185 réponses à ce sujet

[Sirsmirkalot]

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004

While I think he sometimes looks a bit to far into things, he does make some damned good points.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 18 février 2010 - 11:24 .

[Cosmicinator]

I agree with everything said by Shamus in this article.

[Ulicus]

I disagree with some of his points regarding the finale (EDI has downloaded evidence of the Reapers anyway, Shepard's "I won't let fear compromise" line isn't his reasoning for blowing the base up, but is specifically referring to TIM's attempts to use fear to make him keep it, yada yada) but overall a lot of what he's saying seems fair.

Good read.

EDIT: No, not entirely accurate -- but good.

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 février 2010 - 12:52 .

[Gill Kaiser]

In a perfect world, all trilogies would have their main plot points and stories planned before the first installment ever came to fruition. Unfortunately, this world isn't perfect, and often the first parts of trilogies are somewhat disjoined from the second two because they always have to be able to stand alone in case they don't prove popular enough to warrant a sequel.

[Mox Ruuga]

When you plan ahead for a trilogy, then everything can be made to fit, and the three games together can end up greater than the sum of their parts. So many games are written as if each game will be the last, and knowing you have three games to tell your story is a rare and unique opportunity.
BioWare took this opportunity, and pissed it away with Mass Effect 2.

Right there.

[Ulicus]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

In a perfect world, all trilogies would have their main plot points and stories planned before the first installment ever came to fruition. Unfortunately, this world isn't perfect, and often the first parts of trilogies are somewhat disjoined from the second two because they always have to be able to stand alone in case they don't prove popular enough to warrant a sequel.

Good point. We can already see how more intwined ME2 and ME3 are going to be.

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 février 2010 - 12:17 .

[Veriso]

The graphic at the bottom of part 2 sums it up perfectly.

[The Capital Gaultier]

Terrible review. It's like the reviewer completely ignored the story and focused specifically on key points in relation to the first game.

Moral of the story: intertwining two games is great, but you need a self-sustaining story first and foremost. Mass Effect 2 did just that.

Just a taste for the curious:

4) All of your original crew resign the Alliance and (on their own, apparently) join up with this terrorist organization. They seem to do so without knowing ahead of time that they will end up working for you again on a copy of the original ship. Apparently your entire crew was teetering on the edge of treason at the end of the last game? (Really. Dr. Chakwas’ excuse for signing up with Cerberus is that she missed space travel. She signed up with one of the most ruthless organizations in the galaxy – an organization that you had fought many times in the first game – because that was the only way she could think of to get back into space!?!) So by the time you take command of the new Normandy, everyone is already waiting for you.

Pure drivel.

Modifié par The Capital Gaultier, 18 février 2010 - 12:26 .

[Chrisimo79]

This guy simply has no imagination. He thinks he knows how the world works and that his view is the only correct one.

My tip to people like him: If you encounter something in the game that you can't explain, you should assume that there is a good explanation besides 'the writer ****ed up'. That may be the easiest explanation for people who can't be bothered to think, but it's unfortunately (for them) also the explanation that takes the fun out of the game.

[brgillespie]

Chakwas didn't do it because... oh, nevermind. Thanks for the teaser, Gaultier. Now I can avoid.

[Gill Kaiser]

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

Terrible review. It's like the reviewer completely ignored the story and focused specifically on key points in relation to the first game.

Moral of the story: intertwining two games is great, but you need a self-sustaining story first and foremost. Mass Effect 2 did just that.

Just a taste for the curious:

4) All of your original crew resign the Alliance and (on their own, apparently) join up with this terrorist organization. They seem to do so without knowing ahead of time that they will end up working for you again on a copy of the original ship. Apparently your entire crew was teetering on the edge of treason at the end of the last game? (Really. Dr. Chakwas’ excuse for signing up with Cerberus is that she missed space travel. She signed up with one of the most ruthless organizations in the galaxy – an organization that you had fought many times in the first game – because that was the only way she could think of to get back into space!?!) So by the time you take command of the new Normandy, everyone is already waiting for you.

Pure drivel.

Yeah, that is quite, quite erroneous.

[Madecologist]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

In a perfect world, all trilogies would have their main plot points and stories planned before the first installment ever came to fruition. Unfortunately, this world isn't perfect, and often the first parts of trilogies are somewhat disjoined from the second two because they always have to be able to stand alone in case they don't prove popular enough to warrant a sequel.

Perfectly said, ME was suppose to be a trilogy but back at ME1. There was no gaurentee it will fly. They put a lot of work and were pretty sure they could do it and ME1 will do well enough to ensure that. But it was not like you could be for certain. ME2 was made with the knowledge 3 is pretty much certain. You get that, where you can ensure part 2 and 3. But 1 will always be a risk. Actually ME is lucky, many trilogy is not even sure of its 3rd installment even after number 2.

[therealgoldenavatar]

He makes a few good points. While I think the game is fantastic, I feel like we're in the exact same position as at the end of the first game. I'll reserve my judgement, however, until the conclusion.

[Ulicus]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

Terrible review. It's like the reviewer completely ignored the story and focused specifically on key points in relation to the first game.

Moral of the story: intertwining two games is great, but you need a self-sustaining story first and foremost. Mass Effect 2 did just that.

Just a taste for the curious:

4) All of your original crew resign the Alliance and (on their own, apparently) join up with this terrorist organization. They seem to do so without knowing ahead of time that they will end up working for you again on a copy of the original ship. Apparently your entire crew was teetering on the edge of treason at the end of the last game? (Really. Dr. Chakwas’ excuse for signing up with Cerberus is that she missed space travel. She signed up with one of the most ruthless organizations in the galaxy – an organization that you had fought many times in the first game – because that was the only way she could think of to get back into space!?!) So by the time you take command of the new Normandy, everyone is already waiting for you.

Pure drivel.

Yeah, that is quite, quite erroneous.

This idea that the "entire crew" joined up with Cerberus is certainly massive hyperbole... but what was Chakwas' justification, again? Because that's close to how I remembered it and now I'm concerned about my memory.

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 février 2010 - 12:50 .

[Gill Kaiser]

Chakwas says that she wasn't happy planetside, true. But really the reason she joined Cerberus was that Shepard was back and in charge, and also because treating Joker's Vrolik's Syndrome gives her life some stability that it usually lacks, as a military doctor.

[neubourn]

Wow, that review was simply retarded. He got so many things wrong, its not even worth the trouble to quote them here.



The ONLY thing i thought he made a good point was that if BioWare had a planned trilogy and KNEW that you would be working for Cerberus in Part 2, then they definitely wasted an opportunity to set that up as a twist during ME1. Thats a solid point.



But, other then that, this guy is off base on so much stuff its as if he didnt even bother playing the game.

[The Capital Gaultier]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Chakwas says that she wasn't happy planetside, true. But really the reason she joined Cerberus was that Shepard was back and in charge, and also because treating Joker's Vrolik's Syndrome gives her life some stability that it usually lacks, as a military doctor.

Yes.  I would add that she foreshadows this in ME1 quite directly: she likes spaceships.  The only thing that really changes it seems is that she grows fond of Seth Green.  Errr... Joker.

[Saberdark]

The real reason is that she wanted to stay with Joker to look after him, because it gave her a patient who wouldn't be leaving her.



This article says one or two things that make sense, but the rest of it can be waved away with a simple "but they haven't actually gotten around to explaining that yet, how is that a plothole?". Some of it also reeks with pure misunderstanding on the author's part.



Such as his complaints about the ending, how does complaining that it's an option for your character to say that he thinks the base is an abomination make any sense? He goes on to list reasons why you should save the base. Yes, you have that option, but saying that because the alternative option makes less sense to him that it's a bad plot point is nonsensical.



Also, in the same decision, he misses that it would be impossible for you to give the base to anyone other than Cerberus. They head there immediately, if you tried to give it to anyone else what are the chances they would actually believe you quickly enough for it to matter and send a force to take it when they are already streched thin? Not to mention that the only way of getting there is with the Reaper IFF tech, which only Cerberus has.

[Ulicus]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Chakwas says that she wasn't happy planetside, true. But really the reason she joined Cerberus was that Shepard was back and in charge, and also because treating Joker's Vrolik's Syndrome gives her life some stability that it usually lacks, as a military doctor.

Shepard wasn't back when she joined, though. I do recall her saying "I don't work for Cerberus, I work for you" but, still... it's not like Shepard recruited her. She was right there when he/she arrived.

I guess Cerberus could have told her their plans for Shepard in advance, of course.

Saberdark wrote...

The real reason is that she wanted to
stay with Joker to look after him, because it gave her a patient who
wouldn't be leaving her.

The focus on Joker that you've both brought up (as opposed to Shepard) seems more sensible but, to be fair, it is a bit of a flimsy reasoning and justification on her part either way. As much as I liked Chakwas in ME2, I could have just as easily done without her.

Hell, I could see Dr Michel in the role far more easily.

Saberdark wrote...
Such as his complaints
about the ending, how does complaining that it's an option for your
character to say that he thinks the base is an abomination make any
sense? He goes on to list reasons why you should save the base. Yes,
you have that option, but saying that because the alternative option
makes less sense to him that it's a bad plot point is nonsensical.

Also,
in the same decision, he misses that it would be impossible for you to
give the base to anyone other than Cerberus. They head there
immediately, if you tried to give it to anyone else what are the
chances they would actually believe you quickly enough for it to matter
and send a force to take it when they are already streched thin? Not to
mention that the only way of getting there is with the Reaper IFF tech,
which only Cerberus has.

Oh, sure. I thought there were more than a few problems with his objections to the ending, no question. It doesn't mean the critique is utterly without merit, however.

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 février 2010 - 01:04 .

[Sigma Tauri]

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 07 septembre 2010 - 02:32 .

[Gill Kaiser]

Ulicus wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Chakwas says that she wasn't happy planetside, true. But really the reason she joined Cerberus was that Shepard was back and in charge, and also because treating Joker's Vrolik's Syndrome gives her life some stability that it usually lacks, as a military doctor.

Shepard wasn't back when she joined, though. I do recall her saying "I don't work for Cerberus, I work for you" but, still... it's not like Shepard recruited her. She was right there when he/she arrived.

I guess Cerberus could have told her their plans for Shepard in advance, of course.

I'm pretty sure TIM hand picked the entire crew on the Normandy SR2, looking for non-extremists (all of them), people who joined Cerberus to legitimately help humanity (Jacob, the cook), people who had ties to remote Terminus colonies at risk from Collectors (at least two crewmembers), or people who were specifically loyal to Shepard (Joker, Chakwas, engineers Ken and Gabby).

[Sharn01]

With only a few exception's, I agree with everything in his review.

[keginkc]

Ulicus wrote...

This idea that the "entire crew" joined up with Cerberus is certainly massive hyperbole... but what was Chakwas' justification, again? Because that's close to how I remembered it and now I'm concerned about my memory.

As I recall, if you follow certain dialogue after buying the alcohol she asks for, she'll basically tell you it's to take care of Joker.

It's fairly clear reading some of the reviews and plot discussion that there's a lot of subtext in the game that people have missed.  Some of it I didn't pick up myself until my 2nd time through, and I'm still occasionally discovering things now on my 3rd.

Either way, I think the biggest problem the second game has ever had was living up to expectations.  I don't mean that in an excusatory "people expected too much" sense but rather that many people had a specific vision in mind for what the game would be, based on the first (I fell into this trap myself to a degree), and it turned out that the game itself is something a bit different.  I think for most people, once they adjusted to the changes, it turned out that it's something pretty fantastic anyway.  But some folks have a harder time with accepting change.  It's not exactly the game they wanted, and they'll never get past that.  And that's fine.  It's human nature. 

Modifié par keginkc, 18 février 2010 - 01:09 .

[InHarmsWay]

Ulicus wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

Terrible review. It's like the reviewer completely ignored the story and focused specifically on key points in relation to the first game.

Moral of the story: intertwining two games is great, but you need a self-sustaining story first and foremost. Mass Effect 2 did just that.

Just a taste for the curious:

4) All of your original crew resign the Alliance and (on their own, apparently) join up with this terrorist organization. They seem to do so without knowing ahead of time that they will end up working for you again on a copy of the original ship. Apparently your entire crew was teetering on the edge of treason at the end of the last game? (Really. Dr. Chakwas’ excuse for signing up with Cerberus is that she missed space travel. She signed up with one of the most ruthless organizations in the galaxy – an organization that you had fought many times in the first game – because that was the only way she could think of to get back into space!?!) So by the time you take command of the new Normandy, everyone is already waiting for you.

Pure drivel.

Yeah, that is quite, quite erroneous.

This idea that the "entire crew" joined up with Cerberus is certainly massive hyperbole... but what was Chakwas' justification, again? Because that's close to how I remembered it and now I'm concerned about my memory.

She joined because of Joker. When you get drunk with her and talk about why she left, she says this. I really disagree with this article. The reviewer skipped a lot of the story elements. A lot of the story elements aren't stated to you in some person who says, "So here's why the collectors are attacking!" but through deep conversations, side-missions and character development. Also the reviewer seemed to have skipped all of EDI's dialogue explaining that the Reapers are not just machines or made of metal.

Modifié par InHarmsWay, 18 février 2010 - 01:09 .

[stillnotking]

You know, I was all set to hate that review, but when I read it I found myself mostly agreeing with it. ME2 is a game with a very poorly-thought-out storyline that somehow manages to be good anyway.