93 réponses à ce sujet

[Vagula]

I think there was actually much bigger plot hole with the conduit on the first game. How the hell did the Protheans on Ilos construct the other end of the conduit on the Citadel? Didn't the Reapers notice that there was a extra relay on Citadel? The relays are supposed to need both ends so it really doesn't make any sense because the Protheans would have had to build the citadel end before or during the invasion without the Reapers noticing.



Saren's decicision could be just a tactical. I mean the council tower is probably pretty well defended and I no matter who he is I don't think they would let him do everything he wants there.

[huntrrz]

The obvious answer is that the "Relay Monument" wasn't built by the Protheans, it's part of the Reapers' design. The Protheans only linked their prototype relay to it. (Which means there should be teams of scientists on Ilos reverse engineering that thing.)



It appears that the Monument IS the relay on the Citadel. (Otherwise it's a spare(?) and they'd have no reason to put it out in the open.) Weird that a Reaper fleet could pour out of something 'that small' but when you're warping space/time issues of scale become insignificant. Perhaps the superstructure of the Citadel aids in establishing the extra-galactic relay corridor.

[Jonathan Shepard]

Eain wrote...


In ME1 the game offered a solid a convincing story, from start to Ilos. Yes, to Ilos. Because Ilos is where the story falls apart due to the biggest plothole that I've encountered so far in gaming. The Conduit is simply a Citadel back door, rather than some Reaper doomsday device. This makes Saren's quest for the Conduit lose any and all meaning, since he already had access to the Citadel's systems before he lost his Spectre status. He risked everything to find something he didn't need at all, and I still can't quite get over how the writers of ME managed to overlook this.

It allowed him to get a Geth and Krogan army in there without his ships being attacked by a fleet, so it proved of some use.

Thankfully, Mass Effect 2 is absent of any such gaping plot holes. Obviously the question could be asked: why a Human-Reaper? What the hell's the point? Thing is that you can easily fill this in with your own imagination: perhaps the Reapers simply enjoy turning their greatest enemies into one of their own. Perhaps this human Reaper's the start of a landbased army, since the lack of one was an obvious shortcoming for them in ME1, having to rely on Saren and the Geth. I noticed many people automatically assumed that his Human-Reaper would be flying about through space with his arms stretched forward and a cape around his neck, Superman style. I find that seriously hard to believe.  

And there's the fact it was only 1/6th the size of a finished Reaper. The shell still needed to be implemented, and I saw no solid point for leg attachment.

But other than the Human-Reaper, which IMO really isn't a plothole at all, simply a questionable element at worst, ME2's story is rock solid from start to end. ME2 tells the story of the Reapers using their subdued Prothean minions to commence preliminary harvesting of organic life, in compensation for Sovereign's failure at the Citadel. However, nobody knows that these Collectors are Protheans in the first place, or what this harvesting is even for. Or how it can be prevented.

And there you have the key difference between ME1 and ME2. If people say that ME2 lacks a certain level of urgency, they are correct. Because ME2 is not supposed to have urgency. ME2 is about unravelling a mystery, not about preventing the Collectors from destroying all galactic life. The Collectors are -supposed- to be an ominous threat, only sporadically encountered. How strange would it be if nobody really knew what these Collectors were all about, only to have them suddenly appear all over the shop during Shepard's investigation? If we want to talk lack of urgency, then perhaps Dragon Age is a better example, where in the beginning of the game the Darkspawn are built up to be this gigantic threat to Ferelden only to barely encounter them throughout the rest of the game other than in skirmishes.

From where I stand, the Collectors make a great enemy. As the Illusive Man said about the attack on Horizon: This is the most warning we've ever gotten. If there had been more warnings, more often, then Cerberus wouldn't have needed Shepard for the job in the first place. The Alliance would've just waged war on the Collectors.

Throughout the entire game I felt like I was left with the feeling that the Collectors were plotting their next move while I was assembling my team, and that it was simply a matter of time until I ran into them again. And it was.

There is no sense of urgency because the Collectors aren't on the verge of wiping out all human life in the colonies. They've abducted many, yes, but obviously not enough for the Alliance to care yet. That's why Shepard is required to investigate. Truth be told, all the urgency you could possibly want from ME2 is masterfully delivered to you in the final 10 seconds of the game. I mean, how awesome was -that- part? My jaw dropped.

In conclusion, I think ME1's story fell seriously short. It sent you on a wild goose chase around the galaxy to find something that only lead to where your quest basically began. It made me seriously wonder what the hell the point of all the quests in between was in the first place. Mass Effect 2 is clear cut: Build a team strong enough to deal with what may lie beyond the Omega 4 relay, so that we can solve the Collector question in the absence of the Alliance. The war has died down, the threat seems to have vanished, but you know better. You -know- the end of all organic life is still impending, but it obviously isn't here yet since otherwise the Collectors wouldn't have been needed in the first place. This alone implies time and leeway. That's the setup of ME2, and it works great.

But see, the story ISN'T there for 9/10ths of the game. It's all character development. And characters do not a story make. Something has to happen. And not nearly enough did. Drew K. would've made this such a better story. What bothered me was the contradictory dialouge trees. It's like the writers didn't expect you to ever go down the investigative routes, so Shepard will eventually condemn/praise people when all you want to do is find out more. And that just kills it, especially in the end decision, where the game judges a idealistic/practical decision as good/evil. And that's just childish in its own right, as is the paragon decision. The only good argument for blowing the base up-- possible indoctrination-- wasn't even explored for Shepard to tell TIM. The new writers left out a lot of good bits, and added some really confusing ones in that make no sense. Drew K. needs to come back for the next ME.

[Sapienti]

I think one thing a lot of people are forgetting or just neglecting to take into mind is the time it takes to fully indoctrinate people. Why would Saren and the Asari commandos, upon acquiring Sovereign, decide it would be a good idea to storm the Citadel? Aside from the fact that one Asari squad could not hold it because the Citadel is bigger than the Presidium (full of hundreds of thousands maybe millions of C-Sec and who knows what other defenses). They wouldn't. It would take time to get into those peoples minds and them have them rationalize it being a good idea. Sovereign had lost patience. Its clear and even stated in ME1. Lets not forget that Saren didn't beat the game and already know what information the Prothean Beacons had. Since Sovereign couldn't rush the front gate he had to figure out another way in. He had to aquire allies. Not to mention going into the Citadel and hacking the terminal would take time. For Sovereign. Who had to do it manually. Himself. A being that thinks at the speed of light. Saren couldn't stroll into the Citadel, plant his ship on the tower and say "I'm a spectre ignore me". That would be the convenient plot hole if you ask me.

That said. I do agree with the topic of this thread. The plot of ME2 is a large improvement over ME1. There was not supposed to be a sense of urgency the entire time. They tell you at the beginning its an investigation. The urgency comes when your crew is abducted and going into the mission knowing your entire team may die. It was very well done on the level of scale as well as the base plot, build your team, investigate why this is happening, and then stop the Collectors.

As for the human Reaper, I said this in another thread, but people are again forgetting or neglecting key information, the Reapers are not purely synthetic, they're all built using the organic life they harvest and the Larva built are designed after the harvested race. We don't see what the finished product looks like in the game but according to the concept art it would have gotten an outter shell. The thing didn't haven legs. While the superman in space thing is funny, that isn't even in the Reaper's design.

Jonathan Shepard wrote...



But see, the story
ISN'T there for 9/10ths of the game. It's all character development.
And characters do not a story make. Something has to happen. And not
nearly enough did. Drew K. would've made this such a better story. What
bothered me was the contradictory dialouge trees. It's like the writers
didn't expect you to ever go down the investigative routes, so Shepard
will eventually condemn/praise people when all you want to do is find
out more. And that just kills it, especially in the end decision, where
the game judges a idealistic/practical decision as good/evil. And
that's just childish in its own right, as is the paragon decision. The
only good argument for blowing the base up-- possible indoctrination--
wasn't even explored for Shepard to tell TIM. The new writers left out
a lot of good bits, and added some really confusing ones in that make
no sense. Drew K. needs to come back for the next ME.

But the story is there. It is a very wide open non linear game so the over arching story line exists and is well done. This game focuses on building the team. You can't build a likeable team without character development and the character development is top notch. Very well done. If you really want to nit pick on the absence of the arching plot then you'll have to compare the plots of the individual characters to the plot of ME1. Because its just that. Not simple character development. But character development through story lines. One guy couldn't have done much better. How would you have written this game, a game about building a team, and still have believable characters that a player would care about as well as the over arching plot?

They even went so far as to build a crew that was more important than simply generic so that, when they got abducted, you care enough to go get them back. I do agree that some of the conversation trees didn't take into account the investigation but its to be expected with so much optional dialog. Also Collector ships don't indoctrinate. Reapers do. The choice at the end is more than destroy it and everything is great, keep it and all goes bad. There are simply two choices. We don't know what the consequences for destroying the base will be in ME3.

Modifié par Sapienti, 07 février 2010 - 02:22 .

[deimosmasque]

To those saying ME2 has no plot or has a paper-thin plot or even "characters don't make a story," I really suggest you watch "The Dirty Dozen" an movie made in in 1967 that is definitely source material for ME2. Better yet read the book if you can get a hold of it. But for now I'll just talk about the movie. It won an Oscar and was nominated for several more on top of that, is critically acclaimed, and was the #1 grosser for movies in 1967.

The plot involves recruiting a bunch of American felons who are either on death row or life in prison, training them to work as a unit, dealing with the personality flaws and interpersonal conflicts. During the second act they have to prove that they can really act as soldiers and then finally... the big suicide mission takes up virtually no time at all in the movie. Because the mission was just a MacGuffin, a reason to get the characters in the same place so that the plot could explore them working together and preparing for a mission with likely no return.

In the novel itself, the final mission is just a footnote, not even described in any sort of detail, because it wasn't the point. The characters were the point.



It's the same in ME2, the Collectors are not the main plot, the recruitment and character development is. The Collectors and the Suicide Mission are the MacGuffin that gives reason to get the characters together, that is all. It's not a paper-thin plot just because the MacGuffin doesn't hold a major part in the story. in fact MacGuffins never do, they are always there just as an excuse for the main plot.



ME1 follows a more linear "Save the Galaxy" type story, nearly your entire team is recruited before you leave the Citadel for the first time, you are given specific mission agendas that lead you deeper and deeper to stop Saren. It's a plot where the enemy has to be interesting, deep and even a bit conflicted because he is the one moving the plot forward.



I love both games and I love both stories but to me the ME1 plot is much more shallow and cliche than ME2's is. In ME1 you basically already have a team and are just told "Go stop him!" as you race against the clock (metaphorically speaking since there is no real time limit) to stop him before it's too late.

ME2's plot feels like something deeper to me. Recruiting people to more or less die for another group of people none of them even know, and most probably don't care about. Then you have to prepare to make sure your mission is a success in the end. And then the sense of urgency comes at both Horizon and the Disabled Collector Ship as your team has to be tested, before they are really ready to be tested.

You can not like the plot of ME2, but to call it paper-thin or non-existant is missing the point.

[plantefol]

deimosmasque wrote...

To those saying ME2 has no plot or has a paper-thin plot or even "characters don't make a story," I really suggest you watch "The Dirty Dozen" an movie made in in 1967 that is definitely source material for ME2. Better yet read the book if you can get a hold of it. But for now I'll just talk about the movie. It won an Oscar and was nominated for several more on top of that, is critically acclaimed, and was the #1 grosser for movies in 1967.
The plot involves recruiting a bunch of American felons who are either on death row or life in prison, training them to work as a unit, dealing with the personality flaws and interpersonal conflicts. During the second act they have to prove that they can really act as soldiers and then finally... the big suicide mission takes up virtually no time at all in the movie. Because the mission was just a MacGuffin, a reason to get the characters in the same place so that the plot could explore them working together and preparing for a mission with likely no return.
In the novel itself, the final mission is just a footnote, not even described in any sort of detail, because it wasn't the point. The characters were the point.

It's the same in ME2, the Collectors are not the main plot, the recruitment and character development is. The Collectors and the Suicide Mission are the MacGuffin that gives reason to get the characters together, that is all. It's not a paper-thin plot just because the MacGuffin doesn't hold a major part in the story. in fact MacGuffins never do, they are always there just as an excuse for the main plot.

ME1 follows a more linear "Save the Galaxy" type story, nearly your entire team is recruited before you leave the Citadel for the first time, you are given specific mission agendas that lead you deeper and deeper to stop Saren. It's a plot where the enemy has to be interesting, deep and even a bit conflicted because he is the one moving the plot forward.

I love both games and I love both stories but to me the ME1 plot is much more shallow and cliche than ME2's is. In ME1 you basically already have a team and are just told "Go stop him!" as you race against the clock (metaphorically speaking since there is no real time limit) to stop him before it's too late.
ME2's plot feels like something deeper to me. Recruiting people to more or less die for another group of people none of them even know, and most probably don't care about. Then you have to prepare to make sure your mission is a success in the end. And then the sense of urgency comes at both Horizon and the Disabled Collector Ship as your team has to be tested, before they are really ready to be tested.
You can not like the plot of ME2, but to call it paper-thin or non-existant is missing the point.

I am agree with you about The Dirty Dozen influence. But if you look closer, the recruitment in the movie takes 10 minutes then it's the training with a lot of trouble but friendship too and then the mission. Here you get something like "the best". You never train them to play like a team and you just help them for 1 trouble which ca affect them for the final mission. It's more a check list story line than others things :

Miranda .... Miranda ok; Miranda's loyalty.... Miranda's loyalty ok.
Garrus..... Garrus ok; Garrus's loyalty (it's really stupid to work on this loyalty btw) not ok... Ho i need to work on it.
Next....

[Nezahoo]

Personly i think ME2's plot is meant to be alittle thin, but thick enough so you'll get the whole story "after" you read the Prequal novel thats coming out in a few months..

[deimosmasque]

There is truth to that which was why I only defined it as source material. My main premise still hold which is that the Collector threat is not the main story but just the MacGuffin to give you a reason to recruit a team.

[Myrmedus]

deimosmasque wrote...

To those saying ME2 has no plot or has a paper-thin plot or even "characters don't make a story," I really suggest you watch "The Dirty Dozen" an movie made in in 1967 that is definitely source material for ME2. Better yet read the book if you can get a hold of it. But for now I'll just talk about the movie. It won an Oscar and was nominated for several more on top of that, is critically acclaimed, and was the #1 grosser for movies in 1967.
The plot involves recruiting a bunch of American felons who are either on death row or life in prison, training them to work as a unit, dealing with the personality flaws and interpersonal conflicts. During the second act they have to prove that they can really act as soldiers and then finally... the big suicide mission takes up virtually no time at all in the movie. Because the mission was just a MacGuffin, a reason to get the characters in the same place so that the plot could explore them working together and preparing for a mission with likely no return.
In the novel itself, the final mission is just a footnote, not even described in any sort of detail, because it wasn't the point. The characters were the point.

That's fine for a standalone story, not a sequel in an overarching story. The first builds up momentum plot-wise but then you come to 2 where it virtually comes to a standstill - the same formula, or at least similar, should generally be kept with each instalment. Not to mention that it's possible to make a 'recruitment' story while still drawing attention to the main threat sufficiently to make reason and need for the recruitment seem more real...an example of this is LOTR:Two Towers - it's a similar instalment in that alot of attention is given to the characters, recruitment and each of their individual quests, however there's more than enough attention and plot related to the main threat that you don't risk making those quests and recruitments feel pointless.

It's the same in ME2, the Collectors are not the main plot, the recruitment and character development is. The Collectors and the Suicide Mission are the MacGuffin that gives reason to get the characters together, that is all. It's not a paper-thin plot just because the MacGuffin doesn't hold a major part in the story. in fact MacGuffins never do, they are always there just as an excuse for the main plot.

Poor choice then. The Collectors SHOULD be the main plot because their importance is built up from the intro, it's also been built up from ME1 due to the Reaper threat. In addition, a film winning an Oscar doesn't necessarily mean its plot is good since each award has a specialized category, thus you can win Oscars for movies with poor plots but excellent characterization or acting.

You can not like the plot of ME2, but to call it paper-thin or non-existant is missing the point.

Have you considered he's not missing the point he simply doesn't agree with you? The plot IS paper-thin regardless of the quality of the characterization which I can appreciate but don't necessarily want in substitution for a sumptuous main plot.

[Missouri Tigers]

The Conduit was a backdoor to the Citadel, but it was necessary because by using it he gained access to the Citadel Control Center and could open the relay for the Reapers.

[Sapienti]

deimosmasque wrote...

To those saying ME2 has no plot or has a paper-thin plot or even "characters don't make a story," I really suggest you watch "The Dirty Dozen" an movie made in in 1967 that is definitely source material for ME2. Better yet read the book if you can get a hold of it. But for now I'll just talk about the movie. It won an Oscar and was nominated for several more on top of that, is critically acclaimed, and was the #1 grosser for movies in 1967.
The plot involves recruiting a bunch of American felons who are either on death row or life in prison, training them to work as a unit, dealing with the personality flaws and interpersonal conflicts. During the second act they have to prove that they can really act as soldiers and then finally... the big suicide mission takes up virtually no time at all in the movie. Because the mission was just a MacGuffin, a reason to get the characters in the same place so that the plot could explore them working together and preparing for a mission with likely no return.
In the novel itself, the final mission is just a footnote, not even described in any sort of detail, because it wasn't the point. The characters were the point.

It's the same in ME2, the Collectors are not the main plot, the recruitment and character development is. The Collectors and the Suicide Mission are the MacGuffin that gives reason to get the characters together, that is all. It's not a paper-thin plot just because the MacGuffin doesn't hold a major part in the story. in fact MacGuffins never do, they are always there just as an excuse for the main plot.

ME1 follows a more linear "Save the Galaxy" type story, nearly your entire team is recruited before you leave the Citadel for the first time, you are given specific mission agendas that lead you deeper and deeper to stop Saren. It's a plot where the enemy has to be interesting, deep and even a bit conflicted because he is the one moving the plot forward.

I love both games and I love both stories but to me the ME1 plot is much more shallow and cliche than ME2's is. In ME1 you basically already have a team and are just told "Go stop him!" as you race against the clock (metaphorically speaking since there is no real time limit) to stop him before it's too late.
ME2's plot feels like something deeper to me. Recruiting people to more or less die for another group of people none of them even know, and most probably don't care about. Then you have to prepare to make sure your mission is a success in the end. And then the sense of urgency comes at both Horizon and the Disabled Collector Ship as your team has to be tested, before they are really ready to be tested.
You can not like the plot of ME2, but to call it paper-thin or non-existant is missing the point.

Very well put. I said it above but you said it better. The characters are the story in this game. If they weren't then they wouldn't have put so much work into the places you go to recruit them. And I like how they added that depth. That the kind of people you're risking your life for don't even know about it. The council is basically hiding the threat you're facing and the common people don't even care. Thats the reason that colonist on Horizon is even in the game. Letting you know you're an unsung hero. Even the highly publicized attack in the first game hardly matters to common people. Shepard took down a rogue Spectre as far as the Galaxy is concerned. He didn't save the galaxy.

But people don't seem to get that sometimes. Or choose not to. And like he said, you don't have to like the plot, but you can hardly call it "threadbare" or thin.

Edit: Keep in mind this is a trilogy. First installment, establish your plot. Second installment, transition. Third installment, finale. You can't have a non stop thrill ride. In order to build up to the third installment (and possibly even build groundwork for ME4 and beyond) you need strongly developed characters for this series anyway. Otherwise people can die in the third game and who would care? They were hardly important. In ME1 the only insight you got to the characters was in conversations, nothing in the storyline. This game changed that and did it well. The Reapers are the threat, the collectors are the tool in this game to build the team and provide that backbone of the plot.

Modifié par Sapienti, 07 février 2010 - 03:01 .

[Nozybidaj]

deimosmasque wrote...

There is truth to that which was why I only defined it as source material. My main premise still hold which is that the Collector threat is not the main story but just the MacGuffin to give you a reason to recruit a team.

I already had a team at the end of ME1.  I would rather have seen them advance the story and the characters in the second act then have to go grocery, err, I mean sqaud mate shopping for the sole purpose of sending them to die against MacGuffin, errr, I mean the Collectors and end up at the exact same place I was at the end of ME1.

[Sapienti]

Nozybidaj wrote...

deimosmasque wrote...

There is truth to that which was why I only defined it as source material. My main premise still hold which is that the Collector threat is not the main story but just the MacGuffin to give you a reason to recruit a team.

I already had a team at the end of ME1.  I would rather have seen them advance the story and the characters in the second act then have to go grocery, err, I mean sqaud mate shopping for the sole purpose of sending them to die against MacGuffin, errr, I mean the Collectors and end up at the exact same place I was at the end of ME1.

It wouldn't have made sense for that team to stand around holding their breath for two years after you died. Shepard was the only one who was able to do much about the Reaper threat because he was a Spectre, his words had weight behind them he could act. The alliance and council would have been bogged down in politics. You may have had a team in ME1. But the team broke up when you died. Its explained in the game...

[deimosmasque]

Myrmedus wrote...

It's the same in ME2, the Collectors are not the main plot, the recruitment and character development is. The Collectors and the Suicide Mission are the MacGuffin that gives reason to get the characters together, that is all. It's not a paper-thin plot just because the MacGuffin doesn't hold a major part in the story. in fact MacGuffins never do, they are always there just as an excuse for the main plot.

Poor choice then. The Collectors SHOULD be the main plot because their importance is built up from the intro, it's also been built up from ME1 due to the Reaper threat. In addition, a film winning an Oscar doesn't necessarily mean its plot is good since each award has a specialized category, thus you can win Oscars for movies with poor plots but excellent characterization or acting.

That's more of an opinion.  The fact is that the Collectors are used as a MacGuffin, like I said you don't have to like it but that's what they are.  A new race that is working for the Reapers that were added specifically to create the main plot.
And sequels should aways be different from their originals storyline wise, usually when a sequel tries to "recapture the magic" of the original plot they fall flat, because it has a "been there, done that" feel to it.  If this game had been about a new slave to the Reapers trying to find some way to open up the Mass Relay at the Citadel again people would have been complain about just "copy-n-pasting" the ME1 plot to the new game.

Your right about the Oscar, I mentioned it specifcally to show the fim's pedigree more than anything else.

You can not like the plot of ME2, but to call it paper-thin or non-existant is missing the point.

Have you considered he's not missing the point he simply doesn't agree with you? The plot IS paper-thin regardless of the quality of the characterization which I can appreciate but don't necessarily want in substitution for a sumptuous main plot.

You can not like it but calling it paper-thin is still a bit misleading.  You can say that you didn't like the plot, that you preferred the plot in the first game and were hoping to see something more like that, but character-driven plots are no more paper thin than "Save the World" plots.

[Nozybidaj]

Sapienti wrote...
But the team broke up when you died.

That was the main underlying problem of the ME2 story, yes. 

[deimosmasque]

Why wouldn't your team break up when you died? They were your team, not the Council's, not the Alliance's, they were your team.

[Katarian]

Sapienti wrote...

It wouldn't have made sense for that team to stand around holding their breath for two years after you died. Shepard was the only one who was able to do much about the Reaper threat because he was a Spectre, his words had weight behind them he could act. The alliance and council would have been bogged down in politics. You may have had a team in ME1. But the team broke up when you died. Its explained in the game...

If you were going to reuse the team from the first game then there wouldn't of been any need to kill off Shepard. You got killed off to reset your skills and to disband your team. Your death seems to be used as an excuse to almost completely ignore the first game. Sure you get a few things carried on, the Reaper  threat, who is on the Council, the Rakni Queen, etc... but basically the rest of the first game is almost completely ignored.

Vagula wrote...

I think there was actually much bigger
plot hole with the conduit on the first game. How the hell did the
Protheans on Ilos construct the other end of the conduit on the
Citadel? Didn't the Reapers notice that there was a extra relay on
Citadel? The relays are supposed to need both ends so it really doesn't
make any sense because the Protheans would have had to build the
citadel end before or during the invasion without the Reapers noticing.
 

Vigils dialogue gives the impression that the Protheans and Saren appear somewhere different to you. You appear on the Presidium next to the relay to save having to build a new zone. Even if you think that is a massive hole in the plot the Protheans built a mass relay by themselves, who is to say that they could of linked it to any other relay they liked, or that they even needed a relay at the other end. The Mass Relay system is Reaper technology the Protheans could of done things much differently when they built the Conduit. It's certainly a hole in the plot but it's not that massive, joining Cerberus as a Paragon is a far bigger hole. Why not just become a SPECTRE again and then do the investigation yourself without Cerberus backing? Being a SPECTRE gives you fairly free reign to do what you want.

[Nozybidaj]

Katarian wrote...

Sapienti wrote...

It wouldn't have made sense for that team to stand around holding their breath for two years after you died. Shepard was the only one who was able to do much about the Reaper threat because he was a Spectre, his words had weight behind them he could act. The alliance and council would have been bogged down in politics. You may have had a team in ME1. But the team broke up when you died. Its explained in the game...

If you were going to reuse the team from the first game then there wouldn't of been any need to kill off Shepard. You got killed off to reset your skills and to disband your team. Your death seems to be used as an excuse to almost completely ignore the first game. Sure you get a few things carried on, the Reaper  threat, who is on the Council, the Rakni Queen, etc... but basically the rest of the first game is almost completely ignored.

Someone gets it...

[Vaeliorin]

The biggest problem comparing ME2 to The Dirty Dozen is that the characters in The Dirty Dozen interact with each other and change as people over the course of the movie, while the characters in ME2 hardly interact with anyone other than Shepard, and the only ones that show any real character growth from the beginning to the end are Miranda and Jack (this is excluding romances, because those aren't inherent in every playthrough.)

Sure, we might know a little bit more about some of them, but it doesn't change their character at all. There's even an instance with Mordin where the game kind of makes fun of this, where after his mission you ask him if he's okay and he replies something along the lines of "I dealth with most of it on the way back to the shuttle...and the rest of it on the shuttle."

Outside of Miranda/Jack, none of the characters have any sort of change of heart (I suppose you could argue that Grunt goes from random violence to directed violence...but Grunt's personality is so non-existent beyond "I kill things" that it doesn't really matter.)

Truth be told, so far the ME series has 4 characters (Miranda, Jack, Ash and Kaiden) and a bunch of caricatures.

Katarian wrote...
joining Cerberus as a Paragon is a far
bigger hole. Why not just become a SPECTRE again and then do the
investigation yourself without Cerberus backing? Being a SPECTRE gives
you fairly free reign to do what you want.

This.  Especially after Freedom's Progress, you have video that you could take to the Alliance/Council and say "Look!  Bad stuff is happening!  We need to do something!"

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 07 février 2010 - 03:33 .

[Talogrungi]

I kinda thought that you got killed off as a means to get you into the "baddies" team.

Can't imagine Shepard (especially a Paragon one) would be too amenable had Cerberus just waltzed up and offered him a new job. Now we have the REAL good-vs-bad moral choice ready for ME3. Defeating the reapers was never going to be optional; there's no alliance with beings out to harvest ALL life in the galaxy. What's the best one would hope for, indoctrination?

[Talogrungi]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Katarian wrote...
joining Cerberus as a Paragon is a far
bigger hole. Why not just become a SPECTRE again and then do the
investigation yourself without Cerberus backing? Being a SPECTRE gives
you fairly free reign to do what you want.

This.  Especially after Freedom's Progress, you have video that you could take to the Alliance/Council and say "Look!  Bad stuff is happening!  We need to do something!"

Same scenario as with Saren on Ilos in ME1; it's not happening in council space, therefore the council is powerless to act.

[plantefol]

In dirty dozen, they are not the best soldiers but the worst and they have no choice, they need to learn to act as a team. In ME2, they are for TIM, the "best" so they will do the job and it's the only reason to recruit them. Then never in ME2, you have that feeling to be a team. I would like to see some missions  in which you need to work as a team and help eachothers (like the suicide mission).... Nothing like that, only a 1 mission to become loyal. and even this one come too fast and is too short. (you speak or don't speak with teammate, you will have it...) Btw it's so strange to work on Garrus and Tali's loyalty after ME1. There is a lack of depth and maturity and realism.

Modifié par plantefol, 07 février 2010 - 03:56 .

[Sapienti]

Katarian wrote...

Sapienti wrote...

It wouldn't have made sense for that team to stand around holding their breath for two years after you died. Shepard was the only one who was able to do much about the Reaper threat because he was a Spectre, his words had weight behind them he could act. The alliance and council would have been bogged down in politics. You may have had a team in ME1. But the team broke up when you died. Its explained in the game...

If you were going to reuse the team from the first game then there wouldn't of been any need to kill off Shepard. You got killed off to reset your skills and to disband your team. Your death seems to be used as an excuse to almost completely ignore the first game. Sure you get a few things carried on, the Reaper  threat, who is on the Council, the Rakni Queen, etc... but basically the rest of the first game is almost completely ignored.

Vagula wrote...

I think there was actually much bigger
plot hole with the conduit on the first game. How the hell did the
Protheans on Ilos construct the other end of the conduit on the
Citadel? Didn't the Reapers notice that there was a extra relay on
Citadel? The relays are supposed to need both ends so it really doesn't
make any sense because the Protheans would have had to build the
citadel end before or during the invasion without the Reapers noticing.
 

Vigils dialogue gives the impression that the Protheans and Saren appear somewhere different to you. You appear on the Presidium next to the relay to save having to build a new zone. Even if you think that is a massive hole in the plot the Protheans built a mass relay by themselves, who is to say that they could of linked it to any other relay they liked, or that they even needed a relay at the other end. The Mass Relay system is Reaper technology the Protheans could of done things much differently when they built the Conduit. It's certainly a hole in the plot but it's not that massive, joining Cerberus as a Paragon is a far bigger hole. Why not just become a SPECTRE again and then do the investigation yourself without Cerberus backing? Being a SPECTRE gives you fairly free reign to do what you want.

If they reused the team from the first game this game would still have to revolve around character development just on a smaller scale. Otherwise it would get pretty stale like someone already said copy and pasting ME1's plot over to ME2. Or recyclying the "Save the galaxy" thing 3 times in one trilogy. At some point you need to change things up. I'd hate to have things end up "and so once again the galaxy is saved thanks to...". The writers saw this. They also saw that they needed to justify people wanting to change classes/appearances and whatever else.

The momentum of the first game simply wouldn't allow a very different plot from what we have with ME2. Don't kill shepard off and ME2 would be about getting the alliance and council prepared to march off and fight some Reapers or something. Either way the game could not climax with much because there has to be the third game for that intended clashing of forces. Whether it be building the team or building an army the middle act in a trilogy is always supposed to set up for the third act. I personally prefer losing the old team and building a new one, especially being able to see Wrex advancing the Krogan race, and Liara changing so drastically.

Lastly your point about joining Cerberus as a paragon is again, justified in the storyline. The Alliance would not fund a new Normandy. Neither would the council. Sure Shepard could get a new ship but not the resources. Cerberus had resources and Shepard had as much freedom in the Terminus systems as he did as a Spectre. Not once in the game are you denied anything because your rank is too low. (Not to mention you can get "reinstated" by talking to the council). Its not a hole. Just goes against your opinion of what you would have liked.

Anyway I challenge anyone to come up with even a base plot line for ME2 that doesn't sound like some generic been there done that save the day plot. People were paid to do just that I can't see how some people on a forum can claim they know best.

Edit: Also I'll add, not understanding politics =/= plot hole. If you can't grasp why the council seem to be acting like idiots then you just don't understand the political process. Its nothing to do with any kind of plot hole. Show all the video footage you want of Freedom's Progress and you'll just get "Its a human matter there is nothing we can do Shepard". They can't have mass panic. Can't have a faceless enemy. Can't show the public that they don't know what to do.

Modifié par Sapienti, 07 février 2010 - 03:55 .

[Andorfiend]

Talogrungi wrote...

Same scenario as with Saren on Ilos in ME1; it's not happening in council space, therefore the council is powerless to act.

As a side note I have never understood the Council's terror of ticking off the Terminous systems. Who cares? It's a bunch of pirates, mercs and bannanna republics. It's as though the Allies of WW 2 were afraid to launch operation Overlord for fear it might displease Panama.

[Sapienti]

Andorfiend wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

Same scenario as with Saren on Ilos in ME1; it's not happening in council space, therefore the council is powerless to act.

As a side note I have never understood the Council's terror of ticking off the Terminous systems. Who cares? It's a bunch of pirates, mercs and bannanna republics. It's as though the Allies of WW 2 were afraid to launch operation Overlord for fear it might displease Panama.

No it would be more closely related to claiming the Terminus systems have weapons of mass destruction so they need to go in there and do something about it. Politics are never what you can glean off face value.