6494 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

How is that important?

"Hey, Shepard. We sent probes through that thing, but they never came back."

That gives us exactly nothing new. We already knew that nothing comes back through the relay, which is why we're trying to find a way to make it there intact. I don't think the probes could make it through the debris fields and pass the Oculi in one piece.

It tells us that TIM is still doing something.  That Cerberus is researching a way to get something through and back again, and that there is in fact a point to Shepard recruiting a team before there's even a way to get to the objective let alone learning what the objective is.

Well to be perfectly fair, the Illusive Man does explicitly state (I think it's after Horizon) that "I'm diverting all resources to finding a way through the Omega 4 relay."  I would think that "all resources" includes things like probes, along with simulations and such.

[Iakus]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Meh, that is an opinion I can't argue I guess, but I personally didn't need it. The story was not about Shepard and his trauma. It was about the world around him.

Actually, the devs have been saying that this trilogy is "Shepard's story" and the third game will complete the arc.  So I'd argue that this game is, or should have been, very much about Shepard and the trauma, as well as the world(s) around him.  But in this game, Shep's basically a guest star in his own story. 

[100k]

iakus wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Meh, that is an opinion I can't argue I guess, but I personally didn't need it. The story was not about Shepard and his trauma. It was about the world around him.

Actually, the devs have been saying that this trilogy is "Shepard's story" and the third game will complete the arc.  So I'd argue that this game is, or should have been, very much about Shepard and the trauma, as well as the world(s) around him.  But in this game, Shep's basically a guest star in his own story. 

It wouldn't have been difficult for them to implement both the overarching plot of the Collector-Reaper threat, and a sub plot involving Shepard's personal feelings about death, revival, possibly religion (if you were religious in ME1), and his love life.

Hopefully we'll see a bit more of this in ME3.

[111987]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

iakus wrote...

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.

Let's just say I have a higher standard for Bioware writing.  They were always a cut above the others. Until 2009 at least.

The Seeker, by itself, is not a big deal.  Mainly it's an "oops" moment.  But yes, the overall plot in ME2 felt half-baked.  Less a story in its own right than a checklist for ME3.  That is the big failing in the story.  We don't know what the Collectors' were ultimately planning, why they needed Shepard's body (or how Cerberus managed to ressurect him for that matter), or what Shepard ultimately accomplished in stopping them (though to hear Harbringer describe it, nothing)

Then there's Smudboy's own "what the hell is 'the essence of a species'?" question

ME2:  Killing Time Until the Reapers Get Here 

In a way though, the second part of a trilogy is almost intended to set up the final, concluding chapter. A lot of what was brought up in Mass Effect 2 will (hopefully) impact Mass Effect 3 in a huge way. It set up the Quarian/Geth situation and the Krogan situation (traditional vs. non-traditional leadership, saving the genophage data or destroying it), These three things in Mass Effect 2 will have an ENORMOUS impact on Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect also had three significant choices (Rachni Queen, Council, Councillor), so it's not like Mass Effect 2 wasn't important in the overall story of the trilogy.

We know what the Collector's ultimate plan was; begin construction on the Human-Reaper. We also know why the Collector's wanted Shepard's body, although to be fair the dialogue was found by modding the game so that is a legitimate complaint, UNLESS it is addressed in Mass Effect 3 (just an fyi, they wanted to study Shepard's body due to his exposure to the Prothean beacons and the Thorian).

We also know what Shepard accomplished in destroying them; it set back the Reaper's work on completing the Human-Reaper, stopped Collector attacks on humans, and removed a powerful ally for the Reapers to use in the war. Not to mention the stalling their arrival, giving the galaxy further time to prepare.

[bduff4545]

SpiffySquee wrote...

bduff4545 wrote...

hey squee...did you really do a live ME2 broadcast with smudboy

I tried really hard to! I do something called Mass Effect With Friends where every 2 hours I have a different viewer call all the shots. (just to see what we end up with at the end of the saga)
I invited him as a guest and he agreed. We even said that we would just talk about the game and not each others videos. But when the night came he never showed up. Messaged me 3 hours later saying he was busy playing Star Craft 2. (made everyone watching the stream sit there doing nothing while I waited)

Rude? yeah, but I just told it it was fine and to let me know when he wanted to do it so that we could sync up to his schedule. the man never messaged me back.

Would have been nice, but I have a waiting list of people who actually want to take part instead of standing me up for Star craft.

Why did he wait until last minute to do that and do you still do that ME with friends.

[Iakus]

100k wrote...

It wouldn't have been difficult for them to implement both the overarching plot of the Collector-Reaper threat, and a sub plot involving Shepard's personal feelings about death, revival, possibly religion (if you were religious in ME1), and his love life.

Hopefully we'll see a bit more of this in ME3.

So instead they did neither, and focused on the squadmates instead?  Odd way to do a middle chapter 

[Iakus]

Bah, response got eaten, trying again:

111987 wrote...

In a way though, the second part of a trilogy is almost intended to set up the final, concluding chapter. A lot of what was brought up in Mass Effect 2 will (hopefully) impact Mass Effect 3 in a huge way. It set up the Quarian/Geth situation and the Krogan situation (traditional vs. non-traditional leadership, saving the genophage data or destroying it), These three things in Mass Effect 2 will have an ENORMOUS impact on Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect also had three significant choices (Rachni Queen, Council, Councillor), so it's not like Mass Effect 2 wasn't important in the overall story of the trilogy.

True, but ME 1 was also a story that could stand on its own.  Me2 looks like it's going to require ME3 to feel complete and make sense.

We know what the Collector's ultimate plan was; begin construction on the Human-Reaper. We also know why the Collector's wanted Shepard's body, although to be fair the dialogue was found by modding the game so that is a legitimate complaint, UNLESS it is addressed in Mass Effect 3 (just an fyi, they wanted to study Shepard's body due to his exposure to the Prothean beacons and the Thorian).

We know what the Collectors were doing, but not why.  Was the Reaper to be a new Vanguard?  An experiment?  A secret weapon?  Something entirely different?  And the timing is odd, given the Reapers were still years away when teh Collectors started.

We also know what Shepard accomplished in destroying them; it set back the Reaper's work on completing the Human-Reaper, stopped Collector attacks on humans, and removed a powerful ally for the Reapers to use in the war. Not to mention the stalling their arrival, giving the galaxy further time to prepare.

Stopping the abductions for it s own sake is a good thing.  So is destroying the Reaper.  But what did that accomplish, bug-picture wise?  I find it something of a relief that Shepard can ask Liara pretty much the same question in LOTSB.  As far as we know, this changes nothing for the Reapers.  It doesn't even slow them down, as Arrival is a seperate dlc mission.

The Collectors are a useful ally of the Reapers, but hardly a powerful one.  For all their tech, they rely on secrecy and ambush tactics to be effective.  They have one ship and one base.  The Reapers will hardly need them when they get here and start...Reaping...

Modifié par iakus, 29 août 2011 - 04:53 .

[SpiffySquee]

bduff4545 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

bduff4545 wrote...

hey squee...did you really do a live ME2 broadcast with smudboy

I tried really hard to! I do something called Mass Effect With Friends where every 2 hours I have a different viewer call all the shots. (just to see what we end up with at the end of the saga)
I invited him as a guest and he agreed. We even said that we would just talk about the game and not each others videos. But when the night came he never showed up. Messaged me 3 hours later saying he was busy playing Star Craft 2. (made everyone watching the stream sit there doing nothing while I waited)

Rude? yeah, but I just told it it was fine and to let me know when he wanted to do it so that we could sync up to his schedule. the man never messaged me back.

Would have been nice, but I have a waiting list of people who actually want to take part instead of standing me up for Star craft.

Why did he wait until last minute to do that and do you still do that ME with friends.

My honest opinion?
Shortly after agreeing to do it, I asked him a question about one of his rebuttals. He claimed if you google "When is it ok to kill a protagonist" you will see 14 (I think, don't remember the exact number) articles and none of them recommend resurrecting someone. I read all of them. 1 said it was not a good idea, 1 said it could be a good thing, and the rest never even touched on the subject.

Iasked him about it and said that he should re-word what he said becasue saying none of them recommend it was
a. false since one said it could be a good thing
b. misleading because it leads the viewer to think the articles had negative thoughts on the matter when they never said what they thought about it.

I said this was an unfair way to argue things since we both know most people will never read those articles. He told me to stop putting words in his mouth or we were done. After that the only times I ever talked to him was when he messaged me 3 hours after not showing up. I think what I said upset him.

Yes I still do Mass Effect with Friends. I start at the beginning of the first game and We are about half way through the second. 
http://www.youtube.c...21212522C272E9B
http://www.youtube.c...F6C101D1B531116

It is a load of fun since each guest brings a different personality to Shepard. Well, that and Liara still seems to think she is in a relationship with us even though we keep telling her no....

Anyone is welcome to sign up, but keep in mind the waiting list is pretty long

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 29 août 2011 - 04:53 .

[100k]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
*snip*

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!!!

Yes, but THIS contradicts your original argument that Shepard = the player. If Shepard is independant enough to have his own thoughts, feelings, and revelations about death -- then Shepard =/= the player -- but rather a character. I understand that we don't see Shepard sitting on the pot, shaving, eating, etc -- I think it is universally agreed upon (even by smud) that that is stuff you DON'T need to see.

But Shepard exploring the meaning of death is something that SHOULD NOT happen off camera -- because it belittles death, life, love -- essentially things that almost every writer/director/designer in the history of world attempts to rationalize. 

This isn't opinion in this case -- but solid fact. Death plays a massive role in almost every story imaginable -- even in the subtlest ways. In a gam where the main protagonist dies at the beginning -- shouldn't it play a larger role?

Even the examples you gave -- Princess Bride, etc, death meant something massive -- especially within the context of the scene.

In Matrix, Neo dies for two reasons -- one, because Trinity dies, and two -- because he needed to to stop Smith.

In Princess Bride, the bandit guy dies because he's willing to die for someone he loved -- and is brought back minutes later.  

In LoTR, death plays a paramount role for almost every character -- not only because they are threatened by Sauron, but because they each have different experiences with it. Sam risks death to save Frodo. Gollum lusts after the Ring to save himself. Gandalf is revived because of his sacrifice.  Frodo goes gladly to death at the end of the trilogy. And on and on.

In Mass Effect 2, Shepard dies after trying to save Joker. That should be huge! Joker should at some point express gratitude. Shepard should express a bit more shock, curiosity, fear, anger, or another emotion (within player control). Anderson should be creeped out, or slightly uncomfortable -- instead of treating Shepard like he just woke up from a week in the hospital. We have a 30 hour game ahead of us -- don't tell me that dedicating maybe 20 minutes of dialoge -- spread out through the game -- would've been too difficult.

[Iakus]

100k wrote...
Yes, but THIS contradicts your original argument that Shepard = the player. If Shepard is independant enough to have his own thoughts, feelings, and revelations about death -- then Shepard =/= the player -- but rather a character. I understand that we don't see Shepard sitting on the pot, shaving, eating, etc -- I think it is universally agreed upon (even by smud) that that is stuff you DON'T need to see.

But Shepard exploring the meaning of death is something that SHOULD NOT happen off camera -- because it belittles death, life, love -- essentially things that almost every writer/director/designer in the history of world attempts to rationalize. 

This isn't opinion in this case -- but solid fact. Death plays a massive role in almost every story imaginable -- even in the subtlest ways. In a gam where the main protagonist dies at the beginning -- shouldn't it play a larger role?

Even the examples you gave -- Princess Bride, etc, death meant something massive -- especially within the context of the scene.

In Matrix, Neo dies for two reasons -- one, because Trinity dies, and two -- because he needed to to stop Smith.

In Princess Bride, the bandit guy dies because he's willing to die for someone he loved -- and is brought back minutes later.  

In LoTR, death plays a paramount role for almost every character -- not only because they are threatened by Sauron, but because they each have different experiences with it. Sam risks death to save Frodo. Gollum lusts after the Ring to save himself. Gandalf is revived because of his sacrifice.  Frodo goes gladly to death at the end of the trilogy. And on and on.

In Mass Effect 2, Shepard dies after trying to save Joker. That should be huge! Joker should at some point express gratitude. Shepard should express a bit more shock, curiosity, fear, anger, or another emotion (within player control). Anderson should be creeped out, or slightly uncomfortable -- instead of treating Shepard like he just woke up from a week in the hospital. We have a 30 hour game ahead of us -- don't tell me that dedicating maybe 20 minutes of dialoge -- spread out through the game -- would've been too difficult.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[SpiffySquee]

100k wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
*snip*

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!!!

Yes, but THIS contradicts your original argument that Shepard = the player. If Shepard is independant enough to have his own thoughts, feelings, and revelations about death -- then Shepard =/= the player -- but rather a character. I understand that we don't see Shepard sitting on the pot, shaving, eating, etc -- I think it is universally agreed upon (even by smud) that that is stuff you DON'T need to see.

But Shepard exploring the meaning of death is something that SHOULD NOT happen off camera -- because it belittles death, life, love -- essentially things that almost every writer/director/designer in the history of world attempts to rationalize. 

This isn't opinion in this case -- but solid fact. Death plays a massive role in almost every story imaginable -- even in the subtlest ways. In a gam where the main protagonist dies at the beginning -- shouldn't it play a larger role?

Even the examples you gave -- Princess Bride, etc, death meant something massive -- especially within the context of the scene.

In Matrix, Neo dies for two reasons -- one, because Trinity dies, and two -- because he needed to to stop Smith.

In Princess Bride, the bandit guy dies because he's willing to die for someone he loved -- and is brought back minutes later.  

In LoTR, death plays a paramount role for almost every character -- not only because they are threatened by Sauron, but because they each have different experiences with it. Sam risks death to save Frodo. Gollum lusts after the Ring to save himself. Gandalf is revived because of his sacrifice.  Frodo goes gladly to death at the end of the trilogy. And on and on.

In Mass Effect 2, Shepard dies after trying to save Joker. That should be huge! Joker should at some point express gratitude. Shepard should express a bit more shock, curiosity, fear, anger, or another emotion (within player control). Anderson should be creeped out, or slightly uncomfortable -- instead of treating Shepard like he just woke up from a week in the hospital. We have a 30 hour game ahead of us -- don't tell me that dedicating maybe 20 minutes of dialoge -- spread out through the game -- would've been too difficult.

I was not arguing that this really was the case. I was simply showing how silly it was to say that it is ok to use movies that don't contain what you feel is important becasue it MIGHT have happened off camera. I was not really suggesting that Shepard handled all his trauma off camera.

As for the rest of the argument, it still does not change the fact that Smud made a very specific list of what a good resurrection should contain and then proceed to list movies that had few or none of these traits. It does not change the fact that my problem was not that he (or anyone for that matter) did not like the resurrection, but that he suggested a resurrection can only be handled one way or it is fundamentally flawed.

Let's be very clear. I liked the death and resurrection becasue, for me, it brought things into perspective. We ended ME1 on a high note. Beat a reaper, proved we could win against them, and were a hero. The start of ME2 changed all that and reminded everyone that we are up against a real bad mamojamma. I DO, however, think it would have be great to explore Shepard's death more. I would have loved to see Shepard deal with the fact that he died. I don't think the lack there of made it a bad game, but I would have loved to see it.

The problem I was arguing with Smud was his assertions that the story was bad just becasue it was not done his way. He treats writing like it is math. 2 +2 = 4. Any other answer is wrong. That was what I was arguing against and that is what he failed to justify.

[111987]

iakus wrote...

Bah, response got eaten, trying again:

111987 wrote...

In a way though, the second part of a trilogy is almost intended to set up the final, concluding chapter. A lot of what was brought up in Mass Effect 2 will (hopefully) impact Mass Effect 3 in a huge way. It set up the Quarian/Geth situation and the Krogan situation (traditional vs. non-traditional leadership, saving the genophage data or destroying it), These three things in Mass Effect 2 will have an ENORMOUS impact on Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect also had three significant choices (Rachni Queen, Council, Councillor), so it's not like Mass Effect 2 wasn't important in the overall story of the trilogy.

True, but ME 1 was also a story that could stand on its own.  Me2 looks like it's going to require ME3 to feel complete and make sense.

We know what the Collector's ultimate plan was; begin construction on the Human-Reaper. We also know why the Collector's wanted Shepard's body, although to be fair the dialogue was found by modding the game so that is a legitimate complaint, UNLESS it is addressed in Mass Effect 3 (just an fyi, they wanted to study Shepard's body due to his exposure to the Prothean beacons and the Thorian).

We know what the Collectors were doing, but not why.  Was the Reaper to be a new Vanguard?  An experiment?  A secret weapon?  Something entirely different?  And the timing is odd, given the Reapers were still years away when teh Collectors started.

We also know what Shepard accomplished in destroying them; it set back the Reaper's work on completing the Human-Reaper, stopped Collector attacks on humans, and removed a powerful ally for the Reapers to use in the war. Not to mention the stalling their arrival, giving the galaxy further time to prepare.

Stopping the abductions for it s own sake is a good thing.  So is destroying the Reaper.  But what did that accomplish, bug-picture wise?  I find it something of a relief that Shepard can ask Liara pretty much the same question in LOTSB.  As far as we know, this changes nothing for the Reapers.  It doesn't even slow them down, as Arrival is a seperate dlc mission.

The Collectors are a useful ally of the Reapers, but hardly a powerful one.  For all their tech, they rely on secrecy and ambush tactics to be effective.  They have one ship and one base.  The Reapers will hardly need them when they get here and start...Reaping...

Sorry I haven't learned how to quote individual sections, so just bear with me.

Yes Mass Effect 1 is more of a standalone game, but i think that just comes with the territory of being the first game in a trilogy. You're right, Mass Effect 2 will need Mass Effect 3 to complete it. Is that necesarrily a bad thing? I guess it just depends on each individual person's point of view.

The Reaper was not intended to be the new vanguard. I think one of the developers recently tweeted that the Reapers had been travelling to the Milky Way after the events of Mass Effect 1. This is one reason why you can play Arrival before the Suicide Mission. Furthermore, it simply makes no sense for the Human-Reaper to be the vanguard as millions of more humans were required to finish it. These humans would have had to come from Council Space or possibly even Earth, and there's no way the Collector's would have made a suicide run on Earth. What they were doing was merely getting a head start on the creation of the new Reaper. After all once the Reapers begin attacking Earth there will be heavy human casualties, so it's a good idea to collect as many as you can beforehand. The collector's were just getting a head start, and when the Reapers arrived, they would have finished the Human-Reaper up.

And yes the Collector's aren't a massive, or even game-changing force, but it's still nice to have them gone. It would suck if, as Shepard was fleeing his trial on Earth, he sees the Collector Ship appear, releasing a cloud of seeker swarms...not saying that would happen, but the Collector's are defintely powerful enough to have an influence or effect in the war.

Also, remember that not everything is meant to be answered in the second story of a trilogy. That would take a lot of the fun out of the final chapter, which looks to be pretty awesome

[Fathom72]

iakus wrote...

Bah, response got eaten, trying again:

111987 wrote...

In a way though, the second part of a trilogy is almost intended to set up the final, concluding chapter. A lot of what was brought up in Mass Effect 2 will (hopefully) impact Mass Effect 3 in a huge way. It set up the Quarian/Geth situation and the Krogan situation (traditional vs. non-traditional leadership, saving the genophage data or destroying it), These three things in Mass Effect 2 will have an ENORMOUS impact on Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect also had three significant choices (Rachni Queen, Council, Councillor), so it's not like Mass Effect 2 wasn't important in the overall story of the trilogy.

True, but ME 1 was also a story that could stand on its own.  Me2 looks like it's going to require ME3 to feel complete and make sense.

We know what the Collector's ultimate plan was; begin construction on the Human-Reaper. We also know why the Collector's wanted Shepard's body, although to be fair the dialogue was found by modding the game so that is a legitimate complaint, UNLESS it is addressed in Mass Effect 3 (just an fyi, they wanted to study Shepard's body due to his exposure to the Prothean beacons and the Thorian).

We know what the Collectors were doing, but not why.  Was the Reaper to be a new Vanguard?  An experiment?  A secret weapon?  Something entirely different?  And the timing is odd, given the Reapers were still years away when teh Collectors started.

We also know what Shepard accomplished in destroying them; it set back the Reaper's work on completing the Human-Reaper, stopped Collector attacks on humans, and removed a powerful ally for the Reapers to use in the war. Not to mention the stalling their arrival, giving the galaxy further time to prepare.

Stopping the abductions for it s own sake is a good thing.  So is destroying the Reaper.  But what did that accomplish, bug-picture wise?  I find it something of a relief that Shepard can ask Liara pretty much the same question in LOTSB.  As far as we know, this changes nothing for the Reapers.  It doesn't even slow them down, as Arrival is a seperate dlc mission.

The Collectors are a useful ally of the Reapers, but hardly a powerful one.  For all their tech, they rely on secrecy and ambush tactics to be effective.  They have one ship and one base.  The Reapers will hardly need them when they get here and start...Reaping...

Um, we totally know what the human reaper was for.  Its construction was used to assess humanity's potential for reaperfication.  The reapers need to know before arriving on Earth whether to treat us as a threat to be exterminated, or a resource to be harvested. 

Also, you're correct in stating that we didn't do anything in ME2 to hinder the reapers.  They got what they wanted out of the collector base.  However, not every story HAS to have the protagonists dealing a blow against their enemies.  Hell, look at The Empire Strikes Back as an example; protagonists got downright thrashed in episode 5.

[100k]

Fathom72 wrote...

Also, you're correct in stating that we didn't do anything in ME2 to hinder the reapers.  They got what they wanted out of the collector base.  However, not every story HAS to have the protagonists dealing a blow against their enemies.  Hell, look at The Empire Strikes Back as an example; protagonists got downright thrashed in episode 5.

Ah, I am VERY glad you brought up Empire, becuase this ties into the question that Squee made that Smudboy "handwaved" rather prematurely Doesn't Mass Effect 2 just need to happen?

There are several ways to do a trilogy, so lets look at three of the most widely used and successful methods via three popular and well accepted films

1) The Batman trilogy (Nolan)
2) The Star Wars trilogy
3) The LOTR trology

Let's take a look at Nolan's Batman trilogy. None of the movies are particularly connected. The thesis laid out at the beginning of each film is concluded at the end. In Batman Begins, Bruce sets out to fight crime and injustice. Later in the film, he learns about the price of justice, and the difference between doing what is right, and what is easy. At the finale, he saves Gotham from evil.

*now, technically justice isn't complete-- yes, the main villian is defeated and the evil weapon is destroyed, but there are still mounting problems with released criminals -- particularly in Arkham -- but largely the story could've concluded there and we'd all have been happy.*

Now, we come to TDK. It takes place in the same universe, it has the same characters and actors, but the story and its elements have changed slightly. Oh -- it's connected to Begins, but not so heavily that one needs to play the first film. It stands, very much on its own -- like the first film -- as an excellent watch. It doesn't need a prequel or sequel -- even with its semi cliffhanger ending. Let me repeat myself again: it stands fine on its own.

TDKR looks to be doing the same.  

The over arching plot of each film is met by a conclusion in the finale of that film. As such, you get three seperate films with loosely tied elements -- like characters dying and not coming back, or minor villians escaping and being caught in a later movie.

That's the Batman trilogy's style.

In SW, something interesting happens. In A New Hope, the goals and overarching plans of the good guys is concluded at the end of the film. Luke goes from being a small farmboy dreaming of a better life, to the savior of the galaxy. He masters the force, defeats the empre, and is a hero. The entire story could've ended there.

*once again, technically he doesn't defeat the empre, master the force, or become a typical hero -- but for the purpose of an individual film, in ANH, he does*

 Then comes Empire Strikes Back -- and it completely mixes things up. It reintroduces the protagonists series long thesis (defeat the Empire), but also brings in a massive and unanswered theme of redemption (for Vader) -- along with a fvcking amazing romance between two secondary characters (Han and Leia) The goals of the protagonist fail at the end of the film -- but in a way that you can tell that the story will continue. 

And we all know how that story ends. Jedi just ties up the loose ends, completes the thesis reintroduced in Empire, and completes every character's story.

That's the SW trilogy.

And finally, we have LOTR. The series thesis is laid out plainly in Fellowship (defeat Sauron + Saruman). It continues in Towers, and has Saruman losing power. And it concludes appropriately in King.

And that's the LOTR trilogy.



if you read this far.

Now, can anyone tell me which style ME2 used?

[Lotion Soronarr]

111987 wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

Still waiting on that reason for somebody to care about another's opinion of a game...

Probably because people, whether rightly or wrongly, care about what other people think. If you love something, people often feel the need to defend it from people that criticize them. Is it silly to get worked up over a game? Perhaps, but maybe some people really love their video games

I don't care about how much you love something - that shouldn't blind you to criticism. In fact, quite the opposite - you should be even harsher to the things you like!
One should approach approach everything with a certain level of detachment and objectivity - otherwise, any conslusions made are garbage.

Quite a few of the things I love have large plot holes and instances of bad writing. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Jsut because I love something or have enjoyed it, doesn make it flawless.
I would be ashamed if I were to ignore it.

[SpiffySquee]

100k wrote...

Fathom72 wrote...

Also, you're correct in stating that we didn't do anything in ME2 to hinder the reapers.  They got what they wanted out of the collector base.  However, not every story HAS to have the protagonists dealing a blow against their enemies.  Hell, look at The Empire Strikes Back as an example; protagonists got downright thrashed in episode 5.

Ah, I am VERY glad you brought up Empire, becuase this ties into the question that Squee made that Smudboy "handwaved" rather prematurely Doesn't Mass Effect 2 just need to happen?

There are several ways to do a trilogy, so lets look at three of the most widely used and successful methods via three popular and well accepted films

1) The Batman trilogy (Nolan)
2) The Star Wars trilogy
3) The LOTR trology

Let's take a look at Nolan's Batman trilogy. None of the movies are particularly connected. The thesis laid out at the beginning of each film is concluded at the end. In Batman Begins, Bruce sets out to fight crime and injustice. Later in the film, he learns about the price of justice, and the difference between doing what is right, and what is easy. At the finale, he saves Gotham from evil.

*now, technically justice isn't complete-- yes, the main villian is defeated and the evil weapon is destroyed, but there are still mounting problems with released criminals -- particularly in Arkham -- but largely the story could've concluded there and we'd all have been happy.*

Now, we come to TDK. It takes place in the same universe, it has the same characters and actors, but the story and its elements have changed slightly. Oh -- it's connected to Begins, but not so heavily that one needs to play the first film. It stands, very much on its own -- like the first film -- as an excellent watch. It doesn't need a prequel or sequel -- even with its semi cliffhanger ending. Let me repeat myself again: it stands fine on its own.

TDKR looks to be doing the same.  

The over arching plot of each film is met by a conclusion in the finale of that film. As such, you get three seperate films with loosely tied elements -- like characters dying and not coming back, or minor villians escaping and being caught in a later movie.

That's the Batman trilogy's style.

In SW, something interesting happens. In A New Hope, the goals and overarching plans of the good guys is concluded at the end of the film. Luke goes from being a small farmboy dreaming of a better life, to the savior of the galaxy. He masters the force, defeats the empre, and is a hero. The entire story could've ended there.

*once again, technically he doesn't defeat the empre, master the force, or become a typical hero -- but for the purpose of an individual film, in ANH, he does*

 Then comes Empire Strikes Back -- and it completely mixes things up. It reintroduces the protagonists series long thesis (defeat the Empire), but also brings in a massive and unanswered theme of redemption (for Vader) -- along with a fvcking amazing romance between two secondary characters (Han and Leia) The goals of the protagonist fail at the end of the film -- but in a way that you can tell that the story will continue. 

And we all know how that story ends. Jedi just ties up the loose ends, completes the thesis reintroduced in Empire, and completes every character's story.

That's the SW trilogy.

And finally, we have LOTR. The series thesis is laid out plainly in Fellowship (defeat Sauron + Saruman). It continues in Towers, and has Saruman losing power. And it concludes appropriately in King.

And that's the LOTR trilogy.



if you read this far.

Now, can anyone tell me which style ME2 used?

I'm with ya, and of course it fits SW in that sense. I'm a little confused about the hand waving part. I hand waved Smud's argument, or he hand waved mine?
You'll have to forgive me, my head is splitting and it is hard to concentrate at the moment

...and your cookies tastes suspiciously like a computer screen...

[111987]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

111987 wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

Still waiting on that reason for somebody to care about another's opinion of a game...

Probably because people, whether rightly or wrongly, care about what other people think. If you love something, people often feel the need to defend it from people that criticize them. Is it silly to get worked up over a game? Perhaps, but maybe some people really love their video games

I don't care about how much you love something - that shouldn't blind you to criticism. In fact, quite the opposite - you should be even harsher to the things you like!

I'm sure your significant other would love to know you feel this way.

But to address your other point, yes loving a game doesn't mean you should just ignore its flaws. I think there's a big difference between noticing flaws and actively seeking them out though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sisterofshane wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Most movies that use this technique also clue you in to the fact that it happened. They usually do something that lets you know, "Hey! In the off camera time, we had a revelation... talked about our childhood, and came to terms with our trauma!" They don't just assume everyone will assume it happened. Nothing like this every happened in those movies. It is pure speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up but your say so.

So, you can't have it both ways. Either we assume these things happen off camera or we don't. Just because the game does not mention Shepard eating or sleeping does not mean it did not happen. The game takes for granted that gamers are smart enough to figure out that we are not actually watching Shepard every second of every day.

Otherwise the entire game took place in 30ish hours and Shepard has not eaten, slept, or gone to the restroom that entire time. He also travels all the way across the galaxy over and over within those 30 hours, car rides across Illium and the Citdel take mere seconds, Donavan Hauk's party had perfect timing, Grunt and Mordin's loyalty missions were a hundred feet outside Urdnot's base, Joker was lying to you when he said it would take about 2 hours to reach the relay, Tali Kissed Shepard and immediately stopped and put her mask back on, Kelly Chambers closed her eyes for a moment and then pretend Shepard had just kept her up all night,Thane spoke with his son in the integration room for about 15 seconds, Chawkwas got drunk in under 3 seconds, etc etc etc....

I can go on and on and on. To say that We spend every second with Shepard is just absurd.  If you can claim that these movies really did do everything Smud said they should, but they just did it off camera, than I can say the same thing about Shepard.

The only problem I have with Smudboy's review is that it is based upon how a good piece of literature should be written.  If this were a book, or a movie, or even a static-universe game (not a role-playing one), then I would have to agree with him.  However, he even says it himself - Shepard is a brick.  He/She is a complete blank slate, and the player is allowed to ascribe their own personality and motives to him/her.  It is at this point I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment above.  If it is something that bothers you about the game, have a little imagination and assume that it happened.

I did exactly this in my game -- I had romanced Garrus and there is a scene where Shep is in the shower.  I likened it to her taking every concern and figuratively "washing" them away, finding complete faith in the team she had built and her decision to die - again - for the good of the galaxy.  It made the speech just before infiltrating the collector base even more poignant when she said that what matters now is not that we come back, but that the collectors are stopped.

So, you have said it perfectly above.  The whole point of the series is to "fill in the blank", and the biggest blank is Shepard.

The point about writing is that one SHOULDN'T be the one filling in the important blanks.  A story is NOT a ink test. And the game really doesn't give you enough opportunities to fill those blanks in.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

SpiffySquee wrote...
*megasnip*
...and your cookies tastes suspiciously like a computer screen...

Ha.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

111987 wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

Still waiting on that reason for somebody to care about another's opinion of a game...

Probably because people, whether rightly or wrongly, care about what other people think. If you love something, people often feel the need to defend it from people that criticize them. Is it silly to get worked up over a game? Perhaps, but maybe some people really love their video games

I don't care about how much you love something - that shouldn't blind you to criticism. In fact, quite the opposite - you should be even harsher to the things you like!
One should approach approach everything with a certain level of detachment and objectivity - otherwise, any conslusions made are garbage.

Quite a few of the things I love have large plot holes and instances of bad writing. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Jsut because I love something or have enjoyed it, doesn make it flawless.
I would be ashamed if I were to ignore it.

The problem with many people on this forum, however, is that they assume the fact that someone does not agree with their logic means they are either a blind fan boy or a but hurt hater. I can't stand either of those terms (not suggesting you personally used them)

A lot of people see my videos and call me a biodrone, or a fan boy, or whatever. They just can not comprehend that I could play the same game, see the same things, and still come to a different conclusion. So, they just wave me off as some guy who defends Bioware no matter what and can't think for myself.

The very idea that I would spend the time and effort to make those videos just to blindly praise Bioware instead of try to share my own conclusions is about as silly as the people who claim someone who writes a wall of text about the problems with ME2 is just a trolling hater.

[100k]

SpiffySquee wrote...
I'm with ya, and of course it fits SW in that sense. I'm a little confused about the hand waving part. I hand waved Smud's argument, or he hand waved mine?
You'll have to forgive me, my head is splitting and it is hard to concentrate at the moment

...and your cookies tastes suspiciously like a computer screen...

He handwaved you question without addressing it. I am addressing it because it is SO important for directors, authors, and even us story telling lovers to understand:how do you set up a trilogy?

Its the reason why so many sequals to great originals suck. Nobody knows how to carry a series thesis through an entire series. 

If we address -- or at least try to address why its so damn difficult to make an excellent beginning, middle, and end, we can help so many people struggling with a fluently progressing thesis.

To answer my own question --

All of the trilogy styles are combined for the ME series. And it almost (in my opinion) worked. It just needed an expansion on its existing ideas. An expansion that I don't blame BW for -- but EA. Those guys just care about their quarterly statements. As such, ME2 was a bit rushed by its completetion. And Smudboy saying that Casey should have had full control over his time span is just idealistic. Yeah, I think we'd all like to be able to take as much time as we need on projects, but the world -- especially the corperate gaming world, just doesn't work that way.

Modifié par 100k, 29 août 2011 - 06:26 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

SpiffySquee wrote...

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.

You miss the point. He's right on what a proper ressurection should have - and when it's missing, it should be explained why.
For example, Gandalf is a maiar, not a human. And even he had a moment in a book. In a movie, not so much. Of course, when I watched the movie I already knew who Gandalf was, so it didn't bother me.
And MAtrix? Gah...never liked that one.

[Sharn01]

leonia42 wrote...

There's only one possible way to watch the prequels now. And.. honestly, I don't get the smudboy adoration/abherration that comes along with these forums. Why should any one fan's opinions be more important than any other's?

Some of the more vocal members of the forum actually have their own fans and forum groups for them to join.  It really drives home the old analogy that people are sheep.

[SpiffySquee]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

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.

You miss the point. He's right on what a proper ressurection should have - and when it's missing, it should be explained why.
For example, Gandalf is a maiar, not a human. And even he had a moment in a book. In a movie, not so much. Of course, when I watched the movie I already knew who Gandalf was, so it didn't bother me.
And MAtrix? Gah...never liked that one.

I disagree that he knows this and that is the entire point. Not to mention, either he doesn't really know, since his example do not fit his criteria, or he is really bad had saying what he means to say.
The point is that I never argued whether it was done right or not. I stated why I personally  liked it, but that is all. I argued that the idea that Bioware writers suck simply becasue they did not write a story that fits into Smud's check list is absurd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. they just should not be trying to pass it off as the gospel truth.