454 réponses à ce sujet

[TTTX]

Like I said, people who played ME1 first probably approach the intro differently. The intro sequence was clearly intended to improve the introduction to the ME world for people like me, and it worked.

True, the ME2 intro was pretty awesome,how the story unfolded (after Shepard left the station s/he was revived in) and how previous characters reacted to Shepard being all alive and such is another matter (Not to mention Cerberus really seems incompetent most of the time).

 

Then again ME2 have always been about the characters and well fun gameplay everything else was well not something people thought so much about until the ME3 ending happened.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

True, the ME2 intro was pretty awesome,how the story unfolded (after Shepard left the station s/he was revived in) and how previous characters reacted to Shepard being all alive and such is another matter (Not to mention Cerberus really seems incompetent most of the time).

 

Then again ME2 have always been about the characters and well fun gameplay everything else was well not something people thought so much about until the ME3 ending happened.

Having Shepard die, only to be resurrected a solid 5 minutes later was just a way to shoehorn Cerberus in. It's poor writing, not necessarily a bad idea. I would have gone with the original plan that the true Geth revived her, then fill in the two years playing a single mission for each squadmate to show what they were doing beforehand, maybe. Garrus with hunting down the gangs, Grunt maybe going through the whole mind imprint, Jack doing some nasty **** and getting captured, Mordin either doing his genophage modification or doing stuff on Omega, etc. Since ME2 has a horrible story anyway, and its strong suit is the characters, why not?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Having Shepard die, only to be resurrected a solid 5 minutes later was just a way to shoehorn Cerberus in. It's poor writing, not necessarily a bad idea. I would have gone with the original plan that the true Geth revived her, then fill in the two years playing a single mission for each squadmate to show what they were doing beforehand, maybe. Garrus with hunting down the gangs, Grunt maybe going through the whole mind imprint, Jack doing some nasty **** and getting captured, Mordin either doing his genophage modification or doing stuff on Omega, etc. Since ME2 has a horrible story anyway, and its strong suit is the characters, why not?

 

Hmm, I keep hearing this thing about the Geth bringing Shepard back from people on the forums, which is an interesting idea.

 

Where is the official source of this? I am interested.

[TTTX]

If the game just had Lazurus as a problem it probably wouldn't have bothered me -- it's not even my main problem with ME2's story. But it does happen with things like the Cerberus reboot, the overly apathetic Alliance and Council, the myriad of little problems involving the Collectors, etc. These things just make the problems with Lazarus more grating to deal with. Overall I think the main narrative problem with it is that it makes ME2 a side story/reboot to ME1, not a continuation of the story from ME1.

ME2 seems and feels like a filler from a story point of view while ME3 feels somewhat disconnected from previous games (and novles) in some points of story and let's not forget some of the illogical moments which also make ME3 feel like a small reboot.

 

This one of the reasons why I believe the ME trilogy is not one of the best trilogies ever made, it's not one of the worst either, it somewhere in between.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Hmm, I keep hearing this thing about the Geth bringing Shepard back from people on the forums, which is an interesting idea.

 

Where is the official source of this? I am interested.

It was Karpyshyn's original plan before he left, I believe. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

ME2 seems and feels like a filler from a story point of view while ME3 feels somewhat disconnected from previous games (and novles) in some points of story and let's not forget some of the illogical moments which also make ME3 feel like a small reboot.

 

This one of the reasons why I believe the ME trilogy is not one of the best trilogies ever made, it's not one of the worst either, it somewhere in between.

 

I hold a somewhat similar view. Each game as a stand alone story works fairly well. It's when you put them together that they fail as a trilogy.

 

Like I love ME2 and the feel of the main story missions, even though they don't move the story along (and argueably hurt it in the long run, i.e. Suicide Mission).

[TTTX]

Having Shepard die, only to be resurrected a solid 5 minutes later was just a way to shoehorn Cerberus in. It's poor writing, not necessarily a bad idea. I would have gone with the original plan that the true Geth revived her, then fill in the two years playing a single mission for each squadmate to show what they were doing beforehand, maybe. Garrus with hunting down the gangs, Grunt maybe going through the whole mind imprint, Jack doing some nasty **** and getting captured, Mordin either doing his genophage modification or doing stuff on Omega, etc. Since ME2 has a horrible story anyway, and its strong suit is the characters, why not?

Well they need to sell comics about those events so they can make money that way, because BW is under EA management and the only thing EA care about is money.

 

Every series has flaws, but if done right most fans won't care much about them, but BW blew it big time and now the fans will never let them forget it.

[TTTX]

I hold a somewhat similar view. Each game as a stand alone story works fairly well. It's when you put them together that they fail as a trilogy.

 

Like I love ME2 and the feel of the main story missions, even though they don't move the story along (and argueably hurt it in the long run, i.e. Suicide Mission).

I agree.

[Bob from Accounting]

Having the geth revive Shepard is a terrible idea. Having the game consist of playing a minor mission for each squadmate is perhaps an even worse idea.

 

Neither of these ideas does literally a single thing to fix the supposed 'problems' they meant to address in the first place.

 

All of this whining accusations of 'bad writing,' 'BW blew it big time,' 'ME failed as a trilogy.' If this is what's considered better, I'd take accusations of 'bad writing' as a great compliment.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Having the geth revive Shepard is a terrible idea. Having the game consist of playing a minor mission for each squadmate is perhaps an even worse idea.

 

Neither of these ideas does literally a single thing to fix the supposed 'problems' they meant to address in the first place.

 

All of this whining accusations of 'bad writing,' 'BW blew it big time,' 'ME failed as a trilogy.' If this is what's considered better, I'd take accusations of 'bad writing' as a great compliment.

 

I take your whining about whining as a great compliment. It means I must be onto something if you disagree with it.

[TTTX]

Having the geth revive Shepard is a terrible idea. Having the game consist of playing a minor mission for each squadmate is perhaps an even worse idea.

 

Neither of these ideas does literally a single thing to fix the supposed 'problems' they meant to address in the first place.

 

All of this whining accusations of 'bad writing,' 'BW blew it big time,' 'ME failed as a trilogy.' If this is what's considered better, I'd take accusations of 'bad writing' as a great compliment.

Well do you have any better ideas?

[Bob from Accounting]

I very highly suspect that the opposition to Lazarus and the focus on squadmates really has less to do with Lazarus or the squadmates and more to do with a petulant frustration that ME 2 did not provide the means to defeat the Reapers. Hence people declaring it a 'waste.'

 

Nevermind that such a thing would be pretty poor storytelling in any case.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I very highly suspect that the opposition to Lazarus and the focus on squadmates really has less to do with Lazarus or the squadmates and more to do with a petulant frustration that ME 2 did not provide the means to defeat the Reapers. Hence people declaring it a 'waste.'

 

Nevermind that such a thing would be pretty poor storytelling in any case.

 

That is a terrible idea.

 

All your wild speculation about what people actually think is just thinly veiled complaining about how people don't agree with you.

 

You really have no concept of what good or bad story telling is.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I very highly suspect that the opposition to Lazarus and the focus on squadmates really has less to do with Lazarus or the squadmates and more to do with a petulant frustration that ME 2 did not provide the means to defeat the Reapers. Hence people declaring it a 'waste.'

 

Nevermind that such a thing would be pretty poor storytelling in any case.

 

No argument to support your claim, and nothing but insulting to other people who brought up a legitimate point (regardless of intent) about the heavy inaccuracy of science portrayed in Lazarus as well as the lack of narrative impact. 

 

It is not poor storytelling to provide a method for defeating the Reapers in ME2. Really, no concept is inherently terrible. It comes down to execution, and perspective. Your perspective is negative. That does not mean that the concept is inherently negative. Unless you want to elaborate your argument?

[Iakus]

I very highly suspect that the opposition to Lazarus and the focus on squadmates really has less to do with Lazarus or the squadmates and more to do with a petulant frustration that ME 2 did not provide the means to defeat the Reapers. Hence people declaring it a 'waste.'

No, those are two seperate areas of bad writing.

 

 

Nevermind that such a thing would be pretty poor storytelling in any case.

 

You must have hated the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  They revealed the way to stop Sauron halfway through the first volume!

[Bob from Accounting]

You're just about the last person who is in any position to convince me that these 'complaints' are not about ME 2 not giving people their super-duper magic wand to make all their problems go away.

[Iakus]

Anyone else notice that the Crucible looks rather wand-like?

[naddaya]

Having the characters start with a plan is obviously bad storytelling, yes, of course

[Bob from Accounting]

If it actually worked, it certainly would be, yes. The Reapers aren't very effective 'unbeatable' antagonists if we know exactly how to beat them before they even arrive. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You're just about the last person who is in any position to convince me that these 'complaints' are not about ME 2 not giving people their super-duper magic wand to make all their problems go away.

 

Nobody's going to convince you otherwise. You're bound and determined to suck from your own teat of perception. Everyone acts the way you think they act. Because vicarious perspective is impossible! Everyone wants to be you!

[TTTX]

Having the characters start with a plan is obviously bad storytelling, yes, of course

The sarcasm is strong in this one.   

 

 

Anyone else notice that the Crucible looks rather wand-like?

It looks like that and it looks like giant mic and other things.

[naddaya]

If it actually worked, it certainly would be, yes. The Reapers aren't very effective 'unbeatable' antagonists if we know exactly how to beat them before they even arrive. 

 

Knowing how we can defeat them doesn't mean we will be able to defeat them. Sovereign's destruction already showed that Reapers can be destroyed even using conventional means, it's only a matter of numbers. They're powerful and numerous. A plan is not a guarantee of victory.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Hehe, that sounds very familiar.

 

*wink*

[MassivelyEffective0730]

If it actually worked, it certainly would be, yes. The Reapers aren't very effective 'unbeatable' antagonists if we know exactly how to beat them before they even arrive. 

 

And 'unbeatable' antagonists are narratively uninteresting, if not game-breaking. Why is this an issue? Why have an opponent if you can't beat them without an asspull?