91 réponses à ce sujet

[mabalogna]

When trying to figure out the plot of ME2 go watch the Dirty Dozen.
The plot of the movie is not about killing German's, its about the group of men recruited to do the job. The entire story is a build up to the eventual suicide mission, which is at the end of the movie.

Watch that movie, and it may give up some perspective on what the writers were inspired by when writing the story for ME2

Modifié par mabalogna, 01 février 2010 - 10:02 .

[Vandrayke]

Nautica773 wrote...

Thrakkesh wrote...
Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  

Except Empire Strikes Back is a far better character driven story. The development between each of the main characters is what makes the movie interesting. Luke's training as a Jedi, the growing relationship between Han and Leia. Not to mention the 'twist' with Vader and Luke...

of course it had a better story.  The characters were fixed and the writer didn't have to involve player choice and similar variables 

[SunfighterG8]

So was that collector base.....older then the protheans? I mean where did all that space junk come from...joker said it was ancient stuff...and well new organic advanced spacelfight hasnt been around too long...

[Moonbox]

-------------Thrakkesh wrote--------------

Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  
------------End Quote-----------------

It really just seems like you're out to argue here.  ESB was a good second volume.  Learning that Vader was Luke's father led to the climax of the whole freaking story.  There were certainly throw away characters but there are in EVERY story.  

You could probably have removed it from the trilogy but then you would have been missing arguably the most iconic moments of the whole franchise.  Ummm...duh?? 

ME2 added pretty much NOTHING.  

Note: Sorry I don't know how to use the quoting properly on this board.  

Modifié par Moonbox, 01 février 2010 - 10:00 .

[Vandrayke]

I'll add that video games in general are quite limited from a story perspective, and that all I expect from them is to be a serviceable medium for either ass kicking or character building, or both, as it happens with the ME universe.

[Moonbox]

Vandrayke wrote...

I'll add that video games in general are quite limited from a story perspective, and that all I expect from them is to be a serviceable medium for either ass kicking or character building, or both, as it happens with the ME universe.

The fact that there is choice in a video game doesn't excuse really bad storytelling. 

[Operation TREX]

Nautica773 wrote...

Thrakkesh wrote...
Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  

Except Empire Strikes Back is a far better character driven story. The development between each of the main characters is what makes the movie interesting. Luke's training as a Jedi, the growing relationship between Han and Leia. Not to mention the 'twist' with Vader and Luke...

ESB also advanced the story, things changed, people grew as characters, there was an emotional connection.  Comparing the game to the movie ME1 had the mojo, ME2 (to me) did not.  It needed something more.

[sadkouz]

Just wanted to say that the OP expressed exactly how I felt when I finished the last mission and saw credits. It's a shame because this could have been such a great game with a better scenario.

[Nautica773]

Vandrayke wrote...

I'll add that video games in general are quite limited from a story perspective, and that all I expect from them is to be a serviceable medium for either ass kicking or character building, or both, as it happens with the ME universe.

That's probably where we differ.
While most video game stories are serviceable, that doesn't mean all of them must be regulated to 'inferior movies'. Planescape: Torment had a very compelling narrative. Knights of the Old Republic, while suffering a little in the character department, had a very excellent and well paced story. 
I don't think it's unfair to expect higher caliber material, nor to be disappointed when companies fail to deliver. 

[Operation TREX]

Moonbox wrote...

-------------Thrakkesh wrote--------------

Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  
------------End Quote-----------------

It really just seems like you're out to argue here.  ESB was a good second volume.  Learning that Vader was Luke's father led to the climax of the whole freaking story.  There were certainly throw away characters but there are in EVERY story.  

You could probably have removed it from the trilogy but then you would have been missing arguably the most iconic moments of the whole franchise.  Ummm...duh?? 

ME2 added pretty much NOTHING.  

Note: Sorry I don't know how to use the quoting properly on this board.  

Click the green text on a post that says "quote"   it'll pop the code in for you.

[Vandrayke]

Nautica773 wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

I'll add that video games in general are quite limited from a story perspective, and that all I expect from them is to be a serviceable medium for either ass kicking or character building, or both, as it happens with the ME universe.

That's probably where we differ.
While most video game stories are serviceable, that doesn't mean all of them must be regulated to 'inferior movies'. Planescape: Torment had a very compelling narrative. Knights of the Old Republic, while suffering a little in the character department, had a very excellent and well paced story. 
I don't think it's unfair to expect higher caliber material, nor to be disappointed when companies fail to deliver. 

It's not about what's fair, it's about what's realistic.  You cited two of the games people always cite; two of the games with some of the best stories ever.  Setting the bar there is setting yourself up for disappointment, imo.  In essence you're demanding a plot that is as satisfying as what only comes around once or twice a decade

I like to look at what the ME universe does that no other universe has done before and have fun with that

[Thrakkesh]

Moonbox wrote...

-------------Thrakkesh wrote--------------

Actually, the grand irony is his argument could be retrofitted onto ESB without the slightest change.

It introduced a number of throwaway characters (Lando, Boba Fett, etc.), it didn't advance the plot at all (Empire is kicking around Rebels annnnd, that's it). And the first story was 'better' (because doing things automatically means better, and if there's no Death Star at the end, why do we care?)

And you are nitpicking, thanks.  There are character motivations written damn plain.  It's no more weird than Liara (the non-combat Scientist) joining or Tali randomly joining your party because of a Pilgrimige, or Wrex joining because HE'S A MERC.  
------------End Quote-----------------

It really just seems like you're out to argue here.  ESB was a good second volume.  Learning that Vader was Luke's father led to the climax of the whole freaking story.  There were certainly throw away characters but there are in EVERY story.  

You could probably have removed it from the trilogy but then you would have been missing arguably the most iconic moments of the whole franchise.  Ummm...duh?? 

ME2 added pretty much NOTHING.  

Note: Sorry I don't know how to use the quoting properly on this board.  

I'm not out to argue, I strongly disagree with you. There's a difference.  The Collector/Reaper angle and the fact the Reapers are massing is the 'climax.' and leaving out the Vader revelation was the point of the analogy. You would miss things from the damn triology if you left out the 3rd game: TIM, who is obviously going to play a big part in the last game, the information you learneda bout Reaper Motivations, the details about Non-Heretic Geth, the build-up about the Quarian Homeworld that suggests something very weird is happening in the Galaxy, etc, etc, etc.  

[Nautica773]

Vandrayke wrote...
It's not about what's fair, it's about what's realistic.  You cited two of the games people always cite; two of the games with some of the best stories ever.  Setting the bar there is setting yourself up for disappointment, imo.  In essence you're demanding a plot that is as satisfying as what only comes around once or twice a decade

I like to look at what the ME universe does that no other universe has done before and have fun with that

I could come up with more, those are just the most easily recognizable.
Mass Effect does succeed very well in the world creation department. One of the best realized worlds in the last decade. 

[Vandrayke]

Moonbox wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...

I'll add that video games in general are quite limited from a story perspective, and that all I expect from them is to be a serviceable medium for either ass kicking or character building, or both, as it happens with the ME universe.

The fact that there is choice in a video game doesn't excuse really bad storytelling. 

I don't think it's bad storytelling.  I think it's adequate.  It matches up well with most adequate stories I've come across after reading literally thousands of novels and serves as a vehicle to do some other things really well. 

I'm not saying it's spectacular.  I'm saying it doesn't have to be.  The main plot in Dragon Age was really lame and the world was really lame but the characters were awesome and the combat was great so I had an awesome time playing the game. 

[Vandrayke]

Nautica773 wrote...

Vandrayke wrote...
It's not about what's fair, it's about what's realistic.  You cited two of the games people always cite; two of the games with some of the best stories ever.  Setting the bar there is setting yourself up for disappointment, imo.  In essence you're demanding a plot that is as satisfying as what only comes around once or twice a decade

I like to look at what the ME universe does that no other universe has done before and have fun with that

I could come up with more, those are just the most easily recognizable.
Mass Effect does succeed very well in the world creation department. One of the best realized worlds in the last decade. 

I know what you're saying.  All I'm saying is that almost all games have adequate (at best) stories.  The stories are vehicles more than anything.  And when you already know the world, a little of the wonder at the exposition is stripped away, which takes away from middle episodes, because they can't make up for this with a grand finale. 

I guess it's great that the ME universe was realized well enough for people to care about the story.  That says something, at least

I think people will be pleasantly surprised with the conclusion.  Then again, I've been wrong before. 

[Vandrayke]

lol I've talked about this for an hour now and really have to go run



it's been fun!

[Graunt]

I have to agree, after beating the game it just didn't have the same epic feel or memorable moments from the first game.  Maybe we are just desensitised from playing so much of the original, but this game just wasn't doing it for me like the first did.  The artwork was greatly improved and I liked how you had more squad members to talk to, but at the same time it seemed like overall they had even less to say than in the first game.

[Commisar_V]

Vandrayke wrote...

I'll add that video games in general are quite limited from a story perspective, and that all I expect from them is to be a serviceable medium for either ass kicking or character building, or both, as it happens with the ME universe.

I found much of the ME2 storyline to be superior to some movies, and the main problem there, even, is that it's the unwanted middle child, the #2 in the series, the filler and set-up, not even exposition.

And the game (AND the story) still manage to kick ass. Quite an achievement.

[Graunt]

It was the middle chapter of a trilogy. Those are notoriously hard to
do, since they link the introductory part of the story with the
resolution.

I see it as being more character-driven than anything.

*cough cough* The Empire Strikes Back *cough*

[deimosmasque]

Nautica773 wrote...

Mordin and Tali are really the only ones that have any excuse to be on the team. Mordin the most, since he's there to counteract the neurotoxin. Tali because she's the best tech specialist and the Collector's are a technologically superior race.
But the rest? They seem to be chosen mostly because they are interesting individuals. I would have liked some compelling reasons to bring each of them along. Maybe, after Horizon and seeing the 'Collector General', the Illusive Man feels that someone trained at taking out a single target quickly and efficiently would be necessary. Cue the dossier for Thane. 

Jack is one of the (most) powerful human biotics to ever exist.  Archangel (Garrus) was taking down whole merc squads at Omega.  Ordere (before you get Grunt) was a battle harden Krogan who had gotten tech from the Collectors.  Thane is one of the most skilled assassins known.  Samara is a 1000+ year old Asari Justicar.  Zaheed is one of the most successful bounty hunters in the Terminus system.

It seems to me those are all great reasons to be recruiting them for any sort of mission, especially a suicide mission.

[Miniazza]

After much careful consideration I believe that there was no mission in ME2 that was as epic as Ilos. This is why, imo, ME2 was inferior. Nothing could mach the epicness of that 1 mission. I mean , finding Vigil, with that music, after driving past the Prothean stasis pods was beyond awesome. ME2 did not have a mission like this.

[Wintermist]

I agree with the OP and I'm adding my voice:

To start off, why was the decision made to make a second Normandy even though the first one clearly failed and the collectors can see through the stealth? That's how it got destroyed in the first place. Build something sturdier this time and maybe you'll live.

Then there's the plot. The Council as usual are working againt you. And why do they do that? Even after the first game where Shepard claim there are Reapers and Geth coming to wreak havoc did the Council help out. So, they was unprepared when the Geth and a mysterious ship (Oh could THAT actually BE a Reaper, noooooo) do arrive and bust things up.

Now, Shepard and humanity actually do save the day, but does the council believe his story? No, that was just Geth, why would we believe there was a reaper even though there's that one mysterious ship that does fit Shepard's story perfectly. We say NO. That part makes no sense.

Now for the second plot, they should have KEPT the Geth war and used that as a cover for not helping themselves, because no one can spare any resources because they have to fight the Geth still. Ah, so Shepard HAVE to find his crew in obscure places. NOW it makes sense. Some side-missions could actually even be to help fight the Geth.

Why did no one cheer when it turned out Shepard was alive? Still this contempt from the Council. Very tiresome. Throw a big fooken party and celebrate, the hero of the Citadel has returned!

Then there's the collector missions. You escape from your base. Examine a colony. Grab an IFF and finally go to the ending. That is? Did I just spend hours collecting all my crew for this quick ending and this short story? Yeah... I did... *shrug* I could have sat down with them and figured out some very entertaining missions for the storyline with BioWare. I'd do it for free.

Modifié par Wintermist, 01 février 2010 - 10:28 .

[xMister Vx]

The main plot is always a more or less straight buzz towards the last boss (with a twist, if you're lucky). The value of an RPG (video game, not pnp) lies in the characters, the world and by consequence the sidequests. The plot is there to move it forward a little, add the epic feeling, et cetera. We're lucky to have a sprawling plot that satisfies all those requirements.

People cited Planescape: Torment, which is unique, and more of an exception that proves the rule.

KOTOR, on the other hand, had a ve-ery traditional storyline - excellent execution, of course, but the worlds in the middle of the story were what really mattered (like ME2's character recruitment/loyalty quests) and made it so superior. Then came the obligatory twist to spice things up, and finally the zoom towards the final boss - nothing new there. If anything, KOTOR2 had a much more interesting main plot, but weaker where it matters - the worlds and environments; the characters were also more fun, but unfortunately less fleshed out, which is again a weakness in one of the main "pillars".



I'll admit that ME2's worlds aren't as bright, colourful and distinctive as KOTOR's - that's always puzzled me. Even with a more "realistic" approach than Star Wars, you should be able to come up with different environments. Or maybe I just miss Manaan too much.

[CommanderShawn]

NOPE

[Terraneaux]

xMister Vx wrote...

The main plot is always a more or less straight buzz towards the last boss (with a twist, if you're lucky). The value of an RPG (video game, not pnp) lies in the characters, the world and by consequence the sidequests. The plot is there to move it forward a little, add the epic feeling, et cetera. We're lucky to have a sprawling plot that satisfies all those requirements.

No, a good plot is important to an RPG.  Mass Effect 1 had so-so-gameplay and a good story.  ME2, so far, seems to have good gameplay and a bad story.  I enjoyed ME1 *much* more.