Andorfiend wrote...
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?
You aren't entirely on, but you aren't entirely off either.H00plehead wrote...
I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.
There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:
The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?
The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.
Am I off in my analysis?
That's right. Jacob did. A very eloquent medical examiner.111987 wrote...
1. I never said you said he was meat and tubes [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]
It definitely doesn't. As I said, at worst, Shepard's torso was split in really big parts of...meat. Shepard's brain? Not intact. Wow, either coup/contra-coup injuries have been redefined, or that helmet had a hell lot of space in it to allow a different kind of blunt force trauma, didn't it?I brought that up because that means Shepard's brain wasn't intact, as your were implying in the original post.
Quantum mechanics and thermodynamics have nothing to do with full recovery of memories. If anything, you should consider that your memories definitely aren't recovered 100% from one second to another. Actually, people have had such severe blunt force traumas that a specific part of their brain was severly destroyed. They couldn't remember to talk. They could still remember their birthdate.2. Shepard's memories did make a full recovery, which they should not have.
Locard's Principe? Eh, personal experiments and Newton's third law, I suppose? Locard is considered by some as the father of forensics.4. Where did this idea even come from???
Feel free to drop the debate, I won't take it negatively or consider that I won. I am just explaining what I mean so that no further misunderstanding is caused.ANYWAYS, like I said I really don't care, so let's just drop this debate.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Throughout ME2's marketing Bioware repeatedly said that the characters were the story's focus.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
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.
Well, technically the game itself says thats its purpose is to assemble a squad - TIM almost breaks the fourth wall telling Shepard to do the loyalty missions and to focus on the squad. I just felt I should point out that Bioware said all along that the characters were the focus.onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Throughout ME2's marketing Bioware repeatedly said that the characters were the story's focus.
Wait... you're judging ME2 on it's marketing now? No, I'm not being disingenuous here. Do you actually think that the marketing (not to mention dev tweets from two years after release, IIRC) should be taken into account when forming an opinion of a game?
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Well, technically the game itself says thats its purpose is to assemble a squad - TIM almost breaks the fourth wall telling Shepard to do the loyalty missions and to focus on the squad. I just felt I should point out that Bioware said all along that the characters were the focus.onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Throughout ME2's marketing Bioware repeatedly said that the characters were the story's focus.
Wait... you're judging ME2 on it's marketing now? No, I'm not being disingenuous here. Do you actually think that the marketing (not to mention dev tweets from two years after release, IIRC) should be taken into account when forming an opinion of a game?
And I don't think the marketing itself should be taken into account, but when every bit of marketing ME2 has was pushing the idea that the characters were the focus, I struggle to see how people can say they were the 'side stories' of the game. Optional? Sure, but not side stories.
I prevented a new Reaper being built, I stopped dozens of human colonies being lost, I saved a copy of the Genophage Cure, I made the Geth more powerful, I installed a new Shadow Broker, I potentially set the Quarians on the path to peace, I prevented the Reapers using the Alpha Relay, I now have leverage I may be able to use against the Krogan, Geth, Quarians and Omega, I found out what the Reapers' plans are (to some extent) and I have the loyalty of a band of very dangerous/powerful/influential characters.onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
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.
That's based on the assumption something worthwhile happened.
Modifié par Candidate 88766, 06 décembre 2011 - 08:19 .
Forget I mentioned it - I didn't really think it through. Within the game itself the player is almost blatantly told that the characters are the focus, so I don't see how people can say they were side stories. That wasn't directed at you, but I don't remeber who it was directed at.onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Well, technically the game itself says thats its purpose is to assemble a squad - TIM almost breaks the fourth wall telling Shepard to do the loyalty missions and to focus on the squad. I just felt I should point out that Bioware said all along that the characters were the focus.onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Throughout ME2's marketing Bioware repeatedly said that the characters were the story's focus.
Wait... you're judging ME2 on it's marketing now? No, I'm not being disingenuous here. Do you actually think that the marketing (not to mention dev tweets from two years after release, IIRC) should be taken into account when forming an opinion of a game?
And I don't think the marketing itself should be taken into account, but when every bit of marketing ME2 has was pushing the idea that the characters were the focus, I struggle to see how people can say they were the 'side stories' of the game. Optional? Sure, but not side stories.
I never saw any of the marketing, nor should I have had to. But yeah, TIM does push the whole "you'll need the team at their best" thing. I'm just shocked to see you bringing the marketing, of all things, into this discussion. It doesn't belong here.
Only for BW to make money.turian-rebellion wrote...
So, i've been looking into mass effect 3 alot more now, and i've found out that the only squadmates in mass effect 3, in short, is no new squad member from mass effect 2. So what was the point of mass effect 2?
To me, except from stopping the collectors, finding out that collectors are protheans, and building a relationship with Cerberus, the point of mass effect 2 was to build a great team for when the reapers come. This is why your getting people like thane, the ultimate assassin, grunt, the perfect krogan, and mordin, the smartest salarian.
You recruited the to stop the collectors, and to prepare to fight with the reapers. The best evidenced i have, is when everyone survives, the epilogur show your new crew preparing for the fight against the reapers!
So why is it, that no new squad member you made in mass effect 2, comes in mass effect 3! the only point i can think of for mass effect 2, was to stop the collectors, but i could have done that with my old team, not build a massive new team.
i'm dissapointed at the fact that even though mass effect 2 was a great game, in fact, the best game out right now, it seems to be pretty pointless, towards mass effect 3. what do you think? do you agree with me? who do you want froom mass effect 2? do you see any other point of mass effect 2? REPLY!
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Forget I mentioned it - I didn't really think it through. Within the game itself the player is almost blatantly told that the characters are the focus, so I don't see how people can say they were side stories.
Modifié par tonnactus, 06 décembre 2011 - 08:41 .
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You have read the script and have decided that they probably won't.
The Reapers were established as a threat, sure - and they are always stated as a threat throughout ME2 - but ME1's main threat was Saren - your goal in the game was fighting Saren and his Geth. Admittedly you were doing this to stop him reaching the Conduit and allowing the reapers to arrive, but fighting the Collectors because they were harvesting humans to build a Reaper is justas related to the Reaper plot as stopping Saren to prevent the Conduit being activated. In both games the Reapers are the background threat - you know they're there pulling the strings, but the immediate threat has either been Saren or the Collectors.tonnactus wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Forget I mentioned it - I didn't really think it through. Within the game itself the player is almost blatantly told that the characters are the focus, so I don't see how people can say they were side stories.
Because the reaper threat was etablished as the main focus right in the first game...
Not playing daddy for lonely former rich girls and solving father/son problems.
Pokemon in space combined with shooting things.
Ah, sorry,onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You have read the script and have decided that they probably won't.
For clarity, no, I haven't. I don't know much about what happens in ME3, though I've seen some (not particularly spoilerish) info here in general discussion. Earlier in this thread Isaac (who has read the leaked script) told me that ME2 does turn out to have a point, but, well, read back for my position on that. My opinion of ME2 is based on ME2, nothing more.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Ah, sorry,onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You have read the script and have decided that they probably won't.
For clarity, no, I haven't. I don't know much about what happens in ME3, though I've seen some (not particularly spoilerish) info here in general discussion. Earlier in this thread Isaac (who has read the leaked script) told me that ME2 does turn out to have a point, but, well, read back for my position on that. My opinion of ME2 is based on ME2, nothing more.
Well, in that case we've both come away from the same evidence and believe different things about ME2's relevancy to the story. While neither of us can really back our views up with evidence, I doubt either of us is going to change our view. Shall we agree to disagree?
(see my posts a couple of pages ago on retroactively giving Act 2 a point) but sure, we can stop arguing for now at least.
Well, we both feel we have evidence but until ME3 comes out neither of us can really say what impact ME2 had. Regardless of its role in the story, I had a good time playing it and as long as some of its choices actually do impact ME3 then this could be one of the best gaming franchises I've ever played.onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Ah, sorry,onelifecrisis wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You have read the script and have decided that they probably won't.
For clarity, no, I haven't. I don't know much about what happens in ME3, though I've seen some (not particularly spoilerish) info here in general discussion. Earlier in this thread Isaac (who has read the leaked script) told me that ME2 does turn out to have a point, but, well, read back for my position on that. My opinion of ME2 is based on ME2, nothing more.
Well, in that case we've both come away from the same evidence and believe different things about ME2's relevancy to the story. While neither of us can really back our views up with evidence, I doubt either of us is going to change our view. Shall we agree to disagree?
Hmm... I'm rather of the opinion that I do have evidence
...Right, and the characters were established as the main focus of the second game.tonnactus wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Forget I mentioned it - I didn't really think it through. Within the game itself the player is almost blatantly told that the characters are the focus, so I don't see how people can say they were side stories.
Because the reaper threat was etablished as the main focus right in the first game...
Not playing daddy for lonely former rich girls and solving father/son problems.
Pokemon in space combined with shooting things.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
The Reapers were established as a threat, sure - and they are always stated as a threat throughout ME2 - but ME1's main threat was Saren - your goal in the game was fighting Saren and his Geth. Admittedly you were doing this to stop him reaching the Conduit and allowing the reapers to arrive, but fighting the Collectors because they were harvesting humans to build a Reaper
Modifié par tonnactus, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:00 .
Phaedon wrote...
You aren't entirely on, but you aren't entirely off either.H00plehead wrote...
I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.
There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:
The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?
The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.
Am I off in my analysis?
The second group, I'd argue is filled with defeatism. They like ME2, but they can't argue for it. I for one, enjoyed the story of ME2 more than the story of ME1, though I accept that ME1 had a more interesting plot and was a more important chapter in the trilogy.
You wanna know why these people post, though? Because of the OP. "What was the point of ME2?" Now, that's just silly.
Story-wise, ME1 and ME2 have similar goals:
ME1:
"Hey Shepard, make sure to chase Saren. Also, remember that something's up with the Conduit."
"Coolio. Oh, look I almost got Saren, wait it looks like the Conduit was more plot-centric than I thought it'd be, it's a part of a huge conspiracy"
"Done! I completed both of my goals! Defeated Saren and solved the Conduit sub-plot"
ME2:
"Hey Shepard, make sure to chase down these bad guys abducting our colonies. Also, remember that something's up with the Omega 4 relay."
"Coolio. Oh, look, I almost stopped the Collectors, and apparently, the Collector Base was built by Reapers. It's in the middle of the frickin' galaxy core!"
"Done! I completed both of my goals! I defeated the collectors and solved the Collector Base sub-plot, you won't believe it, there was a Reaper in there!"
However, in general, ME1 is more relevant to the trilogy arc than ME2. So, what was the point of ME2? Well, what was the point of the Two Towers? Of Episode V? To build-up to the third act and introduce specific sub-plots. It's no coincidence, writers follow specific arcs for trilogies.
Just imagine jumping from ME1 to ME3. Doesn't make much sense does it?That's right. Jacob did. A very eloquent medical examiner.111987 wrote...
1. I never said you said he was meat and tubes [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]It definitely doesn't. As I said, at worst, Shepard's torso was split in really big parts of...meat. Shepard's brain? Not intact. Wow, either coup/contra-coup injuries have been redefined, or that helmet had a hell lot of space in it to allow a different kind of blunt force trauma, didn't it?I brought that up because that means Shepard's brain wasn't intact, as your were implying in the original post.
Cynicism aside, Shepard's brain had to be intact, or the helmet had to be a spare one. That's how it goes. Not that a brain that isn't intact wouldn't cause that big a problem, just saying.Quantum mechanics and thermodynamics have nothing to do with full recovery of memories. If anything, you should consider that your memories definitely aren't recovered 100% from one second to another. Actually, people have had such severe blunt force traumas that a specific part of their brain was severly destroyed. They couldn't remember to talk. They could still remember their birthdate.2. Shepard's memories did make a full recovery, which they should not have.
You seem to be talking about recovery. Who talked about recovery? It could very well be reconstruction. The data, however, was definitely reconstructible with good enough tech, seeing as no parts of the brain were unaccounted for, and that Locard's principle is still in effect.
3. Well we saw in ME1 how the suits could only take a few minutes of cold temperatures before it simply became too cold (and you started losing health). The same would be the case here.Locard's Principe? Eh, personal experiments and Newton's third law, I suppose? Locard is considered by some as the father of forensics.4. Where did this idea even come from???
According to his principle, any exchange (and that includes the interal processes of the brain since they have physical effects) will leave some data behind, if we don't find it, either the observer isn't skilled enough, or the technolodgy is not as advanced as it should.Feel free to drop the debate, I won't take it negatively or consider that I won. I am just explaining what I mean so that no further misunderstanding is caused.ANYWAYS, like I said I really don't care, so let's just drop this debate.
H00plehead wrote...
I've also been perusing this thread and am starting to see a pattern emerge that is impeding the productivity of this debate.
There seem to be two groups with polar opposite methods for approaching a story:
The first group is taking an active and critical approach to Mass Effect and making comprehensive literary criticisms on the work as a whole. This approach leads them to ask the question "why was this written?" an inquiry which seeks a unifying element to all the little bits within the story. In terms of this thread, the question is the heart: why was the collector plot relevant to the other games and how did it push the overarching plot about the reapers forward?
The second group, however, are taking the role of passive consumer and thus don't question the direction of the plot in which they are immersed. The question why something occurred or how it's significant to a greater plot is irrelevant to them. That something occurred and is thus important and it's important because it occurred. In terms of this thread, the second group can't meaningfully converse with the first because the question of why the collector threat was significant to the overarching story is irrelevant to them, the collector threat existed and thus was important. Why the collector threat was written at all simply isn't meaningful to them because they don't question the direction of the story.
Am I off in my analysis?
CerberusWarrior wrote...
At least Lucas did not wash away the entire point of Episode 5 like Bioware is doing with ME 2 in ME 3 . ME 2 has no baring on the evnts in ME 3. from the demo Shepard acts as if he was always part of the alliance . Thats flat out bull sh*t when he was working with Cerberus in 2 . ME 2 has no point
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:02 .
Modifié par AlexXIV, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:03 .
You have a good point with this. Episode 5 is arguably the best in the series, but didn't add all that much to the plot.Someone With Mass wrote...
Though, one could just as easy say that Episode 5 did nothing for the story.
Not that I think so. Just saying.
iakus wrote...
That's why I was hoping that the tweets would confirm that the new Reaper would have been completed before Arrival and have been put to some nefarious purpose.
At the risk of dragging this off-topic, you're right. If the prequels had started at the onset of the clone wars they could;ve been so much better. They went from amazing sci-fi battles in space to sci-fi politics. Such a pity. Thank god they kinda brought it back with Revenge of the Sith. The opening sequence alone was the best thing in the trilogy since Empire.AlexXIV wrote...
Well if I could do without one episode of Star Wars then without Episode I. I'd rather have more clone war instead. And I am saying that even though I love Liam Neeson as an actor. He couldn't save Episode I for me.
Retour en haut
