[quote]iakus wrote...
Yeah we can get from point A to point B to point C without all that "filler". But that "filler" is exactly what makes you care about the characters. What makes the trip worth taking to begin with. During that time, the characters grow into their roles, from amugglers and politicians and farmboys to heroes and leaders and Jedi Knights. Mass Effect needed that filler too. To show these characters are capable of becoming a true unit, more than the sum of its parts. Personal missions were a good start, but only a
start. Bioware left the job half-finished. [/quote]
I'm not saying there couldn't have been a training montage, but we certainly didn't need anything of this sort in Mass Effect. We didn't see, for example, Wrex and Tali bonding over a gun fight. Elevator conversations were nice, but don't really say anything for how these random mercenaries would come together at all. I'd say they should easily have been killed on Ilos, facing an army of Geth, since they had little battle-training together. Mass Effect 2 was much the same. We had our advanced team of specialists capable of taking on the world. They each know how to perform their job exceptionally well, no more no less.
[quote]
But there was a lose end. "The Reapers are coming". Shepard bought the galaxy some time (which ME 2 "urinated" away), but the job was far from over. Just like the ending to Episode IV( to continue that analogy): The Death Star was destroyed, but the Empire and its huge fleets and armies of troops were still out there. [/quote]
This is kinda funny, as I was actually going to use Episode IV to make my own point. I wouldn't say (for example) that Episode IV has 'loose ends'. There's material to keep the story going, but it ties off fairly nicely. Compare this to Episode V which implies a) Luke returning to Yoda for training and
the rescue of Han Solo. Mass Effect does the same as Episode IV (which is a problem). We need breadcrumbs to follow if we do as you say (get info on the Reapers in ME2), not a one-liner about how they are "coming", we already know that. From a continuity standpoint, Mass Effect did a terrible job of telling us what to expect besides 'possible reaper involvement' for Mass Effect 2.
So Mass Effect 2 did deal with the only element which Mass Effect 1 implied (the Reaper threat).
[quote]
Finding Reaper artifacts might seem contrived, if done poorly. But Liara did say she found evidence of civilizations before the Protheans. Now knowing that there were in fact previous civilizations, that might be a good idea to focus in on. Maybe ME 2 could have been about findig a way to identify Reaper artifacts. Searching for a way to search? That could be interesting. [/quote]
Like I said, it could go a whole bunch of ways. I would certainly enjoy your example as a plot-line for Mass Effect 2. But I'm saying Mass Effect 1 should have "led" into this. Perhaps a post-Citadel scene, where we see Shepard and Liara/crew talk about potential Reaper connections. Maybe they refer to those ruins which you discuss. Mass Effect 1 cuts itself off, as it stands.
[quote]
Proxy threat: Again, not necessarilly a bad thing. In fact, a better thing than fighting Reapers directly at this point (even a baby one) It's a pity that the geth of ME 1 were more fleshed out than the Collectors were in ME 2 [/quote]
I personally enjoyed the Collectors more than the Geth. This was a race that had not been seen "beyond the veil" in 300 years and now they're cropping up everywhere? Main quest, side quests, etc. The limited 3-mission encounter for the Collectors gave them a more "myserious" sensation in my opinion.
[quote]
I am clearly no stranger to the wall of text myself. Perhaps it was a "no win" situation for BIoware. Maybe not. I still think they went way too far overboard in cutting ties to ME 1 for the sake of "not confusing newcomer" Star Wars demonstrated perfectly well that you can have a mostly self-contained story within a series while maintaining ties to what came before. ME 2 was strictly amature hour, story-wise. [/quote]
I don't consider Mass Effect 2 to be non-sensical as much as 'simple'. We're used to Bioware giving us long epic plots, hours of exposition on every detail of the world. Mass Effect 2 gives us a "bare bones" scenario plot and expands other aspects of the universe. It's certainly not Bioware's best, but it was solid enough that I wanted to see the ending through. I liked the ending spoiler, if not the boss fight itself. It's also important to consider that you'll never get as much information the second time around as the first.
[quote]
Of course you wouldn't call it Deus Ex Machina. In EDI's case, you use the feminine ending. Dea
[/quote]
My knowledge of Latin has failed me at long last.
[quote]
In the beginning we get virtually no information about the Collectors besides "Beyond the Omega IV Relay". In fact, before Freedom's Progress, we don't even know the Collectors are involved. The fact that this big mystery gets solved so early was my first warning sign this game was going to be something of a disappointment. [/quote]
It certainly is contrived, but then contrivances are Bioware's watch-word. Just look at Mass Effect. Shepard follows 4 (entirely unrelated) plot leads all of which conveniently provide him one necessary element in order to reach Ilos. He didn't 'know' what he was looking for and on a mere whim managed to locate everything.
[quote]
I'm not going to even go into how Mordin managed to build an anti-Seeker device when the Collectors have never left a trace of their passing (before Freedom's Progress), or where the Seeker he got came from. That's a debate in itself. [/quote]
Well, Jacob does tell Mordin that they had samples available for him to study which could easily be related to Veetor's research. And Mordin is a genius, so I can see it working. But regardless, it didn't bother me too much. At least, no more than Ashley killing Wrex or Saren killing Nihlus when their shields should have easily held back those gun shots.
[quote]
By the Collector ship EDI, who runs the cyber-warfare suite of the ship managed to hack their computer (I guess like Star Trek ships, the Collectors use the some kind of shareware OS for their ships' computers given how easily that's accomplished), examine the genetic data uploaded by Shep (how does that fit into EW systems?) and determine not only the Big Reveal, but
it's ancestor's planet of origin. Now if information on the Collectors was seeded throughout the game, culminating in a post-Horizon scene, where Mordin autopsies a dead Collector and came up with all this, I could go "Wow, really? Tell me more!" Coming from EDI like that, it just felt like the script at that point said "include Big Reveal here" [/quote]
Well, when Illusive Man says "data mine" the Collector Ship, I thought it was pretty clear. We knew they had something beyond the relay and this confirmed it. It seemed very reasonable that a Collector Ship would have information on the Colletor homeworld stored within.
Now EDI is an AI, whose abilities were laid out fairly clear from the start (even on Horizon) so I still wouldn't call it "Dea Ex Machina". She's an AI fitted with advanced hacking protocols based on Reaper technology.
[quote]
Why not? Spectres are free to operate however they please, as long as they get the job done. It may not be typical, but Shepard is, as you said the
first human Spectre. Nothing about the situation was typical. The Alliance gave him the ship and its crew. Why not use it? It's a stealth frigate, not a dreadnaught. [/quote]
And I would agree if someone commented on the odd nature of this spectacle. No one says "Hey dude, why do you have a crew full of aliens if you're a Spectre?". We know Spectres sometimes take on missions with other Spectres. That Commander Shepard does not do so, but takes an Alliance Crew, imo, is a very odd "call to arms". It's amost as if Bioware thought we would ignore it because we were used to the ship + crew arrangement from past games. But that doesn't make it any less odd for an organization known for operating solo to have Shepard working with 20+ crew members at all times.
[quote]
Okay, now I'm having an image of Shepard legally adopting Grunt as his son and heir to give Grunt a purpose. "Clan Shepard" anyone? [/quote]
Haha, yes, in a sense. Even when Grunt goes to Tuchanka, I believe he calls Shepard his 'battlemaster'. Grunt is essentially a baby Canderous. Both are looking for purpose, etc. Shepard is able to offer him that purpose.
[quote]
Actually, the high probability was that a lot of innocent cops would be killed. Odds of Samara dying seemed to be within the realm of possibility, but only mentioned as an afterthought. Now I will grant that the deal struck saved a bunch of people in the short run, but still left it entirely possible that Morinth would continue to murder people for the next few centuries and grow more and more powerful each time. The only way this could be prevented is if: A) Shepard agrees to help Samara before going on the Suicide Mission or
Samara survives the Suicide Mission and picks up her trail afterwards. Neither is a something she could count on happening. Given that Morinth has eluded Samara for four hundred years, does risking losing it all when she was so close really make sense? [/quote]
As a justicar, even more than catching Morinth, Samara must always follow her code. She cannot (for example) break her word once it is given. It is by this code that she is able to live with herself. She really was caught between a rock and a hard place.
a) Slaughter the population of Illium, possibly locating the name of the Ship while being chased by innocent guards. This would weigh heavily on Samara's conscience, might result in her death, and might not turn up the name of her ship.
Allow Shepard to find the name of the ship. If he does so successfully, she has her lead, Illium's innocents are spared, she may potentially track Morinth, and she can combat the Collectors (which is something a Justicar would do).
If plan B does not work, she can always revert to plan A if Shepard was unsuccessful. The only difference is that in scenario A Samara comes dangerously close to violating her code, while in scenario B she's living up to it as a Justicar. Innocents vs. Collector victims is the question. I could see either way happening, to be honest.
[quote]
Yeah, his tales filled me with so much confidence. On a somewhat related note, don't you wish you could dump recruited squaddies if you decide you do't want em after all? Zaed, among others definitely gave me the "doesn't play well with others" vibe which is kind of important when putting a squad together. [/quote]
I definitely think we should have had the option to 'scrap' party members, much like in Dragon Age. This could create further scenarios in which Shepard dies because the player was too reckless. I don't however find Zaeed's motivations (money) to be unreasonable, given what he has already survived. It's clear that Cerberus has offered an extremely large sum for his services.
[quote]
Hmm, well, I must say that this would certainly not be the first Bioware game where the "quest giver" was either mistaken or deliberately misleading you.::coughJadeEmpirecough:: Even so "Army of geth" or "rogue Spectre" probably has a more immediate reaction to the people in charge than "one big scary-looking warship" [/quote]
Ah, but in other Bioware games the odd nature of circumstances has always been addressed, which makes the player feel curious. Mass Effect throws on a weak motivation for Saren (whom I still think is a great villain).
Kotor: We get Carth explaining to us how bizarre it is for the Jedi Council to send a 'neophyte' padawan out to find these obscure Star Maps. Why you? Why Bastilla? Why not a contingent of Jedi Masters? It simultaneously gives us insights into Carth's character and allows us to understand that something is very wrong. Same, through Bastilla. We're able to inquire why, of all people, the Council sent 'me' on this mission and its odd nature. Most of the game, we're led to believe that 'she' is leading 'me' to the Star Maps, rather than its opposite scenario.
Jade Empire: There's this constant fear surrounding who or what Death Hand is. Sagacious Zu, being a Lotus Assassin, is able to offer quite a bit on this point. We're led to believe that Death's Hand manipulates the Emperor, Sun Li is a victim, absolute evil, etc. Silk Fox leads us to believe her father is a victim. So naturally, once we reach the Lotus Assassin fortress and discover it's the exact opposite, the context of what we know changes heavily. And this happens several times in Jade Empire where what we "know" is entirely wrong.
Mass Effect: Unlike Kotor, where the Council at least provides a false explanation for sending you alone (Jedi Masters attract attention), Mass Effect doesn't even make the effort. Why Shepard? Why send the newest Spectre to track down the Council's best agent? Why alone? Why no 'Spectre mentor' to guide him who perhaps understands Saren? No one speculates on the odd nature of events. No one asks what Saren's motivations are. We get a short speel from Anderson about a human-genocide. In all 3 games I listed, we see a perception-changing event. In Mass Effect, the effect is less pronounced however, because we were not given a firm 'lead' in the first place.
Modifié par Il Divo, 31 juillet 2010 - 04:52 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
