283 réponses à ce sujet

[Cinnabar6]

Regarding ME1, I liked the reversal on Virmire that had me going, "What, Saren is not the problem?!" This, coupled with the loss of at least one squadmate, got my attention. And wonderful foreshadowing with Manuel on Eden Prime. I cannot think of any similarly powerful events in ME2. Although, I did feel the abandonment of the NPC on Horizon. Rather acutely, lol. That was well done, considering history with that NPC.

[Myrmedus]

pelhikano wrote...

mjack234 wrote...



As a storyteller, there is a certain obligation to make your narrative clear to the audience. The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.

Isn't there also a writing rule that it's better to show than tell? I felt I was shown enough to figure out what *might* be the reason for the human-reaper. Having it explained in detail might have been convenient, but I'm not convinced it would have been more enjoyable.

Showing instead of telling is definitely the best way in a visual medium however it's also a much more difficult way of doing it and the problem for ME2 was that it did it too late - ie. at the very death.

[Dracotamer]

Some really good points in here.

[mjack234]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

I disagree with the idea that characters are not more important than plot. The plot exists to serve the characters,  it exists to challenge them and to develop them and allow the readers to better understand them.  You can have a formulaic plot that's really very simplistic (example: Star Wars ANH) that comes alive precisely because the characters are vibrant and resonate with the audience.

Conversely, you can have a story with a theoretically good plot that fails most heavily becuase the characters are wooden, one dimensional, or otherwise poorly formed. (Example: Star Wars AOTC.)  

I said that characters have to be equal to plot.  Straight character dramas are too melodramatic to carry an epic storyline.  If you're story is a small character piece, then fine, throw the plot away.  But if you're doing an epic, mainstream space opera, sacrificing plot on behalf of characterization is a no-no.

you can have good characterization AND plot development.  But sacrificing one at the sake of the other is poor writing.  Just ask any lit teacher.

I disagree very heavily with this. Except how the story of Mass Effect lies with Shepherd, that's something I agree with. But the rest of it I disagree with. The overreaching conflict is the struggle with the reapers, yes, but indirectly that conflict carries over to ME2 as well, since the collectors are just the reapers' pawns.  It's little different from encountering the mook geth on Therum, or Benezia on Noveria. By the idea that the collector plotline is divorced from the main "fight the reapers" plot of the ME trilogy, we could say that Noveria has nothing to do with it either, since in both cases you're just fighting the reaper's pawns.

The difference here is that what you're referring to from ME1 drove the story forward and gave us revelations into the reaper's plans while creating higher stakes for our characters.

In ME2, there was a serious lack of urgency and rising action.  It wasn't clear what was at stake.  The bad guys were flimsy and there was no sense of the impending Reaper invasion.  I'm just saying, from a narrative standpoint, the plot here was weak.

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." 

Why is it lazy writing? The reapers are addressed; we don't know exactly how far we've set them back, but we have disrupted their plans, which certainly addresses the story. There isn't much of a reversal, true, but I don't see why a reversal is absolutely necessary for the second part of a trilogy. On the other tentacle, one could argue that Shepherd does encounter a reversal, and a rather large one in absolute terms, when he talks to Anderson at the citadel. The council sticks their heads in the sand about the reaper threat, rather than preparing for the return of the reapers as they should. It's not a reversal in the collector plotline since he doesn't really need council assistance against them, but it's certainly a reversal in the larger "fight against the reapers" plotline, since it takes everything Shepherd achieved in the first game and minimalizes it.

A reversal is necessary to create rising action and a final crisis for the hero to confront.  It's storytelling 101.  The Council shunning Shepherd is not a reversal because it doesn't change the character's circumstances in a way where his job is harder, plus it comes too early in the story.  However, the destruction of the Citadel or the Destruction of Earth is a major reversal because the galaxy is weakened against a major threat in some way.

It's lazy writing to allow major plot points to go unaddressed and to allow major plot holes to exist.  i think much of the debate on these boards go towards proving that the story was not as clear as it needed to be.

This story's end comes across more as "you've dealt the reapers a setback and gotten your crew home... But now the real battle is starting." *Cue hundreds/thousands of reapers approaching the galaxy like evil space squid.*

Yes, it does.  But it's not a very satisfying or epic ending in my book.  It might work for some, but it could have been much stronger had the good guys suffered a reversal of some sort.

By "writing" you mean "plotting", yes? Because the character writing was significantly improved from the first game. Regardless, I  don't believe that Bioware needs to or even should necessarily follow classical storytelling structures dogmatically. Both because games are a different medium from plays or movies or novels, and because this kind of personal story is less suited to general "man versus antagonist" style plot diagrams

Good stories don't change.  Even as far back as Shakespear we knew that good drama follows certain structure.  Writing is the same as plotting, because your plot dictates your writing.  Yes, no one is arguing the character writing was good, but the over-all plot was weak and neglected and poorly plotted.  Great characters are no substitute for great plots.  You need both to succeed at crafting a memorable story.

I'm the opposite. ME1's ending left me feeling underwhelmed for all its "epicness" because I just didn't feel the emotional connection to the characters or the universe. For me, ME2's ending and climax was much bigger and better in emotional terms because I genuinely cared about the crew. There was a tension there that only materialized in ME1 during the very end of the end-run to Illos and the subsequent "fight your way to Saren" portion, and even then it was lackluster (for me) compared to whether I'd be able to save my crew in time.

I guess we have different taste in the type of stories we enjoy.  Not to take anything away from your preferences, but I like more mainstream narratives, and ME1 was very mainstream.  The shift away from that method of stroytelling in this chapter of the saga was not well done, at least from a writing perspective.  you can have intense character drama and a great epic plot, but this game sacrificed plot for characters and ended up suffering because of it in my opinion.

If you enjoyed the story more than the first, then I'm happy for you.  You had a better experience than I did.  But from my perspective, the writing should have been better.

You're saying you (and by extension Shep) didn't get attached to the Normandy crew at all? Not the ever helpful and flirty Kelly, not the various crewmen who banter amongst themselves and have eminently human concerns like getting their familes to safety before the collectors get them? Heck, you didn't feel connected to Dr. Chakwas? Not the two mechanics who have more character between them than half the cast of ME1? You didn't feel a connection to any of those people, even though they'd been nothing but loyal and helpful?   

I'm not saying that.  As I stated before, the character development is well done.  But the Shepherd vs. Reaper storyline was not.  World building and characterization aside, the main plot of this game was not up to par with the first game, for the reasons I outlined in my original post.

Storytelling is subjective, so if the depth of the characters made you happy, that's great.  But I'd like to see some more balance with the plot and clearer writing with better rising action and climax.  Just my opinion.

[Ewing5150]

My problem with ME2 was the soundtrack. The music wasnt electronic and upbeat like on Ilos in ME1.

[mjack234]

pelhikano wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

As a storyteller, there is a certain obligation to make your narrative clear to the audience.  The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.

Isn't there also a writing rule that it's better to show than tell? I felt I was shown enough to figure out what *might* be the reason for the human-reaper. Having it explained in detail might have been convenient, but I'm not convinced it would have been more enjoyable.

There is a rule, but sometimes you need exposition - especially in sci-fi and fantasy.  If the bulk of your audience is confused, it takes away from your story.  A simple scene where the Collector General mind melds with Shepherd would have been sufficient to explain some stuff, since Shepherd's mind was altered by the Prothean beacon in ME1, this wouldn't have been far fetched.  Some explanation would have been nice.

Maybe you're smarter than me or pay more careful attention.  As I said, I'm a casual gamer and only have time to play through a game once before real life takes over, and this is what I took away from my experience.

[przemichal]

The Collectors goals and reasons are imo well explained and make a good base for ME3. I only wonder: why, if Harbringer need you so much, he never gave himself a chance to convice you to join his cause? I'm sure that it would reveal too much of ME3: the Reaper goal, ways and all this stuff. But I'm pretty sure that in ME3 all those things will be explained to you in person, because you, as Shepard, are somehow important for the Reapers. Who knows, maybe we will be getting a chance to join them? (Just to destroy them, maybe?)

[mjack234]

Cpl_Facehugger wrote...

mjack234 wrote...


The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.  Even if Shepherd had stumbled onto a computer that revealed the plans of the Collectors and how the human reaper would affect the galaxy, I would have taken that - anything really - because I still don't have a good idea of how making a human reaper was supposed to help the Reaper cause.

You don't? Don't you remember how much of a fight Sovereign gave the Citadel? Heck, getting a new reaper in play would let the reapers try the same plan they had in ME1, save without the embarassing "control Robo-Saren, get stunned/disabled/mind-killed when Shep kills Robo-Saren" thing. It's not directly spelled out in the game anywhere, but it makes sense. If you need a reaper to activate the citadel relay (which you do, hence why Sovereign had to go there in person rather than just having a trusted agent like Saren do it), it makes sense that you'd want another reaper to try again, since it's clearly the fastest method of getting all the reapers into the galaxy for the harvest. 

And even if not, a new reaper being around to soften up the organics with some covert indoctrination and manipulation before the main force arrives would certainly be a good thing from the reaper perspective.

As to why humanity... Again, it's not directly spelled out, but it seems plausible that not every race can actually "make" a reaper, hence why EDI suggests that the protheans/collectors never made a prothean one. That and the idea that you, Shepherd, have impressed them enough to make them choose humanity as the template for their new reaper in a twisted form of respect; it's made clear throughout the game that the collectors have an interest in you directly, after all.

The story could perhaps do with more exposition on this point, but the risk is that you take away much of the mystique of the reapers and collectors if you discuss their motives too much too soon.  

Actually, it would have been nice to get more insight into the Reapers, a big revelation that leads into ME3 would not have been out of place.  More explanation to clear up the plot is always a good thing in my opinion, as long as its not too on-the-nose.

I guess the significance of a second reaper being filled with human goo is beyond me.  Why did it need liquified humans exactly?  We beat one reaper already, and apparently all you need to do to beat a human reaper is shoot it in the eye a couple of times with a big gun, so the impact is kinda lost on me.  Plus, even if the reaper was finished, what was it gonnna do?

None of this was made clear, and I think the story of ME2 demanded it was better defined.  you can keep some mystery for ME3, but not at the sake of the main narrative of ME2.

[Cinnabar6]

mjack234 wrote...

pelhikano wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

As a storyteller, there is a certain obligation to make your narrative clear to the audience.  The evil villain explaining his plot to the hero may be contrived, but its done for a reason, and it can be done well.

Isn't there also a writing rule that it's better to show than tell? I felt I was shown enough to figure out what *might* be the reason for the human-reaper. Having it explained in detail might have been convenient, but I'm not convinced it would have been more enjoyable.

There is a rule, but sometimes you need exposition - especially in sci-fi and fantasy.  If the bulk of your audience is confused, it takes away from your story.  A simple scene where the Collector General mind melds with Shepherd would have been sufficient to explain some stuff, since Shepherd's mind was altered by the Prothean beacon in ME1, this wouldn't have been far fetched.  Some explanation would have been nice.

Maybe you're smarter than me or pay more careful attention.  As I said, I'm a casual gamer and only have time to play through a game once before real life takes over, and this is what I took away from my experience.

Thank you for starting this subject. The discussion is very good and very informative. I am amused that a game has elicited what is a rather scholarly discourse on good story telling. It speaks to the quality of the game for this to be possible. 

[rumination888]

Myrmedus wrote...

Not necessarily. The subtle difference is in producing a coherent experience to the fragmented experienced encountered in ME2, and that alone can be enough to make a game 'feel' like it has a stronger narrative.

The point here is that if you approach it from a pure objective view, you're probably right that ME2 is no weaker than ME1. However, when a person is playing a game - and that game is good - then it should be pulling on emotional strings and feelings, which is the exact opposite of objectivity; in other words, while you're playing the actual game you're not necessarily disecting it in the same way.

This is what is different with ME1 and ME2. When viewing ME1 from a purely objective point of you view you see alot of 'waste' quests like the Pass Card quest. However, when you're PLAYING it, it doesn't feel that way because while it may not develop the plot it's integrated into it. With ME2 though, even when you're actually playing it you sense this disjointed and slightly removed sensation when doing sidequests that wasn't generally there with ME1 unless you analysed it in retrospect.

This is the core difference between ME1 and ME2 IMO with the possible exception that I still believe ME2 lacked development of the core story.

And I thought ME2's main antagonist was better characterized than ME1's.
ME2's main antagonist was a subtle, manipulative bastard that probably has most of the audience not noticing he's the main antagonist. A testament to how subtle and manipulative his character was.
Compare that with ME1's main antagonist. Saren was growling and snarling for most of his screen time if he wasn't talking to Shepard. Not exactly what I'd call deep characterization.

Again this is a double-sided issue in my eyes. I definitely agree with you in terms of the antagonists being much better characterized but subtly can run its course. Basically a subtle antagonist is awesome for about 2/3 to 3/4 of a narrative but there's usually point where it reveals itself from the shadows and your character confronts it directly in some form, or at least KNOWS him/herself he/she's confronting it. This wasn't the case in ME2 as only the player realises we were fighting Harbinger all through the game, and even then it only reveals itself at the very end of the game producing a feeling almost like vertigo in that I feel a major plot revelation just passed me by without smacking me in the face.

IMO the weaknesses of ME2, at least compared to ME1, are also subtle things and often a culmination of multiple holes rather than big, glaring issues....

When I played ME1, it did feel that way. Infact, I thought ME1 was an overrated piece of garbage. It felt like a shooter version of KOTOR. Not that I'm saying KOTOR was bad, I actually loved KOTOR. The problem with ME1 though, was that everything aside from the graphics was 5-years outdated. I prefer progression over nostalgia.

I thought TIM made a better main antagonist than Harbinger. Harbinger was nothing more than a gameplay mechanic. Harbinger's characterization was as ****** poor as Sarens.

[Unit-Alpha]

I agree with you. However, I think it was on purpose. They develop the characters in ME2 and then can focus on the story and action in the third. That's a bit too optimistic, though.

[Myrmedus]

rumination888 wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...

Not necessarily. The subtle difference is in producing a coherent experience to the fragmented experienced encountered in ME2, and that alone can be enough to make a game 'feel' like it has a stronger narrative.

The point here is that if you approach it from a pure objective view, you're probably right that ME2 is no weaker than ME1. However, when a person is playing a game - and that game is good - then it should be pulling on emotional strings and feelings, which is the exact opposite of objectivity; in other words, while you're playing the actual game you're not necessarily disecting it in the same way.

This is what is different with ME1 and ME2. When viewing ME1 from a purely objective point of you view you see alot of 'waste' quests like the Pass Card quest. However, when you're PLAYING it, it doesn't feel that way because while it may not develop the plot it's integrated into it. With ME2 though, even when you're actually playing it you sense this disjointed and slightly removed sensation when doing sidequests that wasn't generally there with ME1 unless you analysed it in retrospect.

This is the core difference between ME1 and ME2 IMO with the possible exception that I still believe ME2 lacked development of the core story.

And I thought ME2's main antagonist was better characterized than ME1's.
ME2's main antagonist was a subtle, manipulative bastard that probably has most of the audience not noticing he's the main antagonist. A testament to how subtle and manipulative his character was.
Compare that with ME1's main antagonist. Saren was growling and snarling for most of his screen time if he wasn't talking to Shepard. Not exactly what I'd call deep characterization.

Again this is a double-sided issue in my eyes. I definitely agree with you in terms of the antagonists being much better characterized but subtly can run its course. Basically a subtle antagonist is awesome for about 2/3 to 3/4 of a narrative but there's usually point where it reveals itself from the shadows and your character confronts it directly in some form, or at least KNOWS him/herself he/she's confronting it. This wasn't the case in ME2 as only the player realises we were fighting Harbinger all through the game, and even then it only reveals itself at the very end of the game producing a feeling almost like vertigo in that I feel a major plot revelation just passed me by without smacking me in the face.

IMO the weaknesses of ME2, at least compared to ME1, are also subtle things and often a culmination of multiple holes rather than big, glaring issues....

When I played ME1, it did feel that way. Infact, I thought ME1 was an overrated piece of garbage. It felt like a shooter version of KOTOR. Not that I'm saying KOTOR was bad, I actually loved KOTOR. The problem with ME1 though, was that everything aside from the graphics was 5-years outdated. I prefer progression over nostalgia.

I thought TIM made a better main antagonist than Harbinger. Harbinger was nothing more than a gameplay mechanic. Harbinger's characterization was as ****** poor as Sarens.

Well I think you're in the minority there I'm afraid.

Also if you thought it was an overrated piece of garbage how comes you've followed the series? O.o

[rumination888]

Myrmedus wrote...

Well I think you're in the minority there I'm afraid.

Also if you thought it was an overrated piece of garbage how comes you've followed the series? O.o

Because its developed by Bioware. They hooked me in since the Baldur's Gate series.
They said they improved every aspect of ME1. To me, they were right.

The majority prefers nostalgia over progression. Remember that the next time you hear someone talk about something "stagnating" or how something is "all the same".

[pelhikano]

mjack234 wrote...

I guess the significance of a second reaper being filled with human goo is beyond me.  Why did it need liquified humans exactly?  We beat one reaper already, and apparently all you need to do to beat a human reaper is shoot it in the eye a couple of times with a big gun, so the impact is kinda lost on me.  Plus, even if the reaper was finished, what was it gonnna do?

The reason for the goo is *probably* that it infuses the Reaper with the "essence" of humanity (maybe memories and capabilities?), qualities that the Reapers knew made humans capable of thwarting their plans and even destroying one of their own. They want to use our/Shepard's resourcefulness against us.

The human reaper wasn't more than a fetus at that stage, not even nearly as powerful as a fully built one, which is why you could simply gun it down. It was basically a stupid animal that reacted purely on instinct. It's armor and shields were not even installed yet, so its weak points were exposed.

Once the Reaper WAS finished, it would be a *Reaper*! A giant, hyper-intelligent robot that has incredible technology at its disposal and knew about the stupid mistake his predecessor made that allowed the organics to destroy him, a mistake he wouldn't repeat. He would use his resources to try again what Sovereign failed at, namely conquering the Citadel and activating the Super-Relay inside to teleport the other Reapers in so they can finally destroy the organics.

[Garuda One]

pelhikano wrote...

mjack234 wrote...

I guess the significance of a second reaper being filled with human goo is beyond me.  Why did it need liquified humans exactly?  We beat one reaper already, and apparently all you need to do to beat a human reaper is shoot it in the eye a couple of times with a big gun, so the impact is kinda lost on me.  Plus, even if the reaper was finished, what was it gonnna do?

The reason for the goo is *probably* that it infuses the Reaper with the "essence" of humanity (maybe memories and capabilities?), qualities that the Reapers knew made humans capable of thwarting their plans and even destroying one of their own. They want to use our/Shepard's resourcefulness against us.

The human reaper wasn't more than a fetus at that stage, not even nearly as powerful as a fully built one, which is why you could simply gun it down. It was basically a stupid animal that reacted purely on instinct. It's armor and shields were not even installed yet, so its weak points were exposed.

Once the Reaper WAS finished, it would be a *Reaper*! A giant, hyper-intelligent robot that has incredible technology at its disposal and knew about the stupid mistake his predecessor made that allowed the organics to destroy him, a mistake he wouldn't repeat. He would use his resources to try again what Sovereign failed at, namely conquering the Citadel and activating the Super-Relay inside to teleport the other Reapers in so they can finally destroy the organics.

Did someone say essence?

[John Forseti]

Then there was the new ammo system.  The thermal clips really got annoying, especially to a casual gamer like me who can't aim to save his life.  I kept running out of "ammo" and would have to switch weapons.  I understand this can add a layer of strategy to the game for the hard core shooter fans out there, but I thought the heat system of the weapons in the first game worked just fine and wasn't too easy or challenging to manage in the big gunfights.  Not sure why this system was changed in favor of ammo clips, but I didn't think it was a smart choice.

While I liked reloading, don't know why though, it just felt right, and the explanation kind of made sense; i.e that it's hugely more beneficial for soldier to simply be able to eject the heated clip, slap in a new one and then carry on firing after a couple of seconds, rather than having to hide in cover for 10-20 or more seconds while the weapon cooled down. The fact that after running out of clips you didn't revert to the old system is simply stupid.  I doubt any non-stupid military will favour a situation in which their soldiers go from almost never running out of ammunition, almost entirely removing the logistical problem of keeping soldiers with enough of it, and  them always being to shoot back if they're careful about overheating into a one where they are defenseless after five minutes of solid engagement, unless constantly being resupplied with clips.

What I would suggest is that in ME3 they hybridise the old and new, so that you have the overheating guage as before and if you hit it, you either slap in a new clip of which you can carry a limited amount, or you deal with the cool down time(which should probably be a bit harsher than ME1)

[Garuda One]

John Forseti wrote...

Then there was the new ammo system.  The thermal clips really got annoying, especially to a casual gamer like me who can't aim to save his life.  I kept running out of "ammo" and would have to switch weapons.  I understand this can add a layer of strategy to the game for the hard core shooter fans out there, but I thought the heat system of the weapons in the first game worked just fine and wasn't too easy or challenging to manage in the big gunfights.  Not sure why this system was changed in favor of ammo clips, but I didn't think it was a smart choice.

While I liked reloading, don't know why though, it just felt right, and the explanation kind of made sense; i.e that it's hugely more beneficial for soldier to simply be able to eject the heated clip, slap in a new one and then carry on firing after a couple of seconds, rather than having to hide in cover for 10-20 or more seconds while the weapon cooled down. The fact that after running out of clips you didn't revert to the old system is simply stupid.  I doubt any non-stupid military will favour a situation in which their soldiers go from almost never running out of ammunition, almost entirely removing the logistical problem of keeping soldiers with enough of it, and  them always being to shoot back if they're careful about overheating into a one where they are defenseless after five minutes of solid engagement, unless constantly being resupplied with clips.

What I would suggest is that in ME3 they hybridise the old and new, so that you have the overheating guage as before and if you hit it, you either slap in a new clip of which you can carry a limited amount, or you deal with the cool down time(which should probably be a bit harsher than ME1)

Yes I would have enjoyed if it did convert back to the old system, but over heated a lot more. I like this idea.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

[quote]mjack234 wrote...

I said that characters have to be equal to plot.  Straight character dramas are too melodramatic to carry an epic storyline.  If you're story is a small character piece, then fine, throw the plot away.  But if you're doing an epic, mainstream space opera, sacrificing plot on behalf of characterization is a no-no.[/quote]

ME1 was an epic mainstream space opera, but I don't think ME2 was meant to be. From what I can tell, it was meant to be smaller, more compact, and much more character driven. 

[quote]you can have good characterization AND plot development.  But sacrificing one at the sake of the other is poor writing.  Just ask any lit teacher.[/quote]

Yes, you can have both if you're skilled, but the point was that a story can stand on its characters alone, while the same is not necessarily true for a story's plot. For instance, during my storywriting workshop, I read a peer's story where the plot was basically "I drove around, then I got pulled over, but the cop was attractive and single so it was all good," yet this story was one of the better ones that I read for that class because the characters were all very well written.

In the same class, I also read a story with an interesting plot; it was about a torrid affair between a student and teacher, and it had lots of conflict culminating with the teacher's husband finding out and attacking the student. And yet this story, despite the conflict-laden plot wasn't very good because the characters were empty and possessed little depth.

[quote][/quote][quote]The difference here is that what you're referring to from ME1 drove the story forward and gave us revelations into the reaper's plans while creating higher stakes for our characters.[/quote]

What? Rescuing Liara from the Geth on Therum told us nothing about the reaper's plans and it didn't give us much higher stakes for the characters either, since none of them were connected to Liara at all.

[quote]In ME2, there was a serious lack of urgency and rising action.[/quote]

Human colonies getting scooped up and later your crew getting grabbed didn't give you a sense of urgency?
 
[quote]and there was no sense of the impending Reaper invasion.[/quote]

Obviously. You'd just  delayed it  at the end of ME1.
[quote][/quote][quote]But the focus of those quests are on the supporting character he's with, not with Shepherd himself.[/quote]

You can still have a subplot be "focused" on a character yet contribute to the development of the protagonist though. 

[quote]We don't see him grow, even though he makes a lot of choices in this game.[/quote]  

How much can the character really grow (except in terms of character relationships)? He started out as an elite soldier and then became a spectre. There's not many places to go except down, unless we're defining Shepherd in context of the relationships he forms in ME2 and the way he acts. That's part of the problem of writing a video game where the player defines the character to a large extent. I mean, if we started with a renegade Shep from ME1 who slowly gets more paragon-like after he sees what the underbelly of the galaxy has to offer (or conversely, a paragon shep who slowly gets corrupted by the vices of the Terminus systems), that would be character development and growth to be sure, yet that sort of development is dependent upon the player choosing to play Shep to that end.

About the only way to develop Shepherd without getting subjective is via either his relationships with other people, or his paragon/renegade alignment. Unless we want to play up the Cerberus angle and how he's conflicted over working for the same people who murdered Admiral Kahoku, used Toombs for experiments, so on and so forth.   

[quote]A reversal is necessary to create rising action and a final crisis for the hero to confront.  It's storytelling 101.[/quote]

I do not believe this is the case. You can easily have a crisis for the character to confront without a reversal; the reapers coming in for the third act, for instance. 
 
[quote]The Council shunning Shepherd is not a reversal because it doesn't change the character's circumstances in a way where his job is harder, plus it comes too early in the story.[/quote]

The council shunning Shep means they aren't preparing for the war with the reapers. Intuitively, that is making Shep's job much harder, if we take the main job/plot to be "defeat the reapers." 

It doesn't do anything against the collectors, granted, but the reapers were the ones pulling the collectors' strings. 
 
[quote]However, the destruction of the Citadel or the Destruction of Earth is a major reversal because the galaxy is weakened against a major threat in some way.[/quote]

The Citadel ignoring the threat (until it's too late?) is also a large reversal because the galaxy is weakened against the reaper threat. Two years of potential shipbuilding and preparation have been wasted just as ME2 opens.

[quote]i think much of the debate on these boards go towards proving that the story was not as clear as it needed to be.[/quote]

I don't agree, some of the best stories have ambiguious elements. Something would be lost if, for instance, we had Harbinger droning on about his plan like some kind of Bond villain. In fact, it was rather lame in ME1 when Sovereign did exactly that.

[quote]Yes, it does.  But it's not a very satisfying or epic ending in my book.  It might work for some, but it could have been much stronger had the good guys suffered a reversal of some sort.[/quote]

I don't think it's supposed to be an epic ending in the sense of ME1's ending. The scale's smaller

[quote]Good stories don't change.  Even as far back as Shakespear we knew that good drama follows certain structure.  Writing is the same as plotting, because your plot dictates your writing.  Yes, no one is arguing the character writing was good, but the over-all plot was weak and neglected and poorly plotted.  Great characters are no substitute for great plots.  You need both to succeed at crafting a memorable story.[/quote]

I do not agree. Dramatic structure and even the purpose of drama has changed through the ages, compared to its roots in ancient Greece and Rome; many good dramatic pieces have diverged from the classical structure throughout the years; what makes a "good story" is dependent upon lots of things, including cultural background and audience. So yeah, good stories can change, both over time and and through purposeful divergence from the norm. Take Everyman, the medieval morality play. That was considered "good" in its time. And yet now, most people consider it rather... Less good. Or take Shakespeare; his works aren't considered good because of their plotting so much as the rediculously genuine characters and the resonance that has with a human audience.  

And I definitely disagree with the last two lines. All my experiences writing and reading have told me that most audiences will forgive a flawed plot a lot more than they will forgive a one dimensional character. 

[quote]I guess we have different taste in the type of stories we enjoy.  Not to take anything away from your preferences, but I like more mainstream narratives, and ME1 was very mainstream.  The shift away from that method of stroytelling in this chapter of the saga was not well done, at least from a writing perspective.  you can have intense character drama and a great epic plot, but this game sacrificed plot for characters and ended up suffering because of it in my opinion.

If you enjoyed the story more than the first, then I'm happy for you.  You had a better experience than I did.  But from my perspective, the writing should have been better.[/quote]

Certainly. My only issue is that a "writing perspective" is just as subjective as anything else, which is why I object to any attempts to paint it as somehow objective.

Of course, you might not be doing that. It's just what appears to be happening from where I'm sitting. If you aren't, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[quote]
I'm not saying that.  As I stated before, the character development is well done.  But the Shepherd vs. Reaper storyline was not.  World building and characterization aside, the main plot of this game was not up to par with the first game, for the reasons I outlined in my original post.[/quote]

You asked what motivation Shep had and gave the example of how good it would be for Shep's former crew to be taken by the collectors from a dramatic perspective. To which I reply he's had his current crew taken, which should provide just as much motivation, assuming he started to empathize with them over the course of his adventure.  

[mjack234]

pelhikano wrote...

The reason for the goo is *probably* that it infuses the Reaper with the "essence" of humanity (maybe memories and capabilities?), qualities that the Reapers knew made humans capable of thwarting their plans and even destroying one of their own. They want to use our/Shepard's resourcefulness against us.

The human reaper wasn't more than a fetus at that stage, not even nearly as powerful as a fully built one, which is why you could simply gun it down. It was basically a stupid animal that reacted purely on instinct. It's armor and shields were not even installed yet, so its weak points were exposed.

Once the Reaper WAS finished, it would be a *Reaper*! A giant, hyper-intelligent robot that has incredible technology at its disposal and knew about the stupid mistake his predecessor made that allowed the organics to destroy him, a mistake he wouldn't repeat. He would use his resources to try again what Sovereign failed at, namely conquering the Citadel and activating the Super-Relay inside to teleport the other Reapers in so they can finally destroy the organics.

See, now THAT would have been a great ending!  Why did we have to fight a Fetus-Reaper instead of a fully developed one that could have set the stage for ushering in the finale?

[pelhikano]

mjack234 wrote...

See, now THAT would have been a great ending!  Why did we have to fight a Fetus-Reaper instead of a fully developed one that could have set the stage for ushering in the finale?

I'm guessing because a fully developed, prepared and VERY ANGRY Reaper would have been an overwhelming enemy that you wouldn't stand a chance in hell of taking out even if you had an entire fleet of battleships at your disposal, let alone just with the Normandy. Remember that in ME1 Sovereign wasn't even damaged by the full barrage of all ships of the Citadel fleet until by pure chance its shields went down.

[Ulicus]

MBirkhofer wrote...

Short version.

Pacing in ME2 is off.

Pacing in 1 is done right.
You start of with intro. Then go to citidel and get all your party, learn about the world. Then opens into 3 gather info/get liara missions. During this time, you can explore the galaxy at your leisure. No mission has any real "omg needs to get done right now". So you feel ok, gallivanting around the galaxy at your own pace. You know hes out there, but no immediate threat.
until Virmire, where the game hits act 4 and races to a dramtic conclusion.

ME2 however, is constantly throwing "plot important missions" at you that seem time sensitive. Add into this, a constant barrage of loyalty missions which also all seem time sensitive(even if they arent really), and recruitment. When exactly are you supposed to explore? Gameply you do, it while, but thematically, it feels off, as you constantly have so many plot storys going on at once. That's the key. Too much going on at once. This is made worse when at the very end, the last mission really is time sensitive, when all the previous weren't really.
There really needed to be a point at which, you are given an "ALL CLEAR" go explore at your leisure fairly early on. then each loyalty mission, and any main plot missions should disable each other, so you only can get 1 or maybe 2 at a time.

I'm not sure how you've come to the above conclusions.

In Mass Effect, the main questline was a "race against time" (it may have even been called that). After you became a Spectre, you know that Saren is after the conduit, that this is really, really bad and were informed immediately of the worlds that Saren was scoping out, and explictly told to go and check them out.  The minute you finished two of the worlds, you were told about Virmire. There was - unfortunately - no decent RP excuse, at all, for gallivanting around the galaxy... which is why I pretend that the message about Virmire comes after I've done all the other planets and side-quests.

In short, Mass Effect never, ever, has this "ALL CLEAR" you say you'd have liked of Mass Effect 2.

In fact, in Mass Effect 2, it is hammered home - time and again - that you are supposed to be building up your strength and resources and that you shouldn't rush into anything. I felt far more justified in jetting about the galaxy in the second game than I ever did in the first.

Granted, Mass Effect's story would make a better movie than Mass Effect 2's... but they aren't movies, they're CRPGs.  Ultimately, ME2's story is much better suited to the CRPG format than was ME1's.

Though I'd be singing a different tune, maybe, had ME1 allowed you to continue on after the endgame.

Modifié par Ulicus, 05 février 2010 - 12:11 .

[pelhikano]

Jack Anvil wrote...

My only real gripe is that I had no idea why they were making a human-reaper. What the hell was the point of that? They had a supermassive Reaper fleet out in dark space - you think they'd devote two years to finding a way to bring them back.

That was exactly what they were doing I think. The previous Reaper vanguard Sovereign got himself killed, by a human (Shepard killed Saren, and Joker onboard the Normandy did the killing blow on Sovereign). We seem to learn that Reapers harvest all species and turn some of them into new Reapers, and in this case they sort of start early. The new reaper would then have tried again to activate the Citadel relay.

Strange thing is that while the Reapers are probably very patient, 2 or even 20 more years don't matter much if you waited 50000 years anyway, I don't see how long they were going to wait for the human reaper to go online. At some point it would have been faster to just fly back to the galaxy anyway, right?

[justregret]

Why make a new Reaper, when you already have one? Sure it's in comatose, but it probally would have been easier to repair that ship than build a new one.

Refering to ship where Legion is found.
Oh, and I stopped playing ME 2 halfway through, just isn't compelling. Graphics and combat are amazing, but I miss the inventory system and the annoying over-heat warning.

Modifié par justregret, 05 février 2010 - 12:28 .

[pelhikano]

It was too exposed I think, there was even a human research station there.