580 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter.

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

While I agree that it could have been handled better, I see no reason why they should have been foreshadowed in a believable way so Shepard could notice them.

Well, unless you count the book, in which they were foreshadowed in a way outside Shepard's story, just like Sovereign.

Most people didn't even believe the Collectors existed or were nothing more than a myth too. So why would Shepard even care about something like the Collectors in the Terminus system while he's hunting Saren?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[AlexXIV]

So you're asking what is the point of fighting the Collectors?

They were attacking human colonies, leaving them empty. And nobody else cared.

Just because there is the Reaper threat there is no reason to not deal with other problems.

And let's not forget that the Collectors served the Reapers and were building a Reaper, which is probably not a good thing for us.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:03 .

[LinksOcarina]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter.

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

Um...Tolkein did that. So did Robert Jordan, C.S Lewis, and Orson Scott Card. They introduced new characters, plots, enemies and allies all the damn time in their works, that is a typical trope of storytelling to begin with.


So yeah...there is no justfiable reason to even mention them in Act 1 from a narrative standpoint with the exception of retro-active continuity.  I like the ideas for evidence of them in game one, but it contradicts what is known about them in game two, along with the fact that no evidence of them can be found except rumors and here-say.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[shepskisaac]

AlexXIV wrote...

So you're asking what is the point of fighting the Collectors?

They were attacking human colonies, leaving them empty. And nobody else cared.

Just because there is the Reaper threat there is no reason to not deal with other problems.

Without even mentioning the fact Collectors were highly suspected to be connected to the Reapers from the beginning. It only makes sense for Shep to go after this matter, hopefully saving both more humans from getting abducted (still very important matter in itself) AND possibly learning alot about the Reapers.

[AlexXIV]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter.

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

Um...Tolkein did that. So did Robert Jordan, C.S Lewis, and Orson Scott Card.


So yeah...there is no justfiable reason to even mention them in Act 1 either.  I like the ideas for evidence of them in game one, but it contradicts what is known about them in game two, along with the fact that no evidence of them can be found except rumors and here-say.

Aye as far as I know the Collectors were mostly inactive and operating rather 'harmless' up to the point they destroyed the Normandy. I guess if they actually managed to kill Shepard for good people wouldn't be so disrespectful. Anyway, they were a threat and had to be eliminated. And they were working for the Reapers. So people are pissed because of lack of foreshadowing. I don't think it is necessary. It is not forbidden to surprise us.

[AlexXIV]

IsaacShep wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So you're asking what is the point of fighting the Collectors?

They were attacking human colonies, leaving them empty. And nobody else cared.

Just because there is the Reaper threat there is no reason to not deal with other problems.

Without even mentioning the fact Collectors were highly suspected to be connected to the Reapers from the beginning. It only makes sense for Shep to go after this matter, hopefully saving both more humans from getting abducted (still very important matter in itself) AND possibly learning alot about the Reapers.

Well they were the ones who blew up the first Normandy. If that's not a good reason then I don't know.

[Dark_Caduceus]

To make money?

[CerberusWarrior]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The Collectors were doing very small operations in the Terminus systems. Shepard didn't venture there until the late part of the game, and even then, he had a set destination. The Collectors also worked to not be noticed until ME2, when they stepped up their production.

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter.

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

Um...Tolkein did that. So did Robert Jordan, C.S Lewis, and Orson Scott Card. They introduced new characters, plots, enemies and allies all the damn time in their works, that is a typical trope of storytelling to begin with.


So yeah...there is no justfiable reason to even mention them in Act 1 from a narrative standpoint with the exception of retro-active continuity.  I like the ideas for evidence of them in game one, but it contradicts what is known about them in game two, along with the fact that no evidence of them can be found except rumors and here-say.

  


At least Tolken had a story with Lord of The Rings with a start and end and the books all connected to each other . Bioware can not even connect the 3 games because ME 3 seems like a direct sequel to ME 1 .

[LinksOcarina]

Ok CerberusWarrior, your proof, other than blind supposition?

[Yezdigerd]

Which main enemy did Tolkien introduce in the second book?

[Gemini1179]

@OP I suspect the true answer will not be discovered for some years. In the future when BioWare no longer exists, or exists as part of EA, we'll get the interview with one of the original BW guys where he'll admit that overriding Release Dates, specific content requirements, production schedules, turnaround times for sequels and such all played a part in how the previously loved BW games fell from grace. DA2 rushed, ME3 looks like it is getting rushed. DAO had a what, 5+yr development cycle? 4+ for ME1? 5+ for TOR? Etc, etc, then we get DA2 on a 2 yr dev cycle, ME2 on a 3 yr dev cycle, ME3 on a 2 yr dev cycle and I suspect DA3 will be slated for release around 2013. These things simply ruin great games, there are no two ways around it.

I suspect, therefore, that a proper realization of all possibilities resulting from ME2 had to simply be not done due to the dev cycle. I suspect all the surviving members of your ME2 squad, that you spent an entire game recruiting, working with, learning about, forging friendships with, etc, will end up in "Wrex/Wreave"-esque guest spots where they can be interchanged with a new NPC that can act as the same plot device if they had not survived.

With the mandate of multiplayer, the standard pre-order DLC requirements, the post-launch DLC requirements, the studies showing that Modern Warfare players don't complete the less than 10-hour single player campaigns are all new factors in the development of the 'modern' video game.

*sigh* I really hope I'm wrong.

[CerberusWarrior]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ok CerberusWarrior, your proof, other than blind supposition?

   


Its not blind anything I read the LOTR books and there is a connected story with all the books  Bioware has no idea on how to tell a sci fi story . 

[LinksOcarina]

Yezdigerd wrote...

Which main enemy did Tolkien introduce in the second book?

the Harad men, the Easterlings (men of Rhun), Grima Wormtounge, and the Wildmen of Dunland.

Of course, the definition of main enemy is vague though. The collectors weren't a main enemy, they were the auxillary force for the Reapers, who were controlling them, just like how Sauron and Sarumon were controlling most of these groups via dipolomacy and playing on their hatred.

While were at it, the Rohiran were introduced in book 2 by force, we didn't see them in book one, especially the principal players, namely Eomer, Eowyn, and King Theoden.

CerberusWarrior wrote...

Its not blind anything I read the LOTR books and there is a connected story with all the books  Bioware has no idea on how to tell a sci fi story .  

Again, I want proof that they dont know how to tell it.

You are just saying they don't, which is not good enough as you have no proof of the matter. If you can't show any coherent or well thought out examples then why the hell should I take you seriously at all then?

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:54 .

[Candidate 88766]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

The thing is that it's bad form to introduce a main enemy in the second part of a trilogy without even foreshadowing them in the first. It's even worse to kill them off completely within the same chapter.

This is fiction we're talking about; the writers have full control over what happens in the game, and what species/future plots are referenced. For this reason, there's no comprehensive argument for why the Collectors were never mentioned in ME1.

While I agree that it could have been handled better, I see no reason why they should have been foreshadowed in a believable way so Shepard could notice them.

Well, unless you count the book, in which they were foreshadowed in a way outside Shepard's story, just like Sovereign.

Most people didn't even believe the Collectors existed or were nothing more than a myth too. So why would Shepard even care about something like the Collectors in the Terminus system while he's hunting Saren?

I'm defending ME2 here - I think it did add to the plot and that it has an important role - but I agree with Mr. Mannly Man, at least in the regard that the Collectors ought to have been introduced, or at least mentioned, in ME1. I don't think its poor form not to mention everything in the first act, but in this regard it would have greatly added to ME2.

If both the Collectors and TIM were mentioned, even in passing or in the codex in ME1, ME2 would actually have been a bit better. Although I think its great anyway.

[onelifecrisis]

Nyoka wrote...

I'm thinking the ME story could have begun with ME2. You're a commander sent off to pacify a conflictive slaver territory. You are attacked by the collectors and left for dead by the Alliance. Cerberus however had had an eye on you for a long time (just as the Council in ME1) and save your life (no Lazarus Project in this version). Cerberus is considered universally as bad guys but they are the only ones willing to pay attention to the disappearance of colonists. You get your team to fight the collectors and find out what they are really doing. Before you fight terminator, you have a little talk with him (basicly Sovereign's talk). The threat of the reapers is revealed and you come back to the Alliance with the news. This impresses the Council so much they make you a Spectre. You warn everyone a war is about to happen and then ME3 (although what we know as ME3 would be ME2 here) begins.

That would be an improvement IMO.

M1->ME3 (with no ME2) would also be an improvement IMO.

As it is, I feel like we got ME1 then ME1 again.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:55 .

[Yezdigerd]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Which main enemy did Tolkien introduce in the second book?

the Harad men, the Easterlings (men of Rhun), Grima Wormtounge, and the Wildmen of Dunland.

Of course, the definition of main enemy is vague though. The collectors weren't a main enemy, they were the auxillary force for the Reapers, who were controlling them, just like how Sauron and Sarumon were controlling most of these groups via dipolomacy and playing on their hatred.

Those are mooks, they are clearly presented as such meant to demonstrate the boundless nature of Sauron's power. They never act independently of his will and could be replaced with orc tribe 7, 11 and 13 without affecting the story.

[LinksOcarina]

Just like the Collectors and the Geth are fairly interchangeable from each other considering their connection to the Reapers?

[Someone With Mass]

CerberusWarrior wrote...

At least Tolken had a story with Lord of The Rings with a start and end and the books all connected to each other . Bioware can not even connect the 3 games because ME 3 seems like a direct sequel to ME 1 .

Right...

Because going from this:


...to this:


Without any sort of explanation or buildup wouldn't be jarring at all.

[DCarter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Yezdigerd wrote...

Which main enemy did Tolkien introduce in the second book?

the Harad men, the Easterlings (men of Rhun), Grima Wormtounge, and the Wildmen of Dunland.

Of course, the definition of main enemy is vague though. The collectors weren't a main enemy, they were the auxillary force for the Reapers.

Problem is we don't find out what the collectors and by proxy the reapers were doing apart from building the human-reaper but that only leads to a lot more questions. 

[CroGamer002]

Someone With Mass wrote...

CerberusWarrior wrote...

At least Tolken had a story with Lord of The Rings with a start and end and the books all connected to each other . Bioware can not even connect the 3 games because ME 3 seems like a direct sequel to ME 1 .

Right...

Because going from this:


...to this:


Without any sort of explanation or buildup wouldn't be jarring at all.

Yeah that.

[Andorfiend]

In all honesty, nothing was learned in the main quest of ME 2 that couldn't be handled with 1 minute of exposition. All the real meat of ME 2 was in the sidequests, and that's weird.

Fleshing out your world with side quests? Exploring character growth in side quests? Absolutely. Central plot points? Not a good idea.

For example ME 3 will be centered on building a grand alliance to rescue the .. uh.. alliance. In each game you made a decision that can bring an entire race into the fray on your side (or maybe cause them to get indoctrinated/hacked by the Reapers, we'll see.)

In ME 1 you could not finish the game without choosing the preserve or destroy the Rachni. In ME 2 you could completely ignore both the Geth and Krogan racial missions. Why?

[Candidate 88766]

Someone With Mass wrote...

CerberusWarrior wrote...

At least Tolken had a story with Lord of The Rings with a start and end and the books all connected to each other . Bioware can not even connect the 3 games because ME 3 seems like a direct sequel to ME 1 .

Right...

Because going from this:


...to this:


Without any sort of explanation or buildup wouldn't be jarring at all.

Exactly.

With ME1->ME2->ME3
You stop the Reapers using the Citadel, find out they are on their way but have time to prepare and disrupt their plans. This also allows tension to build in the story - will the galaxy be prepared in time, when will they arrive, that sort of stuff. ME2 should've delved more into it, but there is some tension being built from the fact that you know the Reapers are on their way but you still have some time left.

With ME1->ME3
You stop the Reapers using the Citadel but then they arrive straight away anyway, rendering ME1 entirely useless and taking away any tension being built in the story. And if we were told 'several years passed between', you'd think 'I kinda want to play that time and find out what happened'. Hence ME2.

[Candidate 88766]

Andorfiend wrote...

In all honesty, nothing was learned in the main quest of ME 2 that couldn't be handled with 1 minute of exposition. All the real meat of ME 2 was in the sidequests, and that's weird.

Fleshing out your world with side quests? Exploring character growth in side quests? Absolutely. Central plot points? Not a good idea.

For example ME 3 will be centered on building a grand alliance to rescue the .. uh.. alliance. In each game you made a decision that can bring an entire race into the fray on your side (or maybe cause them to get indoctrinated/hacked by the Reapers, we'll see.)

In ME 1 you could not finish the game without choosing the preserve or destroy the Rachni. In ME 2 you could completely ignore both the Geth and Krogan racial missions. Why?

There's a difference between side quests and optional quests. Throughout ME2's marketing Bioware repeatedly said that the characters were the story's focus. While optional, the character loyalty missions are essentially the main quests. Side missions are things like the N7 missions - added extra, but the game could exist without them. Without the loyalty missions, there wouldn't really be much of a game. They were optional (well, kinda - you had to do at least some to not fail the game) but they weren't side missions.