164 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

That's a very crippled understanding of what a protagonist is. It's not 'convenient' for incredible things to happen to the protagonist. The character is the protagonist because incredible things happen to them.

Things don't happen to people because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

And that's wrong, in any case. Lazarus is avaliable to other people in the universe, so long as they have 4 billion credits, the technical expertise of Cerberus and Miranda, two years, a very specific death, and a fair amount of luck. Since all of that was required to being Shepard back? Oh, and of course a motivation to do all that in the first place.

Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 10:22 .

[SpamBot2000]

David7204 wrote...

That's a very crippled understanding of what a protagonist is. It's not 'convenient' for incredible things to happen to the protagonist. The character is the protagonist because incredible things happen to them.

Things don't happen to people because they're in stories. They're in stories because things happen to them.

And that's wrong, in any case. It's is avaliable to other people in the universe, so long as they have 4 billion credits, the technical expertise of Cerberus and Lawson, two years, a very specific death, and a fair amount of luck.

I see it not so much as a "crippled understanding" as a preference. As in, "I like a more believable story."

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 26 mars 2013 - 10:22 .

[David7204]

It's pretty basic storytelling. The most powerful and important character to the themes and conflicts of the story needs to be the protagonist. Otherwise, why is s/he the protagonist? It logically follows that the protagonist is the protagonist because things happen to him or her, not the other way around.

[SpamBot2000]

David7204 wrote...

It's pretty basic storytelling. The most powerful and important character to the themes and conflicts of the story needs to be the protagonist. Otherwise, why is s/he the protagonist? It logically follows that the protagonist is the protagonist because things happen to him or her, not the other way around.

It's just a question of which things ought to happen to that protagonist. I happen to find it a tad uncomfortable to play "Space Messiah". We all enjoy power fantasies, but there is such a thing as overdoing it.

[Dieb]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's pretty basic storytelling. The most powerful and important character to the themes and conflicts of the story needs to be the protagonist. Otherwise, why is s/he the protagonist? It logically follows that the protagonist is the protagonist because things happen to him or her, not the other way around.

It's just a question of which things ought to happen to that protagonist. I happen to find it a tad uncomfortable to play "Space Messiah". We all enjoy power fantasies, but there is such a thing as overdoing it.

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but it is my understanding that this is exactly what Shepard is, and supposed to be. It's his journey from being an exceptional soldier to becoming an exceptional human until finally an exceptional "being".

[David7204]

You're the one using that term, aren't you? Not the game. A group of people want to bring Shepard back, and so they do. And it looks like they were correct in doing so, given that Shepard saves the galaxy and all.

The brain is tissues, cells, matter. If you'd like to arbitrarily decide that being able to manipulate it crosses some 'Space Messiah' threshold, then that's your concern, isn't it? But that's certainly not going to stop people from doing it, in fiction or in real life. History has proven that a thousand times over, has it not? How many times has technology been opposed on the basis of it being God's domain? And how often has that opposition been successful?

Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 10:42 .

[SpamBot2000]

David7204 wrote...

You're the one using that term, aren't you? Not the game. A group of people want to bring Shepard back, and so they do. And it looks like they were correct in doing so, given that Shepard saves the galaxy and all.

The brain is tissues, cells, matter. If you'd like to arbitrarily decide that being able to manipulate it crosses some 'Space Messiah' threshold, then that's your concern, isn't it? But that's certainly not going to stop people from doing it, in fiction or in real life. History has proven that a thousand times over, has it not? How many times has technology been opposed on the basis of it being God's domain? And how often has that opposition been successful?

That's not really the point for me though. It's really looking at what is feasible for people in Mass Effect, and seeing the extraordinary measures that are applied to Shepard. It is possible for a bullet to bounce off your medallion, say, but it feels like a cheap solution to letting the protagonist escape an otherwise fatal shooting. And it is really just about a convenient way to reset Shepard, not a sustained exploration of the frontiers of science. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 26 mars 2013 - 11:06 .

[Fixers0]

Meh, any reference to project Lazarus is going to be a complete failure, because then you're opening the can of unawnserd questions and contrived bullsh*t yet again, which is one of the primary reasons the plot of the Citadel DLC is such a piece of garbage.

[David7204]

No, it isn't. As I posted earlier, Lazarus did an outstanding job of transferring the player from the old ship and old crew to the new ship and new crew. It did an outstanding job of establishing a new threat and setting the tone and timeline for ME 2. There are a lot of great character moments that stem from Shepard's death.

The idea that the developers and writers put in hours and hours and hours of work and content and writing just to justify Shepard being at level 1 is just stupid.

[SpamBot2000]

David7204 wrote...

No, it isn't. As I posted earlier, Lazarus did an outstanding job of transferring the player from the old ship and old crew to the new ship and new crew. It did an outstanding job of establishing a new threat and setting the tone and timeline for ME 2. There are a lot of great character moments that stem from Shepard's death.

The idea that the developers and writers put in hours and hours and hours of work and content and writing just to justify Shepard being at level 1 is just stupid.

You say "did an outstanding job", I say "did a job". Simple as that.

And it makes perfect sense for game designers to concentrate on one of the biggest reward systems known in video games, leveling up.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 26 mars 2013 - 11:09 .

[David7204]

There's a very big difference between putting work into the leveling system and putting work into justifying the existence of the leveling system. So no, it does not make sense to invest that kind of work just so the player won't whine about being level 1.

You can think whatever you want. But the numbers are with me. ME 2's introduction was very well received. Moments like the kiss in Lair of the Shadow Broker which stem from Shepard's death were very well received. The new crew and new ship in ME 2 was very well received.

Modifié par David7204, 26 mars 2013 - 11:15 .

[SpamBot2000]

David7204 wrote...

There's a very big difference between putting work into the leveling system and putting work into justifying the existence of the leveling system.

You can think whatever you want. But the numbers are with me. ME 2's introduction was very well received. Moments like the kiss in Lair of the Shadow Broker which stem from Shepard's death were very well received. The new crew and new ship in ME 2 was very well received.

Hey, I really liked ME2. And LotSB was clearly the best ME DLC.

I just find the Lazarus project something better not to dwell on.

[David7204]

That's your choice.

[Getorex]

Lizardviking wrote...

My problem never truly lied with the explannation behind project Lazarus. I would have easily overlooked it if they had actually done something with it.

But they didn't. It was just an excuse to jump the timeline foward.

Pretty much this.  Killing and resurrecting Shepard at the very beginning was merely a fast and easy way to put Shepard, out of character otherwise, right smack-dab in the middle of Cerberus operations rather than on the other side taking DOWN Cerberus operations.  It's just a vehicle for a 180 degree change.

They COULD have done it more realistically and interestingly by perhaps having a Cerberus op (or two after Shepard takes down the first as a matter of duty) approach Shepard on the sly and present a case to help with an operation.  It could have been done BUT it would have taken a while to set it up, to build up to having Shepard actually agree to help (but NOT join!).  In a novel it could and should be done that way but in a game that you are trying to get off and running right away...you get Lazarus.

[Nykara]

Getorex wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

My problem never truly lied with the explannation behind project Lazarus. I would have easily overlooked it if they had actually done something with it.

But they didn't. It was just an excuse to jump the timeline foward.

Pretty much this.  Killing and resurrecting Shepard at the very beginning was merely a fast and easy way to put Shepard, out of character otherwise, right smack-dab in the middle of Cerberus operations rather than on the other side taking DOWN Cerberus operations.  It's just a vehicle for a 180 degree change.

They COULD have done it more realistically and interestingly by perhaps having a Cerberus op (or two after Shepard takes down the first as a matter of duty) approach Shepard on the sly and present a case to help with an operation.  It could have been done BUT it would have taken a while to set it up, to build up to having Shepard actually agree to help (but NOT join!).  In a novel it could and should be done that way but in a game that you are trying to get off and running right away...you get Lazarus.

In all seriousness what they could have done was simply have Shepard badly injured / believed to be dead but not actually dead and project Lazarus from there. It would have been far more believable then bringing Shepard back from being cold dead.

[Tron Mega]

playing ME2 right after playing ME1 is weird. i go through all of ME1 and walk away from the rubble grinning, only to start ME2 and die within the first 15 minutes.

i dont beleive bioware ever knew what it was doing with the franchise. not even now do i think they know what they are doing.

REHIRE DREW ALREADY!!!

[Nykara]

Tron Mega wrote...

playing ME2 right after playing ME1 is weird. i go through all of ME1 and walk away from the rubble grinning, only to start ME2 and die within the first 15 minutes.

i dont beleive bioware ever knew what it was doing with the franchise. not even now do i think they know what they are doing.

REHIRE DREW ALREADY!!!

I am pretty sure Drew was there when ME2 was started, if not still there when it was completed. Wasn't he the one who started the dark matter storyline within ME and wasn't that in ME2?

[Seboist]

Lizardviking wrote...

My problem never truly lied with the explannation behind project Lazarus. I would have easily overlooked it if they had actually done something with it.

But they didn't. It was just an excuse to jump the timeline foward.

It's pretty incredible how the franchise went from being on the level of 1980s/90s sci-fi to bottom of the barrel 1930s pulp schlock with Lazderp and superhero outfits in just five minutes.

Modifié par Seboist, 26 mars 2013 - 01:21 .

[Seboist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

They should have just had Shepard be in a coma for two years; it would have been a lot more believable.

Much like with DA2 there's no real point to the time skip to begin with. The whole working with Cerberus and breaking up the squad could have happened without it.

[George Costanza]

Yeah, whenever they talk about reviving Shepard I always just hear "Hey, you were in a coma!".

[Dieb]

Seboist wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

They should have just had Shepard be in a coma for two years; it would have been a lot more believable.

Much like with DA2 there's no real point to the time skip to begin with. The whole working with Cerberus and breaking up the squad could have happened without it.

I don't deny, but very much doubt it. How do you get a character like Shepard to collaborate with Cerberus, to begin with?
The urgency of the Collector threat and Cerberus being the only ones looking into the matter might still be there, but Shepard would have never considered looking at any offers on their part if it weren't for his own re-creation to make him involuntarily re-evaluate their intentions.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 26 mars 2013 - 01:35 .

[Seboist]

Baelrahn wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

They should have just had Shepard be in a coma for two years; it would have been a lot more believable.

Much like with DA2 there's no real point to the time skip to begin with. The whole working with Cerberus and breaking up the squad could have happened without it.

I don't deny, but very much doubt it. How do you get a character like Shepard to collaborate with Cerberus, to begin with?
The urgency of the Collector threat and Cerberus being the only ones looking into the matter might still be there, but Shepard would have never considered looking at any offers on their part if it weren't for his own re-creation to make him involuntarily re-evaluate their intentions.

Have Cerberus cut a deal with the council to give them free reign in the terminus since it's too politically inconvenient for the latter to get involved directly and have Shepard assigned to work with them as a spy to keep tabs on them.

That's one way to not have to use Lazderp and "ah yes reapers" full retardation/retcon.

[Getorex]

Baelrahn wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

They should have just had Shepard be in a coma for two years; it would have been a lot more believable.

Much like with DA2 there's no real point to the time skip to begin with. The whole working with Cerberus and breaking up the squad could have happened without it.

I don't deny, but very much doubt it. How do you get a character like Shepard to collaborate with Cerberus, to begin with?
The urgency of the Collector threat and Cerberus being the only ones looking into the matter might still be there, but Shepard would have never considered looking at any offers on their part if it weren't for his own re-creation to make him involuntarily re-evaluate their intentions.

I disagree BUT believe it would only properly work in a novel rather than in the game.  Have agenst of Cerberus approach Shepard on the sly, multiple times if need be.  Shepard is naturally suspicious and even dismissive at first.  Perhaps have him get kidnapped and FORCED to listen, then release him.  He checks the info they provided him with the Alliance but the Alliance is dismissive or otherwise occupied.  Force Shepard to go along ONLY because the channels he'd prefer to work through wont or can't. 

That would take time and elaborate setup to make it work out organically and smoothly.  MUCH simpler (game and writing wise) to just pop Shepard into a coma and have his resurrection dependent upon Cerberus so it's quick and simple.