283 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

To the OP...

As far as I understand the story, ME is partially about "survival of the fittest". The reapers take that to the extreme and use technology to stay the dominant species. Every 50000 years they wipe out all life and hope to find one or more spieces that are strong enough to make a serious attempt at defeating them. They will include their strong traits into their own species and hope that this will improve their chances of survival. The collectors are shaped like the protheans because they made a strong enough opposition 50000 years ago. The next generation will be shaped like the humans, because humans were involved in defeating Sovereign. How that will act as a plot device in ME3 is not clear to me, though.

Edit: The story is not about the above, but about Shepard and his companions to make an end to this. What irks me a bit is that the story is not consistent. The writers created characters like cartoons: They have no memory. Garrus is a good example: I convinced him to go the paragon path in ME1. He decided to go back to C-Sec or joining the Spectres. And what happens in ME2? We get the same Garrus from the beginning of the story and charachter development is lost: Garrus has become a renegade in ME2. If BioWare is all about good story telling and ME is about your decisions having impact to the story than this is clarly not it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 février 2010 - 10:49 .

[bjdbwea]

The loyalty missions are fine, finally we get a game where the companion missions deserve their name. The problem is: Such missions should never be THE game. These things should by definition be side quests.



What ME 2 is simply lacking is indeed a compelling, well told main story - cutscenes and missions that are closely tied to an ultimate goal of defeating a visible threat, with decisions for the player to influence the outcome, of couse. That's how BioWare has repeatedly done it: Linear introduction (Citadel = Taris), then a handful of pretty clear goals (find 4 star maps = investigate the planets for clues about Saren), then the big finale (star forge = attack on the citadel). Inbetween the player could explore at leisure. Unfortunately, people like to complain and began complaining about that recipe too. Maybe one more reason why BioWare changed the style, and trying new things is fine, but at least the old system was proven to work, and it was a good guide for the developers. BioWare, while not perfect, really was way above everyone else in story telling, no need to reinvent the well. Now they've come up with something different, but not better. Separate short missions loosely tied together just don't cut it.



People said the main story in ME 1 was too short (I think it was okay), but it was executed as well as any good movie. If the essence of ME 2 were made into a movie, people would be left scratching their heads. Too many unexplained things, too many plot holes, too many far-fetched "explanations" and "revelations".



I don't buy the "part 2 syndrome" explanation either. You can always tell a good story. Always. You just need to invest the time of writing it, check it, change if necessary, then stick by it. If you don't want to have too many different possible paths for part 3, then reduce them. You can still tell a good story. In no way was it necessary for example to offer the chance of getting all crew members killed. It's nice to have, but since you don't have all the time in the world, rather concentrate on more important aspects of the story.

[Xandurpein]

mjack234 wrote...

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

I also agree with the idea that Shepherd is the important character, but I think you're missing the fact that he's developed through his interactions and relationships with the rest of his party. He definitely doesn't take a backseat to the characters; in every character subquest, he's the driving force behind things. In all of them, he's intrinsic to the resolution of those characters' issues. He's the one who Mordin gives the choice of keeping or destroying the genophage cure data to; he's the one who Legion turns to when conflicted over brainwashing or killing the geth heretics.

But the focus of those quests are on the supporting character he's with, not with Shepherd himself.  We don't see him grow, even though he makes a lot of choices in this game.  Think about it like this - we get to see Luke become a Jedi.  We get to see Aragorn become a king.  What are we seeing from Shepherd?  his journey in ME1 to be the first human Spectre was a great character arc.  In ME2, what's his arc?  To be running errands for Cerberus?  i would have liked to have seen more of an arc for the main character rather than "I died and am not a spectre anymore."

Here is where I really disagree with you, because I think you fail to understand the medium. This is a roleplaying game and not a book or a movie. I don't want to make Shepard's development the main thing. I am not watching Shepard when I play, I AM Shepard. It's important to me that Shepard's development is done with as light touch as possible, so I can fill in the blanks with my imagination, rather than watch too much of another's interpretation. I decide myself how I have been affected by what is happening and if I let it make me pursue Paragon or Renegade options, and that is way more powerful than what the story tells.

That is why I think the end of ME2 is very powerful as an RPG with the really agonizing choice of what to do with the station, even if it would probably weak in a book. I had to sit down and think who my Shepard really was and why.

This is also why team mates are so important in these RPG. We need team mates that grow so that they can act vicariously in the role played by the main character in a book or a movie. This is also I think why the romances can be so powerful in these games. It is by developing relationships, and ultimatly romance, that you can get involved to the point where the main character can be changed even if that character is you.

This is also an example of how I think western (Bioware) RPG differ from most Japanese RPG I've seen. All japanese RPG I've seen still follow the formula for books, where you obeserve the character and the romance, rather than becoming the character.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 05 février 2010 - 12:43 .

[cheechaIGI]

I thought I was in minority in regards to the storyline issue, and I am glad that there are more of us and that we have the opportunity to voice back our constructive feedback.

I must admit that I was rather underwhelmed when the game, so to say, abruptly ended for me.

As I see it now that I have finished it, it is like 95% of time I am building my (pretty oversized) team, only to "wrap it all up" in the remaining 5% of the game. When I went through Omega 4 Relay I was expecting the action to finally develop - now that I have my sturdy team assembled and we have traveled into enemy territory, we will establish our local base of operations there and embark on a long-lasting adventure of exploration, witnessing strange new sights in the galactic core, living through encounters with alien technology and non-human concepts of morality, time and space, ... But it was all over even before it started...

Story-wise I feel that Mass Effect 2 did not live up to its predecessor. I am currently playing through ME1 (yet, YET again), and I'm loving the suspense and story development. I am playing catch-up with that pesky Saren, wondering what he is up to, and with what am I to cross my guns the future. Mystic Reapers, mystic Protheans that we only guess how they lived and looked like. It's the genuine unknown at every straight and corner of the main plot - the one that lasts long and is fully integrated into the game as a whole.

In my opinion, recruitment and team building was better integrated into main plot in ME1. With ME2 it's almost like I am playing two separate games with two separate plots: the one where i build-up my resources, almost totally oblivious of the "main plot" (with it practically being a "nuisance" - droplets of rain falling into a pool of dossier side-quests), and then the one where I am dedicating resources gathered into its execution. I think Bioware probably put a lot of proverbial money into the fact that lots of feedback to the first game was on how believable and involving characters and their relations were. I guess they got a bit too carried away this time, putting too much emphasis on building your (virtual) "ME2 social network" with all of those characters.

By doing this they cut a lot from mystery, exploration and unknown, something to which they did lay a masterful foundation with Collectors. If only they used them better. There are plots and unforeseen developments with party members, of course, but let's be frank - they are "people". They are interesting, with their problems and their past and their personalities. But this is something we witness every day in our real lives (barring biotic psychopats and good-natured amiable humanoid aliens of course). We deal with 'human' fears, emotions, needs, fates, histories. This is something we know from personal experiences. Do not get me wrong, this is also needed. However, what I miss in ME2 is more of the 'alien unknown' ME1 had in its missions - knowing that you are up against something you do not comprehend. Something that is here but should not be. Something that wants harm to you in a way that makes you actually fear for your in-game character, your crew and the entire mankind. You know, that good feeling of goosebumps and 'cold butterflies' you get in your belly when reading a story or watching a good movie that are both exciting and at the same time terrifying. I call it the abstract suspense.

I think someone mentioned Half-Life here. That's a good example of this concept. The Combine for me is not  so much terrifying because of their atrocities, even technology or monsters. It's really the mix of something you know, and something that you know does not belong there. The perfect example of this is the citadel and how it devours the city. City we know - familiar buildings and shapes. But then, in the middle of that known, there's a kilometer-tall citadel, unnaturally towering the surrounding in clean, abstract lines. You fear that instinctively, as you can't connect those two. You know that the citadel should not be there, that it is inhuman, defined and built upon principles incompatible with human mind, totally alien. It's an abstract nightmare manifest. It's the fear of concept that you can't connect. No amount of monsters, blood, tentacles, demons, gore, pentagrams or inverted crucifixes can beat that feeling.

As I said, those moments are there in ME2 with Collectors, but only in said 5% of the content.

In ME2 we get to experience that feeling in just a couple of missions involving Collectors - exploration of an abducted colony, (partly) preventing the abduction of the colony, boarding their ship for intel, getting the IFF, skulking with Joker over Normandy (a bit passive but a really good section with juicy details - that part where they drag that screaming crewman into the lift e.g.), and payback time in their starbase. And that's it. The rest is all about getting the team and solving their issues from past lives, or some other grudge they have so they could "commit" themselves to the final mission. It was more like I was playing a psychology therapist than a combatant and explorer. In addition, I guess due to strong party-building focus of ME2 there were no adequate storyline moments to integrate "hard" commanding officer decisions in early moments of the game (i.e. whether to send someone knowingly to their deaths). As it stands, they are all bunched up into the final mission. This way those decisions do not have the opportunity to reflect back on you for a longer period of time - as was the case in ME1. After sacrificing the selected party member on Virmire, you had to live with that decision though plenty of subsequent missions to come - looking at his/hers place in the ship where they used to be, now empty. In ME2 you don't feel those sacrifices as much as there is no story following them to provide time and place to feel that loss.

Also, unrelated to story itself: I hope the promised DLC with M57 Hammerhead lander delivers. It was awkward seeing the option to set up controls for it in the main menu (PC version at least), and not being able to use the actual vehicle in-game. At some point I was wondering whether I missed it somehow. It was almost like they had planned to have it in, but have pulled it out at the last minute due to time constraints and need to publish the game, forgetting to remove control references to it. I just hope all this DLC hype does not result with the fact that we'll be served unfinished content in the future a-la half-baked MMO games that get sent onto the market as "full products", only to be patched afterwards.

Modifié par cheechaIGI, 05 février 2010 - 02:21 .

[smudboy]

Xandurpein wrote...

Here is where I really disagree with you, because I think you fail to understand the medium. This is a roleplaying game and not a book or a movie. I don't want to make Shepard's development the main thing. I am not watching Shepard when I play, I AM Shepard. It's important to me that Shepard's development is done with as light touch as possible, so I can fill in the blanks with my imagination, rather than watch too much of another's interpretation. I decide myself how I have been affected by what is happening and if I let it make me pursue Paragon or Renegade options, and that is way more powerful than what the story tells.

That is why I think the end of ME2 is very powerful as an RPG with the really agonizing choice of what to do with the station, even if it would probably weak in a book. I had to sit down and think who my Shepard really was and why.

This is also why team mates are so important in these RPG. We need team mates that grow so that they can act vicariously in the role played by the main character in a book or a movie. This is also I think why the romances can be so powerful in these games. It is by developing relationships, and ultimatly romance, that you can get involved to the point where the main character can be changed even if that character is you.

This is also an example of how I think western (Bioware) RPG differ from most Japanese RPG I've seen. All japanese RPG I've seen still follow the formula for books, where you obeserve the character and the romance, rather than becoming the character.

The player is not the protagonist: he is assuming their role, like if we were given a radio controlled car.  Yes, it's interactive, you are controlling the role and the decisions the character makes, but you're not Shepard.  If the players = Shepard, we'd be saying and doing all the things we want to say, we want to do, etc, not through but as Shepard, which video games can't do yet.  That would be quite something.  The best we can do is choose a positive, negative or neutral response to social situations.  In that vein, it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure book, with more technology, and thus more media-rich page turning.

Now you may feel like you're Shepard more, and you may want to be him/her, but you're not.  Same with any protagonist in any story: we feel for them more closely than any other, because, well, they're the focus of the story.

Interestingly enough, we don't get that in ME2.  Shepard is totally replaceable.  He's just some guy.  He doesn't grow or change.  He's a Static character: a no-no in plot development, and good story telling.  (Although I digress, it works for the medium.)  I still can't understand why Shepard was brought back, since anyone could've built up the loyalty of the crew.  What makes ME1's Shepard so special that he needed to be brought back to life?

OP is right: there's loads of character dev for the other characters.  However, these characters are not involved in the plot in any way.  They're just along for the ride.  The romances you speak of: Shepard isn't changed by them at all.  You just choose to be nice to a certain person, and do all their tasks.  Shepard doesn't change at all, aside from the social reality of his public fidelity (which becomes completely peripheral post-game.)

[MeatInACan]

I think the OP and many posters here raise valid criticisms. I too was left feeling underwhelmed by the overarching 'plot', and felt that much more could have been done with it. It felt very much like an addendum to me, especially when compared to the companion stories, which I thought were very well implemented.

However, as has been addressed by several posters the decent characterisations never really went anywhere or tied into the main 'theme' of stopping the collectors. Several times I found that after enjoying and finishing a companion's story, I'd be at a loss as to what the big deal about the collectors was. I know that you find drips and drabs of information later on that gives you room to speculate, but I never really felt an impetus or drive to focus on this 'main' mission.

As has been mentioned already in this thread, the suicide mission feels as though the main story is back in the driving seat and then... it ends abruptly. I feel that either the recruitment aspect should have been cut down to allow for more development time on incorporating the overall plot, OR do away with the suicide mission, collector plot (or reduce it to just a sinister undercurrent) and instead focus solely on the recruits. I feel as though this would have created a much stronger basis for interaction between the characters (how often do they gather to discuss the mission etc?) and instead the game could have focused entirely on building your super team; forming them into a cohesive unit, dealing with tensions, even a few trial missions etc.

Having said that, I did enjoy the game, especially the step-up in dialogue and the more fleshed-out characters, I just feel as though the writers have tried to do too much and as a result reduced the overall quality of the characters and plot.

On a completely unrelated note - I have a keyboard and am not afraid to use it, please give me key bindings for menus and mouse scroll!

[Xandurpein]

smudboy wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Here is where I really disagree with you, because I think you fail to understand the medium. This is a roleplaying game and not a book or a movie. I don't want to make Shepard's development the main thing. I am not watching Shepard when I play, I AM Shepard. It's important to me that Shepard's development is done with as light touch as possible, so I can fill in the blanks with my imagination, rather than watch too much of another's interpretation. I decide myself how I have been affected by what is happening and if I let it make me pursue Paragon or Renegade options, and that is way more powerful than what the story tells.

That is why I think the end of ME2 is very powerful as an RPG with the really agonizing choice of what to do with the station, even if it would probably weak in a book. I had to sit down and think who my Shepard really was and why.

This is also why team mates are so important in these RPG. We need team mates that grow so that they can act vicariously in the role played by the main character in a book or a movie. This is also I think why the romances can be so powerful in these games. It is by developing relationships, and ultimatly romance, that you can get involved to the point where the main character can be changed even if that character is you.

This is also an example of how I think western (Bioware) RPG differ from most Japanese RPG I've seen. All japanese RPG I've seen still follow the formula for books, where you obeserve the character and the romance, rather than becoming the character.

The player is not the protagonist: he is assuming their role, like if we were given a radio controlled car.  Yes, it's interactive, you are controlling the role and the decisions the character makes, but you're not Shepard.  If the players = Shepard, we'd be saying and doing all the things we want to say, we want to do, etc, not through but as Shepard, which video games can't do yet.  That would be quite something.  The best we can do is choose a positive, negative or neutral response to social situations.  In that vein, it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure book, with more technology, and thus more media-rich page turning.

Now you may feel like you're Shepard more, and you may want to be him/her, but you're not.  Same with any protagonist in any story: we feel for them more closely than any other, because, well, they're the focus of the story.

Interestingly enough, we don't get that in ME2.  Shepard is totally replaceable.  He's just some guy.  He doesn't grow or change.  He's a Static character: a no-no in plot development, and good story telling.  (Although I digress, it works for the medium.)  I still can't understand why Shepard was brought back, since anyone could've built up the loyalty of the crew.  What makes ME1's Shepard so special that he needed to be brought back to life?

OP is right: there's loads of character dev for the other characters.  However, these characters are not involved in the plot in any way.  They're just along for the ride.  The romances you speak of: Shepard isn't changed by them at all.  You just choose to be nice to a certain person, and do all their tasks.  Shepard doesn't change at all, aside from the social reality of his public fidelity (which becomes completely peripheral post-game.)

I still contend that you are confusing litterature with a roleplaying game. You are ment to feel like YOU are Shepard. Whether the game succedes in this or not is another matter. As we all know it's only possible to go so far with fixed dialogue choices. I'm not alone in thinking this. I saw someone earlier complaining that the game broke the immerssion when Shepard saw Tali's face but not the player.

Shepard is changed by events if I allow myself to be changed. I understand that if you want to remove yourself from the story it leaves a hole in the story. I can also understand if you think that it's the constraints of the game that prevents you from doing so. I merely contend that I have no problem allowing myself to be immersed in the story to the point where I can imbue my feelings into Shepard, and when I do I feel that ME2 does much more for developing depth in Shepard than in ME1.

Where in ME1 is Shepard changed anyway, by your definition?

[Andorfiend]

xMister Vx wrote...

I don't see how you could say that "we never really understand what the Collector's motivation is" - it's the whole point of the story. Yes, there is less apparent urgency for the player, but if you think from an in-game perspective, the threat strikes home. They're taking people, and more have died than during the entire story of ME1.

The only thing I agree with is that a villain always makes the game better, and Saren was quite memorable, but the nature of the enemy makes it apparent that there can't be a single villain. Quite effective in its own way.

Well, they tried to set up the Collector General as the Saren of the game, but it failed. Why did it fail? Because you only see him in combat and then he's just another annoying voice. Saren we met in multiple cut-scenes, we argued with him at the trial, we debated with him in the middle of firefights, in the end we even had a shot at redeeming him or at least giving him a moment of self-control back. We had none of this with Harbinger. And there is no reason why we didn't. It would have been perfectly valid for him to have possessed a Collector and started a dialogue cutscene with Shepard. We could have questioned him, answered taunts, challenged his right to take our people. But instead he was just another glowy foe to shoot at.  Maybe we can hope for some DLC to give us that cutscene?

[smudboy]

Xandurpein wrote...

I still contend that you are confusing litterature with a roleplaying game. You are ment to feel like YOU are Shepard. Whether the game succedes in this or not is another matter. As we all know it's only possible to go so far with fixed dialogue choices. I'm not alone in thinking this. I saw someone earlier complaining that the game broke the immerssion when Shepard saw Tali's face but not the player.

Shepard is changed by events if I allow myself to be changed. I understand that if you want to remove yourself from the story it leaves a hole in the story. I can also understand if you think that it's the constraints of the game that prevents you from doing so. I merely contend that I have no problem allowing myself to be immersed in the story to the point where I can imbue my feelings into Shepard, and when I do I feel that ME2 does much more for developing depth in Shepard than in ME1.

Where in ME1 is Shepard changed anyway, by your definition?

And you are unaware that RPG's require literature.  Literature, writing, narration, dialog, will always be the focus of such games.  Because they tell the story.  Story is everything.  Your first paragraph is frightening.

How can Shepard be changed by events if you allow yourself to be changed?  What are you talking about?  Shepard is a fictional character, just the vessel we manipulate that tells and pushes the story, as the wrter gives us what he has created.  Sure, there are cosmetic and plot choices the player can make, but Shepard is (or should be) changed by the plot: as any conflict within any story impacts a protagonist in whatever challenges along the way.

Are we getting metaphysical?  How can you embue your feelings into Shepard, and that ME2 does this much more for developing Shepard as a character than in ME1?  I'd like to know, since I didn't see any side quest directly impact the main plot.  ME2 Shepard was as static a protagonist as I could see.

ME1 Shepard is changed when he is forced to become a hero.  It's called an arc.  This is seen on Eden Prime:  his first encounter with the Prothean becon made him aware of an impending doom, evidence from Tali to prove Saren's misdeeds, and his becoming a Spectre (and commanding a ship) to do so.  After his struggles and adventures, he eventually gets authority from the council to protect the Citadel, but then gets grounded.  Out of desperation and the threat of galactic genocide, he steals the Normandy and go to Ilos to find the Conduit to stop Saran, in order to save the galaxy.

ME2 Shepard is brought back from the dead (!) to attack The Collectors because they're making human colonies disappear.  Cerberus is the only one doing anything about it.  He assembles a team, helps them, and upgrades his ship.  The loss of his NPC crew may motivate him to complete his mission faster, but it doesn't end up challenging him or his goal: he wasn't even there (yay stupid plot device) and EDI picks up the slack.  He goes through the Omega-4 relay, chooses a squad, and kills a disembodied baby-Terminator.

Modifié par smudboy, 05 février 2010 - 05:36 .

[WhiskeyKnight]

I do hope they focus more on the central plot in ME3 and less on the various characters.



We've got the team assembled damn it, now lets get around to fighting some actual Reapers.

[Myrmedus]

Xandurpein wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Here is where I really disagree with you, because I think you fail to understand the medium. This is a roleplaying game and not a book or a movie. I don't want to make Shepard's development the main thing. I am not watching Shepard when I play, I AM Shepard. It's important to me that Shepard's development is done with as light touch as possible, so I can fill in the blanks with my imagination, rather than watch too much of another's interpretation. I decide myself how I have been affected by what is happening and if I let it make me pursue Paragon or Renegade options, and that is way more powerful than what the story tells.

That is why I think the end of ME2 is very powerful as an RPG with the really agonizing choice of what to do with the station, even if it would probably weak in a book. I had to sit down and think who my Shepard really was and why.

This is also why team mates are so important in these RPG. We need team mates that grow so that they can act vicariously in the role played by the main character in a book or a movie. This is also I think why the romances can be so powerful in these games. It is by developing relationships, and ultimatly romance, that you can get involved to the point where the main character can be changed even if that character is you.

This is also an example of how I think western (Bioware) RPG differ from most Japanese RPG I've seen. All japanese RPG I've seen still follow the formula for books, where you obeserve the character and the romance, rather than becoming the character.

The player is not the protagonist: he is assuming their role, like if we were given a radio controlled car.  Yes, it's interactive, you are controlling the role and the decisions the character makes, but you're not Shepard.  If the players = Shepard, we'd be saying and doing all the things we want to say, we want to do, etc, not through but as Shepard, which video games can't do yet.  That would be quite something.  The best we can do is choose a positive, negative or neutral response to social situations.  In that vein, it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure book, with more technology, and thus more media-rich page turning.

Now you may feel like you're Shepard more, and you may want to be him/her, but you're not.  Same with any protagonist in any story: we feel for them more closely than any other, because, well, they're the focus of the story.

Interestingly enough, we don't get that in ME2.  Shepard is totally replaceable.  He's just some guy.  He doesn't grow or change.  He's a Static character: a no-no in plot development, and good story telling.  (Although I digress, it works for the medium.)  I still can't understand why Shepard was brought back, since anyone could've built up the loyalty of the crew.  What makes ME1's Shepard so special that he needed to be brought back to life?

OP is right: there's loads of character dev for the other characters.  However, these characters are not involved in the plot in any way.  They're just along for the ride.  The romances you speak of: Shepard isn't changed by them at all.  You just choose to be nice to a certain person, and do all their tasks.  Shepard doesn't change at all, aside from the social reality of his public fidelity (which becomes completely peripheral post-game.)

I still contend that you are confusing litterature with a roleplaying game. You are ment to feel like YOU are Shepard. Whether the game succedes in this or not is another matter. As we all know it's only possible to go so far with fixed dialogue choices. I'm not alone in thinking this. I saw someone earlier complaining that the game broke the immerssion when Shepard saw Tali's face but not the player.

Shepard is changed by events if I allow myself to be changed. I understand that if you want to remove yourself from the story it leaves a hole in the story. I can also understand if you think that it's the constraints of the game that prevents you from doing so. I merely contend that I have no problem allowing myself to be immersed in the story to the point where I can imbue my feelings into Shepard, and when I do I feel that ME2 does much more for developing depth in Shepard than in ME1.

Where in ME1 is Shepard changed anyway, by your definition?

Are you serious? Modern-day RPGs are BASED upon literature, most usually the third-person narrative but in ME's case it's more first-person. In fact they're so plot and dialogue based they could qualify as literature, hence why you're seeing so many Mass Effect books now.

Anyway, to further agree with the OP: Yes it is like they completely forgot about Shepard's development in the jungle of new characters I must admit.

[wolfwarp]

I see your point, where you are coming from.



Personally, I enjoy reading short stories. Some of the loyalty missions tell a good storyline. I like Tali's one a lot. There are a lot of quality dialogs filled with politics. Also, in ME 1, looking back, the squad is pretty "dead" to me. I don't grow to like any of them as much as I do to the ME 2 toons. In ME 1, I can pick 2 squad members and stay with them throughout the entire story. But not in ME 2. Prior to the ending, I was just thinking that if the entire squad of 11 could come together and achieve the common goal, what would be great. And so it was exactly how the game was played out. In that sense, the ending is pretty memorable too.



Maybe it is just a mid-episode syndrome? Or maybe it is a novel versus a novelette collection?

[Moogliepie]

mjack234 wrote...


I also forgot to add, why were the Collectors seemingly obsessed with hitting colonies with his former teammates on it? And why did they feel Shepherd was "important?" If he was so important to them, why did they try to kill him at the beginning instead of boarding the ship and collecting him right off the bat like they did in the Joker quest?

A lot of things about the ME2 story just made no darn sense.

I have a feeling (or am hoping) a lot of that particular question will be revealed in ME3. Also, I think Cerberus' interest in Shepard is more than just using him as a powerful symbol for humanity. I suspect that the Illusive Man was actually collaborating with the Collector's the whole time. 

[tertium organum]

Xandurpein wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Here is where I really disagree with you, because I think you fail to understand the medium. This is a roleplaying game and not a book or a movie. I don't want to make Shepard's development the main thing. I am not watching Shepard when I play, I AM Shepard. It's important to me that Shepard's development is done with as light touch as possible, so I can fill in the blanks with my imagination, rather than watch too much of another's interpretation. I decide myself how I have been affected by what is happening and if I let it make me pursue Paragon or Renegade options, and that is way more powerful than what the story tells.

That is why I think the end of ME2 is very powerful as an RPG with the really agonizing choice of what to do with the station, even if it would probably weak in a book. I had to sit down and think who my Shepard really was and why.

This is also why team mates are so important in these RPG. We need team mates that grow so that they can act vicariously in the role played by the main character in a book or a movie. This is also I think why the romances can be so powerful in these games. It is by developing relationships, and ultimatly romance, that you can get involved to the point where the main character can be changed even if that character is you.

This is also an example of how I think western (Bioware) RPG differ from most Japanese RPG I've seen. All japanese RPG I've seen still follow the formula for books, where you obeserve the character and the romance, rather than becoming the character.

The player is not the protagonist: he is assuming their role, like if we were given a radio controlled car.  Yes, it's interactive, you are controlling the role and the decisions the character makes, but you're not Shepard.  If the players = Shepard, we'd be saying and doing all the things we want to say, we want to do, etc, not through but as Shepard, which video games can't do yet.  That would be quite something.  The best we can do is choose a positive, negative or neutral response to social situations.  In that vein, it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure book, with more technology, and thus more media-rich page turning.

Now you may feel like you're Shepard more, and you may want to be him/her, but you're not.  Same with any protagonist in any story: we feel for them more closely than any other, because, well, they're the focus of the story.

Interestingly enough, we don't get that in ME2.  Shepard is totally replaceable.  He's just some guy.  He doesn't grow or change.  He's a Static character: a no-no in plot development, and good story telling.  (Although I digress, it works for the medium.)  I still can't understand why Shepard was brought back, since anyone could've built up the loyalty of the crew.  What makes ME1's Shepard so special that he needed to be brought back to life?

OP is right: there's loads of character dev for the other characters.  However, these characters are not involved in the plot in any way.  They're just along for the ride.  The romances you speak of: Shepard isn't changed by them at all.  You just choose to be nice to a certain person, and do all their tasks.  Shepard doesn't change at all, aside from the social reality of his public fidelity (which becomes completely peripheral post-game.)

I still contend that you are confusing litterature with a roleplaying game. You are ment to feel like YOU are Shepard. Whether the game succedes in this or not is another matter. As we all know it's only possible to go so far with fixed dialogue choices. I'm not alone in thinking this. I saw someone earlier complaining that the game broke the immerssion when Shepard saw Tali's face but not the player.

Shepard is changed by events if I allow myself to be changed. I understand that if you want to remove yourself from the story it leaves a hole in the story. I can also understand if you think that it's the constraints of the game that prevents you from doing so. I merely contend that I have no problem allowing myself to be immersed in the story to the point where I can imbue my feelings into Shepard, and when I do I feel that ME2 does much more for developing depth in Shepard than in ME1.

Where in ME1 is Shepard changed anyway, by your definition?

Literature and role-playing are not exclusive so this sort of thinking is flawed. If Bioware actually adhered to these simplistic oppositions they would not write the excellent stories they have. The medium of literature obviously affects the RPG -storytelling is universal and can be weak or great in any medium.  No one can complain about the plot and development of film because it's not literature? Obviously not, all these mediums employ common tropes. You don't feel like Shepard has developed because his story, the main mission, is not told very well - this distinction you've made just serves no purpose. I'm not confusing literature and roleplaying when I fel empty as Shepard. Or when I think the main story arc is underwhelming. This is needless excuse making. I contrast the  ME1 plot with ME2 and I felt more not because I didn't confuse RPG and literature in ME1 but  because the original story was better told enabling me to identify with, or at the very least, enjoy the main story and character.

[HulaHoop]

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who was slightly underwhelmed with the story. Fair warning, I've only read the first 3 or so pages, so I apologize if I'm repeating the thoughts of countless other people.

For me I guess it can be linked, somewhat, back to their favorite phrase "Fight for the Lost".  I was expecting to fight the Collectors atleast as much as we fought the Geth in ME1, and yet until the last act of the story we've only fought them twice, I think? (Horizon and the ship) 
They went on and on about how humanity's colonies are under siege from the Collectors and you're telling me we're only going to stop an attack on one and checkout one other already attacked colony for clues? Really? Where's my story with Shepard making a mad scramble across the galaxy to stop attacks, all while trying to assemble a ragtag crew to make the big push into enemy space and stop the abductions once and for all? With the way the story went the "Lost" came across as being little more than half the colony from Horizon and the tiny Freedom's Hope population. Not exactly the galactic pandemic I think Bioware hoped to portray.

Heck, the antagonists of the story might as well just be mercs and mechs considering how you have to fight one of the two at practically every turn.

Another thing that would have helped the story is if they had eased up on the whole formula of:
Shep: I need you for a mission.
Party Member X: Okay. By the way, I've got this problem I'd like to take care of first...
*Insert Loyalty Quest Here*
Party Member X: Thanks, Shep. I'm ready to go die for you now
Shep: Awesome

Oh well. It was still a good game, even if the story was a little lacking.

Modifié par HulaHoop, 05 février 2010 - 09:21 .

[Lunatic LK47]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

That is still the problem Driven has pointed out. The fact that reading Redemption is *REQUIRED* to learn Liara's story is a double-edged sword in of itself, and depending on the publishers, the comic's story itself would be semi-disjointed because of the rate the issues have been released. 

True...but it might make people want to read it so that they can learn what could've happened to change Liara so drastically too.  It is a tempting plot hook after all.

Depends on whether or not the publishers actually can get the full story out while the game is still relevant for the year. Look at the mess that became Halo: Uprising. The whole story for that particular comic was supposed to be released while Halo 3 was being launched, and yet it took at least six months just to get each individual issue out. Last thing I recall, the complete package did not ship until late 2008. Coming from someone that used to buy comics, I outright gave up because it is next to impossible to keep up with them due to an extreme lack of time. As for me wanting the books, I'm somewhat interested in it, but I'm not going to drop by my comic store every single week just to get all of the issues. I might end up doing the same thing I did for Halo: Uprising.

[Xandurpein]

tertium organum wrote...

Literature and role-playing are not exclusive so this sort of thinking is flawed. If Bioware actually adhered to these simplistic oppositions they would not write the excellent stories they have. The medium of literature obviously affects the RPG -storytelling is universal and can be weak or great in any medium.  No one can complain about the plot and development of film because it's not literature? Obviously not, all these mediums employ common tropes. You don't feel like Shepard has developed because his story, the main mission, is not told very well - this distinction you've made just serves no purpose. I'm not confusing literature and roleplaying when I fel empty as Shepard. Or when I think the main story arc is underwhelming. This is needless excuse making. I contrast the  ME1 plot with ME2 and I felt more not because I didn't confuse RPG and literature in ME1 but  because the original story was better told enabling me to identify with, or at the very least, enjoy the main story and character.

I never said I thought the main plot is strong in ME2. In fact I can agree that it is weak in many ways. I simply say that as far I'm concerned this does NOT equate to me feeling that the character of Shepard is badly developed. I do not base this on any knowledge of litterary writing formulas as should be abundantly clear by now. I just write what I felt when I played.

I felt that the fact that the moral choices as well as the interaction with the diverse characters in ME2 together made me feel a that my Shepard got to be a lot deeper character, than the Shepard in ME1, where the choices were relaitvly simple. As far as I'm concerned it's the choices you make and the justifications for the choices you use, not the plot, that defines the character you play. I'm not telling you that my way of thinking is right, merely that this is how I feel.

[JamieCOTC]

Xandurpein wrote...

I felt that the fact that the moral choices as well as the interaction with the diverse characters in ME2 together made me feel a that my Shepard got to be a lot deeper character, than the Shepard in ME1, where the choices were relaitvly simple. As far as I'm concerned it's the choices you make and the justifications for the choices you use, not the plot, that defines the character you play. I'm not telling you that my way of thinking is right, merely that this is how I feel.

I totally agree.  I haven't felt this deeply for a character I played since my old D&D days.  Yes, it was a somewhat weak story, but the gameplay and main character develpoment was a viable trade-off.  I just hope BioWare can meld great story and great character in ME3. 

[Sharn01]

Pretty much agree with everything you posted OP, I have a few additional minor gripes as to how they treated some things that carried over from ME1, but those are minor compared to the actual story which I felt fell flat.

[allankles]

To the OP I think ME 2 had more urgency tbh. The Horizon, the IFF mission and then saving the crew, there's certainly more urgency in these missions. The only place in ME 1 that had that kind of urgency were Illos and Virmire.

[allankles]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

That is still the problem Driven has pointed out. The fact that reading Redemption is *REQUIRED* to learn Liara's story is a double-edged sword in of itself, and depending on the publishers, the comic's story itself would be semi-disjointed because of the rate the issues have been released. 

True...but it might make people want to read it so that they can learn what could've happened to change Liara so drastically too.  It is a tempting plot hook after all.

Depends on whether or not the publishers actually can get the full story out while the game is still relevant for the year. Look at the mess that became Halo: Uprising. The whole story for that particular comic was supposed to be released while Halo 3 was being launched, and yet it took at least six months just to get each individual issue out. Last thing I recall, the complete package did not ship until late 2008. Coming from someone that used to buy comics, I outright gave up because it is next to impossible to keep up with them due to an extreme lack of time. As for me wanting the books, I'm somewhat interested in it, but I'm not going to drop by my comic store every single week just to get all of the issues. I might end up doing the same thing I did for Halo: Uprising.

 I also thought we'd tungle with the Collectors a little more, but when you think about it, how many battles could a small insertion team like Shepard's handle? The Collectors are a planetary level threat imo, you needed an army to fight them directly.

What Shepard and his team do in ME 2 is infiltrate the Collector bases for information on how to take them down. If you notice in the last mission, Shepard's plan is to get behind enemy lines plant a nuke and get out before the whole Collector army swarms over you, that's why the whole thing was a suicide mission.

[MagicianCamille]

What are your qualifications as a "writer"? I'm curious.

[Driveninhifi]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Actually, her change in character works perfectly...but it requires that you have read Redemption, the comic book series.  That series covers Liara going after your body, giving it to Cerberus, and then hunting down the Shadow Broker for all the pain and suffering he caused.  That's the problem, if you haven't read them (and only #1 is out anyway) then yes, her sudden change of character comes off as jarring and unnerving.

But we don't _know_ that it works because the comics aren't out. And she isn't presented correctly in the comics either. She's oscillates between being what you'd expect and being too aggressive. An example: in #2 she kills a batarian and makes an arnold-esque one liner "I guess that's why they call it Afterlife!" Come on, that's about as far from Liara as you can possibly get. She's not an aggressive character at all and it's hard to believe she'd become one like a month after Shepard dies (which is when the obsession needs to start to fit the timeline).

Her motivations don't make enough sense as presented. She can't have known the friend long enough for it to fuel 2 years of obsession. It doesn't make sense for her to fall in love with someone so soon after Shepard's death, especially if she thinks there's a chance Shepard will return. I'd buy her avenging Shepard's treatment at the hands of the Shadow Broker - but that motivation falls apart once Shepard comes back to life. She really needs to believe that taking down the Shadow Broker is the right thing to do, that it's her duty; it has to be more than just revenge.

There needs to be a huge amount of internal conflict once Shepard returns and the game doesn't really go into it. You have to imagine she's been waiting, or at least desperately hoping he/she would return. Her demeanor at first is understandable since she's afraid Shepard will hate her. But if Shepard reassures her it doesn't make sense for her obsession to continue without softening. It can be hard to let go of an obsession - but you also have to figure that she'd be obsessed with Shepard as well. Why would she take the chance of losing Shepard again? 
The player needs to be able to explore that conflict in her and influence it. Even her saying "I'd like nothing more than to be with you, but I'm the only one that can finish this. Why don't you stop and help me?" would feel more organic. 

I'm not saying that there's no way the changes can be explained. A good explanation:
Liara gets Feron killed or he sacrifices himself for Liara and Shepard. Liara gives the body to Cerberus out of grief/love/desire/etc. The Shadow Broker comes after her and forces her to fight back. That can tie into her guilt as well. I think she has to be forced to fight back at first for it to make sense - if the Shadow Broker wants a war, she'll oblige, that sort of thing.

The problem is that none of this is made clear in the game, so the character is not believable.

[ZennExile]

WhiskeyKnight wrote...

I do hope they focus more on the central plot in ME3 and less on the various characters.

We've got the team assembled damn it, now lets get around to fighting some actual Reapers.

What I hope is they attach every side quest to the main story in some "meaningful" way and expand the main story itself so the experience feels epic and interwoven.

For all the choices availible in ME2 dialogue the game really felt like a platformer with no option but forward.  Maybe it's because Bioware leaned to heavily on the dialogue to make the story, but it really feels like the game was never finished.  It feels like they created the main story arc and got ready to expand on it but were stopped mid production and told to just release what they had for final integration.

I hope they actually finish ME3.  ME2 is a great game even though it isn't finished.  Imagine how good it would have been if they finished it.

[Vardel]

To be honest, I thought the story was pretty clear about the things you are confused with.



The Protheans were indoctrinated. Simple as that. There is no mystery to how they became the Collectors. The Reapers were able to make them slaves.



And it is clear that the Reapers use organic beings to reproduce. And asking why the Reaper was formed as a human is a pointless question, it was answered in the game. The Reaper takes on the form of the species used to create it. And they created it with humans.



This is why the Collectors paid high prices for bodies of different races(in the books), so that the Reapers could learn how to use each species to make new Reapers. Once they learned enough, they wiped out all life in the universe. But Shepard stopped them in ME1. They realized that humans, specifically Shepard, were more powerful than they anticipated. That is why they wanted humans now and why they wanted Shepard.



The Collectors were building a new Reaper, a human Reaper, which they thought would be stronger than other Reapers. This is a logical conclusion because no race has ever stopped the Reapers before.



I think the story of ME 2 was solid and well told. And I am eagerly awaiting ME 3 and the conclusion of Shepard's story.