Wow, lot of mail here.
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
1. I evaluate the plot as a plot. Nothing more, nothing else.You want me to skew the rating in ME2 favor, by rating in a completley illogical manner. Why would I do that?
2. Because of the last 200 threads of this post with people explaining why. I have done plenty of explaning - if you care to read. If you think ME2 is a writing masterpiece, then go ahead and prove that. I'm as sure in the badness of ME2 writing as I'm sure in the law of gravity. Undeniable, but some peopel will defend hte badness to the end of time regardless.
3. "Should"? There is no should. There is no reason to accept the good just because I accept the reapers. They are comepltely different issues.
4. Both. From any standpoint you want to look at it, goo is a weakness. Structural, practical, logistical, operational.
For a race of super-intelligent machines, such inefficiency is mind-blowing. It's like skynet deploying terminators with nerf bats. Reapers went down a few levels from ME1. They have become more of a comicly inept villain ( in no small part thanks to Harbie)
5. If you point was that Shep guessed it was reapers immediately, then it does. Dissapearance of humans is something worth investigating and it makes sense to do so, but immediately saying "It's the reapers!" doesn really.
1. As opposed to skewing the rating against ME2? You're insisting on evaluating the main plot by itself. This is reasonable in a conventional story like ME1 wherin the main plot is the focus and can stand as one unit without the sidestories, but in ME2 the main plot was not. It's called "episodic". It works differently. Large amounts of the actual plot are perceled off in units and off doing something unrelated (but not completely). You need to put them all together to get the whole thing.
Again, it's like rating a book like a movie and saying the book has terrible visuals. Technically true, but inappropriate application. I exaggerate, but the idea still applies-you're trying to rate it by comparing it to a completely different plot structure and so choosing only the "units" that are most relevant to the main goal, and of course that's not going to line up. ME2's plot structure is not fundamentally flawed. Executed unevenly, maybe, but things like the villains only being there 20% of the time make sense in this situation.
2. I've seen your explanations, and Smudboys, and for the most part I am unconvinced. And I have never said ME2 was flawless or didn't have bad writing. I have never disagreed on that count. I disagree with the conviction that ME2's plot doesn't work,
and that your judgments are objective. Please stop strawmanning me.
3. Regenerating shields and Ardat Yakshi aren't related either, but we accept them both because it's a sci fi and these things don't contradict anything. You still haven't proven why you shouldn't suspend disbelief about the reaper goo, because there's no contradiction about it. And if there's no contradiction, you have no logical reason to refuse to accept it.
4. First of all, the reapers having weaknesses does not contradict anything except their own boasts, and that's hardly a reliable source. The reapers (basically) have to have weaknesses and make mistakes (mostly out of arrogance, judging by ME2); otherwise they're impossible to beat and we have no story. Moreover the reaper goo is not a tactical error-that would imply they can avoid it, like using nerf guns, and we have nothing to imply they can choose how they're made. Which is basically what you're saying they can do, when you have no reason to think this, most of all because the events of the game clearly show otherwise. That reasoning is mind boggling.
We can argue about how they did or did not make the reapers into giant hams, but that's not a plot hole or character inconsistancy. Soveriegn had similar speech patterns and mannerisms-the main difference was Harbinger talked to damn much, which isn't a huge deal.
Plus, there's the fact that Harbingers' operation(and loss) in ME2 in no way relates to the permanent defeat (or victory) of the reapers, which makes direct sense here. Just like in ME1. It's symbolic and the reapers don't loose anything serious by Shep's victory. Again, futility is a recurring theme. Harbinger can afford to be sloppy.
5. So you're just upset with the way TIM phrased the declaration. If he said "I'm not sure, but I think there's a connection to the reapers" he and shep wouldd still have enough motive investigate FP anyway. After FP there's enough to make the collector focus seem plausible since 1. we know the reapers are coming soon and 2. this is the main suspicious thing happening. So even if he didn't know for sure, it makes sense for Shepard and TIM to keep investigating the collectors all the way to horizon, when the connection is confirmed.
So your complaint seems to be that saying "it's the reapers" instead of "I think it's the reapers" completely ruins it. Right. Step back and I'll think you'll find this is nitpicking with a capital N. The character's actions make sense both ways.
onelifecrisis wrote...
I get what you're saying there, and I think I could get onboard with it if ME2 were a standalone game/story, but it's not; it's a sequel.As a standalone story, taking on the collectors to stop abductions would be okay (it would still have holes of course). But as the middle part of a trilogy in which we're supposed to be stopping the reapers, AND as a continuation of Shepard's story from ME1, I consider it an epic fail on both counts.
I'm a little confused.
Sure the events of ME2 didn't stop the reapers, but neither did ME1. In both cases we found out some things about them and won a symbolic victory. In the meantime ME2 set up things for Me3 by putting in sideplots on species politics, greatly expanding the main cast and gave these additions a solid relationship with shepard, moving around the former main cast (VS now being a spectre) expanded the universe (Omega, Tuchanka, etc), possibly got an important resource (collector base) and had a revelation about the nature of the reapers (albiet incomplete, but still enough to make sense).
As for a continuation of the ME1 story, what do you mean? The reaper plot? That's continued-indirectly, but still continued. I hope you aren't talking about the citadel and soverign, because that was resolved. And while the transition between the two is a bit abrupt, there's still a decent amount of flow between the two. Major elements in ME2 -cerberus, the terminus systems, the reaper's motivations, council indifference-were set up or forshadowed in ME1. The collectors weren't, but we had no reason to notice such an obscure race before, so I think that's excusable.
Besides, the plot of the trilogy has the second act being a "calm before the storm" kind of thing after the initial plot rush but before the finale as all the pieces move into place. This often happens in trilogies I don't think ME2 failed in that regard. I can see how it could have been done better, but again, where's this "epic fail?" Epic is, well, epic. So far as I can see the plot functions on both it's own and a series level.
iakus wrote...
1. If such is the case, then Ii submit that the ME2 squad was too frakking big. I don't deny lack of content so much as lack of story and progression. At least compared to ME1. Sure there's plenty of content, but that content doesn't build on anything. It's all entirely seperate stories rather than a single "second volume" It gives me the impression that ME2 is nothing more than killing time until the Reapers reach the galaxy.
2. Where you say "it could have been better" I say "these choices hurt the story"
3. I don't deny there will be connection in ME3, but I do say that the lack of connection within ME2 keeps it from being a whole story. ME2's purpose is utterly dependant on ME3, a separate game.
1. I answered this above, kind of. The short of it is that "doesn't build on anything" and "entirely seperate" is an exaggeration.
2. Glass half full, glass half empty, same glass of water.
3. I'd contest the "utterly," but even if I lost, that's besides point. It's part of a series, and the second act no less (which is most often a transition piece and also most often the weakest of the three) so in context that isn't a huge failing.
Modifié par The Interloper, 27 septembre 2011 - 12:26 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
