CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Actually, I saw a nice lecture by one of the lead writers at Pixar. He said this - good side characters are ones that bring out aspects of the main character's story, and give us insight into the main character's thoughts, feelings, and ambitions. Often, side characters will be cut out of Pixar films if they only advance the plot without shedding any light onto the main character's personality, or struggle.
The example he used was Jesse, in Toy Story 2. She's a great character, an important character, but her primary reason for existing is to cause Woody to feel guilty about returning home, and to illuminate the relationship Woody has with Andy. All the characters in ME2 and their respective missions are designed to better help you decide what kind of character Shepard is, and to see her in relation to them.
Example: Garrus. He is, in many ways, Pargon Shepard's cautionary tale, about the kinds of trouble being a Renegade can get you into. He's a warning... what can happen if you get too cocky, too careless. Alternatively, for Renegade Shep, he's an example of what happens if you go too soft... if you trust too much. His recruitment mission is a story about how, if you just try to go crazy and do it all alone, you'll end up bleeding on the ground. His loyalty mission is about either about the risks of going Renegade (if you're Para shep) or the rewards and validity of going Renegade (if you're Rene Shep)
That's what Bioware is talking about when they say it's a story about the characters.
A bland, uncharacterized squadmate who just happened to study reapers would not make this story more character-based. That's what Amanda Kenson was, and I don't know anyone who considers her a better or more interesting character than the squaddies.
While that is a nice analogy, there is no basis for because Shepard is a brick. (s)he does not develop nor does Garrus' actions of any impact on his/her going forward, whereas I would presume Jesse's does. Shepard can question Garrus but ultimately is along for the ride either way. If you opt to save Sidonis nothing changes and Shepard is the same brick we have begrudgingly come to love or steadily grown to hate, your mileage may vary.
The fundamental issue is none of the characters develop the plot, excluding Mordin, who does so via a plothole. If Garrus was among the few who was purely optional, in a similar capacity to say Vincent of Final Fantasy, great, he is a minority. This is not the case of Mass Effect 2 where everyone is damn near nonexistent devoid of their episodic arc.
If Shepard developed as a character, this would be more relevant but (s)he is stale throughout the game and takes a backseat.
It's possible that they were just making the baby reaper because it was something they were going to do anyway. "Ok, we might as well have Harby get started on the whole 'use humanity to reproduce' part of the plan while we hoof it to the galaxy."
I think that reproduction and slave creation are a major reason why they Reap. So they were always going to make a goo baby, they just decided to get that projet started early, because why not?
So... in lieu of a discreet and elusive approach, where victory has a significantly higher probability, they decide to draw attention to themselves? Furthermore, their answer to Sovereign as a "back up scenario" was an inferior design?
Perhaps, because it is moronic. There was virtually nothing to indicate they were doing anything and had they stuffed the Collectors away after Shepard's death. They would arrive unbeknownst to the entire galaxy. In essence, their plan was stupid.
And yes, if the alliance hadn't sent Shepard to blow up the Batarians, the Reapers would be here already. But if the Illusive man hadn't sent her after the collectors, they could have wiped out half the colonies in the terminus system by now, and ended up with a partially complete human reaper, poised to make a move on Earth to finish it. That would be bad!
Sovereign was a fully constructed Reaper and liable to be widely superior to an organic hybrid when you factor in the liability issues. Organic material would expose additional weaknesses in comparison to machinery and straight Reaper tech. With this in mind, Sovereign was still destroyed. Therefore, the Collectors and their Terminator would have been annihilated. Evidently, this does not include the speculation the Terminus Systems could not be sufficient enough for the Reaper baby.
Point being, you do not create a side mission that negates the entire plot of the main game. Doing so only reaffirms the belief ME2 was pointless.
ME3's promo movie has implied that the collectors have some kind of foot-soldier on the ground during the earth invasion (not cannon, grain of salt, blah blah), that's who the sniper is firing at, after all. What we learned about the collectors might help us fight whatever this new kind of foot soldier is, if it isn't just another bunch of collectors, which it may well be.
I'll be surprised if sentients being turned into goo and slave-race footsoldiers aren't a major plot point in ME3. But hey, I guess we'll see.
You saw that as a Collector? It appeared to be a husk, which given their frequent appearance amongst Reapers, is far more likely. What we learned about the Collectors is nothing, except they were Prothens. This would have been a worthwhile venture if the game did not handwave it almost instantaneously.
People have expectations ME3 is going to provide the abundance of exposition lacking in the predecessor whilst moving the series forward to its inevitable concussion and it simply is not feasible. A narrative of that magnitude would equate to double what we have witnessed previously and does not take into account any development elsewhere. The Collector Base for instance cannot have relevance due to it be optional.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 08 avril 2011 - 02:30 .
Retour en haut
