6494 réponses à ce sujet

[SPACE_GREASER]

smudboy says some retarded stuff / stale jokes sometimes but over all I agree with him on most of the points he makes and think his reviews are well aimed

[TuringPoint]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

But ME1 was not the most flawless piece of literature in history. We had cliche villain monologues, super hero death traps, characters that were more codex than personality, lots of weak missions, etc. It wasn't Godfather I or II. It was space opera derived from cheesy 80s space opera, right down the music. And it was great but it wasn't more than what it was.

This.  

Also, forgive me,  but I do disagree with a majority of the points he makes.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 septembre 2011 - 02:56 .

[Il Divo]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

What I don't understand about these haters/nit pickers is...do you analyze every game with this much detail and with this negative/skeptical of an eye? Cause if you did, you would never enjoy any game...which defeats the purpose of playing video games.

I never set out to nitpick games, but if something jumps out at me and starts bothering me it's impossible to ignore.

For ME2 the main thing I noticed the first time through was that both "twists" in teh game fell flat on their face and at the end I realized little had been accomplished as far as the main plot goes.

The Collectors being Protheans didn't mean much. It didn't change the nature of the fight.

The Collectors building a human Reaper didn't change much. It didn't change the nature of the fight.

Contrast this to the revelation that Sovereign actually IS a Reaper and Saren is just a puppet, that the mass relays are NOT Prothean technology but instead Reaper technology left for us to find.

Then recall learning that the Citadel is a trap. These things together totally changed the nature of the problem for the protagonists. All of a sudden our situation became more dire and were in a lot more peril.

ME2 doesn't have anything like this. None of the 'revelations' change anything.

It's not like Luke learning that Vader is his father. That changed things because it made Luke's quest a lot harder and more personal for him. It also implied greater danger by depicting one possible fate for him.

There's no ME2 equivalent in the main plot. Outside the main plot there is a nice series of twists and those are the Heretic/orthodox geth split and the plans for war by the quarians. Those were the most interesting and dramatic parts of the game for me. Those are what I am most eager to see play out in ME3.

Great post.

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

100k wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

@100k, SD's critique I think is a useful one for improving ME3.

But smud is not useful because he buries any good points in mountains of useless overreaching.

Watching Star Wars and then complaining that it's not the Godfather is not a useful exercise.

Yes, but complaining that Godfather III isn't half the film that Godfather I or II is isn't such an overreach -- considering that they're all part of the same series.

True, that's why I thought SD's criticism was valid and I agree with it. 

But ME1 was not the most flawless piece of literature in history. We had cliche villain monologues, super hero death traps, characters that were more codex than personality, lots of weak missions, etc. It wasn't Godfather I or II. It was space opera derived from cheesy 80s space opera, right down the music. And it was great but it wasn't more than what it was.

As an aside, are there any games which people would place on the "Godfather" level? The closest I can imagine are Planescape and Legacy of Kain, but not many others (in terms of plot/overall experience).

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 septembre 2011 - 02:52 .

[100k]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

100k wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

@100k, SD's critique I think is a useful one for improving ME3.

But smud is not useful because he buries any good points in mountains of useless overreaching.

Watching Star Wars and then complaining that it's not the Godfather is not a useful exercise.

Yes, but complaining that Godfather III isn't half the film that Godfather I or II is isn't such an overreach -- considering that they're all part of the same series.

True, that's why I thought SD's criticism was valid and I agree with it. 

But ME1 was not the most flawless piece of literature in history. We had cliche villain monologues, super hero death traps, characters that were more codex than personality, lots of weak missions, etc. It wasn't Godfather I or II. It was space opera derived from cheesy 80s space opera, right down the music. And it was great but it wasn't more than what it was.

I'm not saying ME1 was the gaming equivalent of Godfather. I'm just saying that the areas that it excelled at particularly well -- cliches and cheesiness in all -- were dulled in ME2. It was a great game followed up by another great game. But the difference between their greatness was the different areas they excelled at seperately.

ME1 had a great narrative. Not without it's flaws, but still very good.
ME2 had great gameplay. Not perfect to say the least, but excellent.

Hopefully ME3 will combine the great elements of both games, while also improving in those areas.

[100k]

Il Divo wrote...As an aside, are there any games which people would place on the "Godfather" level? The closest I can imagine are Planescape and Legacy of Kain, but not many others (in terms of plot/overall experience).

Not yet. The best games out there are the equivalent of maybe Kill Bill. Great, but not superb.

GTA IV
KOTOR I + II
MGS3 + Peace Walker
Ico + Shadow of the Collossus

Those are currently on my best titles of all time.

[TuringPoint]

I can see that, expecting or wanting more 'Mass Effect' like ME1 would result in disappointment. Is that at least partially accurate of say, your opinion, 100k?

I can appreciate that at least.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 04 septembre 2011 - 03:09 .

[100k]

Alocormin wrote...
I can see that, expecting or wanting more 'Mass Effect' like ME1 would result in disappointment. Is that at least partially accurate of say, your opinion, 100k?

I guess? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking -- with all due respect. 

I want the good elements of both games. From ME1, I want a better narrative. From ME2, I want tighter game play.

Modifié par 100k, 04 septembre 2011 - 03:10 .

[Whatever42]

100k wrote...

I'm not saying ME1 was the gaming equivalent of Godfather. I'm just saying that the areas that it excelled at particularly well -- cliches and cheesiness in all -- were dulled in ME2. It was a great game followed up by another great game. But the difference between their greatness was the different areas they excelled at seperately.

ME1 had a great narrative. Not without it's flaws, but still very good.
ME2 had great gameplay. Not perfect to say the least, but excellent.

Hopefully ME3 will combine the great elements of both games, while also improving in those areas.

Totally agree. 

I would say that I think ME2 had some excellent writing as well. However, as SD said, it wasn't found in the main story. Maybe the main story got lost in committee somewhere. Or maybe the writers felt hamstrung by the middle chapter problem. I do have great hopes for ME3, though. 

[The Interloper]

Look, Me's plot has problems. Me2 has problems. I remember making a thread about that whole shuttle thing. There are a decent amount of holes and a large amount of contrivances. And it's no artistic masterpiece, at least in the literary sense. I get that. I agree with the complainers to a certain degree.

But Smudboy....he's like a caricature. Why is anyone taking him so seriously? Let's take a quick tally. He lambasts every part where a thorough explanation is not explicitly given as a plothole. Therefore resurrection counts for this because the process is not explained-in short because it's not possible today, it shouldn't be possible even in science fiction.

That extreme position alone should kill this, but let's continue.

He lambasts Squee for putting forth possible explanations as pointless supposition (because god fobid anything happen off camera) and then goes right back to doing the same thing himself to explain away his own asinine complaints (like wilson having no reason to betray cerberus). He argues plot points are stupid if they don't have literary significance, 'cause appearantly ME is not worth his time (except to complain alot) if it doesn't match up to Shakespeare. Add muddled statments like "Wilson's motivations to not match his methods" (saying so makes it true!)  and it's some solid points buried under the leftover trash from the Smudboy Intelligence appreciation party.

What's more Smudboy does not argue any of this graciously. He insists his opinions are all objective fact and therefore end of discussion-I noticed many of his counterarguements to sqee revolved around restating his original arguments in a louder voice. Anyone who disagrees or enjoys the story is an idiot.

In short, he's just another narcissic forum elitist with a computer and alot of free time. If he were a poster, nobody would take him so seriously as to make a 100+ page thread. Guess image can do a great deal for you.

Modifié par The Interloper, 04 septembre 2011 - 03:25 .

[Whatever42]

Il Divo wrote...
As an aside, are there any games which people would place on the "Godfather" level? The closest I can imagine are Planescape and Legacy of Kain, but not many others (in terms of plot/overall experience).

I don't think video game writing is quite there yet. 

Let's look at the writer of KotoR and ME, Drew Karpyshyn. He writes good books, for what they are, but is he a great literary talent? Is he on the same level of Mario Puzo? I don't think so. 

Taking source material from a classic, best selling novel and then hiring the best screen-writers in the business to produce a hundred million dollar movie is likely going to give you higher quality writing at the end then a team of video game writers. But even that's hit-and-miss, isn't it? 

[bduff4545]

111987 wrote...

What I don't understand about these haters/nit pickers is...do you analyze every game with this much detail and with this negative/skeptical of an eye? Cause if you did, you would never enjoy any game...which defeats the purpose of playing video games.

Agreed x 1,000,000

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.That's because they want to focus on the war in hand. Cerberus doesn't bring it up because they want to control Shepard. Shepard doesn't talk about it because he/she doesn't understand it. And the non-cerberusCrew doesn't mention it because they also know nothing of the details.

If Shepard doesn't understand it then why doesn't Shepard try to find out?  Ask Mordin how something like this could be possible?  Ask Tali or Kasumi to snoop around Cerberus computers?  Ask EDI after she's been unshackled?  Like I said, it's not so much the lack of answers as teh lack of curiosity.

And if the Lazarus Project is unimportant, then by that logc, the Prothean beacon wasn't important either, because Shepard had more important things to do, like hunt down Saren and be a Spectre for the Council.

 

3. They started recuiting after they knew who they were facing. They learn the collector were  behind it from freedoms's progress and then started recuiting and the list was not finished at the start ether.

Who tehy were facing, yes.  But the plan was to "take the fight to the Collectors" go beyond the Omega IV Relay.  They started recruiting before learning anything like numbers, defenses, or even where they were going.  That strikes me as the epitome of stupidity.  The only smart move they made was to recruit Mordin, because he had the expertise to find a defense against the Seekers.
 

4. That's the only way to take it in a war or any life and death event. If your being hunted by a tiger and you have to kill it or it eats you, does it matter if you understand it's only hunting you becauseit's hungry? No, you kill it to live anyway. It's sad that the prothean were turned to collectors that way but you still have kill them anyway or die. You even talk to Mordin about this as well. Going on to fight them so you can live is theonly logical reaction the knowlege of the collector origins.

But Shepard doesn't sound sad.  OR angry.  Or enraged.  Or worried.  He just want to go shoot stuff.   Mordin is the only one to have anything to say about the Collector repurposing.  His whole "Everything replaced by tech" speech.  This reveal was supposd to be big, get a reaction.  The only person to have one was the hyperactive salarian who compartmentalizes his emotions.

1.The only preson who would know abiout the project is Miranda. Mordin could only guess but never have a right awnser and the rest of the crew , even EDI would not have the info or a place to start. It all in Miranda's head. Anytjhing more then what they did would be just speculiton until Miranda said something.And I never said it was unimportant, just dealing with the collector was way more importantthen Shepard figuring out how he works.

2. They whole idea was to make a flexible team that could face anything that thrown at them. With the tech the collectors had...Much was not going to be found out about them.All they could do is just prep the ship and team. And they made a team thatcould handle any event. In truth, their is no way to know numbers and major details....Hence the lable of suicide mission. They pick the people with the best servival odds and can help improve the odds. Add on the fact that the more they learn able the collectors them more they imporved. Remeber, they statred recuiting with little info on the collector with an incomplete list. The first 4 recuited was a survivalist, a genius, a briliat tactician, and an intended person who met with the collectors already......who was killed and we were given his super krogan instead. Everyone else was listed after they learned more about the collectors.

3. And that's the conspt of RPG. The roleplayer...aka player of the game, feels these emotions....
http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
In short, if you want Shepard to feel these emotion, as the role player you feel these emotion. ME is not a 3rd person veiwer watch story, It's a 1st person character player control roleplaying story.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

What I meant about holding games to a different standard was this: Literature has Plot, Characterization, pacing... these are the chief concerns Video Games are considered with an entirely different set of criteria,

So, the question isn't 'does the plot make sense,' but 'do the elements of plot foster an enjoyable environment to play in.' Games are played, not watched. What I mean by this is especially apparent for Mass Effect because plot points are so heavily tied to player choice.

Having Shepard 'die' helped make the game better because it gave us a reason to start from scratch. And it did it in a incredibly dramatic way. This is the same reason Ubisoft destroyed Ezio's villa in the opening of AC:Brotherhood. They needed to 'reboot' the story.

And they did it in an excellent way too. Remember walking to get Joker and gazing overhead to see the entire top half of the Normandy gone? It wasn't a cutscene. You had to actually walk through a gutted Normandy. This is something the player experiences and it is THAT experience that gives us a trauma to hold onto throughout the game. The Collectors aren't just shadowy badguys, they are the Shadowy badguys that gutted your ship and left you for dead.

What better way to open a video game than that?

Without that scene the Thanix blasting apart the Collectors would have meant nothing.

[Biotic Sage]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

What I meant about holding games to a different standard was this: Literature has Plot, Characterization, pacing... these are the chief concerns Video Games are considered with an entirely different set of criteria,

So, the question isn't 'does the plot make sense,' but 'do the elements of plot foster an enjoyable environment to play in.' Games are played, not watched. What I mean by this is especially apparent for Mass Effect because plot points are so heavily tied to player choice.

Having Shepard 'die' helped make the game better because it gave us a reason to start from scratch. And it did it in a incredibly dramatic way. This is the same reason Ubisoft destroyed Ezio's villa in the opening of AC:Brotherhood. They needed to 'reboot' the story.

And they did it in an excellent way too. Remember walking to get Joker and gazing overhead to see the entire top half of the Normandy gone? It wasn't a cutscene. You had to actually walk through a gutted Normandy. This is something the player experiences and it is THAT experience that gives us a trauma to hold onto throughout the game. The Collectors aren't just shadowy badguys, they are the Shadowy badguys that gutted your ship and left you for dead.

What better way to open a video game than that?

Without that scene the Thanix blasting apart the Collectors would have meant nothing.

Very good points, especially about the setup and emotional payoff.

[KotorEffect3]

The Mass Effect series is the best series of all time. Bring it on haters

[TuringPoint]

The Interloper wrote...

Look, Me's plot has problems. Me2 has problems. I remember making a thread about that whole shuttle thing. There are a decent amount of holes and a large amount of contrivances. And it's no artistic masterpiece, at least in the literary sense. I get that. I agree with the complainers to a certain degree.

But Smudboy....he's like a caricature. Why is anyone taking him so seriously? Let's take a quick tally. He lambasts every part where a thorough explanation is not explicitly given as a plothole. Therefore resurrection counts for this because the process is not explained-in short because it's not possible today, it shouldn't be possible even in science fiction.

That extreme position alone should kill this, but let's continue.

He lambasts Squee for putting forth possible explanations as pointless supposition (because god fobid anything happen off camera) and then goes right back to doing the same thing himself to explain away his own asinine complaints (like wilson having no reason to betray cerberus). He argues plot points are stupid if they don't have literary significance, 'cause appearantly ME is not worth his time (except to complain alot) if it doesn't match up to Shakespeare. Add muddled statments like "Wilson's motivations to not match his methods" (saying so makes it true!)  and it's some solid points buried under the leftover trash from the Smudboy Intelligence appreciation party.

What's more Smudboy does not argue any of this graciously. He insists his opinions are all objective fact and therefore end of discussion-I noticed many of his counterarguements to sqee revolved around restating his original arguments in a louder voice. Anyone who disagrees or enjoys the story is an idiot.

In short, he's just another narcissic forum elitist with a computer and alot of free time. If he were a poster, nobody would take him so seriously as to make a 100+ page thread. Guess image can do a great deal for you.

Agreed.  

[100k]

111987 wrote...

What I don't understand about these haters/nit pickers is...do you analyze every game with this much detail and with this negative/skeptical of an eye? Cause if you did, you would never enjoy any game...which defeats the purpose of playing video games.

Yes, I do. Almost every game I play, I critique. I understand that critiquing isn't for everyone, but it's something that I enjoy doing -- not for the sake of causing trouble, but for the sake striving to some day reaching a level akin to Citizen Kane, Manhatten, or Godfather.

And guess what? I still enjoy video games. So much, that I'm willing to come onto a forum to discuss them. 

MGS3 (Subsistence) is my all time favorite game. I think it's wonderfully written, acted, voiced, played, visualized, lengthed, and tied together. I also think that it's melodramatic, sometimes boring, and slightly egotistical of itself. 

But it remains my favorite game of all time.

[111987]

100k wrote...

111987 wrote...

What I don't understand about these haters/nit pickers is...do you analyze every game with this much detail and with this negative/skeptical of an eye? Cause if you did, you would never enjoy any game...which defeats the purpose of playing video games.

Yes, I do. Almost every game I play, I critique. I understand that critiquing isn't for everyone, but it's something that I enjoy doing -- not for the sake of causing trouble, but for the sake striving to some day reaching a level akin to Citizen Kane, Manhatten, or Godfather.

And guess what? I still enjoy video games. So much, that I'm willing to come onto a forum to discuss them. 

MGS3 (Subsistence) is my all time favorite game. I think it's wonderfully written, acted, voiced, played, visualized, lengthed, and tied together. I also think that it's melodramatic, sometimes boring, and slightly egotistical of itself. 

But it remains my favorite game of all time.

I see. Well, whatever gives you joy. All the power to you.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The only preson who would know abiout the project is Miranda. Mordin could only guess but never have a right awnser and the rest of the crew , even EDI would not have the info or a place to start. It all in Miranda's head. Anytjhing more then what they did would be just speculiton until Miranda said something.And I never said it was unimportant, just dealing with the collector was way more importantthen Shepard figuring out how he works.

Which is why I'm asking for questions even more than answers.  Curiosity.  Worry.  Wonder.  I want Mordin to ask Shepard for a tissue sample.  I want Joker to ask Shepard how it felt to die.  I want SHepard to ask THane what the drell concept of the afterlife is.  I want death to be treated as a serious matter.  Not just an excuse for "I got better" jokes.

If Shepard can take time to track down a given party member's father/sister/son/daughter/betrayer/grad student/former business partner he can spare a moment to wonder at his own existence.

2. They whole idea was to make a flexible team that could face anything that thrown at them. With the tech the collectors had...Much was not going to be found out about them.All they could do is just prep the ship and team. And they made a team thatcould handle any event. In truth, their is no way to know numbers and major details....Hence the lable of suicide mission. They pick the people with the best servival odds and can help improve the odds. Add on the fact that the more they learn able the collectors them more they imporved. Remeber, they statred recuiting with little info on the collector with an incomplete list. The first 4 recuited was a survivalist, a genius, a briliat tactician, and an intended person who met with the collectors already......who was killed and we were given his super krogan instead. Everyone else was listed after they learned more about the collectors.

And this is why the only people it made sense to recruit were:

Mordin for his scientific expertise
Okeer:  For his past dealings with the Collectors
Tali:  Because she worked with Shepard before and knew of the Reaper threat.

Everyone else was simply a hired gun with a varierty of flavors.  The team was deadly, but not especially flexible.  It was ideal for infiltrating a base though.  Good thing, huh? 

3. And that's the conspt of RPG. The roleplayer...aka player of the game, feels these emotions....
http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
In short, if you want Shepard to feel these emotion, as the role player you feel these emotion. ME is not a 3rd person veiwer watch story, It's a 1st person character player control roleplaying story.

Bolded for emphasis.  The purpose of role-playing is to express the emotions the character feels.  If I decide my character feels a given emotion, but I cannot express that fact, I am not role playing.

If I feel a great deal of pity for the Collectors and regret the necessity of destroying them, but Shepard instead shrugs and says "doesn't matter" that's not role playing.

 If Shepard is brought back from the dead after two years, and is incurious to the point of being oblivious to this fact, that is not role playing (unless I'm role playing a Shepard Cerberus didn't manage to put back together quite right)

I will grant that the limitations of disk space and production costs limit the amount of role playing any computer game can provide.  But ME2 is missing some very basic reactions to heavy topics here.

I so don't want this to turn into a "what is an RPG" thread 

Modifié par iakus, 04 septembre 2011 - 04:54 .

[Biotic Sage]

100k wrote...

111987 wrote...

What I don't understand about these haters/nit pickers is...do you analyze every game with this much detail and with this negative/skeptical of an eye? Cause if you did, you would never enjoy any game...which defeats the purpose of playing video games.

Yes, I do. Almost every game I play, I critique. I understand that critiquing isn't for everyone, but it's something that I enjoy doing -- not for the sake of causing trouble, but for the sake striving to some day reaching a level akin to Citizen Kane, Manhatten, or Godfather.

And guess what? I still enjoy video games. So much, that I'm willing to come onto a forum to discuss them. 

MGS3 (Subsistence) is my all time favorite game. I think it's wonderfully written, acted, voiced, played, visualized, lengthed, and tied together. I also think that it's melodramatic, sometimes boring, and slightly egotistical of itself. 

But it remains my favorite game of all time.

I'm a skeptical person too, and I don't engage in any narrative (movie, book, video game, whatever) without taking part in critical analysis.  A lot of my friends say I need to just stop thinking and enjoy things, but in my opinion approaching narratives with a critical mindset serves to enhance enjoyment of worthy works; I can easily accept the tradeoff of lessened enjoyment of unworthy works because of this.  Completing college with a degree in English/Film certainly doesn't pay the bills, but without my education I wouldn't feel the level of personal and emotional satisfaction in my life that I currently do.

All this being said, I am the first person to condemn a work when I have engaged with it and it has failed to live up to scrutiny.  Mass Effect does not fall into this category. 

No, it isn't "The Godfather" or "Citizen Kane" of video games, but then again, are either of these movies indisputably the best of all time?  Citizen Kane was a groundbreaking, technical achievement that redefined the art of filmmaking.  However, was I as emotionally moved by Citizen Kane as I was by Disney's Up?  Not even close.  Does that mean Up is a better movie?  No, but it is better in that particular aspect.  When judging narratives, it's hard to quantify and place numerical rankings of better to best because so much of their success depends on what we, the viewer, bring with us in order to construct our own personal understandings of the narrative.  Mass Effect succeeds in so many areas where other video games have not even dreamed to go that it deserves recognition in much the same way that Citizen Kane does.  The art direction, score, voice acting, level of player choice (spanning across 3 games no less), and now the gameplay refinements in ME2 and ME3 add up to a cinematic experience that is a milestone achievement for video game narrative, and this cannot be simply dismissed because the plot elements are not 100% cohesive.  If you scrutinize anything enough, something will not add up: I had to learn the hard way to realize when to rightfully dismiss a work based on gaping errors/lack of quality and when to push aside nitpicking in order to achieve a level of enjoyment.  Because if we can't enjoy anything, then what's the point of critically analyzing narrative to begin with?

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:06 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Biotic Sage, way to mess everything up by bringing a sensible attitude to the conversation.

(ie I agree 100%)

Also. MGS3 is my favorite Metal Gear so way to go 100k.

Yeah, I have nothing to add yet.

[Iakus]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

What I meant about holding games to a different standard was this: Literature has Plot, Characterization, pacing... these are the chief concerns Video Games are considered with an entirely different set of criteria,

So, the question isn't 'does the plot make sense,' but 'do the elements of plot foster an enjoyable environment to play in.' Games are played, not watched. What I mean by this is especially apparent for Mass Effect because plot points are so heavily tied to player choice.

Having Shepard 'die' helped make the game better because it gave us a reason to start from scratch. And it did it in a incredibly dramatic way. This is the same reason Ubisoft destroyed Ezio's villa in the opening of AC:Brotherhood. They needed to 'reboot' the story.

And they did it in an excellent way too. Remember walking to get Joker and gazing overhead to see the entire top half of the Normandy gone? It wasn't a cutscene. You had to actually walk through a gutted Normandy. This is something the player experiences and it is THAT experience that gives us a trauma to hold onto throughout the game. The Collectors aren't just shadowy badguys, they are the Shadowy badguys that gutted your ship and left you for dead.

What better way to open a video game than that?

Without that scene the Thanix blasting apart the Collectors would have meant nothing.

What better way?

Any way, just about, at least imo.

Dying and immediately showing him come back?  Melodramatic of soap opera proportions.  Death is final, or is supposed to be.  Returning is a singular, momentous event worthy of a game in itself.  That verse Ash sends Shepard in her note?

“Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with gods."

Yeah that's supposed to be about accomplishing a worthy deed before dying, not after.  Because "Death closes all"  So Shepard dying wasn't dramatic to me, it was a cheap gimmick used as a reset button, unworthy of the gravity it represented.  It was silk toilet paper, if I may be so crude.

Games are played.  But many games, particularly Bioware games, are played as an interactive story.  AS such, the story's elements do have to make sense, not just be enjoyable.  Otherwise, how are you supposed to understand what's going on? Plot points are based on character choice, but how can a player choose if you can't understand the plot?  The drama comes from watching the story unfold, not in pretty set pieces.

If a game cannot be judged by it's plot, characters, or pacing, it will never be considered a form of art.  At best, only as a test of skill.

[Eckswhyzee]

I'm just hoping in ME3 there will be a good reason the writers went with "Death" and not "Very Nearly Dead In Some Kind Of Coma With Only Your Brain Intact"

...but ME2 still makes enough sense for me to enjoy it.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1.The only preson who would know abiout the project is Miranda. Mordin could only guess but never have a right awnser and the rest of the crew , even EDI would not have the info or a place to start. It all in Miranda's head. Anytjhing more then what they did would be just speculiton until Miranda said something.And I never said it was unimportant, just dealing with the collector was way more importantthen Shepard figuring out how he works.

Which is why I'm asking for questions even more than answers.  Curiosity.  Worry.  Wonder.  I want Mordin to ask Shepard for a tissue sample.  I want Joker to ask Shepard how it felt to die.  I want SHepard to ask THane what the drell concept of the afterlife is.  I want death to be treated as a serious matter.  Not just an excuse for "I got better" jokes.

If Shepard can take time to track down a given party member's father/sister/son/daughter/betrayer/grad student/former business partner he can spare a moment to wonder at his own existence.

2. They whole idea was to make a flexible team that could face anything that thrown at them. With the tech the collectors had...Much was not going to be found out about them.All they could do is just prep the ship and team. And they made a team thatcould handle any event. In truth, their is no way to know numbers and major details....Hence the lable of suicide mission. They pick the people with the best servival odds and can help improve the odds. Add on the fact that the more they learn able the collectors them more they imporved. Remeber, they statred recuiting with little info on the collector with an incomplete list. The first 4 recuited was a survivalist, a genius, a briliat tactician, and an intended person who met with the collectors already......who was killed and we were given his super krogan instead. Everyone else was listed after they learned more about the collectors.

And this is why the only people it made sense to recruit were:

Mordin for his scientific expertise
Okeer:  For his past dealings with the Collectors
Tali:  Because she worked with Shepard before and knew of the Reaper threat.

Everyone else was simply a hired gun with a varierty of flavors.  The team was deadly, but not especially flexible.  It was ideal for infiltrating a base though.  Good thing, huh? 

3. And that's the conspt of RPG. The roleplayer...aka player of the game, feels these emotions....
http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
In short, if you want Shepard to feel these emotion, as the role player you feel these emotion. ME is not a 3rd person veiwer watch story, It's a 1st person character player control roleplaying story.

Bolded for emphasis.  The purpose of role-playing is to express the emotions the character feels.  If I decide my character feels a given emotion, but I cannot express that fact, I am not role playing.

If I feel a great deal of pity for the Collectors and regret the necessity of destroying them, but Shepard instead shrugs and says "doesn't matter" that's not role playing.

 If Shepard is brought back from the dead after two years, and is incurious to the point of being oblivious to this fact, that is not role playing (unless I'm role playing a Shepard Cerberus didn't manage to put back together quite right)

I will grant that the limitations of disk space and production costs limit the amount of role playing any computer game can provide.  But ME2 is missing some very basic reactions to heavy topics here.

I so don't want this to turn into a "what is an RPG" thread 

1.Be to do thathe hast o talk to Mirada. Tissue samples won't matter because it's the brian that's improtant to his/her revival, not the body. Anything thebody had can be replace out side the brian. And Shep would not want anyone try to reverse engineer his/her brain to learn how he was brought back. That leads to skull craking.

2. Yes the team is very flexible.With out counting cerberus.....You had 2 powerful biotics for crowd tactics, not counting legion you have 3 tech experts, and not counting Grunt and Shepard 3 powerful and flexible  fighters, one of them can lead very well.
They can take anything that that thrown at them. The whole point of the squad is highest success with unknown odds.
3.That can't make an option for everything which is why they try to be as viague as possible. Some thing as to be the repose for everything and the deeper stuff with Shepards emotions is with the player.