Yes everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But could you give one example were squee was right and smudboy wrong? Or at least give on example were you agree with squee.
around the 9:00 mark, the babylon 5 part. :happy:
starting at 12:57.
I know this was posted a while ago, but I love this argument. He says the resurrection in ME2 was fundamentally flawed becasue, and I quote. "When sci-fi uses death or resurrection There is usually that magical dream like state involving god or a guy that can share his life force with others or whatever. It is almost magical. [in mass effect] we just get jargon that doesn't really tell us how this is possible."
He talks about how there was no soul searching and we don't learn anything knew about the character. They also don't explore the fact he is resurrected more than a few one liners later on. He argues that this very fact makes Shepard's resurrection bad. As if a story CANNOT be good unless the resurrection is done this way. Well... what about these stories?
Lord of the Rings; Gandolf is killed and resurrected. This is not explored more than a 1 page description of how a god brought him back until his job was done. We learn nothing new about his character, there was no soul searching, and no one ever talks about it again except for a few quips here and there. Oh wait... it was a god that did it... must make it ok.
The Matrix; Trinity said she believed and kissed him. That's it. No soul searching, no new character development. True, Neo now accepts he is the one and instantly becomes more bad ass, but we learn nothing new about who he is. There is no metaphysical moment or soul searching or god or anything. Not to mention the resurrection is neither explored or discussed even once the entire rest of the series.
The Princess Bride; Chocolate covered miracle pill. Period. Absolutely no character development, soul searching, god, no trauma to over come, no... well anything! Chocolate covered pill. It also is not talked about again beyond the , "But you were dead!" "Death can not stop true love!"
The Mummy; He was brought back by an ancient mummy curse. The end. No exploration... no character development, no "how did it make you feel?" moments.
None of these movies have the criteria he considers vital for a story to use resurrection properly. They have no dream like moment and no real impact on anyone that can be seen past the immediate scene it is involved in. There was no soul searching after words like, "Holy crap I was dead! How do I feel about this?" And you wanna know the biggest kicker is? The last three movies were movies HE mentioned in his rebuttal as to how resurrection is done right.
The point is, You make not like the resurrection, but to say a story is fundamentally flawed just becasue they did not do it the way you would have done it is utter nonsense. It had nothing to do with the fact he did not like it. It had everything to do with the fact he acted like no story could ever be good unless it was done the way he thinks it should be done.
Jacob: Nothing. No signs of attack. No corpses. Not even a trace of unusual genetic material to give us a clue.
Pre Freedom's Progress.
10:25ish
Your same video and the next question from Shepard.
Official investigators showed up at other colonies first. Freedom's Progress is the first one Cerberus gets there first. Logical conclusion? Freedom's progress is where they get a Seeker Bug.
Edit: No plot hole.
Had to say it.
Next question: At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?
Edit: Just wanted to add, All they mention getting is the data from the omnitool and possibly Veetor himself
Smudboy's name gets dropped in a thread title and the next day that thread has 18 pages, this has to only fuel his ego.
He's the equivalent of the Turian Councillor from ME (for me anyways).
He loads his criticism with just enough hyperbole and arrogance to irritate but wraps it around with just enough truth to avoid from being seen as totally ignorant and stupid. <_<
All that, without pointing out ANY points he got wrong. But i guess attacking the person is easier than coming up with proof he's wrong.
*headdesks*
That's because I AM criticizing smudboy and not his arguments. I leave his "points" to people like spiffy and Phaedon to deal with. I'm criticizing his god awful presentation and the lack of balance within his arguments. He speaks the truth in some cases but it ALWAYS gets ruined by his belief that he's ALWAYS right and whatever he can't figure out by himself, he instantly equates it as a mistake on Bioware's part. I'm sorry but to me that's a terrible critic.
But hey... it's easy to believe that smudboy know more about the ME universe than the creators of ME themselves. After all, just look at smudboy's BRILLIANT alternative for ME2! Pure genius,..
INB4 he replys with you can't dispute what he says so your stupid.
Actually, as far as storytelling goes, yeah, it does.
If they don't tell us at some point "Cerberus has been trying to find a way through the Omega IV Relay" then Cerberus has not been trying to find a way through the Omega IV Relay.
If they don't tell us that Cerberus found the remains of a Seeker drone, then Cerberus did not find the remains of a Seeker drone, and we've got a bit of a plot continuity problem.
If EDI doesn't tell us the Collector ship is a trap, then Shepard just had a run a really bad luck there.
If TIM doesn't confirm to Shepard that he spread rumors that Shepard's working for Cerberus, then the confrontation with the VS is even more weird and awkard than it already was.
Its little details like thhis that make a story come alive, and not just an excuse to shoot things.
Sure, but it's not that much of a stretch of the mind to assume that Cerberus is looking for a way through the Omega 4 relay. You know. The whole reason why Shepard is gathering a team to begin with. Which is not going to help anything if they can't find something that can help them accomplish that goal.
To think that Cerberus is just twiddling their thumbs while Shepard is doing all this is just ludicrous.
Then they'd be worthless the second we get the dossiers.
Jacob: Nothing. No signs of attack. No corpses. Not even a trace of unusual genetic material to give us a clue.
Pre Freedom's Progress.
10:25ish
Your same video and the next question from Shepard.
Official investigators showed up at other colonies first. Freedom's Progress is the first one Cerberus gets there first. Logical conclusion? Freedom's progress is where they get a Seeker Bug.
Edit: No plot hole.
Had to say it.
Next question: At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?
It would be somewhat silly if the game had to tell us EVERYTHING wouldn't it? They don't tell us where Shepard get's his new weapons for the Freedom's Progress mission, but does that make it a plot hole?
Some things you just have to make assumptions because a game can't explain everything in excruciating detail. Would it have killed bioware to write in a line about where the seeker came from? No. Is it a game-breaking plot hole? No
Jacob: Nothing. No signs of attack. No corpses. Not even a trace of unusual genetic material to give us a clue.
Pre Freedom's Progress.
10:25ish
Your same video and the next question from Shepard.
Official investigators showed up at other colonies first. Freedom's Progress is the first one Cerberus gets there first. Logical conclusion? Freedom's progress is where they get a Seeker Bug.
Edit: No plot hole.
Had to say it.
Next question: At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?
Edit: Just wanted to add, All they mention getting is the data from the omnitool and possibly Veetor himself
Thats my favorite part. If it didn't happen on screen then it obviously doesn't happen. Oh but Smudboy's counter to this is that its not our jobs to write it in its their jobs. Because you know having some imagination is doing a Bioware writer's job
It would be somewhat silly if the game had to tell us EVERYTHING wouldn't it? They don't tell us where Shepard get's his new weapons for the Freedom's Progress mission, but does that make it a plot hole?
Some things you just have to make assumptions because a game can't explain everything in excruciating detail. Would it have killed bioware to write in a line about where the seeker came from? No. Is it a game-breaking plot hole? No
It'd be like if the game assumes that the players can't think for themselves, and that would be a little insulting.
Sure, but it's not that much of a stretch of the mind to assume that Cerberus is looking for a way through the Omega 4 relay. You know. The whole reason why Shepard is gathering a team to begin with. Which is not going to help anything if they can't find something that can help them accomplish that goal.
To think that Cerberus is just twiddling their thumbs while Shepard is doing all this is just ludicrous.
Then they'd be worthless the second we get the dossiers.
Thus it could have been fixed with a simple line or two:
"We're still looking for a way through the Omega IV Relay. But none of our probes have been successful yet."
And getting the dossiers before we know what we're facing is ludicrous. Just imagine if there had been a Collector planet, complete with a fleet, orbital defenses, A solor system full of bases, etc.
Yes everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But could you give one example were squee was right and smudboy wrong? Or at least give on example were you agree with squee.
around the 9:00 mark, the babylon 5 part. :happy:
starting at 12:57.
I know this was posted a while ago, but I love this argument. He says the resurrection in ME2 was fundamentally flawed becasue, and I quote. "When sci-fi uses death or resurrection There is usually that magical dream like state involving god or a guy that can share his life force with others or whatever. It is almost magical. [in mass effect] we just get jargon that doesn't really tell us how this is possible."
He talks about how there was no soul searching and we don't learn anything knew about the character. They also don't explore the fact he is resurrected more than a few one liners later on. He argues that this very fact makes Shepard's resurrection bad. As if a story CANNOT be good unless the resurrection is done this way. Well... what about these stories?
You've got alot of problems in here...
Lord of the Rings; Gandolf is killed and resurrected. This is not explored more than a 1 page description of how a god brought him back until his job was done. We learn nothing new about his character, there was no soul searching, and no one ever talks about it again except for a few quips here and there. Oh wait... it was a god that did it... must make it ok.
Except you're ignoring the period of time he's off screen, and whatever communication that may have occurred that precluded the need to soul search.
The Matrix; Trinity said she believed and kissed him. That's it. No soul searching, no new character development. True, Neo now accepts he is the one and instantly becomes more bad ass, but we learn nothing new about who he is. There is no metaphysical moment or soul searching or god or anything. Not to mention the resurrection is neither explored or discussed even once the entire rest of the series.
You're ignoring the period of time that occurs between the first and second movie that could have contained the soul searching.
The Princess Bride; Chocolate covered miracle pill. Period. Absolutely no character development, soul searching, god, no trauma to over come, no... well anything! Chocolate covered pill. It also is not talked about again beyond the , "But you were dead!" "Death can not stop true love!"
You're ignoring the fact that there was an immediate emergency to attend to, and the story ends a couple hours later without the period of time that would permit him to relax and soul-search.
The Mummy; He was brought back by an ancient mummy curse. The end. No exploration... no character development, no "how did it make you feel?" moments.
You're ignoring the fact that he knew it could be done, and knew how it could be done, not really leaving any room for "What happened?", since he already knew the answers to that question.
None of these movies have the criteria he considers vital for a story to use resurrection properly. They have no dream like moment and no real impact on anyone that can be seen past the immediate scene it is involved in. There was no soul searching after words like, "Holy crap I was dead! How do I feel about this?" And you wanna know the biggest kicker is? The last three movies were movies HE mentioned in his rebuttal as to how resurrection is done right.
That's because all of the movies you're referencing leave large blocks of time that can contain those moments offscreen, something you're not accounting for.
The point is, You make not like the resurrection, but to say a story is fundamentally flawed just becasue they did not do it the way you would have done it is utter nonsense. It had nothing to do with the fact he did not like it. It had everything to do with the fact he acted like no story could ever be good unless it was done the way he thinks it should be done.
Actually, ME2's story is pretty nonsensical on this topic.
"What happened?" "You were dead." "How am I alive?" "We spent alot of money resurecting you, don't worry, we didn't do anything to you in the process I swear"
And that's it. No "How?", No reflecting on the event, not even wondering why he's got glowing scars if "Nothing was done to him". Just, "Oh, ok", as if the answer to his question was "We put a bandaid on it". Never mind the fact that Garrus, Tali, Liara, Ashley, and everyone else just shrugs as well, despite the fact that this is apparently completely unheard of.
I'm not sure how much bigger plot holes get, I can't think of any examples that are larger in any media.
Next question: At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?
Edit: Just wanted to add, All they mention getting is the data from the omnitool and possibly Veetor himself
Answer: None of them. You do know it's possible a Cerberus team could have maybe gone in after Shepard and retreived a Seeker bug and more data? Or they simply didn't show when Shepard got it.
The basic answers have been answered to how they got a Seeker Bug without the above and can draw conlusions based off that. It didn't just come out of no where. This can be drawn out forever until you got an "Aha! Can't exactly explain that can you! Plot hole." However, no one playing the game for the first time or second is going to analyse that much in the first place. It's explained: They collected samples and collector data from colonies. Samples and data which could have included a Seeker Bug.
If you go deeper:
They didn't find anything at other sites before Freedom's Progress. They must have got it at Freedom's Progress
If you go deeper (what if they didn't?):
What I said above and now that I think about, there's other colonies after Freedom's Progress and before Horizon that get attacked if I remember correctly (news thingies). Cerberus could have found a seeker bug there. Mordin did want more samples after all.
I really cannot believe someone really is so concerned about this. He says his opinion the same way steven hawkins does, as if its a matter of fact. I hate people like that. god I want to punch this guy in the face
Someone makes a negative video about Mass Effect 2 and you want to punch him in the face? Get some help, you have anger problems.
opinions are different. When you say them like ' my opinions are fact. my opinions are all that masters. what you say doesn't matter' That makes me want to harm people. Anger problems... yes, I do. especially to people like that.
It's funny. I know threads always repeat themselves after 18 months on BSN, but I swear we've had this thread about a hundred times with almost he exact same people. In fact, the responses are so identical, I bet we all know exactly how the other guy is going to respond before we post our own response.
In fact, didn't I post this exact same post the last time we did this thread? Is this groundhog day? Are we caught in a time loop.
Lord of the Rings; Gandolf is killed and resurrected. This is not explored more than a 1 page description of how a god brought him back until his job was done. We learn nothing new about his character, there was no soul searching, and no one ever talks about it again except for a few quips here and there. Oh wait... it was a god that did it... must make it ok.
Tolkien packed a lot into that one page. Gandalf was far more than a white-haired magician, and this proves it. He's back as Saruman as he should have been. As demonstrated by his confrontation with Saruman.
The Matrix; Trinity said she believed and kissed him. That's it. No soul searching, no new character development. True, Neo now accepts he is the one and instantly becomes more bad ass, but we learn nothing new about who he is. There is no metaphysical moment or soul searching or god or anything. Not to mention the resurrection is neither explored or discussed even once the entire rest of the series.
This is true, and I never liked that scene. It was a weak ending to the story.
The Princess Bride; Chocolate covered miracle pill. Period. Absolutely no character development, soul searching, god, no trauma to over come, no... well anything! Chocolate covered pill. It also is not talked about again beyond the , "But you were dead!" "Death can not stop true love!"
This was a parody story, done for laughs. The fact that the movie version of Miracle Max is played by Billy Crystal should speak volumes:lol:
The Mummy; He was brought back by an ancient mummy curse. The end. No exploration... no character development, no "how did it make you feel?" moments.
Most mummy versions I'm familiar with involve an obsession with finding a lost love, or the reincarnation therof. Said mummy is not typically wehat one would call "rational"
None of these movies have the criteria he considers vital for a story to use resurrection properly. They have no dream like moment and no real impact on anyone that can be seen past the immediate scene it is involved in. There was no soul searching after words like, "Holy crap I was dead! How do I feel about this?" And you wanna know the biggest kicker is? The last three movies were movies HE mentioned in his rebuttal as to how resurrection is done right.
The Matrix is also the only one which involved the main protagonist. As I said, I didn't like how that death was handled.
That being said, there are very few stories that involve death and ressurection that I consider done well. But in this case I think that even Star Trek did it better
The point is, You make not like the resurrection, but to say a story is fundamentally flawed just becasue they did not do it the way you would have done it is utter nonsense. It had nothing to do with the fact he did not like it. It had everything to do with the fact he acted like no story could ever be good unless it was done the way he thinks it should be done.
What made it bad was they introduced it then ignored it. It just happened, then they moved on to shooting mercs.Ressurection is something special, momentous, every bit as life altering as death itself. And it was treated like a speed bump.
"When the hero of the galaxy comes back from the dead, that should mean something, to him and everyone who knew him and what he did. Not just get disscounts at stores"
It's funny. I know threads always repeat themselves after 18 months on BSN, but I swear we've had this thread about a hundred times with almost he exact same people. In fact, the responses are so identical, I bet we all know exactly how the other guy is going to respond before we post our own response.
In fact, didn't I post this exact same post the last time we did this thread? Is this groundhog day? Are we caught in a time loop.
It's funny. I know threads always repeat themselves after 18 months on BSN, but I swear we've had this thread about a hundred times with almost he exact same people. In fact, the responses are so identical, I bet we all know exactly how the other guy is going to respond before we post our own response.
In fact, didn't I post this exact same post the last time we did this thread? Is this groundhog day? Are we caught in a time loop.
I need to go lie down.
I know that you know I was going to post this post in response to your post about knowing what people would post next.
iakus wrote... Next question: At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?
Edit: Just wanted to add, All they mention getting is the data from the omnitool and possibly Veetor himself
They take scans of weapons and then reproduce the weapons on the Normandy. Why couldn't Mordin create a seeker bug using Veetor's scans?
And that is a completely valid explanation. But Shepard doesn't say they have "scans", or "data" they have "samples" that they "collected from one of the colonies".
It may not be a plot hole, but at the very least it's sloppy writing.
iakus wrote... Next question: At what point on Freedom's Progress did Miranda, Jacob, SHepard or even Veetor say "Hey look! Defunct Seeker bug!"?
Edit: Just wanted to add, All they mention getting is the data from the omnitool and possibly Veetor himself
They take scans of weapons and then reproduce the weapons on the Normandy. Why couldn't Mordin create a seeker bug using Veetor's scans?
And that is a completely valid explanation. But Shepard doesn't say they have "scans", or "data" they have "samples" that they "collected from one of the colonies".
It may not be a plot hole, but at the very least it's sloppy writing.
Shepard does have Veetor's omni tool data though, which did take scans of the Collectors and the Seeker Swarms.
So yes, while that could have been written much clearer, it can be reasoned out.
So... most of the examples he gave for how a proper resurrection should be done does not show any of these needed traits... but it's ok becasue it possibly could have maybe been done off camera without any reference for us on camera... Wow... Ok... lets run with that. You don't see Shepard every second of every day. You don't see what takes place during the time it takes to travel between locations, or when he sleeps, or when he eats. It might have all been handled during that time, so problem solved right? Shepard did all the soul searching need for a proper resurrection during the off camera moments. Huzzah! We have made a break through!!!
Actually, ME2's story is pretty nonsensical on this topic.
"What happened?" "You were dead." "How am I alive?" "We spent alot of money resurecting you, don't worry, we didn't do anything to you in the process I swear"
And that's it. No "How?", No reflecting on the event, not even wondering why he's got glowing scars if "Nothing was done to him". Just, "Oh, ok", as if the answer to his question was "We put a bandaid on it". Never mind the fact that Garrus, Tali, Liara, Ashley, and everyone else just shrugs as well, despite the fact that this is apparently completely unheard of.
I'm not sure how much bigger plot holes get, I can't think of any examples that are larger in any media.
That's not a plot hole. It's just something they decided to not talk about.
Considering that the universe has the technology to alter people on a genetic level, give them brain implants and clone whole beings, correct injuries with cybernetic surgery as well as restore cells to their original functionality, I don't think bringing someone back from the dead is something to discuss through the entire game.
Sure, it's a great medical achievement and it could've been touched upon a little more, but it's not something I'd cry about if they left that out. Because it does almost nothing to advance the story.
Lord of the Rings; Gandolf is killed and resurrected. This is not explored more than a 1 page description of how a god brought him back until his job was done. We learn nothing new about his character, there was no soul searching, and no one ever talks about it again except for a few quips here and there. Oh wait... it was a god that did it... must make it ok.
Tolkien packed a lot into that one page. Gandalf was far more than a white-haired magician, and this proves it. He's back as Saruman as he should have been. As demonstrated by his confrontation with Saruman.
The Matrix; Trinity said she believed and kissed him. That's it. No soul searching, no new character development. True, Neo now accepts he is the one and instantly becomes more bad ass, but we learn nothing new about who he is. There is no metaphysical moment or soul searching or god or anything. Not to mention the resurrection is neither explored or discussed even once the entire rest of the series.
This is true, and I never liked that scene. It was a weak ending to the story.
The Princess Bride; Chocolate covered miracle pill. Period. Absolutely no character development, soul searching, god, no trauma to over come, no... well anything! Chocolate covered pill. It also is not talked about again beyond the , "But you were dead!" "Death can not stop true love!"
This was a parody story, done for laughs. The fact that the movie version of Miracle Max is played by Billy Crystal should speak volumes:lol:
The Mummy; He was brought back by an ancient mummy curse. The end. No exploration... no character development, no "how did it make you feel?" moments.
Most mummy versions I'm familiar with involve an obsession with finding a lost love, or the reincarnation therof. Said mummy is not typically wehat one would call "rational"
None of these movies have the criteria he considers vital for a story to use resurrection properly. They have no dream like moment and no real impact on anyone that can be seen past the immediate scene it is involved in. There was no soul searching after words like, "Holy crap I was dead! How do I feel about this?" And you wanna know the biggest kicker is? The last three movies were movies HE mentioned in his rebuttal as to how resurrection is done right.
The Matrix is also the only one which involved the main protagonist. As I said, I didn't like how that death was handled.
That being said, there are very few stories that involve death and ressurection that I consider done well. But in this case I think that even Star Trek did it better
The point is, You make not like the resurrection, but to say a story is fundamentally flawed just becasue they did not do it the way you would have done it is utter nonsense. It had nothing to do with the fact he did not like it. It had everything to do with the fact he acted like no story could ever be good unless it was done the way he thinks it should be done.
What made it bad was they introduced it then ignored it. It just happened, then they moved on to shooting mercs.Ressurection is something special, momentous, every bit as life altering as death itself. And it was treated like a speed bump.
"When the hero of the galaxy comes back from the dead, that should mean something, to him and everyone who knew him and what he did. Not just get disscounts at stores"
Smudboy
I have no real disagreements with you here, but none of this helps Smudboy's arguments. He lists what a proper resurrection SHOULD have and then proceeds to list movies that have few or none of these things. The sad part is, Your argument (that took a few minutes to write up) has a heck of a lot more validity than his did. Also, you don't go around saying that every story is automatically bad becasue resurrection was not handled the way you think it should.
One of the reason I enjoy debating with you. I don't expect people to see eye to eye with me, but you never treat me like an idiot just becasue of that, and you try your best to let people know these are opinions.
Thus it could have been fixed with a simple line or two:
"We're still looking for a way through the Omega IV Relay. But none of our probes have been successful yet."
And getting the dossiers before we know what we're facing is ludicrous. Just imagine if there had been a Collector planet, complete with a fleet, orbital defenses, A solor system full of bases, etc.
Shepard: Well, this was a colossal waste of time.
Well, then we'd have needed a lot more than just Cerberus, don't you think?
Preparing for an eventual situation is not a waste of time.
Did what you asked. Had to go through a full playthrough video postings to get a good feeling of the events around "the bug."
Anyways here's the highlights:
9:40ish is a good place to start. Mordin starts rambling about how the collectors could have kidnapped so many people. Shepard paragon interrupts and explains:
"You don't have to sit there and guess. We collected samples from one of the Colonies. I'd like you to analyse them and figure out how the Collectors did this."
Never seen what happens when Mordin is not paragon interrupted.
Then some mordin dialogue:
7:50ish "I just need nee more samples. More Collector data, tissue samples. Anything you can get, I can use. Find new tech."
Suggesting they have organic collector tissue among other things. To be fair It doesn't refer to a seeker bug specifically, but it does show that Cerberus collected varying amounts of samples from the colonies. Some of it organic.
It doesn't need to say "we found a seeker bug on x planet," because the importance of the bug is only known to the player ahead of time (if we played through game already, thus metagaming). The samples collected could have easily included a seeker bug and doesn't have to be explained completely in great detail. The fact is there's supporting evidence of how they obtained collector tech and samples in the game with dialogue. Imagine if the writers explained every little detail about every small aspect of the game, it would be pretty convuluted wouldn't it? Not a plot hole.
Samples could be any number of things. On Freedom's Progress, Jacob and Miranda are surprised the Collectors are even active. They had never seen them prior, in fact TIM only speculated their involvement and wanted Shepard to investigate. So how could Cerberus have done recon when even TIM was relying on a hunch he felt only Shepard could verify? Iakus already touched on how the plot contradicts itself when supposedly there was nothing ever found on any other colony. Of course we know that is nonsense since the Collectors leave giant smoking craters when their mountain of a ship lets off its rocket boosters. ME2 is not big on consistency.
That bold portion is why this is a plot hole, as this would be a blatant omission from the story, which is the definition of the term. You are speculating Shepard is referencing to a seeker bug. For argument sake though, presume you were correct. BioWare is consequently guilty of a rather significant oversight graphical. We never see this seeker despite passing through his lab a half a dozen times.
So it's sloppy something.
Edit: Example:
*Mordin rambles*
*Paragon interrupt*
Shepard: "You don't have to sit there and guess. We collected samples from one of the Colonies. I'd like you to analyse them and figure out how the Collectors did this. Some of the samples are dead Collector bodies, which were found in a sewer which must have been left behind in the attack because the Collectors couldn't find them. We made them into a Collector Armor which I will allow you to borrow from time to time. We also found this bug, which seems like it will be really important to your research later. So make sure you focus on it a lot. Not sure how they forgot this one. Must have been caught in a small room so our Cerberus agents could find it. He was a pesky one and hard to catch, but they got him."
Mordin: "Get it Shepard. Many samples. Focus on important seeker bug."
Player: "Get on with it!"
How about?
Shepard: "We managed to recover some sort of bug from Freedom's Progress." Mordin: "Odd, collectors rarely sloppy. Never leave anything behind." Jacob: "A Quarian there turned the mechs loose" Mordin: "Ah, okay, got it. Will analysis. See what I come up with. Which why to the Lab?"
Now since that would change things slightly on Freedom's progress, Jacob can also say, "It looks like it was shot down" speculating one of the colonists shot at them. See? Nice and simple, solves a plot hole in two sentences.
I have a done some rewrites and have various ideas in that regard, such as combining Garrus and Mordin's recruitment mission to spark conflict and plot continuality. Once instance I thought to have the Warden on Purgatory making transactions with the Collectors, which was rumored and leads to our investigation where we learn Captain Bailey has been supplying the Warden prisoners by tighten restrictions on the Ward regulations. My original intent was to provide an out for Garrus, who could be recommended to replace Bailey however the principle point was this keeps the Collectors fresh while we deal with recruitment and loyalty missions. Keep in mind that was one sample, and a cliff note version.
Below are my rewrites for Cerberus railroading and Horizon, and Iakus, you may like the latter.
Cerberus Railroading "In lieu of being killed, Shepard is knocked back into the Normandy's body where escape pods would be accessible. This does not necessarily have to be presented on camera, merely having Shepard thrown toward them would suffice. The remainder of the opening continues, with additional dialogue from Miranda highlighting that Shepard activated the pods' emergence stasis to preserve vital organs in hopes of being rescued.
Moving ahead when TIM presents the idea of joining Cerberus, Shepard remains skeptical, even after Freedom's Progress. TIM's responds by telling Shepard to visit the Citadel and see for him/herself that no one is doing anything about the abducted colonies. We then have a more heated debate with the Council, and Shepard expresses varying emotions depending on player choice, one would even be possible doubt in the Reapers but again it is entirely player chosen. Anderson will then reinforce the drive needed, retaining his mentor role from ME, Miranda will work in a shot about the incompetency of the Alliance and we are off to join Cerberus.
We can now press TIM for answers and he reveals Cerberus is actually derived of three completely different branches, it is not only further insinuated they operate on their own chain of command but that he may not have direct control over them. This may or may not be accurate, however it provides a possible outlet to trusting Cerberus, at least for now.
What this accomplishes is making it appear that the Cerberus Shepard encountered was a different branch than who (s)he is now cooperating with. Furthermore, we have acknowledge how Shepard was rebuilt, allowed Paragon Shepards and Sole Survivors the opportunity to call out Cerberus and discover for themselves that they are indeed the only ones willing to do anything. This may not be perfect per se but is a consistent narrative, which addresses all the required variables in the plot. It also removes the nonsense of spending billions to revive Shepard, since it would be considerably less expensive to bring a body out of stasis. Frankly, that mention is BioWare attempting to sell impact."
Horizon My solution would be to have the VS actually be abducted and the Collector Ship infiltration follow immediately from Horizon. We do this by having the Normandy assault the ship alongside Horizon's turret guns, which partially cripple some its defenses and blows a hole in, thereby allowing Shepard and crew to board them. While we investigate, we discover intel about a supposed IFF that EDI uploads and the mission plays similar to how it is presently. The exception being Shepard is eventually cut off from the squad. In this brief run we are led to the Collector General, likely as a hologram. It has a temporary moment of conscious thought reminiscent to Lady Benezia and can speak to Shepard through the Cipher, not only directly tying the two games together but making Shepard plot integral. I would even float with the notion this is not the first exchange, and Shepard has been having similar visions, hearing the General's voice in previous instances. Regardless, it explains either now or earlier on that it wants to be euthanized to put to rest centuries of suffering. It also reveals the Collectors were Protheans, not EDI, and we can press on about its people before and after the Reaper invasion.
After this conversation we discover the VS and they join the party as a temporary squad mate as we fight our way back to the shuttle. When aboard the Normandy we can talk to them about Cerberus, why we are working together, allow them to take whatever intel they desire, or not depending on player choice, and develop the romance some. VS is then dropped off at the Citadel, having to report to Anderson and still not able to abandon the Alliance even for Shepard but wishes them well.
It may not be perfect however it addresses key elements the current plot never bothered to. The VS no longer is an utter moron, and we are allotted an opportunity to explain to them why Cerberus is in fact helping, at least for now. Why I brought the General into the plot is because I felt he was underutilized. This would keep Harbinger in a more obscure role, similar to Sovereign. Likewise the exchange gives a tragic aspect to the Collectors and since we can learn more about them, it makes the reveal of their mutation all the more impactful. Referencing back to the cipher establishes continuality between the two games, something that was sourly absent in ME2. It does not make it mandatory to have played ME1 however as one of the visions could reiterate how the Cipher was acquired to help fill in new players.
This also removes the awful scene where TIM betrays you, which makes absolutely no sense. Likewise, infiltrating in this manner would make Harbinger's actions more plausible. One of my qualms with the Collector Ship was how he could not manage to kill three soldiers when he sprung a trap for them. Well in this scenario him being unprepared makes it believable.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 29 août 2011 - 01:31 .
It may not be a plot hole, but at the very least it's sloppy writing.
Well, we should at least agree that you have much higher standards for video game writing than I have.
My only criticism of the criticism of the ME writing is that it seems to go after little stuff that I don't think 99% of people even notice instead of focusing on the real problems with the writing. Smud's obsession has to be unhealthy.
Almost no one cares where they got the seeker - I can even understand why they wouldn't explain things down to that level of detail in a video game that plays like an 80s space opera - but everyone cares that the main plot of ME2 ran out of gas 2/3 of the way through the game. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why the Collectors were doing what they were doing when they were doing it. Were we meant to be left still pondering that?
I think we don't focus on the big stuff because there's too much agreement and there's nothing to argue about.
Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 29 août 2011 - 01:22 .
Ce sujet est fermé
But could you give one example were squee was right and smudboy wrong? Or at least give on example were you agree with squee.
Retour en haut
