185 réponses à ce sujet

[Ulicus]

I was editing my last post during the most recent responses.

Gill Kaiser wrote...

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).

Yeah, I got that impression as well. It doesn't make Chakwas' personal justification for joining any more convincing, however -- though I'll concede that wanting to continue to help Joker is a great deal better than simply wanting to stay out in space. (I did do the drunken Chakwas side "quest", I'd simply forgotten how much import she placed on Joker during it)

Still, as I said in my edit above, as much as I liked chakwas I could have easily done without her in ME2. If they wanted an old character back, Dr Michel would have been an easier fit with Cerberus, in some respects. (She linked into the ME1 cerberus quests, too)

Though then we wouldn't have got the wonderful drinking scene... so I suppose it balances out.

Modifié par Ulicus, 18 février 2010 - 01:11 .

[smudboy]

Yes! Brilliant, though brief, analysis. My kind of writing, and insight. I just got to The Illusive Man section and I'm crying on the inside.



*grr BioWare writers*

[stillnotking]

I guess the most striking thing is how little the various plot holes end up actually mattering. Most games that tried to pull this crap, I'd hate. Reboot the game so you're working for the bad guys, except they've been retconned into not being so bad any more? Ugh. But in ME2, after the intro, you're so wrapped up in the characters' stories and the awesomeness of each mission individually that you just kind of... forget about it.

One thing I do disagree about is the unambiguousness of the final choice. He'd be right that keeping the base is the obvious move, IF it weren't for indoctrination. Basically you'd be giving Cerberus technology that they've already proven they can't master (and that will in fact master them). The "give it to the Alliance" idea has somewhat the same problem, and additionally, it's not clear that the option is available: for all Shepard knows, TIM will take direct control of the Normandy and EDI as soon as he goes back through the Omega-4 relay.

Anyway... it feels like a really amazing team of writers were given a script that had Shepard working for Cerberus, the Collectors' "plot", and a status-quo-ante ending, but were told they could do whatever they wanted within those limits.  Kind of like the world's greatest chef being told he has to cook a meal using only the ingredients in my fridge (umm... I'm pretty sure I have some eggs... and condiments...).  Even if it turns out pretty good, you can't help but think what he could have done in a world-class kitchen.

Modifié par stillnotking, 18 février 2010 - 01:33 .

[smudboy]

I feel very, very sad for ME3...

[MaaZeus]

Most of you criticising this analyser forget a thing this critic said. Most of the problems this games plot has come from two keypoints, beginning and the end, and split from there like spiderwebs.

A lot of those "spiderwebs" do have an explanation of sorts in form of dialog, but the base where those problems arise is so poor that those explanations for little things do not really matter. My english fails very badly here and I dont know how to express this properly... Mass Effect 2 is like a tower with badly built base/bottom. This causes cracks rise up the building, and while they get fixed and explained the bad base is still there.

ME2's beginning smells of a hackjob, Collectors plan is not the smartest out there like the analyst points out, and I think everyone agrees how bad the ending boss is.

That said, I enjoy ME2. What is in the middle, characters etc... are just fantastic, one of the best Bioware had done IMO. I cant play ME1 anymore. But that doesnt make me blind for the faults ME2 has.


I hope Bioware reads the article. Even though they might not agree with it, it might still give them some food for though and help avoiding some big questionmarks in part 3.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 18 février 2010 - 01:31 .

[Gabey5]

that guy needs to read the novels.

[Saberdark]

How can the Collector's plan be bad if we don't know what it actually was yet?

Yeah, he really does.

Modifié par Saberdark, 18 février 2010 - 01:33 .

[marshalleck]

MaaZeus wrote...

Most of you criticising this analyser forget a thing this critic said. Most of the problems this games plot has come from two keypoints, beginning and the end, and split from there like spiderwebs.

A lot of those "spiderwebs" do have an explanation of sorts in form of dialog, but the base where those problems arise is so poor that those explanations for little things do not really matter. My english fails very badly here and I dont know how to express this properly... Mass Effect 2 is like a tower with badly built base/bottom. This causes cracks rise up the building, and while they get fixed and explained the bad base is still there.

ME2's beginning smells of a hackjob, Collectors plan is not the smartest out there like the analyst points out, and I think everyone agrees how bad the ending boss is.

That said, I enjoy ME2. What is in the middle, characters etc... are just fantastic, one of the best Bioware had done IMO. I cant play ME1 anymore. But that doesnt make me blind for the faults ME2 has.


I hope Bioware reads the article. Even though they might not agree with it, it might still give them some food for though and help avoiding some big questionmarks in part 3.

Sure, this seems to make sense if you accept the writer's assumption that he is 100% correct about every character's motivation, and that he is unfailingly correct in his assessment of where the story is going.

[CardonT]

When you complain about a story, you should go through it first. Seems like he played the game only one time and missed many dialogue options.

[stillnotking]

Gabey5 wrote...

that guy needs to read the novels.

That's pretty lame.  You shouldn't be forced to rely on supplementary material in order for the game to make any sense.

[JJ Long]

Like most sheep, a lot of people will agree with this article. When it is in fact, a bunch of crap.

You can easily pick apart anything if you want to and try to make it look as if there was not only no effort put into something at all or as if there were stupid reasons to do crap or if there was no thought put into how something would be done of the future.

I could take two movies like The Godfather or Casablanca and rip them to shreads if I wanted to employ this type of tactic. Or maybe a new movie that was considered to be great by many, like The Dark Knight or Avatar.

This article is a bunch of crap.

[Chrisimo79]

MaaZeus wrote...
ME2's beginning smells of a hackjob, Collectors plan is not the smartest out there like the analyst points out, and I think everyone agrees how bad the ending boss is.

I don't agree. I would agree that very few humans would build a starship that looks like a human. But Reapers are not human. I don't know their reasons and frankly I don't care. Have you ever had the need to explain something to a child where said child finds the holes in your explanations or asks questions that you cannot answer? There are holes everywhere in our reality, why would a game be any different? What do you do when you encounter something that you can't explain in real life? Do you accuse God of being a bad script writer? 

Did you just encounter some strange alien behaviour that seems unlikely in a universe with faster-than-light travel, blue alien species, giant cybernetic lifeforms that eradicate every highly evolved organic species every 50,000 years? Really? And you think the most unlikely out of that is the strange alien behaviour?

[MaaZeus]

JJ Long wrote...

Like most sheep, a lot of people will agree with this article. When it is in fact, a bunch of crap.
You can easily pick apart anything if you want to and try to make it look as if there was not only no effort put into something at all or as if there were stupid reasons to do crap or if there was no thought put into how something would be done of the future.
I could take two movies like The Godfather or Casablanca and rip them to shreads if I wanted to employ this type of tactic. Or maybe a new movie that was considered to be great by many, like The Dark Knight or Avatar.
This article is a bunch of crap.

This article has a lot of glaring errors, but IMHO there are a lot of good points too, most of them being complained about since day 1 ME2 was released BTW. What do you disagree with?

[adam_grif]

Gabey5 wrote...

that guy needs to read the novels.

The story of each entry in th series must be able to stand without supplementary materials. They're supplementary for that very reason. They should add and flesh out the setting, but should not be vital to having a working understanding of the main entries. All important details should be included in said main entries.

Imagine if it was never mentioned in The Empire Strikes Back that Vader was Luke's father, and instead that was brought up in some comic book that was released shortly after it. Then, when you watched Retern of the Jedi on release, you would be extremely confused as to why suddenly all the characters refer to that fact casually, because it was never explaiend in a main entry.

[KPnuts123]

Gabey5 wrote...

that guy needs to read the novels.

To be honest really the books don't add anything else to the main story of ME.  Ok some of the characters from the games do appear in them but they mainly focus on a completely non shepard related character.

However this review seems as though the writer has spent the last 3 weeks working himself up into a frenzy due to a few points that he didn't like.  There are a couple of good points being made but a lot of it is just plain old drivel from someone looking back at ME1 with those rose colored glasses on.

I will admit that the story is slightly superficial to those of us who have played the first game but what we must remember is that Bioware also have to try and attract new players with the story et al.  

[Skilled Seeker]

Sounds like an arrogant git to me. Very 1 sided review.

[adam_grif]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Sounds like an arrogant git to me. Very 1 sided review.

Really? I'd peg it closer to twenty.

[Lyrandori]

I agree with many of his points, but not all of them. There's one thing about Cerberus, is that he speaks of Cerberus as if it was one single entity and as if there was one single chief being the Illusive Man, but that's not how Cerberus works. As EDI clearly mentions after her firewall is down Cerberus is in fact split in multiple "cells", and each cells work completely on their own, entirely independently, and each of those cells are specialized at doing something "better" than others, and each of them also got their own boss running and supervising them, and she (EDI) concludes that the Cerberus cell that we happen to "work with" in ME2 is the "Lazarus Cell".



That's one major thing that the guy overlooked in his review of the story.

[Chrisimo79]

Lyrandori wrote...

I agree with many of his points, but not all of them. There's one thing about Cerberus, is that he speaks of Cerberus as if it was one single entity and as if there was one single chief being the Illusive Man, but that's not how Cerberus works. As EDI clearly mentions after her firewall is down Cerberus is in fact split in multiple "cells", and each cells work completely on their own, entirely independently, and each of those cells are specialized at doing something "better" than others, and each of them also got their own boss running and supervising them, and she (EDI) concludes that the Cerberus cell that we happen to "work with" in ME2 is the "Lazarus Cell".

That's one major thing that the guy overlooked in his review of the story.

No, EDI mentions that TIM oversees as Cerberus projects personally. But she doesn't mention is this has always been the case.

[smudboy]

I'd like to actually get a list of points from people who disagree with Shamus. Seems he's on the money.

[bjdbwea]

Good article, though I disagree that the companion missions are "completely awesome". They are a collection of short stories, some quite good, some less so - but always with a lot of emphasis on repetitive combat scenarios.

[Louis deGuerre]

I concur with Shamus. Game is awesome, main plot is heavily flawed but no matter as it has little relevance to the game anyway, the game is about the brilliant characters.

[Lyrandori]

Chrisimo79 wrote...

Lyrandori wrote...

I agree with many of his points, but not all of them. There's one thing about Cerberus, is that he speaks of Cerberus as if it was one single entity and as if there was one single chief being the Illusive Man, but that's not how Cerberus works. As EDI clearly mentions after her firewall is down Cerberus is in fact split in multiple "cells", and each cells work completely on their own, entirely independently, and each of those cells are specialized at doing something "better" than others, and each of them also got their own boss running and supervising them, and she (EDI) concludes that the Cerberus cell that we happen to "work with" in ME2 is the "Lazarus Cell".

That's one major thing that the guy overlooked in his review of the story.

No, EDI mentions that TIM oversees as Cerberus projects personally. But she doesn't mention is this has always been the case.

Yeah, well something along those lines anyway, but still, the guy who made the review seem to ignore the "cells" stuff, he even says that there's no mention about the connection of what happened in ME1 with Cerberus during conversations with TIM in ME2, well that's probably because the cells that were dealt with in ME1 were military cells with "rogue" goals that TIM couldn't control properly, after all there IS a traitor that only Miranda spots at the beginning, and as shown during Jack's loyalty mission, TIM had no direct knowledge of the exact details about what was really happening on that planet and what kind of experiments were going on, which is why Miranda replies "It wasn't Cerberus, no really" to Jack when they fight each others on the Normandy, Miranda was referring to "other cells" or cells or project that couldn't be entirely the "fault of Cerberus" as a whole, even if TIM oversees "everything", which is proven not to be true anyway, he can't oversee everything properly, there are mishaps left and right and things that slip under his nose until agents like Miranda spot the problem like in the start of the game and kills the guy in cold blood.

In other words the reviewer seems to think that TIM cannot make any mistakes and that the events of ME1 and Cerberus absolutely HAD TO be dealt with one way or another in ME2, which is something I disagree with, it was far from being an obligation from the lead writer. The actual real "problem" for ME2's story and the way it's being told is that the lead writer is NOT Drew Karpyshyn, and that's probably THE main thing that the reviewer didn't take into account. When the first part of a story is written (and then loved by the masses) by one specific guy, and then part two is suddenly switched over to another guy with only small "coop" from the original guy... it ALWAYS results in major oversights and plot holes, it's a universal rule. The new lead writer for ME2, namely Mac Walters was quite probably overwhelmed (NOTE: Not a "bad writer" by any means) by the sheer amount of details he had to consider from what Drew created and simply couldn't fill up all the questions that were raised during and after ME1, and opted instead to go side-ways for ME2 so that IN THE MEANTIME he can figure out something more "complete" and satisfying for ME3. I mean think about it, it's as if Drew Karpyshyn started to build a gigantic house but never completed it, and then Mac comes in and says «Hey, what's up Drew, I'm here to complete this thing that I have absolutely no idea about in terms of your personal tastes and your own vision, you can help me but I'm the lead here so yeah... don't help me TOO much or else the paycheck won't go my way», and then he (Mac) has to finish up the puzzle with pieces that he has to squeeze together.

But... anyway, whatever I myself can say or anyone else can say, it looks like most people agrees that the way the story was told in ME1 gave a much better "this universe story arc is solid and uniform and makes sense" feel than what we have in ME2, and we cannot deny that the "main story" in ME2 literally relies in THREE missions (Horizon, IFF, Suicide Mission), the rest is just about building up the team for ME3, which again is why I firmly believe that the new lead writer barely had other choices but to go sideways with ME2 and is currently ripping his hair off trying to come up with something better for ME3, so he basically used ME2 as a meat shield until the real cannons get out and make them speak.

EDIT: I just re-read this myself and realized how badly written all of this is... I haven't slept much lately, gotta go to bed now before I can't  make one sentence that doesn't hold itself anymore.

Modifié par Lyrandori, 18 février 2010 - 03:03 .

[Chrisimo79]

smudboy wrote...

I'd like to actually get a list of points from people who disagree with Shamus. Seems he's on the money.

I'll start with one of his first points:

Cerberus in the first game was unambiguously evil and ruthless and it
was never demonstrated that they had any goals besides the acquisition
of power.

There is still no indication whatsoever that Cerberus wants anything other than power. The people that work for Cerberus sure all have their own reasons but that is to be expected. TIM wants power and he does eveything neccessary to achieve it. If he needs to do 'good' things, he will do good things - if he needs to do evil things, he will do evil things. Simple as that.

(They claimed to be pro-human, but they arguably killed more humans than the bad guys. Never once were we shown how Cerberus was helping humans.)

Really? He complains that they didn't show Cerberus helping people until ME2 and that's why he things Cerberus was retconned? Maybe the reason we didn't encounter Cerberus doing any good at that time was because, uhm, we wouldn't have to fight them then.
Really, I mean, even Hitler probably has done something good here and there.

They could have connected the dots and shown how Cerberus weren’t as bad as they seemed.

And why is Cerberus suddenly not as bad? Because they don't always kill people or experiment on them? Because some people who work for Cerberus are idealistic? Really? You will find at least a little good thing in any human/organisation/etc. That doesn't change what they are. Of course for people who believe that evil people also kick dogs, rape their sisters and do only bad things without a single good thing inbetween this may be too much thought.

If they had planned on having us work for Cerberus in part two,
they could have set things up for us in part one so this felt like a
twist and not a rewrite

I agree that they could have made it better, I disagree that it feels like a rewrite.

[Chromie]

I agree completely with the Collector Base part. Why the hell am I not allowed to let the Systems Alliance or The Council know about the base?



Vigil's VI no longer works I think a Collector Base is pretty damning evidence that the Reapers are a real threat.