middle of a mission kind of detracts from the seriousness and imenent danger of the situation.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 05:38 .

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Mass Effect isn't Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Shepard isn't just some transparent voiceless looking glass through which the player interacts with the game world, and the player doesn't create their own story like an old-school PnP tabletop RPG. Shepard is his own unique character and Mass Effect has it's own story to tell. You merely choose which dialog options come out of Shepard's mouth and have the ability to slightly influence certain events in marginal ways.

So yes, lack of characterization on Shepard's part is a problem. If the main character in your story is an emotionless rock, it undermines the narrative.

It's been pretty obvious throught both games that Bioware have chosen to allow the player to characterize Shepard as much as possible.While i can see how you would dislike this aproach it doesn't necsecerily make it wrong.This isn't something new to ME2, it was the same in the first game too, it's not like Shepard was full of emotion in the first game and then they suddenly made him/her emotionless in ME2 is it.

Compare the "Big Reveal" in ME2 (the Human-Reaper Larva and the true nature of the Reapers) to the "Big Reveal" in ME1. Emotions Shepard and squad display in the later: Foreboding, Fear, Awe, Disblief, Denial, Incredulity, Horror, Anger.

How does that compare to ME2? Shepard doesn't display ANY emotion when EDI drops the reveal that the Reapers are cyborgs and use organic species for reproduction. It's not even treated like a reveal but more like a triviality; a casual info drop in an optional conversation with no reaction from Shepard. EDI simply corrects some misinformation and then away we go. Shepard isn't even given an option to challenge her on this information or delve deeper. It's just stated as a matter of fact and then swept under the rug.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 05:47 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Mass Effect isn't Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Shepard isn't just some transparent voiceless looking glass through which the player interacts with the game world, and the player doesn't create their own story like an old-school PnP tabletop RPG. Shepard is his own unique character and Mass Effect has it's own story to tell. You merely choose which dialog options come out of Shepard's mouth and have the ability to slightly influence certain events in marginal ways.

So yes, lack of characterization on Shepard's part is a problem. If the main character in your story is an emotionless rock, it undermines the narrative.

It's been pretty obvious throught both games that Bioware have chosen to allow the player to characterize Shepard as much as possible.While i can see how you would dislike this aproach it doesn't necsecerily make it wrong.This isn't something new to ME2, it was the same in the first game too, it's not like Shepard was full of emotion in the first game and then they suddenly made him/her emotionless in ME2 is it.

Compare the "Big Reveal" in ME2 (the Human-Reaper Larva and the true nature of the Reapers) to the "Big Reveal" in ME1. Emotions Shepard and squad display in the later: Foreboding, Fear, Awe, Disblief, Denial, Incredulity, Anger.

How does that compare to ME2? Shepard doesn't display ANY emotion when EDI drops the reveal that the Reapers are cyborgs and use organic species for reproduction. It's not even treated like a reveal but more like a triviality; a casual info drop in an optional conversation with no reaction from Shepard. EDI simply corrects some misinformation and then away we go.

To compare these 2 videos you have to assume the theres the same amout of emotional gravity to both, when theres clearly not.The confrontation with sovereign is the first contact with a Reaper ,it's not a big reveal ,it's THE biggest reveal so far.Sure finding out thay're making a human reaper is a big deal but it's not quite the same as being told of the impending destruction of the galaxy.

I could point you to numerous ME2 videos that show shepard displaying emotion too, the scene at the end, with tali falling off the edge springs to mind but there are plenty of other too.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 05:51 .

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Mass Effect isn't Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Shepard isn't just some transparent voiceless looking glass through which the player interacts with the game world, and the player doesn't create their own story like an old-school PnP tabletop RPG. Shepard is his own unique character and Mass Effect has it's own story to tell. You merely choose which dialog options come out of Shepard's mouth and have the ability to slightly influence certain events in marginal ways.

So yes, lack of characterization on Shepard's part is a problem. If the main character in your story is an emotionless rock, it undermines the narrative.

It's been pretty obvious throught both games that Bioware have chosen to allow the player to characterize Shepard as much as possible.While i can see how you would dislike this aproach it doesn't necsecerily make it wrong.This isn't something new to ME2, it was the same in the first game too, it's not like Shepard was full of emotion in the first game and then they suddenly made him/her emotionless in ME2 is it.

Compare the "Big Reveal" in ME2 (the Human-Reaper Larva and the true nature of the Reapers) to the "Big Reveal" in ME1. Emotions Shepard and squad display in the later: Foreboding, Fear, Awe, Disblief, Denial, Incredulity, Anger.

How does that compare to ME2? Shepard doesn't display ANY emotion when EDI drops the reveal that the Reapers are cyborgs and use organic species for reproduction. It's not even treated like a reveal but more like a triviality; a casual info drop in an optional conversation with no reaction from Shepard. EDI simply corrects some misinformation and then away we go.

To compare these 2 videos you have to assume the theres the same amout of emotional gravity to both, when theres clearly not.The confrontation with sovereign is the first contact with a Reaper it's not a abit reveal it's THE biggest reveal so far.Sure finding out thay're making a human reaper is a big deal it's not quite the same as being told of the impending destruction of the galaxy.

Finding out that your species is being harvested to create a Reaper abomination and that your entire understanding of the nature of your enemy was mistaken isn't as big of a reveal as discovering that what you thought was a Reaper warship is actually a Reaper itself?

Remember, Shepard didn't learn about the Reapers or discover that they were a threat to the galaxy in his conversation with Sovereign. He knew all this from his vision on Eden Prime. The reveal in his conversation with Sovereign was basically just that the Reapers were, in effect, already here and that the scope of their threat was a bit more horrifying than previously imagined.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 05:56 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...


Finding out that your species is being harvested to create a Reaper abomination and that your entire understanding of the nature of your enemy was mistaken isn't as big of a reveal of discovering that what you thought was a Reaper warship is actually a Reaper itself?

Remember, Shepard didn't learn about the Reapers or discover that they were a threat to the galaxy in his conversation with Sovereign. He knew all this already from his vision on Eden Prime.

Of course it's a big deal but it's not entirly suprising given the events of the game, i mean they must of needed humans for something, right?

Shepard was barely able to make sense of his visions pretty much throghout the whole of ME1.

As i said you're comparing 2 entirley diffrent situations and then lumping them both in under the heading of "The big reveal".

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Finding out that your species is being harvested to create a Reaper abomination and that your entire understanding of the nature of your enemy was mistaken isn't as big of a reveal of discovering that what you thought was a Reaper warship is actually a Reaper itself?

Remember, Shepard didn't learn about the Reapers or discover that they were a threat to the galaxy in his conversation with Sovereign. He knew all this already from his vision on Eden Prime.

Of course it's a big deal but it's not entirly suprising given the events of the game, i mean they must of needed humans for something, right?

Shepard was barely able to make sense of his visions pretty much throghout the whole of ME1.

"For something" does not automatically equate with "For use in the construction of a Reaper abomination", especially when everything we've learned about the Collectors up to that point indicates that they're merely using other species for genetic experimentation.

In any case, it seems you agree that the characterization is lacking. You're simply trying to dismiss that lack of characterization as being unimportant. On that, we'll respectfully have to agree to disagree.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 05:59 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Finding out that your species is being harvested to create a Reaper abomination and that your entire understanding of the nature of your enemy was mistaken isn't as big of a reveal of discovering that what you thought was a Reaper warship is actually a Reaper itself?

Remember, Shepard didn't learn about the Reapers or discover that they were a threat to the galaxy in his conversation with Sovereign. He knew all this already from his vision on Eden Prime.

Of course it's a big deal but it's not entirly suprising given the events of the game, i mean they must of needed humans for something, right?

Shepard was barely able to make sense of his visions pretty much throghout the whole of ME1.

"For something" does not automatically equate with "For use in the construction of a Reaper abomination", especially when everything we've learned about the Collectors up to that point indicates that they're merely using other species for genetic experimentation.

We're arguing semantics here.

Again, you're  comparing 2 diffrent situations and lumping them both into the heading of the "big reveal", and then saying look he's less emotional in one than the other.You cant do that, it only works if you compare how he/she would react to the same situation.

Like i said, theres plenty of times in ME2 shep does show emotion, showing me how he reacts differently to 2 completely different situations that take place 2 years apart, is not strengthening you argumant one way or another.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 06:07 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...


we'll respectfully have to agree to disagree.

I guess so.

[JKoopman]

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

piemanz wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


Finding out that your species is being harvested to create a Reaper abomination and that your entire understanding of the nature of your enemy was mistaken isn't as big of a reveal of discovering that what you thought was a Reaper warship is actually a Reaper itself?

Remember, Shepard didn't learn about the Reapers or discover that they were a threat to the galaxy in his conversation with Sovereign. He knew all this already from his vision on Eden Prime.

Of course it's a big deal but it's not entirly suprising given the events of the game, i mean they must of needed humans for something, right?

Shepard was barely able to make sense of his visions pretty much throghout the whole of ME1.

"For something" does not automatically equate with "For use in the construction of a Reaper abomination", especially when everything we've learned about the Collectors up to that point indicates that they're merely using other species for genetic experimentation.

We're arguing semantics here.

Again, you're  comparing 2 diffrent situations and lumping them both into the heading of the "big reveal", and then saying look he's less emotional in one than the other.You cant do that, it only works if you compare how he/she would react to the same situation.

Like i said, theres plenty of times in ME2 shep does show emotion, showing me how he reacts differently to 2 completely situations that take place 2 years apart, is not strengthening you argumant one way or another.

I simply cannot fathom how you could say that a targeted internal threat that's not only horrifying in it's method and scope but changes our understanding of the nature and motivations of our foe and indicates a specific interest in humanity on the part of the Reapers is less of a shocking reveal than learning that the generalized external threat you already knew about was closer and more grandiose than previously imagined.

Modifié par JKoopman, 02 avril 2011 - 06:13 .

[Zahxia]

piemanz wrote...

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.

It's the creators job to be imaginative and thoughtful, and to capture the players imagination and make the player think about what has been presented to them. Not to have the players be the ones to be imaginative and fill it in with their own little fan-fiction or rationalisations.

How has Mass Effect 2 changed your thoughts on life, death, mortality, ressurection or loyalty? Bill and Teds Bogus Journey had more to say on those topics than Mass Effect 2.

The big draw of Science Fiction is to challenge the ideas of our time in a hypothetical world. Mass Effect tackled the idea of freedom vs. slavery. Dragon Age 2 while being fantasy had players think about whether they wanted freedom or security through conflicts with the Arishok and the conflict between the Templars and Mages.

Mass Effect 2 not only failed to deliver anything of substance but even with its simplistic storylines failed to tell them effectively and instead used every 'story' point as merely a set up to a firefight. Mass Effect 2 said nothing, did nothing, accomplished nothing as far as a trilogy is concerned and failed to answer anything about our protagonists and antagonists goals or reasoning. It simply told us 'it was on the back of the box and in all of our marketing so you have to do this to get the credits' and we went along with it.

Mass Effect 2 was not an example of good storytelling or a positive move towards good storytelling in games. It's a step backward and if you continue to support such a move you'll see Bioware's RPGs stagnate faster than SquareEnix's and WRPGs next gen will be the JRPGs of this gen.


EDIT: and back on Sci-Fi games: Look at the anti-war and environmental messages in the Metal Gear Solid series. Even the macho-nonsense-filled Gears of War has the player in a world that's the result of fighting over resources and where every battle sends humanity closer to exinction and where even an insurmountable force that seemed impossible to defeat is corrupted by the very resource humanity was fighting to control. A series that has come to be ridiculed as a 'dudebro' cover shooter  has more to say than Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Zahxia, 02 avril 2011 - 06:32 .

[piemanz]

JKoopman wrote...


I simply cannot fathom how you could say that a targeted internal threat that's not only horrifying in it's method and scope but changes our understanding of the nature and motivations of our foe and indicates a specific interest in humanity on the part of the Reapers is less of a shocking reveal than learning that the generalized external threat you already knew about was closer and more grandiose than previously imagined.

I can see where you're coming from.But it's still different situations.The way i see it is that shepard has seen and knows thing now that he didn't know back then.He's not the same person he was 2 years ago, in many respects reapers are somewhat old news, he's hardened.

Modifié par piemanz, 02 avril 2011 - 06:19 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

heres something: The abduction scene has an "unprecidented" moment where shepard takes his entire crew with him.

You could argue the Project Overlord mission involves shepard taking his entire crew depending on how you play it. You can swap out party members frequently upon leaving the hammerhead and you dont return to the ship until the end. You can get about 8 of your squadmates involved in this one mission.


Also they de-emphasized shepard because they wanted a scene where you play as joker. Apparently there was going to be a scene where you play as legion near the beginning searching for shepard's remains but they cut that.


it was a tonal shift. If you want to be super obsessive you can actually just play Project Overlord directly after the abduction and pretend that that's what your entire crew left to go do. (I almost wish they dlc patched it into that scene as a mandatory whatchamacallit)


You also take your entire crew to virmire in the first game. (And again at the end of ME2 for the suicide mission itself but that goes without saying)

[armass]

This is the problem of trilogies when you have many writers and some of them leave in the middle of production.

When I look at mass effect 2 it brings into mind a book with 12 smaller stories and a weaker main story that between the 12 stories somehow tries to bring them all together, poorly. And this is the second book in the trilogy...

Without the novels the story would be even weaker. Who is Illusive man, who are the collectors? They would be just pulls out of some hat.

And with the advent of arrival, basically the whole main plot of me2 was reduced from saving a galaxy to saving a few human colonies, while the reapers still come. Collectors as a threat were less than what Saren and Sovereign were, this is not how you treat the sequel, the enemy should be more powerful and have more impact. Collectors had like one ship that they did all the collecting and they intended to target earth.... what the hell? How are the collectors a new and "terrifying" force in the galaxy if all they have is ONE SHIP?! Even the geth in the last game had an armada.

I really dread what ME3 brings, im not kidding. I really hope they redeem themselves with the last game, cause the seconds main story just wasnt up to the ante.

Modifié par armass, 02 avril 2011 - 09:36 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

I recently got to thinking and realised that ME2 would have been more consistent with ME1 if Cerberus and Shadow broker had just been nameswaped in ME2. Cerberus in ME2 does all the things Shadow Broker did in ME1, and Shadow Broker becomes the big meanie head doing terrible bad things that make you hate them so much in ME2. (I kind of wanted to punch cerberus in the mouth during those UNC missions in ME1 for being so evil, but instead I get to punch a guy called shadow broker in the mouth in me2. see where I'm going with this?)


Also the yeah I read http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004 and the main plot really is the sloppiest and least interesting of the game. I almost sort of changed my mind about smudboy after hearing his clarification in this video that he: liked the loyalty and recruitment missions and might actually not totally **** about arrival. I still think his big "how 2 do me2 rite" suggestion video and character analysis videos were kind of overblown and stupid and he trolls a little hard in his other videos but....this other guy made me realise some of the things that smudboy just conveys so poorly.

They needed more time to work out a better main plot and re-examine what they were doing frome very angle. Were the main plot and the squad missions developed so seperately? Having special cases in the SM for the individual personalities you pick up layered ontop of what they did do would have been severely interesting.  

What if renegade zaeed got someone in your squad killed while paragon didn't?  What if jack went psycho during the mission depending on how her mission went?  What if there was a 4th element to the Suicide Mission in the middle that centered arround the individual characters' various themes and personalities converging together at the end of the game?  What if they had delayed the game a year and not had to fill in missing gaps with (awesome) dlc?  

Did this game need more time to bake in the oven? It was defenitely satisfying but....I wonder how different the development environment was from ME1 to ME2...hearing about writers that left? I wonder....

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 02 avril 2011 - 09:04 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Here's a second association swap.  Would there have been more
to them if instead of being half prothean the collectors had ties to the
raccni?  I havne't thought about this one nearly as much but it seems
incredibly interesting.  Similar backstory but switching which race was
constructed to become reapers.  I dunno if this one is as interesting but it seems a little neat.

[Il Divo]

JKoopman wrote...

Finding out that your species is being harvested to create a Reaper abomination and that your entire understanding of the nature of your enemy was mistaken isn't as big of a reveal as discovering that what you thought was a Reaper warship is actually a Reaper itself?

He's absolutely right though. The scale of those two 'big reveals' is completely different. If you're looking for something comparable to Mass Effect 1, you're better off looking at Kotor's plot twist in terms of how it changes the story.

At the start of Mass Effect 2, we (the audience) were under the impression that the Reapers planned to kill us all. By the end of Mass Effect 2, we still know the Reapers plan to commit galactic genocide, minus a few million colonists for their Reaper construction. It's an interesting piece of information, finding out that they are hybrids, but doesn't change the threat at this point in the game.

Remember, Shepard didn't learn about the Reapers or discover that they were a threat to the galaxy in his conversation with Sovereign. He knew all this from his vision on Eden Prime. The reveal in his conversation with Sovereign was basically just that the Reapers were, in effect, already here and that the scope of their threat was a bit more horrifying than previously imagined.

He did not learn all this from the vision, unfortunately. In Mass Effect, Sovereign basically confirms the existence of the Reaper threat. We were under the impression that Saren was the head of the Reaper plan until this point. It's not simply that Sovereign makes the the threat 'a bit more horrifying' but that we are now dealing with a 37 million year old AI which is intimately familiar with how to kill organics. Sovereign also places everything in a new light because he reminds us of how little time we have before he and Saren try to bring the Reapers through.  

[Fiery Phoenix]

I'm very much looking forward to Smud's analysis of Arrival. I expect it within the week.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 02 avril 2011 - 02:15 .

[Il Divo]

Zahxia wrote...

How has Mass Effect 2 changed your thoughts on life, death, mortality, ressurection or loyalty? Bill and Teds Bogus Journey had more to say on those topics than Mass Effect 2.
 
The big draw of Science Fiction is to challenge the ideas of our time in a hypothetical world. Mass Effect tackled the idea of freedom vs. slavery. Dragon Age 2 while being fantasy had players think about whether they wanted freedom or security through conflicts with the Arishok and the conflict between the Templars and Mages.

I'll be honest, Mass Effect didn't particularly change my ideas or force me to view anything in a new light. And it's not always necessary. Star Wars features a brilliant story and well-developed characters, but at no point did I find myself saying "Wow, I never thought of it like that". In this sense, I think you've given Mass Effect far too much credit.

If the topic is 'changing your perspective', I'd argue practically everything out of Bioware pales in comparison to Planescape Torment, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2, and the Legacy of Kain series. Two conversations with Saren about slavery vs. freedom didn't quite cut it in this regard. 
 

Mass Effect 2 was not an example of good storytelling or a positive move towards good storytelling in games. It's a step backward and if you continue to support such a move you'll see Bioware's RPGs stagnate faster than SquareEnix's and WRPGs next gen will be the JRPGs of this gen.

I'd actually argue that despite the lackluster storyline, Mass Effect 2 overall represents a very positive direction for RPGs.

EDIT: and back on Sci-Fi games: Look at the anti-war and environmental messages in the Metal Gear Solid series. Even the macho-nonsense-filled Gears of War has the player in a world that's the result of fighting over resources and where every battle sends humanity closer to exinction and where even an insurmountable force that seemed impossible to defeat is corrupted by the very resource humanity was fighting to control. A series that has come to be ridiculed as a 'dudebro' cover shooter  has more to say than Mass Effect 2.

But you're not doing the argument justice. Based on your argument of 'changing perspective', Gears of War did absolutely nothing in this regard. Everything you just stated is never explained to the audience in a philospohical manner. It's simply the backdrop of the story. Dom and Marcus don't sit around pondering what brought humanity to this point.

It's the rough-equivalent of saying that Mass Effect 2 possess an ends justify the means message by Shepard being forced to work with Cerberus, a terrorist organization. If you're going to argue that Gears of War has anything to say, you have to show us where it says anything substantial. The setting of the game doesn't really do that.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 avril 2011 - 02:29 .

[Il Divo]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I'm very much looking forward to Smud's analysis of Arrival. I expect it within the week.

Same. My prediction is that it's going to be rather mixed. I feel like Smud will approve of Admiral Hackett/the Alpha Relay, but will take issue with Kenson explaining her whole project to Shepard, whom she's trying to capture. But that's just me.

[Fiery Phoenix]

If you remember his review of LOTSB, it was mostly positive. In one of his comments on LOTSB, he said he actually LIKED the DLC and is sad that ME2's main story wasn't along the same lines.