6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Shepard the Leper]

wizardryforever wrote...

The focus of a game is on the gameplay.  The top priority of the game is to be fun, not to tell an award winning story.  And since it is interactive, that severely limits what the developers can do with the story.  For instance, if the developers took almost all choice out of the story (like JRPGs), then it would always play out the same way, and that's bad (you may as well watch the inevitable movie).  On the other hand, if you make the game have choices at every little turn in the story, then it is exceedingly difficult to portray the consequences of those actions realistically.  It's part of the medium.  The interactivity element and the limitations of the medium put serious dampers on story quality as a whole.  It is pretty rare for a developer to even try to overcome that hurdle, let alone succeed.

Thus the correlation between video game stories and poor quality.  They aren't poor quality because of the lack of effort (though that could play a part, depending on the game).  They are usually poorer quality because of the limitations of it being a game, with the player as a participant, not a passive observer.  Not that video game stories are above criticism because they're video games, it's just that these are realities that one must recognize.

God, it's late.  I'm going to bed.

I disagree. Most of ME's story isn't affected by gameplay at all, it are simple cutscenes that always play in exactly the same way. The only "consequences" in the ME series thus far have been like kill (or not) person A, romance squadmate B or C etc. I haven't seen any decision made by Shepard that have any real impact on the overall story, hence I say gameplay has little to no effect at all (on the story).

When gameplay doesn't affect the plot, it cannot be used to defend poor story telling.

[Someone With Mass]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

I don't know which version of ME2 you've played, but with mine I'm always FORCED to recruit Mordin, Jack, Garrus, Grunt, Legion and two other squadmates to launch the SM. That's seven out of eight (recruitable) squadmates (without DLC characters).

Those who don't care about their squadmates don't care about the irrelevant consequences.

Those are signs of a poorly designed game (story / plot wise).

I think those who didn't like anyone on the ship are a pretty vocal minority, because I've seen quite a lot of people that didn't have a problem with any character or even liked them very much. More so than they did the characters in ME1.

But, as I mentioned before, ME2 suffered from having a bit too many characters (the game could've been just fine without Samara and Thane, for example) and the overall storytelling/character development suffers a bit because of it.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 24 septembre 2011 - 02:17 .

[Il Divo]

wizardryforever wrote...

Thus the correlation between video game stories and poor quality.  They aren't poor quality because of the lack of effort (though that could play a part, depending on the game).  They are usually poorer quality because of the limitations of it being a game, with the player as a participant, not a passive observer.  Not that video game stories are above criticism because they're video games, it's just that these are realities that one must recognize.

God, it's late.  I'm going to bed.

I'd disagree with this. That video games are an interactive medium is precisely why I think it holds higher potential as an art form, because (as the player) it affects how I receive the story, dialogue, and setting. A video game will offer greater "immersion" in that sense because I am the character and (in the best games) always experience the world from his/her POV.

Obviously, there are certain limitations when we use an active observer, but the prime strength is that heightened sense of connection and understanding. It's why I think that video games in the future have the potential to eclipse every other medium in terms of art value.

[Il Divo]

100k wrote...

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: what you can learn about a character, setting, universe, story, etc in 2 hours of film should pale in comparison to what you can learn about a character, setting, universe, story, etc in [i]30 hours of game play. R* does this. Bioware does this. So do a few other great dev teams.

This is a perfect demonstration of what I mean. Let's consider Knights of the Old Republic, which consists of a 40-50 hour adventure, during which I had ample opportunity to interact with my party members. I felt a much greater connection to my squad members as a result, because the actual experience (saving the world) felt more 'authentic' than a two hour film. I didn't even need to be speaking with my squad mates the entire time; their mere presence added to the experience.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Someone With Mass wrote...

[quote]Shepard the Leper wrote...

He has all of those choices. Some have consequences. Such is the sign of a good game ;D.[/quote]

I don't know which version of ME2 you've played, but with mine I'm always FORCED to recruit Mordin, Jack, Garrus, Grunt, Legion and two other squadmates to launch the SM. That's seven out of eight (recruitable) squadmates (without DLC characters).

Those who don't care about their squadmates don't care about the irrelevant consequences.

Those are signs of a poorly designed game (story / plot wise).[/quote]

I think those who didn't like anyone on the ship are a pretty vocal minority, because I've seen quite a lot of people that didn't have a problem with any character or even liked them very much. More so than they did the characters in ME1.

But, as I mentioned before, ME2 suffered from having a bit too many characters (the game could've been just fine without Samara and Thane, for example) and the overall storytelling/character development suffers a bit because of it.
[/quote]


The characters themselves are not the problem. Neither are their personal missions.

The problem is that they are really not part of the main plot and that the main plot is bad in comparison.

[Lotion Soronarr]

iakus wrote...
That point is really really hard to find sometimes.  The enemies you face have absolutely nothing to do with the Collectors or Reapers.  Heck they've probably never even heard of the Reapers.  They're just mooks with the bad luck of being between Shepard and whatever goal has currently piqued his interest.  No different than any side mission.  

At the end of each mission, you are no closer towards understanding the Collectors or their motives.  You have not gained any new equipment, save whatever you've managed to scrounge.  All you've given is one squadmate the warm feeling of a job well done (however it got done, as that's irrelevant towards actually gaining the loyalty)

Upgrading the Normandy, imo does far more to "prepare" for the SM than the personal missions.  Unfortunately they only have three steps
a) talk to squadmate
mine appropriate mineral
c) hit "research"

Indeed. Since you aready talk to teammates about the upgrades, they could have worked that into the plot.
A plot where you have to find Garrus and help him to get plans and materials for the Thanix cannon for example.

A proper reason to collect all the crew members other than "them being badasses".

[Shepard the Leper]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I think those who didn't like anyone on the ship are a pretty vocal minority, because I've seen quite a lot of people that didn't have a problem with any character or even liked them very much. More so than they did the characters in ME1.

But, as I mentioned before, ME2 suffered from having a bit too many characters (the game could've been just fine without Samara and Thane, for example) and the overall storytelling/character development suffers a bit because of it.

I like most of ME2's characters, but that wasn't my point. Their impact on the main-plot is close to neglectable, making their missions optional (yet fun to play). The thing that bothers me with ME2 is the complete lack of the Reapers coz that's the main issue of the series. Hell, it's completely unclear why Shepard has to go against the Collectors and how that might help to defeat or stop the Reapers.

ME2's plot is like: Shep dies, TIM repairs Shep and explains human colonies are dissapearing (nothing new, there have been slavers long before Shepard was even born), Shep joins forces with a former enemy to hunt down the ones resposible, assembles a squad to go on a (pointless) suicide mission and destroys the Collector base. It's beyond my understanding how this benefits the fight against the Reapers in any way. We don't even know (nor do Shep or TIM seem to be interested in) the Collector's motives and objectives.

The only part of ME2 that does make sense regarding the main-plot is the Arrival DLC. Everything else is about meeting people and aliens, kill lots of mercs, some social work and sight-seeing. One of the very few benefits of this is that you likely care about what happens to the ME universe in part 3. A message about the destruction of Tuchancka or Omega will mean something. You're  going to be pissed because folks you got to know and (perhaps) care about have died. That's better than recieving a message about places you've never been to getting destroyed.

Don't get the wrong idea here. I love playing ME2, it's a great game. But it has a very poor (main)plot. In ME1 you are hunting Saren and find out about the Reapers and eventually manage to kill Saren and stop Sovereign. That makes sense, I knew why Shepard was doing the things (s)he did in ME1. I have no clue what Shepard is trying to do in ME2 and how that helps to defeat the Reapers.

[Lotion Soronarr]

wizardryforever wrote...
Let me reiterate.  The focus of a game is on the gameplay.  The top priority of the game is to be fun, not to tell an award winning story.

And the focus of a movie? To entertain. To prove a thirriling ride...At least accoring to most recent movies.
any medium that tells a a story can be rated by the wuality of that story and the writing. ANY medium. There are no exceptions.

And being interactive doesn't change anything in that regard.
Quite the contrary, it gives games an edge over movies, as the audience is more engaged.

Thus the correlation between video game stories and poor quality.  They aren't poor quality because of the lack of effort (though that could play a part, depending on the game).  They are usually poorer quality because of the limitations of it being a game, with the player as a participant, not a passive observer. 

Nope. Totally disagree.

[onelifecrisis]

wizardryforever wrote...

100k wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I don't think it is really an excuse as much as it is a reality check.  The reason why video games don't have the same quality of stories as books and movies is because a) it's interactive, you have to balance the gameplay with the story and vice versa, and c) the story of games is generally considered secondary to whether or not the game is fun.  Sure, some games are fun because of their story, but many more are fun in spite of their story, which may be incoherent, cliche, or barely there at all.

While I respect this opinion, you'll find that it no longer holds much weight. Just last year video games officially became labled as an "art form" in the US, effectively protecting most of them from the scrutiny of retards like Jack Thompson.

Video game stories aren't as good as movies or books that have the same amount of money poured into them.  This is just a fact of life.  There's a correlation with story quality and medium as well, but what people need to realize (and this is where your viewpoint comes in) is that correlation does not imply causation.

The fact of life is that it doesnt take money to create a great story. At all. Fact.

But if money is some indication of the value of effort put into a story, then you're wrong again. It takes anywhere between 1 million and 200 million dollars to create big budget games today. Most authors can't dream of that kind of money. Many big named film directors work with around the same level of cash for their productions. So yeah... 

No of course not, it was poorly worded on my part. 

Let me reiterate.  The focus of a game is on the gameplay.  The top priority of the game is to be fun, not to tell an award winning story.  And since it is interactive, that severely limits what the developers can do with the story.  For instance, if the developers took almost all choice out of the story (like JRPGs), then it would always play out the same way, and that's bad (you may as well watch the inevitable movie).  On the other hand, if you make the game have choices at every little turn in the story, then it is exceedingly difficult to portray the consequences of those actions realistically.  It's part of the medium.  The interactivity element and the limitations of the medium put serious dampers on story quality as a whole.  It is pretty rare for a developer to even try to overcome that hurdle, let alone succeed.

Thus the correlation between video game stories and poor quality.  They aren't poor quality because of the lack of effort (though that could play a part, depending on the game).  They are usually poorer quality because of the limitations of it being a game, with the player as a participant, not a passive observer.  Not that video game stories are above criticism because they're video games, it's just that these are realities that one must recognize.

God, it's late.  I'm going to bed.

I have to disagree with this, at least in the case of ME2. The worst aspects of the ME2 plot are the ones that are set in stone, not the ones that can be changed through player choices.

I do agree that, in general, videogames (even linear ones) have bad stories because the story is simply not a priority. I read an interview with a professional videogame writer who said that usually the designers start with some tech and an idea of gameplay mechanics and setting, and come up with missions, locations, enemies and so on. Then later (much later) they hire a writer to come up with a story that explains why the player character is in location X killing Y with Z. So the writer comes up with a story explaining why Luke Pukem is on the moon killing werewolves (and then half of that gets left out of the final game because of time/budget constraints, so what little sense it might have made is destroyed).

ME2 suffers from some of these problems. For example, the gameplay mechanics necessitate that there are humanoid enemies to shoot. They could have had us fighting Geth again, but that prospect would likely have bored people who'd already shot a thousand Geth in ME1, so they had to come up with a new enemy... and the Collectors were born. Plot-wise they're an utterly pointless and rather nonsensical distraction, but they give the player something to shoot at which fits two criteria: it's new, and it's humanoid.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 24 septembre 2011 - 02:04 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

@onelifecrisis

I'm not disagreeing with you but you should recall that the Collectors were first introduced in Ascension, not in ME2. That novel was released as early as July 2008.

[111987]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

For all I know stopping the Reaper is the main plot in the ME series. There is no progression at all in ME2, technically ME2 is a complete waste of time (fun though . Shepard has learned nothing and done nothing regarding the Reapers.

Clearly someone has never played 'Arrival'...

We didn't learn anything about the Reapers? Besides how they are constructed and what they really are right?
And i guess stopping the Collectors and stopping the abductions of hundreds of thousands of humans isn't a good thing.

Why don't you wait until, you know, the story is over in ME3 before you judge whether or not what happened in ME2 was worthless?

[onelifecrisis]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

@onelifecrisis

I'm not disagreeing with you but you should recall that the Collectors were first introduced in Ascension, not in ME2. That novel was released as early as July 2008.

...which is five months after development started on ME2.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Actually, I'd say it was those mercs that better fit what you speak of here. I remember the Blue Suns were mentioned in the very first novel as well, but still, we fought them and the Eclipse guys more times than we did the Collectors. A lot more.

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

Clearly someone has never played 'Arrival'...

We didn't learn anything about the Reapers? Besides how they are constructed and what they really are right?
And i guess stopping the Collectors and stopping the abductions of hundreds of thousands of humans isn't a good thing.

Why don't you wait until, you know, the story is over in ME3 before you judge whether or not what happened in ME2 was worthless?

That kind of reasoning bugs me too. People saying that ME3 will be crap because ME2 apparently set a standard of what will happen in the last game of the trilogy.

Of course not all the choices in ME1 had a hard impact on ME2. It's simply not their time yet.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

It's more about getting the trust of the group so they work together better more than getting the person less distracted to be able to do their job. Remember, an unloyal Miranda can get the group through the first and second door without getting herself or anyone killed. It 's about the group working together. It varied from person to person whether what is destracting them or unloyal get them or other people killed over it....outside of biotics that is.

Yes, we get that.  We all understand that.  The issue of their focus or loyalty isn't the bone of contention. 

It's that all 12 possible team members have an issue that comes up in the six months of their lives they spend with Shep on this job, that all 12 need Shep's help to solve it, and that all 12 are more likely to die if Shep doesn't help them. 

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's that all 12 possible team members have an issue that comes up in the six months of their lives they spend with Shep on this job, that all 12 need Shep's help to solve it, and that all 12 are more likely to die if Shep doesn't help them. 

Agreed, it's a very contrived scenario. The loyalty missions themselves are all spectacular, but their implementation is far too uniform. Each one of twelve squad mates suddenly has a problem crop up, which Shepard suddenly needs to help them with.

Compare this to KotOR's approach, which had ten party members. Not every character's "story arc" was handled the same way.

Carth's was tied into the overarching plot.
Zalbaar's was centered around the wooies on Kashykk.
Jolee Bindo's was an off-shoot of a side quest.
HK-47's was based around that repair minigame.

Then Canderous, Juhani, Mission, and Bastila all had side-quests built around meeting characters in hub cities. Character quests were far less uniform, which (imo) is a good thing.

[wizardryforever]

Well it would seem that everyone disagrees with me.  I'm not used to having a fringe opinion. 

But seriously, a big part of what limits video games as a medium is the delicate balancing game of character driven actions versus player driven actions.  Some games, like most shooters, essentially remove player choice in the story.  It always happens the same way, every time.  Others, like the Elder Scrolls, pretty much completely remove character driven actions (that the game recognizes, role-playing in your head doesn't count).  Attempting to balance the two is difficult to do in terms of writing.

All I'm saying is cut the devs some slack, maybe give the benefit of the doubt before jumping on the criticism bandwagon.  Also, hindsight is 20/20.

[Sajuro]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

It's more about getting the trust of the group so they work together better more than getting the person less distracted to be able to do their job. Remember, an unloyal Miranda can get the group through the first and second door without getting herself or anyone killed. It 's about the group working together. It varied from person to person whether what is destracting them or unloyal get them or other people killed over it....outside of biotics that is.

Yes, we get that.  We all understand that.  The issue of their focus or loyalty isn't the bone of contention. 

It's that all 12 possible team members have an issue that comes up in the six months of their lives they spend with Shep on this job, that all 12 need Shep's help to solve it, and that all 12 are more likely to die if Shep doesn't help them. 

Because he's commander shepard, he has that effect on people.
Remember, he can get three women to sleep with him with a few conversations and tempt samara to break her vows

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

100k wrote...

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: what you can learn about a character, setting, universe, story, etc in 2 hours of film should pale in comparison to what you can learn about a character, setting, universe, story, etc in [i]30 hours of game play. R* does this. Bioware does this. So do a few other great dev teams.

This is a perfect demonstration of what I mean. Let's consider Knights of the Old Republic, which consists of a 40-50 hour adventure, during which I had ample opportunity to interact with my party members. I felt a much greater connection to my squad members as a result, because the actual experience (saving the world) felt more 'authentic' than a two hour film. I didn't even need to be speaking with my squad mates the entire time; their mere presence added to the experience.

I absolutely agree here.  The loyalty missions felt more like 2 hour movies crammed into the story.  Great in their own right, but lacking in connection to anything else that happened in the game.  Even other "movies"

A more recent example of companion missions "done right" is DA2 (yes, shocking)  The companion missions, at various times would actually connect with the narrative.  

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

That kind of reasoning bugs me too. People saying that ME3 will be crap because ME2 apparently set a standard of what will happen in the last game of the trilogy.

Of course not all the choices in ME1 had a hard impact on ME2. It's simply not their time yet.

I don't think it's that (though how ME2 unfolded does have me a bit worried)  It's that while ME1 didn't need ME2 to make sense, ME2 is entirely dependant on ME3.  These missions that had nothing to do with Shepard's task at hand are suddenly going to be instrumental in stopping the Reapers.  Shepard's own personal version of "It's a Wonderful Life"  WIthout ME3, the personal missions are nothing more than jukmjped-up side quests.  Better done than the Dr Saleon misson, or Wrex's armor.  But in the end no more important.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Who you face during this does not matter. They're in your way and get taken down. So what if  they never heard  about the reapers, they still are in you way. It still does not devert from the fact your doing the mission to get ready for the suicide mission.
2. The mission is never to understand the collectors, and even then you learn everything that's to know about them on the collector ship mission. It's to get ready for a suicide mission. And that Squad mate loyaty is to help with the final mission. Any Commader knows that getting the trust of your troops is one of the key way to win a battle
3.You do remember the sr-2 is a research ship as well? And it's no help to youin the base where your fighting the collectors. Just getting your ship ready is not the only way to prepare for a mission.

1) point being they are neither Collectors nor working for the Collectors.  They're random criminals.  Not even cannon fodder.  Totally uninvolved in your mission except they're getting on the way of you giving your squadmate a sense of self-fufillment.  In your war against the Collectors and their Reaper masters, you sure showed those Blue Suns who's boss!

2) Trust in troops helps win battles sure.  But so does having bigger guns, stronger armor, and an understanding of the means and motives of your enemy.  ME2 focused so much on this nebulous "focus" aspect that it almost completely ignored the more practical aspects of combat.

3) I'm not questioning being able to research improvements.  I'm questioning that the methods of uprading the Normandy is so simplistic in comparison to the loyalty missions.  You never even have to leave the ship!  IMO, every single upgrade your squadmates can give you, be it a personal upgrade or one for the Normandy, should have tied into their loyalty mission in some way.  That would at least have given these missions the illusion of actually preparing for a fight with the Collectors.

[The Interloper]

100k wrote...

1. But that's not what I -- indeed most of the people arguing *against* ME2's plot are saying. Remember what I said -- it is incredibly possible to LOVE ME2's story. But, like a good, grammatically correct, well written paper, that doesn't make it good.

I like the story in the God of War games. I am not afraid to admit that the story in the games went from good (like ME1) to less than good (ME2).

2. We've "reached" the moon already in my honest opinion. There are several games that have reached the standards of excellence -- akin to great works of literature or cinema -- in my opinion. Bioware helped create some of them.

3. I partially agreed with you, up until this point. Smudboy says that the characters, settings, and stories of ME are good. I say that. Several people in the thread have said that. We fully accept the good parts. But the good parts of every story are comprised by the story. It's the engine that explains everything. If the story is poor-- even mediocre, but the game play, characters, and settings are excellent, then you have two strong contrasts that critics will notice.

4. Agreed. But we shouldn't fault him for voicing his opinion. It's not his fault that this thread exists now, nor the two older threads focusing on the same issue with his name in the title to attract forumites. It's us.

1-You say that, and I say that. I refer you to Shamus Young, so made three blog posts bashing ME2's plot but then added a disclaimer making it very clear he still thought it was a wonderful game. I don't have a problem with that. And as I said, some people here do seem to be critisizing ME2 fairly. I still don't always agree, and I might argue, but I to sympathize to a certian degree and can understand why they might not like an episodic plot structure and such.

The issue is that many go beyond just "being honest with themselves" and going to unfair lengths to make the game sound as bad as possible. I'm tempted to post a gaint wall to text here, but I'll make it short and summarize. There are two issues-

A. Arguing something is bad on principle, like plot contrivances, but then giving it a free pass in another setting without explanation. It would appear that the on-principle argument is therefore useless in this case, but that's exactly what 75% of the argument focuses on.

B. When something is not explained thoroughly, like the fall, people complain there's a lack of exposition. Fine. I understand that. But many also argue that what happened contradicts information that they themselves just complained was never presented in the first place. And while they're allowed to make up reasons why something doesn't make sense, other's aren't allowed to make up reasons why it does.

Look at smudboy and at this thread and you'll see these issues everywhere. It seems to me that many people are just treating ME2 unfairly and bashing it for bashing's sake. If they actually liked the game, it's pretty damn hard to tell. I've seen people comment on smudboy's videos that smudboy convinced them not to buy the game. I think that shows what his message was, intent or no. "It's all bad. The horror. The horror!"

2-When I say "moon" I means like 6 dialogue options for a voiced protagonist and complex relationships between all 12 squad members at once and suicide mission scenarios on every mission and lots of philosophical dicussion about what it's like to die. We danced around it, but we still don't have that yet. And some people undeniably feel insulted.

3-My point is that even though everyone agrees ME2 had interesting characters, some say it's all for naught if it doesn't have a perfect story. I'm not saying that the plot isn't a problem, but the stance seems to be among some that since the characters are not fully integrated into the plot their excellence is completely pointless. Erm...huh?

Not saying everyone thinks that, but some like Smudboy do, or seem to and haven't said anything otherwise. And it's that I take issue with.

4-Smudboy does not voice "opinions." He voices so-called "facts." Which is the problem. If he hates the game, fine. But don't say that from the pedestal of universal truth. Which is what he does.

[Shepard the Leper]

111987 wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...
For all I know stopping the Reaper is the main plot in the ME series. There is no progression at all in ME2, technically ME2 is a complete waste of time (fun though . Shepard has learned nothing and done nothing regarding the Reapers.

Clearly someone has never played 'Arrival'...

Someone clearly has trouble reading ...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

The only part of ME2 that does make sense regarding the main-plot is the Arrival DLC.

Arrival isn't really a part of ME2 btw, it's DLC that became available a year after release.

111987 wrote...

We didn't learn anything about the Reapers? Besides how they are constructed and what they really are right?
And i guess stopping the Collectors and stopping the abductions of hundreds of thousands of humans isn't a good thing.

Uh, how are Reapers constructed and what are they exactly? What's the point of the Terminator? Why do they need human pulp to "build" it? What's the purpose of the Terminator? Is it to replace Sovereign to trigger the main attack? How do you even know the Collectors are related to the Reapers? Because TIM says so? Why do the Collectors work for the Reapers? Why do the Reapers need the Collectors? What technology did they use? Did Shep find some info about the Reapers? About their strength and weakness? What's the goal of the Reapers? How many are there? Who created them? And why? etc etc etc etc.

If you can answer one of these questions, please do coz I have no idea though that would be the stuff my Shep would be interested in. Shepard is busy dealing with family matters which are not going to help stop the Reapers thus are a complete waste of time. Just like hundreds of thousands of people are a waste of time when the life of trillions is at stake. A cop, who ignores the guy who is going berserk with a chaingun on Time Square, arresting someone for driving 5 MPH too fast, is a moron. And that basically is what Shepard is doing in ME2.

Why don't you wait until, you know, the story is over in ME3 before you judge whether or not what happened in ME2 was worthless?

That's a mood point. We already know the ME series will continue after ME3. Are you saying we should wait for ME95 to get some idea what's going on?

ME1 is a good example of a story that has an end (Shepard has stopped the initial strike) but isn't finished (the Reapers are still coming). ME2 doesn't have a story, it's more like "hanging out with your buds in the ME universe". The fact that ME2 is a great game despite the lack of a plot is a testimony to the appeal of the universe BW has created.

Modifié par Shepard the Leper, 24 septembre 2011 - 07:04 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Uh, how are Reapers constructed and what are they exactly? What's the point of the Terminator? Why do they need human pulp to "build" it? What's the purpose of the Terminator? Is it to replace Sovereign to trigger the main attack? How do you even know the Collectors are related to the Reapers? Because TIM says so? Why do the Collectors work for the Reapers? Why do the Reapers need the Collectors? What technology did they use? Did Shep find some info about the Reapers? About their strength and weakness? What's the goal of the Reapers? How many are there? Who created them? And why? etc etc etc etc.

The two bolded parts do have definitive answers.
1. Husks are deployed by the Collectors on Horizon.
2. They were repurposed by the Reapers and are used as slave labor/tools/proxies.

Then again 2 out of 14 isn't exactly a good track record.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 24 septembre 2011 - 07:09 .

[onelifecrisis]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Uh, how are Reapers constructed and what are they exactly? What's the point of the Terminator? Why do they need human pulp to "build" it? What's the purpose of the Terminator? Is it to replace Sovereign to trigger the main attack? How do you even know the Collectors are related to the Reapers? Because TIM says so? Why do the Collectors work for the Reapers? Why do the Reapers need the Collectors? What technology did they use? Did Shep find some info about the Reapers? About their strength and weakness? What's the goal of the Reapers? How many are there? Who created them? And why? etc etc etc etc.

The two bolded parts do have definitive answers.
1. Husks are deployed by the Collectors on Horizon.
2. They were repurposed by the Reapers and are used as slave labor/tools/proxies.

Then again 2 out of 14 isn't exactly a good track record.

1. Horizon happens later. At the time that Shepard agrees to work with Cerberus he has no idea whether Reapers are involved, and apparently (despite vowing to find a way to stop the Reapers at the end of ME1) he doesn't care ("I just want to find out what happened to those missing colonists", he says).

And since you mentioned the husks...

If the husks constitute proof of Reaper involvement then why doesn't Shepard point to the piles of dead husks scattered all over the floor when talking to the VS?

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 24 septembre 2011 - 07:31 .