6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

ME1 and  me2 had the same constuction. The only thing missing from ME2 that ME1 had is the invesigation aspect. One story is about finding some one and the other is about getting ready for something. The reason why we had to get the people TIM choose because he was the boss. Also, their is a method to his madness....What would happen if he picked the best of humanity ony on the suicide mission and most of them died? They would not be with humanity to fight the reaper invasion. What would happen if an alian die in the suicide mission? The would not be there to help their race to fight the reaper. Why so something risky with your own stuff and lose it when you can use the samething that belongs to someone elses, wrech it and keep yours? He always humanity first in thinking.

How about the most simplistic question Mass Effect 2 fails to answer; why do we need a team of random badasses? The plot never even attempts to explain this, and the Suicide Missions, fun as it may be, amounts to a series of events that conveniently work out in the most positive scenario plausible. Loyalty itself was essentially an arbitrary flag with no actual basis in the story. Garrus' leadership had no greater effect than Grunt's, nor did either have any influence on Tali's ability to hack a door, but I digress. Point of the matter was in ME2, our final plan was to charge blindly through the Omega 4 Relay and pray to the Reapers Gods, it all works out. We had plenty of time, yet chose to rush on ahead anyway when we still knew nothing about our adversary.

ME1's plot developed, with Shepard as the catalyst to drive it once we acquired the Cipher. ME2's plot did and had neither.

Phaelducan wrote...

Or maybe, just maybe some people can take off the d-bag hat for long enough to move on from a game that came out nearly 2 years ago and stop posting drivel all over the forums.

Seriously, how is one chucklehead posting "fixes" for one of the most successful games of all time productive in the slightest? The game was terrific, and all of you hipster foolio's saying "IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ONLY THEY WOULD LISTEN TO ME!" is both tiring and sophomoric.

Mass Effect 2 was a great game. The few dozen of you whining on these forums don't outweigh the millions who bought and loved it, not to mention the critical lauding it received. Could it use deeper RPG elements and some refined mechanics? Absolutely, and Bioware is addressing that.

Could it be improved by some youtube demagogue's fixes? No (LOL COUGH LOL).... no.

Move along.

Do reviews on Gamespot go into a lengthily analysis specifically on the plot? No, they discuss a plethora of elements pertaining to the overall design and structure of the game as a whole. This encompasses everything from gameplay to the soundtrack. Furthermore, their reviews serve a singular purpose; to answer if the game is worth playing. ME2 most definitely is worthy of our invested interest. The main plot is a mere five to seven hours while the remainder of the game is stellar for better or less. In fact, I would go so far as to cite the plot, "wasted potential" despite my vocal criticism of its many inconsistencies.

There were so many options available to include the Collectors in a meaningful way; make Captain Bailey secretly be transferring Citadel prisoners to Purgatory, where the Warden is making arrangements with the Collectors. In lieu of my own opinions, why couldn't they expand on the virus effecting Omega? So often an intriguing development to connect the story was brought up yet never utilized.

If we measure success purely from fan acclaim and profitability, then you indirectly have called Twilight one of the most successful films this generation. You see why criticism cannot be adhered to finance or a fanbase? We have objective terms designed to critique literature work and use them to debate, regardless if the title in question was loved or loathed.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 18 septembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[The Interloper]

iakus wrote...

As plot failed, added variable setups to compensate.  Collector story almost gone.  Added overloaded mercenary levels to compensate.  Transmitting combat to players.   No focus, replaced by setup.  No advancement, replaced by setup.  No soul.  Replaced by setup.  Whatever ME2 intended, gone forever.  Understand now?  No storyarc, no connection.  Closer to DLC than game.  Variables for ME3.  Story nonexistant.  Transition just final insult. 

Counter-argument projects own narrative onto design process. Setup plots meant to cover flaws of  main"failed plot?" Setup was not by design, not "intended?" Confused. Source of grandoise claim? Mind reading? Inside source on development process? Mere personal interpretation? (Last item seems likely).

No storyarc? Comical exaggeration. Collector arc introduced, explored, resolved in game. Like saren arc in original. Precise levels of prominance and exposition of such arc endlessly debatable, irrelevant to point. Arc there, arc important to installment, drives plot, follows stages of progression, gives context for shepard to involve self in other plots. Arc resolution does not advance overall arc (reaper invasion) by great lengths, true. Neither did resolution of original story-merely introduction for series plot. Futility recurring theme. Also, collector arc reveal more of nature of reapers. Revelations largely unspoken, true. Implied. Does not equate nonexistance. Revalations relevant to main arc.

Claims setup replace focus, setup bad. Why? Like saying book chapter is useless of no plotline resolved in it. Not true. Blanket statement. Many exceptions. No reasons why ME2 not exception. None given, that certain. Merely assumes this intrinsically bad. How? ME3 to resolve main plot, heavily involve species politics, other sideplots introduced in ME2. Plot focused; character missions, sidequests, all focused on main reaper plotline. Also SM characters play major roles. Great variability in cast of characters. Projections fit analysis of ME2's story role. Set up for main event. And main arc also present, links side arcs. Again, subdued role not equivilant with irrelevance or obscurity.

Claims of "no soul" "DLC" or "story nonexistant" merely exaggerations for purpose of aggravation. Harsh words not proof by itself. Not argument.

Not saying ME2 plot perfect. Not saying no room for improvement. Saying works in series context. Functional.

[Arkitekt]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

[KotorEffect3]

I wonder how annoying smudboy is at the movies.

[Arkitekt]

iakus wrote...

By ressurection technology I mean exactly that:  A Cure for Death.  The ability to bring dead people back to life.  A coma is not death.  It may not be life that can sustain itself on its own, but it is still life.  

Now, I'd like to believe that Shepard was "only mostly dead".  If there was still a spark of life in him that modern medicine could work with, I'd have been much happier.  It would make the whole process much much easier to swallow.  But Bioware bent over backwards making it clear that Shepard was dead and gone.  

Shepard was caught in an explosion which, while not instantly fatal, caused burns and internal injuries as noted by Miranda

In that explosion, Shepard's suit was ruptured, causing him to suffucate and probably explains the vacuum exposure also noted by Miranda

Next Shep got smacked by a planet.  People may debate factors such as gravity, atmosphere, speeds, but the fact is, Shepard hit a planet.  From space.  Anything else is just details 

He then lay there untreated for days if not weeks, causing the damage from prolonged exposure to subzero temperatures also noted by Miranda

There are other details that one could debate, but I think we can agree on these factors at least.

Finally, Casey Hudson himself says about the Collector attack "You see Commander Shepard dying"  (about 3:35)  

We are not talking about degrees of death.  We are talking about death. At no point did Bioware try to sugarcoat it save as some sort of running gag about how "I got better"  Shepard died.  Painfully and thoroughly.  I am not making this up.  Even the very name of the project is named after a man in the Bible who was brought back to life after being dead and buried for days. (ME2 sure likes its biblical references)

You are stuck with metaphysics. "Death" isn't a supernatural dimension where you are stuck "forever". Death is a name we invented for a state of affairs we recognize in others. It's not beyond belief that this state of affairs can be determined by a variety of variables, and that if some of these variables are not beyond repair, that you can bring someone from what you call "death". This is not magic, nor even an amazing technology "bring back the dead". It's engineering. And Shepard's state of affairs was clearly one that was reversible. Many others we can claim are not. Period. It's not controversial unless you want it to be real bad, and I'm sure that Casey would agree with this statement 100%.

 

You need wrong ideas but transmitted with confidence so that you may approve. You need that correct ideas that you find impossible to believe not to be transmitted at all so that you may approve. And all in the name of "realism", that must be the punch line, I'm sure.

I need science fiction ideas transmitted in a manner consistent with the world I am currently inhabiting.  The term isn't "realism" it's "verisimilitude"  

You didn't even read what I wrote. That's called distraction. And you are guilty of that one n times already.

I know what the game told me:  Shepard died.

You know nothing about death. And considering your point of view is from the beggining of the 21st century (and showing to be not very knowable about what we know already) I'd say your point of view is amazingly limited.

If it was so simple to explain, they probably should have explained it, huh?  Becuase to poor unscientific laymen like me, there's alive, and there's dead.  And the only "in-between places" are strange dream sequences involving aliens asking you if you have anything worth living for.

I already have. As I said earlier, it's your fault if you were distracted. 

I mean, they took the time to explain QEDs and why they're not more common in the ME universe, and that's pure sf.  And on the other end of the spectrum, they explain Vrolik's Syndrome, which is an actual condition.  Surely the Lazarus Project could have met somewhere in the middle?

Except Lazarus project surely involves medical science that doesn't exist just yet, and it could be very difficult to write a very good text about it. QED I don't know what you are talking about, unless you are referring to the quantum entanglement bit in a roundabout way. Kinda funny. It's a 100% wrong explanation that they give but people are fine with it.

[Phaelducan]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ME1 and  me2 had the same constuction. The only thing missing from ME2 that ME1 had is the invesigation aspect. One story is about finding some one and the other is about getting ready for something. The reason why we had to get the people TIM choose because he was the boss. Also, their is a method to his madness....What would happen if he picked the best of humanity ony on the suicide mission and most of them died? They would not be with humanity to fight the reaper invasion. What would happen if an alian die in the suicide mission? The would not be there to help their race to fight the reaper. Why so something risky with your own stuff and lose it when you can use the samething that belongs to someone elses, wrech it and keep yours? He always humanity first in thinking.

How about the most simplistic question Mass Effect 2 fails to answer; why do we need a team of random badasses? The plot never even attempts to explain this, and the Suicide Missions, fun as it may be, amounts to a series of events that conveniently work out in the most positive scenario plausible. Loyalty itself was essentially an arbitrary flag with no actual basis in the story. Garrus' leadership had no greater effect than Grunt's, nor did either have any influence on Tali's ability to hack a door, but I digress. Point of the matter was in ME2, our final plan was to charge blindly through the Omega 4 Relay and pray to the Reapers Gods, it all works out. We had plenty of time, yet chose to rush on ahead anyway when we still knew nothing about our adversary.

ME1's plot developed, with Shepard as the catalyst to drive it once we acquired the Cipher. ME2's plot did and had neither.

Phaelducan wrote...

Or maybe, just maybe some people can take off the d-bag hat for long enough to move on from a game that came out nearly 2 years ago and stop posting drivel all over the forums.

Seriously, how is one chucklehead posting "fixes" for one of the most successful games of all time productive in the slightest? The game was terrific, and all of you hipster foolio's saying "IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ONLY THEY WOULD LISTEN TO ME!" is both tiring and sophomoric.

Mass Effect 2 was a great game. The few dozen of you whining on these forums don't outweigh the millions who bought and loved it, not to mention the critical lauding it received. Could it use deeper RPG elements and some refined mechanics? Absolutely, and Bioware is addressing that.

Could it be improved by some youtube demagogue's fixes? No (LOL COUGH LOL).... no.

Move along.

Do reviews on Gamespot go into a lengthily analysis specifically on the plot? No, they discuss a plethora of elements pertaining to the overall design and structure of the game as a whole. This encompasses everything from gameplay to the soundtrack. Furthermore, their reviews serve a singular purpose; to answer if the game is worth playing. ME2 most definitely is worthy of our invested interest. The main plot is a mere five to seven hours while the remainder of the game is stellar for better or less. In fact, I would go so far as to cite the plot, "wasted potential" despite my vocal criticism of its many inconsistencies.

There were so many options available to include the Collectors in a meaningful way; make Captain Bailey secretly be transferring Citadel prisoners to Purgatory, where the Warden is making arrangements with the Collectors. In lieu of my own opinions, why couldn't they expand on the virus effecting Omega? So often an intriguing development to connect the story was brought up yet never utilized.

If we measure success purely from fan acclaim and profitability, then you indirectly have called Twilight one of the most successful films this generation. You see why criticism cannot be adhered to finance or a fanbase? We have objective terms designed to critique literature work and use them to debate, regardless if the title in question was loved or loathed.

Not even close. I specifically cited all three general benchmarks. Fan acclaim, profitability, AND critical praise. Twilight is almost universally lampooned by critics. Conveniently, you ignore fully 33% of the equation to support your own erroneous assumptions. Typical of this "argument."

Furthermore, Spudboy doesn't analyze the elements of ME2. He crucifies them based on subjective matters of taste and his own narrow definitions of VERY wide elements of a body of work (such as plot, setting, and character). It's not a critique, it's a whine session. You are now adding to it.

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

ME1 showed us a world and said "With this one big exception and everything we can extrapolate directly from it, we're not going to constantly hit you with things that are impossible based on what you already know."  

I just love how people love to make **** up constantly.

Where the hell did ME1 say this?

Never. It is all in your own head.

We're covering the topic matterial of Science Fiction Writing 101:  The Basics, right now.  

Stop flattering yourself. The level of facepalminess is reaching critical levels in the skulls right now.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

There are plenty of enjoyable works of fiction where the authors took enough pride in their work to not fall back on something as pathetic and degrading as the "rule of cool". 

[Arkitekt]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

How about the most simplistic question Mass Effect 2 fails to answer; why do we need a team of random badasses? The plot never even attempts to explain this, and the Suicide Missions, fun as it may be, amounts to a series of events that conveniently work out in the most positive scenario plausible.

Ok, this is sufficient to know that you didn't play ME2 with your brain turned on (the nice detail of calling the side missions "suicide missions" is an obvious bonus).

Point of the matter was in ME2, our final plan was to charge blindly through the Omega 4 Relay and pray to the Reapers Gods, it all works out. We had plenty of time, yet chose to rush on ahead anyway when we still knew nothing about our adversary.

There was no rush except on your own head.

ME1's plot developed, with Shepard as the catalyst to drive it once we acquired the Cipher. ME2's plot did and had neither.

So you failed to see all the collector's levels. 

There were so many options available to include the Collectors in a meaningful way; make Captain Bailey secretly be transferring Citadel prisoners to Purgatory, where the Warden is making arrangements with the Collectors. In lieu of my own opinions, why couldn't they expand on the virus effecting Omega? So often an intriguing development to connect the story was brought up yet never utilized.

These are good points. Of course, if they worked for more two years the game could reach a state where others would say "why not add this and that, as it implied it should?"

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

There are plenty of enjoyable works of fiction where the authors took enough pride in their work to not fall back on something as pathetic and degrading as the "rule of cool". 

Gimme one example.

[Iakus]

The Interloper wrote...

iakus wrote...

As plot failed, added variable setups to compensate.  Collector story almost gone.  Added overloaded mercenary levels to compensate.  Transmitting combat to players.   No focus, replaced by setup.  No advancement, replaced by setup.  No soul.  Replaced by setup.  Whatever ME2 intended, gone forever.  Understand now?  No storyarc, no connection.  Closer to DLC than game.  Variables for ME3.  Story nonexistant.  Transition just final insult. 

Counter-argument projects own narrative onto design process. Setup plots meant to cover flaws of  main"failed plot?" Setup was not by design, not "intended?" Confused. Source of grandoise claim? Mind reading? Inside source on development process? Mere personal interpretation? (Last item seems likely).

No storyarc? Comical exaggeration. Collector arc introduced, explored, resolved in game. Like saren arc in original. Precise levels of prominance and exposition of such arc endlessly debatable, irrelevant to point. Arc there, arc important to installment, drives plot, follows stages of progression, gives context for shepard to involve self in other plots. Arc resolution does not advance overall arc (reaper invasion) by great lengths, true. Neither did resolution of original story-merely introduction for series plot. Futility recurring theme. Also, collector arc reveal more of nature of reapers. Revelations largely unspoken, true. Implied. Does not equate nonexistance. Revalations relevant to main arc.

Claims setup replace focus, setup bad. Why? Like saying book chapter is useless of no plotline resolved in it. Not true. Blanket statement. Many exceptions. No reasons why ME2 not exception. None given, that certain. Merely assumes this intrinsically bad. How? ME3 to resolve main plot, heavily involve species politics, other sideplots introduced in ME2. Plot focused; character missions, sidequests, all focused on main reaper plotline. Also SM characters play major roles. Great variability in cast of characters. Projections fit analysis of ME2's story role. Set up for main event. And main arc also present, links side arcs. Again, subdued role not equivilant with irrelevance or obscurity.

Claims of "no soul" "DLC" or "story nonexistant" merely exaggerations for purpose of aggravation. Harsh words not proof by itself. Not argument.

Not saying ME2 plot perfect. Not saying no room for improvement. Saying works in series context. Functional.

Storyarc present, but atrophied, vestigal, nearly.  Introduced, ignored, briefly reintroduced ignored again.  Overwhelmed by other plots.  Guest in its own home.  Saren constant presence, even when not around.  Purpose was to find him.  Follow in his footsteps.  Here, ignore Collectors.  Wander galaxy. Kill mercs Do favors.  Steal credits.  Suprised Conrad Verner not recruited.    Work right up his ally, save for killing.  Arc irrelevant save as Maguffin.  Excuse to meet people.  

Setup focus bad not because each chapter does not resolve plotline.  Bad because each chapter comes from different book.  Tali story important to overall series, but irrelevant to current story.  Likewise other characters.  Interesting stories.  Enjoyable in their own right.  But irrelevant to story at hand.  So many stories drowning out central one.  Important one.  Shepard's story.  Game should have story of its own, not just setup for next story in series.  That path lies more Dragon Age 2 games.

Ran the numbers.  Twelve characters each with own story.  Eight also have introduction through recruitment missions.  Twenty chapters.  Only one with Collector focus.

Consider main story.  Only four chapters (Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF) before final endgame.  Time spent actually preparing for mission miniscule compared to time spent killing mercenaries on behalf of others.  

"Story nonexistant" overstating things.  But has element of truth in it.

[Iakus]

Arkitekt wrote...

You are stuck with metaphysics. "Death" isn't a supernatural dimension where you are stuck "forever". Death is a name we invented for a state of affairs we recognize in others. It's not beyond belief that this state of affairs can be determined by a variety of variables, and that if some of these variables are not beyond repair, that you can bring someone from what you call "death". This is not magic, nor even an amazing technology "bring back the dead". It's engineering. And Shepard's state of affairs was clearly one that was reversible. Many others we can claim are not. Period. It's not controversial unless you want it to be real bad, and I'm sure that Casey would agree with this statement 100%.

Technology that can bring back the dead, especially someone killed as thoroughly as Shepard, skirts towards Sufficiently Advanced.  At no point in the series do I recall death being viewed as an "engineering problem" by any group besides the Lazarus Project itself.  And maybe the Derelict Reaper.  The presence of death throughout the game, from the genophage to the missing colonies to something as comparatively simple as Thane's Kepral's Syndrome or Nef's death shows that death is still very much final for the rest of the galaxy.  People die.   Other people mourn and move on.  Just like they do today.  Except for Shepard.  For some reason, he dies and comes back.  By means unexplained.  

You know nothing about death. And considering your point of view is from the beggining of the 21st century (and showing to be not very knowable about what we know already) I'd say your point of view is amazingly limited.

The point of view is limited in large part because the game limits it.

I already have. As I said earlier, it's your fault if you were distracted.

You explained your idea, which sounds a like like Shepard was not in fact dead at all.  I explained how, appealing though that may sound, I find it impossible to accept.

Except Lazarus project surely involves medical science that doesn't exist just yet, and it could be very difficult to write a very good text about it. QED I don't know what you are talking about, unless you are referring to the quantum entanglement bit in a roundabout way. Kinda funny. It's a 100% wrong explanation that they give but people are fine with it.

There are explanations for biotics, mass relays, element zero, omnitools, all sorts of devices that can't exist in today's science.  What makes the Lazarus Project so special that it doesn't need one?

But an explanation, even one that's scientifically wrong, would give me something to suspend my disbelief on.  It would tell me how it's consistent with the universe it took place in.  It gives it more life than "just go with it" or "gameplay reset" It tels me how this fits into the universe.  you're happy with no explanation, or just making up your own.  I'm happy fro you.  But it's not enough for me.

Modifié par iakus, 19 septembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[marshalleck]

Reaper tech did it

Shepard is Space Terminator's mini-me

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 septembre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

There are plenty of enjoyable works of fiction where the authors took enough pride in their work to not fall back on something as pathetic and degrading as the "rule of cool". 

Gimme one example.

Hundreds or thousands of good science ficiton novels, shorts, etc. 

[100k]

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

There are plenty of enjoyable works of fiction where the authors took enough pride in their work to not fall back on something as pathetic and degrading as the "rule of cool". 

Gimme one example.

Mass Effect 1.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iakus wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

You are stuck with metaphysics. "Death" isn't a supernatural dimension where you are stuck "forever". Death is a name we invented for a state of affairs we recognize in others. It's not beyond belief that this state of affairs can be determined by a variety of variables, and that if some of these variables are not beyond repair, that you can bring someone from what you call "death". This is not magic, nor even an amazing technology "bring back the dead". It's engineering. And Shepard's state of affairs was clearly one that was reversible. Many others we can claim are not. Period. It's not controversial unless you want it to be real bad, and I'm sure that Casey would agree with this statement 100%.

Technology that can bring back the dead, especially someone killed as thoroughly as Shepard, skirts towards Sufficiently Advanced.  At no point in the series do I recall death being viewed as an "engineering problem" by any group besides the Lazarus Project itself.  And maybe the Derelict Reaper.  The presence of death throughout the game, from the genophage to the missing colonies to something as comparatively simple as Thane's Kepral's Syndrome or Nef's death shows that death is still very much final for the rest of the galaxy.  People die.   Other people mourn and move on.  Just like they do today.  Except for Shepard.  For some reason, he dies and comes back.  By means unexplained.  

You know nothing about death. And considering your point of view is from the beggining of the 21st century (and showing to be not very knowable about what we know already) I'd say your point of view is amazingly limited.

The point of view is limited in large part because the game limits it.

I already have. As I said earlier, it's your fault if you were distracted.

You explained your idea, which sounds a like like Shepard was not in fact dead at all.  I explained how, appealing though that may sound, I find it impossible to accept.

Except Lazarus project surely involves medical science that doesn't exist just yet, and it could be very difficult to write a very good text about it. QED I don't know what you are talking about, unless you are referring to the quantum entanglement bit in a roundabout way. Kinda funny. It's a 100% wrong explanation that they give but people are fine with it.

There are explanations for biotics, mass relays, element zero, omnitools, all sorts of devices that can't exist in today's science.  What makes the Lazarus Project so special that it doesn't need one?

But an explanation, even one that's scientifically wrong, would give me something to suspend my disbelief on.  It would tell me how it's consistent with the universe it took place in.  It gives it more life than "just go with it" or "gameplay reset" It tels me how this fits into the universe.  you're happy with no explanation, or just making up your own.  I'm happy fro you.  But it's not enough for me.

And the saddest part is that Bioware didn't need to step on this landmine to tell the story they wanted to tell.  But according to some, it was "cooler" to bring Shep back from the dead.  Oh well. 

And that seems to be what some people are missing -- the difference between something implausible you include because it lets you tell the story you want to tell, and something you include because "IT ROCKS!!!!" 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 19 septembre 2011 - 03:14 .

[dreman9999]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ME1 and  me2 had the same constuction. The only thing missing from ME2 that ME1 had is the invesigation aspect. One story is about finding some one and the other is about getting ready for something. The reason why we had to get the people TIM choose because he was the boss. Also, their is a method to his madness....What would happen if he picked the best of humanity ony on the suicide mission and most of them died? They would not be with humanity to fight the reaper invasion. What would happen if an alian die in the suicide mission? The would not be there to help their race to fight the reaper. Why so something risky with your own stuff and lose it when you can use the samething that belongs to someone elses, wrech it and keep yours? He always humanity first in thinking.

How about the most simplistic question Mass Effect 2 fails to answer; why do we need a team of random badasses? The plot never even attempts to explain this, and the Suicide Missions, fun as it may be, amounts to a series of events that conveniently work out in the most positive scenario plausible. Loyalty itself was essentially an arbitrary flag with no actual basis in the story. Garrus' leadership had no greater effect than Grunt's, nor did either have any influence on Tali's ability to hack a door, but I digress. Point of the matter was in ME2, our final plan was to charge blindly through the Omega 4 Relay and pray to the Reapers Gods, it all works out. We had plenty of time, yet chose to rush on ahead anyway when we still knew nothing about our adversary.

ME1's plot developed, with Shepard as the catalyst to drive it once we acquired the Cipher. ME2's plot did and had neither.

Phaelducan wrote...

Or maybe, just maybe some people can take off the d-bag hat for long enough to move on from a game that came out nearly 2 years ago and stop posting drivel all over the forums.

Seriously, how is one chucklehead posting "fixes" for one of the most successful games of all time productive in the slightest? The game was terrific, and all of you hipster foolio's saying "IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ONLY THEY WOULD LISTEN TO ME!" is both tiring and sophomoric.

Mass Effect 2 was a great game. The few dozen of you whining on these forums don't outweigh the millions who bought and loved it, not to mention the critical lauding it received. Could it use deeper RPG elements and some refined mechanics? Absolutely, and Bioware is addressing that.

Could it be improved by some youtube demagogue's fixes? No (LOL COUGH LOL).... no.

Move along.

Do reviews on Gamespot go into a lengthily analysis specifically on the plot? No, they discuss a plethora of elements pertaining to the overall design and structure of the game as a whole. This encompasses everything from gameplay to the soundtrack. Furthermore, their reviews serve a singular purpose; to answer if the game is worth playing. ME2 most definitely is worthy of our invested interest. The main plot is a mere five to seven hours while the remainder of the game is stellar for better or less. In fact, I would go so far as to cite the plot, "wasted potential" despite my vocal criticism of its many inconsistencies.

There were so many options available to include the Collectors in a meaningful way; make Captain Bailey secretly be transferring Citadel prisoners to Purgatory, where the Warden is making arrangements with the Collectors. In lieu of my own opinions, why couldn't they expand on the virus effecting Omega? So often an intriguing development to connect the story was brought up yet never utilized.

If we measure success purely from fan acclaim and profitability, then you indirectly have called Twilight one of the most successful films this generation. You see why criticism cannot be adhered to finance or a fanbase? We have objective terms designed to critique literature work and use them to debate, regardless if the title in question was loved or loathed.

As I said before...
"What would happen if he picked the best of humanity only on the suicide
mission and most of them died? They would not be with humanity to fight
the reaper invasion. What would happen if an alien die in the suicide
mission? The would not be there to help their race to fight the reaper.
Why so something risky with your own stuff and lose it when you can use
the something that belongs to someone else, wreck it and keep yours?"
The fact remains it's a suicide mission. The collector were so alienated that no info gathering on them is possible. So all they had to do to stop them is to get ready and do a suicide run. And yes, the difference in leader ship is different from Garrus and Grunt. Each character was a specials in their own right. That was the reason we got them. The whole point of the story is to get ready for a mission. You may not see the logic to a suicide run but concept is simple...We are stopping the reapers from getting a strong foot hold and getting as much info and tech from them as possible. We are trying to get as much of an advantage on the up coming war as possible. The reason why we got a team of badasses is because TIM wanted to make sure that the chances of success is high with out using the best of humanity to do it outside of Shepard.

[dreman9999]

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Ashley, a soldier who enters a military  that her family is perminetly black listed in to porve her loyalty and undo her family black mark, feels that joining cerberus, a terroist cell pudlicly disown by the alliance, is being a trator to the alliance.
Kaiden, a soldier who enter the alliance to prove biotics can be helpful to humanity and not to be feared, feels that joining cerberus, a terroist cell pudlicly disown by the alliance, is being a trator to the alliance.

Before you can say what makes sense or a plot whole...Think about the personalities and consept of the character your say is bad first. They may have a reason based on their background to act the way they did.

...what? Did you even read the post?

What post?  About what?

You wrote an argument defending the VS dialogue on Horizon. The post you quoted said nothing about the dialogue.

That was not in question, they were is stasis. Stasis does not do any paralyzed effect after it effect is finished. Collectors put a stasis field on them and move them, it does not mean that after the fields gone they can't move.

The problem was that they were put in stasis right next to where Lillith and the other colonists were, and yet they miraculously were not abducted by the Collectors.

Answer the question; why were they magically overlooked?

Plot conveniance. Stories have a tendancy of having that. Like someone happen to find a rachi egg or Tali just happen to be on the citidel with the data you need at the right time.

It is an example of bad writing, as we aren't given any explanation as to how the VS eluded capture.

Why would they take the VS? Their only goal was to draw Shepard in and try to overwhelm him.

[111987]

dreman9999 wrote...

Why would they take the VS? Their only goal was to draw Shepard in and try to overwhelm him.

No, they had two goals; lure Shepard, and abduct the colony.

The VS is a human, whom we know they are interested in. The Collectors, and Harbinger, were literally a dozen or so feet from the VS. Lillith, who was very close to where the VS fell, was taken.

What, did they forget to pick up the VS?

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Why would they take the VS? Their only goal was to draw Shepard in and try to overwhelm him.

No, they had two goals; lure Shepard, and abduct the colony.

The VS is a human, whom we know they are interested in. The Collectors, and Harbinger, were literally a dozen or so feet from the VS. Lillith, who was very close to where the VS fell, was taken.

What, did they forget to pick up the VS?

Indeed.  Why wouldn't they take the VS?  They took every human they came across on every other world they hit.  Why just wander by and leave the VS there? 

All it would have taken Bioware is to have shown the VS in a running battle, fleeing the seekers, firing on them or flinging them away with biotics... and then CUT, cliffhanger, next scene... and then they appear later. 

(This also has the added effect of upping the VS's "badass cred" for ME3...  )

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

As I said before...
"What would happen if he picked the best of humanity only on the suicide
mission and most of them died? They would not be with humanity to fight
the reaper invasion. What would happen if an alien die in the suicide
mission? The would not be there to help their race to fight the reaper.
Why so something risky with your own stuff and lose it when you can use
the something that belongs to someone else, wreck it and keep yours?"
The fact remains it's a suicide mission. The collector were so alienated that no info gathering on them is possible. So all they had to do to stop them is to get ready and do a suicide run. And yes, the difference in leader ship is different from Garrus and Grunt. Each character was a specials in their own right. That was the reason we got them. The whole point of the story is to get ready for a mission. You may not see the logic to a suicide run but concept is simple...We are stopping the reapers from getting a strong foot hold and getting as much info and tech from them as possible. We are trying to get as much of an advantage on the up coming war as possible. The reason why we got a team of badasses is because TIM wanted to make sure that the chances of success is high with out using the best of humanity to do it outside of Shepard.

It's been my theory that the reason why TIM provided those particular dossiers is they each represented a potential threat to Cerberus i the future.  He was hoping for a major bloodbath and gave Shepard just enough resources to ensure it.

But I believe Bourne's point was why these particular bad****es?  It's a great team for infiltrating a base.  But how did they know that this is what was needed?  How did they know that the cruiser wasn't the Collector version of the Normandy and on teh other side of the relay wasn't the Collector version of Admiral Hackett and the Fifth Fleet?  

Looking at the dossiers, only three stand out as making sense:  Mordin, for expertise in defeating Collector technology.  Okeer for past dealings with the Collectors.  And Tali, a former squadmate of Shepard's.  The rest of the bad****es are thre simply because they're bad****es.

Look at any caper story, Ocean's Eleven for example.  First they figure out what the goal is, then they plan a con, then they recuit and gather the equipment they'll need.  Here they recruited before figuring out the plan, or even the goal.  Well, beyond "Let's go through the relay no one's ever come back from before!"  

That whole situation could have been avoided if Veetor had somehow gotten hold of some Collector data on Freedom's Progress that indicated a base.  Then at least we'd know that TIM was gathering dossiers for an infiltration team, rather than going through his "potential enemies" list.

When Shepard says "If this is a war I'll need an army.  Or a really good team"  I believe that is a literal statement.  He might need an army.  Or a really good team.  Or anything in between.  There is literally no way of knowing what is needed yet.

[Iakus]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Why would they take the VS? Their only goal was to draw Shepard in and try to overwhelm him.

No, they had two goals; lure Shepard, and abduct the colony.

The VS is a human, whom we know they are interested in. The Collectors, and Harbinger, were literally a dozen or so feet from the VS. Lillith, who was very close to where the VS fell, was taken.

What, did they forget to pick up the VS?

Indeed.  Why wouldn't they take the VS?  They took every human they came across on every other world they hit.  Why just wander by and leave the VS there? 

All it would have taken Bioware is to have shown the VS in a running battle, fleeing the seekers, firing on them or flinging them away with biotics... and then CUT, cliffhanger, next scene... and then they appear later. 

(This also has the added effect of upping the VS's "badass cred" for ME3...  )

Or carry off the VS and use him/her as bait for a trap.  Say, allow them to send a distress signal froma so-called "disabled cruiser"...

[Arkitekt]

iakus wrote...


Technology that can bring back the dead, especially someone killed as thoroughly as Shepard, skirts towards Sufficiently Advanced.  At no point in the series do I recall death being viewed as an "engineering problem" by any group besides the Lazarus Project itself.  And maybe the Derelict Reaper.  The presence of death throughout the game, from the genophage to the missing colonies to something as comparatively simple as Thane's Kepral's Syndrome or Nef's death shows that death is still very much final for the rest of the galaxy.  People die.   Other people mourn and move on.  Just like they do today.  Except for Shepard.  For some reason, he dies and comes back.  By means unexplained.  

You love capital letters too much. Death is always an engineering problem. For most, without solution. However, if your body is in a retrievable state of affairs and you have billions of credits to afford, perhaps you are lucky. "By means unexplained" to those without a grain of imagination. It's your loss, you are the one with a big plot hole in your head, while the rest of us are happy with it's present form which is perfectly fine.

The point of view is limited in large part because the game limits it.

Because there's nothing else to say than "it's an excentric overtly complicated engineering medical procedure". You are expecting too much here. And no one knows for what possible gain. If someone had babbled to you some medicalbabble would you be satisfied? Are you this fetiched?

You explained your idea, which sounds a like like Shepard was not in fact dead at all.  I explained how, appealing though that may sound, I find it impossible to accept.

You should be aware that your own acceptance is irrelevant. There are a bunch of possible ideas that make it possible for Shepard's body to have been preserved. If you bother to visit SR1, you would notice how filled with ice the planet is, so there's the hint right there on how the body was preserved. You only bother to "not accept" the obvious truth because you want to. It's your thing. Well, then sure. I'm not going to deconvict anyone from their religious beliefs.

There are explanations for biotics, mass relays, element zero, omnitools, all sorts of devices that can't exist in today's science.  What makes the Lazarus Project so special that it doesn't need one?

That's just the thing. I rather have no explanation at all than a bull**** one. You rather have a bull**** on you than just have the suggestion that some tech (as visually depicted) exists. Is it a form of intellectual masochism? I am really amazed.

But an explanation, even one that's scientifically wrong, would give me something to suspend my disbelief on.  It would tell me how it's consistent with the universe it took place in.  It gives it more life than "just go with it" or "gameplay reset" It tels me how this fits into the universe.  you're happy with no explanation, or just making up your own.  I'm happy fro you.  But it's not enough for me.

Well then, you have some weird neuron connections there. I wonder how you even manage to watch any sci fi movie.

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

There are plenty of enjoyable works of fiction where the authors took enough pride in their work to not fall back on something as pathetic and degrading as the "rule of cool". 

Gimme one example.

Hundreds or thousands of good science ficiton novels, shorts, etc. 

Backtracking already? Not even a movie then?

I asked you then and I ask you now, gimme a ****ing example!

[Sajuro]

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Ah, the Rule of Cool: the notion that consumers should auto lobotomise before enjoying modern media. Ignorance is bliss? Er, no, it isn't.

Rule of Cool rules in every good game and movie. If you hate it, then I really am sorry for your lack of enjoyment in this life.

There are plenty of enjoyable works of fiction where the authors took enough pride in their work to not fall back on something as pathetic and degrading as the "rule of cool". 

Gimme one example.

Hundreds or thousands of good science ficiton novels, shorts, etc. 

Backtracking already? Not even a movie then?

I asked you then and I ask you now, gimme a ****ing example!

A song of Ice and Fire
The Original Starwars (not that they didn't have cool things in them, just that nothing happened because it was cool)