Yes it could've, but it didn't. Are we still discussing the Mass Effect story or are we in headcanon fanfic land by now?
Because in that case, I'm done here.
Not headcanon, I just said that it would've been easy to make Liara not essential but the devs decided otherwise and we have the games at their current state. I'm fine with it, it's just a minor annoyance since I don't like Liara much.
No, I meant it. Hypothetically, have us visit Noveria, then unlock Virmire, then unlock Feros and then Ilos. That would've allowed us to skip Liara's quest entirely.
Her recovery of Shepard's body could've easily been circumvented as well. Make Cerberus investigate Collector activity in the same region where Normandy is destroyed and remove the comic book that only serves to further solidify Liara's value to the story.
Or you can just chill out with Garrus and Wrex, get drunk at Chora's Den and spend your whole time in the Citadel. Then Saren shows up and you kick his filthy ass twice. Game over, you don't even have to drive the mako, Ashley and Kaidan are both alive.
We're using different meaning of essential I think. Read my response to themikefest. Javik not being around doesn't prevent the story from happening. He gives you all kinds of cool info and I love the guy, I really do, almost always take him everywhere, but calling him essential to the story is nonsense to me. The Reapers don't win if you leave Javik in stasis.
Compare this to, for instance, Liara or Miranda. Without Liara and Miranda Shepard is dead, done for, and ME2 never evens happens thus the Reapers win.
(The Leviathan DLC not happening is a little bit iffy here, because it doesn't prevent the story from happening, but you are left with having no idea where the Catalyst came from. You could say that without Leviathan there's no Catalyst and thus no Mass Effect at all, I suppose)
Some people on here seem to confuse their love/hatred for specific characters with essentiality.
Yeah, it seems so. My definition of essential isn't necessarily "without them, no story", but more "without them, an incomplete story". That's why I count Javik and Leviathan as essential, but Omega/Citadel/LotSB/Arrival/etc. as non-essential. Although, if Indoctrination Theory is right, Arrival is probably essential... Though, that's pure speculation. ![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Yeah, it seems so. My definition of essential isn't necessarily "without them, no story", but more "without them, an incomplete story". That's why I count Javik and Leviathan as essential, but Omega/Citadel/LotSB/Arrival/etc. as non-essential. Although, if Indoctrination Theory is right, Arrival is probably essential... Though, that's pure speculation.
Javik and Leviathan aren't essential, without them we don't have an incomplete story. They add almost nothing (they added some useless background, which isn't the story).The DLCs actually break the structure of the original game which was very well balanced, so they don't complete the story, they destroy its structure.
Javik and Leviathan aren't essential, without them we don't have an incomplete story. They add almost nothing (they added some useless background, which isn't the story).The DLCs actually break the structure of the original game which was very well balanced, so they don't complete the story, they destroy its structure.
That "useless background" has been the focal point upon which the entire plot has been turning since the first game.
Yeah but as he said, background isn't the story
It isn't the main questline, no, but I'd argue it's still the story.
It isn't the main questline, no, but I'd argue it's still the story.
Background is the setting in which the story happens.
Background is the setting in which the story happens.
It depends on what you define as "the story". Let's use LotR as an example - the main questline would be Frodo returning the ring to Mordor to destroy it. Imagine all we know about Sauron is that he's evil and that he's the big eye. Wouldn't you argue it was essential to know how the Ring was forged, why Sauron wants it back (Leviathan), as well as knowing what would happen if Sauron did get it back, and what the Ring does to people the people like Smeagol that it ensnares (Javik)?
It isn't enough just to be pointed at Mt Doom and have hobbits launched at it. Sure, the story would still function if all we're told is that the Ring is evil and must be destroyed, but framing is just as important to the momentum of a story as what actually happens. You need to know more than what destination to hit next.
Or you can just chill out with Garrus and Wrex, get drunk at Chora's Den and spend your whole time in the Citadel. Then Saren shows up and you kick his filthy ass twice. Game over, you don't even have to drive the mako, Ashley and Kaidan are both alive.
No Mako? Okay, I'm going back to plan A ... uh, sorry Kaidan. 
It depends on what you define as "the story". Let's use LotR as an example - the main questline would be Frodo returning the ring to Mordor to destroy it. Imagine all we know about Sauron is that he's evil and that he's the big eye. Wouldn't you argue it was essential to know how the Ring was forged, why Sauron wants it back (Leviathan), as well as knowing what would happen if Sauron did get it back, and what the Ring does to people the people like Smeagol that it ensnares (Javik)?
It isn't enough just to be pointed at Mt Doom and have hobbits launched at it. Sure, the story would still function if all we're told is that the Ring is evil and must be destroyed, but framing is just as important to the momentum of a story as what actually happens. You need to know more than what destination to hit next.
The bolded is key here. Essential is what makes the story function, background is what gives it flavor or spice. Would LotR be as fantastic if all that background wasn't there? Probably not, but that doesn't make it essential.
Don't get me wrong, I love Javik and I would never play the game without him again, but he's not esssential.
What do you want, a five minute game?
Javik essential to the story?
He is just as essential to the main story as Shale is in Dragon age origins. Which means he has zero main-story related value. He doesn't know anything more about the Rearers than anyone else does. No weaknesses, not background on them, no nothing. All he knows is that they killed of his species which we know since ME1. Neither does he know anything about the crubcile or the cataclyst or anything that is of value.
All he does is give background knowledge about the Prothean culture, which is nice to have but completely unessential to the main plot or any sideplot for that matter. If you play the game without Javik the story still makes just as much sense as it does with him. I'd argue that it even makes more sense without him, because although he is an awesome squadmate his presence is a complete as*pull that defies logic and he seems to only exist because of the rule of cool (A member of past species that apparently died out thousands of years ago? Really?).
While I generally dislike the concept of DLC and find day one follower DLCs to be an badly disguised cashgrab I still have to object to the accusation that the game is unfinished without Javik, as he doesn't have any real story value.
Leviathan on the other hand should have probably already been in at release but I guess Bioware only even started to make it in order to solidify their ending after it was it was accused of totally coming out the left field.
At least with having Javik on the squad, its fun having him on Thessia in the temple
The bolded is key here. Essential is what makes the story function, background is what gives it flavor or spice. Would LotR be as fantastic if all that background wasn't there? Probably not, but that doesn't make it essential.
Don't get me wrong, I love Javik and I would never play the game without him again, but he's not esssential.
I think here we have irreconcilable differences, then. There is no "story" in simply going "start at point A, go to point B to accomplish X", only the invention of names for A, B, and X - it's a set of objectives, not a plot.
At least with having Javik on the squad, its fun having him on Thessia in the temple
And again, what was the point in declaring your observation in a discussion about the essentiality of Javik to the story? Did Javik revealing that Athame was really a Prothean make it so that the Reapers could be beaten? Because I'm pretty sure I beat the game just fine without the From Ashes DLC.
I'm still waiting.
I'm also still waiting on how Liara isn't essential to the story. I'd like some more of your alternate stories, it's amusing.
I think here we have irreconcilable differences, then. There is no "story" in simply going "start at point A, go to point B to accomplish X", only the invention of names for A, B, and X - it's a set of objectives, not a plot.
I know what you mean, really, I do. Without the Mass Effect universe the story itself doesn't exist, but the universe isn't the story. Other stories could be told in it and would have no affect on this story. This story, about Shepard, doesn't depend on Javik, but it does on Shepard, Liara, Mordin and Miranda (among others).
I'm still waiting.
I'm also still waiting on how Liara isn't essential to the story. I'd like some more of your alternate stories, it's amusing.
And I like to know why you insult my name?
I know what you mean, really, I do. Without the Mass Effect universe the story itself doesn't exist, but the universe isn't the story. Other stories could be told in it and would have no affect on this story. This story, about Shepard, doesn't depend on Javik, but it does on Shepard, Liara, Mordin and Miranda (among others).
I don't doubt that you know what I mean, haha. We just disagree on what qualifies as a story.
And I like to know why you insult my name?
What? When did this happen?
What? When did this happen?
Posting Mikey and Mikeyboy earlier today. Forunately one of those posts have been removed
http://forum.bioware...4#entry17468757
taken from your post earlier today that is in the link provided above
Ignore lists are wonderful things, folks.
Javik and Leviathan aren't essential, without them we don't have an incomplete story. They add almost nothing (they added some useless background, which isn't the story).The DLCs actually break the structure of the original game which was very well balanced, so they don't complete the story, they destroy its structure.
I don't really buy into this uselessness bit, since lots of lore, character backgrounds and such are generally there to simply expand the universe a bit more to pique the player's interest. That they don't play pivotal roles in the main plot doesn't make them useless.
As for structure, it's not like that's ever mattered. As an interactive story, the structure is what we make of it. ME3 may be more linear than the other two games in the way missions are set up, but there's no set structure that Javik's mission or Leviathan totally disrupt. I mean really, how is Javik's mission any worse than, say, N7: Cerberus Abductions?
The only one that I can honestly say creates a real disconnect is the Citadel DLC, as it's so tonally different from the rest of the game.
This kind of reminds me of one poster on here who roleplayed ME1 where it made no sense to do anything other than the main plot missions, and he never returned to the Citadel at all until the game gave him no choice. He argued that flying around doing this and that totally destroyed the story, and it was hard to argue against it considering it was called a "Race Against Time".
Retour en haut