153 réponses à ce sujet

[ExtremeOne]

The whole Cerberus is evil bit in 3 is stupid . but hey it shows why Mass Effect has a worse Story than any Metal Gear Solid game ever did .

[Undertone]

Thrombin wrote...

Seboist wrote...
So it's okay to work with genocidal robots, warmongering man-turtles,violent insects that breed fast, an alien council that sterilized a species and sociopathic criminals but when it comes to allying with Cerberus the moral high ground must be taken?

The Geth aren't genocidal. They defended themselves from the genocidal Quarians. Some of them got mind-controlled by the Reapers but the rest seem to be quite happy to live in peace if allowed to.

The Quarians aren't really genocidal though as, at the time, they thought they were just shutting down non-sentient machines before they could achieve true sentience.


Given that Shepard is an alliance soldier he spends all his time working with human warmongers. I'm not sure why Krogan war-mongers would be an issue.

The genophage was the idea of individuals not an entire race. Judging an entire race by the decisions of its leaders is unreasonable. Even the scientist who helped create the thing became remorseful of the unforeseen repercussions. In any case, the genophage didn't directly kill or harm anyone, but it saved a lot of lives.

If the insects you are referring to are the Rachni, they aren't violent unless they're being mind-controlled by the Reapers.

There's always a line. You can turn a blind eye up to a point if the stakes are high enough but trying to defend an organization driven by hatred for other species and a blatant disregard for life, human or otherwise, is just not possible. There is no defense for liking Cerberus. Sorry, you may as well be defending the ****'s.  There's no defense, in my mind. None at all.

Regards

Julian

The quarians got scared and decided to kill them all. They knew they
were sentient or becoming sentient and that's why they wanted to kill
them all.

The genophage was authorized by the Council. Thousands
died in still-birth or something along those lines are the exact words
of Wrex.

As for Rachni, where's your proof? All you got is just the Queen's words. Of course
since it's a paragon choice though it will work out good, nothing wrong
will happen. Just like all those "reformed" killers, thiefs that Shepard
lets lose and somehow "Talk-Jutsu" them into becoming model citizens.

Every race and every goverment have had an organization like Cerberus. You need innovation and progress, sometimes at all costs especially when it comes to survival. I would rather have human dominance and survival then everyone dead cause supporting Cerberus is ethically wrong.

[Thrombin]

Undertone wrote...

TIM&Cerberus attacking Shepard in ME3 contradicts their entire agenda in ME2. What was the point of resurrecting him/her then? The Collectors were just the beginning of the larger threat. ME2 presents TIM as the only sensible and smart guy in the galaxy who would do something despite his agendas, methods and ally himself with possibly uncooperative Shepard (paragon) in order to stop a greater threat in order to ensure survival. This will derail the threat completely but it's like Russia and US stopping the Cold War and becoming allies because aliens are invading. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's the most logical thing. ME3 disregards this completely and now we have TIM doing exactly the opposite of what he stated the entire time in ME2.

TIM is a highly devious master of duplicity. He was always working to his own agenda. Just because he seemed to be on Shepard's side doesn't mean that he was.

We don't know why he sees the need to remove Shepard from the equation but it doesn't surprise me that he would eventually. He fooled Shepard into thinking that all of the atrocities he saw Cerberus do in ME1 were rogue elements that he wasn't responsible for. All it would take would be for Shepard to find out the truth and Shepard would be first on the list to take him down. There was no part of ME1 where even a Renegade Shepard thought any of Cerberus' activities was a good thing.

Regards

Julian

[Tripedius]

Undertone wrote...

TIM&Cerberus attacking Shepard in ME3 contradicts their entire agenda in ME2. What was the point of resurrecting him/her then? The Collectors were just the beginning of the larger threat. ME2 presents TIM as the only sensible and smart guy in the galaxy who would do something despite his agendas, methods and ally himself with possibly uncooperative Shepard (paragon) in order to stop a greater threat in order to ensure survival.

Ofc we can't really predict what will happen exactly between TIM/Cerberus and Shepard, so maybe it is more logical than we think. My take on the whole situation is that Shepard was just a lure. TIM wanted Shepard because the collectors wanted him (via the shadow broker). This made him think that he could find out what the collectors want or that he could get to them through Shepard. This seems confirmed in ME2 through the events on Horizon and the collector ship. Collectors set a trap, TIM knows its a trap, but sends Shepard anyway.
TIM resurrecting Shepard is a moot argument by itself. The mission to the collectorsbase isn't called a suicide mission for nothing (one of my biggest issues is that every can live after the SM. I still think BW should have forced a couple of deaths, you only get to decide who). TIM probably doesn't expect Shepard to live beyond that, so he was always of temporary use to him. You might even reason that he just wanted Shepard to get him tech or an advantage to face the reapers with his own army and come out on top. Shepard is then part of his plan to stop the reapers, but not the pinnacle. What he says to you can be sweet talking (about humanitys last hope).
His turning on Shep can have different motivations, we don't know. Indoctrination would be lame, but possible. Shepard interfering with his plans is another. Maybe he wants to rule the universe after the reapers are gone and Shep will stop him. I did download some Cerberus data that EDI was decoding (would take a long, long time). A dead Shep could be a rally point on Cerberus side, a living Shep might work againt Cerberus. It might even be so TIM sends you on the SM to get rid of you and ALL your squadmates. They are to dangerous for some reason. Heck maybe he has an Batarian offspring daughter that got killed in Arrival.

All in all TIM turning on you isn't that strange, as long as they (BW) provide a good reason for it. Although it does seem strange to do it in the midst of a reapers invasion.

[Tripedius]

ExtremeOne wrote...

The whole Cerberus is evil bit in 3 is stupid . but hey it shows why Mass Effect has a worse Story than any Metal Gear Solid game ever did .

Ya know you could not play the game and visit these forums and not be bothered by the story. However I do have a question name me a gaming trilogy that has a better story than ME. And its not MGS.

[Babli]

Threads and rants about this makes me happy.

[88mphSlayer]

the whole Cerberus coming after you bit is the part that doesn't make an awful lot of sense considering even paragon shepards still hugely reinforced that organization, and it's likely you'd still be able to salvage some technology from a blown collector base (shadow broker said it himself)

[Thrombin]

Undertone wrote...
The quarians got scared and decided to kill them all. They knew they
were sentient or becoming sentient and that's why they wanted to kill
them all.

It's not killing if they're just machines. They wanted to shut them down before they became sentient because they reasoned that, once they became sentient, they would inevitably try to destroy them. It was self-preservation. It may have been misguided but that was the intent.

At the end of the day the Quarians are a good people embodied with a sense of community spirit and cooperation. They would abhor the sort of tactics used by Cerberus as would any right thinking human,

The genophage was authorized by the Council. Thousands
died in still-birth or something along those lines are the exact words
of Wrex

I'm not saying I agree with it but the Council is just three people and the stakes were extremely high. The alternative solution would have been killing the Krogan instead so, at the end of the day, it is still arguable that it was the lesser of two evils.

As for Rachni, where's your proof? All you got is just the Queen's words. Of course
since it's a paragon choice though it will work out good, nothing wrong
will happen. Just like all those "reformed" killers, thiefs that Shepard
lets lose and somehow "Talk-Jutsu" them into becoming model citizens.

Where's your proof, I'm wrong? In any case, you were saying that it was hypocritical for Shepard to ally himself with the Rachni while at the same time disapproving of Cerberus. It's not hypocritical if he believes the Rachni are innocent. Whether they are or not is beside the point.

Every race and every goverment have had an organization like Cerberus. You need innovation and progress, sometimes at all costs especially when it comes to survival. I would rather have human dominance and survival then everyone dead cause supporting Cerberus is ethically wrong.

You say that as though morality and survival are mutually exclusive. That's where Cerberus is wrong. It's making an enemy of every non-human in the Galaxy when the only thing that will save the Galaxy is mutual cooperation.

I also don't see any reason to want human dominance. Human co-existence should be a perfectly valid goal.

Regards

Julian

[ExtremeOne]

Tripedius wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

The whole Cerberus is evil bit in 3 is stupid . but hey it shows why Mass Effect has a worse Story than any Metal Gear Solid game ever did .

Ya know you could not play the game and visit these forums and not be bothered by the story. However I do have a question name me a gaming trilogy that has a better story than ME. And its not MGS.

  









I will always call developers out for bull sh*t and yeah the story in Metal Gear Solid games make more sense than ME 's story does . 

[88mphSlayer]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Tripedius wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

The whole Cerberus is evil bit in 3 is stupid . but hey it shows why Mass Effect has a worse Story than any Metal Gear Solid game ever did .

Ya know you could not play the game and visit these forums and not be bothered by the story. However I do have a question name me a gaming trilogy that has a better story than ME. And its not MGS.

  









I will always call developers out for bull sh*t and yeah the story in Metal Gear Solid games make more sense than ME 's story does . 

MGS2 makes sense?

[Dave666]

Sandbox47 wrote...

@Dave:
It's cool then. Go ahead and complain. The British Isles in general get privilliges. The rest will need Aperture certified passes to complain. And we are out of Aperture certified passes at the moment.

Woop! I knew you'd understand! 

I mean...grumble...grumble...mutter...mutter...complain...gripe...n stuff.

[Moiaussi]

Phaedon wrote...

Uh, what.

ACT 1 establishes the universe (Protheans, Citadel, races etc) and introduces the threat (Reapers) with the first conflict in it's end (Battle of the Citadel)

ACT 2 introduces themes that will be dominant in the third act (genophage, geth-quarian conflict, TIM etc), maintains and further explores the overreaching plot (Reapers actually carry genetic goo, and they try to retake the Citadel by creating a new vanguard, Geth are split into factions) and collects the resources (Normandy SR2, squadmates, knowledge) that will be used in the third act.

ACT 3 The experiences and resources of the first two acts are used, and the whole act is paced towards an epic lysis, giving a clear answer to the overreaching plot.

The genophage and geth/quarian conflicts (which includes the Geth schizm) were both themes established in ME1 not ME2. They were expanded in ME2, but as side plots that could have fit just as easily into any main plot, since they were treated as episodic.

The Reaper origins and expansion on their plans could have been revealed just as easily and probably much more entertainingly in other ways, perhaps even just included in data recovered from whereever, and discussed ala the many roundtable discussions with the crew between missions in ME1. The plan to actually build a new reaper was completely throwaway, since Arrival can happen immediately after the SM or even before.

The Normandy wasn't 'collected.' It was assigned, and that only was neccessary because Joker paniced at the start of ME2. Recruitment of new squadmates could have been worked in to any plot, and tied in with that plot better. Also if Joker hadn't inexplicably let the collector vessel close with them, there wouldn't have been need for so many new crew members.

As for knowledge, exactly what knowledge was gained that would be helpful against the Reapers? Are we going to tease them about being made of slushies until they cry and leave or something?

The best parts of ME2 were all episodic and thus could have been worked in to any plot, including a stronger plot with better transitions between from ME1 and to ME3.

[Moiaussi]

Thrombin wrote...

It's not killing if they're just machines. They wanted to shut them down before they became sentient because they reasoned that, once they became sentient, they would inevitably try to destroy them. It was self-preservation. It may have been misguided but that was the intent.

At the end of the day the Quarians are a good people embodied with a sense of community spirit and cooperation. They would abhor the sort of tactics used by Cerberus as would any right thinking human,

It was too late to shut them down before the because sentient. They already were sentient and so far had been peaceful. That discussion is a whole other thread, though, or series of them.

[Nohvarr]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Tripedius wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

The whole Cerberus is evil bit in 3 is stupid . but hey it shows why Mass Effect has a worse Story than any Metal Gear Solid game ever did .

Ya know you could not play the game and visit these forums and not be bothered by the story. However I do have a question name me a gaming trilogy that has a better story than ME. And its not MGS.

 

I will always call developers out for bull sh*t and yeah the story in Metal Gear Solid games make more sense than ME 's story does .

[sarcasam]Yes because in MGS, nano-machines did everything.[/sarcasam]

As for Cerberus, I ran across the following in another forum. I'm reposting the relevant bits here.as it gives a good perspective on TIM and his organization

Excuse: The Illusive man didn't Know  

Yeah. He claimed. But then again, Jacob clearly outlined a situation in the Alliance in the very beginning of the game where Alliance born and Alliance bred humans did off-the-books work for the Alliance so the Alliance could get things done (like assassinations) without 'actually' having to do them. Their dirty laundry gets cleaned, and if **** ever goes south, they disavow all knowledge and say you're a rouge element.

What did the Illusive Man do when you pointed out all the evil **** Cerberus has done? Well, he said things had changed. And when you pressed the issue? He said he knew nothing about it and claimed they were rouge elements.

That's a hell of a familiar excuse, isn't it? Didn't we just hear that story about the Corsairs about five minutes before that? We did.

Fact: The Illusive Man handles the money and the direction of the organization. He's the one who sets up the projects, and he's the one who writes the checks. Practically speaking, it's pretty much impossible for a section of Cerberus to literally 'go rouge.' They would lose all access to their resources, and the rest of the organization would swoop in under Illusive Man's orders to crush them, because he knows who they are, where they live, what they look like, and exactly how to track them down. So unless they're all giganinjas and managed to set up a billion intergalactic lemonade stands while nobody was looking, the scenario claimed is pretty much impossible.

That only leaves one real explanation left. He knew, he funded it, and when [expletive deleted] went sour, he cut them loose. Hell, the entire Cerberus organization is founded on that. Look at how they're organized. Cells that know nothing about each other, have nothing to do with each other, and work independently from everyone else. The only one who knows everything that's going on is the Illusive Man. No one else exists who could corroborate any story or evidence. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, so if the left hand gets cut off one day, the head can feed the right hand whatever story it wants.

On Cerberus' past actions and what they say about the group

They were planting Dragon's Teeth onto out-of-the-way colony worlds to observe the effects. They were sending out Rachnai into areas garrisoned with Alliance military personnel just to observe how the Rachnai fight. They planted fake distress beacons in the middle of Thresher nests just to gather data on them, at the expense of two entire companies of soldiers. They assassinated Admiral Kohaku and threw his body into a pen filled with husks just for the hell of it. They injected the acid venom of a Maw into a marine's blood "to see what would happen."

Are you seriously going to try and tell me that all of that was 'just rouge agents?' Either the Illusive Man is the most incompetent manager EVER, or he's lying out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and trying to bull**** you for every last bit he can take you for.

The Illusive Man has intel detailed enough to know the exact measurements of every member of his organization. Are you seriously going to pretend that entire cells could go rouge and do these massive operations, and for him to not know anything about it?

On the Illusive man himself

The Illusive Man, and I quote, "represents both the best and the absolute worst of humanity in one package." That means he's self-sacrificing, a patriot, and a man of his word. It also means he's a lying liar who lies lies, is willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes to get what he wants, has no compunctions or moral boundaries he isn't willing to cross with impunity, and will cheerfully and without hesitation betray and screw-over anyone and anything that starts messing with him and his bottom line, up to and including entire species, the Citadel, the Council, the Alliance, his own organization, every last person under his command, and you, Commander Shepard.

"Why is the Illusive Man after Shepard in Mass Effect 3?"

[expletive deleted], I'm surprised it took him this long.

[Commander_Adept]

The middle entries of series' in general (Not necessarily just trilogies) usually just expand on the plot, if not actually do something very meaningful. I mean, ****, if you think about it, it's completely true.
HEAVY SPOILERS TO FOLLOW FOR ALL SORTS OF STUFF
You have been warned.
Harry Potter- If you think about it, really, the book series is absolutely amazing. But books 1, 2, 6, and 7 are the most important ones, with 4 being very close to it. Sorceror's (Philosopher's) Stone lays the foundation for the rest of the books (a la Mass 1) and introduces the main characters and their world, very heavy on backstory and little tiny things that are included in the book that mean all sorts of things later on in the series. Chamber of Secrets expands more, in a darker tone, setting the mood for the rest of the series. It introduces the first Horcrux, and how to destroy it, at the end of the book, even if it's unknown how important that is to Harry at the time. It introduces Dobby, who we know saves all the main characters in book 7, and Lucius Malfoy, who we know is quite important. Prisoner of Azkaban, while a fantastic story, is really not relevent to the plot really, other than introducing Wormtail. Sirius Black, while cool, is honestly not that essential to the plot, other than being created to die two books later to ****** an already overly-angsty Harry off. Goblet of Fire (My personal favorite) is important, only because of the last few chapters. The resurrection of Voldemort- Fairly important, wouldn't you say? However, the entire rest of the book is more or less completely irrelevent, if not totally awesome. Order of the Phoenix (Almost universally regarded as the worst in the series) more or less focuses on Harry getting continuously mind-raped by Voldemort, Snape and Umbridge, and then Sirius dies. The one really important factor is Grimmauld Place- Kreacher having known the locket is certainly important. Half Blood Prince is a very important book- You get more insight into Snape, which is nice because he's more or less the true background hero of the series, more insight into Voldemort, and you get introduced to Horcruxes, which as we know is the only way to destroy the plot villain. The mentor dies at the end of this book, reinvigorating Harry to destroy Voldemort even more. And of course, Deathly Hallows is by far and wide most important, if not sometimes a little disappointing, due to unnecessary character deaths (See: Joss Wheadon) and Ron just remembering how to say "open" in Parseltongue. Otherwise, a fantastic story, with a slightly anticlimactic ending. However, they destroy all the Horcruxes, we get to see Dumbledore again, and it's just a great time.



Star Wars- There are several ways you can take this. Do you treat the trilogies seperately? Do you make it one whole? It's really tough to say on this one, mainly because the trilogies are so far apart and filmed out of order. But it's true, we should treat them seperately because it's more or less two different series' taking place in one universe. Let's go chronologically. The Phantom Menace mainly serves to introduce Anakin as a child and show how Obi Wan became a higher-up, even though it comes at the cost of Qui Gon, who is, like, the best character in the series. Anyhoo, it mainly goes to show that Yoda can say "I told you so" and to introduce characters who we know will all die. It's relevent for this reason, and it introduces the arts of becoming a Jedi officially (With Anakin) rather than unofficially (Like Luke), as well as to show off the beginnings of a creepy romance with Padme and Anakin. The Attack of the Clones just takes the romance farther and tries to introduce the Fetts, though Jango was just lame and Boba mainly existed to want revenge in this film. Also, clones and Count Doucheku are introduced. Anakin gets his hand cut off, mainly just so that he can do it to Luke later (Kind of an unnecessary plot device). Otherwise, kind of a useless movie as far as plot. Revenge of the Sith is extremely important because, more or less, ****s be killin' Jedis and that feels bad man. Palpatine shows his true colors, and morphs Anakin into an evil being who kills younglings. Padme forms babbys and then dies. Anakin gets raped in the final battle with Obi Wan, and becomes the mouth breather we all know and love. Successful movie, important, and if made 40 years ago, would have been a cult classic trilogy. A New Hope served as the introduction movie, which is cool since it was the first in the released series, it laid foundation well since Luke isn't really all that knowledgeable about the universe and we follow him almost the whole time. We are introduced to who we think is the primary villain and Luke's first mentor dies early- Though this is also the 4th movie in the series, and mentors usually die half way-almost the end of the series. Introduced to the bff and female bff, who will end up together, very obviously (See: Ron & Hermione). In all, A New Hope is important. Now really, Empire Strikes Back is probably one of the best movies of all time (Coming in second to Serenity on io9's recent poll of Sci-Fi flicks), but honestly the two things that it does for the series is reveal that Vader is Luke and Leia's father, and re-introduce Yoda (If you're looking chronologically). Otherwise, not really a whole lot is going on. Great film, though. Return of the Jedi is important because it shows who the true villain is, resolves Luke's daddy issues, and has ewoks. It also kills a secondary villain (Boba Fett) and completes the story. Thus making is necessary. As a whole series, the middle parts being useless doesn't really work, since 3 & 4 are so important. So, who knows what point I've been trying to make while typing this for the last 45 minutes?

inb4 tl;dr

[MajesticJazz]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

ME1 Introduces us to the galaxy, Shepard, and the threat (Reapers). It gives us a general overview of the culture of the galaxy and everyone's place in it. At the end of the game, the Reapers are coming and we must find some way to stop them.

In Arrival, the Reapers are in our front yard and is about to walk up to our door and open it if we don't do something about it. We stop the threat at the expense of Bartarian lives. We postponed their return for the short term but they ARE at our doorsteps now and we must get ready. At the same time, I must stand trial for what I just did to the Bartarians.

In ME3, I am on trial now for what I did to the Bartarians while at the same time, the Reapers have arrived and we must now get to work to destroy them.


So how does ME2 fit in that whole grand scheme of things?

Modifié par MajesticJazz, 04 mai 2011 - 04:39 .

[Iakus]

Moiaussi wrote...

[The genophage and geth/quarian conflicts (which includes the Geth schizm) were both themes established in ME1 not ME2. They were expanded in ME2, but as side plots that could have fit just as easily into any main plot, since they were treated as episodic.

The Reaper origins and expansion on their plans could have been revealed just as easily and probably much more entertainingly in other ways, perhaps even just included in data recovered from whereever, and discussed ala the many roundtable discussions with the crew between missions in ME1. The plan to actually build a new reaper was completely throwaway, since Arrival can happen immediately after the SM or even before.

The Normandy wasn't 'collected.' It was assigned, and that only was neccessary because Joker paniced at the start of ME2. Recruitment of new squadmates could have been worked in to any plot, and tied in with that plot better. Also if Joker hadn't inexplicably let the collector vessel close with them, there wouldn't have been need for so many new crew members.

As for knowledge, exactly what knowledge was gained that would be helpful against the Reapers? Are we going to tease them about being made of slushies until they cry and leave or something?

The best parts of ME2 were all episodic and thus could have been worked in to any plot, including a stronger plot with better transitions between from ME1 and to ME3.

I like this human.  He understands.

[crimzontearz]

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

yeah....but they need to listen to the fans too especially with mechanical/gameplay suggestions

[MajesticJazz]

crimzontearz wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

yeah....but they need to listen to the fans too especially with mechanical/gameplay suggestions

Listenining to your fans for gameplay/features/mechanical suggestions and adding it in the next game isn't bad. However listening to your fans for plot related things such as what the game should be about and what characters should return is where I draw the line.

Modifié par MajesticJazz, 04 mai 2011 - 04:41 .

[crimzontearz]

MajesticJazz wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

yeah....but they need to listen to the fans too especially with mechanical/gameplay suggestions

Listenining to your fans for gameplay/features/mechanical suggestions and adding it in the next game isn't bad. However listening to your fans for plot related things is where I draw the line.

Laurell K Hamilton does not listen to her fans.....almost at all and her books are devolving (no wait...they HAVE devolved) into supernatural porn as opposed to supernatural suspence.

I think the line should be drawn with what an author does with the suggestions and not with just listening to them

[AdmiralCheez]

The funny paradox about listening to fans: If Bioware stopped listening to fans, they'd be following the advice of a small group of fans, and thereby would be listening to fans.

Teehee.

[Nohvarr]

crimzontearz wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

yeah....but they need to listen to the fans too especially with mechanical/gameplay suggestions

 Which fans, because they don't all agree.

[Durgon Ironfist]

Nohvarr wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

yeah....but they need to listen to the fans too especially with mechanical/gameplay suggestions

 Which fans, because they don't all agree.

The small minority complains up a storm and when they're ignored it's: WHAAAAAAAAAA THEY IGNORE THEIR FANS WHAAAAAAAAAAAA! Thankfully some people see this and bioware itself sees this. As to the importance of ME2 I will say this yes we have characters returning but more importantly, we have ties with the factions we're attempting to recruit to save earth. Example you help Legion he respects you and when asking for the assistance of the geth he would most likely stand for you.

[crimzontearz]

Nohvarr wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

“We’ve had the very high-level concept of the trilogy mapped out from the start. That concept really just gets us a start and end point, with a few basic structural ideas. From there, we listened to the feedback from fans and reviewers, and combined it with our own creative ideas to form a clear vision for what Mass Effect 2 should look like. It’s at that point that we decided to make the story about preparing a team for a suicide mission as a means of tying even the most sentimental side plots into your epic mission. It’s a top-down process where the story outline is the last thing to be done after we have the larger structural aspects of the game in place.”

-- Casey Hudson in an interview with gamesradar.

.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say that Bioware needs to TELL THEIR STORY and stop altering their storys to  better satisfy a small faction of the consumers.

What makes great storys so great is because they are unique and a work of art of the author/writer(s). Whenevre they start to try to build their story around the wishes of their fans which tend to be fanboys/fangirls or either people with irrational complaints about a certain aspect of the plot....that is when the author/writer(s) loses their creative touch to something more robotic and less organic.

ME3 isn't out yet so I havent played it. With that being said, I am going to wait until I play and complete ME3 before I start to evaluate just how important ME2 was to the overall story. However if I had to guess now, I would say ME2 is HIGHLY irrelevant to the overall story in comparision to ME1. Judging from how ME3 starts and evovles, it would appear that Arrival DLC is more relevant than the entire plot of ME2. From how it is shaping up now, I could play ME1, skip ME2 (but play Arrival) and jump straight into ME3 without feeling like I missed anything important.

yeah....but they need to listen to the fans too especially with mechanical/gameplay suggestions

 Which fans, because they don't all agree.

listen to all

draw your own conclusions......implement what you think sensible.....

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Undertone wrote...

@AdmiralCheez

You are probably correct that I should wait for more info. And yes ME2 is fun, but story and dialogue have always been the most important aspects for me when it comes to movies, games, whatever. Currently you can play ME1, skip ME2 entirely and still be up with what's going on with very few exceptions (the only one that I can maybe think of is "Oh the geth are good guys now").

You could also skip ME1, just play ME2 and you will have a very good idea of what is going on.

Add to that, that the story and dialogue were far superior in ME2, and you could say that the first game was just an experiment in which they tried to blend RPGs and shooters, and that ME2 is the happy, improved result of that particular experiment - a far superior game.