Modifié par monkeycamoran, 10 septembre 2010 - 04:54 .
Twenty Sided evaluates the ME2 plot
Débuté par
Sirsmirkalot
, févr. 18 2010 11:22
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 18 février 2010 - 04:48
alekvie1337
-
- Members
- 80 messages
From what I've read so far, I have to say there aren't any major plot holes. And I'm satisfied with how they solved the story. Some of what this guy says is true, but he talks about things he doesn't know enough about way too much...
Modifié par alekvie1337, 18 février 2010 - 04:49 .
#78
Posté 18 février 2010 - 04:51
stillnotking
-
- Members
- 923 messages
aaniadyen wrote...
I agree with the author about how the reapers using the collectors is totally unfeasible. It's inefficient, and they use them in a counter-intuitive fashion. One thing I disagree with on that point though is the fact that a few hundred thousand people would be a big deal.
Well then they wouldn't be a big deal to Cerberus either.
I'm sure you guys all realize that this part of the plot (along with several others) makes no sense, and you're just defending a game you like. I like the game too. But come on. The indifference and stupidity of the Alliance and Council in ME2 go far beyond a reasonable suspension of disbelief.
#79
Posté 18 février 2010 - 04:57
Doug84
-
- Members
- 4 174 messages
monkeycamoran wrote...
stillnotking wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
The writer forgets one major important factor. ME2 takes place in the Terminus System, NOT Council Space.
You could compare it to America and Mexico. They both have their own problems and don't interfere much with each other, even though they're practically neighbors.
If a hundred thousand Americans disappeared in Mexico, I'm pretty sure it would be a big deal.
The Terminus Systems is not a nation-state. It's the freakin' frontier. Nobody has major interest when you settle in the wilderness.
Agreed - add to that, the colonies out their where independent of the Alliance.
It'd be like Britain sending troops to help with a US problem shortly after the rebellion - unwelcome at best.
EDIT: At worse, you start a war with the natives who are already pretty annoyed at the colonists for being there and the British who also have some of their land. Doesn't quite translate perfectly, but its close enough.
Modifié par Doug84, 18 février 2010 - 04:59 .
#80
Posté 18 février 2010 - 04:59
Harcken
-
- Members
- 343 messages
This guy said what I was thinking as I played the game about 10x better than my mind. I loved the loyalty missions and recruitment missions, but they main story missions just had me rolling over.
#81
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:00
Chrisimo79
-
- Members
- 171 messages
stillnotking wrote...
aaniadyen wrote...
I agree with the author about how the reapers using the collectors is totally unfeasible. It's inefficient, and they use them in a counter-intuitive fashion. One thing I disagree with on that point though is the fact that a few hundred thousand people would be a big deal.
Well then they wouldn't be a big deal to Cerberus either.
I'm sure you guys all realize that this part of the plot (along with several others) makes no sense, and you're just defending a game you like. I like the game too. But come on. The indifference and stupidity of the Alliance and Council in ME2 go far beyond a reasonable suspension of disbelief.
If WW2 was a game you would probably say the same about Chamberlains behaviour. Really, in terms of behaviour there is no need for suspension of disbelief, as even the stupiedest and strangest things can happen.
Is such behaviour likely? Of course not. Does that mean it cannot happen? Of course not.
Modifié par Chrisimo79, 18 février 2010 - 05:01 .
#82
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:02
FlyinElk212
-
- Members
- 2 598 messages
This article is a great example of a fan who simply blows up when a twist or turn is taken in the storyline that he doesn't expect. He really isn't giving his arguments much thought, because apart from a few good points, most of his material can be easily countered:
The reason why Shepard HAD to die at the beginning of the game was to set up a more believable allegiance to the big baddies of game 1, Cerberus. Had they simply captured Shepard and forced him to do their dirty work, THAT would be plot point flaw, but this way, Shepard OWES Cerberus and, even if he doesn't agree with their morals, he HAS to work with them for at least that.
Working for Cerberus isn't a "rewrite", as Shamus wrote. In case he hasn't noticed, Mass Effect is a game of opposing forces: the Quarians versus the Geth, the Salarians versus the Krogan, and perhaps most importantly, THE ALLIANCE VERSUS CERBERUS. Now with this in mind, hasn't he noticed that this game series is essentially forcing you to choose sides within these conflicts? Who's to say that you won't have to choose between Cerberus or the Alliance in game 3? And who in their right mind would choose Cerberus had it not been for the storyline given in ME2?
Furthermore, I can't take this guy seriously due to his incredulous amount of contradictions throughout his article. First, he claims that Bioware "pissed away the opportunity" to write the story as a trilogy, then condemns them for not explaining why the Collectors did what they did? Really, Shamus? You REALLY don't think they want to save that fact for ME3, something you so incredibly desire?
And do you want to know WHY the "human reaper"was left so mysteriously ambiguous? It's probably because IT'S A MAJOR PLOT POINT IN ME3. Why in the world would Bioware bring up such a huge revelation like this only to solve the mysteries in the same game? Clearly, it's one of the biggest reveals to the Reaper's intentions and backgrounds: perhaps ALL reapers are made from races in the galaxy turned "goop" (which to this day I still don't understand the fan's problems with this. It's a sci-fi. Do you really need a detailed explanation for everything?)
The only point where his article has true merit is the moral choice with the ending. The choice should've been whether or not to KEEP the base in tact, not whether or not to HAND IT OVER to Cerberus. This way, the players can decide later (perhaps in ME3?) whether or not to give it to the Alliance or Cerberus.
The reason why Shepard HAD to die at the beginning of the game was to set up a more believable allegiance to the big baddies of game 1, Cerberus. Had they simply captured Shepard and forced him to do their dirty work, THAT would be plot point flaw, but this way, Shepard OWES Cerberus and, even if he doesn't agree with their morals, he HAS to work with them for at least that.
Working for Cerberus isn't a "rewrite", as Shamus wrote. In case he hasn't noticed, Mass Effect is a game of opposing forces: the Quarians versus the Geth, the Salarians versus the Krogan, and perhaps most importantly, THE ALLIANCE VERSUS CERBERUS. Now with this in mind, hasn't he noticed that this game series is essentially forcing you to choose sides within these conflicts? Who's to say that you won't have to choose between Cerberus or the Alliance in game 3? And who in their right mind would choose Cerberus had it not been for the storyline given in ME2?
Furthermore, I can't take this guy seriously due to his incredulous amount of contradictions throughout his article. First, he claims that Bioware "pissed away the opportunity" to write the story as a trilogy, then condemns them for not explaining why the Collectors did what they did? Really, Shamus? You REALLY don't think they want to save that fact for ME3, something you so incredibly desire?
And do you want to know WHY the "human reaper"was left so mysteriously ambiguous? It's probably because IT'S A MAJOR PLOT POINT IN ME3. Why in the world would Bioware bring up such a huge revelation like this only to solve the mysteries in the same game? Clearly, it's one of the biggest reveals to the Reaper's intentions and backgrounds: perhaps ALL reapers are made from races in the galaxy turned "goop" (which to this day I still don't understand the fan's problems with this. It's a sci-fi. Do you really need a detailed explanation for everything?)
The only point where his article has true merit is the moral choice with the ending. The choice should've been whether or not to KEEP the base in tact, not whether or not to HAND IT OVER to Cerberus. This way, the players can decide later (perhaps in ME3?) whether or not to give it to the Alliance or Cerberus.
#83
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:04
hitorihanzo
-
- Members
- 432 messages
The thing that that review forgot was ME2 is first and foremost a video game. So, some of the plot points were made to explain gameplay or design decisions. That's my opinion anyway. I think people forget that this isn't a movie, as much as BioWare tries to convince you otherwise.
#84
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:04
Doug84
-
- Members
- 4 174 messages
Chrisimo79 wrote...
stillnotking wrote...
aaniadyen wrote...
I agree with the author about how the reapers using the collectors is totally unfeasible. It's inefficient, and they use them in a counter-intuitive fashion. One thing I disagree with on that point though is the fact that a few hundred thousand people would be a big deal.
Well then they wouldn't be a big deal to Cerberus either.
I'm sure you guys all realize that this part of the plot (along with several others) makes no sense, and you're just defending a game you like. I like the game too. But come on. The indifference and stupidity of the Alliance and Council in ME2 go far beyond a reasonable suspension of disbelief.
If WW2 was a game you would probably say the same about Chamberlains behaviour. Really, in terms of behaviour there is no need for suspension of disbelief, as even the stupiedest and strangest things can happen.
Is such behaviour likely? Of course not. Does that mean it cannot happen? Of course not.
True. Politicians ARE THAT STUPID IN RL. Seriously. No, I don't care about your favourite politician who you swear will always make the right decision - even if its true, their are a million other politicians past, present, and future who would screw it up no problem.
#85
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:09
corebit
-
- Members
- 326 messages
Very spot-on analysis of the plot in the article! I found myself agreeing with the article on most of the points.
What struck me as particularly accurate and funny was the decision by the collectors to make a Human Reaper. How the hell is it supposed to fly around? or attack? (like the article says: punching ships LOL)
Also, in the end we are told that Reapers copy the shape and form of the races they extinguish. And they had this cycle repeating for millions of years. BUT in the end cinematic showing all the reapers out there waiting, we only see Sovereign look alikes WTH? Is that shape the only successful one they could come up?
What struck me as particularly accurate and funny was the decision by the collectors to make a Human Reaper. How the hell is it supposed to fly around? or attack? (like the article says: punching ships LOL)
Also, in the end we are told that Reapers copy the shape and form of the races they extinguish. And they had this cycle repeating for millions of years. BUT in the end cinematic showing all the reapers out there waiting, we only see Sovereign look alikes WTH? Is that shape the only successful one they could come up?
#86
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:09
tertium organum
-
- Members
- 59 messages
You know I bought Bioware's claim that the trilogy was planned from the beginning but some comments on that site give me pause. I already agree that the story is rather poor not just in general but compared to all Bioware's previous games but I never made the link or thought it might have been something they had to invent because of the first game's success. I always thought the ending of the first game was very well done in concluding the story and setting up the sequel - but they really might not have had anything in mind for the second game which is why, perhaps, the council are written to be such complete imbeciles and The Reapers that are coming at the end of ME1 are still returning except now without the same impact.
After all, if you played the first game, this was the same ending. They were trapped in dark space and on the way. Showing a clip of the fleet, while cool, doesn't somehow change the endings: nothing has actually happened. You have defeated the terminator whose purpose is unclear other than a symbol to The Reapers. Was it going to attack the citadel again? What the heck was this thing going to do and why should I get gung-ho about defeating it? Other than it's an "abomination?" Things like this is what frustrate me when I think about the story. When you defeated Sovereign you knew you stopped him from activating a trap. You stopped the Reapers from invading - the Protheans laid the way and you went a step further and prevented their alternate plan. You end up realizing that they're still coming but you're going to find out how to stop them - only to have ME2 come around which hardly does anything compelling with the main arc.
I love the game ( except for some niggling gameplay changes) and the characters are uniformly excellent but the story here is shallow. They dropped the ball and I worry that they won't recover for the last game. Just as the review says, it seems they're pissing away an opportunity but they'll make plenty of money anyway so these literary criticisms probably mean nothing to them. I just wish they could do this right and not have a " what could have been" cloud hang over the franchise.
After all, if you played the first game, this was the same ending. They were trapped in dark space and on the way. Showing a clip of the fleet, while cool, doesn't somehow change the endings: nothing has actually happened. You have defeated the terminator whose purpose is unclear other than a symbol to The Reapers. Was it going to attack the citadel again? What the heck was this thing going to do and why should I get gung-ho about defeating it? Other than it's an "abomination?" Things like this is what frustrate me when I think about the story. When you defeated Sovereign you knew you stopped him from activating a trap. You stopped the Reapers from invading - the Protheans laid the way and you went a step further and prevented their alternate plan. You end up realizing that they're still coming but you're going to find out how to stop them - only to have ME2 come around which hardly does anything compelling with the main arc.
I love the game ( except for some niggling gameplay changes) and the characters are uniformly excellent but the story here is shallow. They dropped the ball and I worry that they won't recover for the last game. Just as the review says, it seems they're pissing away an opportunity but they'll make plenty of money anyway so these literary criticisms probably mean nothing to them. I just wish they could do this right and not have a " what could have been" cloud hang over the franchise.
Modifié par tertium organum, 18 février 2010 - 05:12 .
#87
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:11
Doug84
-
- Members
- 4 174 messages
corebit wrote...
Very spot-on analysis of the plot in the article! I found myself agreeing with the article on most of the points.
What struck me as particularly accurate and funny was the decision by the collectors to make a Human Reaper. How the hell is it supposed to fly around? or attack? (like the article says: punching ships LOL)
Also, in the end we are told that Reapers copy the shape and form of the races they extinguish. And they had this cycle repeating for millions of years. BUT in the end cinematic showing all the reapers out there waiting, we only see Sovereign look alikes WTH? Is that shape the only successful one they could come up?
Why wouldn't it? Aerodynamics aren't a problem in space. And when you factor in the mass effect fields, which reduce the effective weight of anything to zero, why wouldn't it work any better than a damned squid shaped ship?
Last time I checked, a squid was not space-travelling material any more than a human.
#88
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:12
vigna
-
- Members
- 1 947 messages
Most of the stuff was fair, and some totally right on. My biggest complaint was that he said the choice of base destruction or give it away didn't offer "fair " choices. I disagree, it was stated several times in ME1 that the Reapers want you to progress on lines they have pre-determined--that means finding and utilizing their tech as well, or the tech they let you find. Saving the base and studying it could be exactly what they want you to do.
Modifié par vigna, 18 février 2010 - 05:14 .
#89
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:12
Computron2000
-
- Members
- 4 983 messages
I think a lot who think the review is great fell for an old trick
Never put down your reasons for why X is bad in straightforward terms
From the review, the first part talked only on that Ceberus reviving Shepard was not as good as what he wanted. This is pretty silly. A story can be written in a million ways (literally) but in the end one way must be chosen. Life and writers don't follow what a single person wants (as many of the harry potter readers can attest)
Now the following bullet points
"i) Your entire body is pulverized, but they bring you back exactly as you were before."
This is almost explicitly spelt out when Miranda/Jacob states that TIM wanted shepard back as he/she was, not a clone, not a fake. The reason some people may not understand is why TIM must bring back Shepard. TIM himself indirectly give some hints on why. If you don't get it, think a bit on how Ceberus does things and what TIM tells Shepard
"2) Your ship is destroyed, but they build you a new one that’s very similar and then give it the same name. (Except the new one has the CERBERUS LOGO stenciled on the side, which is a bit odd for a super-secret shadow organization. Somehow this doesn’t cause constant problems for you every time you try to dock somewhere civilized.)"
Shepard names the ship, not Ceberus. When the normandy is first shown, it only has SR2 and no name. Shepard remarks, she'll need a name and when it departs, we see Normandy on the ship. Ceberus is not widely known as Ceberus is a shadow organization. Even Shepard is surprised that Mordin knows about Ceberus. A logo is even less known than a spoken name (do you know the flag of Iceland?) and i strongly doubt the Ceberus logo is trademarked so anything can use their logo including companies operating outside Council space
Why did they put the logo on the ship? Makes no sense does it? Until TIM betrays you by name dropping you to the Alliance.
"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "
Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.
"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."
2 people are hardly the "entire crew". Chakwas is obvious ingame. She trusts Shepard and needs to tend to Joker. Joker does not absolutely trust Ceberus but believes there are good and bad people in it and bringing Shepard back plus making him pilot again is a major plus point. There aren't any old crew left. Tali and Garrus needs to be recruited.
On the Illusive Man being a well kept secret.
The writers point this out using Mordin. The Illusive Man really is unknown even to the oldest galactic black ops organization the STG. The Alliance likely has the same info. Just a name and nothing else
On the Illusive man not pointing out stuff you wrecked for him.
Note the first conversation you have with him. TIM immediately tells you the Reapers are back. He's not stupid. Reminding you of the Ceberus actions in ME1 would gain him nothing and likely backfire. So he goes straight to the point.
Now Shepard being fixed on helping Ceberus has 2 factors. First is a technical issue as this is a CRPG, not a PnP RPG. A program is not alive, so it cannot "wing it". Second, characterwise, if you keep up the paragon choices, it shows that Shepard is working with them, not for them. It is a case of banding up to take on the greater evil with an agreement that the conflict with the lesser evil will restart at a later date.
Never put down your reasons for why X is bad in straightforward terms
From the review, the first part talked only on that Ceberus reviving Shepard was not as good as what he wanted. This is pretty silly. A story can be written in a million ways (literally) but in the end one way must be chosen. Life and writers don't follow what a single person wants (as many of the harry potter readers can attest)
Now the following bullet points
"i) Your entire body is pulverized, but they bring you back exactly as you were before."
This is almost explicitly spelt out when Miranda/Jacob states that TIM wanted shepard back as he/she was, not a clone, not a fake. The reason some people may not understand is why TIM must bring back Shepard. TIM himself indirectly give some hints on why. If you don't get it, think a bit on how Ceberus does things and what TIM tells Shepard
"2) Your ship is destroyed, but they build you a new one that’s very similar and then give it the same name. (Except the new one has the CERBERUS LOGO stenciled on the side, which is a bit odd for a super-secret shadow organization. Somehow this doesn’t cause constant problems for you every time you try to dock somewhere civilized.)"
Shepard names the ship, not Ceberus. When the normandy is first shown, it only has SR2 and no name. Shepard remarks, she'll need a name and when it departs, we see Normandy on the ship. Ceberus is not widely known as Ceberus is a shadow organization. Even Shepard is surprised that Mordin knows about Ceberus. A logo is even less known than a spoken name (do you know the flag of Iceland?) and i strongly doubt the Ceberus logo is trademarked so anything can use their logo including companies operating outside Council space
Why did they put the logo on the ship? Makes no sense does it? Until TIM betrays you by name dropping you to the Alliance.
"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "
Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.
"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."
2 people are hardly the "entire crew". Chakwas is obvious ingame. She trusts Shepard and needs to tend to Joker. Joker does not absolutely trust Ceberus but believes there are good and bad people in it and bringing Shepard back plus making him pilot again is a major plus point. There aren't any old crew left. Tali and Garrus needs to be recruited.
On the Illusive Man being a well kept secret.
The writers point this out using Mordin. The Illusive Man really is unknown even to the oldest galactic black ops organization the STG. The Alliance likely has the same info. Just a name and nothing else
On the Illusive man not pointing out stuff you wrecked for him.
Note the first conversation you have with him. TIM immediately tells you the Reapers are back. He's not stupid. Reminding you of the Ceberus actions in ME1 would gain him nothing and likely backfire. So he goes straight to the point.
Now Shepard being fixed on helping Ceberus has 2 factors. First is a technical issue as this is a CRPG, not a PnP RPG. A program is not alive, so it cannot "wing it". Second, characterwise, if you keep up the paragon choices, it shows that Shepard is working with them, not for them. It is a case of banding up to take on the greater evil with an agreement that the conflict with the lesser evil will restart at a later date.
#90
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:13
broutefoin
-
- Members
- 89 messages
quick note,
This is something I rarely see mentioned when people talk about the ending choice and how it "doesn't makes sense" to only give the base to Cerberus. The collector base is only accessible through the Omega 4 relay, which is in the Omega star cluster, that is in turn located in the TERMINUS systems, the citadel/alliance has no business there, and its stated in ME that any council activity in the Terminus (excluding the odd spectre activity) would be grounds for a war with that powers that be in non-council space. Hell, in ME1, they ground the Normandy and don't want to send forces to Ilos for mainly this reason.
*edit* well, i got ninja'd by Doug84, that will teach me not to skim hah!*
This is something I rarely see mentioned when people talk about the ending choice and how it "doesn't makes sense" to only give the base to Cerberus. The collector base is only accessible through the Omega 4 relay, which is in the Omega star cluster, that is in turn located in the TERMINUS systems, the citadel/alliance has no business there, and its stated in ME that any council activity in the Terminus (excluding the odd spectre activity) would be grounds for a war with that powers that be in non-council space. Hell, in ME1, they ground the Normandy and don't want to send forces to Ilos for mainly this reason.
*edit* well, i got ninja'd by Doug84, that will teach me not to skim hah!*
Modifié par broutefoin, 18 février 2010 - 05:41 .
#91
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:14
smudboy
-
- Members
- 3 058 messages
[quote]Chrisimo79 wrote...
@smudboy
first of all, if Shamus thinks that Cerberus in ME1 wasn't any different than Cerberus in ME2 then I agree. I thought he was trying to imply that Cerberus in ME2 was a different organisation. Maybe my fault.
[/quote]
I can't say exactly either. But the rewrite issue I think deals with lack of exposition of Cerberus in ME2 at the start.
[quote]
[quote]smudboy wrote...
But we were fighting them in ME1. In ME2 we're completely pro-Cerberus, even if we comment otherwise.
[/quote]
No, we aren't pro-Cerberus. We are 'pro helping the vanishing humans and fighting the Collectors'. Cerberus has the same goal in this case and no one other does so we work with Cerberus.
[/quote]
Again, it's based on Shepard as a plot device/main character, and lack of exposition. You can say he doesn't trust em, etc., but he's helping TIM. Essentially, Shepard is the product of the Lazarus Project, which is Cerberus. Since Shepard never deviates from Cerberus, we can also conclude Shepard was never against being brought back (corollary: renegade with Liara.) And if Shepard's not pro-Cerberus, then he/she can't be a Paragon.
[quote]
[quote]
So you're comparing the Third Reich to Cerberus? I don't see your point. Again, you're not disagreeing with Shamus.
[/quote]
I'm saying that even monsters sometimes so things that may be viewed as good. I got the impression that Shamus didn't find Cerberus portrayal to be believable because they were never shown to do good things in ME1.
[/quote]
Well, Shepard in ME1 was their nemesis, as he states. All he's saying is that Shepard's with Cerberus now, and the player can't do anything about it, aside from the few dialog options. Which doesn't help continuity.
[quote]
[quote]
He's referring to in ME1, how we could've seen the other side of Cerberus. Instead, we're thrust into the world of Cerberus in ME2, without a mention from TIM of what happened in ME1, including the potnetial Shepard backstory. That there was no build up. (I think there's a bit of exposition with Miranda about their experiments and Jack.)
[/quote]
Again it seemed to me that he thinks that ME2 is a rewrite because Cerberus in ME1 was only shown doing bad things and suddenly we discover that they also do good things.
[quote]
How isn't it? Shepard (he) dies and is resurrected, and is now working for Cerberus. He doesn't have to, but he isn't given the option to stop.
[/quote]
He can let the Reapers win of course. If he doesn't want that he needs to work with Cerberus.
[/quote]
That's not a game play option.
[quote]
[quote]
No reasonable lead in.
[/quote]
Maybe not a long lead in but you are given the choice to see that the Illusive Man is right about the vanishing Colonies and that the Citadel Council and the Alliance don't help. So if you want to fight the threat, you have to work with Cerberus. It's all somewhat simplified of course but there are limits in terms of story exploration.
[/quote]
This lead in was needed at the beginning. The fact that the Citadel and Alliance are completely uncaring after losing 100k+ humans is borderline asinine.
[quote]
[quote]
Pure deus ex machina. The equivalent of sensationalism in movies. Shepard just continues on pushing the plot along, with a Cerberus ship (that's nearly identical to the old ship, with some of the same crew.) That "overaching scheme" he referred to could have easily been in place of the start of ME2, and would've been way more believable than a Cybernetic Jesus. Ditto with Chakwas and Joker.
[/quote]
So you are telling me that you found ME1's story to be believable? Something like that would likely happen in the real world?
[/quote]
Compared to ME2, yes. I'd say the main plot of ME1 was terrific writing and storytelling, and ME2 mediocre at best. In any event, the more plot devices a story uses, the less believable it becomes, because these are usually a sign of bad writing. And ME2 has a lot of those.
[quote]
[quote]
He's with Cerberus because no one will help him, and no one will help him because he's with Cerberus. I don't know too many resurrection stories, but being the savior of the universe and cheating death after 2 years would tend to have a little more weight than who you're factioned with.
[/quote]
No one helped you in ME1, either. The Council hates you. Everyone besides Anderson and that Admiral (voiced by Lance Henrikson) hates you. No one really cares about the Collectors as they all believe them to be a myth.
[/quote]
Yet they believe a sound clip of Saren talking to Benezia, and not:
-The hero of the galaxy who came back from the dead to warn them again
-Shepard having the Cipher and visions of the Protheans being destroyed by the Reapers. Come here you crazy Asari counsellor...
-That swarm they captured, somehow.
-All the various data EDI has on the Collectors during any point of the journey
-Using a battery to charge up Vigil in Ilos. It lasted for 50k years. A little bit of juice should do the trick. (let alone the data Liara might have collected if she was in the party)
-All the stuff Shamus stated
...or at least ME2 doesn't give us the option of presenting this evidence to anyone.
Seriously, this is several times the scale of Eden Prime, on several colonies, and nothing?
@smudboy
first of all, if Shamus thinks that Cerberus in ME1 wasn't any different than Cerberus in ME2 then I agree. I thought he was trying to imply that Cerberus in ME2 was a different organisation. Maybe my fault.
[/quote]
I can't say exactly either. But the rewrite issue I think deals with lack of exposition of Cerberus in ME2 at the start.
[quote]
[quote]smudboy wrote...
But we were fighting them in ME1. In ME2 we're completely pro-Cerberus, even if we comment otherwise.
[/quote]
No, we aren't pro-Cerberus. We are 'pro helping the vanishing humans and fighting the Collectors'. Cerberus has the same goal in this case and no one other does so we work with Cerberus.
[/quote]
Again, it's based on Shepard as a plot device/main character, and lack of exposition. You can say he doesn't trust em, etc., but he's helping TIM. Essentially, Shepard is the product of the Lazarus Project, which is Cerberus. Since Shepard never deviates from Cerberus, we can also conclude Shepard was never against being brought back (corollary: renegade with Liara.) And if Shepard's not pro-Cerberus, then he/she can't be a Paragon.
[quote]
[quote]
So you're comparing the Third Reich to Cerberus? I don't see your point. Again, you're not disagreeing with Shamus.
[/quote]
I'm saying that even monsters sometimes so things that may be viewed as good. I got the impression that Shamus didn't find Cerberus portrayal to be believable because they were never shown to do good things in ME1.
[/quote]
Well, Shepard in ME1 was their nemesis, as he states. All he's saying is that Shepard's with Cerberus now, and the player can't do anything about it, aside from the few dialog options. Which doesn't help continuity.
[quote]
[quote]
He's referring to in ME1, how we could've seen the other side of Cerberus. Instead, we're thrust into the world of Cerberus in ME2, without a mention from TIM of what happened in ME1, including the potnetial Shepard backstory. That there was no build up. (I think there's a bit of exposition with Miranda about their experiments and Jack.)
[/quote]
Again it seemed to me that he thinks that ME2 is a rewrite because Cerberus in ME1 was only shown doing bad things and suddenly we discover that they also do good things.
[quote]
How isn't it? Shepard (he) dies and is resurrected, and is now working for Cerberus. He doesn't have to, but he isn't given the option to stop.
[/quote]
He can let the Reapers win of course. If he doesn't want that he needs to work with Cerberus.
[/quote]
That's not a game play option.
[quote]
[quote]
No reasonable lead in.
[/quote]
Maybe not a long lead in but you are given the choice to see that the Illusive Man is right about the vanishing Colonies and that the Citadel Council and the Alliance don't help. So if you want to fight the threat, you have to work with Cerberus. It's all somewhat simplified of course but there are limits in terms of story exploration.
[/quote]
This lead in was needed at the beginning. The fact that the Citadel and Alliance are completely uncaring after losing 100k+ humans is borderline asinine.
[quote]
[quote]
Pure deus ex machina. The equivalent of sensationalism in movies. Shepard just continues on pushing the plot along, with a Cerberus ship (that's nearly identical to the old ship, with some of the same crew.) That "overaching scheme" he referred to could have easily been in place of the start of ME2, and would've been way more believable than a Cybernetic Jesus. Ditto with Chakwas and Joker.
[/quote]
So you are telling me that you found ME1's story to be believable? Something like that would likely happen in the real world?
[/quote]
Compared to ME2, yes. I'd say the main plot of ME1 was terrific writing and storytelling, and ME2 mediocre at best. In any event, the more plot devices a story uses, the less believable it becomes, because these are usually a sign of bad writing. And ME2 has a lot of those.
[quote]
[quote]
He's with Cerberus because no one will help him, and no one will help him because he's with Cerberus. I don't know too many resurrection stories, but being the savior of the universe and cheating death after 2 years would tend to have a little more weight than who you're factioned with.
[/quote]
No one helped you in ME1, either. The Council hates you. Everyone besides Anderson and that Admiral (voiced by Lance Henrikson) hates you. No one really cares about the Collectors as they all believe them to be a myth.
[/quote]
Yet they believe a sound clip of Saren talking to Benezia, and not:
-The hero of the galaxy who came back from the dead to warn them again
-Shepard having the Cipher and visions of the Protheans being destroyed by the Reapers. Come here you crazy Asari counsellor...
-That swarm they captured, somehow.
-All the various data EDI has on the Collectors during any point of the journey
-Using a battery to charge up Vigil in Ilos. It lasted for 50k years. A little bit of juice should do the trick. (let alone the data Liara might have collected if she was in the party)
-All the stuff Shamus stated
...or at least ME2 doesn't give us the option of presenting this evidence to anyone.
Seriously, this is several times the scale of Eden Prime, on several colonies, and nothing?
Modifié par smudboy, 18 février 2010 - 05:16 .
#92
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:15
FlyinElk212
-
- Members
- 2 598 messages
Computron, for our sakes, I hope somebody reads our posts (other than me and yourself). We're totally on the same page and TOTALLY right, only to be doomed to Wall of Text failure. T____________T
#93
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:16
crimzontearz
-
- Members
- 16 789 messages
Ok, as much as some VERY good points are brought up the overall accuracy of the article is rather lacking.
Yes, it is true that the whole Bio-Synthetic reaper thing is a curve ball but if you piece together the hints given in the game you can see where that is going right? The whole Ark theory?
Now about the collectors, it is said many times in the first game that the Reapers hsd many allies (in a very loose sense), Saren and the Geth heretics through Sovereign, in the past there were the Rachni (revealed on Ilium if you saved the queen in ME1) and now Harbringer uses the Collectors, probably because he is the only one who "can" use them given their newly discovered nature....still I do not see it as such a gigantic hole.
Also the human reaper wss waaaaaay too small to be "complete" by reaper standards and since at the end we find out that nearly all reapers look alike it is very safe to asdume only the "core" of the reaper looks like the specie used to build.
The little dart at the game over screen is rather retarded tho....as is the one about your crew joining back in a terrorist organization since Joker actually has a reason for it, Tali and Garrus are not alliance personnel (and they do state they are doing it for you not cerberus) and ash/kaiden chew you up about it and never join....only the good doctor is a little iffy....
Most of the other points are very valid above all the whole cerberus being shoved down our collective throats and then turning out to be still part of the alliance on the sideline and the plot mot moving forth as much as setting the stage for what armies we will fight with/for in the last chapter.
Yes, it is true that the whole Bio-Synthetic reaper thing is a curve ball but if you piece together the hints given in the game you can see where that is going right? The whole Ark theory?
Now about the collectors, it is said many times in the first game that the Reapers hsd many allies (in a very loose sense), Saren and the Geth heretics through Sovereign, in the past there were the Rachni (revealed on Ilium if you saved the queen in ME1) and now Harbringer uses the Collectors, probably because he is the only one who "can" use them given their newly discovered nature....still I do not see it as such a gigantic hole.
Also the human reaper wss waaaaaay too small to be "complete" by reaper standards and since at the end we find out that nearly all reapers look alike it is very safe to asdume only the "core" of the reaper looks like the specie used to build.
The little dart at the game over screen is rather retarded tho....as is the one about your crew joining back in a terrorist organization since Joker actually has a reason for it, Tali and Garrus are not alliance personnel (and they do state they are doing it for you not cerberus) and ash/kaiden chew you up about it and never join....only the good doctor is a little iffy....
Most of the other points are very valid above all the whole cerberus being shoved down our collective throats and then turning out to be still part of the alliance on the sideline and the plot mot moving forth as much as setting the stage for what armies we will fight with/for in the last chapter.
#94
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:19
hitorihanzo
-
- Members
- 432 messages
Computron2000 wrote...
I think a lot who think the review is great fell for an old trick
Never put down your reasons for why X is bad in straightforward terms
From the review, the first part talked only on that Ceberus reviving Shepard was not as good as what he wanted. This is pretty silly. A story can be written in a million ways (literally) but in the end one way must be chosen. Life and writers don't follow what a single person wants (as many of the harry potter readers can attest)
Now the following bullet points
"i) Your entire body is pulverized, but they bring you back exactly as you were before."
This is almost explicitly spelt out when Miranda/Jacob states that TIM wanted shepard back as he/she was, not a clone, not a fake. The reason some people may not understand is why TIM must bring back Shepard. TIM himself indirectly give some hints on why. If you don't get it, think a bit on how Ceberus does things and what TIM tells Shepard
"2) Your ship is destroyed, but they build you a new one that’s very similar and then give it the same name. (Except the new one has the CERBERUS LOGO stenciled on the side, which is a bit odd for a super-secret shadow organization. Somehow this doesn’t cause constant problems for you every time you try to dock somewhere civilized.)"
Shepard names the ship, not Ceberus. When the normandy is first shown, it only has SR2 and no name. Shepard remarks, she'll need a name and when it departs, we see Normandy on the ship. Ceberus is not widely known as Ceberus is a shadow organization. Even Shepard is surprised that Mordin knows about Ceberus. A logo is even less known than a spoken name (do you know the flag of Iceland?) and i strongly doubt the Ceberus logo is trademarked so anything can use their logo including companies operating outside Council space
Why did they put the logo on the ship? Makes no sense does it? Until TIM betrays you by name dropping you to the Alliance.
"3) You’re declared dead, but when you show up again the Alliance accepts you and your new career working for their enemy. "
Talking to Anderson brings this out most clearly. Everyone doesn't trust you. Even Anderson is not as free with information as he should have been. This is quite natural as everyone will assume you have a control chip in your brain.
"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."
2 people are hardly the "entire crew". Chakwas is obvious ingame. She trusts Shepard and needs to tend to Joker. Joker does not absolutely trust Ceberus but believes there are good and bad people in it and bringing Shepard back plus making him pilot again is a major plus point. There aren't any old crew left. Tali and Garrus needs to be recruited.
On the Illusive Man being a well kept secret.
The writers point this out using Mordin. The Illusive Man really is unknown even to the oldest galactic black ops organization the STG. The Alliance likely has the same info. Just a name and nothing else
On the Illusive man not pointing out stuff you wrecked for him.
Note the first conversation you have with him. TIM immediately tells you the Reapers are back. He's not stupid. Reminding you of the Ceberus actions in ME1 would gain him nothing and likely backfire. So he goes straight to the point.
Now Shepard being fixed on helping Ceberus has 2 factors. First is a technical issue as this is a CRPG, not a PnP RPG. A program is not alive, so it cannot "wing it". Second, characterwise, if you keep up the paragon choices, it shows that Shepard is working with them, not for them. It is a case of banding up to take on the greater evil with an agreement that the conflict with the lesser evil will restart at a later date.
This post should be copied and pasted after the OP. Brilliant post.
#95
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:22
bobito64
-
- Members
- 182 messages
Casey Hudson, Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters should read this article and bow their heads in shame. The writer is spot on, the central plot of ME2 is ridiculous. Thankfully, most of the recruitment and loyalty missions are excellent. However, there is a very real possibility that, in two important ways, the trilogy is now messed up beyond repair.
1. The central story, as pointed out by Shamus in the article, is now a complete mess. It seems likely that Bioware did not map out the plot of the Mass Effect trilogy before they started but are in fact, making it up from one game to the next. Making sense of this story and creating a decent third act may now be impossible.
2. There are nine superbly written squad members in ME2 but one very badly written one. Unfortunately, the very badly written one is Commander Shepard. There are countless times in the game when Shepard acts in a manner that is utterly implausible and none of the available choices make any sense. In addition to the ones Shamus points out (blind acceptance of Cerberus etc.), I would add Shepard's tolerance of Jack's behaviour (threatening to vandalise the Normandy, threatening to kill Miranda etc.) to the list. The Shepard of Mass Effect 2 is an idiot who utterly unfit for command, regardless of which dialogue choices you make.
In so many ways ME2 is the finest video game ever made. But its central story and its central character are now broken.
1. The central story, as pointed out by Shamus in the article, is now a complete mess. It seems likely that Bioware did not map out the plot of the Mass Effect trilogy before they started but are in fact, making it up from one game to the next. Making sense of this story and creating a decent third act may now be impossible.
2. There are nine superbly written squad members in ME2 but one very badly written one. Unfortunately, the very badly written one is Commander Shepard. There are countless times in the game when Shepard acts in a manner that is utterly implausible and none of the available choices make any sense. In addition to the ones Shamus points out (blind acceptance of Cerberus etc.), I would add Shepard's tolerance of Jack's behaviour (threatening to vandalise the Normandy, threatening to kill Miranda etc.) to the list. The Shepard of Mass Effect 2 is an idiot who utterly unfit for command, regardless of which dialogue choices you make.
In so many ways ME2 is the finest video game ever made. But its central story and its central character are now broken.
Modifié par bobito64, 18 février 2010 - 05:26 .
#96
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:22
vigna
-
- Members
- 1 947 messages
I can see Shepard working for Cerberus for many reasons....First and foremost to see if they did "in fact" put a freaking chip or bomb in his brain.
Second--to keep an eye on them since they are teh only ones who give a crap about the new threat.
That is all that is needed--especially since Shep is alive--thanks to Cerberus.
I don't like all the choices or dialogue options, but I can suspend my disbelief for the actions and plot that are taking place.
Second--to keep an eye on them since they are teh only ones who give a crap about the new threat.
That is all that is needed--especially since Shep is alive--thanks to Cerberus.
I don't like all the choices or dialogue options, but I can suspend my disbelief for the actions and plot that are taking place.
#97
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:23
Sigma Tauri
-
- Members
- 2 675 messages
Modifié par monkeycamoran, 10 septembre 2010 - 04:54 .
#98
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:28
Bibdy
-
- Members
- 1 455 messages
Just another one of us gamers who's unwilling to let some plot-holes slide and enjoy the experience being presented to them. No skin off my nose. He expects too much and gets disappointed. Nothing particularly special there.
#99
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:28
Bibdy
-
- Members
- 1 455 messages
ULTRA-PASTA
Modifié par Bibdy, 18 février 2010 - 05:29 .
#100
Posté 18 février 2010 - 05:29
tertium organum
-
- Members
- 59 messages
FlyinElk212 wrote...
And do you want to know WHY the "human reaper"was left so mysteriously ambiguous? It's probably because IT'S A MAJOR PLOT POINT IN ME3. Why in the world would Bioware bring up such a huge revelation like this only to solve the mysteries in the same game? Clearly, it's one of the biggest reveals to the Reaper's intentions and backgrounds: perhaps ALL reapers are made from races in the galaxy turned "goop" (which to this day I still don't understand the fan's problems with this. It's a sci-fi. Do you really need a detailed explanation for everything?)
Promissory notes do not make a good argument, Why would Bioware leave a major plot hole like this? Assuming they'll have it fixed doesn't make it any less jarring. Moreover, the assumption itself is ridiculous when so many other things have gone awry - the council being the main one. And many other things people have pointed out. Some people in this thread continue to believe that the recruitment in this game is meant for the third yet all crewmembers can die and they explained why your crew from ME1 is not in this one: it's not possible for them to die so they can make their return in ME3. Meaning, all crewmembers likely to die will not return for the third game. You may ask - why would Bioware dedicate a game to recruiting team members that won't make it into another game? Because they thought the "suicide mission" concept would be sufficient. Alas, the "suicide mission" is not very well developed because the main plot itself is so weak.
Modifié par tertium organum, 18 février 2010 - 05:37 .
