1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

@JKoopman, that was one post, I really, really, hope the Developers read, print out, and post in the break room. I'm impressed!

And that VS-Anderson dialogue never gets old.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Don't Jacob state that project Lazarus only had one subject -which was Shepard- when the commander ask if there were other test-subjects?

Does that imply that they have not done it before?

[morrie23]

JKoopman wrote...
*snip*

Well done JKoopman, you pretty much summed up my issues with ME2s plot. Well done again sir.

[Pretend3r]

Lizardviking wrote...

Don't Jacob state that project Lazarus only had one subject -which was Shepard- when the commander ask if there were other test-subjects?

Does that imply that they have not done it before?

There is only one little line at the opening cutscene that could indicate they heavily started researching the medical field in case the worst case scenario happened to Shepard. I suppose you 'could' build a body.. It's the memories that pretty much impossible i think( i dont know alot) but a damaged brain is pretty much trouble. even if they can fix the damage... maybe they pulled of the same thing they did in the movie "The Sixth Day" a movie with good ol' governor arnold. where they copied memories via a retina scan, then again, when the **** would they have done it, seeing how he rememberd getting blown to ****. somewhat.

[100k]

JKoopman wrote...
"Destroying the Normandy showed how badass the Collectors are and that the Reapers were still a threat..." Shepard didn't need to DIE for that. He could've made it into an escape pod but the explosion cripples it as it's launched, knocking out his locator beacon and sending him off into deep space where he drifts for a time in cryo-sleep before being recovered by a Shadow Broker team that holds him in confinement while they broker a deal with the Collectors, only to have a Cerberus team break him out and take him to speak with the Illusive Man. See, I've just come up with a plot in the space of 3 minutes that not only sets up the Collector threat, covers Shepard's 2 year absense and explains his allegiance with Cerberus but also doesn't require a contrived death and resurrection.

...that actually makes sense...

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...
*huge snip*

Do you like Mass Effect 2?  I know iakus sorta-kinda does - do you?

[Mister Ford]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Mister Ford wrote...
lol, having questions about Shepard's death is understandable, I'm sure just about everyone who played the game had questions, and it would have been nice to have some explanations.  But I'm failing to understand why you feel the reasoning behind building a human reaper is so integral to the plot.

It's why the Collectors started kidnapping hundreds of thousands of people.  It's a major reason why Cerberus decided to resurrect Shepard, and it's in fact his primary mission to discover why colonies were disappearing.  It's the whole point of playing the game - "stop the collectors."

In ME1, I don't have these questions.  I know what Soveriegn was trying to do by attacking the Citadel - activate the Mass Relay in Dark Space and start Reaping. 

Ignoring all other questions about the practicality of the HR, what were they planning to do with it, when we were able to destroy Sovereign - a full-grown reaper - PLUS a Geth fleet that appears considerably stronger than the one Collector ship - back in ME1? 

An extra Reaper when you've got a few hundred or so on the way... not sure I get that.

Name a reason why the Reapers WOULDN'T want to build a new one.  There's no reason for them not to.  But there is absolutely nothing to suggest it is a vital part of their plans, or that it is even a top priority.  More like something they can do while they're on their way back to the galaxy.

The point is that the writers should tell us why they would.  If it's "we want a spare reaper to guard the relay in Arrival to make sure our fleet can use the secondary relay" - then tell us.  Otherwise it just looks like the writers decided that they needed a boss.

In ME for most of the game all you knew was you were trying to stop Saren, that he was looking for something called the Conduit, and that he was trying to bring back the Reapers.  You didn't know what the Conduit was or why he wanted it or what he was going to do with it until the end of the game.  It turned out that the info you needed to catch Saren and complete your mission also told you what the Conduit was and what Saren was going to do with it.  To complete your mission, you had to know about the Conduit and the truth about the Citadel.  That isn't the case in ME2.

In ME2 for most of the game all you know is that the Collectors are abducting humans, they're working for the Reapers, and you have to stop them.  At the end of the game you find out what they are doing with the people they have been taking.  But stopping the Collectors and completing your mission does not require you to know why the Reapers had instructed the Collectors to construct a new reaper.  The motivation behind it may be inconsequential, or it may be an important part of ME3.  

I'm not saying you should like the fact that there aren't more answers, I'm not trying to convince you its a good story.  We all were hoping for more info about the Reapers.  But just because you wish they would have told you the reason behind the Reaper, it doesn't mean that it is fundamentally flawed writing.  It just means you don't like it.

[JKoopman]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
*huge snip*

Do you like Mass Effect 2?  I know iakus sorta-kinda does - do you?

JKoopman wrote...

And lets get one thing straight. I don't hate ME2. I don't necessarily agree with every design change made from ME1, but it's a fun enough game in it's own right. The graphics are good. The sound effects, music and voice acting are better than before. The production values are clearly impressive. I've been playing ME2 off and on for more than a year now and I'm heavily invested in the characters and universe, so it must be doing something right, no? It's a good game. It just doesn't have a particularly coherent narrative to support it.

I don't mind ME2 as a game. And the isolated squadmate recruitment/loyalty missions are all for the most part excellent. The main plot, however, is bargain bin quality material and not at all what I expected from a continuation of ME1's story.

Modifié par JKoopman, 06 avril 2011 - 12:00 .

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
*huge snip*

Do you like Mass Effect 2?  I know iakus sorta-kinda does - do you?

JKoopman wrote...

And lets get one thing straight. I don't hate ME2. I don't necessarily agree with every design change made from ME1, but it's a fun enough game in it's own right. The graphics are good. The sound effects, music and voice acting are better than before. The production values are clearly impressive. I've been playing ME2 off and on for more than a year now and I'm heavily invested in the characters and universe, so it must be doing something right, no? It's a good game. It just doesn't have a particularly coherent narrative to support it.

I don't mind ME2 as a game. And the isolated squadmate recruitment/loyalty missions are all for the most part excellent. The main plot, however, is bargain bin quality material and not at all what I expected from a continuation of ME1's story.

Well I'm glad you enjoyed some of it and we can agree to disagree on most of what you mentioned - except for the VS/Horizon thing - total agreement there.

[piemanz]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


I don't mind ME2 as a game. And the isolated squadmate recruitment/loyalty missions are all for the most part excellent. The main plot, however, is bargain bin quality material and not at all what I expected from a continuation of ME1's story.

Well I'm glad you enjoyed some of it and we can agree to disagree on most of what you mentioned - except for the VS/Horizon thing - total agreement there.

Agreed, i definately have a better appreciation for the 'other sides' concerns, even if i don't necessarily agree whith them.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

So, not surprisingly it turns out people have different tastes in video games/video game stories/stories. I'm not seeing how each "side" explaining their position has really changed anyone's minds. I generally only get pissed when one side thinks its opinion is fact - and I'm not really seeing that in this thread.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Although I will say this - I have found the deconstruction very interesting, even if I disagree with other people's conclusions or hold different opinions. I've never actually seen a plot dissected in so much detail and its interesting to see everything that goes into it, warts and triumphs alike.

+1

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


Actually, they do explain a lot of how he was brought back at the beginning - it actually raises a lot of questions. If Shepard's neural pathways were restored with bio-synthetic fusion, where did that come from and what does that mean Shepard is? Frankly, it would be nice to have those questions answered.

This got my head spinning.I'm sure this must have been suggested before, but does that not remind you of anything?. Reapers are the very definition of Biosynthetic fusion, and i'm also willing to bet that the derelict reaper that convienently turns up was infact directly connected to the Lazarus project!.TIM was BS'ing us again.....Would also explain sheps glowing eyes.

Modifié par piemanz, 06 avril 2011 - 01:36 .

[soren7550]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Apparently, there's another YouTube user working on giving counter-arguments. Interesting so far.

I'll be sure to watch the whole thing after my shower.

[Bamboozalist]

JKoopman wrote...

I don't mind ME2 as a game. And the isolated squadmate recruitment/loyalty missions are all for the most part excellent. The main plot, however, is bargain bin quality material and not at all what I expected from a continuation of ME1's story.

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

[Almostfaceman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


Actually, they do explain a lot of how he was brought back at the beginning - it actually raises a lot of questions. If Shepard's neural pathways were restored with bio-synthetic fusion, where did that come from and what does that mean Shepard is? Frankly, it would be nice to have those questions answered.

I call TiM shenanigans with the Lazarus Project... that cagey bastard I'm sure has slipped some Reaper tech in there...

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Mesina2 wrote...

A) It'ss not important to ME2 plot and it is a plot device. Also like squee913 said Cerberus might have doing techniques of Lazarus Project. About Shepard getting his/hers body recoverable? Hmh, people can survive fall over 10 000 meters so what makes you think they couldn't find Shepard's body without being a pancake. Absurd stuff CAN happen.

You may want to finish reading that Wikipedia article... notably the part about how the plane only broke up a few hundred meters above ground. 

[Iakus]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

I must admit it was quite cool to see the responses of the different characters as they go through the Teltin facility and hear Jack's story.  Miranda in particular since she's such a Cerberus loyalist.  And Samara's sense of justice really...

Oh, wait.

Well, it was interesting to hear their concepts of vengence while Garrus was plotting to kill Sidonis.  Thane's views in particular...

Umm, nvm

But I really appreciated their input on the genophage data.  I mean, that kind of decision can affect the entire galaxy.  Given all the walks of life the squadmates come from, it's really cool to see how...

Oh.

But the Collectors themselves, how they react when they start to see what the stakes really are, the kind of foe they're facing.  When the Prothean connection was discovered, I couldn't believe that Grunt asked...

Err...

[JKoopman]

iakus wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

I must admit it was quite cool to see the responses of the different characters as they go through the Teltin facility and hear Jack's story.  Miranda in particular since she's such a Cerberus loyalist.  And Samara's sense of justice really...

Oh, wait.

Well, it was interesting to hear their concepts of vengence while Garrus was plotting to kill Sidonis.  Thane's views in particular...

Umm, nvm

But I really appreciated their input on the genophage data.  I mean, that kind of decision can affect the entire galaxy.  Given all the walks of life the squadmates come from, it's really cool to see how...

Oh.

But the Collectors themselves, how they react when they start to see what the stakes really are, the kind of foe they're facing.  When the Prothean connection was discovered, I couldn't believe that Grunt asked...

Err...

Thank you, iakus.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

I must admit it was quite cool to see the responses of the different characters as they go through the Teltin facility and hear Jack's story.  Miranda in particular since she's such a Cerberus loyalist.  And Samara's sense of justice really...

Oh, wait.

Well, it was interesting to hear their concepts of vengence while Garrus was plotting to kill Sidonis.  Thane's views in particular...

Umm, nvm

But I really appreciated their input on the genophage data.  I mean, that kind of decision can affect the entire galaxy.  Given all the walks of life the squadmates come from, it's really cool to see how...

Oh.

But the Collectors themselves, how they react when they start to see what the stakes really are, the kind of foe they're facing.  When the Prothean connection was discovered, I couldn't believe that Grunt asked...

Err...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

[100k]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

This is definitely true for film, but NEVER should it be true for games, especially WRPGs. An RPG needs to have a well constructed story holding the entire thing together. This can be done with main plot points. The SUB plots, no matter how cool they are planned out, need to be completely optional. You need to feel like you can completely skip sub plots, and not miss anything from the main story mode in a well made RPG. In ME2, if you miss the recruitment missions and loyalty missions, you feel as if you've missed a VAST chunk of the MAIN plot--which is very bad, especially considering the preexisting disconnect between loyalty missions, and the Collector threat.

This could've been relatively easy to fix. Just give us some DLC that fleshes out the main plot with maybe 4 more missions.

A mission after Horizon, where you ambush a smaller Collector vessel that lands on a remote colony. Shepard and company wait for the ship to land, then call in the Normandy to damage and ground it. Then you slaughter the collectors, but, like the SM, you'll have to choose wisely who your fire team leaders are, your infiltrators (to sneak past the collectors, and damage the ships comm tower), your heavy hitter (Grunt, Zaeed, Garrus, Jacob, or Jack) to single handedly lure the collectors into a killzone. This could help reduce the Collectors rate of abductions.

What's that? Some of my crew are talking about Ferris Fields losing contact? Why not get a mission where we go to FF, with a semi prepared squad, and either save the entire colony, save half the colony, or get there too late, and just be examining empty buildings, looking for a few survivors, and more information on the Collectors?

After that, we could get a mission to track, and cripple the Collector vessel. Depending on what weapon and armor upgrades we get, we could have the potential to damage the engines of the ship, board it, take command of it, and land it, freeing several thousand colonists from certain death, while EDI tries to stall the Collector General from regaining control of the ship. Then the Ship could be remotely controlled by Harbinger to jump back through the Omega 4 Relay, leaving your team with actual confidence that you may be able to survive the SM.

Then give us a mission where we mine the Omega 4. At first the scans will show nothing, then the scans reveal that, beyond the Omega 4, is a vast graveyard of debris. Launching yourself into will take incredible piloting skills, but it has to be done. This reveal, that the galactic core is practically a mine field, should shatter (some of) your team's resolve. Miranda will get scared for the first time. Legion will give a demoralizing statistic about successfully navigating an asteroid belt like that (think C-3PO). Jack will consider running off. Mordin will exclaim that this is exciting. Etc. etc. You can talk to all of the characters one more time before the jump, and they'll get their confidence back.

Four missions. They don't have to be longer than 20 minutes each. They keep the story on track. 

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

I never said that character development was great in ME 1.  It wasn't.  What I am saying is that charactarization was so compartmentalized in ME 2 that it might as well not have existed outside the characters own personal missions.  ME 1 (and most other Bioware games) at least gives characters a semblence of life even when the spotlight wasn't focused directly opn them.

[Nightwriter]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Why must ME1 always get brought into it? Oy.

[Almostfaceman]

Nightwriter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Why must ME1 always get brought into it? Oy.

Because ME1 sets up expectations for ME2.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

I never said that character development was great in ME 1.  It wasn't.  What I am saying is that charactarization was so compartmentalized in ME 2 that it might as well not have existed outside the characters own personal missions.  ME 1 (and most other Bioware games) at least gives characters a semblence of life even when the spotlight wasn't focused directly opn them.

My point still stands, and again just because you think something can be done better, doesn't mean it wasn't done - and since it was done it is why the person you were respnding to made their point.

[Nightwriter]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Why must ME1 always get brought into it? Oy.

Because ME1 sets up expectations for ME2.

So this means if we criticize something about ME2, we have to prove ME1 did it better? Tsk tsk.

I can say ME2 had very poor character interaction without making some underlying claim that ME1 had great character interaction. Both games fell through in this department. It is only more noticeable in ME2 because it is a character focused game.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Well, he's pointing out stuff that we saw in ME1.  We saw characters react to the main plot - remember what happens when you bring Wrex to the Rachni queen? - as well as to each other during elevator conversations.  In other Bioware games - DA:O, KOTOR, and apparently DA2 - characters have conversations with each other and depending on what is happening as part of their development.

We honestly don't see much of that in ME2.  The characters have a few arguments but it really doesn't matter who you bring as far as development is concerned. 

[Almostfaceman]

Nightwriter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Why must ME1 always get brought into it? Oy.

Because ME1 sets up expectations for ME2.

So this means if we criticize something about ME2, we have to prove ME1 did it better? Tsk tsk.

I can say ME2 had very poor character interaction without making some underlying claim that ME1 had great character interaction. Both games fell through in this department. It is only more noticeable in ME2 because it is a character focused game.

No, and dont tsk me please, condescension is not welcome.

It means ME1 gave us a story in a certain way.  I don't know why a person would expect X new feature in ME2 unless it was experessly promised by the devs.  

And no, ME2 did not have very poor character interaction.  I enjoyed the character interaction.