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.
Does 'structure' -- whatever the heck you mean by that -- even matter in a somewhat non-linear video game?
Does 'structure' -- whatever the heck you mean by that -- even matter in a somewhat non-linear video game?
I pretty much aggre with angol fear. Leviathan kinda destroy the narrative stucture of the game because it explains the purpose of the réapers long before the end. The first time I played this DLC, I already knew the end so when Leviathan started his final speech I was like:" Man, why are you saying this now? This is a spoiler! You can't do that! This is forbiden" The rest of the game became a quest to stop the reapers instead of understand and then stop them
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 way I see it is: stories are houses, lore is the neighbourhood
The house is part of the block but the opposite isn't true. A neighbourhood is a cluster of many houses. There is your own home (main story) your friend's house you can visit from time to time but you don't live there (DLC) and other houses you don't know much about (pure lore) Surrounding a house with lots of buildings doesn't improve the said house, it just improves the neighbourhood. Though it is nice to have a good neighbourhood, it is entirely possible to build a house in the middle of the desert. If a home is functional, it doesn't need many houses around (ex: The Stanley Parable, Portal)
^ I understand your argument, and again, I disagree. While I don't own the Stanley Parable, I can say for certain that Portal (not played the second yet) didn't have a functioning story, it just had a questline, and very, very minimal plot. And that's fine! I still enjoyed the game and I still enjoy replaying it from time to time, until I get a chance to commit to playing the second. It works because Portal isn't a game that prides itself on the writing, it's a game that focuses and excels in the gameplay. Mass Effect is the opposite.
In the end, we just disagree on what constitutes as essential, and I doubt we're going to reconcile that. I make a distinction between the story and the plot, and you don't. I don't think it's a problem, but we're not going to convince the other.
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?).
I have to disagree. Shale doesn't remember much about the First Blight and doesn't have as distinctive a philosophy as Javik does, whereas Javik has already lived through one Reaper harvest and has a definite point of view that is certain to conflict with Paragons and even some Renegades. Javik is also unique in wanting to defeat the Reapers but not really caring that much about most of the species of the current cycle. Can you imagine the story without Javik? Sure, but that's probably true of at least half the squadmates. If you really wanted to, you could refuse to recruit Garrus in ME1, never speak to him in ME2 aside from his recruitment mission, and get him killed on the Collector Base, and the story's basic outlines would remain intact.
Shale also only played a minor role in my one complete DAO playthrough to date because the description of the quest that led me to her didn't sound that important, so I left it aside until I had completed all the treaty quests. With Javik, I suspect most players recruit him relatively early, in that Cerberus trying to acquire a prothean relic on Eden Prime stands out as something that shouldn't just be shrugged off.
I have to disagree. Shale doesn't remember much about the First Blight and doesn't have as distinctive a philosophy as Javik does, whereas Javik has already lived through one Reaper harvest and has a definite point of view that is certain to conflict with Paragons and even some Renegades. Javik is also unique in wanting to defeat the Reapers but not really caring that much about most of the species of the current cycle. Can you imagine the story without Javik? Sure, but that's probably true of at least half the squadmates. If you really wanted to, you could refuse to recruit Garrus in ME1, never speak to him in ME2 aside from his recruitment mission, and get him killed on the Collector Base, and the story's basic outlines would remain intact.
Shale also only played a minor role in my one complete DAO playthrough to date because the description of the quest that led me to her didn't sound that important, so I left it aside until I had completed all the treaty quests. With Javik, I suspect most players recruit him relatively early, in that Cerberus trying to acquire a prothean relic on Eden Prime stands out as something that shouldn't just be shrugged off.
I can imagine the story without Javik pretty well as I played ME3 without any DLC for the first three times. As I already said it kind of even made more sense without him, because his involvement while awesome is stupid and totally came out of the left field. Suddenly a living Prothean for... reasons I guess.
Also his distinctive philosophy is basically: everyone but Protheans suck. I must avenge my glorious overlord race. Its quite a lot like Shales: They are both unique liveforms that basically look down on everyone else because they think they are superior to the primitives/squishy little persons and don't really care about anyone as long as they get to kill Reapers/something. That is until they open up somewhat to the main character.
The only difference is that javik is also in a bad mood all the time (which is totally reasonable in his situation though). Oh and Shale actually might try to kill you if you do something she disaproves of wheras Javik just passive agressively complains about you siding with the syntethics he despises so much.
As said before I think the Leviathan DLC is the real offender in regards of content that should probably have been in the game at release.
Whether or not Javik is "essential", insofar that he isn't required for any part of the plot to progress, is pretty meaningless if you actually like the character and find his insight and commentary entertaining. The frak do I care if he's needed if I love his dialogue?
As for Leviathan's inclusion in the narrative, as one who doesn't find the Catalyst to be a particularly engaging plot reveal in the first place, I actually welcome the exposition that gets that BS out on the table ahead of time. Too bad it wasn't in the game from the start, but whatevs.
/thread.Whether or not Javik is "essential", insofar that he isn't required for any part of the plot to progress, is pretty meaningless if you actually like the character and find his insight and commentary entertaining. The frak do I care if he's needed if I love his dialogue?
^ I understand your argument, and again, I disagree. While I don't own the Stanley Parable, I can say for certain that Portal (not played the second yet) didn't have a functioning story, it just had a questline, and very, very minimal plot. And that's fine! I still enjoyed the game and I still enjoy replaying it from time to time, until I get a chance to commit to playing the second. It works because Portal isn't a game that prides itself on the writing, it's a game that focuses and excels in the gameplay. Mass Effect is the opposite.
In the end, we just disagree on what constitutes as essential, and I doubt we're going to reconcile that. I make a distinction between the story and the plot, and you don't. I don't think it's a problem, but we're not going to convince the other.
Actualy I think we share the same idea but we use different words for the same thing. I agree with everything you just said if story is replaced with lore and plot replaced with story. Imho, there's no difference betwen plot and story and I guess you make little to no distinction between story and lore. this is just play word. (maybe this is because I don't usualy speak/write english so perhaps I don't understand some shades)
[...]Can you imagine the story without Javik? Sure, but that's probably true of at least half the squadmates. [...]
That's basically what Psychevore said. None of the squadmates are needed to the plot
Actualy I think we share the same idea but we use different words for the same thing. I agree with everything you just said if story is replaced with lore and plot replaced with story. Imho, there's no difference betwen plot and story and I guess you make little to no distinction between story and lore. this is just play word. (maybe this is because I don't usualy speak/write english so perhaps I don't understand some shades)
Oh, I make a further distinction between story and lore. LotSB would be lore, because it's not related to the main story and is instead focused on the workings of something within the universe but not within the plot, and although it does concern the past/ambitions one of the main characters, I'd argue that's still too tangential a connection to warrant as being part of what I'd call the story itself.
So, using my LotR analogy, plot would be "destroy the ring", story would be "Sauron is evil and he wants to conquer Middle Earth using the Ring, which corrupts all who use it with promises of power", and lore would be knowing that Gandalf once saved Gwaihir, lord of the Eagles, from a poisoned arrow, and that's why Gwaihir saves Gandalf at Isengard. If that makes sense.
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
Spoiler
That is shaming your name? Looool. MIkey man, call the teacher! Maybe I can make my own breakfast club story.
Anything to avoid admitting you're wrong, am I right? 
Tell me again how Liara isn't essential to the story 
Retour en haut