570 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Edit: Nevermind, accidental post.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 mars 2010 - 04:55 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

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

Was it necessary that the Council sent you to track Saren? Why not request a private audience with the Council, show them Tali's evidence, then have them lead Saren back on false pretenses in order to capture him without the hassle of an investigation? If I recall, the Council wasn't fully interested in finding the Conduit anyway.

I point out the issue of the Omega IV relay for this reason. The Collectors are already shown to be able to see through the Normandy's stealth systems, successfully destroying it. We also know they have 'extremely' advanced technology. If TIM had said, 'we so far have been unable to track any Collector activity within vicinity of the Omega IV relay' would that be enough for you? The Normandy Sr-2 was a hushed project designed with the height of technology in mind and it barely holds up to the Collectors without upgrades.  I'm not saying that charging in is the very best idea, but when given the choice between two bad ideas, you always go for whichever is less. In this case, no info can be gotten through tracking, so a scouting party is needed in this case the Normandy Sr-2 was used.

At this point, there is also a greater issue to worry about. I don't recall it being stipulated when exactly TIM planned on sending you beyond the Omega IV relay, merely 'after you obtained the Reaper IFF', at which point most of your crew is taken. At this point, you now have greater motivation to go beyond the relay one way or another, without the possibility of greater info.

-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.

I want to quickly go over the capabilities of the Normandy's stealth systems. By 'stealth' it is not entirely invisible. It merely dulls the heat signatures for approximately 2-3 hours, after which point heat must be vented. It's revolutionary technology, but still not perfect. It also only works against heat sensors. As the Codex explains, anyone staring outside their ship will still be able to see the ship.

Now, you point out the issue of Virmire. The only transmission you get regarding Virmire is that Saren has a base of Krogan stationed there with a possible cure (Correct me if I'm wrong). I wasn't under the impression that Shepard knew that Sovereign and Saren happened to be there at the time, which they were. But when you first speak to Sovereign he sounds almost as if waking up with his reply 'You are not Saren'. It's also known that Reapers are capable of hibernation.

There is a  separate plot hole of the Virmire situation. The point of the ground team in this mission is to disable the Anti-Aircraft guns so the Normandy can bring in the nuke to explode. Yet, the Normandy supposedly possesses stealth systems which 'dull heat signatures' so unless AA guns track targets differently, shouldn't we assume you could have flown the nuke in from the beginning with your stealth systems? 

Somehow, Sovereign cannot detect the Normandy, but the AA guns can? This seems very unlikely. Going back to the Ilos example, it still is a huge risk for the Normandy to attempt it when confronted by a fleet using stealth systems (which were experimental according to Eden Prime). If the Geth fleet was stationed there, what would the Normandy have done after its 3 hours were up?

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!

I'm not saying all the specialists weren't gimmicky, as Thane is often pointed out to be. But the plot was designed around destroying the Collectors, and info gathering seemed to be limited in any significant fashion. Someone was going beyond that relay. As I said, I don't recall if they said when. But once your crew is taken, suddenly it becomes a race against time, you don't really have a choice. 

My examples thusfar seem to have come under fire, but I will try once more. Lord of the Rings Return of the King (movie). After the battle in Gondor, we see that Frodo and Sam are still trying to toss the ring into Mount Doom. We also know that Aragorn, Gandalf, etc. are not fully aware if they are alive or even how close they are to the volcano. They know 10,000 Orcs remain to guard Mordor. Yet, they decide to take they're marginally smaller force against them, completely unaware if they are even alive. I've heard few complain about this and perhaps the book handles it differently, but I would call this a gaping plot hole.  

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.

True, the analogy is not perfect. But considered in light of ME1, you cannot deny that your team of specialists worked out perfectly (1 biotic, 1 soldier, 1 tech, 1 of each hybrid, etc). I'm not saying we were fully prepared for the Omega IV relay, but I would say if we are going to try the operation anyway and considering how useful ground engagements have been, a good ground team is a necessity. In this case, I would want a biotic (among other specialists) on my side while TIM attempts to find any info he can. I just don't see this as being a much bigger problem than the Normandy not preparing for a potential space battle against Sovereign and the Geth.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 mars 2010 - 05:37 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Apologies for the delay. I've been celebrating Saint Patrick's Day in the City.

[quote]JediPilot0 wrote...

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]

My thoughts on Bioware here are strange. Yes, they're constantly rehashed, but somehow they never stop being fun.

[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. [/quote]

Your first point I do agree with. I do have one issue with your second point, that everyone must go out with a bang. I grow attached to characters too. But I don't think a huge, elaborate sequence to show them off necessarily is the answer to this problem. True, I did find the intro of Alien 3 overly cheesy. Ripley survives...but somehow all the suppoting characters die? Something is clearly wrong.

But the truth is that in life (and a good story), those you are attached to don't always get that 'big bang', they don't get that final speech they need to make. In war, your best friend is not going to get that really awesome 'sacrifice sequence' that we would imagine...he may be shot in the head and it ends there. I'm not saying all party members should die this way. I thought Kaidan/Ashley and Wrex were handled *beautifully*. But what I liked about the ME2 death's was that they demonstrated that in war it really can be anyone who dies. You yourself said that there is nothing unique about each character's sequence. Thane, Samara, Jacob, etc did not get some unique death sequence. Every character that dies is shot, blown up, carried off, in a manner that could just as easily have been you.

[quote]
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]

Haha, apologies. Honestly? It depends. I know you disagree, but I didn't find the ME2 death plot contrived. Because of this, it made more sense to me that everyone moved on.

However, this is not the case for ME2-ME3. I would hope Bioware is setting this up so that this is essentially your main squad for the third one and accept that if you have not beaten the first two, you have no place playing the third game. Barring Thane (his disease) and a couple exceptions, I will be very angry if they do another squad rehash. So yes.

[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]

No no, you misunderstand me. We're saying the same thing here. This calls for more diagrams! This is how it would look.

ME1 ending-Defeat Sovereign/Saren. Then Shepard dies.
ME2 intro-resurrection, and so on.

This would have built far more dramatic tension and let the audience wonder just what would ME2 be like. At the same time, intended as a darker sequel, I like that ME2 began with your death, even if you are rezzed but five minutes later. The scars, for example, served as a pretty good reminder to me that I was just burned alive.  

[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. [/quote]

Well, 'worked' to gain is a little unfair don't you think? Taken literally I would say I worked harder to obtain my ME2 party members, if they were more contrived. Most of your ME1 party fell into your lap, barring Liara. But I understand what you meant. 'Invested time with' might work better, at least in my opinion.

But you're right, Shepard dying and investigating the Terminus Systems aren't directly related. But to be fair to Bioware, they did say they wanted this installment to be darker and I felt that the way they it came together all accomplished that, which might be why ME2 began with Shepard's death instead. Shepard dying+mystery of the Collectors+Cerberus+Terminus Systems really came together well. Yes, the Council could have commissioned you to enter the Terminus Systems, but I thought the direction they took was even better.

When the Council sent you out as a Spectre in ME1, while not exactly 'happy go lucky' the game has a more positive  'We're going to stop Saren!' attitude to it By killing Shepard and having Cerberus, a very questionable organization, give him his orders, it had a very different feeling attached to it, as if I'd lost a part of myself. This was reflected in my interaction with the Council (what little there was). When I talked to Anderson, he offered to reinstate my Spectre status. My first thought was 'So what?'. It felt hollow. This would not been possible if the Council assigned you the mission.

[quote]
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]

This is a possibility. But again, Empire Strikes Back didn't evolve the plot very far, as we said. It was very focused on developing characters, which is fine. ME2 developed characters very well, but they were different from the first game's. The issue isn't the lack of plot development by necessity, it's the awkward shift in character focus (from ME1 to ME2)

Another difference is that Episode V doesn't leave you asking as many questions, where Mass Effect 2 leaves many more questions. But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The story 'did' also greatly expand on the purpose/consequences of the Genophage through Mordin, the role of the Quarians through Tali, and the government of the Geth rather well. Although not done as well, I still think ME2 is filling the same role as Episode V in providing an introduction to the plot of ME3.

[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]

So let me pose a question to you as you have done to me. If ME3 manages to successfully answer each and every one of those questions (which they are all related) and manages to make them integral to the plot, will you still consider ME2 to be a failure as a sequel? Or is it possible it laid the groundwork for the next installment, as Episode V did? Assume also that you retain your ME2 party (so character development is also not wasted).

[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]

No direct authority, but he's not exactly an idiot on the subject. His logic is sound in this regard. That the Collectors switched their focus from all species to humans immediately after Sovereign's defeat would at the very least necessitate an investigation into any relationship they have to each other, which he had two full years to do while you were being reconstructed. He also mentions that the Collector's ability to operate the Omega IV relay (something no other race can do) and advanced technology strongly supports the idea that they have a connection to the Reapers.

I'd also like to note a difference between knowing what the Reapers are doing and knowing their motivations, which are two different things. It's not what the Reapers even do that is so utterly mysterious, it's why, which if you notice is the one question that everyone seems to be asking. In Me1, we knew Reapers harvest organics. Creepy? Yes. But why? 'Organics cannot understand' Sovereign answers. This is even more creepy. Similarly, ME2 follows this format. Reapers convert Protheans to Collectors and harvest humans. They use them to create more Reapers, etc. Why? Between both games, we have not seen this question answered in any regard, so I'm willing to wait for ME3 to answer.

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
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]

No, I agree. I don't think he means respect in the sense that the Reapers are thinking 'Shepard is a badass!'. But he did manage to kill one which judging by Sovereign's attitude, they thought impossible (we don't know what happened with the dereliect reaper). 

[quote]
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]

The inability to work on the Protheans remains an issue to be resolved. But I honestly didn't pay to much attention to human 'goo'. What is a human but a combination of elements, in various percentages? (I might be wrong, but I don't believe we've had any reason to think the periodic table of elements changed with ME universe?) What the Reapers could be doing is turning them into their base components than using them to construct the 'husk/bones' of a Reaper. That they choose to use humans could be merely a symbolic/ironic gesture.

Note: I'm not presenting this to say 'This is obviously what's going on.' I'm honestly saying if this were the general outline of the theory, would it seem as childish to you?

[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]

See previous response.

[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]

Aye. I would recommend them. They're a more concentrated dose ( a couple hours each) of what happens next in the story. Alot of fun.

[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]

A hit! A very palpable hit! -Hamlet

You got me here. You win this point.

[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. [/quote]

But that she had to help doesn't mean much when her method of entry into the party felt so random. When Udina told me she should join my party, I was like O.O. That's my only point here. I'm not denying that it was necessary for someone to give me the evidence, but Tali's role past that point is so unnecessary. When investigating Saren, you visit that Volus who works for the Shadowbroker and he provides some critical information. I don't say 'Join my party' when he proved himself instrumental. Tali seems to resemble a plot mechanic, unlike the other five members.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

No no, I'm saying since he's avoidable, he wasn't instrumental to the plot. But I'm also dropping that point too. Although not 'necessary', your companions indicate pretty well that he would be a good source of info in your investigation. I'm more skeptical that he and Wrex are obtained so closely and in such similar fashions (seemingly waiting for you to show up).

[quote]
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. [/quote]

You're right, everyone is not integral. But I also think the view on what constitutes 'integral' needs to be expanded. If someone performs a single story role and can be ignored the rest of the game, I do not view that as 'integral'. This might indirectly hurt my argument more than help. If you look at Tali, after she gives you the information, she could be removed and nothing changes. The same for Garrus, because you could easily just use him for a tip on Saren. This is impossible  without Liara because she periodically checks you for Prothean visions as well as the issue with her mother (Yes, she can be obtained last, but it's pretty well implied she was meant to be used to her fullest extent). Although Mordin loses his integral status by this definition.

To use a Kotor example, it is utterly impossible to conceive of the game without Bastila. She is actually 'bonded' to your character. The same can be said for Carth. Juhani is expendable, Canderous is expendable, etc. The only defense I can think of that adds for ME2 is that it's not Samara/Jack that's 'integral'. It's the role of "Biotic Specialist" which someone was needed for. It's not a great one and you can say only one character should be needed then, but it is there.

I would also like to ask that we even consider the role of Joker, who in my opinion received much greater attention in ME2 and was handled much better, even if not an official squad member.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Hmm, gonna look for which comment you're referring to.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 18 mars 2010 - 05:44 .

[KainrycKarr]

If the crew all goes poof to different corners of the universe...then no. It didn't accomplish much. If the team is actually your team, or at LEAST end up relevant to the plot in some way in ME3, then yea, they did something i guess.



They put so much emphasis on the assemble your team tagline for me2 that its pretty much null and void if they're all side-swiped for me3. Which is possible, considering liara/kaidan/ashley.





But thats a whole 'nother mess.

[Thompson family]

Re: Original post's question.

Well, with my Shepard, an insufferable Paragon do-gooder:

1. The re-emerging Rachni are new, powerful allies who owe their very existence to me.
2. Liara, a lover to whom I've been faithful, has gone from being a nerdy little researcher to the rival of the most powerful information broker in the known universe.
3. Cerberus has gone from being a rouge supremacist group to being my reluctant ally.
4. The Geth are now a race of sentient beings who look up to me and had me make a vital decision for them, and I've learned that the powerful Geth fleet and army I fought in the first game are nothing but a relatively small splinter group. The Reapers lose one ally and I gain one.
5. I may be able to broker a Geth/Quarian peace, and have both of them fighting by my side when the invasion comes.
6. I've put Mordin relatively close to curing the genophage, thanks to the research we uncovered.
7. The leader of the Krogans is my close friend, and I'm the battlemaster of his possible heir.
8. I'm still a Spectre.
9. The Normandy II is two or three times the ship the Normandy I was, equipped with the most powerful and unshackled AI around. EDI will be the key to defeating the Reapers, IMO. You don't hire major talent to voice act a bit player.
10. Any law-abiding Asari -- even a Council member, I'll bet -- accepts the word of a Justicar as solid evidence. For that matter, Mordin is a respected former member of the Salarian STG. His testimony could carry a lot of weight. The Salarians pride themselves, with considerable justification, on their intelligence gathering. Their lack of success in independently confirming the Reaper threat seriously undermines me to the whole Council, not just the Salarian member. I at least have a lot of potential to be a lot more credible to other council species.
11. Oh yeah, the collectors are dead, I destroyed a Reaper and probably saved the lives of millions.

I could go on, but those are the vital points.

So yes, I think the plot is advancing swimmingly.

Modifié par Thompson family, 18 mars 2010 - 05:56 .

[JediPilot0]

Oh damnit, BaladasDemnevanni, you came back. Hope you had a good Saint Patty's day.

I'll get to your stuff in the next day or so. I'm too tired right now. : )

[SovereignT]

TyDurden13 wrote...

Don't quit your day jobs, guys.

:lol:

Priceless, seroiusly the only actual plotholes (ie ones that should had been filled in the 2nd act) are the following:

1. Intro - After prevailing over Sovereign and the geth, theres a lack of clearity as to when and why the council finds the need to send the Normandy out to chase after a single fleeting vessel.

2. The universality of thermal clips and how exactly it came to be a staple for all weapons.

3. The Cerberus-Collector connection which is just hinted at when boarding the derelict collector vessel

All others are just minor that can easily be filled via a well thought out dlc and/or in me3.

[davey M]

hmmm very interesting my op. is that yes ME2 = awsome game but i belive biwoares main porpse was to build a bridge and test(get feedback from fans about thier ides i.e inventory combat ..story etc. soo that whne me3 is released it is simply amazing in every way posible . i agree it was pointless but i dont think the story was the main thing for me 2 it was the "content" of it

[FlintlockJazz]

glacier1701 wrote...

Okie lets break down your arguements.



Garrus - when having failed to get the Council to do anything about Saren you have a number of ways to proceed. One of those is the fact that you know Garrus was investigating Saren but his investigation was shut down. So the lead is what does Garrus know? In the follow up to that you find out this mysterious Quarian after you help take out the thugs threatening the Doctor down in the Wards.

So this leads you through the main plot which at that point is to gain evidence that Saren is a traitor. Garrus himself does not have that evidence but is a connection to the evidence. So that fulfills condition #2 even if he is NOT on the ship he has done his part for the game.


Tali - She has the geth data that directly implicates Saren. That in itself fulfills condition #2. Does not matter you have no choice in having her as a squadmate but by then she has fulfilled her part in the story.


Ashley/Kaiden - are there pretty much from the beginning. Ashley knows about the Geth and Sovereign because she was an eyewitness (though like all the eyewitnesses from Eden Prime they all seem to be dismissed by the Council). She at least knows where the dig site is (essential since you do NOT have any local knowledge) and when that turns up empty can at least point you to the next areas to go to to search. Thus she fulfills condition #2 in that the plot ends if you did not have her. Kaiden is basically a teammate and has no importance plotwise until Virmire when you have to decide who lives/dies at that one point. Its only then that his justification comes out - he fulfills condition #2 as it is now clear to the player that the stakes being played for do include the fact that squadmates (and if you did a lot of talking to him a friend) can die and that much more is likely to happen if you do not suceed.


Wrex - As has been stated his is the weakest part in ME1. He has a connection to the plot in that he tells you (if you talk to him enough) that Saren has been doing stuff on the side for what appears to be a long time. IN a way Wrex can be connected to the main plot in that when you hear that it is now possible Wrex MIGHT be an agent for Saren (though this is never explored at the time). The only part Wrex plays is at Virmire where once again the stakes in the game are highlighted in that you have to face the fact  that you are condeming a species to extinction by destruction of the base just so the remaining species of the galaxy can survive. So again at the one moment he fulfills condition #2. Of course you could not take him and then his part is meaningless but he has a potential part to play. So this is what makes him the weakest.


Liara - well without her its game over. No more needs to be said.

Thank you.

Garrus - Yes you can find out what he knows, or you can go to the Shadow Broker instead.  You don't need to see him at all, you can go to the volus.
Wrex  -Ditto except that he is the other option.  Whichever one you go after makes the other irrelevant.  However, you do have a point that you need to go after one of the two in order to find out about Fist, I had forgotten about that.
Ashley/Kaidan - Nihlus is able to get to the port before you without Ashley's help and is the one who tells you to meet him there, and you are already on your way to the dig site when you meet her.  The Virmire choice has no relevance to the plot, it is just to try to create drama and is very artificial.  Really their only relevance is as potential LIs, in which case we should consider all ME2 LIs as relevant if that is the case.
Tali - Giving her the data was merely the means taken by the devs to get you to pick her up.  They could quite easily have had Fist have the data after killing her, they just wanted to give you a reason to find her.

Really if you think about it most of the characters in ME1 don't really have much reason to follow you.  When Pressley asked why I brought all those aliens onboard my response was "I...don't know, they kindof just followed me onto the ship..."  I know you can find out some reason later on, but they are rather contrived I feel.  Tali follows you for pretty much no reason, yes you save her but you save alot of people and you don't find them camped out in your ship later, Wrex pretty much has no reason to be onboard, he apparently met Saren earlier but he is a merc and has no motivation to follow you to save the citadel.  Garrus has some reasons, but you are not given reasons to take him along, it was quite shocking to find those guys just wander onto your ship and set up shop in the hold.

ME1 focused on the main storyline, the characters were secondary to it so they had to be brought in as you went through the main plot, and kindof just fell on you.  ME2 focused on the characters, so the main plot was you picking them up, selecting them and working through their issues.

[FlintlockJazz]

JediPilot0 wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
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.

Please tell me how I'm missing MY OWN point that I'm trying to make? glacier said the rest of what I was going to say.

And I don't think Garrus was going against C-Sec orders. The council says C-Sec is investigating, and Executor Palin says "you investigation is over, Garrus." Where does it say Garrus was rogue when doing his investigation?

Anyone could get the data? It was on a busted Geth, btw. But it doesn't matter. The whole point, is you MISSED my point.

He ordered the investigation over, indicating that C-Sec are not investigating Saren and Garrus' investigation is to end.  When you meet him in the medical place he is going against orders to continue his investigation.

I did not miss your point, I explain my points reasonably, explaining why I thought that certain characters do not meet both your criteria (though why I need to justify to your criteria I have yet to be given a reason), if you are not going to discuss the point reasonably but instead make declarations that I am missing your point then you can go **** yourself mate.  I am not going to discuss this anymore, you attack people for having different opinions to yourself and cannot seem to grasp the fact that difference of opinion =/= wrong, so goodbye.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JediPilot0 wrote...

Oh damnit, BaladasDemnevanni, you came back. Hope you had a good Saint Patty's day.

I'll get to your stuff in the next day or so. I'm too tired right now. : )

Thanks, I hope yours was fun too. And take your time, we're practically writing essays now. =p

[JediPilot0]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
I am not going to discuss this anymore, you attack people for having different opinions to yourself and cannot seem to grasp the fact that difference of opinion =/= wrong, so goodbye.

I just want to get this out of the way while I have time.

Dude, seriously. You are the ONLY one who feels like they are getting "attacked" in this thread. If I cannot seem to grasp the fact that "difference of opinion =/= wrong" (which is not the issue, btw), then YOU can't seem to grasp the fact that difference of opinion =/= attack.

So I ask anyone else participating in this thread: Do you feel like you're being attacked? I don't feel like I'm being attacked. I don't think (and hope) Beladas feels he's being attacked. We're just having polite discussion about our views. You seem a might sensitive here, Flint. I'll get to your other stuff when I have time for the essays and short stories we're all writing now.

Modifié par JediPilot0, 18 mars 2010 - 05:13 .

[smudboy]

JediPilot0 wrote...
I just want to get this out of the way while I have time.

Dude, seriously. You are the ONLY one who feels like they are getting "attacked" in this thread. If I cannot seem to grasp the fact that "difference of opinion =/= wrong" (which is not the issue, btw), then YOU can't seem to grasp the fact that difference of opinion =/= attack.

So I ask anyone else participating in this thread: Do you feel like you're being attacked? I don't feel like I'm being attacked. I don't think (and hope) Beladas feels he's being attacked. We're just having polite discussion about our views. You seem a might sensitive here, Flint. I'll get to your other stuff when I have time for the essays and short stories we're all writing now.

Bring it on, brother.  Hoo-ah, and all that.

*goes and gets his tyranothesauruses*

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JediPilot
I just want to get this out of the way while I have time.

Dude, seriously. You are the ONLY one who feels like they are getting "attacked" in this thread. If I cannot seem to grasp the fact that "difference of opinion =/= wrong" (which is not the issue, btw), then YOU can't seem to grasp the fact that difference of opinion =/= attack.

So I ask anyone else participating in this thread: Do you feel like you're being attacked? I don't feel like I'm being attacked. I don't think (and hope) Beladas feels he's being attacked. We're just having polite discussion about our views. You seem a might sensitive here, Flint. I'll get to your other stuff when I have time for the essays and short stories we're all writing now.

*thumbs up*

[BaladasDemnevanni]

On a separate note, here are some interesting files that someone dug up. I'm curious to see if this is some future DLC.

[primero holodon]

If you took the renegade ending you aquired reaper tech...

[BaladasDemnevanni]

[quote]
Regarding? [/quote]

If I counted the number of times that I've heard you say 'we both know ME2's plot is a hack' or 'I know what I'm talking about', I'd be here a while. No, I don't know or think ME2's plot is a hack or I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. Stop with these stupid remarks telling me it's true. Show me it's true.

[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]

You're the one who's all about 'logical plot points'. If a rebellion against Cerberus is a stupid plot point, then it does not make sense that ME2 should follow up with it. Cerberus is fleshed out to be much more than the one dimensional organization you keep referencing to. Few things are truly that simple and Cerberus represents that.

Is Cerberus the very essence of good? Hell no. But they've also shown they look out for their own. One of your crew members comments on how Cerberus is paying to relocate his family away from the colonies. And they also happen to be the only ones doing anything about the Collectors/Reapers. After you're killed, the Council abandons you and tries to pretend that the Reaper threat never existed.

What was so well done in ME2 is their attempt to bring more feeling to the Cerberus organization. Miranda- "Cerberus gave you a second chance Shepard. Perhaps you should do the same for us." For a bit, I actually wondered if they really could be the good guys for once. But the way TIM reacted when presented with the Collector base was way too greedy, and it all came undone. I'm even wondering if he knew about what was on the other side of the relay from the start.

[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]

Why can't you join Saren on Virmire in ME1? Unfortunately, most games, ME included, prefer that you follow a general direction. ME1 made you work with the Council, track Saren. ME2 chose Cerberus.

[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]

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase your comment here for you. "No, I have not played anything outside BG and am unable to comment at this time." Any mature person could say this.

What you choose to say is so utterly pathetic I can't even begin to explain. You defend ME's plot as 'brilliant' and 'innovative'. Guess what, bud? Their plot isn't so original as you think and if you'd played previous Bioware games you'd see that. ME doesn't just borrow certain elements, it steals them from previous Bioware games. It even follows the same exact formulaic structure. The point here is that you're bashing ME2's plot, but your precious ME1 doesn't hold up much better in originality. So on this point, please stfu until you actually play Never Winter Nights, Kotor, orJade Empire and see ME isn't all that special in its plot.

Oh, and by your own logic this also excuses the baby reaper. ME2 simply stole from Terminator. What great works of art don't steal from each other?

[quote]
In that case, I am showing that those characters have leadership qualities. [/quote]

True enough, but you can't use Garrus leading a fire team on the suicide mission to show why....he should have been picked to lead the suicide mission. It's knowledge we are not presented with at the time.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Forgive me. I somehow don't see Miranda pulling this off. She's too cold and calculating. It sounds more like Samara is sensing Shepard's good intentions (Whether Renegade or Paragon, he still fights for the galaxy). Miranda is a much more unknown quantity in this regard.

[quote]
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]

Cerberus is stereotyped to hate aliens. For them to praise an Asari would be considered quite unusual from her perspective. This is not difficult.

[quote]
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]

Honestly, she comes off as knowing what to say to instigate the conflict. This is not good leadership.

[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]

I'm waiting to see Miranda's resume. I believe I asked you to put together a paragraph that demonstrates all of Miranda's accomplishments prior to TIM recruiting Shepard. You seem to think Miranda can do the job just as well and you cite everything after TIM decides to resurrect Shepard to prove this. You describe the suicide mission, party members, etc. As the time of Shepard's death, what do you know that Miranda has done which is so impressive to place her on par with Commander Shepard? We know the Collectors are influenced by the Reapers. We know Shepard has had dealings with the Reapers. TIM and Miranda both admit that Shepard is unique in a role neither of them can fulfill.

When you apply for a job, you typically need a list of accomplishments. What has Miranda accomplished to your knowledge that puts her on par with taking out a Reaper?

[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]

He's more experienced in dealing with the Reapers. Jacob admits that he's not quite done anything on that scale when you talk to him. What Jacob and Miranda have done are much more mundate compared to Shepard. You're also missing the loyalty point. This is something that comes up with both Joker (whom TIM admits is the best pilot he's ever seen) and Dr. Chakwas. Joker joined precisely because of Shepard and bitterness towards the Alliance. Speaking to the entire crew, Shepard is regarded as a legend (Kelly, the two engineers, etc). When choosing a leader, morale is a factor. Unfortunately, Miranda is not someone that inspires much confidence or encourages people to keep going. She's admitted by all around her to be cold. Or do you not think morale is a factor?

[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]

But this is the beauty of it. All throughout ME1 and 2 if you would bother to pay attention, you gain all sorts of loyalties...or you don't. ME1, I chose to exterminate the Rachni. In ME2, this is expanded with the Quarians, Krogan, etc. The game is slowly building this up towards what seems to be an army in ME3. It's subtle, but it's not always a good thing for a game to blatantly shove certain facts in your face. This is something that most Bioware games do ad infinitum. ME for example can never stfu about Eden Prime. Any time you talk to a character, it must be nailed once again into our skulls. It's very unrefined.

[quote]All of which had nothing to do with the main plot, and could be totally skipped.  Ah huh.  Beautiful setup there. [/quote]

Then skip them and make your job that much harder in ME3. Kill the rachni, ignore the Quarians, Krogans, whatever. That's your choice. I really don't care what you do. But this could all impact how ME3 plays out and become critical. You seem to have this strange obsession with main plot, yet are unable to realize ME's plot was not original and that a story can have more to contribute between colorful characters and interesting side plots. In this way, ME2's side quests can impact the main quest of ME3. I can reference Episode V as not having a particularly strong main plot, but it focused on character development and was still an incredible experience. I mean, half the movie was simply about Han and Leia falling in love.

[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]

Why do the Reapers harvest organics? ME did not answer this question either. ME2 delves into what the Reapers are doing, just not why.

[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]

Where did I say it was a revenge plot? I'm providing a very basic structure. Let me add another line then. 'Collectors kill you. They are employed by the Reapers, who threaten the entire galaxy. Kill them back.

Now, you could ask another question and force me to add more to that plot outline, but I believe your question was what was the basic plot of ME2.

[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]

I don't see a problem with this. Things can always go wrong. In fact, things *do* tend to go wrong for Shepard if you look at his track record.

[quote]
Nukes. Solve. MANY things. [/quote]

It would've blown up your crew inside the Collector Base. Hell, it would have been a fun moral issue. But from what I've seen, the question of blowing up the Collector Base was already a much tougher issue than most of the black and white issues of ME1.

[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]

Mission parameters changed when your crew was captured (Yes, as a result of a giant gaping plot hole). I know, you want the game to give you billions of choices. But whether or not we had nukes was never addressed, I believe. Once your crew is captured, you now have reason to enter the Collector Base. And if considered within the context of the overall plot (Fight the Reapers), it makes sense that we should recover what technology we can. And we know the Collectors rely on Reaper Technology.

[quote]
HAHAHAHAHA!  Let's not and say we did. [/quote]

Thank you for demonstrating your maturity once again. For someone who's a huge fan of RPGs and epic plots, you are very ignorant of their origins. In closing, I win this point.

[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]

And my point is those are a waste of time if they don't work. Their technology as I keep pointing out trumps anything that's ever been seen, making 'spying' difficult. I also point out that it's never exactly explained when TIM planned on sending you through the relay, only that you require a Reaper IFF to do so. Throughout the 2 year period, who's to say he hasn't been doing just that or whether it amounted to anything? He clearly has been trying to spy on them, as he gives out all your missions. It's also a high possibility that he wanted you to go beyond the relay one way or another to find the Collector Base.

[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?

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]

You're absolutely right. Take 1,000 points. In fact, I concede this entire debate to you. Does that make you feel better? Is your low, low self-esteem taken care of?

'We know very little about Ilos'. Do you see how easy that was to correct? Please stop trying to make bull**** points like this.

[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? [/quote]

1) Oh, we know Saren has a presence. Is it 1 ship? Is it five? Ten? Sovereign +10? This is no different than how we know the 'Collectors' are beyond the Omega IV relay. Is that one ship? Five? Ten? 
2) We know there'll be Collectors and they have a base of some kind, whether a fleet of ships, home planet, or mere space station.
3)See my point about stealth systems with Jediboy. We don't even know if they work against Sovereign.
4)Actually, not once have we 'known' they were there up until possibly Virmire. Eden Prime we had absolutely no clue. Feros and Noveria likewise. But we were just investigating at this point, so it's acceptable.
5) Now you'll race there and get blown up? Nothing gets done then. Hell, at least you're prepping the entire game for this suicide mission. You very well know an entire fleet of ships could be on Ilos....yet you rush there anyway. Brilliant move.

[quote]
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]

Unfortunately, that's the point. You now have a reason to rush beyond the Omega IV where before you could take your time and gather information, as you so desperately wanted.

[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. [/quote]

Oh, I see. We have a similar verb. Yet 'what resistances will we meet' still comes up. In fact, in the movie they purposely do prepare a select group of combat specialists because of this, although they only expected to find ruins. Shepard has run around enough with a ground team to recognize its value.

[quote]
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]

Nope, because your logic stems from the idea that we only ever prepare for definite circumstances. That defies the point of making 'preparations'. Perhaps you didn't play either game. In both, Shepard often runs with a ground team. In ME2, we frequently come across the Collectors in ground battle. It would make sense that we consider the possibility that...this might happen again! OMG! Let's imagine if the plot had played out as you say.

You recover the Reaper IFF with Miranda and Jacob. Your crew is captured. You go through the Omega IV. You are unable to blow up the station without killing your crew. Your ground team is you Jacob and Miranda...not enough to push through because none of you are specialists. You can say 'why not bring an army'? But something's gotta give at some point. It sounds more like you're forcing many of these plot holes into the game merely because you didn't like it. When you hyper analyze a plot, you will find inconsistencies even with the best story.

[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]

They could have assumed they wouldn't be needing a combat team since they were exploring ruins. But guess what? They were entering the unknown and chose to bring one. Would you have preferred it if the plot started with TIM saying 'I have prepped an elite team of combat specialists for you?'

[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]

Exactly. This is Ilos. Sovereign is a ship. Saren has a fleet of Geth. You are in the Normandy. I can easily forsee a ship battle taking place.

[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? [/quote]

Unfortunately that's not an option. As they said, 'human genocide' in the works. Reaper plot to take care of. All you can do is make the best preparations possible, which included designing a state of the art ship more advanced than anything ever seen before. Either you go through, or you stay outside and wait for destruction to come your way. But somehow, I don't think Reaper knowledge or technology is going to just fall into your lap.


[quote]
Which should've happened but didn't because the script didn't develop anything from ME1. [/quote]

No, it didn't happen because it didn't make sense, even if you wanted it to. You keep crying "CERBERUS IS EVIL!" It's really not that black and white. And as Miranda explains, they are the only ones taking you seriously right now. Deal with it.

[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]

And your obsession with nukes is an expression of stupidity. They achieve very specific objectives. Does a government answer every combat possibility with "LAUNCH A NUKE". No, because they lack precision and destroy everything. The point still stands that your crew is now inside the vessel.

[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. [/quote]

Whether it's a ship, planet, or a giant hula-hoop, we know the Collectors have something beyond Omega IV. Do you honestly need more incentive than that and knowing the Reapers employ them to realize they must be stopped?

I'm honestly skeptical of the stealth system claim either way. Either Sovereign could detect the Normandy, in which case the decision to rush to Ilos was stupid. If he can't  (as a technologically superior Reaper)while Anti-aicraft guns can track the Normandy, I call it a stupid idea or plothole. Take your pic.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Actually bud, it's speculate that there's some DLC coming which shows this to be the reason why the Collectors target Shepard. If that doesn't work, your logic still fails quite well.

[smudboy]

[quote]

If I counted the number of times that I've heard you say 'we both know ME2's plot is a hack' or 'I know what I'm talking about', I'd be here a while. No, I don't know or think ME2's plot is a hack or I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. Stop with these stupid remarks telling me it's true. Show me it's true.
[/quote]
Then stay a while.
Showing you is pretty much playing the damn game over.  If you've played it more than once and still can't notice, no amount of arguing will help you.
We both know ME2's plot is a hack.
And yes. I do know what I'm talking about.
www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/
[quote]
You're the one who's all about 'logical plot points'. If a rebellion against Cerberus is a stupid plot point, then it does not make sense that ME2 should follow up with it. Cerberus is fleshed out to be much more than the one dimensional organization you keep referencing to. Few things are truly that simple and Cerberus represents that.
[/quote]
Rebellion in any sense would work.   Leave Cerby, go to Alliancey.  Go to Citadel.  Hook up with Rachni, Krogans, hell the Quarians would've been a great option at the start.  All I want is a bloody argument.

Unfortunately, the writers felt it necessary to turn the Alliance and Council into morons, despite being the saviour one was last game.

It would also make sense to stay with Cerby if one could chose.  Instead, we get railroaded, Shepard has no say in anything, and doesn't have any freedom to join a side.  It would be logical provided one did any side quests and learned about them.  They could easily have a faction system, much like Planesape Torment.
[quote]
Is Cerberus the very essence of good? Hell no. But they've also shown they look out for their own. One of your crew members comments on how Cerberus is paying to relocate his family away from the colonies. And they also happen to be the only ones doing anything about the Collectors/Reapers. After you're killed, the Council abandons you and tries to pretend that the Reaper threat never existed.
[/quote]
They were also busy slaughtering humans last time around, the people they're sworn to advance and protect.  "Oh RIGHT.  Let's retcom ME1."  I forget you're into that.

This game you're a pure dog of Cerberus whether you like it or not.
[quote]
What was so well done in ME2 is their attempt to bring more feeling to the Cerberus organization. Miranda- "Cerberus gave you a second chance Shepard. Perhaps you should do the same for us." For a bit, I actually wondered if they really could be the good guys for once. But the way TIM reacted when presented with the Collector base was way too greedy, and it all came undone. I'm even wondering if he knew about what was on the other side of the relay from the start.
[/quote]
It all came undone for you, at the LAST scene of ME2 because of how TIM reacted?  Did you play ME1?

Ohrightretcon
[quote]
Why can't you join Saren on Virmire in ME1? Unfortunately, most games, ME included, prefer that you follow a general direction. ME1 made you work with the Council, track Saren. ME2 chose Cerberus.
[/quote]
Because he's the primary antagonist?  That'd be like Luke joining his father.  "I'd rather die than be a slave."  See, this is the Shepard character.  Rejecting Saren/fighting him is what he does.  Rejecting/fighting Cerberus is what he does.  He'd be able to get by just fine with TIM, unless the Cerberus crew had an argument.  Which would've been great.

But we retconned ME1, so who cares.  And loyalty per character is almost nearly reduced to a level.
[quote]
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase your comment here for you. "No, I have not played anything outside BG and am unable to comment at this time." Any mature person could say this.
[/quote]
Luckily I'm not a mature person and have played my share of BW and Infinity Engine games to see that anything about my "gaming history" I mention (to you at least) is moot.
[quote]What you choose to say is so utterly pathetic I can't even begin to explain. You defend ME's plot as 'brilliant' and 'innovative'. Guess what, bud? Their plot isn't so original as you think and if you'd played previous Bioware games you'd see that. ME doesn't just borrow certain elements, it steals them from previous Bioware games. It even follows the same exact formulaic structure. The point here is that you're bashing ME2's plot, but your precious ME1 doesn't hold up much better in originality. So on this point, please stfu until you actually play Never Winter Nights, Kotor, orJade Empire and see ME isn't all that special in its plot.
[/quote]
I'd rather a writer steal a formula, theme or idea that works, or use a structure that's a few millenia old (like the Bhagavad Gita), Hero's Journey, etc., if a story is told clearly and intelligibly.  There's absoutely nothing wrong with that.  Ever heard of Star Wars?

Oh wait, you think ME2 is a good story.  So there's your effective stealing-argument for you.  (Psst: Bhagavad Gita.)
[quote]
Oh, and by your own logic this also excuses the baby reaper. ME2 simply stole from Terminator. What great works of art don't steal from each other?
[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with stealing.  Unless you happen to be stealing out of the garbage can.
[quote]
True enough, but you can't use Garrus leading a fire team on the suicide mission to show why....he should have been picked to lead the suicide mission. It's knowledge we are not presented with at the time.
[/quote]
Sure I can.  Him, Jacob and Miranda are both effective to fill that role.  Why can't I?  This is after we've experienced everything and went "wtf do we need Shepard for?"  And then we start thinking about it, and it comes by sheer EVIDENCE there's no need.  We then look at the reasons (yes, AFTER we experience everything) why we have Sheaprd is:
1) BioWare's import mechanic.
2) The speech that he's a "bloody icon" or by some whim of TIM.

Not ONE thing in this game, aside from flirting with Tali, is needed by Shepard.

EVERYONE can be recruited (save Tali) by anyone.  Aside from association, there is no proof that Shepard is needed.  Hell, you can recruit Garrus even if he wasn't in your party in ME1.
[quote]
Forgive me. I somehow don't see Miranda pulling this off. She's too cold and calculating. It sounds more like Samara is sensing Shepard's good intentions (Whether Renegade or Paragon, he still fights for the galaxy). Miranda is a much more unknown quantity in this regard.
[/quote]
Shepard says ONE SENTENCE in two different ways in a stoic manner.  ANYONE can do this.

Yes, because Samara is such a powerful biotic, she can read minds and feelings, too.

Samara also says this before anything else:
"My name is Samara, a servant of the Justicar Code.  My quarrel is with these eclipse sisters, but I see three well armed people before me."
"Are we friend of foe?"

So Miranda is too cold and calculating to talk to Samara?  Sure, I'd categorize Miranda as an ice queen.  But I'd put Samara a few hundreds years beyond that naming convention ot come close to whatever's going on in her head.  And I don't think you have the capacity to start deducing "oh, well clearly she's sensing Shepard's good intentions."  She calls the three people "people", and asks if they're friends.  She doesn't go "OMG Shepard! Hero of the yadda yadda."  I don't see the "it can't be anyone but Shepard" argument.

Samara cares about two things: her Code, her charge.  Shepard says one line to her, which I showed before.

Anyone could've said that.

You speculating that Samara having some internal deductive emotional analysis about Miranda saying this exact line, juxtaposing that she can "sense" Shepard's "good will", and as such, will go with ONLY Shepard, is completely nonsensical to the point of being comical, (now that I think seriously about it.)
[quote]
Cerberus is stereotyped to hate aliens. For them to praise an Asari would be considered quite unusual from her perspective. This is not difficult.
[/quote]
Yet she takes the compliment from (Jacob) Cerberus anyway, and has no problems joining a pro-human ship.  Again, Shepard doesn't even factor into this.  She got the name of her ship, she's happy.
[quote]
Honestly, she comes off as knowing what to say to instigate the conflict. This is not good leadership.
[/quote]
Ah huh.  I'm sure Miranda just ASKED Jack to come into HER office JUST so she could start arguing with her, right.
[quote]
I'm waiting to see Miranda's resume. I believe I asked you to put together a paragraph that demonstrates all of Miranda's accomplishments prior to TIM recruiting Shepard. You seem to think Miranda can do the job just as well and you cite everything after TIM decides to resurrect Shepard to prove this. You describe the suicide mission, party members, etc. As the time of Shepard's death, what do you know that Miranda has done which is so impressive to place her on par with Commander Shepard? We know the Collectors are influenced by the Reapers. We know Shepard has had dealings with the Reapers. TIM and Miranda both admit that Shepard is unique in a role neither of them can fulfill.
[/quote]
I could quote some stuff from Galaxy, or the comics, but if it's not surrounding ME2, it's useless.  It's either a sequel or a story, or both.  Any attempt and further sources is not a very good sign of a well told story.

I've already listed her skills in a leadership role.  The fact she's second in command should be evidence enough.
[quote]
When you apply for a job, you typically need a list of accomplishments. What has Miranda accomplished to your knowledge that puts her on par with taking out a Reaper?
[/quote]
Who knows?  This is ME2.  The plot is "Fight the Collectors."  Shepard just had to talk to people, have them join, then go on a bunch of missions for people.  Anyone could've done this.
[quote]
He's more experienced in dealing with the Reapers. Jacob admits that he's not quite done anything on that scale when you talk to him. What Jacob and Miranda have done are much more mundate compared to Shepard. You're also missing the loyalty point. This is something that comes up with both Joker (whom TIM admits is the best pilot he's ever seen) and Dr. Chakwas. Joker joined precisely because of Shepard and bitterness towards the Alliance. Speaking to the entire crew, Shepard is regarded as a legend (Kelly, the two engineers, etc). When choosing a leader, morale is a factor. Unfortunately, Miranda is not someone that inspires much confidence or encourages people to keep going. She's admitted by all around her to be cold. Or do you not think morale is a factor?
[/quote]
And if this was "ME2: Fight the Reapers", you'd be right.

It's not exactly clear why Joker joined Cerberus, aside from not liking being grounded and pissed at the Alliance.  Again, retcon, trying to make the reboot work, etc.

And the reason why Chakwas joined was  1) She missed space travel, (then we later learn) 2) Joker.  Both of which are ABSOLUTELY RETARDED reasons to join a terrorist organization, especially one is a doctor.
[quote]
But this is the beauty of it. All throughout ME1 and 2 if you would bother to pay attention, you gain all sorts of loyalties...or you don't. ME1, I chose to exterminate the Rachni. In ME2, this is expanded with the Quarians, Krogan, etc. The game is slowly building this up towards what seems to be an army in ME3. It's subtle, but it's not always a good thing for a game to blatantly shove certain facts in your face. This is something that most Bioware games do ad infinitum. ME for example can never stfu about Eden Prime. Any time you talk to a character, it must be nailed once again into our skulls. It's very unrefined.
[/quote]
Choosing to kill/save Rachni is part of the main plot of ME1.  There are only 2 main plot choices (unless I'm mistaken) with ME2.
[quote]
Then skip them and make your job that much harder in ME3. Kill the rachni, ignore the Quarians, Krogans, whatever. That's your choice. I really don't care what you do. But this could all impact how ME3 plays out and become critical. You seem to have this strange obsession with main plot, yet are unable to realize ME's plot was not original and that a story can have more to contribute between colorful characters and interesting side plots. In this way, ME2's side quests can impact the main quest of ME3. I can reference Episode V as not having a particularly strong main plot, but it focused on character development and was still an incredible experience. I mean, half the movie was simply about Han and Leia falling in love.
[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with character development, provided those characters are part of the main plot.  Shepard gets nothing.

If it's just people falling in love that have no tie in to the "point" of the story, then they're in the wrong story, or the author has lots of time and resources to spend it on side stories.  Considering those characters were part of Episode 4, that makes sense.  Ditto with Tali and Garrus.  And we wonder why Tali and Garrus are so liked...
[quote]
Why do the Reapers harvest organics? ME did not answer this question either. ME2 delves into what the Reapers are doing, just not why.
[/quote]
Which I can only see as a failure in story telling, or at least a poor attempt, since we use ME1 as a base for ME2.  I don't know WTF the Reapers are doing in ME2, 'cause they're clearly not what ME1 showed us.  There's one called Harbinger who's trying to build a human Reaper.  That's all I got.  And somehow we're the "salvation through destruction", which is just one more nonsensical one liner by Harbinger.

See, if our bad guy actually told us something understandable about WTF was going on, even if he was lying, we could wrap our brains around it.  We need to understand their motives of why he's doing what.  All Shepard and crew had to do was go "wtf is going on!" and we could accept their confusion as well, because people watching this scene, or in totality, would go "wait a second...wtf IS going on?"  And everyone would share this confusion, and we could accept that as believable, because there's no explanation.  In ME2, we get the gooey human T-800 flailing his arms around.  Thanks.
[quote]
Where did I say it was a revenge plot? I'm providing a very basic structure. Let me add another line then. 'Collectors kill you. They are employed by the Reapers, who threaten the entire galaxy. Kill them back.

Now, you could ask another question and force me to add more to that plot outline, but I believe your question was what was the basic plot of ME2.
[/quote]
If "Kill them back" is not revenge, what is?

If one is to do something toward something, that is, in response, or "back", that is in retribution toward what they did to you.  Obviously this was not what you're trying to tell me, even though that's clearly what that word means.
[quote]
I don't see a problem with this. Things can always go wrong. In fact, things *do* tend to go wrong for Shepard if you look at his track record.
[/quote]
It was a lame attempt and forcing the team to go to ground, and that's all.  (Well, also to my point of pointing out how useless Shepard is.)
[quote]
It would've blown up your crew inside the Collector Base. Hell, it would have been a fun moral issue. But from what I've seen, the question of blowing up the Collector Base was already a much tougher issue than most of the black and white issues of ME1.
[/quote]
Right, whether it's an internal bomb or a nuke, it's the same deal.  The difference is they needed a ground operation to give reason to Pokemoning 11 useless fellows.
[quote]
Mission parameters changed when your crew was captured (Yes, as a result of a giant gaping plot hole). I know, you want the game to give you billions of choices. But whether or not we had nukes was never addressed, I believe. Once your crew is captured, you now have reason to enter the Collector Base. And if considered within the context of the overall plot (Fight the Reapers), it makes sense that we should recover what technology we can. And we know the Collectors rely on Reaper Technology.
[/quote]
More than 2 main plot choices would've been nice.

Considering the main plot is "Fight the Collectors", that's just another reason to do so.

There's no mission parameter to "recover the base" in this, since we still don't know what we'll find there yet
[quote]
Thank you for demonstrating your maturity once again. For someone who's a huge fan of RPGs and epic plots, you are very ignorant of their origins. In closing, I win this point.
[/quote]
I'd be glad to demonstrate my maturity anytime, sweet cheeks.  I love laughing.  So far at your ideas, mostly.  You could be a cool intelligent fellow who makes a nice pizza.  But you come across as a bit stupid.  No offense.  But that's why I'm bothering.

You win what point?  Sure, you win.  I give you the point that you win.  Whatever nonseical one that was.
[quote]
And my point is those are a waste of time if they don't work. Their technology as I keep pointing out trumps anything that's ever been seen, making 'spying' difficult. I also point out that it's never exactly explained when TIM planned on sending you through the relay, only that you require a Reaper IFF to do so. Throughout the 2 year period, who's to say he hasn't been doing just that or whether it amounted to anything? He clearly has been trying to spy on them, as he gives out all your missions. It's also a high possibility that he wanted you to go beyond the relay one way or another to find the Collector Base.
[/quote]
You're trying to tell me, that gaining intel, is a waste of time, if it doesn't work.

You're absolutely right.  You can also say that about anything being a waste of time, if it doesn't work.

It is by far the most logical choice, to gain intel about ones enemy, before one sets up any kind of plan or strategy.  And I would add, it would be wise to be prepared for anything.  Which is why getting a large amount of weaponry, for your state of the art spaceship (which must need more!), is also the most logical choice.  Swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb is still victory.

It is also true that due to their technological advancement, spying on the Collectors would be difficult.  However, considering this is 1) the plot, 2) the point, there is no reason TIM, having the information network he has, devoting all this time and energy into Lazarus and Fighting the Collectors, would not consider this an option.

The fact he found a dead million year old Reaper begs SO many questions, it pretty much dwarfs the main plot.  Undeniable proof of our REAL enemy.  But, we just go there to get an IFF, to advance ME2's main plot.  (Retcon ME1, continued.)

Your speculating that 1) (who's to say what TIMS doing?) he's spying on them in the manner I suggested, 2) after doing this, he still thinks getting 11 random soldiers is the best course.  This simply does not make sense.  You also stated " It's also a high possibility that he wanted you to go beyond the relay one way or another to find the Collector Base."

Again, I must remind you, for what must be the 27th time: no one knows what's beyond the Omega-4 relay.  This is why he must spy on them.  Getting through the relay is a great idea, too.

This is why recruiting 11 soliders is useless.  This is why a spacebattle, and preparing for it, is wiser.  Because that Collector Cruiser?  That's all we know so far.  And it's really good at tearing ships apart.  If you can't win a space battle, probably not a good chance you'll have some opportunity to land safely, anywhere, for your 11 super soldiers to do anything.  If anyone didn't see the abandoned Collector Cruiser as a trap, well, that's just unbelieavably sad.

And the fact that destroying the Cruiser cripples the Normandy, regardless of upgrades, is completely contrived, and completely used as a plot device to board the Collector base (since the thing gets blow up regardless of ship upgrades.)
[quote]
You're absolutely right. Take 1,000 points. In fact, I concede this entire debate to you. Does that make you feel better? Is your low, low self-esteem taken care of?

'We know very little about Ilos'. Do you see how easy that was to correct? Please stop trying to make bull**** points like this.
[/quote]
"Smudboy, you've just been awarded 1k points.  What are you going to do with it?"
"I'm going to go for the high-score!"

I'm just replying to what you wrote.  You don't like it.  Don't reply back.  If you make a mistake, fess up.  If I did, say so.  It's not hard, though I don't really care either way.
[quote]
1) Oh, we know Saren has a presence. Is it 1 ship? Is it five? Ten? Sovereign +10? This is no different than how we know the 'Collectors' are beyond the Omega IV relay. Is that one ship? Five? Ten? 
[/quote]
True, but we want to 1) land on the planet, and 2) Normandy is stealth.
[quote]
2) We know there'll be Collectors and they have a base of some kind, whether a fleet of ships, home planet, or mere space station.[/quote]
All we know for sure is that they have a Cruiser.
[quote]
3)See my point about stealth systems with Jediboy. We don't even know if they work against Sovereign.
[/quote]
Too busy with this post.  And there's no indication Sovereign has noticed or cared that were were near it before.
[quote]
4)Actually, not once have we 'known' they were there up until possibly Virmire. Eden Prime we had absolutely no clue. Feros and Noveria likewise. But we were just investigating at this point, so it's acceptable.
[/quote]
We saw Sovereign on Eden Prime.  Did it detect us?  Did it care?  Why didn't it destroy or attack us at first?  These are valid questions.
[quote]
5) Now you'll race there and get blown up? Nothing gets done then. Hell, at least you're prepping the entire game for this suicide mission. You very well know an entire fleet of ships could be on Ilos....yet you rush there anyway. Brilliant move.
[/quote]
It's a possibility.  A very slim one.  But certainly possible.  But we've more data on Virmire, Ilos and Eden Prime than post-Omega-4.  Those places are planets.  There's no indication of any ship detecting the SR1 before, so it seems practical.  It's clearly more safe, and knowledgeable, than post-Omega-4.

If you cannot see this, we're done.
[quote]
Unfortunately, that's the point. You now have a reason to rush beyond the Omega IV where before you could take your time and gather information, as you so desperately wanted.
[/quote]
Yes, the point of ME1 was the Conduit, and the point of ME2 was "Fight the Collectors."  The difference is
1) We know that the Conduit is on Ilos before going there.
2) We know it'll be a ground mission, (unless Saren has already acquired the conduit, then we'd have to chase him in space.)
3) There's the possibility of Geth ships and Sovereign there.
4) The Conduit is "some thing" and we want to discover that, before Saren does.

We have a goal, a knowledge of opposition (at least Saren), and a good reason to go (save the universe.)

For post-Omega-4:
1) The Collectors have a Cruiser, (which may be there.)
2) Fighting the Collectors could be any kind of battle or series of targets, but at least a space battle.

We have a goal, knowledge of opposition (Cruiser), and an okay to go (save crew, we're going anyway.)

Post-Omega-4 could be literally anything.  Has anyone gone to the center of the galactic core before?  No.  How do we prepare for this?  By trying to figure out how to fight our enemy, to find out what we're getting ourselves into, to watch, monitor, spy, send probes, comm buoys?  To get more ships?  To get more guns (well, we do get a gun upgrade, shields and armor, which is logical)?

No, we get 11 random soldiers, a piece of equipment to help us get through the relay, and when we feel our ship and crew are ready, we go.

Not the wisest of courses.  (Bad story.)  But I'll buy it.  Of course, the Normandy gets disabled all the time, regardless of upgrades, and having the best pilot in the fleet, and we're forced into a ground mission.  This is contrived.
[quote]
Oh, I see. We have a similar verb. Yet 'what resistances will we meet' still comes up. In fact, in the movie they purposely do prepare a select group of combat specialists because of this, although they only expected to find ruins. Shepard has run around enough with a ground team to recognize its value.
[/quote]
And I can recognize the value of bombs.  Shepard and TIM cannot.  Neither can character designers.
[quote]
Nope, because your logic stems from the idea that we only ever prepare for definite circumstances. That defies the point of making 'preparations'. Perhaps you didn't play either game. In both, Shepard often runs with a ground team. In ME2, we frequently come across the Collectors in ground battle. It would make sense that we consider the possibility that...this might happen again! OMG! Let's imagine if the plot had played out as you say.
[/quote]
Orbital strikes are more effective than any ground team.

Since we've already a team of 3, and that's how the game is played, anything more would be redundant.
[quote]
You recover the Reaper IFF with Miranda and Jacob. Your crew is captured. You go through the Omega IV. You are unable to blow up the station without killing your crew. Your ground team is you Jacob and Miranda...not enough to push through because none of you are specialists. You can say 'why not bring an army'? But something's gotta give at some point. It sounds more like you're forcing many of these plot holes into the game merely because you didn't like it. When you hyper analyze a plot, you will find inconsistencies even with the best story.
[/quote]
You missed the part where we load the Normandy up with nukes. And nuke the base.
[quote]
They could have assumed they wouldn't be needing a combat team since they were exploring ruins. But guess what? They were entering the unknown and chose to bring one. Would you have preferred it if the plot started with TIM saying 'I have prepped an elite team of combat specialists for you?'
[/quote]
I'm not against a ground team.  I'm against having 11 people that are useless/completely redundant that take over the main plot, especially when our unknown ends up being a contrived ground operation of greenlighting a marketing campaign, and letting character and level designers put writers in the backseat.
[quote]
Exactly. This is Ilos. Sovereign is a ship. Saren has a fleet of Geth. You are in the Normandy. I can easily forsee a ship battle taking place.
[/quote]
It is a possibility, but that was not the point of going to Ilos, as you are aware.

Again, SR1, Stealth.  No one would've seen it coming.
[quote]
Unfortunately that's not an option. As they said, 'human genocide' in the works. Reaper plot to take care of. All you can do is make the best preparations possible, which included designing a state of the art ship more advanced than anything ever seen before. Either you go through, or you stay outside and wait for destruction to come your way. But somehow, I don't think Reaper knowledge or technology is going to just fall into your lap.
[/quote]
Exactly. One of the many reasons it's a horrible plot.
[quote]
No, it didn't happen because it didn't make sense, even if you wanted it to. You keep crying "CERBERUS IS EVIL!" It's really not that black and white. And as Miranda explains, they are the only ones taking you seriously right now. Deal with it.
[/quote]
The same way they dealt with ME1?  No thanks.  If anyone's going to mention that value of ME1, it's certainly the fans, and not ME2 fanboys.
[quote]
And your obsession with nukes is an expression of stupidity. They achieve very specific objectives. Does a government answer every combat possibility with "LAUNCH A NUKE". No, because they lack precision and destroy everything. The point still stands that your crew is now inside the vessel.
[/quote]
I'm not obsessed with nukes.  It's merely one very logical example of planning ahead.  Solving a problem by blowing out of the water.  Over compensating.  This would be the general attitude of a military operation:
1) What's our target?
2) What's our armament?
3) What's our plan of attack.
etc.

The point still stands that one single nuke is more logical, more effective, and useful than 11 soldiers on a ship that might not survive the ship battle, which we'd at least have.  TIM has the money and resources, and is known to do some shady things.  Nukes make sense.  11 random people, not so much.

Also consider if the Collectors were only just the Cruiser.
[quote]
Whether it's a ship, planet, or a giant hula-hoop, we know the Collectors have something beyond Omega IV. Do you honestly need more incentive than that and knowing the Reapers employ them to realize they must be stopped?
[/quote]
No, no you don't.  You know nothing beyond Omega-4.

All you know is they have a Cruiser.

Say this with me:  Pre-Omega-4, all we know, is The Collectors Have a Cruiser.  THAT IS ALL.

You can't seem to grasp this concept.  I hope, that if you say it enough times, you'll realize this.  Till then we're resorting to long winded discussions, and my repetition of this, on your ignorance of this simple fact.

Once you accept it, we can continue.
[quote]
Actually bud, it's speculate that there's some DLC coming which shows this to be the reason why the Collectors target Shepard. If that doesn't work, your logic still fails quite well.
[/quote]
How does my logic fail?  I don't care why the Collectors target Shepard.  My point was Shepard was not needed.

DLC is not an argument, unless it completely changes the main plot, which I know it won't.

Explain to me why Shepard is needed in ME2 to "Fight the Collectors" concerning:
1) The main plot points
2) How two years and 4 billion credits could be used more efficiently to raise the dead
3) The Suicide Mission

I've already proven that:
1) We certainly don't need his Hero of the Citadel status
2) We certainly don't need his persuasive skills in recruiting/loyalizing these people.
3) We certainly don't need his Prothean Cipher (or what's left of it.)
3a) We certainly don't need his Prothean visions.
4) We certainly don't need his first human Spectre status.
5) We certainly don't need his N7 skills/Commander military training.

Then I might care what you have to say next.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

[quote]
Then stay a while.
Showing you is pretty much playing the damn game over.  If you've played it more than once and still can't notice, no amount of arguing will help you.
We both know ME2's plot is a hack.
And yes. I do know what I'm talking about.
www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/ [/quote]

No, I do not think the game is a hack. I do know you are a failure however. For me, this is a test in willpower. The longer I deal with your stupidity, the more I understand about the values of patience.

Oh and thank you for linking me your bible. It's good to know how many of your arguments aren't even your own but rehashes of this bilge. I'm going to point out one problem already within the beginning, "All of your original crew resign the Alliance and join up with this terrorist organization."

Problem #1: Common complaint is that not enough party members were featured in game, including Ashley, Wrex, and Liara. If your entire crew simply rejoined Cerberus, I doubt people would be complaining they got the shaft. So as it stands, 'all your original crew' really consists of Dr. Chakwas and Joker. Pathetic.

I also find it funny that you lacked at my dnd comment when you chose to link me a site filled with DnD dice. You fail twice. I think it's my turn to laugh at you.

[quote]
1. Rebellion in any sense would work.   Leave Cerby, go to Alliancey.  Go to Citadel.  Hook up with Rachni, Krogans, hell the Quarians would've been a great option at the start.  All I want is a bloody argument.

2. Unfortunately, the writers felt it necessary to turn the Alliance and Council into morons, despite being the saviour one was last game.

3. It would also make sense to stay with Cerby if one could chose.  Instead, we get railroaded, Shepard has no say in anything, and doesn't have any freedom to join a side.  It would be logical provided one did any side quests and learned about them.  They could easily have a faction system, much like Planesape Torment. [/quote]

1. Alliance gave you the shaft, as well as your crew. And the Citadel doesn't believe crap that you say. And TIM resurrected you and actually believes you. You keep failing to respond to this point. You have been MIA for two years. You do not just get up with no crew, no backing, and no ship and say 'Golly gee wiz! I'm gonna go kill some Reapers!'

Understand something about focued RPG plots. They are unable to exist without some character  or faction giving plot direction. In the context of the resurrection plot, TIM is your new questgiver. In ME1, it was the Council who gave out assignments which you still had to follow.

2. Erm, sorry, this is continuity from the first game. The Citadel sends you after Saren because they don't believe in the story about the Conduit and after you return to the Citadel, they actually ground your ship again. You don't get more moronic than that. Politics are dirty-this is a reality in our own present time.

3. Again, every game's plot railroads you to be at least seemingly loyal to a faction or character until the end-game. TIM doesn't care how you accomplish your goal (Stopping the Collectors/Reapers), merely that you do it, which you would have done anyway. Alliance and Council have no idea what is going on. Pointless or angsty plot conflicts do not make for good stories.   

[quote]
They were also busy slaughtering humans last time around, the people they're sworn to advance and protect.  "Oh RIGHT.  Let's retcom ME1."  I forget you're into that.

This game you're a pure dog of Cerberus whether you like it or not. [/quote]

No, you see I just understand the concept of character development, my small-minded friend. You see, I can point out plot discontinuity with anything. Han Solo in Episode IV is shown to be a complete dick, mocking those around him. In Episode V he begins to fall in love with Princess Leia and become soft. I can foolishly call this 'retcon', but I understand his role evolved and he transformed. In ME1, Cerberus plays such a minor role and is presented as one dimensional, which honestly few things in life are. ME2 gives Cerberus a hierarchy, a context, and a much more developed history. Its role evolved and transformed. You saw one, small aspect of Cerberus and assumed it must remain that way forever.

[quote]
It all came undone for you, at the LAST scene of ME2 because of how TIM reacted?  Did you play ME1? [/quote]

Of course I did. But let me ask you a question: how many babies do you recall TIM asking you to murder? How many planets did you have to glass? Perform any illegal experiments? Exactly. None of that. What you as Commander Shepard deal with in ME2 is Cerberus' history and skepticism from party members (such as Tali). Nothing they really commission you to do can really be described as 'questionable'. You could argue taking Veetor into custody, but you were in charge of that mission and it was a suggestion by Miranda. Wrex could easily have replied the same.

My point is that you do get to know Miranda and Jacob and the crew fairly well and are not forced to perform any of those actions that you describe from ME1. Jacob in particular was a wonderful character because Cerberus represented certain ideals, but he also thought they crossed the line at points, showing he was a moderate unlike Miranda.

Or are you going to tell me it's not possible to see how given this knowledge it's impossible that someone could think Cerberus wasn't too bad? Which was what I began to think might be possible. But then TIM reveals his true greed by asking you to preserve the facility. I smirked to myself and thought 'typical'. It was a wonderful reversal of fortune.

[quote]
Because he's the primary antagonist?  That'd be like Luke joining his father.  "I'd rather die than be a slave."  See, this is the Shepard character.  Rejecting Saren/fighting him is what he does.  Rejecting/fighting Cerberus is what he does.  He'd be able to get by just fine with TIM, unless the Cerberus crew had an argument.  Which would've been great.

But we retconned ME1, so who cares.  And loyalty per character is almost nearly reduced to a level. [/quote]

So? Who cares? He wasn't the 'primary antagonist' when his role is considered in context. He only seemed that way until you find out that in his own way he thought he was preserving himself and organic life. Why couldn't my Shepard say 'Hey, that makes sense!' and joined up, especially since Saren offered? I don't play my Shepard the way you do. I could easily turn this to say 'Rejecting/fighting the Council is what he does' especially since they prove how retarded many of their ideas are.

[quote]
Luckily I'm not a mature person and have played my share of BW and Infinity Engine games to see that anything about my "gaming history" I mention (to you at least) is moot. [/quote]

It's clear to anyone who's played the majority of Bioware games that you lack basic knowledge of their plot structure....which they use for almost *every* game, ME included.

[quote]
I'd rather a writer steal a formula, theme or idea that works, or use a structure that's a few millenia old (like the Bhagavad Gita), Hero's Journey, etc., if a story is told clearly and intelligibly.  There's absoutely nothing wrong with that.  Ever heard of Star Wars?

Oh wait, you think ME2 is a good story.  So there's your effective stealing-argument for you.  (Psst: Bhagavad Gita.) [/quote]

Apologies, but I'm quite certain I know much more about Star Wars as a universe than you possibly could.
And I find it cute that you think stealing other people's work or reusing your own makes for a great story. But you see, it shows lack of creativity and a disrespect to your audience. The hero's journey, as you say, is a formula. A very basic one that doesn't get old in the telling because it can be dressed up so well. The problem with your example is that it's too vague to work. The hero's journey, to use your example, is a favorite method of story-telling, but it's also characterized by its ability for different steps to be altered to keep it fresh and exciting. ME1 again simply siphons off plot points from previous Bioware games, which unfortunately has not and probably should not be given compliments for its extremely rigid story-telling.

And here's a big problem for you. You fail to argue the terminology we used. You agreed it's okay to 'steal' other people's work instead of arguing that it's alright to be 'inspired' by their work. Stealing is a negative term and implies theft and lazinessyou see. You just handed the point to me and demonstrated your own stupidity (once again) all in one shot. Thank you.

[quote]
There's nothing wrong with stealing.  Unless you happen to be stealing out of the garbage can. [/quote]

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/Steal

This is the definition of stealing. It often seems to imply a lack of moral values. Shall I assume you lack a moral center? Plus, your reasoning is flawed again. Stealing something of greater value is generally given a greater penalty than stealing something of lesser value. So even if it is from a trash can, the crime is lessened, you criminal.

[quote]
Sure I can.  Him, Jacob and Miranda are both effective to fill that role.  Why can't I?  This is after we've experienced everything and went "wtf do we need Shepard for?"  And then we start thinking about it, and it comes by sheer EVIDENCE there's no need.  We then look at the reasons (yes, AFTER we experience everything) why we have Sheaprd is:
1) BioWare's import mechanic.
2) The speech that he's a "bloody icon" or by some whim of TIM. [/quote]

You ask why Shepard is chosen. To do this, you must consider the situation in the confines of the story. This is not done from the perspective of the gamer or the narrator, this is done from the perspective of TIM, who chose Shepard. When he chose Shepard, Garrus had not done the suicide mission and Shepard had destroyed a Reaper. Most people do not find this difficult to understand. TIM cannot think 'Hmm, should I choose Shepard or Garrus? Well, Garrus is obviously going to do the suicide mission, so he can clearly fill the role!' A resume`, young one, you see is based on passed accomplishments, not future ones, which is the basis on which TIM chose Shepard and in which he surpasses all other applicants. You led the team that took down Sovereign, not Garrus.


[quote]
Yes, because Samara is such a powerful biotic, she can read minds and feelings, too.

So Miranda is too cold and calculating to talk to Samara?  Sure, I'd categorize Miranda as an ice queen.  But I'd put Samara a few hundreds years beyond that naming convention ot come close to whatever's going on in her head.  And I don't think you have the capacity to start deducing "oh, well clearly she's sensing Shepard's good intentions."  She calls the three people "people", and asks if they're friends.  She doesn't go "OMG Shepard! Hero of the yadda yadda."  I don't see the "it can't be anyone but Shepard" argument.

Samara cares about two things: her Code, her charge.  Shepard says one line to her, which I showed before.

Anyone could've said that.

You speculating that Samara having some internal deductive emotional analysis about Miranda saying this exact line, juxtaposing that she can "sense" Shepard's "good will", and as such, will go with ONLY Shepard, is completely nonsensical to the point of being comical, (now that I think seriously about it.) [/quote]

No, in this I do not think she will go with only Shepard, but he's more of a fit for the role. Here, I have no problem admitting that Jacob or Garrus might have 'possibly' been able to do it. But Miranda, by virtue of being herself, would not be able. You just don't seem to get that she's a very unsympathetic character who, even if she can reason analytically, doesn't attempt to understand what drives other people.

Jacob or Garrus 'could' have done it, but I think you also miss another crucial point here. Shepard was able to do it with one line....because he is Shepard! We don't know how the conversation would have gone down if Jacob or Garrus were in that role. It's not enough to say what Shepard says, but to say something with the conviction that he says it to make the person think this is not a waste. Sure, Garrus could have repeated your exact phrase. But if he doesn't 'feel' that what he himself says is true, it's a waste anyway because Samara could have responded differently. This doesn't defend Samara's cheesy dialogue sequence, but it does decide the difference between Miranda/Garrus giving a speech and Shepard giving a speech.
 
This is something you see in any rpg. What do most have in common? Your party members all focus on you, even when it could be on each other just as well. Your own character is always portrayed as the most charismatic of the bunch.

[quote]
Yet she takes the compliment from (Jacob) Cerberus anyway, and has no problems joining a pro-human ship.  Again, Shepard doesn't even factor into this.  She got the name of her ship, she's happy. [/quote]

Why *wouldn't* she take the compliment from Jacob? Was she supposed to tell him to go eff himself? Coming from Cerberus it's a much more meaningful compliment. The Cerberus vessel (again) is not pro-human even if the organization on the whole might be. Garrus makes a point of telling you how because he helped you against Sovereign, the crew treats him with respect. Kelly presents the whole cat-dog example. Many of them are doing this for loved ones.

[quote]
Ah huh.  I'm sure Miranda just ASKED Jack to come into HER office JUST so she could start arguing with her, right. [/quote]

Honestly, this is easy to see. When dealing with children, how uncommon is it for the older brother to instigate/torment the younger brother? Miranda's tone and expression indicate comprehension. If you watch the cut scene again, she actually gets up in Jack's face at the end. This is confrontational.

[quote]
I could quote some stuff from Galaxy, or the comics, but if it's not surrounding ME2, it's useless.  It's either a sequel or a story, or both.  Any attempt and further sources is not a very good sign of a well told story.

I've already listed her skills in a leadership role.  The fact she's second in command should be evidence enough. [/quote]

So you can't provide a decent resume`, as I knew. The point still stands. Your eligibility for a job depends on your past accomplishments. Miranda's is far inferior to what Shepard has accomplished, ergo she was far less capable than he was as a whole. The Jack cutscene illustrates some of her immaturity.

[quote]
Who knows?  This is ME2.  The plot is "Fight the Collectors."  Shepard just had to talk to people, have them join, then go on a bunch of missions for people.  Anyone could've done this. [/quote]

And that's the point, as of the start of ME2, we have no reason to believe she's more qualified than Shepard. But to twist your own question against you, what did Shepard do as of ME1 that made him so outstanding to become a Spectre? Hell, if you choose the sole survivor background, you don't exactly come off as a God-given Spectre.

[quote]
1. And if this was "ME2: Fight the Reapers", you'd be right.

2. It's not exactly clear why Joker joined Cerberus, aside from not liking being grounded and pissed at the Alliance.  Again, retcon, trying to make the reboot work, etc.

3. And the reason why Chakwas joined was  1) She missed space travel, (then we later learn) 2) Joker.  Both of which are ABSOLUTELY RETARDED reasons to join a terrorist organization, especially one is a doctor. [/quote]

1. Except that the overall plot of all three games is dedicated to 'fight the Reapers'. This is why I'm against criticizing the game so heavily before we see the third one. If the squad turns out to be the one you use against the Reaper army, suddenly their purpose wasn't just 'suicide mission'.

2. Or maybe, like Chakwas, a huge part of it was working with Shepard again, with whom he seems to have a greater connection? Yes, he was annoyed at the Alliance/being grounded, but Shepard is pretty clear to be the deciding factor in this as well. He's not really surprised to see Shepard alive again.

3. Erm, no. Replay the scene. Yes, she was upset about being placed on a colony. But I just played through the cutscene this morning. She states (quite clearly) "I'm not here for Cerberus. I'm here for you." Play through it yourself if you like. You clearly were the deciding factor in this and this also demonstrates my point of Shepard being held in high regard as a leader.

[quote]
Choosing to kill/save Rachni is part of the main plot of ME1.  There are only 2 main plot choices (unless I'm mistaken) with ME2. [/quote]

Meh, this is not a good defense in my opinion. The problem is 'main plot'. Dealing with the Rachni queen is a side issue that happens as a result of the main story. I like that the issues with the Geth, Quarians, and Krogans can be completely ignored. Their role is what you make of it.

[quote]
If it's just people falling in love that have no tie in to the "point" of the story, then they're in the wrong story, or the author has lots of time and resources to spend it on side stories.  Considering those characters were part of Episode 4, that makes sense.  Ditto with Tali and Garrus.  And we wonder why Tali and Garrus are so liked... [/quote]

And yet you also get Joker and Chakwas back. Yes, they're not 'squad members' but I think they're often underestimated in this role. The connection with Joker felt much more personal and an indication that things were 'slightly' normal. But in the context of the ME2 intro, the fact that you didn't get Liara, Wrex, and Ashley did hurt.

[quote]
Which I can only see as a failure in story telling, or at least a poor attempt, since we use ME1 as a base for ME2.  I don't know WTF the Reapers are doing in ME2, 'cause they're clearly not what ME1 showed us.  There's one called Harbinger who's trying to build a human Reaper.  That's all I got.  And somehow we're the "salvation through destruction", which is just one more nonsensical one liner by Harbinger.

See, if our bad guy actually told us something understandable about WTF was going on, even if he was lying, we could wrap our brains around it.  We need to understand their motives of why he's doing what.  All Shepard and crew had to do was go "wtf is going on!" and we could accept their confusion as well, because people watching this scene, or in totality, would go "wait a second...wtf IS going on?"  And everyone would share this confusion, and we could accept that as believable, because there's no explanation.  In ME2, we get the gooey human T-800 flailing his arms around.  Thanks. [/quote]

Yet, in this regard both games had to have failed because we still have no motivation. I fail to see how we are getting a retcon. 'Expansion' is not retcon except in the most literal meaning of the word. Ex: I used Han Solo before. His character changes significantly in Episode V. What the Reapers do with organics never actually changed; just what you *knew* they did, which are two different things. They told you they harvest organics, they decided not to tell you that they sometimes use them to create more reapers.

And what the Reapers are doing is prettty clear, just as much in ME1. ME1: Harvest organics. ME2: moving out of dark space and forcing the Collectors into building another reaper for them. It doesn't get much clearer than that. But why is a question that hasn't and (in my opinion) shouldn't be answered just yet. Speculations, as you have pointed out, by EDI are all we have and it's all we should get. If we could understand their motivations, this would retcon ME1, which you are against. Organics cannot understand why machines do what they do, says Sovereign.

[quote]
If "Kill them back" is not revenge, what is?

If one is to do something toward something, that is, in response, or "back", that is in retribution toward what they did to you.  Obviously this was not what you're trying to tell me, even though that's clearly what that word means. [/quote]

It's an action by necessity. If someone fights you, you can 'fight back'. It does not imply any sort of vengeance, but you have the right to defend yourself. Similarly, the Collectors killed you and are killing humans. So you're going to kill them back. 'Back' simply means in retaliation. This is not by definition vegeance, which is only personal and represents nothing but emotion.

[quote]
It was a lame attempt and forcing the team to go to ground, and that's all.  (Well, also to my point of pointing out how useless Shepard is.) [/quote]

Crew. Captured. That is all.

[quote]
Right, whether it's an internal bomb or a nuke, it's the same deal.  The difference is they needed a ground operation to give reason to Pokemoning 11 useless fellows. [/quote]

And they needed your two human party members to be presented in exactly opposite positions on Virmire so only one could be saved. I liked the idea of the moral dilemma, but thought it translated to a sloppy mechanic because I didn't feel responsible for placing them in that position. Using any party member in that role should have been an option

[quote]
More than 2 main plot choices would've been nice.

Considering the main plot is "Fight the Collectors", that's just another reason to do so.

There's no mission parameter to "recover the base" in this, since we still don't know what we'll find there yet [/quote]

I again emphasize that the choice you're given in dealing with the base is much more complicated than what ME introduces. Choosing between saving the Council is a very clear-cut Renegade vs. Paragon. Yes, the issue of the base is considered Renegade vs. Paragon, but if you notice it's much more dynamic. The consequences of saving the Council are pretty clear, the price you may or may not pay if you destroy the facility is not, which I thought much more impressive.

But you are also only given one 'main plot point' of critical issue in ME1. That is if we are considering 'main plot point' to be choices which will significantly impact how events play out. ME1- you can free the Rachni queen, but it has no relevance to Saren. Same with Wrex, same with most other decisions. The only truly game-changing issue is the Council issue. ME2 does not correct this, but it greatly expands the depth and importance of its side quests. If those side quests become important in ME3, I really couldn't give a crap that they had little to do with ME2 directly.

[quote]
I'd be glad to demonstrate my maturity anytime, sweet cheeks.  I love laughing.  So far at your ideas, mostly.  You could be a cool intelligent fellow who makes a nice pizza.  But you come across as a bit stupid.  No offense.  But that's why I'm bothering.

You win what point?  Sure, you win.  I give you the point that you win.  Whatever nonseical one that was. [/quote]

No, my naive friend. Stupidity is that because you think 'left' no one can think 'right'. Stupidity is thinking that
because you like 'blue' no one can like 'red'. And stupidity is at any point thinking that you have considered every last possible detail as to believe that you are incapable of being wrong. But I'm glad to see I've angered you so. I will simply let you know that I am arguing this with many intelligent posters, among whom I do not consider you a part. =)

My point here is not to show you that ME2 is the height of story-telling or consistency (which it is not), but that your claim that ME2 has almost 'no' plot and value, especiallly in comparison of the first game, is highly suspect and requires a much greater demonstration of proof.

[quote]
You're trying to tell me, that gaining intel, is a waste of time, if it doesn't work.

You're absolutely right.  You can also say that about anything being a waste of time, if it doesn't work.

It is by far the most logical choice, to gain intel about ones enemy, before one sets up any kind of plan or strategy.  And I would add, it would be wise to be prepared for anything.  Which is why getting a large amount of weaponry, for your state of the art spaceship (which must need more!), is also the most logical choice.  Swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb is still victory. [/quote]

And if you can do both simultaneously (gain intel and obtain resources), then you do both. Why have Shepard take over information gathering when TIM possesses much more sophisticated information networks anyway? Let's say he has been info-gathering for the last two years. Everything he's found, he's told you and it hasn't amounted to much. We know the Collectors are tied with the Reapers and are your goal. It's not the best plan you have, but does every good book or movie involve the most optimal circumstances imaginable? We could have waited another 5 years caming the relay, as you suggest and gotten nothing. The jacking of your crew provided a reason to go 'now' as opposed to later.  

[quote]
It is also true that due to their technological advancement, spying on the Collectors would be difficult.  However, considering this is 1) the plot, 2) the point, there is no reason TIM, having the information network he has, devoting all this time and energy into Lazarus and Fighting the Collectors, would not consider this an option.

The fact he found a dead million year old Reaper begs SO many questions, it pretty much dwarfs the main plot.  Undeniable proof of our REAL enemy.  But, we just go there to get an IFF, to advance ME2's main plot.  (Retcon ME1, continued.) [/quote]

How is this a retcon? Arguably, it is a bigger plothole that you don't choose to bring this before the Council, but I don't really see a huge issue. I also found it creepy that even dead, it was still able to demonstrate some degree of indoctrination. I believe I address the TIM info pont above.

[quote]
Your speculating that 1) (who's to say what TIMS doing?) he's spying on them in the manner I suggested, 2) after doing this, he still thinks getting 11 random soldiers is the best course.  This simply does not make sense.  You also stated " It's also a high possibility that he wanted you to go beyond the relay one way or another to find the Collector Base."

Again, I must remind you, for what must be the 27th time: no one knows what's beyond the Omega-4 relay.  This is why he must spy on them.  Getting through the relay is a great idea, too.

This is why recruiting 11 soliders is useless.  This is why a spacebattle, and preparing for it, is wiser.  Because that Collector Cruiser?  That's all we know so far.  And it's really good at tearing ships apart.  If you can't win a space battle, probably not a good chance you'll have some opportunity to land safely, anywhere, for your 11 super soldiers to do anything.  If anyone didn't see the abandoned Collector Cruiser as a trap, well, that's just unbelieavably sad. [/quote]

1) I'm trusting that TIM, as an information broker, does not sit on his ass and do absolutely nothing; I just don't think his general method of information gathering is as...unsophisticated as you indicate with 'camping the relay'.

2) Does no one know what's beyond the relay? Or are we simply not given the information. This is speculation and I'm insisting on it as such. TIM becomes extremely greedy once you reach the base and seems insistent that you preserve the facility. He's also the one who handed out all your missions and told you to recruit what specialists you did. The purpose of all this (you insist) is unknown and the purpose of this (I insist) is for preparation. If TIM knew about the base all along and somehow had relations with the Collectors, it explains why he insisted so heavily on a ground team-he always intended for you to land on the base and may even have been responsible for having the Collectors take your crew, so you would not resort to merely blowing the facility up.

This is absolutely 100% speculation, but you insist that it's stupid that we're 'collecting pokemon'. Well, if ME3 reveals he knew about all this, suddenly it makes sense why he set it up. He always knew you would have a space battle with the Cruiser and he ensured the Collectors obtained your crew, so you would have to use a ground team to reach them. His connection with the Collectors could have been professional (as other mercenaries interact with them).

[quote]
True, but we want to 1) land on the planet, and 2) Normandy is stealth. [/quote]

True, but it's still an extremely risky operation, as they all are. You are dealing with quite a few uknowns. It's just assumed that we are 'safe from detection' and everything worked out perfectly. That's the point here-all we had on the topic was 'Go go super secret stealth sytems!' Regardless of their reliability, when the potential issue you are dealing with is going against a fleet, it's always better to review a combat plan.

[quote]
All we know for sure is that they have a Cruiser. [/quote]

And a base of some kind. This isn't really a questionable issue. The base could be 'planet', 'fleet of ships', giant space station. But why is the Cruiser traveling between both sides if not to pick up/drop off something?

[quote]
We saw Sovereign on Eden Prime.  Did it detect us?  Did it care?  Why didn't it destroy or attack us at first?  These are valid questions. [/quote]

They are indeed, which is why I'm skeptical our ship passed a million year old Reaper without being detected.

[quote]
Yes, the point of ME1 was the Conduit, and the point of ME2 was "Fight the Collectors."  The difference is
1) We know that the Conduit is on Ilos before going there.
2) We know it'll be a ground mission, (unless Saren has already acquired the conduit, then we'd have to chase him in space.)
3) There's the possibility of Geth ships and Sovereign there.
4) The Conduit is "some thing" and we want to discover that, before Saren does.

We have a goal, a knowledge of opposition (at least Saren), and a good reason to go (save the universe.) [/quote]

1) We know there is a Collector base/presence on the other side. How large? True, we have no idea. But we do know that they are on the other side. It's the same deal, if more vague.
2)In this case a space battle for quite a bit. Possibility of ground engagement is considered.
3)There's 'definitely' Collectors there.

We definitely have the goal and a motive (Stop the Collectors abducting humans). Opposition admittedly is more vague.

[quote]
For post-Omega-4:
1) The Collectors have a Cruiser, (which may be there.)
2) Fighting the Collectors could be any kind of battle or series of targets, but at least a space battle.

We have a goal, knowledge of opposition (Cruiser), and an okay to go (save crew, we're going anyway.)

Post-Omega-4 could be literally anything.  Has anyone gone to the center of the galactic core before?  No.  How do we prepare for this?  By trying to figure out how to fight our enemy, to find out what we're getting ourselves into, to watch, monitor, spy, send probes, comm buoys?  To get more ships?  To get more guns (well, we do get a gun upgrade, shields and armor, which is logical)?

No, we get 11 random soldiers, a piece of equipment to help us get through the relay, and when we feel our ship and crew are ready, we go. [/quote]

Well, first not 11 random. Jacob and Miranda come with Cerberus. Mordin is a plot mechanic, although you learn he always suspected the Collectors and Grunt (through Okeer) is accounted for. Likewise, Tali and Garrus have history with Shepard. So the number is more like '5' which I"m honestly okay with. Enough characters were either tied to Shepard or the plot to make the entire scheme seem viable. But once your crew is taken, yes you can technically go whenever you feel, but it suddenly does become a race against time.

[quote]
Not the wisest of courses.  (Bad story.)  But I'll buy it.  Of course, the Normandy gets disabled all the time, regardless of upgrades, and having the best pilot in the fleet, and we're forced into a ground mission.  This is contrived. [/quote]

True, but the Normandy has stealth systems and the best pilot in the world. Yet, somehow it cannot stealth drop a nuke onto Saren's base because of anti-aicraft guns? Video game plots are always going to be more contrived. This is not to say they can't demonstrate brilliant plots like movies or books. But since everything is ultimately tailored to a gameplay element, it always suffers more in this regard. It's the nature of the genre.

[quote]
And I can recognize the value of bombs.  Shepard and TIM cannot.  Neither can character designers. [/quote]

Again, a nuke has limits. All tools have limits. Military strategy lies in knowing what place each of those tools has. Whether or not they were hinted to have them, nukes become unfeasible when your crew is taken.

[quote]
Orbital strikes are more effective than any ground team.

Since we've already a team of 3, and that's how the game is played, anything more would be redundant. [/quote]

Yes, when you plan to kill everything in sight.

[quote]
You missed the part where we load the Normandy up with nukes. And nuke the base. [/quote]

Crew. Captured.

[quote]
I'm not against a ground team.  I'm against having 11 people that are useless/completely redundant that take over the main plot, especially when our unknown ends up being a contrived ground operation of greenlighting a marketing campaign, and letting character and level designers put writers in the backseat. [/quote]

I really don't mind because I see the possibility of those 11 playing a greater role in ME3. If this is the case, I'm willing to forgive their lack of relevance to this particular plot.

[quote]
It is a possibility, but that was not the point of going to Ilos, as you are aware.

Again, SR1, Stealth.  No one would've seen it coming. [/quote]

True, but our point and Saren's are completely different. His point is to stop us and find the conduit first. He will force combat if he can whether you like it or not. The stealth systems are not foolproof, as I've pointed out.

[quote]
Exactly. One of the many reasons it's a horrible plot. [/quote]

Meh. You say 'horrible'. I say I enjoyed it. I didn't think of it as a plot-focused game. But if your point is merely that the plot is terrible, Episode V doesn't really get brownie points. After Hoth, 'rebellion vs. Empire' is not elaborated on. Somehow, it's regarded as the greatest Star Wars movie though.

[quote]
The same way they dealt with ME1?  No thanks.  If anyone's going to mention that value of ME1, it's certainly the fans, and not ME2 fanboys. [/quote]

We all like to think of ourselves as 'fans' as opposed to 'fanboys'. There's really nothing special about you though. You just happen to be on one side of the issue. But I've still played more Bioware games than you. To me, you are easily a 'ME' fanboy from the perspective of Kotor.

[quote]
I'm not obsessed with nukes.  It's merely one very logical example of planning ahead.  Solving a problem by blowing out of the water.  Over compensating.  This would be the general attitude of a military operation:
1) What's our target?
2) What's our armament?
3) What's our plan of attack.
etc.

The point still stands that one single nuke is more logical, more effective, and useful than 11 soldiers on a ship that might not survive the ship battle, which we'd at least have.  TIM has the money and resources, and is known to do some shady things.  Nukes make sense.  11 random people, not so much.

Also consider if the Collectors were only just the Cruiser. [/quote]

I'm still trying to understand how this works. Certainly, we are never told whether we have nukes available or not. But 'lack of evidence' isn't 'evidence of lack' as they say, especially if you're admitting that TIM possesses the money and resources. But they still never come into play because you have to recover your crew one way or another.

[quote]
No, no you don't.  You know nothing beyond Omega-4.

All you know is they have a Cruiser.

Say this with me:  Pre-Omega-4, all we know, is The Collectors Have a Cruiser.  THAT IS ALL.

You can't seem to grasp this concept.  I hope, that if you say it enough times, you'll realize this.  Till then we're resorting to long winded discussions, and my repetition of this, on your ignorance of this simple fact.

Once you accept it, we can continue.  [/quote]

Oh, I've grasped it. Perhaps better than you have. But you're confusing me saying they have a 'base' with knowing exactly what's going on. We know they have a Cruiser and something more, otherwise they wouldn't be going through the relay in the first place.  It's like putting 2+2 together.

[quote]
How does my logic fail?  I don't care why the Collectors target Shepard.  My point was Shepard was not needed.

DLC is not an argument, unless it completely changes the main plot, which I know it won't. [/quote]

Because now he's integral to the plot with this DLC in a way you can't ignore. This is why he's of such interest to the Collectors. Why was Shepard needed in ME1? It was nothing more than his visions. Take those out and I can easily fill his place with any other character. Hell, after you prove Saren is evil, why didn't the Council assign another Spectre to the job of tracking him? You're going to have an even harder time than I am showing why Shepard is needed in ME1, especially when we don't even know his accomplishments before that.

[quote]
Explain to me why Shepard is needed in ME2 to "Fight the Collectors" concerning:
1) The main plot points
2) How two years and 4 billion credits could be used more efficiently to raise the dead
3) The Suicide Mission

I've already proven that:
1) We certainly don't need his Hero of the Citadel status
2) We certainly don't need his persuasive skills in recruiting/loyalizing these people.
3) We certainly don't need his Prothean Cipher (or what's left of it.)
3a) We certainly don't need his Prothean visions.
4) We certainly don't need his first human Spectre status.
5) We certainly don't need his N7 skills/Commander military training.

Then I might care what you have to say next.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I don't really care what you have to say on this point regardless of whether you respond or not. Stop acting like you're something special. Hint: you're worthless, like all the rest of us mortals. If you respond, I will respond back. If not, then I couldn't care either way.

Now, as to what you've proven (or think you have).

1)Yes, you do. Morale is a huge factor and I've shown how it was responsible for getting Joker, Tali, and Garrus on board. Talk to the crew for a change, they acknowledge Shepard as a living legend. If you can't understand why the huge impact this can have, I can't help you.
2)Joker/Tali/Garrus I've already pointed out for recruitment. Likewise, I can use Jack (she would never willingly cooperate with Miranda). Also, Miranda would 'not' have bothered with the loyalty missions, which are actually important for keeping everyone mentally prepared.
3) Please don't try this division crap to create more points, even if you call it 3a. The cipher and visions are the same, for all intents and purposes.
4)No, you don't.
5) Except he's more expertly trained than the rest of the crew combined. Again, when you present me with a resume of why any your party members were on par with Shepard, I will consider what you say important. Unfortunately, you have not been able to list why Miranda, Garrus, or Jacob have the reputation or the qualifications to lead the mission and the Normandy.
6) No one but Shepard had a reason to deal with the Quarians, Krogans, and Geth.

Again, everything you say about Shepard being necessary in ME2, I can easily apply to ME1, except the visions. But since the Council thought those were BS anyway, why should they care about assigning investigation to another Spectre?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 19 mars 2010 - 08:13 .

[smudboy]

[quote]BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
No, I do not think the game is a hack. I do know you are a failure however. For me, this is a test in willpower. The longer I deal with your stupidity, the more I understand about the values of patience.
[/quote]
So you're not doing this to make a point.  You're here to call me stupid, and for personal reasons.  Cool.  Maybe you might want to become a counsellor?  Then you can rationally tell people they're stupid and learn something.  Since I'm stupid, I clearly won't be able to pass on any knowledge.

Ad hominem it up, baby.
[quote]
Oh and thank you for linking me your bible. It's good to know how many of your arguments aren't even your own but rehashes of this bilge. I'm going to point out one problem already within the beginning, "All of your original crew resign the Alliance and join up with this terrorist organization."
[/quote]
No problem.  Again, me stupid, no original idea.

You wanted proof?  There it is.
[quote]
Problem #1: Common complaint is that not enough party members were featured in game, including Ashley, Wrex, and Liara. If your entire crew simply rejoined Cerberus, I doubt people would be complaining they got the shaft. So as it stands, 'all your original crew' really consists of Dr. Chakwas and Joker. Pathetic.
[/quote]
Okay.
[quote]
I also find it funny that you lacked at my dnd comment when you chose to link me a site filled with DnD dice. You fail twice. I think it's my turn to laugh at you.
[/quote]
No I don't fail.  I just think whenever someone starts talking about DnD I laugh at them.  Cause we're talking about DnD, and a bunch of  guys playing table top games.  Which is hilarious!
[quote]
1. Alliance gave you the shaft, as well as your crew. And the Citadel doesn't believe crap that you say. And TIM resurrected you and actually believes you. You keep failing to respond to this point. You have been MIA for two years. You do not just get up with no crew, no backing, and no ship and say 'Golly gee wiz! I'm gonna go kill some Reapers!'
[/quote]
What point?  It's retarded, considering your rockstar, Spectre, Hero of Citadel, N7 and Alliance status.

But again, retcon, rail roading: bad writing.
[quote]
Understand something about focued RPG plots. They are unable to exist without some character  or faction giving plot direction. In the context of the resurrection plot, TIM is your new questgiver. In ME1, it was the Council who gave out assignments which you still had to follow.
[/quote]
So?  The looming question of "why am I with this guy?"  Just because he resurrected you?  His plan of attack is stupid, despite having this amazing information network.

Oh and the fact he's a terrorist and kills humans.  And has a really bad HR department...
[quote]
2. Erm, sorry, this is continuity from the first game. The Citadel sends you after Saren because they don't believe in the story about the Conduit and after you return to the Citadel, they actually ground your ship again. You don't get more moronic than that. Politics are dirty-this is a reality in our own present time.
[/quote]
Saren is linked with the Geth/plot.  This makes sense, since that's all they see.  It doesn't make sense, 'due to all the various data a spaeship, omnitool, scanning data, Prothean visions you'd have (if Liara can scan your brain, any Asari can.)
[quote]
3. Again, every game's plot railroads you to be at least seemingly loyal to a faction or character until the end-game. TIM doesn't care how you accomplish your goal (Stopping the Collectors/Reapers), merely that you do it, which you would have done anyway. Alliance and Council have no idea what is going on. Pointless or angsty plot conflicts do not make for good stories.   
[/quote]
You're right.  Pointless conflicts do not make for good stories.  Like acquiring 11 random people for no point.

Planescape Torment doesn't railroad you into one faction.  I'm guessing KotOR doesn't, either.
[quote]
No, you see I just understand the concept of character development, my small-minded friend. You see, I can point out plot discontinuity with anything. Han Solo in Episode IV is shown to be a complete dick, mocking those around him. In Episode V he begins to fall in love with Princess Leia and become soft. I can foolishly call this 'retcon', but I understand his role evolved and he transformed. In ME1, Cerberus plays such a minor role and is presented as one dimensional, which honestly few things in life are. ME2 gives Cerberus a hierarchy, a context, and a much more developed history. Its role evolved and transformed. You saw one, small aspect of Cerberus and assumed it must remain that way forever.
[/quote]
Whereas the Shepard character is still flat and static, and moreso, in ME2.  And Cerberus, gets fleshed out, but is still a horrible organization.  In ME1, you didn't have to do their side missions.  In ME2, their side missions are the main plot.

Anyone who's played ME1 will not like TIM and Cerberus.  They're ITCHING at the chance to ditch him.  But we never get the choice, even after blowing up the base right at the end.
[quote]
Of course I did. But let me ask you a question: how many babies do you recall TIM asking you to murder? How many planets did you have to glass? Perform any illegal experiments? Exactly. None of that. What you as Commander Shepard deal with in ME2 is Cerberus' history and skepticism from party members (such as Tali). Nothing they really commission you to do can really be described as 'questionable'. You could argue taking Veetor into custody, but you were in charge of that mission and it was a suggestion by Miranda. Wrex could easily have replied the same.
[/quote]
Retconning is still bad.  An argument, a disgreement, something.
[quote]
Or are you going to tell me it's not possible to see how given this knowledge it's impossible that someone could think Cerberus wasn't too bad? Which was what I began to think might be possible. But then TIM reveals his true greed by asking you to preserve the facility. I smirked to myself and thought 'typical'. It was a wonderful reversal of fortune.
[/quote]
TIM's...smirk.  That was a wonderful reversal of fortune.

Wow, you read that much into a facial expression?  I think we're on different planets, (as usual), but this helps me understand at least.
[quote]
So? Who cares? He wasn't the 'primary antagonist' when his role is considered in context. He only seemed that way until you find out that in his own way he thought he was preserving himself and organic life. Why couldn't my Shepard say 'Hey, that makes sense!' and joined up, especially since Saren offered? I don't play my Shepard the way you do. I could easily turn this to say 'Rejecting/fighting the Council is what he does' especially since they prove how retarded many of their ideas are.
[/quote]
No, Saren is the primary antagonist.  Sovereign may be the real enemy, but we only get one dialog with our Reaper.

I'd imagine this would be a retcon within it's own story, to the point, that Shepard has been chasing after Saren the entire time, trying to stop him.  To suddenly join the enemy would require a bit more exposition, I think, especially since Shepard believes Saren is indoctrinated.  There's absolutely no logic, or build up, story, to joining Saren.

Comparing this to joining Cerberus, and not being able to leave, ugh.
[quote]
It's clear to anyone who's played the majority of Bioware games that you lack basic knowledge of their plot structure....which they use for almost *every* game, ME included.
[/quote]
Luckily I'm not you.
[quote]
Apologies, but I'm quite certain I know much more about Star Wars as a universe than you possibly could.
[/quote]
Thank.  Goodness.B)x10
[quote]
And I find it cute that you think stealing other people's work or reusing your own makes for a great story. But you see, it shows lack of creativity and a disrespect to your audience. The hero's journey, as you say, is a formula. A very basic one that doesn't get old in the telling because it can be dressed up so well. The problem with your example is that it's too vague to work. The hero's journey, to use your example, is a favorite method of story-telling, but it's also characterized by its ability for different steps to be altered to keep it fresh and exciting. ME1 again simply siphons off plot points from previous Bioware games, which unfortunately has not and probably should not be given compliments for its extremely rigid story-telling.
[/quote]
Good artists copy.  Great artists steal.  A rather creative, brilliant artist said that.  Of course if he's stealing I guess that wouldn't make him too original.  Pooh.
[quote]
And here's a big problem for you. You fail to argue the terminology we used. You agreed it's okay to 'steal' other people's work instead of arguing that it's alright to be 'inspired' by their work. Stealing is a negative term and implies theft and lazinessyou see. You just handed the point to me and demonstrated your own stupidity (once again) all in one shot. Thank you.
[/quote]
Why would I argue terminology??  That's just bad.

I don't see how I pointed out stupidity in anything, because you think stealing is bad?

In media, everyone steals.  It's common.  To say this is bad is ridiculous.  To say it's unoriginal, well, that's nothing new.  Haha.

In learning, anything, you learn by copying.  For media, it's copying, stealing, etc.  Oh great.  I'm getting semantic.  Well there's your terminology argument, or WTF you're talking about.

In ME2, writing is an afterthought.  It's a hack job.  It's "oh we got some cool characters.  Why?  Let's put it together."
[quote]
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/Steal

This is the definition of stealing. It often seems to imply a lack of moral values. Shall I assume you lack a moral center? Plus, your reasoning is flawed again. Stealing something of greater value is generally given a greater penalty than stealing something of lesser value. So even if it is from a trash can, the crime is lessened, you criminal.
[/quote]
Dude, you are so out of context, I'm ready to stop bothering with you.  But I ...know...you're smarter than this, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and realize you're just reaching for something here.

So now I: 1) lack moral center, 2) my reasoning is flawed (that you have't explained), 3) Because the artist steals something of lesser value, the crime is lessened?

Dude, we're talking about artists creating things.  If you steal from a great work, and make it into something great, equally great, or different in some way but still interesting, you did a good job.  The other artist might not like that, but wtf is he going to do?  It's art.  It's public domain at that point (unless you literally make cash on a fanfic or something, then that's illegal.)

If you take the T-800, scale it to a building, slap on some human goo tubes with randomly retractive armor plating, have it mash around for a while, and don't explain "WTF IS GOING ON?"  Then yes, that is absurd, and a horrible use of...theft?

(I don't know.  I think that's what you're getting at.)
[quote]
You ask why Shepard is chosen. To do this, you must consider the situation in the confines of the story. This is not done from the perspective of the gamer or the narrator, this is done from the perspective of TIM, who chose Shepard. When he chose Shepard, Garrus had not done the suicide mission and Shepard had destroyed a Reaper. Most people do not find this difficult to understand. TIM cannot think 'Hmm, should I choose Shepard or Garrus? Well, Garrus is obviously going to do the suicide mission, so he can clearly fill the role!' A resume`, young one, you see is based on passed accomplishments, not future ones, which is the basis on which TIM chose Shepard and in which he surpasses all other applicants. You led the team that took down Sovereign, not Garrus.
[/quote]
I think you're giving the writers more credit than they're due.  (Oh, right, I guess that's pretty obvious by now.)

I think Garrus would be a better choice for one reason:  1) Because he's not a corpse.
[quote]
No, in this I do not think she will go with only Shepard, but he's more of a fit for the role. Here, I have no problem admitting that Jacob or Garrus might have 'possibly' been able to do it. But Miranda, by virtue of being herself, would not be able. You just don't seem to get that she's a very unsympathetic character who, even if she can reason analytically, doesn't attempt to understand what drives other people.
[/quote]
I'm not exactly arguing for specifically Miranda, but I still don't see how she wouldn't be able to talk to Samara to join successfully, simply because you find her unsympathetic.  No evidence to prove she can't do the same job.
[quote]
Jacob or Garrus 'could' have done it, but I think you also miss another crucial point here. Shepard was able to do it with one line....because he is Shepard! We don't know how the conversation would have gone down if Jacob or Garrus were in that role. It's not enough to say what Shepard says, but to say something with the conviction that he says it to make the person think this is not a waste. Sure, Garrus could have repeated your exact phrase. But if he doesn't 'feel' that what he himself says is true, it's a waste anyway because Samara could have responded differently. This doesn't defend Samara's cheesy dialogue sequence, but it does decide the difference between Miranda/Garrus giving a speech and Shepard giving a speech.
[/quote]
Haha.  Right.  'cause Hale and Meer do such a perfect job of projecting in those scenes, for your super-counsellor powers to figure out Samara is sizing up Shepard and going "ooooh, yeaaah."
[quote]
This is something you see in any rpg. What do most have in common? Your party members all focus on you, even when it could be on each other just as well. Your own character is always portrayed as the most charismatic of the bunch.
[/quote]
Could be anyone.
[quote]
Why *wouldn't* she take the compliment from Jacob? Was she supposed to tell him to go eff himself? Coming from Cerberus it's a much more meaningful compliment. The Cerberus vessel (again) is not pro-human even if the organization on the whole might be. Garrus makes a point of telling you how because he helped you against Sovereign, the crew treats him with respect. Kelly presents the whole cat-dog example. Many of them are doing this for loved ones.
[/quote]
I'm not saying she would or wouldn't.  I'm saying she said it, and thanked Jacob for it, for whatever reason.  So if Miranda or Jacob recruited her, they could, regardless of them being Cerberus.  Which means, we don't need Shepard.
[quote]
Honestly, this is easy to see. When dealing with children, how uncommon is it for the older brother to instigate/torment the younger brother? Miranda's tone and expression indicate comprehension. If you watch the cut scene again, she actually gets up in Jack's face at the end. This is confrontational.
[/quote]
Would you prefer, a leader, not confront someone, that's threating to kill them?  That they simply take hostility of an uber-biotic, with the attitude of a rebellious adolescent, who can tear up spaceships like paper lightly?  What, does a leader under your definition, who's on a mission, just sit there stoically?

This is a dumb argument on what, situational ethics? I don't see the point in whatever you're talking about.  "This is confrontational."  (DUH.)
[quote]
So you can't provide a decent resume`, as I knew. The point still stands. Your eligibility for a job depends on your past accomplishments. Miranda's is far inferior to what Shepard has accomplished, ergo she was far less capable than he was as a whole. The Jack cutscene illustrates some of her immaturity.
[/quote]
I'm sure everyone is far inferior to what Shepard has accomplished.  But that doesn't matter, since Miranda 1) is already a leader, 1a) was in charge of Lazarus, 1b) has the trust of TIM, 2) there's no evidence Shepard is needed to recruit or loyalize these people (save Tali), 3) the confrtontation with Jack was not instigated by Miranda, and she showed no signs of immaturity.

And oh yeah: 4) Shepard's dead.
[quote]
1. Except that the overall plot of all three games is dedicated to 'fight the Reapers'. This is why I'm against criticizing the game so heavily before we see the third one. If the squad turns out to be the one you use against the Reaper army, suddenly their purpose wasn't just 'suicide mission'.
[/quote]
Maybe if the Reaper army was a bunch of soldiers, or your team gets into a bunch of warships, okay.

We can judge a piece of media without waiting for its sequel to come out.
[quote]
2. Or maybe, like Chakwas, a huge part of it was working with Shepard again, with whom he seems to have a greater connection? Yes, he was annoyed at the Alliance/being grounded, but Shepard is pretty clear to be the deciding factor in this as well. He's not really surprised to see Shepard alive again.
[/quote]
I really can't say.  I think it's contrived how he came back, and the exact reason unclear.  He must've been flying some other ships, since he just found out about the SR2 when we meet him.
[quote]
3. Erm, no. Replay the scene. Yes, she was upset about being placed on a colony. But I just played through the cutscene this morning. She states (quite clearly) "I'm not here for Cerberus. I'm here for you." Play through it yourself if you like. You clearly were the deciding factor in this and this also demonstrates my point of Shepard being held in high regard as a leader.
[/quote]
I'm not exactly sure how Chakwas (let alone Joker) found out about Shepard.  But we do learn through talking that her reasoning (via dialog wheel is)
1) Why she left the Alliance: her previous posting wasn't on a starship.  She describes the "creaking of bulkheads", etc.
2) Why she joined Cerberus: for Shepard

But this doesn't explain WHEN she joined Cerberus after 2 years, or when/how she found out Shepard was brought back.  Was it right after being posted on that Mars Naval Medical Center?  When did the humdrum of Mars gravity cause her to join Cerberus?  After the drinking scene, we discover she's really here for Jeff.

Where some questions pop up in my stupid head:
1) If you're an Alliance doctor, and you miss space travel, and you're assigned to Medical Center on Mars, why not just ask for a re-assignment from the Alliance?
2) If your friend joined a terrorist organization, would you?
3) Would a doctor really join a terrorist organization, knowing first hand the inhumane experiments they did?

I personally didn't care for Chakwas in ME1.  Why she was in 2, well, okay, continuity I guess.

But how the writers handled this was absolutely ridiculous.
[/quote]
[quote]
Meh, this is not a good defense in my opinion. The problem is 'main plot'. Dealing with the Rachni queen is a side issue that happens as a result of the main story. I like that the issues with the Geth, Quarians, and Krogans can be completely ignored. Their role is what you make of it.
[/quote]
The problem, is indeed, main plot.
[quote]
It's an action by necessity. If someone fights you, you can 'fight back'. It does not imply any sort of vengeance, but you have the right to defend yourself. Similarly, the Collectors killed you and are killing humans. So you're going to kill them back. 'Back' simply means in retaliation. This is not by definition vegeance, which is only personal and represents nothing but emotion.
[/quote]
"Kill them back" implies more than just fighting back.

If that's not your definition, fair enough.
[quote]
And they needed your two human party members to be presented in exactly opposite positions on Virmire so only one could be saved. I liked the idea of the moral dilemma, but thought it translated to a sloppy mechanic because I didn't feel responsible for placing them in that position. Using any party member in that role should have been an option
[/quote]
I thought the whole Alliance military thing made sense, with Kirahe asking for someone on your team.
[quote]
I again emphasize that the choice you're given in dealing with the base is much more complicated than what ME introduces. Choosing between saving the Council is a very clear-cut Renegade vs. Paragon. Yes, the issue of the base is considered Renegade vs. Paragon, but if you notice it's much more dynamic. The consequences of saving the Council are pretty clear, the price you may or may not pay if you destroy the facility is not, which I thought much more impressive.
[/quote]
Perhaps.  I always saw it as "losing the biggest ship of the fleet" that would probably help in taking down Sovereign.
[quote]
But you are also only given one 'main plot point' of critical issue in ME1. That is if we are considering 'main plot point' to be choices which will significantly impact how events play out. ME1- you can free the Rachni queen, but it has no relevance to Saren. Same with Wrex, same with most other decisions. The only truly game-changing issue is the Council issue. ME2 does not correct this, but it greatly expands the depth and importance of its side quests. If those side quests become important in ME3, I really couldn't give a crap that they had little to do with ME2 directly.
[/quote]
Again, we can evaluate ME2 regardless of ME3.  We can wait for judgement of ME3 on how it handles the ME2 import, but not the other way around.
[quote]
No, my naive friend. Stupidity is that because you think 'left' no one can think 'right'. Stupidity is thinking that
because you like 'blue' no one can like 'red'. And stupidity is at any point thinking that you have considered every last possible detail as to believe that you are incapable of being wrong. But I'm glad to see I've angered you so. I will simply let you know that I am arguing this with many intelligent posters, among whom I do not consider you a part. =)
[/quote]
That's a fun definition of stupidity.  Keep it up.

I'm not liking something because it's only blue.  I'm disliking something because it doesn't make sense.

I'd be glad to hear these other peoples opinions, 'cause you telling me I'm stupid doesn't help.  Well, unless it makes you feel better, then go for it.
[quote]
My point here is not to show you that ME2 is the height of story-telling or consistency (which it is not), but that your claim that ME2 has almost 'no' plot and value, especiallly in comparison of the first game, is highly suspect and requires a much greater demonstration of proof.
[/quote]
I played the game, and asked myself some obvious questions.  That's really all there was to it.
[quote]
And if you can do both simultaneously (gain intel and obtain resources), then you do both. Why have Shepard take over information gathering when TIM possesses much more sophisticated information networks anyway? Let's say he has been info-gathering for the last two years. Everything he's found, he's told you and it hasn't amounted to much. We know the Collectors are tied with the Reapers and are your goal. It's not the best plan you have, but does every good book or movie involve the most optimal circumstances imaginable? We could have waited another 5 years caming the relay, as you suggest and gotten nothing. The jacking of your crew provided a reason to go 'now' as opposed to later.  
[/quote]
Looking at a mass effect relay seems like a pretty basic thing to do.  For gaining intel on an enemy you're trying to kil.

The crew jacking was bad pacing, along with an obvious plot hole.  If you see that as good writing/motivation, ugh.
[quote]
How is this a retcon? Arguably, it is a bigger plothole that you don't choose to bring this before the Council, but I don't really see a huge issue. I also found it creepy that even dead, it was still able to demonstrate some degree of indoctrination. I believe I address the TIM info pont above.
[/quote]
It's a retcon because the main plot of ME is to stop the Reapers.  We now have a dead Reaper.  TIM's (one of) main goals is to stop the Reapers, and he's not against getting outside help to do so, even "if you can convince the Council, by all means."  This discovery is just as big, if not bigger than Sovereign in having proof.  This could really turn a few heads and potentialy get even the Council to look at Cerberus and go "we need to work together."  Instead we steal a piece of equipment and blow it up.
[quote]
1) I'm trusting that TIM, as an information broker, does not sit on his ass and do absolutely nothing; I just don't think his general method of information gathering is as...unsophisticated as you indicate with 'camping the relay'.
[/quote]
We have no proof otherwise.
[quote]
2) Does no one know what's beyond the relay? Or are we simply not given the information. This is speculation and I'm insisting on it as such. TIM becomes extremely greedy once you reach the base and seems insistent that you preserve the facility. He's also the one who handed out all your missions and told you to recruit what specialists you did. The purpose of all this (you insist) is unknown and the purpose of this (I insist) is for preparation. If TIM knew about the base all along and somehow had relations with the Collectors, it explains why he insisted so heavily on a ground team-he always intended for you to land on the base and may even have been responsible for having the Collectors take your crew, so you would not resort to merely blowing the facility up.
[/quote]
No one knows.
[quote]
True, but it's still an extremely risky operation, as they all are. You are dealing with quite a few uknowns. It's just assumed that we are 'safe from detection' and everything worked out perfectly. That's the point here-all we had on the topic was 'Go go super secret stealth sytems!' Regardless of their reliability, when the potential issue you are dealing with is going against a fleet, it's always better to review a combat plan.
[/quote]
The plan is to land on the planet.  We're racing to save the galaxy.  It's a desperate run.  We don't want to fight a space battle here.
[quote]
And a base of some kind. This isn't really a questionable issue. The base could be 'planet', 'fleet of ships', giant space station. But why is the Cruiser traveling between both sides if not to pick up/drop off something?
[/quote]
No, no we don't!

Who knows why.  When we go inside the Cruiser, we notice they've got millions of pods, (empty?), so they're not necessarily dropping stuff/people off.
[quote]
They are indeed, which is why I'm skeptical our ship passed a million year old Reaper without being detected.
[/quote]
A million year old dead Reaper...that an entire Cerberus research team has been in...
[quote]
1) We know there is a Collector base/presence on the other side. How large? True, we have no idea. But we do know that they are on the other side. It's the same deal, if more vague.
[/quote]
Except our goal is to attack them.  We need to know.  If it was just to find something over there, that would be different.
[quote]
2)In this case a space battle for quite a bit. Possibility of ground engagement is considered.
[/quote]
Okay, I'll buy that.  But that still doesn't constutite 11 people.
[quote]
3)There's 'definitely' Collectors there.
[/quote]
Nope.  There's definitely Collectors on the Cruiser.  And that Cruiser might be there when we get there.
[quote]
We definitely have the goal and a motive (Stop the Collectors abducting humans). Opposition admittedly is more vague.
[/quote]
Which is bad, since the plot is to Fight the Collectors.  We need numbers, positions, locations, etc.
[quote]
Well, first not 11 random. Jacob and Miranda come with Cerberus. Mordin is a plot mechanic, although you learn he always suspected the Collectors and Grunt (through Okeer) is accounted for. Likewise, Tali and Garrus have history with Shepard. So the number is more like '5' which I"m honestly okay with. Enough characters were either tied to Shepard or the plot to make the entire scheme seem viable. But once your crew is taken, yes you can technically go whenever you feel, but it suddenly does become a race against time.
[/quote]
There's certainly more (if any) motivation, but I wouldn't call it a race against time.  We don't know what collecting involves.
[quote]
True, but the Normandy has stealth systems and the best pilot in the world. Yet, somehow it cannot stealth drop a nuke onto Saren's base because of anti-aicraft guns? Video game plots are always going to be more contrived. This is not to say they can't demonstrate brilliant plots like movies or books. But since everything is ultimately tailored to a gameplay element, it always suffers more in this regard. It's the nature of the genre.
[/quote]
Yes, but that doesn't mean they completely disregard not telling the audience wtf is going on, or explain why the most simple of activities in achieving a goal is not attempted.
[quote]
Again, a nuke has limits. All tools have limits. Military strategy lies in knowing what place each of those tools has. Whether or not they were hinted to have them, nukes become unfeasible when your crew is taken.
[/quote]
Nukes weren't unfeasiable before or after they're taken.  They could all be dead.  Since our mission is to "Fight the Collectors", nukes still seem pretty darned important, regardless of casualties.

Though it would've been nice to be given the option to save or not save the crew, considering the crazed "don't stop at all costs!" attitude it brings.
[quote]
Yes, when you plan to kill everything in sight.
[/quote]
That's the plot.
[quote]
Crew. Captured.
[/quote]
Plot.  Fight the Collectors. Mission too important.
[quote]
I really don't mind because I see the possibility of those 11 playing a greater role in ME3. If this is the case, I'm willing to forgive their lack of relevance to this particular plot.
[/quote]
Apologists argument, and no good way to evaluate a story on its own merits.  Base your understandings only on ME2. Evaluate ME3 only on ME3, and **** about how it may retcon ME2.
[quote]
True, but our point and Saren's are completely different. His point is to stop us and find the conduit first. He will force combat if he can whether you like it or not. The stealth systems are not foolproof, as I've pointed out.
[/quote]
It's a race, and Saren's and Shepard both have the same goal.
[quote]
Meh. You say 'horrible'. I say I enjoyed it. I didn't think of it as a plot-focused game. But if your point is merely that the plot is terrible, Episode V doesn't really get brownie points. After Hoth, 'rebellion vs. Empire' is not elaborated on. Somehow, it's regarded as the greatest Star Wars movie though.
[/quote]
If it's not character driven, it's plot driven.  I'd say the majority of stories, video games, etc. are plot driven.

The good thing with V is it's based on grandfathered characters, so we're expecting to see them develop, which they do.  Ditto with Garrus, Tali and Shepard (but we never see Shepard grow, since he's flat and static.)
[quote]
We all like to think of ourselves as 'fans' as opposed to 'fanboys'. There's really nothing special about you though. You just happen to be on one side of the issue. But I've still played more Bioware games than you. To me, you are easily a 'ME' fanboy from the perspective of Kotor.
[/quote]
Whatever.
[quote]
I'm still trying to understand how this works. Certainly, we are never told whether we have nukes available or not. But 'lack of evidence' isn't 'evidence of lack' as they say, especially if you're admitting that TIM possesses the money and resources. But they still never come into play because you have to recover your crew one way or another.
[/quote]
Nukes, Thanix Cannons, whatever.  The idea is that we're preparing for this massive battle, a war, something, that we don't know.  Sure, having some great soldiers is a good idea...if we're fighting a land war.  But we're in space, in a spaceship.  We need ships armed to the teeth, cause if we want to land this ship to have a land war, we gotta survive the space battle.

And if we can survive a space battle, well, we shouldn't need to have a ground war.

The rest of the argument is in regards to scope, and lacking enemy intel.
[quote]
Oh, I've grasped it. Perhaps better than you have. But you're confusing me saying they have a 'base' with knowing exactly what's going on. We know they have a Cruiser and something more, otherwise they wouldn't be going through the relay in the first place.  It's like putting 2+2 together.
[/quote]
It's logical to think they have something else beyond the relay, but we don't know what.  Considering they're 50k years old, I'd imagine a massive civilization of slaves?  More reason to get spying on our unknown enemy.  We need numbers.
[quote]
Because now he's integral to the plot with this DLC in a way you can't ignore. This is why he's of such interest to the Collectors. Why was Shepard needed in ME1? It was nothing more than his visions. Take those out and I can easily fill his place with any other character. Hell, after you prove Saren is evil, why didn't the Council assign another Spectre to the job of tracking him? You're going to have an even harder time than I am showing why Shepard is needed in ME1, especially when we don't even know his accomplishments before that.
[/quote]
Any story that needs supplemental stories to make itself make sense, or "fix it", is immediate failure.  Now, if the DLC is a contiunation of the story, not a side quest, then that's an innovative way for game developers to sell their product and tell their story.  If not, it's just another Heavy Weapon.

I think I'd have an easier time proving Shepard is needed in ME1 more than ME2.

I thought the introduction to the Spectres made sense, in that the Concil ordered you, the new human Spectre, to go track down Saren.

But anyway:
1) Visions (impending doom)
2) Cipher (plot device)
3) N7, Commander Status (competency)
4) Spectre Status (elite group, above the law authority access)
5) (and as such) commander of the Normandy (can go places)
[quote]
Unfortunately, I don't really care what you have to say on this point regardless of whether you respond or not. Stop acting like you're something special. Hint: you're worthless, like all the rest of us mortals. If you respond, I will respond back. If not, then I couldn't care either way.
[/quote]
Please continue making ad hominem attacks.  It gives your argument that wonderful, personal shine.
[quote]
Now, as to what you've proven (or think you have).

1)Yes, you do. Morale is a huge factor and I've shown how it was responsible for getting Joker, Tali, and Garrus on board. Talk to the crew for a change, they acknowledge Shepard as a living legend. If you can't understand why the huge impact this can have, I can't help you.
[/quote]
I think Joker just wants to fly, and just fly the Normandy especially.  Don't think he really cares who's in charge.
I agree with Tali.  (But even she'd be thankful of being saved twice.)
Garrus, concerning his circumstances, I don't buy, since he didn't know who you were when you were getting close to him.  He actually shot at you, and even if you didn't recruit him in ME1, he'll still welcome you.  (Considering his circumstances, he could use all the help he could get.) After he gets hosed, he'll get patched up, and I think that counts for "saving his life" twice.  With nowhere else to go, he could very much leave, but there's a good chance he'd stay.
I don't see any other characters having morale as a factor, definitely not the redshirts.
[quote]
2)Joker/Tali/Garrus I've already pointed out for recruitment. Likewise, I can use Jack (she would never willingly cooperate with Miranda). Also, Miranda would 'not' have bothered with the loyalty missions, which are actually important for keeping everyone mentally prepared.
[/quote]
If it was part of the mission, a la TIM, she'd have bothered.

As for Jack, she would.  Kicking and screaming, but yeah, she would.  Shepard's just another Cerberus operative to Jack.
[quote]
3) Please don't try this division crap to create more points, even if you call it 3a. The cipher and visions are the same, for all intents and purposes.
[/quote]
The Visions are the threat of impending doom.  The Cipher is a plot device.  It just happens to work on top the Visions.
[quote]
4)No, you don't.
[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]
5) Except he's more expertly trained than the rest of the crew combined. Again, when you present me with a resume of why any your party members were on par with Shepard, I will consider what you say important. Unfortunately, you have not been able to list why Miranda, Garrus, or Jacob have the reputation or the qualifications to lead the mission and the Normandy.
[/quote]
Shepard's great.  (Oh except for dying.)  But I wouldn't say more expertly trained than Samara or Thane.  AND DEFINITELY NOT combined.  Not even in the same solar system of training for those guys.

The argument is not on par with Shepard.  That's not the argument.  Please do not respond with a "give me a resume to prove someone's better."  Yes, Shepard's an awesome soldier and hero.  No one can compare to his resume.  We get that.

I'm saying, that in ME2, the stuff he does or needs to do? How he does it?  That stuff? ANYONE could've done it.  That's what I'm trying to say.  Okay?  That's all.

Recruiting people, hiding behind boxes, talking to people.  Anyone could've done that.  Obviously he's got a few upgrades, so no one can wield that Widow gun, but that's not the argument.  It's the leadership stuff, the recruitment stuff, the loyalty stuff, that anyone could've done.  His status and whatever from ME1 is next to useless/unneeded.

Anyone could've gotten all the side-characters, save maybe Tali.
Anyone could've gotten their loyalty missions.
Anyone could've gotten the ship upgraded.
[quote]
6) No one but Shepard had a reason to deal with the Quarians, Krogans, and Geth.

Again, everything you say about Shepard being necessary in ME2, I can easily apply to ME1, except the visions. But since the Council thought those were BS anyway, why should they care about assigning investigation to another Spectre?
[/quote]
Shepard was a Council Spectre, had the Prothean Cipher and Visions, and as such had been given a stealth ship.  He represented the best humanity had to offer.  He was instrumental and vital to knowing where to go and what to do, being given carte blanche on the universe to travel, hunt down Saren and uncover the plot.  I'd say that's pretty intricate, and necessary, to ME1.  No one else would've been able to know or what to do.  So sure, minimalize it to the Visions, but without those, and Shepard got benched?  Universe gone.

If whoever was in charge of the ME2 mission needed to deal with the Quarians, Krogans and Geth, they'd do so.

-The plot in ME2 is to Fight the Collectors.
-The fact that Shepard's dead at the start is proof enough.
-(The fact that Cerberus wanted to bring him back is ludicrous, considering they're all about results, spending 2 years and crazy money to do so.  Even they know "a symbol" isn't as effective as time, money and hardwork.  Combine that with the fact that his status, his symbol, meant and did next to nothing, save to Tali, and some shop vendors.  Deus Ex machina in the first 10 minutes, not good.)
-TIM wanted you to get a bunch of specialists, just because.
-I don't see how any of this couldn't be achieved my Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, or hell, anyone with leadership skills, in less amount of time than it took to rebuild Mr. "meat and tubes."  Considering all that occurred was destroying the Collectors, this had no impact on the Reaper threat.  (Despite having a million year old Reaper to explore.)  We fought a proxy battle.  You bickering over Miranda's social graces doesn't really mean much.  I could go over every single side character on how they get recruited and loyaled, but it's not necessary, since Shepard isn't really doing much (as Shepard) to win them over.

Modifié par smudboy, 19 mars 2010 - 02:14 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

[quote]
So you're not doing this to make a point.  You're here to call me stupid, and for personal reasons.  Cool.  Maybe you might want to become a counsellor?  Then you can rationally tell people they're stupid and learn something.  Since I'm stupid, I clearly won't be able to pass on any knowledge.

Ad hominem it up, baby. [/quote]

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It results when someone uses insults in place of an argument. If you say 'ME2 plot fails' and I respond 'you are a retard, therefore you are wrong', then this is an ad hominem. If I supply a valid or sound argument and in addition fall to name-calling well, that's not the same, nor is it a logical fallacy. The 'insult' is not used as a premise for the conclusion. If you notice, not once do I respond to a ME argument you make with just 'fool' or 'idiot'. It's supplemented by a counter-argument where appropriate. But you haven't been the height of courtesy either. Let's just drop this point.

[quote]
No problem.  Again, me stupid, no original idea.

You wanted proof?  There it is. [/quote]

You call that proof? As I said, it's bilge. I'm thinking most of your arguments come from this site, and you haven't swayed me thusfar. If linking random sites was all it took to win a debate, you would not see these essays being posted. You would see hyperlinks.

[quote]
Problem #1: Common complaint is that not enough party members were featured in game, including Ashley, Wrex, and Liara. If your entire crew simply rejoined Cerberus, I doubt people would be complaining they got the shaft. So as it stands, 'all your original crew' really consists of Dr. Chakwas and Joker. Pathetic.

Okay. [/quote]

And this is my point. Not even five minutes in, I found problems with your article that you admit to.

[quote]
No I don't fail.  I just think whenever someone starts talking about DnD I laugh at them.  Cause we're talking about DnD, and a bunch of  guys playing table top games.  Which is hilarious! [/quote]

Now see *this* would be an ad hominem. You are using the fact that I play DnD to say that it is merely comical and not worthy of argumentation. But regardless, you think too much of yourself. There's plenty of people laughing at us for playing video games or even bothering on these forums. But if all you need to do to counter an argument is laugh at it, all of your points are done. I still would like to see a counter to the dnd example, the game on which Bioware has based most of its products and without which your precious ME wouldn't exist.

[quote]
What point?  It's retarded, considering your rockstar, Spectre, Hero of Citadel, N7 and Alliance status.

But again, retcon, rail roading: bad writing. [/quote]

This is all explained. When you died, you are no longer a Specre, which is why the Council offers to reinstate your status later on. Your 'hero of the Citadel' role was also hushed up, as Jacob explains pretty clearly. Yes, you were the Alliance poster boy, but after you died the Alliance shafted your entire crew and the Council made you out to be insane. It doesn't matter whether you like the explanations or not-they are given and it is something the Alliance/Council is known for.

What do you not understand that they are not doing anything? You really don't seem to understand a retcon. In plots, a retcon occurs when the creator simply decides 'Oh, things actually went like this'. In original Episode IV, Han shoots Greedo in the face. In the special edition, Greedo shoots first, then Han shoots him under the table. *This* is a retcon and a bad one that we fans refer to as 'Han shot first'. When explanation is given for changing things around, that is not a retcon. I could easily say Sovereign manipulating Saren is a retcon of the basic facts you knew.

[quote]
So?  The looming question of "why am I with this guy?"  Just because he resurrected you?  His plan of attack is stupid, despite having this amazing information network.

Oh and the fact he's a terrorist and kills humans.  And has a really bad HR department... [/quote]

Again, you are all about collecting facts before rushing into anything. Shepard has just been resurrected after two years. Even if by Cerberus, it's stupid to just rush off without collecting information in 'rebellion'. You have no idea how the world has changed since you've been gone.

[quote]
Saren is linked with the Geth/plot.  This makes sense, since that's all they see.  It doesn't make sense, 'due to all the various data a spaeship, omnitool, scanning data, Prothean visions you'd have (if Liara can scan your brain, any Asari can.) [/quote]

And yet their top agent still managed to betray them under their very own noses with a huge fleet of Geth and they had no idea of this. Anderson/Udina fill you in. Saren is their top agent, they don't like people bad-mouthing him. You proved them wrong once (Saren had betrayed them), yet they merely send you off to 'investigate' him, disregarding everything else you had told them about the Conduit and the threat that Sovereign might have posed. And once the battle of the Citadel actually begins, they have the balls to ask you to aid them, costing more ships and lives. It's a common theme in ME1 that the Council (and even the Alliance) are known for their stupid hierarchy and their lack of action.

I'm still curious as to why they didn't just lay a trap for Saren instead of publicly declaring him a traitor. Option #1 is plothole, option #2 is Council is retarded. It works either way.

[quote]
You're right.  Pointless conflicts do not make for good stories.  Like acquiring 11 random people for no point.

Planescape Torment doesn't railroad you into one faction.  I'm guessing KotOR doesn't, either. [/quote]

Well then, guess again. Kotor was actually the very definition of rail-roading. It's why I'm so disdainful of ME's structural pattern, which ME2 actually attempts to change up. In fact, if considered in its context, ME really is just Kotor all over again, with less enjoyable characters.  That's why I find your defense of ME so hysterical. Structurally, it's a rehash of a previous game. Yet you regard the writing as 'brilliant'. Bioware turning a plot around 3/4 through a video game is nothing new.

And was recruiting your team really conflict? Hell, I didn't really think of it as such.  My point still stands that fighting TIM just causes needless problems for everyone.

[quote]
Whereas the Shepard character is still flat and static, and moreso, in ME2.  And Cerberus, gets fleshed out, but is still a horrible organization.  In ME1, you didn't have to do their side missions.  In ME2, their side missions are the main plot.

Anyone who's played ME1 will not like TIM and Cerberus.  They're ITCHING at the chance to ditch him.  But we never get the choice, even after blowing up the base right at the end. [/quote]

So if you didn't have to do their side missions, clearly they're not critical to the main plot of ME1, are they? In which case, from what you seem to argue, they cannot be used to show why Shepard wouldn't join Cerberus in ME2.


Watch halfway through this link. How is this *not* ditching them at the end of the game? 'I'm doing things my way'. You basically told him to suck it and stole some of his most expensive resources. This supports my point. The minute TIM asks you to do something controversial, you tell him to screw off. Before that, there was no reason for rebellion.

[quote]
Retconning is still bad.  An argument, a disgreement, something. [/quote]

Retconning is replacing a plot point. ME2 expounds on Cerberus. They are not the same. You get enough of Cerberus' reputation from people you pick up and just general facts to know they aren't fully trusted.

[quote]
TIM's...smirk.  That was a wonderful reversal of fortune.

Wow, you read that much into a facial expression?  I think we're on different planets, (as usual), but this helps me understand at least. [/quote]

Erm, I believe I said 'I' smirked when he asked me to preserve the facility. I wasn't reading simply into his expression. If you notice, his character is made out to be extremely manipulative. He's an extremely powerful information broker and the way he asks you to preserve the base is extremely iffy. He knowingly kept you in the dark about the 'abandoned' Collector ship, among other things. And at the end of the renegade ending, all your party members indicate something feels wrong, even Miranda. This is foreshadowing for ME3.

[quote]
No, Saren is the primary antagonist.  Sovereign may be the real enemy, but we only get one dialog with our Reaper.

I'd imagine this would be a retcon within it's own story, to the point, that Shepard has been chasing after Saren the entire time, trying to stop him.  To suddenly join the enemy would require a bit more exposition, I think, especially since Shepard believes Saren is indoctrinated.  There's absolutely no logic, or build up, story, to joining Saren.

Comparing this to joining Cerberus, and not being able to leave, ugh. [/quote]

Beyond Saren's logic possibly being correct? That alone could be enough to join. I mean yes, Shepard thinks he is indoctrinated. Although Saren also admits that Sovereign can't take full control from him anyway. But this is technically 'railroading' I"m not given the option to join, am I? Especially if I'm tired of the Council's pissing and moaning. This is something both Saren and Shepard understand. They're so obsessed with politics they ignored the incoming threats. To me, it seems logical Shepard would do what's best for organics, even if it required fighting the Council.



[quote]Luckily I'm not you.  [/quote]

Indeed it is. ME wasn't a plot driven game for me. It was universe driven. I was impressed more by Bioware's ability to create a believable science fiction story than I was able to believe the plot of ME. This is why ME2's less complete story isn't an issue for me. It never was my strict purpose for playing the games. I think they were both well-executed. But both are filled with action move stereo types (the Mako on Ilos, jumping on your ship at the end of ME2, among many others).

[quote]
Good artists copy.  Great artists steal.  A rather creative, brilliant artist said that.  Of course if he's stealing I guess that wouldn't make him too original.  Pooh. [/quote]

Plagiarism laws would disagree with you and you're punished rather heavily for trying it. There is nothing 'great' about reusing or stealing another person's work.

What you are copying and how closely will always be a factor. The hero's journey is accepted as a timeless way of telling a story. Bioware reusing plot structure and story elements just reeks of repetitiveness and it has nothing to do with artists writing a 'brilliant' plot.

[quote]
In media, everyone steals.  It's common.  To say this is bad is ridiculous.  To say it's unoriginal, well, that's nothing new.  Haha.

In learning, anything, you learn by copying.  For media, it's copying, stealing, etc.  Oh great.  I'm getting semantic.  Well there's your terminology argument, or WTF you're talking about.

In ME2, writing is an afterthought.  It's a hack job.  It's "oh we got some cool characters.  Why?  Let's put it together." [/quote]

A lack of originality is ridiculous, which you can't seem to grasp. The reason why you enjoy ME so much is very well because you haven't been exposed to other Bioware games. If we can all get by 'stealing' each other's works, many more things would be considered art. We have seen Bioware's plot formula  a million times already. It's not innovative, it's not the best thing ever, it just gets the job done.

First part of the game, *something* always gets burned down to the ground, providing your characters a motivation or the story. A 'choose your planet/mission' arc always follows this where you pick up random side characters along the way. Your character 'always' has a main party or faction who make all the story decisions. 3/4 through the game your character is always given some mind-blowing revelation that changes how you felt about the mission. And at the end you always confront your primary antagonist and kill him. This is not brilliant writing, again. At least ME2 attempts to experiment, a little.

[quote]
Dude, we're talking about artists creating things.  If you steal from a great work, and make it into something great, equally great, or different in some way but still interesting, you did a good job.  The other artist might not like that, but wtf is he going to do?  It's art.  It's public domain at that point (unless you literally make cash on a fanfic or something, then that's illegal.)

If you take the T-800, scale it to a building, slap on some human goo tubes with randomly retractive armor plating, have it mash around for a while, and don't explain "WTF IS GOING ON?"  Then yes, that is absurd, and a horrible use of...theft?

(I don't know.  I think that's what you're getting at.) [/quote]

Again, see ME1 plotline. Rehashing plot structures in a blatant fashion is not the way to greatness. Hero's journey doesn't suffer from this because it is typically considered in context of a book or movie. Video games, as a different medium of art, have to worry about this more since everything must fit gameplay and avoid becoming 'contrived'.

[quote]
I think you're giving the writers more credit than they're due.  (Oh, right, I guess that's pretty obvious by now.)

I think Garrus would be a better choice for one reason:  1) Because he's not a corpse. [/quote]

Hell, he would have been a better choice in ME1 too. Remember, he headed the investigation in C-sec and always thought Saren was bad news, and he already proved he was capable of becoming a Spectre, *and* he's a turian, a Council race. Sometimes, you just have to accept plot choices instead of fighting every detail. See example of why we did not set a trap for Saren.

[quote]
I'm not exactly arguing for specifically Miranda, but I still don't see how she wouldn't be able to talk to Samara to join successfully, simply because you find her unsympathetic.  No evidence to prove she can't do the same job. [/quote]

Then we just have to agree to disagree here. Miranda is great as a second in command, which is her place in Cerberus. A true leader though is the one who calls the shots. Miranda is shown to be distrusted by her underlings (Jacob and Wilson), Jacob is shown to lack motivation as a leader. His personality isn't the type to act the leadership role. Garrus is like Shepard, but a much lesser version even if alive (Shepard led the team against Sovereign, not Garrus).

Remember, Cerberus wants a human in charge as well. We know they aren't just 'racists' anymore but TIM still has a pro-human agenda. He's willing to use Mordin, Samara, etc as underlings, but he's not going to give any of them command of his ship.

 [quote]
Haha.  Right.  'cause Hale and Meer do such a perfect job of projecting in those scenes, for your super-counsellor powers to figure out Samara is sizing up Shepard and going "ooooh, yeaaah." [/quote]

No, but one of the things about RPGs is that everyone regards your particular character as special or points them out..for some reason, even if they have absolutely no idea to know why you're special. Even in Dragon Age. Everyone doesn't know you're a Grey Warden, but for some reason most side quests are reserved just for you. Alistair is given a side line, even though he's your veteran in rank and experience. Side quests, in virtue of being themselves, are contrived.

[quote]
Could be anyone. [/quote]

Precisely the point. Most games could have 'anyone' performing the main quest or side quest. Kotor does this and all the party members, like you have with ME2, pointed out how stupid of an idea it seems. 3/4 through the game, it all comes together and makes perfect sense.

You have to understand this point. *This* is what Bioware lives for and they do it extremely well. It's what causes me to forgive their overly formulaic plot structure. And this is also their first trilogy/sequel (Not counting Baldur's Gate). I'm willing to wait until ME3 to see if they do reveal ME2 to be much less contrived than it may seem. If they fail, then I like everyone else will call for their blood.

[quote]
I'm not saying she would or wouldn't.  I'm saying she said it, and thanked Jacob for it, for whatever reason.  So if Miranda or Jacob recruited her, they could, regardless of them being Cerberus.  Which means, we don't need Shepard. [/quote]

True, but again Jacob never has that 'take the lead' attitude. He was head of security, his personality type is that of someone who would prefer to point and shoot. Miranda is...a cold ****.

[quote]
Would you prefer, a leader, not confront someone, that's threating to kill them?  That they simply take hostility of an uber-biotic, with the attitude of a rebellious adolescent, who can tear up spaceships like paper lightly?  What, does a leader under your definition, who's on a mission, just sit there stoically?

This is a dumb argument on what, situational ethics? I don't see the point in whatever you're talking about.  "This is confrontational."  (DUH.) [/quote]

Unfortunately, however way you play this out, your argument fails. That Miranda doesn't calm Jack down, understanding how crazy she is, and goads her shows just how immature she can be. Again, she's smirking throughout that cutscene. Your point about confrontational would be right if someone was trying to shoot them. Of course you fight back. She's instigating someone, a companion, who is already close to the edge after she's about to calm down. In-fighting doesn't make things easier.

You never see Shepard getting into these huge shouting matches with Thane, or anyone else. Your point would stand if we saw Shepard start a fight with Jack, Miranda, anyone then have Jacob or Miranda come sort it out. This doesn't happen. Why? Because Shepard keeps the big picture always in sight. When Tali and Legion are about to brawl, EDI doesn't call Miranda, she calls Shepard. Why? He's in charge and always know what to do. When Wrex flies off the handle, Kaiden doesn't go talk to him. Shepard does. Why? He's in charge and always knows what to do, even if it means killing Wrex.

[quote]
I'm sure everyone is far inferior to what Shepard has accomplished.  But that doesn't matter, since Miranda 1) is already a leader, 1a) was in charge of Lazarus, 1b) has the trust of TIM, 2) there's no evidence Shepard is needed to recruit or loyalize these people (save Tali), 3) the confrtontation with Jack was not instigated by Miranda, and she showed no signs of immaturity.

And oh yeah: 4) Shepard's dead. [/quote]

1) Much easier to lead a scientist team than a military or spec ops operation. This shows Miranda's intelligence and ability to lead a science team. This is also where we are shown that most of Miranda's underlings cannot stand her and that she does have insecurities regarding who she is because of her genetic modifications.

2)  See morale, previous party members, and status as a hero among Cerberus operatives. They jump at the opportunity of working with Shepard. Not the case with Miranda.

3) 'I have no problem working with you...until the mission is over'. *gets in your face* Very immature. My five year old cousins instigate each other all the time. We don't know how the argument started, but we do know Shepard ended it, not her.

[quote]
Maybe if the Reaper army was a bunch of soldiers, or your team gets into a bunch of warships, okay.

We can judge a piece of media without waiting for its sequel to come out. [/quote]

True, but then you are prone to looking foolish when something you thought stupid or unimportant becomes critical to success. The Two Towers ends with Frodo apparently dying. Considered on its own, I can say it's a terrible ending. Significance is not seen through one aspect, but it's context. ME2 may suck in light of itself. It may be perfect in light of how Bioware plays out ME3.

This is Bioware's first (possibly second with BG) trilogy. Bioware is also known for doing epic stories. Let's see what the third one does first.

[quote]
I really can't say.  I think it's contrived how he came back, and the exact reason unclear.  He must've been flying some other ships, since he just found out about the SR2 when we meet him. [/quote]

Indeed he did just find out. But I fail to see how it's contrived. When I was working with Miranda and Jacob, it felt weird because I knew they weren't my team. Reuniting with Joker after was a very awesome way of reacquainting you with an old friend.

[quote]
I'm not exactly sure how Chakwas (let alone Joker) found out about Shepard.  But we do learn through talking that her reasoning (via dialog wheel is)
1) Why she left the Alliance: her previous posting wasn't on a starship.  She describes the "creaking of bulkheads", etc.
2) Why she joined Cerberus: for Shepard

But this doesn't explain WHEN she joined Cerberus after 2 years, or when/how she found out Shepard was brought back.  Was it right after being posted on that Mars Naval Medical Center?  When did the humdrum of Mars gravity cause her to join Cerberus?  After the drinking scene, we discover she's really here for Jeff. [/quote]

I think it's pretty self-evident that TIM recruited them and told them about Shepard. I don't see why it needs to be explained in giant neon colors"SHEPARD!" And she explains pretty clearly that she's not here for Cerberus, she really doesn't care for them. She's very much the nostalgic type if you've noticed. She was handled perfectly and wanted to rejoin the crew.

[quote]
Where some questions pop up in my stupid head:
1) If you're an Alliance doctor, and you miss space travel, and you're assigned to Medical Center on Mars, why not just ask for a re-assignment from the Alliance?
2) If your friend joined a terrorist organization, would you?
3) Would a doctor really join a terrorist organization, knowing first hand the inhumane experiments they did?

I personally didn't care for Chakwas in ME1.  Why she was in 2, well, okay, continuity I guess.

But how the writers handled this was absolutely ridiculous.
[/quote]

1) Shepard does ask this very question in the drinking scene. I believe this is where she discusses Joker. She admits how she thinks the Alliance is more fun in terms of soldiers (Jenkins), but Shepard and Joker pulled her over.

2) I think it's a tad more personal than that. I can think of two situations where someone might. 1. If you've known someone long enough and trust their judgment, though still unlikely. 2. If you are forced into difficult situations in short amounts of time, you bond much more intimately much more quickly. Chakwas demonstrates the second type. Joker joined Cerberus and it's pretty clear she knew Shepard was going to be there.

3) Knowing first hand? She wasn't on the ground team; that would be second-hand if anything.

[quote]
I thought the whole Alliance military thing made sense, with Kirahe asking for someone on your team. [/quote]

Meh, I thought it was very contrived, fit only to force you to choose between your two human party members (conveniently). If they had made you choose among all six of your team mates, it would have felt much more personal, as if you 'you' put them there.

 [quote]
Perhaps.  I always saw it as "losing the biggest ship of the fleet" that would probably help in taking down Sovereign. [/quote]

And I suppose it is in the basest form. But TIM is clearly not to be trusted one way or another. Killing the council is straight up (Renegade vs. Paragon), which I hated becaue I don't see why or how Renegade is tied to human dominance. It's seemed like a rehashed good vs. evil bar, which it is.

ME2 makes you think about how this impacts the Reapers. Well, you need to beat them, but TIM gets a huge advantage versus destroying it, but having no direct means of fighting the Reapers.

[quote]
Again, we can evaluate ME2 regardless of ME3.  We can wait for judgement of ME3 on how it handles the ME2 import, but not the other way around. [/quote]

If something is valued only as itself, no sequel makes sense. I can merely say I've never seen the characters of Episode V before, who are these people? You cannot simply evalute everything in itself. Episodes IV and V both have the title 'Star Wars' and take place in the same universe, same general plot, same general characters. Lord of the Rings does the same.

People often refer to the second part of a trilogy as a 'dark installment', compared to the first installment. This is not possible if you evaluate a plot on its own merits.

[quote]
I played the game, and asked myself some obvious questions.  That's really all there was to it. [/quote]

I played the game, loved it, and accepted it wasn't the greatest thing ever, as with ME1.

[quote]
Looking at a mass effect relay seems like a pretty basic thing to do.  For gaining intel on an enemy you're trying to kil.

The crew jacking was bad pacing, along with an obvious plot hole.  If you see that as good writing/motivation, ugh. [/quote]

No, but I was never arguing the crew jacking or the Ashley/Kaidan plot hole. I agreed on those and it pisses me off too. Here's one way Ashley could have been handled better-you learn the Collectors are going to attack the colony, you arrive and confront Ashley who pretty much hates you, then the Collectors abduct her. This would have been a beautiful set up.
[quote]
It's a retcon because the main plot of ME is to stop the Reapers.  We now have a dead Reaper.  TIM's (one of) main goals is to stop the Reapers, and he's not against getting outside help to do so, even "if you can convince the Council, by all means."  This discovery is just as big, if not bigger than Sovereign in having proof.  This could really turn a few heads and potentialy get even the Council to look at Cerberus and go "we need to work together."  Instead we steal a piece of equipment and blow it up. [/quote]

Ah, but again retcons and plotholes are different. The mission is still 'stop the Reapers'. You're also forgetting that there is a reason you blew the Reaper up-the shields had gone active, sealing you inside. It was either blow it up (which also deactivated the shields) or be eaten by husks.

[quote]
2) Does no one know what's beyond the relay? Or are we simply not given the information. This is speculation and I'm insisting on it as such. TIM becomes extremely greedy once you reach the base and seems insistent that you preserve the facility. He's also the one who handed out all your missions and told you to recruit what specialists you did. The purpose of all this (you insist) is unknown and the purpose of this (I insist) is for preparation. If TIM knew about the base all along and somehow had relations with the Collectors, it explains why he insisted so heavily on a ground team-he always intended for you to land on the base and may even have been responsible for having the Collectors take your crew, so you would not resort to merely blowing the facility up.

No one knows. [/quote]

And that's my point why how ME3 is handled is important. You argue the plot is contrived-so many plot holes. You don't seem to take issue with this hypothetical scenario (which seems to handle most of your problems) and there's a great many others which Bioware is capable of. My point is that if ME3 develops in a way that explains ME2's apparent plotholes, it is not longer stupid it is called 'brilliant'. Kotor did this as well, only it was self-contained within a single game.

[quote]
The plan is to land on the planet.  We're racing to save the galaxy.  It's a desperate run.  We don't want to fight a space battle here. [/quote]

Unfortunately that is not an argument against what will happen. If you want to dispute whether we can be discovered (which honestly it's not a flawless plan even with stealth), fine. But if Saren/Sovereign attack you, a good response isn't "We don't want to fight a space battle here!". The point is, many great stories are great because of this-it demonstrates individuals who are forced into situations which are hardly ideal, where anything can go wrong, but still manage to come out on top. ME2 just placed more emphasis on 'we need to be prepared' but most good plot structures don't go in with characters being certain of victory.

Luke went onto the Death Star in Episode VI expecting to die, for example.

[quote]
A million year old dead Reaper...that an entire Cerberus research team has been in... [/quote]

And which they paid for. Or do you not find indoctrination even after death to be extremely creepy? It works better than a much more technologically advanced culture (Reapers) possibly being unable to detect a stealthed ship.

[quote]
2)In this case a space battle for quite a bit. Possibility of ground engagement is considered.
[/quote]

[quote]
Okay, I'll buy that.  But that still doesn't constutite 11 people. [/quote]

And you're right, I really can't defend 11 people.

But as I explain it's really 5 (Thane, Jack, Samara, Zaeed, and Legion). Miranda and Jacob are tied to Cerberus. Garrus and Tali are related through you. Mordin and Grunt both actually have relevance to the main plot.


Then 4 if you consider Legion wasn't even on the recruit list. And 'possibly' even 3. You admit we can consider a ground engagement possible. Of the 7 we have, none is a biotic specialist akin to Liara, so either Jack or Samara but not both get a pass. This leaves Thane, one of the two biotics, and Zaeed. Is this gimmicky? Yes, it is as everyone points out Thane is an assassin for example which is irrelevant. But it's not entirely unreasonable in the grand scheme of things.

[quote]
We definitely have the goal and a motive (Stop the Collectors abducting humans). Opposition admittedly is more vague.
[/quote]
Which is bad, since the plot is to Fight the Collectors.  We need numbers, positions, locations, etc. [/quote]

And unfortunately having a goal and motive never makes things go your way, just the opposite in fact.

On Noveria, my goal was to confront Benezia, but I had to fight my way through an army of Rachni and Geth to reach her. I couldn't say 'my goal is the Matriarch'! Likewise, the conduit is my goal; it's not going to stop Saren attacking me if I"m found out.

[quote]
There's certainly more (if any) motivation, but I wouldn't call it a race against time.  We don't know what collecting involves. [/quote]

We know that those who are abducted are never seen again. We know humans are being taken in the hundreds of thousands. I doubt the Collectors are taking them to an island paradise complete with foot massages beyond the Omega IV. Is knowing they work for the Reapers and that they have a reputation for experimentation not enough to make you see your crew is in immediate danger?

[quote]
Yes, but that doesn't mean they completely disregard not telling the audience wtf is going on, or explain why the most simple of activities in achieving a goal is not attempted. [/quote]

I'd say air-dropping a nuke from a ship with stealth systems is a pretty simple objective. There was no reason for any of the ground mission on Virmire when you think of it in that context, but we had to learn about Sovereign and lose Alenko or Ashley.

[quote]
Nukes weren't unfeasiable before or after they're taken.  They could all be dead.  Since our mission is to "Fight the Collectors", nukes still seem pretty darned important, regardless of casualties.

Though it would've been nice to be given the option to save or not save the crew, considering the crazed "don't stop at all costs!" attitude it brings. [/quote]

Unfortunately, we didn't know what happened to them, so assuming they are dead is no more acceptable than you refusing to let me assume TIM knows what he's doing. The game chose to force a ground mission to recover your crew, which is admittedly contrived.

[quote]
Yes, when you plan to kill everything in sight.

That's the plot. [/quote]

ME1 Plot: Investigate/Stop Saren. You find out Reapers and Geth fleet are involved, so mission parameters changed.

ME2 Plot: Stop the Collectors. They take your crew, so parameters change. You're still stopping the Collectors, but there's more to it.

[quote]
Apologists argument, and no good way to evaluate a story on its own merits.  Base your understandings only on ME2. Evaluate ME3 only on ME3, and **** about how it may retcon ME2. [/quote]

Base understanding of the Two Towers only on the Two Towers. Base understanding of Episode V only on Episode V. Without the context of the original, no one knows who the characters are. Larger picture is always more important than the self-contained. The entire plot of Star Wars is much grander than the tale of any single chapter.

[quote]
It's a race, and Saren's and Shepard both have the same goal. [/quote]

Goal also seems to be stopping each other. I thought that was self-evident or were they going to share the Conduit?

[quote]
If it's not character driven, it's plot driven.  I'd say the majority of stories, video games, etc. are plot driven.

The good thing with V is it's based on grandfathered characters, so we're expecting to see them develop, which they do.  Ditto with Garrus, Tali and Shepard (but we never see Shepard grow, since he's flat and static.) [/quote]

But this doesn't change the fact that Episode V is character driven. So is ME2. The issue as you point out, alot of the development is with new characters. But we do see Chakwas, Garrus, etc expounded on which was enough for me not to think my crew really got the shaft.

[quote]
Nukes, Thanix Cannons, whatever.  The idea is that we're preparing for this massive battle, a war, something, that we don't know.  Sure, having some great soldiers is a good idea...if we're fighting a land war.  But we're in space, in a spaceship.  We need ships armed to the teeth, cause if we want to land this ship to have a land war, we gotta survive the space battle.

And if we can survive a space battle, well, we shouldn't need to have a ground war.

The rest of the argument is in regards to scope, and lacking enemy intel. [/quote]

True, but as you said this is war. Wars usually aren't fought with one aspect in mind whether naval, air, or ground-they are considered in light of the whole. I can say a ship battle will be important with the Collectors (which is why TIM gives you the Normandy and you can upgrade it), but ground battles are also fairly common.

[quote]
It's logical to think they have something else beyond the relay, but we don't know what.  Considering they're 50k years old, I'd imagine a massive civilization of slaves?  More reason to get spying on our unknown enemy.  We need numbers. [/quote]

Aye, but as I said we are actually told whether you would be charging through the Omega IV relay or when. Yes, you acquire the Reaper IFF, it's about this point that your crew is captured. It's a tad contrived, but we really aren't told if TIM's intentions were to send you in blind, or indeed whether he knew about the facility.

[quote]
Any story that needs supplemental stories to make itself make sense, or "fix it", is immediate failure.  Now, if the DLC is a contiunation of the story, not a side quest, then that's an innovative way for game developers to sell their product and tell their story.  If not, it's just another Heavy Weapon.

I think I'd have an easier time proving Shepard is needed in ME1 more than ME2.

I thought the introduction to the Spectres made sense, in that the Concil ordered you, the new human Spectre, to go track down Saren. [/quote]

That's all well and good, but why did they bother making you a Spectre? Why (again) not Garrus, who is known to be qualified? You're still a nooby as a Spectre anyway, and they think your visions are crap. It makes sense they would send their second most qualified Specre to take down the first. It would also make sense if they sent another Spectre with you since they occasionally work in small teams. 'None' of this occurs. Face it, this was just as contrived as Shepard's role in ME2, except there he at least had a list of accomplishments.

[quote]
But anyway:
1) Visions (impending doom)
2) Cipher (plot device)
3) N7, Commander Status (competency)
4) Spectre Status (elite group, above the law authority access)
5) (and as such) commander of the Normandy (can go places) [/quote]

1) Council does not care about your visions.
2) Council does not care about your visions.
3) Competent, yes. He's still not shown to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. His qualifications are not so rare that no one has reached them.
4) And there are more qualified Spectres who either could have assisted or taken over the investigation.
5) All Spectres can go places rather easily. This is not unique to Shepard.

[quote]
1. I think Joker just wants to fly, and just fly the Normandy especially.  Don't think he really cares who's in charge.
I agree with Tali.  (But even she'd be thankful of being saved twice.)

2. Garrus, concerning his circumstances, I don't buy, since he didn't know who you were when you were getting close to him.  He actually shot at you, and even if you didn't recruit him in ME1, he'll still welcome you.  (Considering his circumstances, he could use all the help he could get.) After he gets hosed, he'll get patched up, and I think that counts for "saving his life" twice.  With nowhere else to go, he could very much leave, but there's a good chance he'd stay.

I don't see any other characters having morale as a factor, definitely not the redshirts. [/quote]

1. Aye, he did want to fly, but remember he didn't find out about the Normandy until the night before. He is indicated to having prior knowledge of Shepard's existence, as his lack of surprise indicates. And Tali really isn't that thankful. If you notice, she still throws a fit when she reaches your ship about Cerberus and doesn't particularly like that you have an AI.

2. I'd replay that scene with Archange. He *did* know who you were. He actually explains the reason he shoots you is to make it look less suspicious. If Cerberus had tried that without Shepard, he would have popped their heads and likely died against the later wave of Mercs. He spares you because you were Shepard.

[quote]
If it was part of the mission, a la TIM, she'd have bothered.

As for Jack, she would.  Kicking and screaming, but yeah, she would.  Shepard's just another Cerberus operative to Jack. [/quote]



Jack joins because you let her look at the Cerberus files, Hell, even if you lie, it at least convinces her, but Miranda is unwilling to do this. Miranda suggests knocking her out and opposes you allowing Jack access to the files. She's strictly 'by the book' Cerberus. It's what limits her abilities as a leader and her ability to inspire others.

[quote]
Shepard's great.  (Oh except for dying.)  But I wouldn't say more expertly trained than Samara or Thane.  AND DEFINITELY NOT combined.  Not even in the same solar system of training for those guys.

The argument is not on par with Shepard.  That's not the argument.  Please do not respond with a "give me a resume to prove someone's better."  Yes, Shepard's an awesome soldier and hero.  No one can compare to his resume.  We get that.

I'm saying, that in ME2, the stuff he does or needs to do? How he does it?  That stuff? ANYONE could've done it.  That's what I'm trying to say.  Okay?  That's all. [/quote]

And I'm saying that's not the case. Joker, Tali, Garrus, Jack, etc. Miranda is too limited by her own issues to do anything. You also haven't addressed the morale point or that people hate Miranda (which is indisputable-they really do).

[quote
Recruiting people, hiding behind boxes, talking to people.  Anyone could've done that.  Obviously he's got a few upgrades, so no one can wield that Widow gun, but that's not the argument.  It's the leadership stuff, the recruitment stuff, the loyalty stuff, that anyone could've done.  His status and whatever from ME1 is next to useless/unneeded.

Anyone could've gotten all the side-characters, save maybe Tali.
Anyone could've gotten their loyalty missions.
Anyone could've gotten the ship upgraded. [/quote]

Miranda would not have done loyalty missions. She would not have conversed with her party to any significant degree.
You have so far been unable to provide another example of someone who can fully embrace that leadership role as well as Shepard. You have been unable to show anyone with his accomplishments (which is why he was chosen, regardless of whether it was necessary). And you have been unable to show how anyone has dealth with the Reapers in any significant fashion besides him. He is the only one with first-hand experience and will not underestimate the threat. Garrus is a turian and not to be considered with Cerberus. Jacob lacks the heart for it. And Miranda is too cold for her own good.

[quote]
Shepard was a Council Spectre, had the Prothean Cipher and Visions, and as such had been given a stealth ship.  He represented the best humanity had to offer.  He was instrumental and vital to knowing where to go and what to do, being given carte blanche on the universe to travel, hunt down Saren and uncover the plot.  I'd say that's pretty intricate, and necessary, to ME1.  No one else would've been able to know or what to do.  So sure, minimalize it to the Visions, but without those, and Shepard got benched?  Universe gone.

If whoever was in charge of the ME2 mission needed to deal with the Quarians, Krogans and Geth, they'd do so. [/quote]

This is exactly why he was chosen for ME2. Only it makes more sense there because Cerberus and TIM are pro-human. The Council is back and forth, favoring and screwing humanity based on their mood. I'm still trying to understand how he was instrumental in knowing where to go or what to do. The Council gave him all his assignments. And there are other more experienced Spectres out there who know Saren much more intimately. So no, he's really not intricate.

No one but Shepard could have done ME2's side missions on the other hand. The Quarians you deal with because you know Tali (She does not trust Miranda). The Krogans are handled through Wrex. And the Geth through Legion, who has some obsession with Shepard where everyone else utterly hates the Geth. These are unique to Shepard as a person and as such any operative cannot fill these roles.

[quote]
-The plot in ME2 is to Fight the Collectors.
-The fact that Shepard's dead at the start is proof enough.
-(The fact that Cerberus wanted to bring him back is ludicrous, considering they're all about results, spending 2 years and crazy money to do so.  Even they know "a symbol" isn't as effective as time, money and hardwork.  Combine that with the fact that his status, his symbol, meant and did next to nothing, save to Tali, and some shop vendors.  Deus Ex machina in the first 10 minutes, not good.)
-TIM wanted you to get a bunch of specialists, just because.
-I don't see how any of this couldn't be achieved my Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, or hell, anyone with leadership skills, in less amount of time than it took to rebuild Mr. "meat and tubes."  Considering all that occurred was destroying the Collectors, this had no impact on the Reaper threat.  (Despite having a million year old Reaper to explore.)  We fought a proxy battle.  You bickering over Miranda's social graces doesn't really mean much.  I could go over every single side character on how they get recruited and loyaled, but it's not necessary, since Shepard isn't really doing much (as Shepard) to win them over.
[/quote]

This is the point. By virtue of being Shepard, his role in ME1 is irrelevant. Shepard has no special tie to Saren which cannot be replaced. He has ties to Tali, Wrex, Legion, etc that no one else fills. By virtue of being Shepard in ME2, he was chosen for a top secret project, he recruited (or screwed) a great number of allies  among Quarians, Krogans, etc.

And Shepard is known for giving results. He does not sit on his butt doing nothing. His personal experience with the Reapers is a testament to this.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 19 mars 2010 - 06:56 .

[Terraneaux]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Stuff

Dude, you're wrong, everyone knows it, you're just flailing as hard as you can to avoid losing an argument on the internet.  Hope that time was well-spent.

[JMA22TB]

I've noticed that the plots for ME and ME2 are actually similar in basic format: Both follow exposition, rising action, and climax.

Both climaxes deal with a huge battle and an important decision. We see some falling action of ME1 in ME2's exposition and in conversations with people, but this shows the ME trilogy's story is based on leaving you hanging for the next step with each installment.

As a trilogy, we can all agree that the climax will be the final confrontation of Shepard vs. the Reapers. ME1 and ME2's climaxes are part of the overarching rising action that leads up to the event and are built to set up the malleable exposition of ME3.

ME2 accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to in this sense, so on a basic level the plot is just fine. If the plot was so flawed as you suggest, there would be little to no basis for a third installment of the overall plot.

All I see with your criticism is of the details of how the story was told. That's fine, but the plot's purpose of setting the stage, building tension and moving toward a climax, destroying the collectors and deciding what to do with the base regarding the coming war, is clear and defined.

Modifié par JMA22TB, 19 mars 2010 - 09:10 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Terraneaux wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Stuff

Dude, you're wrong, everyone knows it, you're just flailing as hard as you can to avoid losing an argument on the internet.  Hope that time was well-spent.

You see, Smudboy, this is a perfect example of what an Ad Hominem is.

His premise seems to be 'you're flailing because you don't want to lose.' And his conclusion is 'you're wrong' without any other backing to it (although I could be mistaken, since he's a bit vague).

Thank you Terraneaux for serving as an excellent example. If you'd be so kind as to stand aside, the grown ups are talking now.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 19 mars 2010 - 11:16 .

[Terraneaux]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

You see, Smudboy, this is a perfect example of what an Ad Hominem is.

His premise seems to be 'you're flailing because you don't want to lose.' And his conclusion is 'you're wrong' without any other backing to it (although I could be mistaken, since he's a bit vague).

Thank you Terraneaux for serving as an excellent example. If you'd be so kind as to stand aside, the grown ups are talking now.

I could provide some pretty easy examples of why your viewpoint is wrong, but since you're so emotionally invested in being a fanboi you respond to any attack on your viewpoints as if they were personal threats to you.  There's no hope convincing someone who doesn't listen to logic, so it'd be best if you just quit it.