6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. What if a Shepard delivers the line I want, but not in the way I want him to? Or is forced into a decision I do not want? Ultimately, we can go line by line and critique every piece of dialogue to have come out of Mass Effect, but I don't think we'd be better off for it. Without getting into the "RPG debate", cRPGs will always have greater limitations placed on them. ME2 prevented you from exploring certain dialogue/choice options, but I could say the same for ME1.

The thing though is that ME didn't hamstring people as much as ME2 did.  I saw the original posts in the iterations of the "disappointment with ME2" threads about Shepard being an Alliance Marine, but the thing is we knew what we were getting into when we got the game.  

On the box it says:

As Commander Shepard, you lead an elite squad on a heroic, action-packed adventure throughout the galaxy.
Discover the imminent danger from an ancient threat and battle the traitorous Saren and his deadly army to save civilization.  The fate of all life depends on your actions.

Shepard is military.  Shepard (male or female) regardless of background joins the Alliance and proceeds through the training to become an N7 ranked Commander in the Alliance army.  Asking to be given the choice to abandon the Alliance at the end of ME is pretty much (and was before) an attempt to throw it in the faces of those who didn't like being forced to work with Cerberus.  In short, I found it nonsensical and a means to anger the other side as already stated.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...

iakus wrote...

No story, no game.  Some goes for Mass Effect.  He ehole pont of importing saves is to continue the story.  

Maybe I wouldn't judge the latest Madden or Diablo games on the same basis as Mass Effect.  But Mass Effect is supposed to be closer to the cinematic experience of a movie or a tv show than those are.

I don't understand how you can say plot is unimportant.  Plot runs through all these things:  immersion, progression, choice, or the illusion therof. , worldbuilding.  All of those things have pieces of the plot in them.  And the plot provides the reason for all these things to exist.

Games are experiences.  Games are stories.  Games are experiencing stories.

Not really. Gaming has little to nothing to do with stories. What you're saying here is basically the same thing as saying a movie with badly done special effects is a bad movie. That's not true, there are many movies with bad, or without, special effects that are excellent. Just like you have games without a story or plot that are great.

Games are about gameplay mechanics. When you're looking at pre-rendered cutscenes you're not playing a game at all.

I'm totally in love with the Total War series. It's a strategy game without a "plot" or "story" but it's still an immersive experience, with progression, worldbuilding, and choice. The player creates his/her own version of "history" (or "story", or "plot" if you wish). Whether one plays the original version or a modified one is irrelevant - the original version of Medieval Total War 2 plays exactly like the brilliant Third Age Total War mod (based on the Lord of the Rings movies and books) for example.

Point being, the setting and story behind the world do not change the game at all. They, however, can add that little extra. MTW2 players who love Tolkien's world could prefer conquering Middle Earth instead of Medieval Europe, for example (and still play the same game).

no story =/= no game. A good story has about as much impact on the overall experience as the graphics and sound effects - they don't make or break the game, but they can make it a more exciting and convincing experience. Things change when the story and plot become a part of the gameplay mechanics. ME tries to do something like that, but the "influence" the player has is very insignificant so far (hopefully ME3 will change this). I don't consider receiving a different email, or meeting a different character with slightly changed dialogue, to be gameplay related (the squadies who survived in ME1 (or not) have no impact on what Shepard can or cannot do in ME2 - for example).

In a game like ME, ME2, DA:O, story is everything. 

Without the story, you're just playing a boring cover shooter or whatever. 

[Bozorgmehr 2.0]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In a game like ME, ME2, DA:O, story is everything. 

Without the story, you're just playing a boring cover shooter or whatever.

Without the "boring cover shooter or whatever" you're watching a movie - not playing a game.

[Someone With Mass]

Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

In a game like ME, ME2, DA:O, story is everything. 

Without the story, you're just playing a boring cover shooter or whatever.

Without the "boring cover shooter or whatever" you're watching a movie - not playing a game.

Any player of Metal Gear Solid 4 would agree, including myself. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Watching his videos is depressing because I see a lot of things I kept questioning myself, but I didn't want to think about it too much because it kinda makes the game stop being fun.

Seriously, stop watching these if you're one bit analytical, it has the potential of COMPLETELY ruining the experience for you!

That's's the downside of being critical and demanding a high standard.

[Notlikeyoucare]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Watching his videos is depressing because I see a lot of things I kept questioning myself, but I didn't want to think about it too much because it kinda makes the game stop being fun.

Seriously, stop watching these if you're one bit analytical, it has the potential of COMPLETELY ruining the experience for you!

That's's the downside of being critical and demanding a high standard.

True, but just being analytical of anything doesn't ruin it. It just so happens that the writing is terrible, so the minute you starting thinking about it, the story crumbles away.

[Il Divo]

Xeranx wrote...

The thing though is that ME didn't hamstring people as much as ME2 did.  I saw the original posts in the iterations of the "disappointment with ME2" threads about Shepard being an Alliance Marine, but the thing is we knew what we were getting into when we got the game.  

That's all perception based. Let me offer you three examples of moments where being an Alliance marine is irrelevant.

1) Why can't I choose to leave the Rachni Queen in her cage, instead of being forced into a false dichotomy?

2) After discovering that Sovereign was itself a Reaper, why couldn't I have Shepard be thrown into a state of supreme doubt and confusion?

3) Why am I forced to bring Tali/Ashley/Kaidan on the Normandy, when I have command of the vessel?

There is nothing about "Alliance Marine" which makes any of these things possible or impossible. My point isn't that Bioware should have given me (the player) every single option I just listed, but that we can become caught up in the inner-workings of what we want to do, when a game might not present every logical option the player can imagine.

If we really want to compare the two games, we could start up new playthroughs and begin analyzing every dialogue option/decision Shepard is given in the game, but I don't think hyper-analysis would get us where we want to go.

Shepard is military. Shepard (male or female) regardless of background joins the Alliance and proceeds through the training to become an N7 ranked Commander in the Alliance army. Asking to be given the choice to abandon the Alliance at the end of ME is pretty much (and was before) an attempt to throw it in the faces of those who didn't like being forced to work with Cerberus. In short, I found it nonsensical and a means to anger the other side as already stated.

I disagree. KotOR forces you into the role of a Jedi and Jade Empire does the same with the Spirit Monk, but you can ultimately abandon those roles at the game's conclusion. If Shepard is my character, I should be allowed to understand the logic of Saren's actions and either support him or fight against as necessary. It's simply the limitation of cRPGs that prevents this from happening.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 septembre 2011 - 03:40 .

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

The thing though is that ME didn't hamstring people as much as ME2 did.  I saw the original posts in the iterations of the "disappointment with ME2" threads about Shepard being an Alliance Marine, but the thing is we knew what we were getting into when we got the game.  

That's all perception based. Let me offer you three examples of moments where being an Alliance marine is irrelevant.

1) Why can't I choose to leave the Rachni Queen in her cage, instead of being forced into a false dichotomy?

2) After discovering that Sovereign was itself a Reaper, why couldn't I have Shepard be thrown into a state of supreme doubt and confusion?

3) Why am I forced to bring Tali/Ashley/Kaidan on the Normandy, when I have command of the vessel?

There is nothing about "Alliance Marine" which makes any of these things possible or impossible. My point isn't that Bioware should have given me (the player) every single option I just listed, but that we can become caught up in the inner-workings of what we want to do, when a game might not present every logical option the player can imagine.

If we really want to compare the two games, we could start up new playthroughs and begin analyzing every dialogue option/decision Shepard is given in the game, but I don't think hyper-analysis would get us where we want to go.

Shepard is military. Shepard (male or female) regardless of background joins the Alliance and proceeds through the training to become an N7 ranked Commander in the Alliance army. Asking to be given the choice to abandon the Alliance at the end of ME is pretty much (and was before) an attempt to throw it in the faces of those who didn't like being forced to work with Cerberus. In short, I found it nonsensical and a means to anger the other side as already stated.

I disagree. KotOR forces you into the role of a Jedi and Jade Empire does the same with the Spirit Monk, but you can ultimately abandon those roles at the game's conclusion. If Shepard is my character, I should be allowed to understand the logic of Saren's actions and either support him or fight against as necessary. It's simply the limitation of cRPGs that prevents this from happening.

Jade Empire even had the option of letting the bad guy win.

[Gorosaur]

I stopped paying attention to this guy when he made his first statement that "Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst video game plots ever", which is utter horse ****.

Seriously, this guy should get out more and play a larger variety of games. There are much worse plots out there. Some are so atrociously bad that they are comedic.

Mass Effect 2 thrives in actually having good writing for its characters. While its main plot may stumble from time to time, it still has the most well written ensemble cast I've seen in a game as of late.

[111987]

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Then don't we have time to ask about the effects of the Lazarus project? Aside from the obvious of course.

Sure, but I don't think it's a necessity.

Shepard was dead, and now he's back. Questioning his death and revival won't change anything for most characters.

Like Jacob. I'd rather like if he could've talked about the Corsairs instead of Shepard's past, since I'm more interested about the characters around me instead of the character I am. I know what character I am. I don't need the game to tell me that.

Except the answer to how it was accomplished and the implications for Shepard could be critical. I hope I won't see you complaining about being blindsided with Shepard becoming a partial Reaper avatar ala Saren, due to all the Reaper-tech he was implanted with to bring him back to life!

Thanks for spoiling Mass Effect 3 for me...

Project Rho....

Wait, what? My post was sarcastic...

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. What if a Shepard delivers the line I want, but not in the way I want him to? Or is forced into a decision I do not want? Ultimately, we can go line by line and critique every piece of dialogue to have come out of Mass Effect, but I don't think we'd be better off for it. Without getting into the "RPG debate", cRPGs will always have greater limitations placed on them. ME2 prevented you from exploring certain dialogue/choice options, but I could say the same for ME1.

That's why I qualified my statement with "I will grant that the limitations of disk space and production costs limit the amount of role playing a computer game can provide.  But ME2 is missing some very basic reactions to heavy topics here"

It's understandable that not every possible reaction or choice can be accounted for.  But the lack of reaction, or even the option of a reaction, to some serious revelations (Shepard being dead, Collectors being repurposed Protheans) is, in my opinion a major flaw.

[Iakus]

Bozorgmehr 2.0 wrote...

Without the "boring cover shooter or whatever" you're watching a movie - not playing a game.

And this is why both are important in a story based game.  It takes aspects of both movies and video games and blends them into an interactive experience.  The two together become (potentially) greater than the sum of their parts.  

[Iakus]

Gorosaur wrote...

I stopped paying attention to this guy when he made his first statement that "Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst video game plots ever", which is utter horse ****.

Seriously, this guy should get out more and play a larger variety of games. There are much worse plots out there. Some are so atrociously bad that they are comedic.

Mass Effect 2 thrives in actually having good writing for its characters. While its main plot may stumble from time to time, it still has the most well written ensemble cast I've seen in a game as of late.

"Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels"

The phrase is a bit hyperbolic, but not as much as you make it out to be.  It's one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels.  Not "Worst.  Game.  Ever"

And yes, the characters (or at least their arcs) are interesting.  But the  main plot doesn't "stumble from time to time"  It's leg is broken shortly after Freedom's Progress and is largely bedridden for the rest of the game.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't an ensemble cast, oh I dunno, interact once in a while.  Just to show they're an ensembe?  

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I disagree. What if a Shepard delivers the line I want, but not in the way I want him to? Or is forced into a decision I do not want? Ultimately, we can go line by line and critique every piece of dialogue to have come out of Mass Effect, but I don't think we'd be better off for it. Without getting into the "RPG debate", cRPGs will always have greater limitations placed on them. ME2 prevented you from exploring certain dialogue/choice options, but I could say the same for ME1.

That's why I qualified my statement with "I will grant that the limitations of disk space and production costs limit the amount of role playing a computer game can provide.  But ME2 is missing some very basic reactions to heavy topics here"

It's understandable that not every possible reaction or choice can be accounted for.  But the lack of reaction, or even the option of a reaction, to some serious revelations (Shepard being dead, Collectors being repurposed Protheans) is, in my opinion a major flaw.

True, but it's still gets us into the debate of what constitutes a major dialogue flaw. For example, I agree that the resurrection would have been a substantial opportunity for character development, especially given the role that it's typically been given in previous stories. The Prothean revelation? Much less so. There really isn't anything Shepard can do for the Collectors.

But that's also why I point out that we can get into a competition about which game screws the player out of choice more (Ex: Rachni Queen).

[111987]

iakus wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...

I stopped paying attention to this guy when he made his first statement that "Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst video game plots ever", which is utter horse ****.

Seriously, this guy should get out more and play a larger variety of games. There are much worse plots out there. Some are so atrociously bad that they are comedic.

Mass Effect 2 thrives in actually having good writing for its characters. While its main plot may stumble from time to time, it still has the most well written ensemble cast I've seen in a game as of late.

"Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels"

The phrase is a bit hyperbolic, but not as much as you make it out to be.  It's one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels.  Not "Worst.  Game.  Ever"

And yes, the characters (or at least their arcs) are interesting.  But the  main plot doesn't "stumble from time to time"  It's leg is broken shortly after Freedom's Progress and is largely bedridden for the rest of the game.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't an ensemble cast, oh I dunno, interact once in a while.  Just to show they're an ensembe?  

To be fair, having the amount of squad mates they did made squad interaction almost impossible, which is why they reduced the sqaud in ME3 and are improving the banter.

12 squad mates, each with unique dialogue for each other member of the team? That's A LOT of writing and would be very difficult to implement.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...


"Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels"

The phrase is a bit hyperbolic, but not as much as you make it out to be. It's one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels.  Not "Worst.  Game.  Ever"[i]

The problem isn't the statement, but how Smud chooses to introduce his video. By making that his first line, he's immediately placed anyone who is either neutral or disagrees potentially on the defensive. This is due to the strength of the argument he's attempting to make. Claiming "one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels" will be more difficult to prove than "ME2 has a weak storyline", because of the evidence needed.

The best method (imo) would be to introduce his analysis with "I am going to analyze the plotline as laid out in Mass Effect 2". The statement is neutral, explains his intentions, and is less controversial for any viewer. Smud has good arguments, which should be able to speak for themselves. Unfortunately, he chose to open with a very strong conclusion before introducing any of his evidence, which can be considered dangerous.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

True, but it's still gets us into the debate of what constitutes a major dialogue flaw. For example, I agree that the resurrection would have been a substantial opportunity for character development, especially given the role that it's typically been given in previous stories. The Prothean revelation? Much less so. There really isn't anything Shepard can do for the Collectors.

But that's also why I point out that we can get into a competition about which game screws the player out of choice more (Ex: Rachni Queen).

The Collectors represent a "best-case scenerio" for the galactic races (aside from being Reaperfied, which had not been revealed yet) No there is nothing Shepard can do for them.  But there shuld have been the option to talk about it.  The option concerning the rachni queen may have been overly binary, but you could at least talk about the choice you made with Ashley, Kaidan, and the Council.  In ME2, you get one (admittedly really good) monologue from Mordin.

Personally, I think the fate of the Collectors would have made an excellent rallying cry during the Suicide Mission.

So I'm not talking about choice, exactly.  I'm talking about expression.  As the meme goes "Shepard is a brick":mellow:

 At least Commander Hawke could have been sad, snarky or angry about it.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

The Collectors represent a "best-case scenerio" for the galactic races (aside from being Reaperfied, which had not been revealed yet) No there is nothing Shepard can do for them.  But there shuld have been the option to talk about it..

 The option concerning the rachni queen may have been overly binary, but you could at least talk about the choice you made with Ashley, Kaidan, and the Council.  In ME2, you get one (admittedly really good) monologue from Mordin.

But I'd place "choice" (or lack of one) over  a few comments about a dead race, whom I cannot help. The Rachni Queen is sitting in a cage. She's not going anywhere. There's nothing to indicate that I (Shepard) need to make any kind of decision. In the Collector's case, the best we could do from a narrative position is express remorse, which is one (of many) reactions throughout the Mass Effect series which we are denied. How important would a comment about the state of the Prothean Collectors be, in the long run? It would mean little in the grand scheme of things. It's not an issue on the level of resurrection, which really required substantial exposition on.

In both cases, Bioware simply can't imagine every possible conversation we might want to have. It was a minor missed opportunity.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:25 .

[Iakus]

111987 wrote...

To be fair, having the amount of squad mates they did made squad interaction almost impossible, which is why they reduced the sqaud in ME3 and are improving the banter.

12 squad mates, each with unique dialogue for each other member of the team? That's A LOT of writing and would be very difficult to implement.

Possibly, but DAO did a jaw-dropping amount with nine (and with a three companions following you instead of two) Plus squad interactions with NPCs.  In ME2 the only character you can count on for NPC interaction is Tali, when a quarian is involved.  Legion gets some scenes in Tali's recruitment and loyalty mission, but you get him so late in the game it's missed by most people.

In ME2, it's simply not worth the effort to take anyone besides your two favorites out and about.  

Hold on, I take that back.  Archangel's recruitment mission, the Blood Pack leader talks to Grunt, and the Blue Suns leader knows Zaeed.  Must have been a mission designed early before they gave up on that kind of interaction.

[Almostfaceman]

I think the fact that I can come back here months later and the same people are discussing the same topics means Bioware has you right where they want you: in their forums, discussing their games, thinking about their ME universe. Heh, ME (1 &2) is so good that even if you think it's bad they still have you hooked.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

The Collectors represent a "best-case scenerio" for the galactic races (aside from being Reaperfied, which had not been revealed yet) No there is nothing Shepard can do for them.  But there shuld have been the option to talk about it..

 The option concerning the rachni queen may have been overly binary, but you could at least talk about the choice you made with Ashley, Kaidan, and the Council.  In ME2, you get one (admittedly really good) monologue from Mordin.

But I'd place "choice" (or lack of one) over  a few comments about a dead race, whom I cannot help. The Rachni Queen is sitting in a cage. She's not going anywhere. There's nothing to indicate that I (Shepard) need to make any kind of decision. In the Collector's case, the best we could do from a narrative position is express remorse, which is one (of many) reactions throughout the Mass Effect series which we are denied. How important would a comment about the state of the Prothean Collectors be, in the long run? It would mean little in the grand scheme of things. It's not an issue on the level of resurrection, which really required substantial exposition on.

In both cases, Bioware simply can't imagine every possible conversation we might want to have.

They imagine them all, no.  But remorse should have been an easy one.  It's like getting "cat" in a spelling bee, one would think 

And I am talking about a narrative sense, rather than choices.  The good it does is allow the player to give SHepard an expression or a personality.  I may grumble about not being able to take a bomb onto the Collector Cruiser but I can accept that wasn't a choice given to me.  I do reserve the right to resent the fact that my Shepard has an overly narrow range of expression.  Particularly in ME2

Modifié par iakus, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[didymos1120]

iakus wrote...

Hold on, I take that back.  Archangel's recruitment mission, the Blood Pack leader talks to Grunt, and the Blue Suns leader knows Zaeed.  Must have been a mission designed early before they gave up on that kind of interaction.

Jack and Miranda will snipe at each other on Jack's loyalty mission.  Jack will also make a few comments on Miranda's. All the squadmates have things to say to the tank-born on Korlus as well. They also interact with Warden Kuril, Prisoner 783 and Jack on Purgatory.  Then there's the Garrus+Tali chat on the Citadel (there was also a similar exchange between Jack and Zaeed that would have occured on Omega, but it unfortunately got cut), and Jacob and Miranda interact with Ish on Omega.  Tali interacts with Ken and Gabby from time to time too.  There's a few more examples here and there.  It's not as extensive as in the DA games obviously, but it's not so non-existent as many would have it either.

Modifié par didymos1120, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:42 .

[Xeranx]

Il Divo wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

The thing though is that ME didn't hamstring people as much as ME2 did.  I saw the original posts in the iterations of the "disappointment with ME2" threads about Shepard being an Alliance Marine, but the thing is we knew what we were getting into when we got the game.  

That's all perception based. Let me offer you three examples of moments where being an Alliance marine is irrelevant.

1) Why can't I choose to leave the Rachni Queen in her cage, instead of being forced into a false dichotomy?

I don't think there's anyone that would argue that the decision on the Rachni Queen was good at all.  I could be wrong, but I strongly believe any disagreements on that to be nil.

Il Divo wrote...
2) After discovering that Sovereign was itself a Reaper, why couldn't I have Shepard be thrown into a state of supreme doubt and confusion?

Doubt and confusion about the possibility of a sentient machine out to destroy us, that it is more advanced that the Geth, that it actually spoke to us?  I honestly don't know what you're asking here.

Il Divo wrote...
3) Why am I forced to bring Tali/Ashley/Kaidan on the Normandy, when I have command of the vessel?

Your forces are fighting against an anatagonist that uses the Geth as it's shock troops.  We know that Tali got close enough to take down and rip out a Geth's audio banks on her own.  That's sufficient since no one thought that the Geth, being machines, would have anything to salvage during all the fighting that occurred on Eden Prime.  That you could say no and be overridden...they could have worked that better because Shepard as a skilled tactician (regardless of how they feel about aliens if they dislike them) would never remove someone who already proved their worth and might do so again.

Kaidan: Before becoming a Spectre and prior to Eden Prime, Kaidan was on board the Normandy.  His station wasn't your call.  It was Anderson's or whoever else up the chain.  There's even the idea people are familiar with Kaidan seeing his exchange with Joker.  Chakwas with Jenkins and Kaidan (this comes after Eden Prime if you talk to her about Kaidan).  Keeping cohesion is just a better thing to do than splitting people up.

Ashley: On Eden Prime she is attacked by the same drones that did Jenkins in earlier.  She's obviously not as much of a newbie considering how she's able to take down those drones, seems committed to taking on the Geth by herself, and is capable of giving you the rundown on her encounter.  By every aspect she's capable and after your discussion with her, is willing to go back to where all her comrades died.  She's a die-hard.  Even before touching down on Eden Prime you see her on the distress call.  She keeps a level head while maintaining her eye on the battlefield.

So, as for why Kaidan and Ashley?  While not being as connected as Tali, they lost people to their opponent.  If you run into a group who's able to focus on the task at hand despite losing their comrades to the enemy (Ashley - her unit, Kaidan Jenkins) it only makes sense to take them with you.  They have a vested intesrest in seeing their opponent...your opponent go down more than you do as Shepard.

Il Divo wrote...
There is nothing about "Alliance Marine" which makes any of these things possible or impossible. My point isn't that Bioware should have given me (the player) every single option I just listed, but that we can become caught up in the inner-workings of what we want to do, when a game might not present every logical option the player can imagine.

My comment was made precisely because I remember you (in the last Disappointment with ME2 thread) saying that Shepard is a member of the Alliance and no one can say didn't want to be when people made their complaints about being forced to work with Cerberus.  You said no one could make their choice of whether they wanted to be Alliance or not at the beginning of the game.

Il Divo wrote...
If we really want to compare the two games, we could start up new playthroughs and begin analyzing every dialogue option/decision Shepard is given in the game, but I don't think hyper-analysis would get us where we want to go.

It might do a lot worse than this thread of the thread analysing Mass Effect does. 

Il Divo wrote...

Shepard is military. Shepard (male or female) regardless of background joins the Alliance and proceeds through the training to become an N7 ranked Commander in the Alliance army. Asking to be given the choice to abandon the Alliance at the end of ME is pretty much (and was before) an attempt to throw it in the faces of those who didn't like being forced to work with Cerberus. In short, I found it nonsensical and a means to anger the other side as already stated.

I disagree. KotOR forces you into the role of a Jedi and Jade Empire does the same with the Spirit Monk, but you can ultimately abandon those roles at the game's conclusion. If Shepard is my character, I should be allowed to understand the logic of Saren's actions and either support him or fight against as necessary. It's simply the limitation of cRPGs that prevents this from happening.

I don't know when it was stated that Mass Effect was a trilogy.  If it was before it was released then there's no way to say that you can or cannot abandon being a member of the Alliance military because the story hasn't reached its conclusion like KOTOR and Jade Empire had.

As for supporting Saren I point to what is written on the box again.  It's laid out before you that Saren is the enemy and it's heavily implied that he means you harm as much as anyone else.  

Should you be able to support Saren?  The moment you find out Saren is working for the Reapers is around the same time that he tries to kill you.  Long before then he's been your antagonist.  He killed the one person who was to show you what being a Spectre meant and jeopardized that whole aspect.  If there was a method to distance yourself from the Alliance and become freer in the process, Saren put that at risk and then made the comment later that you shouldn't be inducted.

Why one would want to support an individual who would hate to see you elevated to be their equal and is intrested in killing you I don't know.  Then again Malek did try to turn Revan again.  Whether you take up with him and keep him I don't know.  I could never do the darkside path in KOTOR.

[dreman9999]

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Then don't we have time to ask about the effects of the Lazarus project? Aside from the obvious of course.

Sure, but I don't think it's a necessity.

Shepard was dead, and now he's back. Questioning his death and revival won't change anything for most characters.

Like Jacob. I'd rather like if he could've talked about the Corsairs instead of Shepard's past, since I'm more interested about the characters around me instead of the character I am. I know what character I am. I don't need the game to tell me that.

Except the answer to how it was accomplished and the implications for Shepard could be critical. I hope I won't see you complaining about being blindsided with Shepard becoming a partial Reaper avatar ala Saren, due to all the Reaper-tech he was implanted with to bring him back to life!

Thanks for spoiling Mass Effect 3 for me...

Project Rho....

Wait, what? My post was sarcastic...

So is mine.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

And I am talking about a narrative sense, rather than choices.  The good it does is allow the player to give SHepard an expression or a personality.  I may grumble about not being able to take a bomb onto the Collector Cruiser but I can accept that wasn't a choice given to me. 

See, I personally think it should be the other way around. The Rachni both represent to me more critical errors than Shepard's restrictive expressions, since there we have the added issue of a decision, in addition to a chance to express character development. Shepard is given multiple opportunities of expressing a paragon disposition throughout the game. I still think it falls within the realms of "minor oversight".

The bomb on the Collector Ship is different. That's (yet another) plot hole, and not something which I would see either a Paragon/Renegade Shepard avoiding.

 I do reserve the right to resent the fact that my Shepard has an overly narrow range of expression.  Particularly in ME2

That's fair, but like I said we end up in the "which game is worse" debate. Would you be interested in analyzing the line by line dialogue of both games, to see where each went wrong? I think we'll both be left with a sour taste in our mouths afterward. All that stuff Nietzsche says about "gazing into the abyss".