570 réponses à ce sujet

[Akrylik]

smudboy wrote...

Akrylik wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Buh, Nostalgia googles.

I just understand everything that's presented in ME2, just don't know the possible outcomes. Oh, surprise! we have ME3 left. =)

Those are not holes, until ME3 doesn't explain them. For now, they are just set ups for ME3's plot.

No, no you don't.

The day I accept plot holes as a platform for the continuation of a story.  It's like building a house on air.

well it could simply be unexplained, there's a difference between unknown and nonexistent, instead it would be like building a house on invisible ground, it's not clear what will happen until it comes into play.
Either way i prefer if the holes in ME2 didn't play a significant role in ME3, and remained to be self sufficient developing subplots. In this case a "Chekhov's Gun" situation would be poor storytelling IMO.

If something is unexplained, it either needs to be explained, or labeled a mystery by the main character.

If there is such a thing as invisible ground, that is a ground breaking achievement in construction and ANALOGIES.

WTF Chekhov's gun?  With what?

urg, what i meant by chekhov's gun would be, for example, the haelstrom sun/dark energy thing. Plays little to no important role in ME2 but the same can't necisarily be said for ME3.
and in my invisible ground analogy, the invisible ground references said "plot holes", we aren't sure if they have significance (provide foundation) or are simply unimportant (just air).

[JeanLuc761]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Hmmm, just to remember.

It's a game, not a book or a movie.

Sorry, but this is never a valid excuse.  Storytelling is storytelling and if Bioware wants to keep considering Mass Effect 2 as the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, then the simple fact it's a videogame shouldn't give them an easy pass.

I personally think they accomplished their goal with ME2, but again, I'm still waiting until Mass Effect 3 before I fully judge exactly how well everything flows together.

[kraidy1117]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Hmmm, just to remember.

It's a game, not a book or a movie.

Sorry, but this is never a valid excuse.  Storytelling is storytelling and if Bioware wants to keep considering Mass Effect 2 as the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, then the simple fact it's a videogame shouldn't give them an easy pass.

I personally think they accomplished their goal with ME2, but again, I'm still waiting until Mass Effect 3 before I fully judge exactly how well everything flows together.

You do know it was nor Bioware whop said it was the Empire strikes back of video games right? IUt was a bunch of video game sites. Get your facts stright.

[JeanLuc761]

kraidy1117 wrote...
You do know it was nor Bioware whop said it was the Empire strikes back of video games right? IUt was a bunch of video game sites. Get your facts stright.

Actually, yes it was Bioware.  They compared ME2 to Empire Strikes Back in terms of how they wrote the story and the fact Mass Effect 2 has a darker plot.  A 10 second google will tell you that.

Get your facts straight

[Knoll Argonar]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Hmmm, just to remember.

It's a game, not a book or a movie.

Sorry, but this is never a valid excuse.  Storytelling is storytelling and if Bioware wants to keep considering Mass Effect 2 as the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, then the simple fact it's a videogame shouldn't give them an easy pass.

I personally think they accomplished their goal with ME2, but again, I'm still waiting until Mass Effect 3 before I fully judge exactly how well everything flows together.

You don't understand me.

Watching Movies and reading Books are some passive actions. That's it, there's something that tells you a story, the way it's wanted to be told. In a videogame, however, you interact with the story, you "touch" it (well, except crappy Metal Gear). Therefore storytelling mechanics are different, and the pace of the story doesn't have to be the way it's "predicted" to be.

Put ME1 as an example. Once you get out of the Normandy, is "OH NOEZ YOU HAVE TO GO TO ILLOS!". But, in the end, it doesn't matter how late you arrive to Illos. In fact, Hackett's pissing you off everytime you arrive into a new system.

That's only one of the many differences, but the point I wanted to arrive is that you have to be very careful with what you explain and how you do that in a Videogame, because it may not be the way you wanted, especially in a Shooter-RPG-storytelling-game.

[JeanLuc761]

Knoll Argonar wrote...
You don't understand me.

Watching Movies and reading Books are some passive actions. That's it, there's something that tells you a story, the way it's wanted to be told. In a videogame, however, you interact with the story, you "touch" it (well, except crappy Metal Gear). Therefore storytelling mechanics are different, and the pace of the story doesn't have to be the way it's "predicted" to be.

Put ME1 as an example. Once you get out of the Normandy, is "OH NOEZ YOU HAVE TO GO TO ILLOS!". But, in the end, it doesn't matter how late you arrive to Illos. In fact, Hackett's pissing you off everytime you arrive into a new system.

That's only one of the many differences, but the point I wanted to arrive is that you have to be very careful with what you explain and how you do that in a Videogame, because it may not be the way you wanted, especially in a Shooter-RPG-storytelling-game.

Jeez, I completely misunderstood you, sorry about that

You're right, videogames are different in the method they tell their story so the writing has to change as well.

[JMA22TB]

Yeled,



You don't end up in the same position as ME1 at all. You're infinitely more prepared to fight just about anything at the end of ME2, with a small-scale Reaper and the deadliest team in the galaxy outside of maybe a team of Spectres. And even then, you're still having an "Oh ****" moment when you see the Reapers move in.



The plot moves forward and well, it's just not spelled out in some overly cliched copycat adherence to RPG status quo.

[smudboy]

Akrylik wrote...
urg, what i meant by chekhov's gun would be, for example, the haelstrom sun/dark energy thing. Plays little to no important role in ME2 but the same can't necisarily be said for ME3.
and in my invisible ground analogy, the invisible ground references said "plot holes", we aren't sure if they have significance (provide foundation) or are simply unimportant (just air).

That is not an example of Chekhov's gun.  That is called foreshadowing.  Unless they don't use it, then it's called bad writing.

If they're significant, they either have to be explained, or labeled a mystery.  If they're irrelevant, then that's bad writing.  Then again I'm trying to describe the term "plot hole" to you in another air.  That should be more than enough to tell you "something is wrong with this."

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Hmmm, just to remember.

It's a game, not a book or a movie.

This game has a story.  Stories follow a certain logical framework.  This is called storytelling.

[smudboy]

JMA22TB wrote...

Yeled,

You don't end up in the same position as ME1 at all. You're infinitely more prepared to fight just about anything at the end of ME2, with a small-scale Reaper and the deadliest team in the galaxy outside of maybe a team of Spectres. And even then, you're still having an "Oh ****" moment when you see the Reapers move in.

The plot moves forward and well, it's just not spelled out in some overly cliched copycat adherence to RPG status quo.

I'm sure you can infinitely explain your stance.  But I wouldn't want you to.

End of ME1 = ME2.  You may have a better Normandy.  You may have a better team.  You may have a better body.

And what do we know? The Collectors, that are dead, were once Protheans.  You may/may not have the Collector base.  You may have Legion as a squadmate/cash.  A lot of questions about wtf was going on, a smattering of info on the Reapers, aside from knowing that one died millions of years ago, and there's an extra one called Harbinger.

If by "overly cliched copycat adherence to RPG status quo", you mean not in plain and simple English/visual that don't involve a massive amount of plot holes, sure.  That's exactly how it's spelled out.

[Yeled]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Yeled wrote...
In reality ME2 isn't the "dark, edgy chapter of a trilogy."  Its a stand alone game that shares its main character and setting with the earlier game, without the complicating factors of plot movement or character development over multiple chapters of a story.

So the reality of the finished product does not come close to equalling the statements given by Bioware as to it's true focus and purpose.  Sales? What expectations does this give you for ME3 and what is your faith in Boware as a result of this?

My personal faith in BW is way down.  I used to think they walked on water.  KOTOR was one of the most enjoyable experiences I had ever had gaming.  Jade Empire's plot was so twisted and convoluted (in a good way); I loved it.  Mass Effect, for all its limitations in terms of gameplay, was a revelation in terms of presentation and cinematic storytelling in a game.  I felt they could do no wrong.

Perhaps that is why I found ME2 so utterly disappointing.  I recognize its qualities.  Its leaps ahead of its predesessor in terms of gameplay.  Its a good game overall.  But it didn't come close to fulfilling its promise in terms of story, and it failed utterly to immserse me.  I kept waiting to care about what was happening to Shepard or her squadmates.  Furthermore, I've found the dlc to be lacking; its played to the same audience the game apparently played to.

I realize this is all my personal opinion.  But my faith in Bioware has never been lower.  I'm sure I'll purchase ME3, but I am skeptical now that it will be as good as I think it could be, or as good as I once thought BioWare could make it.  I don't think I'll preorder.  I also remain highly dubious of their dlc, and havn't bothered to download even the free stuff (except for Zaeed and other launch day goodies),  I won't be downloading the hammerhead or paying for Kasumi, either.

I wonder if the game industry is moving away from the types of games I like to play.  I'm not a hardcore roleplayer in terms of stats and gear collection; but I love immersive stories with great plots and fantastic characters.  Peter Molyneux recently said that the hardcore audience of the Fable franchise limited its sales to 3.5 million for the first two games.  They need to move away from that audience if they want to reach their goal of 5 million sales for the third installment.  Fable is hardly hardcore, and its story is lightweight at best, but I wonder if the same mindset was at work at BioWare when they were developing ME2.

[Urazz]

Phaelducan wrote...

In the greater context of the Trilogy, I'm afraid that I have to agree that ME2 did little to resolve anything.

Although it did address what happened to the Protheans.. and likely with the other extinction cycles as well.

That's ok though, as it did set up a lot of elements for the conclusion. Krogan, Geth, Quarians, Alliance or Citadel Fleet strength (depending on ME1 ending), Rachni, Cerberus... etc. There are a lot of pieces in play for the war, and this episode in the Trilogy did address those pieces in major ways.

The middle act in a play doesn't need to resolve much, really, as long as it keeps interest in the production high and maintains dramatic tension.

I think Bioware did that.

The 2nd part of a trilogy never really resolves much storywise. It's pretty much designed to set up for the big finale in the 3rd part of the trilogy.  ME2 pretty much did just that.  Now could it have been written better with a bit more story in it?  Yes but it did accomplish setting things up for ME3.

[Yeled]

JMA22TB wrote...

Yeled,

You don't end up in the same position as ME1 at all. You're infinitely more prepared to fight just about anything at the end of ME2, with a small-scale Reaper and the deadliest team in the galaxy outside of maybe a team of Spectres. And even then, you're still having an "Oh ****" moment when you see the Reapers move in.

The plot moves forward and well, it's just not spelled out in some overly cliched copycat adherence to RPG status quo.

I guess I don't see that you're any more prepared, but that's fine.  Also, I'm not entirely convinced any of that new squad will make it back into ME3.

[Akrylik]

smudboy wrote...

Akrylik wrote...
urg, what i meant by chekhov's gun would be, for example, the haelstrom sun/dark energy thing. Plays little to no important role in ME2 but the same can't necisarily be said for ME3.
and in my invisible ground analogy, the invisible ground references said "plot holes", we aren't sure if they have significance (provide foundation) or are simply unimportant (just air).

That is not an example of Chekhov's gun.  That is called foreshadowing.  Unless they don't use it, then it's called bad writing.

If they're significant, they either have to be explained, or labeled a mystery.  If they're irrelevant, then that's bad writing.  Then again I'm trying to describe the term "plot hole" to you in another air.  That should be more than enough to tell you "something is wrong with this."

elaborate the "other air" of plot hole you are trying to imply, plot holes are supposed to be illogical, but they would have to be resolved in the plotline with no oppurtunities for redeeming explanation. ME3 is that potential oppurtunity, so no need to jump to conclusions.

[JeanLuc761]

Yeled wrote...
I kept waiting to care about what was happening to Shepard or her squadmates.  Furthermore, I've found the dlc to be lacking

I know you said it was your personal opinion but I really do have to ask; You really, at no point in the game, cared about what Shepard and your squadmates were going through?  Not even on the loyalty quests? 

If so, color me stunned

[Knoll Argonar]

Yeled wrote...

JMA22TB wrote...

Yeled,

You don't end up in the same position as ME1 at all. You're infinitely more prepared to fight just about anything at the end of ME2, with a small-scale Reaper and the deadliest team in the galaxy outside of maybe a team of Spectres. And even then, you're still having an "Oh ****" moment when you see the Reapers move in.

The plot moves forward and well, it's just not spelled out in some overly cliched copycat adherence to RPG status quo.

I guess I don't see that you're any more prepared, but that's fine.  Also, I'm not entirely convinced any of that new squad will make it back into ME3.

You have to admit it: you don't like ME2 because of Liara  =P

PD: It's a joke:happy:

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

You don't understand me.

Watching Movies and reading Books are some passive actions. That's it, there's something that tells you a story, the way it's wanted to be told. In a videogame, however, you interact with the story, you "touch" it (well, except crappy Metal Gear). Therefore storytelling mechanics are different, and the pace of the story doesn't have to be the way it's "predicted" to be.

Put ME1 as an example. Once you get out of the Normandy, is "OH NOEZ YOU HAVE TO GO TO ILLOS!". But, in the end, it doesn't matter how late you arrive to Illos. In fact, Hackett's pissing you off everytime you arrive into a new system.

That's only one of the many differences, but the point I wanted to arrive is that you have to be very careful with what you explain and how you do that in a Videogame, because it may not be the way you wanted, especially in a Shooter-RPG-storytelling-game.

You interact with the game world.  The story is being told in exactly the same way in books and in movies.  ME is not some multi-pathed ending dynamic narrative where some AI is quickly writing the story as you go.  You're still following a linear story a writer came up with.  You can even plot it.   These are called plot points.  Everything else is a side quest.  This is standard RPG stuff.

You may choose dialog options, but Shepard still does/says whatever he wants, which is not spelled out/directly mentioned in that single sentence on the circle dialog (even when the square brackets are used.)

Your example of Ilos has no point, unless you're saying "you can go left when the story tells you to go right."  So what.

I agree: you must be careful with how you explain things, especially in a sci-fi universe.  Even more still, for a planned trilogy with a static and flat protagonist.  Notice how this has nothing to do with the video game medium.

[Knoll Argonar]

Akrylik wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Akrylik wrote...
urg, what i meant by chekhov's gun would be, for example, the haelstrom sun/dark energy thing. Plays little to no important role in ME2 but the same can't necisarily be said for ME3.
and in my invisible ground analogy, the invisible ground references said "plot holes", we aren't sure if they have significance (provide foundation) or are simply unimportant (just air).

That is not an example of Chekhov's gun.  That is called foreshadowing.  Unless they don't use it, then it's called bad writing.

If they're significant, they either have to be explained, or labeled a mystery.  If they're irrelevant, then that's bad writing.  Then again I'm trying to describe the term "plot hole" to you in another air.  That should be more than enough to tell you "something is wrong with this."

elaborate the "other air" of plot hole you are trying to imply, plot holes are supposed to be illogical, but they would have to be resolved in the plotline with no oppurtunities for redeeming explanation. ME3 is that potential oppurtunity, so no need to jump to conclusions.

Yup, a plot hole is Jacob's loyalty mission with mecs and thermal clips, not a random comment of a planet no one cared about

[Knoll Argonar]

smudboy wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

You don't understand me.

Watching Movies and reading Books are some passive actions. That's it, there's something that tells you a story, the way it's wanted to be told. In a videogame, however, you interact with the story, you "touch" it (well, except crappy Metal Gear). Therefore storytelling mechanics are different, and the pace of the story doesn't have to be the way it's "predicted" to be.

Put ME1 as an example. Once you get out of the Normandy, is "OH NOEZ YOU HAVE TO GO TO ILLOS!". But, in the end, it doesn't matter how late you arrive to Illos. In fact, Hackett's pissing you off everytime you arrive into a new system.

That's only one of the many differences, but the point I wanted to arrive is that you have to be very careful with what you explain and how you do that in a Videogame, because it may not be the way you wanted, especially in a Shooter-RPG-storytelling-game.

You interact with the game world.  The story is being told in exactly the same way in books and in movies.  ME is not some multi-pathed ending dynamic narrative where some AI is quickly writing the story as you go.  You're still following a linear story a writer came up with.  You can even plot it.   These are called plot points.  Everything else is a side quest.  This is standard RPG stuff.

You may choose dialog options, but Shepard still does/says whatever he wants, which is not spelled out/directly mentioned in that single sentence on the circle dialog (even when the square brackets are used.)

Your example of Ilos has no point, unless you're saying "you can go left when the story tells you to go right."  So what.

I agree: you must be careful with how you explain things, especially in a sci-fi universe.  Even more still, for a planned trilogy with a static and flat protagonist.  Notice how this has nothing to do with the video game medium.

Ever played something aside from crappy JRPG?

[JMA22TB]

sigh...



The fact that there are more questions than answers at the end of ME2 further proves that the Reapers are a worthy antagonist that knows how to keep the appropriate distance necessary to keep the upper hand, even if it's becoming a smaller distance between its opposition. If it was possible to learn the best way to defeat them as quickly as in the second chapter of the three, or that foiling another plan spills the beans, how gratifying would ME3 be?



You're fighting a galactic invasion force made up of, which you learn in ME2, millions of sentient beings' minds and perhaps just as many AI programs. They hype themselves as the pinnacle of evolution and if they were so stupid as to leave obvious clues around about themselves, that would be a disgrace to the concept.



You will most likely barely defeat the Reapers in ME3 because they aren't an easy opponent to find out about and it took a fleet to blow one up. They've harvested sentient beings for thousands of years and the way BioWare has handled them is consistent with that assertion. They aren't stupid and they still have a wide advantage, although Shepard is catching up to them.

[JMA22TB]

Yeled wrote...

JMA22TB wrote...

Yeled,

You don't end up in the same position as ME1 at all. You're infinitely more prepared to fight just about anything at the end of ME2, with a small-scale Reaper and the deadliest team in the galaxy outside of maybe a team of Spectres. And even then, you're still having an "Oh ****" moment when you see the Reapers move in.

The plot moves forward and well, it's just not spelled out in some overly cliched copycat adherence to RPG status quo.

I guess I don't see that you're any more prepared, but that's fine.  Also, I'm not entirely convinced any of that new squad will make it back into ME3.

Honestly, I agree with you on the squad point, I don't want to see the entire team back. I'd rather see some leave to take up roles on the side that help in the endeavor to stop the Reapers. Legion could go back to the geth and enlist them, as could Tali. Grunt can help out Urdnot. 

Besides, assuming the Council finally comes around with proof EDI can come up with, they'll want some of their own in on Shepard's operation, just to be sure he's not still working with Cerberus. I don't think it would be best to keep the exact same team, that would be too static for my tastes.

[smudboy]

Akrylik wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Akrylik wrote...
urg, what i meant by chekhov's gun would be, for example, the haelstrom sun/dark energy thing. Plays little to no important role in ME2 but the same can't necisarily be said for ME3.
and in my invisible ground analogy, the invisible ground references said "plot holes", we aren't sure if they have significance (provide foundation) or are simply unimportant (just air).

That is not an example of Chekhov's gun.  That is called foreshadowing.  Unless they don't use it, then it's called bad writing.

If they're significant, they either have to be explained, or labeled a mystery.  If they're irrelevant, then that's bad writing.  Then again I'm trying to describe the term "plot hole" to you in another air.  That should be more than enough to tell you "something is wrong with this."

elaborate the "other air" of plot hole you are trying to imply, plot holes are supposed to be illogical, but they would have to be resolved in the plotline with no oppurtunities for redeeming explanation. ME3 is that potential oppurtunity, so no need to jump to conclusions.

I am not saying Dark Energy is a plot hole.  I'm saying your idea of invisible ground is, and we're merely giving it a more colorful definition.  (I can guess it's foreshadowing.  That's obvious.)

Even in a trilogy, the first or second story can stand solid by itself, and make sense.  Without plot holes.  A writer, (a good writer), should not have to apologize to his lack of writing in one book, and try to tie things up, because a next one is coming out.  Same with continuity from one to the other: anyone should be able to pick up any book and have it all make sense.  Especially if all these things are being planned out, which we know they're not.  What if ME was a quadrilogy?  Would we suddenly forgive every poorly written, unexplained scene in ME2 and ME3, simply because you think it will be ALL explained in 4?  That's ridiculous.  What does it take for someone to realize that ME2's story is crap, and an obvious afterthought where level design took precedence over writing?

From the looks of things, a la Christina Norman, ME3 is just going to be another ME2.

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Ever played something aside from crappy JRPG?

Of course.

I've played Planescape: Torment.

[Knoll Argonar]

smudboy wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Ever played something aside from crappy JRPG?

Of course.

I've played Planescape: Torment.

=O That's all? Then you missed quite a lot. Those  JRPG-focused-players....

EDIT: Oh, and your last post was hilarious: ever read something like Song of Ice and Fire? That quite obliterates your opinion, hum.

Modifié par Knoll Argonar, 15 mars 2010 - 12:41 .