570 réponses à ce sujet

[SurfaceBeneath]

glacier1701 wrote...

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.

Simply that Mass Effect is following the traditional 3 act story just as Baldur's Gate did. First act is for setting up the overarching plot, second act is for exploring the characters and the setting, third act is for resolution of the plot. I used the Baldur's Gate series as an example, since I figured it would share the most common ground among posters here being a Bioware series, and is the only other "trilogy" they've done. Plus, there are few here I think that would assault BG2's story as much as they do ME2's, which seems odd given the above similarities between them.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 16 mars 2010 - 10:06 .

[EricHVela]

I wouldn't say that ME2 did much exploration. It explored a couple of regions and definitely explored Asari (and touched on Krogans), it mainly focused on introducing a new set of things all over again IMHO aside from a little post-Reaper cleanup on the Citadel.

[smudboy]

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Regarding?
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Whether you think it's smart or stupid is irrelevant.  The fact we have knowledge of Cerberus from ME1 begs the question.  Double that if you're a Sole Survivor.  Triple that at the save base/destroy/"soul species" bull**** choice.
[quote]
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]
The useless party members aren't the issue, although that does still beg the question why doesn't Shepard start a mutiny, start arguing with TIM, Miranda (instead of just mentioning it), etc.  More proof that ME2 doesn't give a crap about ME1's base.
[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]
I don't worship it.  And I don't see why I need to play other games, BioWare's or otherwise, to understand that ME2's main plot is crap.  (Although I did enjoy the BG series.)

Wait, so ME1 is bad because it steals from different games?  What work of art doesn't steal from others?  What story doesn't?  What game?  Sorry if a TPS RPG space opera doesn't match your COMPLETELY ORIGINAL concept of what a "good" game should be.

I just want the damn plot to make sense.
[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]
I am not making an argument after the fact.  After the fact of what?

In that case, I am showing that those characters have leadership qualities.
[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]
And why not?
www.youtube.com/watch
Shepard: "I need you to help me take down the Collectors."
Samara: "The Collectors are a worthy foe.  I would relish testing myself against them.  But I seek an incredibly dangerous fugitive."
/
Shepard: "I'm going up against suicidal odds, and I need the best -- that's you."
Samara: "I sense the truth in what you say, and it humbles me.  But I seek an incredibly dangerous fugitive."

See, Samara just wants the name of that ship.  Possibly her Code compels her to Fight the Collectors, but either way, she'll come along.  I don't see ANY masterful leadership/influential skills by Shepard here, nor is the P/R system working.  Yeah.  That one sentence or ther other...whew...so influential.

Additionally when she is recruited:
www.youtube.com/watch
Jacob: "Welcome to the Normandy, Samara. We're studied your profile extensively.  With your skills I think you'll be an excellent addition to our team."
Samara: "Thank you.  From an organization such as yours, that is high praise indeed."

Seems she doesn't have a problem with Cerberus either.  Actually, seems she'd like to be recruited by a Cerberus fellow...


[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]
How about...maybe...you should?
www.youtube.com/watch

Miranda: "It wasn't Cerberus.  Not really.  But clearly you were a mistake."  She says this rather matter-of-factly, while Jack is clearly emotional.
P
Miranda: "I can put aside my differences, until the mission's over."
Miranda: "It's a good thing you came by when you did.  As long as she does her job, we'll be fine.  Thanks Shepard."
R
Miranda: "She can't be trusted Shepard.  She'll jeopardize the whole mission"
"Too bad, Jack."
Miranda: "Thank you.  Sorry about that...I hope she doesn't cause us more trouble than she's worth."
"Back off, Miranda."
Shepard: "Are we good?"
Miranda: "Not even remotely."

Miranda was pretty relaxed and not throwing CHAIRS at Jack.  She also wasn't swearing, and held her opinion regardless of Jack threatening to kill her.  She seems pretty cool and collected to me.

And since she's not the leader, why would she do mediation for you for anything?  God, I WISH Shepard had some personal issues.
[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]
Watch again.  Carefully.  Yes.  In the office.  Yeeees.
[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.
[/quote]
And I've shown that she's capable.

There's no indication that Shepard is necessary for the events of ME2, save to recruit Tali and possibly Garrus.

Anyone can recruit the rest.  So if that's the case: we don't really need Shepard.
[quote]
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]
As far as leadership goes, they're fine.  I'm not saying we can compare the resume of Mr. Savior of the Citadel, but we know Jacob's military career is similar to Shepard (probably not N7 status.)  Miranda is genetically superior and trusted by TIM with the most vital project.  Garrus can lead a team.

The argument was whether Shepard is replaceable as a leader.  And so far, I don't see how either of these folks can't do the same thing.  In the most case, Miranda or Jacob.  They could start recruiting the specialists and (aside from Tali and possibly Garrus), get them all.  Because Shepard shows no "Savior of the Citadel" recruitment skills in these instances.
[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.
[/quote]
So it's a setup because you may choose to save the base?  What if you destroy it?  Oh, I guess not then, huh.

A 5 second cutscene of the Reapers in the sky ...this is your ME2 proof that ME3 was beautifully set up?
[quote]
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]
All of which had nothing to do with the main plot, and could be totally skipped.  Ah huh.  Beautiful setup there.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
They're definitely less intelligent, since Baby Arnold's purpose and utility was never explained.  Although we could just blame the writer at that.   Either way, someone's doing stupid.
[quote]
4) Collectors kill you. They are employed by the Reapers. Kill them back. Very easy to follow.
[/quote]
...that's not the plot of ME2. If it were, it would be a story of revenge, which it isn't.
[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]
You don't have to.  Be as clear and simple as you like. We'd prefer it.
[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]
And this is where Shepard's AMAZING skills really shine.
Shepard: "Get in close and finish them off."
Jeff: "Actually I'm pretty happy maneuvering far away from them, Commander.  EDI's pretty good at targeting.  We can stay in a safe distance while our guns fire."
Shepard: "CHARGE!"

And the ship crash lands.  As opposed to.

Shepard: "Good, keep up those evasive maneuvers.  Keep firing!"
Jeff: "Hoo-ah!  Take that sons of ****es!"
Shepard: "Nice work.  Now maintain a steady orbit and start firing at that base."
[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.
[/quote]
Nukes.  Solve.  MANY things.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
The mission was to Fight the Collectors.  Nukes would most definitely do that.

Acquiring nukes would be more logical than acquiring random people.  Since our goal is to Fight the Collectors.

Your argument that you want to preserve the base is not applicable because 1) We want to Fight the Collectors, not Fight and Preserve the Collectors, 2) We don't know about the base till we actually got there, 3) Had we acquired bombs or nukes or whatever and we saw the base from orbit and had nukes, we'd destroy it. (psst: that's the plot.)
[quote]
Think of it like forging a dnd campaign. With 4 players, ...
[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHA!  Let's not and say we did.
[quote]
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]
Again, so what if they have technology?  So what if they destroy a probe, or a scanner, or whatever?  Every little bit of data, everything and anything you can learn about your enemy is going to help.  TIM has the money, time and resources to at least setup a goddamned satellite near the damn thing.  I'm not saying literally PARK YOUR FLEET there.  I'm saying SPY on them.

You know, information gathering.  That thing TIM does, best (supposedly.)

I wouldn't mind a mine field, either.
[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?
[/quote]
You just contradicted yourself.

Who said about NOT needing a ground team?  Everything you just stated, aside from the ignorant one about "knowing nothing about Ilos, like it being a PLANET", I stated.
[quote]
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]
Again you've contradicted yourself.
1) We do not know what kind of resistance is present there.  Yet you stated we know Saren is on Ilos. 
2) We can assume there'll be Geth there, 'cause 'Saren. How many we don't know.   BUT WE KNOW THEY'RE GETH (which says miles more of what the Suicide Mission does.)
3) We're cloaked.  They can't detect us.
4) We've gone into situations/planets like this before where we knew both Saren, the Geth and Sovereign were there.  We seem to be doing okay.
5) Saren and Shepard are racing to find the Conduit, and we've been hunting him down the entire time.  So now we'll just not race in there with the fate of the galaxy?

Compared to the Collector threat, this threat is immediate.  There's no "rush" to the Omega-4 relay.  You could argue the loss of your red-shirts, but we're going to go there anyway regardless.  Yet, all we know is the Collectors have a cruiser, SOMEWHERE.  We have NO data on post-Omega-4 relay.

And we really, really should.
[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]
The Atlasis example is comparable to finding the Conduit because we're trying to "find" and "discover" something.  We're not trying to hit an unknown target with ...our weapons...whatever they should be.  Do you get it yet?

There's no need for a bunch of soldiers, no matter how cool, when you've got a crew and a spaceship, unless we know we NEED a bunch of (cool) soldiers for a ground mission.

I am repeating myself.  Is this making sense?

Your argument is still "but what if", and you haven't changed it, because you think that is the most logical choice that in our spaceship, we're going to fight a ground war in Asia.
[quote]
See Atlantis example. It's not what you did find, but what you might have found.
[/quote]
The Atlantis exapmle doesn't apply to Fight the Collectors.  One is a mission of exploration, the other is a hired hit on...a ship?  A planet?  A base?  A species?  We simply don't know.

You: "But we'll be ready with our badass team of 11!"
Me: 
[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]
We knew we needed the Normandy to go somewhere?  What kind of point are you making here?

We knew Saren ahd Sovereign had a fleet.  Okay.  Space battle easier foreseeable.  Okay?  Where?  Are we talking about Ilos??
[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,[/quote]

Thank you!  End of discussion.
[quote]
#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]
This is a stupid argument. Who cares that your opposing force is technologically superior??????????????

What difference does that make?

Who cares if they can see through Stealth Systems?  If that's the case, DON'T EVEN BOTHER GOING THROUGH THE OMEGA-4 RELAY.  Who says we're going to sit there in the Normandy?  How about before the Normandy was ever made?  Couldn't TIM have a series of satellites monitoring the damn thing, disguised as, I don't know, meteors?

Camping the relay could mean anything.  It could be setting up a satellite.  It could be a mass effect field comm buoy, it could be having a really powerful telescope from Omega pointed directly at it, it could be Legion hanging around in space with a digital camera.  It could literally be anything to get ANY kind of info about wtf is going on.
[quote]
He's very much a smooth talker. I believe we go over in the beginning the whole Cerberus rebellion thing.
[/quote]
Which should've happened but didn't because the script didn't develop anything from ME1.
[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]
Since the goal is ambiguous, and we want to be very effective at that goal "Fighting the Collectors", that is, winning the fight, nukes seem the most logical and most effective.

Your 11 people argument for "prepared for everything" continues to fail with you spouting examples of biotics doing x, and techs doing y, assuming it'll become a ground war, because.
[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. [/quote]
There is no indication Sovereign could detect the Normandy.   This happens on Eden Prime and Virmire.  And if it could, it didn't seem to care.

So that means we're left with Saren and the Geth.  Both of which can't detect the Normandy.  I'm still not seeing a problem here.

We're NOT under the impression the Collectors had a base.  WE KNOW NOTHING past Omega-4.  God.

I don't care how many times "Shepard has dealt with enough ground team assignments to fully appreciate their utility."  That is irrelevant.  Although definitely one more example of why we don't need Shepard, and why he's replaceable, and thus, why ME2 threw ME1 down the tubes:

We certainly don't need his rockstar hero status. (argument: Tali.  Corollary: two other engineers, other Quarians, etc.)
We certainly don't need his ground-team-wtf you're talking about.
We certainly don't need his persuasive skills in recruiting/loyalizing these people.
We certainly don't need his Prothean Cipher.
We certainly don't need his first human Spectre status.

Modifié par smudboy, 16 mars 2010 - 10:44 .

[Sigma Tauri]

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?

It didn't make the story inherently weaker because Baldur's Gate 2 actually stood well on its own. The Bhaalspawn threat was farther than you think, because the prophecy was sung by the chanters at Candlekeep's Inner Sanctum. There was only two immediate threats at work: Sarevok and Amn. That differs from the Reaper threat, which was constantly looming over the galaxy. The main antagonists were basically the same, only through different representatives.  So, there was always an overall arching plot that ME has that BG lacked, and that disjointedness protected Baldur's Gate 2 from being a "weaker" connection for the series.

This doesn't mean BG2 didn't work like any second act of a trilogy. The intent was the same. Baldur's Gate 2 had you look further the threats of being a Bhaalspawn, only that John Irenicus is merely a catalyst. If I recall (in)correctly, he wasn't exactly final boss in the game, but rather a monsterous aspect of your tainted soul. Granted, Shepard's not exactly the bastard son of a dead god, but Shepard flew literally into Hell to fight something dark and gained something. I just happen to be stumped at what it is.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 16 mars 2010 - 11:29 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

monkeycamoran wrote...
It didn't make the story inherently weaker because Baldur's Gate 2 actually stood well on its own. The Bhaalspawn threat was farther than you think, because the prophecy was sung by the chanters at Candlekeep's Inner Sanctum. There was only two immediate threats at work: Sarevok and Amn. That differs from the Reaper threat, which was constantly looming over the galaxy. The main antagonists were basically the same, only through different representatives.  So, there was always an overall arching plot that ME has that BG lacked, and that disjointedness protected Baldur's Gate 2 from being a "weaker" connection for the series.

This doesn't mean BG2 didn't work like any second act of a trilogy. The intent was the same. Baldur's Gate 2 had you look further the threats of being a Bhaalspawn, only that John Irenicus is merely a catalyst. If I recall (in)correctly, he wasn't exactly final boss in the game, but rather a monsterous aspect of your tainted soul. Granted, Shepard's not exactly the bastard son of a dead god, but Shepard flew literally into Hell to fight something dark and gained something. I just happen to be stumped at what it is.

Firstly, let me just answer the thing you were unsure of in this post, Irenicus was in fact the last boss of the game. He used your taint to turn into the Slayer, but it was still him.

Secondly, I disagree that Baldur's Gate didn't have a strong overarching plot. The entire series was always about the Bhaalspawn, as evidenced from the first moments in Candlekeep where you hear the prophecy of Alaundo (sp?). The only way Baldur's Gate differed from Mass Effect in the dealing of its overarching plot is that the overarching plot was less obvious from the beginning and more puzzled out throughout the first and third installments. Whereas with Mass Effect, the cards are layed out pretty clearly on the table and, barring any large plot twists in the third game, the overall objective is clear from the start.

You say that Baldur's Gate 2's story held up on it's own, and I do not disagree, but consider the similarities between Baldur's Gate 2 and Mass Effect 2. Most of both of the time spent in game is doing "optional" side missions that had little to do even within the self contained story of the game, represented in ME2's loyalty missions and BG2's Act 2, 3, and 6's giant side quests (D'Arnise Keep, Trademeet, Firkraag's Den, etc). The main plot of BG2 is only tangentally related to the overall plot of the series as a whole, which ended up being having the protagonist chase down Irenicus. At least on the surface it was tangental. In actuality, the interference of Irenicus allowed the protagonist to learn about the Bhaalspawn taint and thus they could take steps to master it in preparation for the final act, when such knowledge became crucial. This is mirrored in Mass Effect 2, where the Collector menace is, at the surface, tangental to the overall Reaper plot. However, the Collectors serve as a catalyst for Shepard to learn about not only some potentially crucial information about "Why" the Reapers do what they do, but also learn about the galaxy around them and make connections that will prove potentially necessary in the third game.

Points to consider.

[FlintlockJazz]

monkeycamoran wrote...

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?

It didn't make the story inherently weaker because Baldur's Gate 2 actually stood well on its own. The Bhaalspawn threat was farther than you think, because the prophecy was sung by the chanters at Candlekeep's Inner Sanctum. There was only two immediate threats at work: Sarevok and Amn. That differs from the Reaper threat, which was constantly looming over the galaxy. The main antagonists were basically the same, only through different representatives.  So, there was always an overall arching plot that ME has that BG lacked, and that disjointedness protected Baldur's Gate 2 from being a "weaker" connection for the series.

This doesn't mean BG2 didn't work like any second act of a trilogy. The intent was the same. Baldur's Gate 2 had you look further the threats of being a Bhaalspawn, only that John Irenicus is merely a catalyst. If I recall (in)correctly, he wasn't exactly final boss in the game, but rather a monsterous aspect of your tainted soul. Granted, Shepard's not exactly the bastard son of a dead god, but Shepard flew literally into Hell to fight something dark and gained something. I just happen to be stumped at what it is.

No, he was the final boss, the ending cutscene even confirms it as you see Irenicus stuck in hell after you defeated him as he says "To end like this!" before being killed by some demon dogs.  It also didn't really progress the main plot any more than ME2 did, you had a bunch of dreams and fought with some guy who wanted your soul.  You find out the meaning of this in Throne of Bhaal, just as we may find out the meaning of alot of the stuff in ME2 in ME3.  The Bhaalspawn was something you find out in BG1 like you find out about reapers in ME1, at about the same point even I believe, and the ending implies heavily on the implications of being a Bhaalspawn, which I can confirm as I have been playing through it again these last few days.  

BG2 was in essence a reset the same way ME2 was, except that none of your choices carried over, with several characters that you may have killed being alive and well in BG2 (they even included the option to ask "Aren't you dead?" to some of them as a joke and a nod to this).  ME2 actually carries it over better than BG2 did, as the only thing you kept from BG1 was your experience and a couple of items (golden pantaloons being one of them), and the capture by Irenicus serves the same purpose as Shepard's resurrection.

[JediPilot0]

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

I actually agree with this, and it's partly why I think the ME2 plot turned out the way it did. It's like they have no experience in writing plots that deviate from the [have vision] + [become jedi] + [ancient civilization] forumula.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Not quite the same thing. Those people are killed within the confines of one story. At the end, Ripley is alive. This means that continuing on in the series, she is a main character, and you can expect her to be involved in the future. In ALIENS (Which I do like better than the first, but not becuase of anything negative) we end with the whole group. This means that going further, they are main characters.

Except that because the movies are all made by different people (sadly), the guy making Alien 3 kills off our characters at the beginning, in an anti-climactic way. I have no problem with characters dying but they should go out with a bang if you're invested in them.

ME2 does the same thing. It removes all our most of the main/supporting characters that we spent all that time with and ended ME1 with into minor roles. Anderson was crucial in ME1 and here, you barely say anything to him.

And you did't answer this question: "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 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?
[/quote]

Almost. Participating in an epic battle on the citadel while the coucil fleets battle sovereign and then shephard dying in a routine Geth patrol with no player input and being resurrected 5 minutes later with a new ship is still poor no matter how you put it. You can't throw out the main character in such an anti-climactic way. All my work to keep Shepard alive doesn't matter, and DYING doesn't matter because we're brought right back to life.

I've said elsewhere that if they wanted to kill off Shepard for the story, they should have offed him at the end of the first game when debris crashed into the tower. That would be the main hero going down in an epic battle at the climax of the story. Killing him in the opening credits and then resurrecting him in the opening credits makes me think not only did they not plan this out, but WTF are they doing!?

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

But they didn't have to kill Shepard to do that.

Regardless of my death, the Terminus doesn't recognize the Council, so why throw out our allies in Council space, too? The council could have backed a mission into the Terminus systems and at least have a plausible reason for not helping me much (can't intervene too much in the Terminus). Instead, they just deny everything again. Just.....why, Bioware? Why throw out almost every single ally I worked to gain into the background?

Answer?: Because new players need a fresh start, too.

And you know what? That's probably why they didn't advance the plot very much. So new players in ME3 can have a fresh start, too. Save all the answers until the end, that way your ENTIRE player base (veterans and new ME players) can get their answers. I bet that's what they had in mind when they wrote ME2's story. That way any reboot won't have to be as blatant when the next game rolls around.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Why WOULD you assume the Human Reaper fills the same role? You're constantly pointing out that they are "obsessed" with Shepard. How do we know this is not a unique response to said obsession that they've never felt before? Still a plothole that bio-goop wasn't found on any of the other two Reapers.

No answers. We still have to guess wtf they were doing.

And how the hell do you "fail" to repurpose a species into a Reaper? You're just blending everyhing up into paste. What, is there actually a "reaper-killing" gene that Reaper tech responds to? Please. And the Protheans successfully stopped the Reaper's citadel plan for the first time ever, AND managed to completely reverse-engineer reaper tech AND were instrumental in helping us understand just what's at stake. But shucks, the Reapers just can't seem to get their machine's working with Prothean goop. Darn it.

We don't know if these "trophy Reapers" are regular reapers or just super reapers that are examples of strong species.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

For the Reapers being as mysterious as you want them to be, everyone sure seems to "know" what they are up to. I really doubt TIM has any authority on what makes a Reaper tick.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.'
[/quote]

My mistake. But I think we have to be careful with the word "respect," and how TIM seems to know how a Reaper thinks. TIM could have said "You killed one of them. They must keep that in mind." "Respect" implies that Shephard is held in some kind of esteem for the Reapers that we just can't assert. You don't have to respect your enemy's power, but you should be aware of what they are capable of. TIM is pushing it a bit here.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Except that they don't just harvest them, they use them to do their deeds.

But yes, I agree that harvesting organics is creepy, and I really liked the Scions and Preatorians. That suggests twisted, horrible experiments with humans. Seeing all those human skulls and sacks of flesh is horrific.

But human goo? That's a bit cartooney. And good thing it just "doesn't work" with Protheans. Hard to imagine they wouldn't be able to weld together prothean body parts for Scion or Preatorean equivalents. But the goo just "didn't work." Yup.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.  
[/quote]

If the Reapers built themselves, then they are even more retarded for requiring organic "goop" to function. What can a reaper with organic soup do that a purely electrical one can't? This is why "to reproduce" is a non-answer. You're just pushing the question farther back. There must be a reason they were built to use this goop. Surely you could make more purely mechanical reapers in a few years as opposed to waiting for 50000 year cycles to happen!

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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.
[/quote]

Honestly, I can't comment further because I've only played up to HL2, so your example is lost on me. Not anyone's fault.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Directly? We haven't challenged them directly yet.
[/quote]

ARG. I mean we are stopping plots that we KNOW are Reaper related. In HL we don't necesarily know if we're foiling a G-Man plot. Anyway, as I said I'm behind in HL, but this is why the Reapers are being used differently than the G-Man. In HL1 or HL2, at the end of the game, did you go "YEAH, suck it, G-Man!"? No, because as opposed to the Reapers, we didn't know at those points what (if anything) the Gman was involved in. That's why I'm saying it's not right to compare the two.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
[quote] JediPilot0 wrote....
Error, does not follow. You're still making up that rule. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

I don't need a counter example to disprove faulty logic. By definition, faulty logic does that on it's own.

You present a false dichotomy: Either ALL squadmates have to be tied to the generic army, or NONE of them can be at all. Where is this a rule? I'm complaining that nobody is personally tied to the collectors. This strange idea that you have that they need to have a front man in order for all my squadmates to tie to the collectors just is a non-sequiter. I already came up with one example for ONE teamate to be tied to the collectors: loved one abducted. This even can serve as a counter example to your dichotomy you fabricated.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
But I'm not arguing whether they were involved in the main plot, but whether any necessitated a role as a party member.
[/quote]

Okay, well I'm kind of saying that I can excuse their necessity as a party member because they were instrumetal in helping me stop saren OR at least were involved in an emotional moment in the story. If one of those two conditions is satisfied, personally I am content.

You cannot take Tali out of the story because then you don't have evidence. Yesss I suppose you are correct that not joining the party would not effect your mission GOING FORWARD, but she still had to help. And Quarians are tied to the Geth pretty strongly.

Garrus is a little strange. C-Sec was helping you investigate. You're judging Garrus's role AFTER the fact that he failed to help you. The point still stands, he was TRYING to help. When you played for the first time, you see an ally there helping you, stalling for more time. You can't just throw him out becuase his investigation failed.

Let's do a little thought experiment. We'll see what happens if each member is removed (but only one is missing from the story at a time. We're not removing everyone until there is no-ne left, becuase that would be stupid. Each person is replaced after we remove them. We're only ever missing one squadmate at a time):

ME2:
Remove only Samara from the game. Completely. Everyone else stays: ME2's plot is unchanged.
Remove only Thane. Everyone else stays: ME2 plot unchanged.
Remove Miranda: Well, no Lazarus. So she's crucial to the plot. Her existance is crucial
Remove Jacob: Well, he doesn't do much, but he's security at Lazarus. He can be crucial, I guess.
Remove Mordin: Obviously need him for seeker swarms. His existance is crucial
Remove Samara: Whoops, already can. We can take Morinth. Neither of their existance is crucial, even if we couldn't swap Samara out. Just taking out their slot changes nothing
Remove Jack: Story doesn't change
Remove Garrus: Story doesn't change
Remove Tali: Story doesn't change

ME1:
Remove Garrus: C-Sec doesn't try and investigate? Are they retards? Story changes. This is a plot point, whether or not they were successful, at least they tried. Garrus even was looking for Tali.
Remove Tali: Can't get evidence against Saren. Story changes
Remove Wrex: Story changes. Kirahee an company are not worried about a renegade krogan messing up their plan to stop Saren. We'll still win, but how we advance through Virmire changes slightly. This is the weakest though.
Remove Ashely/Kaiden: Kaiden/Ashely situation doesn't play out. Don't have to make a choice about going back for the nuke or not. Ashley also leads you to the dig site on Eden Prime
Remove Liara: Can't understand beacon visions. Can't find Ilos. Story changed.

So everyone in ME1 at least was involved in the main story. Removing them changes the story. Removing the ME2 squaddies does not, except for the 3 mentioned.

Yes, not all ME1 squaddies needed to be brought with me (Tali/Garrus), but they are all crucial to the narrative either way. The ME2 squaddies are not crucial to the narrative at all (save the 3), and they are only used as replaceable soldeirs in the final misson. NONE of the 8 "neccessitated" a role as a party member, either. And you didn't address something else I said. I'll start a new comment.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 17 mars 2010 - 12:15 .

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...
I just want the damn plot to make sense.

Sir, I think you want much more than that.  You seem to want the plot that is almost perfect and I don't think you will  get a plot like that in a computer game anytime soon (ME1 has it's deal of plotwise problems as well).

Like someone mentioned before me, I think this thread passed the absurd threshold a long time ago and we are at the point where ME2's plot is taken apart and analyzed with the zeal worthy of bible researchers. I don't think that's the point here.
The point is: either the plot (with all of its flaws) is believable enough for you or it's not, end of story. While I can agree that smudboy has a point here and there, I still found the plot of ME 2 to be enjoyable (to say the least). I also think that the ending with terminator-like human Reaper (or whatever you wish to call it) did advance the plot, because it gave us a vague idea of the Reapers' motives )and hinted that the final battle is closer than one might think). Many consider these motives to be silly, but I'll wait with the final verdict until I see the whole picture.

Now just my two cents on the matter of Shepard's relevance to the plot and the whole idea of the suicide mission.
When I was playing the game I got the impression that Shepard is not only important because of his symbolic status etc., but because TIM is using him as some kind of bait for the Reapers and a smoke screen for his true goals, goals which obviously aren't restricted to defeating the Reapers.  However smudboy has a point that Shepards status and importance was downplayed and  could've been more stressed out (not that it bothered me that much).
As for the suicide mission, as I recall there are places in the story where it is mentioned what the mission will involve and what is probably past the Omega 4 Relay (speculations of course, but just a little more vague than those about the Conduit in ME1), besides TIM obviously knew much more than he was letting on, so I'm not quite sure if it really was "a trip to the unknown with a random squad of supersoldiers". Just my thoughts.

[JediPilot0]

And you didn't respond to these, though I understand that you are arguing the "preparedness" for the Omega Relay with Smudboy. I will repost. My arguments still stand regarding these:

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Listen to yourself. 'Camp the Omega IV relay'. Really? Against the Collectors, who were able to see through the Normandy's stealth systems, who have technology more advanced than even the Council, who've managed to keep anyone from crossing through the relay before that.

But charging INTO the Omega IV relay is better than trying to fortify the relay's exit with ships, mines, etc.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
And I still would like a response to Shepard's excuse for carelessly chasing after Saren on Virmire. He had no knowledge of what he was going to find once arriving, whether a Geth fleet, a desolate planet or whatever. I'd call that 'no details'.
.............
 Did we honestly know it was going to be a ground mission? Saren could easily have been inside Sovereign in space at the time.
............
You could have reached Ilos, have Sovereign detect you, and blow you to tiny pieces.

-Yes, we knew it was a ground mission. The "Conduit is on Ilos!"
-We knew the enemy: Geth, Sovereign, Saren (which our steath systems have handled on Virmire already)
-We have a stealth ship to evade detection. We managed to sneak onto Virmire, Saren's base of operations (where sovereign was btw) but can't handle an expedition of his to another planet?

So there was nothing careless about it.

The OmegaIV Relay on the other hand:

-We've only seen ONE Collector ship. No idea what class of ship it is or if there are more
-NO idea what we'll find on the other side: planet? Huge fleet of collector ships? More relays? A huge meetal wall? A huge gun pointed at the relay? Their home planet full of defensive weapons? Good thing I've got a Biotic Specialist and my Assassin!

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
 I am on a baseball team. I forgot to buy baseball cleats, a bat, and a glove. I do not perform up to par because of this. Next time, I know to prepare for baseball.

This is a bad analogy. It's more like you are visiting a contry you've never heard of, assume they play ANY sports, and bring a random collection of sports equipment from sports you know: Basketball, baseball bat, golf club, tennis raquet. Turns out they play some sport call "blah blah blah" and you need hoops and green socks to play. And each team needs their own baboon.

There's just no way to pretend this is good preparation. We're operating in complete ignorance of what to expect. As said earlier, there's no reason not to send at least a probe into the relay. Slap a quantum entaglement link on it so you can at least control it and bring it back, THEN you can prepare.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 16 mars 2010 - 11:56 .

[Sigma Tauri]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Firstly, let me just answer the thing you were unsure of in this post, Irenicus was in fact the last boss of the game. He used your taint to turn into the Slayer, but it was still him.

Secondly, I disagree that Baldur's Gate didn't have a strong overarching plot. The entire series was always about the Bhaalspawn, as evidenced from the first moments in Candlekeep where you hear the prophecy of Alaundo (sp?). The only way Baldur's Gate differed from Mass Effect in the dealing of its overarching plot is that the overarching plot was less obvious from the beginning and more puzzled out throughout the first and third installments. Whereas with Mass Effect, the cards are layed out pretty clearly on the table and, barring any large plot twists in the third game, the overall objective is clear from the start.

You say that Baldur's Gate 2's story held up on it's own, and I do not disagree, but consider the similarities between Baldur's Gate 2 and Mass Effect 2. Most of both of the time spent in game is doing "optional" side missions that had little to do even within the self contained story of the game, represented in ME2's loyalty missions and BG2's Act 2, 3, and 6's giant side quests (D'Arnise Keep, Trademeet, Firkraag's Den, etc). The main plot of BG2 is only tangentally related to the overall plot of the series as a whole, which ended up being having the protagonist chase down Irenicus. At least on the surface it was tangental. In actuality, the interference of Irenicus allowed the protagonist to learn about the Bhaalspawn taint and thus they could take steps to master it in preparation for the final act, when such knowledge became crucial. This is mirrored in Mass Effect 2, where the Collector menace is, at the surface, tangental to the overall Reaper plot. However, the Collectors serve as a catalyst for Shepard to learn about not only some potentially crucial information about "Why" the Reapers do what they do, but also learn about the galaxy around them and make connections that will prove potentially necessary in the third game.

Points to consider.

Thank you. That was the name the Slayer! I always assumed that Irenicus has taken that form as a tangible way to battle the predestination associated with your cursed heritage. Yes, I don't disagree it's Irenicus. The ending made sure of that. But, the battle had dual purpose:to defeat  the immediate threat (Irenicus) and your own taint (Slayer).

Nothing you said I really disagreed with. Evidently, the emphasis on Bhaalspawn (I'm so tempted to say Darkspawn) is clear in all three acts. It's just that the constants that make the games' respective protagonists special differ in their role.

I'm glad you pointed those similarities out though. I thought I was the only one.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
BG2 was in essence a reset the same way
ME2 was, except that none of your choices carried over, with
several characters that you may have killed being alive and well in BG2
(they even included the option to ask "Aren't you dead?" to some of them
as a joke and a nod to this).  ME2 actually carries it over better than
BG2 did, as the only thing you kept from BG1 was your experience and a
couple of items (golden pantaloons being one of them), and the capture
by Irenicus serves the same purpose as Shepard's resurrection.

It's an evolution on the idea of importing.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 17 mars 2010 - 12:11 .

[Knoll Argonar]

Answer?: Because new players need a fresh start, too.

And you know what? That's probably why they didn't advance the plot very much. So new players in ME3 can have a fresh start, too. Save all the answers until the end, that way your ENTIRE player base (veterans and new ME players) can get their answers. I bet that's what they had in mind when they wrote ME2's story. That way any reboot won't have to be as blatant when the next game rolls around.

Okay, sorry about all your nice walls of text but off topic ->

I think they actually made the trilogy like this because if they didn't, ME3 would be literally impossible to make, not (only) because of new players. Right know, there's a possibility that a lot of characters that could or couldn't be there in ME3 (because they died/they didn't) could take somewhat important role in his/THE plot, and make a difference.

It's been discussed in a hell of a lot of topics right know, go and read them if you didn't yet and you want are interested or you are asking "how?".

Anyway, someone did some maths:

Variables in ME1 could create like 3-4 different outcomes. Variables in ME2, due to how the game was done, can lead to 12+ different outcomes. That's why a hell of a lot of them were "begun" there but not completed.

Well, that's it *runs*


EDIT:

PD: LOL you're just killing BaladasDemnevanni by post overload lol

Modifié par Knoll Argonar, 17 mars 2010 - 12:18 .

[FlintlockJazz]

JediPilot0 wrote...

ME1:
Remove Garrus: C-Sec doesn't try and investigate? Are they retards? Story changes. This is a plot point, whether or not they were successful, at least they tried. Garrus even was looking for Tali.
Remove Tali: Can't get evidence against Saren. Story changes
Remove Wrex: Story changes. Kirahee an company are not worried about a renegade krogan messing up their plan to stop Saren. We'll still win, but how we advance through Virmire changes slightly. This is the weakest though.
Remove Ashely/Kaiden: Kaiden/Ashely situation doesn't play out. Don't have to make a choice about going back for the nuke or not. Ashley also leads you to the dig site on Eden Prime
Remove Liara: Can't understand beacon visions. Can't find Ilos. Story changed.

Taken a few liberties there.  Garrus is completely optional, some people can play through the game without picking him up.  It is also obvious that you missed out on the important fact that Garrus isn't working with C-Sec when he joins you, he's left it because they wouldn't investigate Saren.  So remove Garrus, no change to ME1 plot, completely unnnecessary.

The use of giving Tali the evidence was merely a plot device to get her to join you, they could quite easily have killed her and had you find the evidence on her if they so chose, or to have it stored on some computer somewhere.  Can be removed.

Wrex is also completely optional, again some people don't bring him along in many playthroughs.  Not necessary to the plot at all.

Ashley/Kaidan choice is contrived.  It also doesn't further the overall plot, its just a hard choice you have to make as to which one you want to keep.  Ashley doesn't lead you to the beacon as it was moved after she left.  The one that activates it is the opposite gender to Shepard, making the other character completely pointless.

Liara is the only one really necessary, and even then it could be argued that her role could be done by any asari (I won't argue it though, gotta allow one character to be necessary ).

[JediPilot0]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Garrus is completely optional, some people can play through the game without picking him up.  It is also obvious that you missed out on the important fact that Garrus isn't working with C-Sec when he joins you, he's left it because they wouldn't investigate Saren.  So remove Garrus, no change to ME1 plot, completely unnnecessary.

But he was working for c-sec while investigating saren (he's arguing with executive palin). He quits later.

Remember there's two things to consider here:

1- Do I need them on my team?
2- Were they involved in the main plot.

Don't confust the two. You don't need Garrus on your team, but he is part of the main story. He's the c-sec officer investigating Saren. Remove him and it makes C-Sec and the council look like even bigger fools for not even opening up an investigation at all.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
The use of giving Tali the evidence was merely a plot device to get her to join you, they could quite easily have killed her and had you find the evidence on her if they so chose, or to have it stored on some computer somewhere.  Can be removed.

You said it yourself. She was a plot device (condition #2, above). Part of the plot. Can't remove her and have the same plot. Dead or alive. You can't say this for the majority of the ME2 characters. Dead or alive, does Samara matter? No.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Wrex is also completely optional, again some people don't bring him along in many playthroughs.  Not necessary to the plot at all.

Well, I said his involvement was weak, but it does change how the virmire mission plays out (condition # 2). I'm not saying Wrex is a big deal though, but it's still much more than the ME2 squaddies, who are interchangeable in the story missions.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Ashley/Kaidan choice is contrived.  It also doesn't further the overall plot, its just a hard choice you have to make as to which one you want to keep.  Ashley doesn't lead you to the beacon as it was moved after she left.  The one that activates it is the opposite gender to Shepard, making the other character completely pointless.

So because the beacon was moved that means her leading you to an empty dig site is not part of the story? Remove her and you have no idea where the dig site is.

I am willing to concede that Ashely/kaided choice is about the same as the ME2 ending interchangable squadmates, except that one is a potiential love interest..

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Liara is the only one really necessary, and even then it could be argued that her role could be done by any asari

But if you take Liara out, you don't understand the beacons or have her input on protheans. Can't take that out.

Holy god, I'm tired of typing.

[smudboy]

rhistel wrote...
Sir, I think you want much more than that.  You seem to want the plot that is almost perfect and I don't think you will  get a plot like that in a computer game anytime soon (ME1 has it's deal of plotwise problems as well).

I think an intelligible, clear plot would do it for me.  As a sequel, it obviously needs a bit more, but still that.

[rhistel]

smudboy wrote...
I think an intelligible, clear plot would do it for me.  As a sequel, it obviously needs a bit more, but still that.

Well that is a lot to ask for, really
But seriously I think ME2 did it's job as the second part of a trilogy, which is stirring things up a bit, giving some issues a brand new perspective and raising some annoying questions. If things won't clear up before I see the end credits for the third game, only then will I be disappointed.

[JediPilot0]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Anyway, someone did some maths:

Variables in ME1 could create like 3-4 different outcomes. Variables in ME2, due to how the game was done, can lead to 12+ different outcomes. That's why a hell of a lot of them were "begun" there but not completed.

I think the math is off. There are a LOT more combinations then that. Even ignoring surviving squadmates and just plot related stuff. ME2 exploded. And you can begin and compete a plotline without needing a choice necessarily. Don't see why they kept everything off. Anyway, yeah, it's off topic.

Knoll Argonar wrote...
PD: LOL you're just killing BaladasDemnevanni by post overload lol

I know. I feel kinda bad for him. We proably have to end this soon. Even I'm kinda sick of it.

but

HE"S WRONG  ;P

Modifié par JediPilot0, 17 mars 2010 - 05:11 .

[JediPilot0]

rhistel wrote...
But seriously I think ME2 did it's job as the second part of a trilogy, which is stirring things up a bit, giving some issues a brand new perspective and raising some annoying questions. If things won't clear up before I see the end credits for the third game, only then will I be disappointed.

Are you REALLY going to enter 19 pages into a thread and get us to start over? Go back about 15+ pages and you'll see discussion about your views, which were shared by others. Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you're after. Not being mean, just saying.

Good luck sorting through everything. Don't envy you.

[jasonontko]

I agree with OP, you know me.

[Knoll Argonar]

JediPilot0 wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Anyway, someone did some maths:

Variables in ME1 could create like 3-4 different outcomes. Variables in ME2, due to how the game was done, can lead to 12+ different outcomes. That's why a hell of a lot of them were "begun" there but not completed.

I think the math is off. There are a LOT more combinations then that. Even ignoring surviving squadmates and just plot related stuff. ME2 exploded. And you can begin and compete a plotline without needing a choice necessarily. Don't see why they kept everything off. Anyway, yeah, it's off topic.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
PD: LOL you're just killing BaladasDemnevanni by post overload lol

I know. I feel kinda bad for him. We proably have to end this soon. Even I'm kinda sick of it.

but

HE"S WRONG  ;P

No, I don't say that the one who talked about 12+ outcomes was referencing the real ME2. He said that, if there were some as many "important" choices as in ME1, ME3 would be a mess. "Thanks" to what ME2 is, ME3 can still be possible.

Hell, i didn't say it crearly. Myyy bad. Spain sucks.

I'll have to look for that post... someday =/

[JediPilot0]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

No, I don't say that the one who talked about 12+ outcomes was referencing the real ME2. He said that, if there were some as many "important" choices as in ME1, ME3 would be a mess. "Thanks" to what ME2 is, ME3 can still be possible.

I understand what you're saying now.

ME2 doesn't open up many new major game-changing threads, because there's only a few MAJOR choices, but the problems are most of the choices in the game are actually either in optional sidequests (exploding the possiblities), or are related to allies who can now ALL be killed (exploding the possibliltes, or making them minor characters again)

It's really insane how much they either have to work on or (more likely) brush off to the side.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 17 mars 2010 - 01:32 .

[FlintlockJazz]

JediPilot0 wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Anyway, someone did some maths:

Variables in ME1 could create like 3-4 different outcomes. Variables in ME2, due to how the game was done, can lead to 12+ different outcomes. That's why a hell of a lot of them were "begun" there but not completed.

I think the math is off. There are a LOT more combinations then that. Even ignoring surviving squadmates and just plot related stuff. ME2 exploded. And you can begin and compete a plotline without needing a choice necessarily. Don't see why they kept everything off. Anyway, yeah, it's off topic.

FlintlockJazz wrote...
PD: LOL you're just killing BaladasDemnevanni by post overload lol

I know. I feel kinda bad for him. We proably have to end this soon. Even I'm kinda sick of it.

but

HE"S WRONG  ;P

Excuse me, I did not say that at all.  Please do not quote someone and make BS as to what they are saying.

[Terraneaux]

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?

In BG II, at least I cared when Imoen got kidnapped.  If the Virmire survivor or Liara had gotten abducted by the Collectors, the plot might have mattered more to me - it would have been more personal.  

[FlintlockJazz]

[quote]JediPilot0 wrote...

[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...

Garrus is completely optional, some people can play through the game without picking him up.  It is also obvious that you missed out on the important fact that Garrus isn't working with C-Sec when he joins you, he's left it because they wouldn't investigate Saren.  So remove Garrus, no change to ME1 plot, completely unnnecessary.
[/quote]

But he was working for c-sec while investigating saren (he's arguing with executive palin). He quits later.

Remember there's two things to consider here:

1- Do I need them on my team?
2- Were they involved in the main plot.

Don't confust the two. You don't need Garrus on your team, but he is part of the main story. He's the c-sec officer investigating Saren. Remove him and it makes C-Sec and the council look like even bigger fools for not even opening up an investigation at all.[/quote]

You are missing the point.  You can choose not to accept him at all, therefore as a teammate he is unnecessary.  Also, he is working against orders when he chooses to investigate Saren, he is being told not to by his C-Sec leaders, so actually your point is contradictory since it show that C-Sec isn't investigating Saren.  Again, its an unimportant side story that could have been done without.

[quote]JediPilot0 wrote...
[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...
The use of giving Tali the evidence was merely a plot device to get her to join you, they could quite easily have killed her and had you find the evidence on her if they so chose, or to have it stored on some computer somewhere.  Can be removed.
[/quote]

You said it yourself. She was a plot device (condition #2, above). Part of the plot. Can't remove her and have the same plot. Dead or alive. You can't say this for the majority of the ME2 characters. Dead or alive, does Samara matter? No.[/quote]
[/quote]

I said that it was a plot device to make her join you, not that she was there to further the plot.  The devs gave her the data in order to make you pick her up, not because she was the only one who could get the data.

[quote]JediPilot0 wrote...
[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...
Wrex is also completely optional, again some people don't bring him along in many playthroughs.  Not necessary to the plot at all.
[/quote]

Well, I said his involvement was weak, but it does change how the virmire mission plays out (condition # 2). I'm not saying Wrex is a big deal though, but it's still much more than the ME2 squaddies, who are interchangeable in the story missions.
[/quote]

The fact that you can go to Virmire without Wrex proves that it doesn't, since you can avoid picking him up at all.  The impact on Virmire is solely for his character benefit and without him isn't needed and does not make any difference.  The ME2 squaddies bring different things to the missions depending on who you bring in the same way this plays out, try taking Tali on the reaper ship for instance when you pick up Legion.

[quote]JediPilot0 wrote...
[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...
Ashley/Kaidan choice is contrived.  It also doesn't further the overall plot, its just a hard choice you have to make as to which one you want to keep.  Ashley doesn't lead you to the beacon as it was moved after she left.  The one that activates it is the opposite gender to Shepard, making the other character completely pointless.
[/quote]

So because the beacon was moved that means her leading you to an empty dig site is not part of the story? Remove her and you have no idea where the dig site is.

I am willing to concede that Ashely/kaided choice is about the same as the ME2 ending interchangable squadmates, except that one is a potiential love interest..
[/quote]

No its an unimportant part of the story as you would've found it regardless.  She doesn't lead you to the dig site, she tells you that it was last seen at the dig site, which you were headed to anyway.

If being a potential LI makes them important then the six LIs in ME2 are therefore just as important solely for that reason.

[quote]JediPilot0 wrote...
[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...
Liara is the only one really necessary, and even then it could be argued that her role could be done by any asari
[/quote]

But if you take Liara out, you don't understand the beacons or have her input on protheans. Can't take that out.

Holy god, I'm tired of typing.

[/quote]

Her input is not necessary.  I never take her along on the missions and yet I still manage to get through the game, and the only imput she gives is doing the mind thing on you.  She is not described as the only asari prothean expert in the galaxy, and the asari Shiala who gives you the cipher on Feros is possibly just as capable of doing all the same stuff.

And if you are tired of typing then don't.  People are going to have differing opinions no matter what you say, if you are not posting purely for the discussion of different points of view but rather to try to 'convert' people to your way of thinking then you should stop since you are just going to waste your time.

[glacier1701]

FlintlockJazz,



You missed the point of the post entirely. It is not necessary to fulfill BOTH conditions as you seem to keep on saying but only to meet 1 of them. Your arguements highlight the fact that they dont meet BOTH conditions and thus you actually validate the point of the first post.



So to bring you back into line here are the conditions:



1- Do I need them on my team?

2- Were they involved in the main plot.



What you need to see is the word OR between 1 and 2 not AND.







Knoll,



Well the problem with what you say about variables is true. However I believe Casey himself has said that that was the challenge that they wanted to set themselves and suceed at. So the only ones who are at fault if they do not deliver is BioWare. And from what we have seen they do look like they say one thing and are trying to do something else completely.

[FlintlockJazz]

glacier1701 wrote...

FlintlockJazz,

You missed the point of the post entirely. It is not necessary to fulfill BOTH conditions as you seem to keep on saying but only to meet 1 of them. Your arguements highlight the fact that they dont meet BOTH conditions and thus you actually validate the point of the first post.

So to bring you back into line here are the conditions:

1- Do I need them on my team?
2- Were they involved in the main plot.

What you need to see is the word OR between 1 and 2 not AND.

Dude, I know what I'm talking about but great assumptions mate.  I argued that both Garrus and Ashley/Kaidan fail both those conditions if you had actually read my post.  How about you actually point out where I am wrong instead of making blanket claims about my post which you would know if you actually read my post.  Many of the  characters in both ME1 and ME2 fail to meet one or both of the conditions and many do. 

Please, if you are going to try and flame me by claiming that I am not reading it right how about you do the courtesy and do the same?  If you had instead brought forward points that did prove my points wrong then you would have contributed something to the discussion, but instead you didn't, you tried to be clever and didn't even attempt to explain why I am not addressing the issue.  Making blanket claims does not help your argument.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 17 mars 2010 - 02:40 .