6494 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

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?  

Not even, their are far worse sequel plots than ME2......*Looks a DX:IW...

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

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.

But you do talk about it ...with Mordin. And What meme is that that states"Shepard is a brick"?

[Xeranx]

dreman9999 wrote...

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?  

Not even, their are far worse sequel plots than ME2......*Looks a DX:IW...

I seriously don't know why, after numerous occasions when Smud's words are typed and the fact that they can be heard many times over, people still have trouble seeing/hearing what is there.  

Smudboy does not say the worst plot ever he says: "Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels" and I'm bolding it up there as well in the part you quoted.  One of.  Doesn't mean it's the worst, but it's up there with the worst.

Modifié par Xeranx, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:52 .

[111987]

It's still a huge claim that has no basis. Do you know how many video game sequels there have been? How can you objectively make a claim like that?

You can't.

[Il Divo]

Xeranx wrote...

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.

Well, good in the sense that it was epic and cinematically pleasing. Bad in that Bioware chose to ignore the most basic example of choice (or non-choice) imaginable.

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.

Do you recall Neo's reaction after Morpheus explains to him how humans = batteries? He finds himself unable to fathom the concept and throws up. Perhaps not to that extent, but Shepard did not have anything close to an appropriate reaction.  He's just discovered that a race of technologically advanced machines have essentially manipulated the existence of all Organic life, and that they've repeatedly committed galactic genocide. Even given Liara's knowledge on the Reapers, I find all of Shepard's reactions very lacking given the situation.

The closest we get is Shepard upset about the Normandy lockdown, but that doesn't encompass anything close to the type of reaction he could be feeling.

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.

Who's going to override you? As a Spectre, Shepard can only answer to the Council, which occurs only moments after Udina forces Tali on us. However, she never fulfills any function by explaining how the Geth work. She essentially provides us a background on Quarian History, which would be fine if I could off-load her, similar to Origin's companions. The option is never presented.

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.

But you've already made the assumption that my Shepard is willing to rely on these people. As it stands, either Kaidan/Ashley was already responsible for Shepard having to throw them away from the beacon. It's up to his (my) judgment whether I want to take them, especially considering that Shepard is a Spectre. From a plot perspective, neither character provides anything necessary.

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.

Hmm, could you remind me where that statement was made? It would be easier if I had it on hand.

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

Hehe, good point.

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.

Potentially true, but the game can simply end for those who decide to help Saren open the relay. Shepard's death in ME2 results in a non-import for ME3. If I think Saren provides logical arguments for helping the Reapers, there's nothing to say Shepard shouldn't be allowed to involve himself.

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.

Saren attempts to kill you because he is assisting the Reapers. When given the opportunity, he presents Shepard with that alternative option. His speech isn't hateful, he doesn't fly off the handle about hating humans. He's interested in helping organics survive, however he can.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 septembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[dreman9999]

Xeranx wrote...

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.

About number 3.....Those are all good reasons to have themcome but they are not things that have to make them come.Ashley and Kaidens reason for coming is the same as Garrus and he was optional. Point being is that they did not have to come outside of the fact that the story made them come. So what if Tali took down a geth, If I don't want her I should be allowed to get her. The fact that ME1 can get away with this and ME2 can't makes the whole argument petty.
We can't ignore the flaws of ME2, but ME1  and olderbw games can get away with anything.  Your stuck with cerberus, like your stuckas aJedi,a baal spawn, a spirt monk, or grey warden.....But your offered your own path and a way out in these repectivegames. In ME1 you stuckas a N7 soldier who becomes a spectre....It a good thing this is a trilogy so that you can still devert your path in the later games.(ME2)
Also,many people state ME1hasmore options, I fell it more narrow. You only seethe citdel, 3 human colonies, a dig site, and a base not counting the last mission. Everything else is empty planets and the same building used over and over again....What happen to the rest of the universe?Now compare that to what you havein ME2 and you'll see that ME1 is extremely animic to ME2......And people say which game is the better game?

[TuringPoint]

Sorry that this isn't related to the current discussion, I'll get to that.  For now I had a few thoughts about smudboy's arguments, the counter-arguments and corollary (in agreement) arguments.

A lot of these criticisms are a result of exposition being limited. Not non-existant, but limited.

Before I continue, close your eyes, relax, put yourself in your happy place.  Put your energy in the moment, and continue reading this post with no preconceptions.  Just... humor me.

I find it difficult to call things which are not written into the plot difficult to criticise. Having neither substance nor reality, whether you are pointing at this lack of elaborate explanation for Shepard's resurrection, feeling a keen lack of being able to do a specific choice, or say a particular thing, or filling in 'plot holes' with logic or imagination, you have something which is not there. Whether this lack is a good thing or a bad thing is, as far as I can tell, remains more or less unproven.

You can dislike how Bioware didn't include a particular feature or plot point; calling this a flaw is quite literally vacuous. Not unsupportable as an opinion or criticism, but irrational and not terribly objective.

Now that you've read that, consider that what I've said may have flaws, and it may be relevant in ways you have not considered.

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 septembre 2011 - 06:49 .

[dreman9999]

Xeranx wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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?  

Not even, their are far worse sequel plots than ME2......*Looks a DX:IW...

I seriously don't know why, after numerous occasions when Smud's words are typed and the fact that they can be heard many times over, people still have trouble seeing/hearing what is there.  

Smudboy does not say the worst plot ever he says: "Mass Effect 2 has one of the worst plots in the history of gaming sequels" and I'm bolding it up there as well in the part you quoted.  One of.  Doesn't mean it's the worst, but it's up there with the worst.

But that'sthe thing...The plot is not bad.....Not even near bad. The focus is just different from ME1. If you look into the lore, character motives anddetails of the story...You'll see it's a great story.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 septembre 2011 - 06:56 .

[Gorosaur]

I honestly don't get why people who think Mass Effect 2's plot was as terrible as Smudboy claims even continue to be fans of the franchise.

[Xeranx]

[quote]IlDivo wrote...
[quote]Xeranx wrote...

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. [/quote]

Do you recall Neo's reaction after Morpheus explains to him how humans = batteries? He finds himself unable to fathom the concept and throws up. Perhaps not to that extent, but Shepard did not have anything close to an appropriate reaction.  He's just discovered that a race of technologically advanced machines have essentially manipulated the existence of all Organic life, and that they've repeatedly committed galactic genocide. Even given Liara's knowledge on the Reapers, I find all of Shepard's reactions very lacking given the situation. 

The closest we get is Shepard upset about the Normandy lockdown, but that doesn't encompass anything close to the type of reaction he could be feeling. [/quote]

I agree. I would have liked to have had the ability to roleplay a Shepard who is put in shock at the realization of the Reapers and then has to fight his way out and make a choice about who to save on top of that. Would bring more realism to having to choose who to save on Virmire and hopefully would have had the developers actually make the resulting rescue of the STG more poignant as well.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
[quote]Xeranx wrote...

Your forces are fighting against an antagonist 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. [/quote]

Who's going to override you? As a Spectre, Shepard can only answer to the Council, which occurs only moments after Udina forces Tali on us. However, she never fulfills any function by explaining how the Geth work. She essentially provides us a background on Quarian History, which would be fine if I could off-load her, similar to Origin's companions. The option is never presented.[/quote]

Prior to being inducted as a Spectre you are overridden on the choice of Tali. Afterward there's no discussion. Tali fulfilling an expectation that is never brought up has nothing to do with the question you asked me. You asked me why are we forced to take Tali, Kaidan, and Ashley. Not why are we forced to keep them.

If there were a way to bench them and take someone else I'd be asking myself the same question so long as the idea was presented. In that light I would have benched Liara as soon as I heard about Ilos because she isn't needed beyond that revelation and if I had to take an Asari with me I would have tried to persuade Shiala to join me.  Quite possibly more than Liara could be considering her training and the few glimpses into her character that we're given which make her more of an adult than Liara could ever be.

[quote]Il Divowrote...
[quote]Xeranx wrote...

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 interest in seeing their opponent...your opponent go down more than you do as Shepard.[/quote]

But you've already made the assumption that my Shepard is willing to rely on these people. As it stands, either Kaidan/Ashley was already responsible for Shepard having to throw them away from the beacon. It's up to his (my) judgment whether I want to take them, especially considering that Shepard is a Spectre. From a plot perspective, neither character provides anything necessary.[/quote]

If there are others who are capable then being able to replace them should be an option if you're not comfortable with them. That no one else is available to show that they are better candidates is a flaw, but a very small one. I still say that cohesion of those on the ship is something a commander should strive for whether they like the arrangement or not. 

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
[quote]Xeranx wrote...

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.[/quote]

Hmm, could you remind me where that statement was made? It would be easier if I had it on hand.[/quote]

That will take time as that thread was 400 pages and a number of your posts are lengthy. You have a much better chance at locating it than I do, but I'll see if I can find it.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
[quote]Xeranx wrote...
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.[/quote]

Potentially true, but the game can simply end for those who decide to help Saren open the relay. Shepard's death in ME2 results in a non-import for ME3. If I think Saren provides logical arguments for helping the Reapers, there's nothing to say Shepard shouldn't be allowed to involve himself.[/quote]

That's fine so long as Bioware's up to establishing the consequences that are likely to occur.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
[quote]Xeranxwrote...
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. [/quote]

Saren attempts to kill you because he is assisting the Reapers. When given the opportunity, he presents Shepard with that alternative option. His speech isn't hateful, he doesn't fly off the handle about hating humans. He's interested in helping organics survive, however he can. [/quote]

Again, I have no problem with it. There would have to be a compelling reason offered by Saren on why it would be better to ally with the Reapers than fight them, but by then we're privy to Rana who talks about indoctrination and how Saren wants to fight it.  Even Saren, himself, talks about how he's being affected by indoctrination.  After that there's not much of a reason to join him.

I'm all for having more options to play with. That invites replayability which every developer should strive for. More time being spent on your game means a greater chance that people will talk about your game and generate more sales as a result.

Edited to fix formatting

Modifié par Xeranx, 04 septembre 2011 - 07:21 .

[TuringPoint]

I hate pyramid quotes, so I'll leave in Divo's responses as a reference point to the topics as a whole.

Il Divo wrote...

Well, good in the sense that it was epic and cinematically pleasing. Bad in that Bioware chose to ignore the most basic example of choice (or non-choice) imaginable.

I believe, based on what I've heard Bioware say about many similar writing choices, that adding the choice to leave the Rachni Queen in her cage would still result in her dying.  

Still.  It would not have been all that expensive to implement this third option.   It would've been a less cinematic or interesting conclusion, or it would have been another (expensive) way to kill off the queen, if they gave the option a cinematic of its own.

Do you recall Neo's reaction after Morpheus explains to him how humans = batteries? He finds himself unable to fathom the concept and throws up. Perhaps not to that extent, but Shepard did not have anything close to an appropriate reaction.  He's just discovered that a race of technologically advanced machines have essentially manipulated the existence of all Organic life, and that they've repeatedly committed galactic genocide. Even given Liara's knowledge on the Reapers, I find all of Shepard's reactions very lacking given the situation.

The closest we get is Shepard upset about the Normandy lockdown, but that doesn't encompass anything close to the type of reaction he could be feeling. 

Shepard's reactions are typically defiant.  I'm all for being defiant.  What he says can sound pretty stupid though, like the, "You're just a machine, machines can be broken."  That said I can generally; shudder, think about it, realize it could've been a little worse at least, and move on.  I have a notion that Bioware wrote Shepard's reactions with some sort of concept of what Shepard was thinking, but no explanation, exposition, description of Shepard's thoughts.  I personally feel the story would be better with a little more explanation, whether that be in more dialogues or in codex entries where appropriate.  I feel there are numerous examples where more explanation would make the story a lot stronger.  To bring my above post into this, give it a little more context - with no intention of being argumentative or throwing a straw man - this I do not consider a plot hole, a lack of consideration, or plot-breaking flaw.

This d made me think of something I've never thought of before.  Maybe, instead of Shepard saying something stupid (I still wish he had said it differently? maybe that would've helped) Shepard is responding with determination.  I know I found Shepard's defiant statements in Arrival far more effective, with far more basis to assume a position of defiance.

I think a good actor could've done all sorts of non-verbal things to show their internal reaction which are not possible in a video game.  Even then, though (sorry to bring this into my response), people who were less sensitive to the actor's performance would've been left out of the loop, possibly deciding this was a plot hole.

Again, I know you're not personally making any statements about anything being a plot hole.

Who's going to override you? As a Spectre, Shepard can only answer to the Council, which occurs only moments after Udina forces Tali on us. However, she never fulfills any function by explaining how the Geth work. She essentially provides us a background on Quarian History, which would be fine if I could off-load her, similar to Origin's companions. The option is never presented.

I justify this, however shallowly, in saying that Shepard is Bioware's character.  With a certain amount of input asked for from the player.

I will also point out, not that your arguments are invalid, but that I believe when Tali "proved her worth" it was a combination of her ability to work with technology, fight, and help in accomplishing an objective.  This does limit how much Shepard can be a xenophobe though; something that can only be accounted for by not giving Tali Geth data later on and generally being a suspicious jerk.

So, as for why Kaidan and Ashley?  From a plot perspective, neither character provides anything necessary.

Pretty valid argument really.  No counter that would add much.

If I think Saren provides logical arguments for helping the Reapers, there's nothing to say Shepard shouldn't be allowed to involve himself.

Agreed.  I can see why Bioware might not have included the option, although it is a slight (possibly necessary) flaw in the plot and possible choices that you can't do this.

[Xeranx]

Gorosaur wrote...

I honestly don't get why people who think Mass Effect 2's plot was as terrible as Smudboy claims even continue to be fans of the franchise.

The reasons have been stated in this thread.  I think it was mentioned a few pages ago.  If you're really interested in knowing the answer to this question then please look over the responses.  The replies have been uttered time and again, in this thread and others.  That people keep asking the same question makes me think that people are more interested in asking the question and couldn't care less about the answer.

If looking through the thread doesn't interest you, then look at the responses that are made to divine the answer.  Yes, I could have just told you why, but I direct you to the last sentence in my first paragraph in this post.

[100k]

Xeranx wrote...

Gorosaur wrote...

I honestly don't get why people who think Mass Effect 2's plot was as terrible as Smudboy claims even continue to be fans of the franchise.

The reasons have been stated in this thread.  I think it was mentioned a few pages ago.  If you're really interested in knowing the answer to this question then please look over the responses.  The replies have been uttered time and again, in this thread and others.  That people keep asking the same question makes me think that people are more interested in asking the question and couldn't care less about the answer.

If looking through the thread doesn't interest you, then look at the responses that are made to divine the answer.  Yes, I could have just told you why, but I direct you to the last sentence in my first paragraph in this post.

Agreed. No more redundancies, people. We're just arguing the same points to different people now. 

[tonnactus]

111987 wrote...


To be fair, having the amount of squad mates they did made squad interaction almost impossible,

The first Dragon Age proved the opposite. Even Loghain had a significant amount in party banter...

[Iakus]

didymos1120 wrote...

Jack and Miranda will snipe at each other on Jack's loyalty mission.

Really?  I''ve never heard that.  And I've taken Miranda to Pragia

Jack will also make a few comments on Miranda's.  

One comment: "I like her.  Are we still recruiting?"

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.

Isn't this all basically canned dialogue?  Was any of it personal to them, rather than variations of "Just knock her out and drag her aboard"?

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)

 
The one example of genuine banter between squadmates that I'm aware of.

, and Jacob and Miranda interact with Ish on Omega.

 I understand that Ish is some kind of "epilogue" to Mass Effect Galaxy, so that makes sense.

Tali interacts with Ken and Gabby from time to time too.

The card game and, um, Ken's comment about her suit being "snug in all the right places"?  About all I can think of.  

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.

For a game that's supposed to be about building the squad (and Dragon Age wasn't), it's still highly anemic.

[111987]

tonnactus wrote...

111987 wrote...


To be fair, having the amount of squad mates they did made squad interaction almost impossible,

The first Dragon Age proved the opposite. Even Loghain had a significant amount in party banter...

I've never played Dragon Age, but there were 12 squad mates? Each with unique conversations, rather than a few dialogue tweaks? If so, I stand corrected.

[Iakus]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]Not even, their are far worse sequel plots than ME2......*Looks a DX:IW...
[/quote]

As far as plots go, Invisible War now has company.  Good thing ME2 has good gameplay at least.

Again ME2 has one of...

[TuringPoint]

I *really* liked this scene in ME1. On the citadel, when you have just Kaidan and Ashley available as squadmates, if you go down to where you would normally see the Destiny Ascension outside of the window, there's a place you can start a squad dialogue. A small aside. It was nifty. It was the first time in the game I was really 'sold' on the world and characters.

I hope there are more events like this in the future. ME2's contextual squad comments were similar, although not quite as satisfying.

[Iakus]

111987 wrote...

It's still a huge claim that has no basis. Do you know how many video game sequels there have been? How can you objectively make a claim like that?

You can't.

Noty saying it's not hyperbole.  Just that it's not as hyperbolic as some claim.  How is it different than a movie reviewer saying such and such film is "One of the Best/Worst films of the year!"?  You only object if you're not a fan of the reviewer to begin with.

[dreman9999]

[quote]iakus wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]Not even, their are far worse sequel plots than ME2......*Looks a DX:IW...
[/quote]

As far as plots go, Invisible War now has company.  Good thing ME2 has good gameplay at least.

Again ME2 has one of...

[/quote].................
My point is that ME2 plot is not bad by any standard.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 septembre 2011 - 08:03 .

[Iakus]

Alocormin wrote...

I *really* liked this scene in ME1. On the citadel, when you have just Kaidan and Ashley available as squadmates, if you go down to where you would normally see the Destiny Ascension outside of the window, there's a place you can start a squad dialogue. A small aside. It was nifty. It was the first time in the game I was really 'sold' on the world and characters.

I hope there are more events like this in the future. ME2's contextual squad comments were similar, although not quite as satisfying.

After many many playthroughs I found another, on Eden Prime, behind the beacon there's a spot where Shepard Ashley and Kaidan can comment on the scorched ring on the ground where Sovereign took off.

[111987]

iakus wrote...

111987 wrote...

It's still a huge claim that has no basis. Do you know how many video game sequels there have been? How can you objectively make a claim like that?

You can't.

Noty saying it's not hyperbole.  Just that it's not as hyperbolic as some claim.  How is it different than a movie reviewer saying such and such film is "One of the Best/Worst films of the year!"?  You only object if you're not a fan of the reviewer to begin with.

That's a little different though. If someone says that a film is one of the best of the year, well, there's a limited selection of movies so the case can be made a little better. If a movie review said a movie is one of the best/worst movies EVER, then that's a different case.

If smudboy had said something like 'ME2 had one of the worst stories of video game sequels in 2009', it would come off very differently.

[tonnactus]

111987 wrote...


I've never played Dragon Age, but there were 12 squad mates? Each with unique conversations, rather than a few dialogue tweaks? If so, I stand corrected.

The game had 10. But Zaed and Kasumi didnt count anyway.
And all of them had substantial party banter(unique),far more then even the first Mass Effect game had.(who also didnt had much banter,but still memorable one...)

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 septembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

I *really* liked this scene in ME1. On the citadel, when you have just Kaidan and Ashley available as squadmates, if you go down to where you would normally see the Destiny Ascension outside of the window, there's a place you can start a squad dialogue. A small aside. It was nifty. It was the first time in the game I was really 'sold' on the world and characters.

I hope there are more events like this in the future. ME2's contextual squad comments were similar, although not quite as satisfying.

After many many playthroughs I found another, on Eden Prime, behind the beacon there's a spot where Shepard Ashley and Kaidan can comment on the scorched ring on the ground where Sovereign took off.

Also, on the citadel, theirs a volus that takes about the destiny assension as in passes by in the wards.

[dreman9999]

tonnactus wrote...

111987 wrote...


I've never played Dragon Age, but there were 12 squad mates? Each with unique conversations, rather than a few dialogue tweaks? If so, I stand corrected.

The game had 10. But Zaed and Kasumi didnt count anyway.
And all of them had substantial party banter(unique),far more then even the first Mass Effect game had.(who also didnt had much banter,but still memorable one...)

And the Zaeed and Kasuni had more squad banter then most squad member to make out for the lackof one on one dialogue.