570 réponses à ce sujet

[JediPilot0]

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

And this is precisely why I liked the way ME2 handled it. It honestly hurt, waking up 2 years later, talking to my squad and thinking they would come back to help me. [/quote]

So it's ok jsut because they gave you new, likeable teamates (I loved the ME2 squaddies as well)?

Have you ever watch the Alien movies? How did you feel when at the end of Aliens, you had a crew you knew and liked (Ripley, Hicks, Newt, Bishop) escape the ALiens, and then in the opening credits of Alien 3, they all are killed off? This is the same poor mechanic that ME2 uses. Dumping these characters aside.

So I take it you'd have no problem if Bioware either killed off or made these ME2 squaddies secondary characers in ME3? If they introduce a new set of likeable characters?

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
So this goes back to my earlier point that ME2 was doomed immediately because of the Shepard resurrection plot.
[/quote]

If they even pretended like the resurrection plot was significant for Shepard and had a whole discussion about life and death then at least they used it for something. As it is now, it's use is solely to reset the game and let our decisions about the council settle down so Bioware doesn't have to do any real hard work letting us live the aftermath of ME1. The resurrection seems like it's only there because they wanted an exuse for the face creator and resetting your skills back to level 1, honestly.
[/quote]

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Barring any reason to be otherwise, I would assume that a human reaper would fulfill the same function that previous reapers had. I would think its creation, as a result of humanity, would add a wonderful degree of irony to it and as I said, the Reapers strike me as the type who follow the 'take what makes my enemy strong' philosophy.
[/quote]

Look at those underlines. Awful lot of guesswork there, hmmm? Perhaps Bioware wasn't ..oh I don't know...CLEAR?

You don't actually know what we stopped. You can see it above. You are guessing. In ME1, we knew exactly what we stopped. We stopped the Reaper fleet from arriving at the Citadel and beginning their invasion. In ME2, we have to guess. This is the entire point of this topic, and you proved it beautifully. We don't know what the Human Reaper was doing.....and then the credits roll. Good thing they gave us the shot of the reaper fleet closing in. At least that was progress.........I think.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
TIM explains that they respect the fact that Shepard killed one and have become obsessed with humanity as a result. This all seemed pretty clear to me.
[/quote]

He doesn't say the word "respect." I've already pointed out the problems with human goop and reproduction before, and how the Reapers completely dismiss organics in ME1 and ME2 retconned it. In ME1, reapers had been killed before. Stopped by Protheans via the Keepers, and shot by the gun powerful enough to create a huge RIFT in a planet. NOTHING we have is that powerful. But NOW, they change their mind? You'd think Sovereign would have changed his tone especially after the Protheans messed with the Keepers.

And why obsess over Shepard? Why preserve his body, as Harbinger says? It's not like there's a "deafeat Reapers gene."

We have to guess everything.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Some also think that the purpose of life is merely to 'reproduce'. To the question of what is the purpose of life, they respond it is self-fulfilling. The reapers might possibly be to this goal as well.
[/quote]

More guess work.

And the Reapers are machines, they aren't traditional life that evolves blindly on its own. They were built. That implies some function.


[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Half-Life by Valve is an extremely popular video game franchise. One character, known as the G-man, is probably the best example of the point I am trying to get across.
[/quote]

We're never directly stopping known plots of the G-Man. We're never directly challenging him. The G-Man and the Reapers serve two different functions. It's not like in Half-Life we're beating the game and the G-Man is going "curse you, Freeman, I'll get you next time!" No, Bioware is clearly setting up the reapers as an antagonist, whereas Valve have not done so with the G-Man (note, I have not played past Half-life 2 vanilla - no episodes)

We are directly challenging the Reapers, and Bioware seems like it's letting us explore them, only when we get to the part where we should be getting answers, we don't get any. Derelict Reaper "lets g-g-g-g-get out of here!" Human Reaper "Kill it! credits time!", etc, etc.

Valve have not divulged the function of the GMan in terms of the story, yet it's clear the Reapers are the main antagonist. I understand the value of mystery, but Bioware can't seem to make up it's mind. We're left guessing what the hell we even did at the end of ME2.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Could you come up with 6 possible motivations for why they would all battle the Collectors, if they had reduced the number of total party members in ME2 to the same as the original.
[/quote]

I'm not a writer. I said before Bioware can write much better than I can. And I don't need everyone to have personal ties to the collectors, but right now, NO ONE DOES. Hell, it feels like the crewman chatting about their families being abducted while I walk around the Normandy have more personal stake in the story than my own squadmates.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
If not, the issue still stands that either the Collectors would also
need a public face or they were doomed in their role as villains to
start.
[/quote]

Error, does not follow. You're still making up that rule.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Honestly, I didn't feel any contributions once any were under command.
 ...........
I could have taken the information and ignored her. 'Surviving an encounter with Geth' never once played out in any significant fashion. I'm not saying the ME2 characters were the height of integration, it was tacky as well. But they were at least far more enjoyable.
[/quote]

Whether or not you take Tali, she still gave you the evidence. Wrex is really the only one there just for the hell of it and doesn't contribute anything to the story.....except that he was on the verge of betrayal over the cloning facility on Virmire, so at least he feels like he's an improtant part of the story.

What did Jack do? Samara? Grunt? Thane?

Point is, EVERY ME1 squaddie had their moment to shine in ME1's main plot.

Tali will ALWAYS give you the evidence, Wrex will ALWAYS fight you on Virmire. Ashely and KAIDEN will ALWAYS have to be weighed against eachother on virmire. Liara will ALWAYS help you undestand you visions. Garrus will ALWAYS help you (but fail) find evidence against Saren. These are clear cut roles that each squadmember plays in the story. You can't replace Tali with Wrex, you can't replace Garrus with Liara.

In ME2, their one moment of truth is being used as a generic trooper at the end. Even the biotic specialist and tech parts of the final mission are replaceable. You can swap Tali for Legion or Mordin, you can swap Samara for Jacob or Miranda or Jack. Each squadmember is just placed in a generic cinematic sequence that does not highlight how unique they are. The two guys you bring with you to fight the T-800 will always have the two huge pieces of metal fall on them in the escape cinematic, but it could be ANYONE. That's not a moment to shine, that's being a completely interchangable squadmember.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Almost there, man! Bioware will lock this threat sooner or later!
[/quote]

I hope not. If they lock this and keep that stupid Tali thread open, then Bioware is pretty sad. This is much better discussion then that spam thread.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 16 mars 2010 - 07:06 .

[smudboy]

glacier1701 wrote...

tertium organum

JediPilot0

[Andrew PM]

Akrylik wrote...
... but instead it goes from "plot completed, lets go kill those reapers." to "plot completed, lets go kill those reapers." hence repeating itself.

ME1 revealed the threat of the Reapers.

ME2 revealed the purpose of the Reapers.

I hope I get a bigger gun in ME3.

[MaxiTB]

I have to agree with the OP just in matters ME1 events were treated in ME2. Lets face it, he's right, no matter what you did in ME1 the effects in ME2 were minimal, to say at least, and sadly didn't affect ME2 main story in any way.

The best example are of course (a) the saving the Council issue or ( dealings with Ceberus and © especially the Shadow Broker choice. And I was comletely shocked about the fan ... serious, what gun in his face (maybe just a bug) ?

However, ME3 is still not released and I hope they will finally address some choices heavly: Like Racchni or how you handled the Geth issue in ME2.

Plus: I'm a little disappointed about the DLC content so far ... I expected more, especially story-wise, because it was promoted that the Cerberus Network will greatly offer new challenges not just a new team member with a tiny mission and some equipment with no real replay value.

//Edit: Damn you, spelling.

Modifié par MaxiTB, 16 mars 2010 - 06:57 .

[Knoll Argonar]

Oh, BTW, not going to enter in those walls of text, noone's listening the others side.



Anyway, I don't know who asked about why Sovereign didn't attacked 2000 years ago, but I think we all missed the answer. Well, that's explained if you complete the Keepers quest in ME1 and read the ME2's e-mail. It seems that keepers are "programed" to answer a signal (which we know that is the one sent by Nazara), every 15.000 years, not whenever they want. So, probably 2000 years ago keepers weren't ready for that and Sovereign didn't even bother.



Well, another 2 cents. *runs away*.

[JediPilot0]

RhythmlessNinja wrote...

So...who is actually reading any of these short stories in this thread? lol

LOL, I have the attention span of a kid!

Some of us like discussing and dissecting the fictional universe we love. I, for one, am reading everything.

[JediPilot0]

smudboy wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

tertium organum

JediPilot0

[.gif image that I'm not quoting]

lol

[glacier1701]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Oh, BTW, not going to enter in those walls of text, noone's listening the others side.

Anyway, I don't know who asked about why Sovereign didn't attacked 2000 years ago, but I think we all missed the answer. Well, that's explained if you complete the Keepers quest in ME1 and read the ME2's e-mail. It seems that keepers are "programed" to answer a signal (which we know that is the one sent by Nazara), every 15.000 years, not whenever they want. So, probably 2000 years ago keepers weren't ready for that and Sovereign didn't even bother.

Well, another 2 cents. *runs away*.

I am the one that pointed out the 2000 year thing. Basically IF you saved the Rachni queen in ME2 you get told that the Rachni wars were started by MIND CONTROLLED Rachni. In other words the Rachni seem to have been indoctrinated. The Rachni wars were 2000 years ago. IN other words a Reaper (most likely Sovereign) sent off the signal to the Keepers and they did not respond. So trying to get to an army to the Citadel allies were recruited who would help take control of the Citadel thus allowing the Relay to be opened and the next cycle started. In other words something of what we find out in ME1 was attempted 2000 years ago. The Rachni were defeated (which led to the Krogan problem). What I point out is that what we get in ME1/ME2 could have been done 2000 years ago and there would be considerably less resistance as the Council consisted ONLY of the Asari and Salarians.

Yet ME2 brings in a rational for why the Rachni attacked that makes the Reapers, or more specifically Sovereign, look completely idiotic and devoid of any form of intellignece because for 2000 years no better plan can be thought up other than 'lets recruit allies who will attack the Citadel.' This contradicts what we were led to believe about the Reapers from everything that occured in ME1.

[glacier1701]

JediPilot0 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

tertium organum

JediPilot0

[.gif image that I'm not quoting]

lol

I think I finally got what was said here.

[Daeion]

ME2 didn't advance the story, it did however develop the characters and the universe more.

[Yeled]

Daeion wrote...

ME2 didn't advance the story, it did however develop the characters and the universe more.

I'm not sure it did, though.  Shepard isn't more developed.  And while Tali and Garrus are, Ash/Kaiden and Liara aren't really more developed and the rest of the characters are new.

And I'll give you that the Terminus systems are more developed, I actually felt the universe's feel was somehow less developed.  In the first game the setting was very much a place where humans were new, and they were struggling to find their way and earn respect in a galaxy that was very wary of them.  In ME2 that was gone, and I'm not sure what replaced it.  A universe that didn't care, maybe?  It felt like less of a character in the story and more of a place where stuff just happened.

[KotOREffecT]

Yeled wrote...

Daeion wrote...

ME2 didn't advance the story, it did however develop the characters and the universe more.

I'm not sure it did, though.  Shepard isn't more developed.

I disagree, IMO I thought Shep is one of the ones that grew the most. Afterall ,this is his story? I think he does grow a bit like how you roleplay him from ME 1 on, like him becoming more dark, etc.

Modifié par KotOREffecT, 16 mars 2010 - 08:06 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

[quote]smudboy wrote...
Screw your style.  I know what I'm talking about.

We learn in ME1 Cerberus is pure evil.  In ME2 they're doing something about saving colonists. (They also can resurrect the dead and build a ship for said resurrectee.)  So, what, we just forget about what we've been told about events in ME1?  No story telling?  No exposition, no outbursts, no arguments, no confrontation?  The best we get is Shepard talking to Miranda.

Rebellion would still be conflict.  It would make sense for both P and R Shepard.

Instead, we're railroaded to do whatever TIM says. [/quote]

Have you heard the phrase it's better to 'show than tell'? Show me you know what you're talking about rather than tell me you know what you're talking about, Mr. Logic and Reason.

I'm still trying to understand the issue. I outlined for you the stupidity of starting a  conflict with the Illusive Man, the only person who actually believes you and has the resources to back you up, when the Reapers and Collectors remain to be dealt with.

And no outbursts? No arguments? Every time you pick up a damn party member, the first thing they say is "WTF? you're working with Cerberus?' You're complaining that you couldn't railroad the direction the story would take place. Hint: This can be done for any game. Why couldn't I join Saren in ME1 when he offers, especially since his reasoning made sense?

[quote]
[quote]
ME1 was the first of its kind, and you're saying it failed to break new grounds?  Okay then. [/quote]

Wow, this made me laugh. Hysterically.
blahblahblah some stuff
[/quote]

It's pretty clear you haven't played any other Bioware games. Feel free to worship the ME writers/script. I on the other hand accept that while good, it rehashes many elements found in other Bioware games. Your point is ME2 has bad plot/direction. My point is ME1 steals different segments from different games. This is not original.

[quote]
Okay so in ME1, Shepard is exceptional.  In ME2 he dies.

Garrus commanded a team of 10.  One of them betrayed him.  Jacob is a loyal and skilled Lieutenant on Lazarus and security.  Miranda is a genetically superior leader who was in charge of Lazarus.  (One of her upgrades is Cerberus Leader.)

All of these people are alive, save Shepard.

Oh and the fact they all successfully fill the fire team leader roles in the Suicide Mission successfully. [/quote]

Arguments after the fact? From you? I thought you were against them! At the time of Shepard's selection this was not the case.

[quote]
So this master plan is to resurrect a dead man.  Ah huh.

Garrus would've joined after you patched him up.  Samara would've joined because "I am humbled."  Jack would've joined kicking and screaming.  Tali would've been thankful for being saved, but I'm not so sure about her joining.
[quote]

Erm, no, Samara would not have merely joined with Cerberus and probably have not taken that oath. Justicars are compared to Spectres in  your codex-hence there's a reason why Shepard would have better maintained that role than Miranda.

[quote]
So leaders can't argue with others, when they're in second command, about something they're passionate about?
 [/quote]

Argue, yes. Squabble over crap? No. Rewatch that scene. They come off like two kids on a playground. Shepard had to serve as a mediator and settle everything. When does Miranda have to do that for you?

[quote]
Then why was Jack in Miranda's quarters?  Miranda: "I can put aside my differences until the missions over."  Seems professional to me.  Seems Jack had the problem, not Miranda. [/quote]

Was she in Miranda's quarters? I don't recall that being the case. The conflict also did not seem to occur the way you describe. Jack felt that Cerberus ****ed up, Miranda maintained 'different branch, not my problem'. That's not professional. If Renegade, you tell them both to stfu. If paragon, you calm them down. It was a cat fight.

[quote]
He's not superior 'cause he died.  2 years of resurrecting Zombie Shepard is hardly a brilliant plan to "get leadership skills" "for a bloody icon" when we already have them. [/quote]

I believe I addressed why Miranda is unable to fill that role multiple times now. This is getting redundant. You know ME1? That game that you love glorifying? Well, you know everything that Shepard did there? Following Saren, becoming a Reaper, taking down Sovereign, saving the citadel etc. Well, that's something *nobody* has done before to that degree, especially since you refuse to consider the novels which would help your argument in this instance. Shepard became practically a living God and he died. So everyone forgot about him, except TIM. But nobody would survive the situation he was put in.

So beyond taking down a couple merc gangs (Garrus), working as a corsair (Jacob), and 'being professional' (Miranda) what has any of them done to put their resume` on par with Shepard's? I would like you to outline their list of accomplishments.

[quote]
Explain how ME3 has been setup beautifully. [/quote]

Well, unless Bioware really ****s up, major issues that I did have are now addressed. What do we know about the Reapers? How are we going to combat them? We have access to a space station filled with Reaper technology if Renegade, for example. And a good amount of data if paragon. I would assume unless otherwise indicated this is going to be put to use. We also have indisputable proof (finally) that the Council cannot ignore if they tried. And we actually do see the Reaper threat moving towards us as Shepard addresses his team.

As others have pointed out, I also see alot of potential for all those various factions (Quarians, Krogans, etc) to be put to more active use in ME3, depending on the choices you've made. In particular, talking with Mordin about the Krogan Genophage explained alot. How is this important? ME3 seems to be gearing towards all-out war. You're obviously not going to do this by yourself. I can see outlines of how all these various factions will be put to good use.

[quote]
1) Shepard's dead.
2) We don't know they used humans to create a Reaper.
3) Yes, the several decade long slow process of stealing millions of humans to somehow create a human reaper.  Brilliant plan super-intelligent MACHINES that are now cyboarg came up with.
4) Yes, the entire plot of ME2 is one giant "wat". [/quote]

2) No, but we knew something involving the Reapers was going on. It's too big a coincedence that humans were targeted only after Sovereign was destroyed.
3) See, I stil don't see them as being any less evil/mysterious/creepy than they were before. One reason everyone seems to think the Reapers are so creepy is that they are unknown and mysterious. Well, you can't beat your enemy if you know nothing about your enemy, so maybe the Reapers as villains were doomed from the start.
4) Collectors kill you. They are employed by the Reapers. Kill them back. Very easy to follow.

[quote]
Lame 4chan speak is stupid.
Do you?
Yes.
Yes.
NO.
You said identify a ship.  My apologies if I didn't understand this entire line of reasoning after you wrote all that other explanative crap. [/quote]

Well, much like a game's plot, I guess now I fully understand that I must elaborate on every slight point that there is to be made. This long post is now in danger of becoming dreadfully looooooooonger.

[quote]
Wait, wait.  Space battle.  Why need a ground battle?  We've got a space ship.  Oh right, unknown.  Right. [/quote]

Started as a space battle, evolved into a ground battle. Moral of the story: it's always good to have a ground team ready.

[quote]
See? Now you understand why it's good to get nukes.  A nuke should handle everything.  It's like a missile that goes in fast and REALLY hard.  Suicide Mission would've been short, sweet, and to the EXPLOSIVE point which is a wonderful variation on your typical line of reasoning. [/quote]

Perhaps this is sarcasm. If not, God help you. Nukes do not take care of everything. Let's take the suicide mission as an example and let's assume we had a nuke.

1) I'm renegade and want to preserve the facility. Unfortunately, nukes don't distinguish between good and bad. Alternate option? Ground team. Oh wait, you didn't want a ground team because there would never be a possible situation where a ground team could come in useful...wait a second! So now we're a ground team. Well, might need a biotic specialist. Might need someone into tech.

Think of it like forging a dnd campaign. With 4 players, everyone doesn't say 'Let's all play fighters'. If two people play fighters, one of the others might say "I'll play a healer". Another may say "We need utility/stealth. I'll play a rogue!"You don't need your DM to explain that there *might* be people trying to kill you and there might be traps (which doesn't always happen). You plan ahead. If you want to argue the good or bad points of the overall plot or how vauge everything comes together, fine. But your logic that Shepard, who in both games operates with a ground team, wouldn't benefit from a tech/biotic is pathetic.

[quote]
If by reaching you mean common sense.  What, you don't watch things?  Like a door where your enemy might enter from?

So what if they possess technology?

If Cerberus likes to maintain a low profile, why are they putting their logo all over the SR2, your uniforms, the various bases they have throughout the galaxy?  Mind you I think it's stupid too,  but hey, this is a hack story.

How is camping the Omega-4 relay a bad strategy?  Do you know how the Collectors get back to ..wherever they come from?  I think it's the Omega-4 relay.  Just throwing that out there.  What, a spy satellite or prob is a bad idea?  Gathering intel in ANY shape or form, that's relatively safe, much safer than GOING through the relay, a failed strategy?  Really? [/quote]

The issue of uniforms/logos I'll give you. This is what you have often referred to as a 'plot hole'. Although I've also heard that Cerberus was in fact responsible for helping build the original Normandy with the Alliance, which EDI reveals. I could honestly see TIM having threatened to reveal this if they chose to directly expose them.

Your point about bases is stupid. Cerberus is an illegal organization. Any organization requires a base of operations or multiple, this does not mean they have a sign in neon lights saying 'this is where Cerberus is'. When a base gets compromised, separate issues arise.

I say camping the Omega IV is a bad idea not because it's bad to watch your enemy, but that the Collectors seem to have technology capable of counter-acting most anything. Even the Normandy SR-2, the best of the TIM's resources, isn't fully able to handle the Collector Cruiser without upgrades.

[quote]
I already exaplined it.  I'll try again.  In point form.  For the super genius you are.

1) We know Ilos is a planet at a certain place in a certain star system.
1a) On Ilos are some Prothean ruins.
1b) In those ruins is something called the Conduit that the Protheans were using to stop the Reapers, somehow.

Compare that to (which I hate doing, but since you made the effort)

1) We don't know what's beyond the Omega-4 relay
2) We know the Collectors have a massive ship.

The goal of ME1 was to get/discover to the conduit.
The  goal of ME2 was to Fight the Collectors.

If it were to just blow up their ship, that'd be good.  But it's not that.

If you can't see what plot is more clear, we're done. [/quote]

One last time. We know nothing about Ilos. Thank you, it's a planet. Yes, the conduit is there. That tells me we have a motivation to go and we need a ground team. Are we clear so far?

However, we do not know what resistance is actually present there above the planet. Your goal is to find the conduit. That is a wonderful goal. Saren is intent on stopping you from doing so. We know that Saren is on Ilos trying to find the conduit. Yet again, explain to me how it makes sense that Shepard, who possesses a single warship, has planned for the possibility that, on arrival, Saren, Sovereign, and an enormous fleet of Geth could be right there waiting to ambush him? This is not sensible.  

[quote]
Um, that's the plot?  Whether I use the word attack, fight, etc., makes no difference.

The problem is still 1) what kind of fight, 2) how we're going to fight, 3) where exacty, 4) what exactly, 5) scope of all this, etc.

Being prepared for the unknown is a really bad, ignorant, ambiguous statement.  We understand the spaceship angle (Collectors have a cruiser.)  We don't understand the "get 11 combat specialists people." [/quote]

Again, I see no reason why I wouldn't want a diverse combat team. See the dnd example. If you want another, consider the movie Atlantis: The Lost Empire. This actually is a really good parallel to the situation. Brilliant millionaire tycoon wants to discover the lost city of Atlantis. He presents you with advanced technology, a powerful submarine, and a diverse array of specialists each with a separate function to face the 'unknown'. All you know is, Atlantis *may* be down there. This is very similar to the role the ME2 party members served.

[quote]
Again, 1) if we were told WHY we needed these specific people and , 2) what our mission was exactly, this wouldn't be an issue.  But it's a glaring, hueg problem.  And no amount of your explanations can fill this.
[/quote]

See Atlantis example. It's not what you did find, but what you might have found.

[quote]
A different false turn?  We knew that Ilos was going to be a ground mission.

We didn't know what was past the Omega-4 relay, aside from that Collector cruiser. There is no justification for having these 11 specialists on board.  The writers magically showed us "okay, you're passed the omega-4 relay, time to turn the page and start the point to point defense battle that never happens because we need the enemy to put holes in the ship, and fight a giant floating eye." [/quote]

We knew that we needed a ship to get there. We knew Saren has Sovereign and a fleet. See? Space battle easily forseeable.

[quote]
1.Your argument is we have them because we're to be prepared.
2.I argue we don't know that this is viable because we don't know what we're prepared for.
3.You say we're prepared for anything (space and ground.)
4. I say we're clearly not, since we never got a zapper which EDI reminded us of, we never got nukes, etc.
5. You say we couldn't know what we needed because it's an unknown, so it's best to be prepared just because.
6. I say if it's unknown, why not make it known.  Camping a relay, comm buoy, etc.
7. You say camping a relay is bad strategy.

Listen, we need info.  It's obvious.  It never happens.  The story fails. [/quote]

I agree, info is good....like knowing the type of force Saren had at his command on Ilos. And I took the liberty of numbering your points. My issue is with #4. This is a plot hole. Bad story-telling? Certainly, especially for something so basic as opening a door. That means we weren't prepared. That supports your conclusion that we didn't know what we were preparing for, not your premises that we shouldn't have been recruiting a team because we wouldn't need them. If anything, it illustrates the very reason why bringing a team is better.

#7 is a bad strategy because the Collectors are technologically superior. They can see through stealth systems. They probably have ways to counter-act tracking. It was by the merest chance that they slipped with Veetor, giving you a chance to confirm their identity. This was not information easily come by.

[quote]
See I thought he was the brutal pro-human wing of the Alliance that will do whatever it takes to accomplish a goal.

Shepard just didn't seem to care one way or the other. [/quote]

He's very much a smooth talker. I believe we go over in the beginning the whole Cerberus rebellion thing.

[quote]
**** my knowledge and refinement.  Nukes are much more effective than a biotic.  You also don't have to argue with them.  Or use Shepard's legenday influencial-leadership skills to come on a suicide mission.  With the money and project TIM's throwing around, nukes would be easy.

A nuke will do the job.  Hell a bomb will do a job a ground team can.  That's why they're called bombs: they go boom.  Usually things around them do, too.

It's not needless nitpicking, if we pick up a massive team whose utility is unknown. [/quote]

Yes, they are more effective...at blowing things up. Do you use a biotic to blow things up? I don't think so. A nuke is used when you wish to indiscrimnately destroy everything in sight. A biotic, possessing a mind and will, distinguishes between friend and foe, etc.


[quote]
Well, as for destination there will only be ever 2 possibilites. Either space battle occurs, in which case we have the most powerful ship ever created, or ground battle occurs, in which you have a diverse group of specialists to call on. Again 'in the planet' is not a step up when you don't know how much resistance you will find on that planet. If your definition of preparation and knowledge is no more than space battle versus ground battle, we still didn't know the answer. If you have to fight the Geth in space, then go with a ground team, clearly you need both. Please keep reaching.

Wait, are you talking about Ilos?
[/quote]

Yes, there are several different types of combat engagements. The most prevalent we deal with in ME1/2 are ground and space. Those are the only two you're ever made to account for. On Ilos, this came mostly in the form of a ground team following Saren. Which could easily have been a space battle of Sovereign vs. Normandy, which we would have lost. Shepard had no way of knowing what the situation would resort to. In ME2, we try to cover both bases. A ground team and a space ship. If you encounter other ships, the ship would come in handy. We also were under the impression the Collectors had a base of some sort. Shepard has dealt with enough ground team assignments to fully appreciate their utility.

[Terraneaux]

Andrew PM wrote...

ME2 revealed the purpose of the Reapers.

No, it didn't.  We're still just guessing at this point.

[glacier1701]

KotOREffecT wrote...

Yeled wrote...

Daeion wrote...

ME2 didn't advance the story, it did however develop the characters and the universe more.

I'm not sure it did, though.  Shepard isn't more developed.

I disagree, IMO I thought Shep is one of the ones that grew the most. Afterall ,this is his story? I think he does grow a bit like how you roleplay him from ME 1 on, like him becoming more dark, etc.

The problem here is that your 'role' playing of him making more or less paragon is not development. Since this is the main character that is not development. What we needed was some new piece/s of background information or a major life event that changes what he can or cannot do (like perhaps losing an arm or foot) and trying to come to terms with that. In that regard Shepard going in is the same as the Shepard coming out - that is not development.

[Yeled]

glacier1701 wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

Yeled wrote...

Daeion wrote...

ME2 didn't advance the story, it did however develop the characters and the universe more.

I'm not sure it did, though.  Shepard isn't more developed.

I disagree, IMO I thought Shep is one of the ones that grew the most. Afterall ,this is his story? I think he does grow a bit like how you roleplay him from ME 1 on, like him becoming more dark, etc.

The problem here is that your 'role' playing of him making more or less paragon is not development. Since this is the main character that is not development. What we needed was some new piece/s of background information or a major life event that changes what he can or cannot do (like perhaps losing an arm or foot) and trying to come to terms with that. In that regard Shepard going in is the same as the Shepard coming out - that is not development.

Or maybe dying, and being ressurected by a terrorist organization, and losing most of your squad, and seeing that the galaxy is still ignoring you!  That could be a major life event...if only Shep had actually dealt with any of that.  Instead he just loligags along, shooting things and making one liners. 

[Terraneaux]

JohnnyDollar wrote...
Those were my thoughs too.  None of this is dealt with in the story.  You go see Capt. Anderson who is your friend and comrade and nothing is delved into.  I would have thought that more of the death and resurrection would have been discussed in a little more in detail between Shep and Tali and Garrus.

You can't do that.  If Shep has characterization, then he looks weak!  And the polls done by EA show that our hero must never look week if we're to get that crucial 13-year-old demographic!  Remember, we need to make him as much like Master Chief as possible!  Master Chief is huge!

[KotOREffecT]

Yeled wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

KotOREffecT wrote...

Yeled wrote...

Daeion wrote...

ME2 didn't advance the story, it did however develop the characters and the universe more.

I'm not sure it did, though.  Shepard isn't more developed.

I disagree, IMO I thought Shep is one of the ones that grew the most. Afterall ,this is his story? I think he does grow a bit like how you roleplay him from ME 1 on, like him becoming more dark, etc.

The problem here is that your 'role' playing of him making more or less paragon is not development. Since this is the main character that is not development. What we needed was some new piece/s of background information or a major life event that changes what he can or cannot do (like perhaps losing an arm or foot) and trying to come to terms with that. In that regard Shepard going in is the same as the Shepard coming out - that is not development.

Or maybe dying, and being ressurected by a terrorist organization, and losing most of your squad, and seeing that the galaxy is still ignoring you!  That could be a major life event...if only Shep had actually dealt with any of that.  Instead he just loligags along, shooting things and making one liners. 

I thought there was more to it than that, and also, what about some of the convos with Anderson? It got the point across, infact what about the first convo when you meet him for the first time in 2 years, and he has the nerve to question you and be mad about you working with Cerberus and things, so it def got personal a bit. I felt that Shep got to respond and express his feelings in that situation.

[Terraneaux]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...


Have you heard the phrase it's better to 'show than tell'? Show me you know what you're talking about rather than tell me you know what you're talking about, Mr. Logic and Reason.

It is better to 'show than tell.'  Indeed.  But ME2 did neither.  Harbinger did a lot of 'telling' that honestly was just annoyingly cryptic.  There was nothing 'shown' that actually implied the Human Reaper was an embryonic Reaper or anything like that-that's all just fan speculation at this point.  

What it comes down to, is that the main plot of ME2 is weak.  It's got a lot of holes.  The pacing is off.  That would be fine, if the game could instead focus on character development - but the main character undergoes absolutely none of that, and the game spends most of its focus on introducing these new characters that were cooked up for this game.  It's not a plot-based narrative, and it's not a character-driven narrative, so it just ends up being a bad narrative.  

[Terraneaux]

JohnnyDollar wrote...
Well this game isn't rated for 13 year olds though is it? 

No, but unlike rated R movies, parents tend to care less/not understand what an M rated game means, thus they are often marketed towards the teenage demographic - teenage sales were a huge part of the GTA series' success.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JediPilot0 wrote...
So it's ok jsut because they gave you new, likeable teamates (I loved the ME2 squaddies as well)?

Have you ever watch the Alien movies? How did you feel when at the end of Aliens, you had a crew you knew and liked (Ripley, Hicks, Newt, Bishop) escape the ALiens, and then in the opening credits of Alien 3, they all are killed off? This is the same poor mechanic that ME2 uses. Dumping these characters aside.

So I take it you'd have no problem if Bioware either killed off or made these ME2 squaddies secondary characers in ME3? If they introduce a new set of likeable characters?

This may sound lackluster, but I really didn't feel too hurt when they all died at the start of Alien 3. But this raises another question. Depending on whom you ask, Aliens is considered by some to be superior even to the original. Of the original crew, Ripley is the only member to survive of their ship. The universe, Ripley, and xenomorphs are the only things which are retained within the sequel, yet it's held in high regard.

So let's say ME1 had ended with how ME2 begins-Shepard's death. Would you overall have found it more acceptable for Shepard to lose his squad mates because of the different pacing and time factor?

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
If they even pretended like the resurrection plot was significant for Shepard and had a whole discussion about life and death then at least they used it for something. As it is now, it's use is solely to reset the game and let our decisions about the council settle down so Bioware doesn't have to do any real hard work letting us live the aftermath of ME1. The resurrection seems like it's only there because they wanted an exuse for the face creator and resetting your skills back to level 1, honestly.

I saw it as an opportunity to explore a different aspect of the universe. ME1 was all about the big picture, where the Alliance/Council is powerful, etc. ME2 shifted the focus to the Terminus systems and made them feel more real. I liked dealing with scum where suddenly my being a Spectre had little value. They hint at this on Noveria, but ME2 fully explores it.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Look at those underlines. Awful lot of guesswork there, hmmm? Perhaps Bioware wasn't ..oh I don't know...CLEAR?

You don't actually know what we stopped. You can see it above. You are guessing. In ME1, we knew exactly what we stopped. We stopped the Reaper fleet from arriving at the Citadel and beginning their invasion. In ME2, we have to guess. This is the entire point of this topic, and you proved it beautifully. We don't know what the Human Reaper was doing.....and then the credits roll. Good thing they gave us the shot of the reaper fleet closing in. At least that was progress.........I think.

If being technical, yes it is 'guess' work. Simply because it is not made explicit or high-lighted. The Collectors crafted a human reaper. Unless indicated otherwise, why wouldn't I assume it's meant to fill the same function as any other Reaper? They also make explicit that they tried the same with the protheans, but failed so they repurposed them as the Collectors. What's left ambiguous is the question-is this the only way Reapers can build? If not, then Sovereign's statements of ME1 really haven't been retconned.

To use more 'guess work', it seems pretty clear why the Reapers only use or attempt to use certain species. TIM explains how the Collectors have become obsessed with Shepard and humanity since he killed a Reaper. From this, TIM infers they are agents of the Reapers. We also know this hasn't been done with Asari, Turians, etc. The Reapers respect Shepard. It's not too hard to understand that they could reserve procreation for certain select species.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
He doesn't say the word "respect." I've already pointed out the problems with human goop and reproduction before, and how the Reapers completely dismiss organics in ME1 and ME2 retconned it. In ME1, reapers had been killed before. Stopped by Protheans via the Keepers, and shot by the gun powerful enough to create a huge RIFT in a planet. NOTHING we have is that powerful. But NOW, they change their mind? You'd think Sovereign would have changed his tone especially after the Protheans messed with the Keepers.

Actually he does use the word "respect". I played through it yesterday.

TIM: 'But you killed one of them (a Reaper). They have to respect that.'

If they dismiss organics the way you suggest, they would not bother harvesting them in the first place. What they actually dismiss are their attempts to understand these machines which are beings of 'pure logic'. Shepard asks why they choose to harvest organics, and is met with rebukes. I actually find the notion of Reapers 'harvesting' organics even more creepy than simply obliterating them. Plus, how many organics does it take to make a reaper? Millions are nothing to the billions which comprise a single species. There's still enough room for Reapers to 'obliterate' in a way to keep ME1 consistent.

More guess work.

And the Reapers are machines, they aren't traditional life that evolves blindly on its own. They were built. That implies some function.

Built by whom? More guess work. Hell, maybe they built themselves for all we know. If I asked you what is the purpose of organics reproducing/living, could you answer? Does ME answer? No. That's why I'm slightly skeptical of asking why do the Reapers harvest organics. 'To make more Reapers' is the most basic answer I can think of, just as I would answer 'to make more humans' is the purpose of reproduction.  

We're never directly stopping known plots of the G-Man. We're never directly challenging him. The G-Man and the Reapers serve two different functions. It's not like in Half-Life we're beating the game and the G-Man is going "curse you, Freeman, I'll get you next time!" No, Bioware is clearly setting up the reapers as an antagonist, whereas Valve have not done so with the G-Man (note, I have not played past Half-life 2 vanilla - no episodes)

No, it's just heavily implied that his each and every goal is sinister. That he wishes to keep Gordon Freeman alive aside, if you notice he's constantly manipulating events to suit his own game. I won't go into further detail, but if you play Episode 2, the G-man's role is revealed to be far more dangerous. Learning *anything* about the G-man is information gained because it's so utterly rare.

We are directly challenging the Reapers, and Bioware seems like it's letting us explore them, only when we get to the part where we should be getting answers, we don't get any. Derelict Reaper "lets g-g-g-g-get out of here!" Human Reaper "Kill it! credits time!", etc, etc.

Valve have not divulged the function of the GMan in terms of the story, yet it's clear the Reapers are the main antagonist. I understand the value of mystery, but Bioware can't seem to make up it's mind. We're left guessing what the hell we even did at the end of ME2.

Directly? We haven't challenged them directly yet. Sure, we've killed their agents (Geth and Collectors). But they've still been acting through other agents all this time. The beauty of the Reapers (for me at least) was just understanding how foreign they actually were as a species. Speaking with Sovereign is chilling. That you learn so little information about the Reapers in ME2 just further adds to my desire to understand what I can. Valve may not have identified the G-man's role, but they've hinted quite heavily that it's not good. 'Prepare for unforseen consequences'.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
If not, the issue still stands that either the Collectors would also
need a public face or they were doomed in their role as villains to
start.

Error, does not follow. You're still making up that rule.

This just seems to me to be a logical deduction. ME1 had 6 party membes. Let's say ME2 had limited the roles to six new party members. One way or another, either you are able to tie all into the main quest (Centering around the Collectors) or you are not. The Collectors thrive by remaining unseen and do no possess a public face (Saren). If we accept this information and the idea that they cannot all be tied to the Collectors in some unique fashion, it seems clear that the plot point was doomed to fail. If you have a counter-example from a movie, book, or another game, I am ready to hear it.

Whether or not you take Tali, she still gave you the evidence. Wrex is really the only one there just for the hell of it and doesn't contribute anything to the story.....except that he was on the verge of betrayal over the cloning facility on Virmire, so at least he feels like he's an improtant part of the story.

What did Jack do? Samara? Grunt? Thane?

Point is, EVERY ME1 squaddie had their moment to shine in ME1's main plot.

But I'm not arguing whether they were involved in the main plot, but whether any necessitated a role as a party member. That's my point with Tali. Yes, she gave me the evidence because I saved her life. Why does this necessitate she have to come with me? I do not consider that a moment to shine.

Wrex, Liara, Kaidan/Ashley I see your point on and they did have more of an emotional impact. I respect your position and can accept that given this, yes they were more necessary than your ME2 party members.

But Tali's one moment to shine is when you first meet her, removing any impact of that interaction. They could just as easily have 'not' let her join the party and the plot would not have been impacted in absolutely any way. This is the same for Garrus. He also is not tied to the over-arching plot in any necessary way. Coincedentally, these two are fleshed out in ME2.

In ME2, their one moment of truth is being used as a generic trooper at the end. Even the biotic specialist and tech parts of the final mission are replaceable. You can swap Tali for Legion or Mordin, you can swap Samara for Jacob or Miranda or Jack. Each squadmember is just placed in a generic cinematic sequence that does not highlight how unique they are. The two guys you bring with you to fight the T-800 will always have the two huge pieces of metal fall on them in the escape cinematic, but it could be ANYONE. That's not a moment to shine, that's being a completely interchangable squadmember.

This is also somewhat true. But I also feel like it emphasizes the importance of your choices in which party members you focus on and which you don't. Before ME3, everyone is going to do a complete playthrough of who they want to live and who they want to die. Yes, I could have used Tali or Thane for that first segment. But loyal or not, that impacted how the cut scene played out. This goes for the entire sequence. Yes, the rubble always falls on your party in ME2, just as it always does in ME1 where your squad is pulled out. The difference is your choices in the former instance affect how that final cutscene plays out. If they are loyal, you pull them up. If not, well they're unfortunately gone.

Don't get me wrong. I would have loved if ME2 would have given me a unique death sequence for each party member depending on my actions. As it happened, I was content in knowing that my decisions altered how this played out. It does not necessarily make the characters more necessary to the plotline.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 mars 2010 - 09:18 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

So I question for those who don't think that the plot for ME2 moved forward the plot of the series as a whole: Did Baldur's Gate 2 also suffer the same issue? The plot of Baldur's Gate 2 was almost wholly separate from the larger Bhaalspawn plot. Irenicus was using the PC's Bhaalspawn taint as a means to their own end completely separate from the overriding storyline to the series. At the end of the game, the PC is barely a step closer to knowing anything more about their heritage or stopping the plans of the other Bhaalspawn children or keeping his/her father from being reincarnated through them. Disregarding that it is the longest of the "3" games (Throne of Bhaal in many ways constitutes a separate entry in the series given its plot developments) should seem like a simple side story or "one shot" as it were.



Next question: Does this inherently make the story weaker?

[glacier1701]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

So I question for those who don't think that the plot for ME2 moved forward the plot of the series as a whole: Did Baldur's Gate 2 also suffer the same issue? The plot of Baldur's Gate 2 was almost wholly separate from the larger Bhaalspawn plot. Irenicus was using the PC's Bhaalspawn taint as a means to their own end completely separate from the overriding storyline to the series. At the end of the game, the PC is barely a step closer to knowing anything more about their heritage or stopping the plans of the other Bhaalspawn children or keeping his/her father from being reincarnated through them. Disregarding that it is the longest of the "3" games (Throne of Bhaal in many ways constitutes a separate entry in the series given its plot developments) should seem like a simple side story or "one shot" as it were.

Next question: Does this inherently make the story weaker?

To be totally honest its been so long since I played the game I have completely forgotten what went on. Even your retelling of the plot for BG2 doesnt ring any bells for me. So I cant comment on your question. Since I cant do that perhaps you care to state your position on the ME2 topic and why you think that way.