127 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Terraneaux wrote...


If I also had firsthand evidence that they were traitors, terrorists, and murderers, than I wouldn't.  If it was just someone random then I would see what was up.  

Unfortunately, that's a very difficult and unrealistic view to take. Again, you were just resurrected- you have no idea where you are, what you are doing, what year it is. What would you have had Shepard done? Kill Miranda/Jacob and steal their shuttle? That's not exactly the height of 'paragon behavior'. That Jacob was at least straight with you should tell you something. I'm not saying you shouldn't be careful of what they say- but I wonder what you would have done right off the bat.

Saren was also a threat to humanity in particular, at least as far as anyone knew, so it was important to stop him for humanity's sake as well.  It's not like you don't get to sell the Council down the river later anyway.  I agree, Council history is basically a long sequence of the Asari and the Salarians backstabbing and manipulating the other races.

It's not like you don't get to screw TIM over in the end, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you in ME2. Someone who's never had any interaction with the Council but hears those facts I listed probably wouldn't be too inclined to work with them either. The point? Everything depends on point of view. We think Cerberus is one-dimensional, but it turns out they're not; neither is the Council.

[The Enkindler]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

The Enkindler wrote...

It also introduces the Collectors to new players.

As Cerberus is the one that manages to find you and bring you back, it gives you the scope to work with them. They are already an established organisation the player will recognise from ME1 and also has the kind of resources that can bring people back from the dead.

It's an interesting list.

But why Cerberus? Why not create a new organization instead of repurposing the stupid villain-du-jour from ME1? They yanked the Collectors out of nowhere too, its not like they care much about the trilogy aspect in the first place. Cerberus was not semi-criminal with generally good intentions in ME1.

Bottomline: i think it would have been better to create a new organization for the role Cerberus has now (because they couldn't change the way Cerberus was depicted in ME1, now could they?) and it would have been much more elegant and less cringeworthy to have Shepard be in coma and not dead after impact with some planet.

I think it was an exciting morality inversion - Cerberus - the bad guys in ME1 suddenly are your allies and are fighting for human survival and the greater good - your goals intersect.

Then, the evil Collectors turn out to be the Protheans - the ancient good guys who supposedly left behind all their fabulous tech (although it was actually Reaper tech).

It blew my mind. Well, actually that is an exaggeration, but it was very cool in my opinion. It has much more impact and gravitas than creating some new pseudo-organisation you never heard of before. And being clinically dead is way more cooler than being in a regular coma after an attack - which you ARE in for two years while Cerberus rebuilds you anyway.

I think the plot twists and turns were handled well in ME2 - it cleared up some loose ends from ME1 - you never find out if Cerberus survives your blowing up their operations and the mysterious disappearance of the Protheans wasn't satisfactory. Vigil says they are all slowly wiped out, but he said even the Prothean Ilos survivors sent out their beacon message hoping that some pockets of Protheans were still out there in that big galaxy....

So in conclusion:
1. Morality inversion: awesome.
2. Cerberus and Prothean loose ends/storylines continued and tied into ME2 storyline: compelling.
3. Familiarity at repurposing Cerberus and Protheans: better than introducing random new elements in the middle of a trilogy.

[Nightwriter]

I guess in my mind I imagined that Bioware always wanted to have a bit of a gap between the story of games 1 and 2, and an easy way to bridge this plot gap for the players is for your character to die and then come back.

Good restart. Movies do it a lot. Picks up right where it left off, but allows for time to have passed, and for the story to have changed significantly and interestingly. And because it's all new for your character it's all new for you too.

[Raphael diSanto]

Nightwriter wrote...

I guess in my mind I imagined that Bioware always wanted to have a bit of a gap between the story of games 1 and 2, and an easy way to bridge this plot gap for the players is for your character to die and then come back.

Good restart. Movies do it a lot. Picks up right where it left off, but allows for time to have passed, and for the story to have changed significantly and interestingly. And because it's all new for your character it's all new for you too.

And, as I've said before, it gives them a way to get completely new players in, without them having preconceived notions of who "their" shep will be.

[Nightwriter]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I guess in my mind I imagined that Bioware always wanted to have a bit of a gap between the story of games 1 and 2, and an easy way to bridge this plot gap for the players is for your character to die and then come back.

Good restart. Movies do it a lot. Picks up right where it left off, but allows for time to have passed, and for the story to have changed significantly and interestingly. And because it's all new for your character it's all new for you too.

And, as I've said before, it gives them a way to get completely new players in, without them having preconceived notions of who "their" shep will be.

Makes you wonder if there's another way they could've done this.

[OverlordNexas]

Because having Cerberus go "Shepard you've been in a coma for two years. We've been keeping you on life support this whole time." is a lot less interesting than "Shepard you've been dead for two years. We've spent BILLIONS bringing you back to life because you are the best at what you do."

[Bucky_McLachlan]

It's explained right here:



Shep: What do you think our chances are?



Garrus: Well the Collectors killed you once and all they did was ****** you off.



Stop ****ing picking everything apart, not everything is as nerdy as you are.

[Raphael diSanto]

Nightwriter wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I guess in my mind I imagined that Bioware always wanted to have a bit of a gap between the story of games 1 and 2, and an easy way to bridge this plot gap for the players is for your character to die and then come back.

Good restart. Movies do it a lot. Picks up right where it left off, but allows for time to have passed, and for the story to have changed significantly and interestingly. And because it's all new for your character it's all new for you too.

And, as I've said before, it gives them a way to get completely new players in, without them having preconceived notions of who "their" shep will be.

Makes you wonder if there's another way they could've done this.

I'm not sure. I'done some talking about it with ME friends who agreed that the same sort of thing could have been accomplished by a 'near death' Shepard (from a mechanical point of view, that is... reconstructing the face, giving him different skills, etc) ..

It's possible that BioWare considered that and decided it wasn't "epic" enough or something..

Something that was mentioned in one of the other threads was about how ME2 is definitely a lot darker than ME1 - Not necessarily in the "way" that it plays, per se, but in the general backstory. ME1 is Shepard, the hero of the Alliance, very publically saving the citadel from a very visible thread. Regardless of the Turian councillor and his finger quotes, no one can say the Citadel wasn't attacked by a big frickin' fleet and that Shepard and the Alliance saved the day.

ME2 is two years later and now Shepard's a has-been hero, disrespected and looked down upon by the very people he saved. He doesn't get an officially sanctioned crew, or an officially sanctioned ship. Sure, he (maybe, depending on what you did at the end of ME1) gets his Spectre status back, but really it's just in name only. He's forced to work with thieves, mercenaries and murderers in order to once again, stop the reaper threat - But this time, no one cares. It's not big, it's not public and it's not with any fanfare.

I think BioWare always wanted to put Shepard into that situation, to remove from him his Alliance/Council support network, and force him to work with the people he'd been fighting against. Killing him off and bringing him back 2 years later was definitely a way to do this.

... or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[SimonTheFrog]

The Enkindler wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

The Enkindler wrote...

It also introduces the Collectors to new players.

As Cerberus is the one that manages to find you and bring you back, it gives you the scope to work with them. They are already an established organisation the player will recognise from ME1 and also has the kind of resources that can bring people back from the dead.

It's an interesting list.

But why Cerberus? Why not create a new organization instead of repurposing the stupid villain-du-jour from ME1? They yanked the Collectors out of nowhere too, its not like they care much about the trilogy aspect in the first place. Cerberus was not semi-criminal with generally good intentions in ME1.

Bottomline: i think it would have been better to create a new organization for the role Cerberus has now (because they couldn't change the way Cerberus was depicted in ME1, now could they?) and it would have been much more elegant and less cringeworthy to have Shepard be in coma and not dead after impact with some planet.

I think it was an exciting morality inversion - Cerberus - the bad guys in ME1 suddenly are your allies and are fighting for human survival and the greater good - your goals intersect.

Then, the evil Collectors turn out to be the Protheans - the ancient good guys who supposedly left behind all their fabulous tech (although it was actually Reaper tech).

It blew my mind. Well, actually that is an exaggeration, but it was very cool in my opinion. It has much more impact and gravitas than creating some new pseudo-organisation you never heard of before. And being clinically dead is way more cooler than being in a regular coma after an attack - which you ARE in for two years while Cerberus rebuilds you anyway.

I think the plot twists and turns were handled well in ME2 - it cleared up some loose ends from ME1 - you never find out if Cerberus survives your blowing up their operations and the mysterious disappearance of the Protheans wasn't satisfactory. Vigil says they are all slowly wiped out, but he said even the Prothean Ilos survivors sent out their beacon message hoping that some pockets of Protheans were still out there in that big galaxy....

So in conclusion:
1. Morality inversion: awesome.
2. Cerberus and Prothean loose ends/storylines continued and tied into ME2 storyline: compelling.
3. Familiarity at repurposing Cerberus and Protheans: better than introducing random new elements in the middle of a trilogy.

I cannot see that your arguments are invalid, i just don't "feel" like this at all ^^

The game forces the player to be allied to Cerberus. Maybe i'm not flexible enough, mentally, but for me this is cringeworthy. Shep fought them, he doesn't like them (poor Kahoku ) and he just doesn't want to work with them and even though TIM gives him a ship i think he (esp. Paragons) would always try to get back to Alliance ground and try to convince them. It's in his blood . So, yes, there a morality inversion but it's forced unto the player and especially Paragons are constantly playing against their convictions. 

The question what happens to Cerberus is pretty much the least interesting question remaining in ME1. Shepard wiped them out. They are crippled and have earned what they deserved. That they are now, two years later, capable of having those huge space stations, cutting edge technology and high risk intel from the alliance, is not picking up loose ends but honest to God retcon. 

Protheans were likewise just wiped out. 50 thousand years ago. End of story. Thats not a loose end. And when you compare the statues from Ilos with the Collectors, than this is not a twist, its just the game telling me that they are the same and i must believe it. I have no sudden revelation , like in a good twist, but only a "WTF?" feeling... but hey, i didn't mind much...  but picking up a lose end? not really. And to me, it certainly felt like a random new thing to have Collectors.
Back in the conversation with Veetor he first mentions the Collectors and one of the dialog choices of Shepard was "Oh, i thought they mostly keep to them selves" (or something similar, doesn't matter). I laughed out loud because obviously neither the player or Shepard ever had heard of them and here he goes, talking like a pro. It's a minor thing, but the appearance of the collectors was not as well prepared as it could have been. To me it felt pretty much like introducing a new race in the middle of the trilogy. 

I don't think that the resurrection of Shepard after his impact with the planet and rotting for months was cooler than something that might ACTUALLY work (i.e. a coma for example. Its really just an example.)

But again, it's pretty much a matter of taste, so i'm not saying that one way is better than the other. I just feel like the death was a bad choice.

[jasonontko]

The Enkindler said:

"So in conclusion:
1. Morality inversion: awesome.
2. Cerberus and Prothean loose ends/storylines continued and tied into ME2 storyline: compelling.
3. Familiarity at repurposing Cerberus and Protheans: better than introducing random new elements in the middle of a trilogy"

@The Enkindler

1. One man's morality inversion is another's deus ex machina

2. Loose ends? How about loosening the ends.

3. Repurposing Cerberus and Protheans = random new story elements.

Modifié par jasonontko, 25 mars 2010 - 02:49 .

[Nightwriter]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Makes you wonder if there's another way they could've done this.

I'm not sure. I'done some talking about it with ME friends who agreed that the same sort of thing could have been accomplished by a 'near death' Shepard (from a mechanical point of view, that is... reconstructing the face, giving him different skills, etc) ..

It's possible that BioWare considered that and decided it wasn't "epic" enough or something..

Something that was mentioned in one of the other threads was about how ME2 is definitely a lot darker than ME1 - Not necessarily in the "way" that it plays, per se, but in the general backstory. ME1 is Shepard, the hero of the Alliance, very publically saving the citadel from a very visible thread. Regardless of the Turian councillor and his finger quotes, no one can say the Citadel wasn't attacked by a big frickin' fleet and that Shepard and the Alliance saved the day.

ME2 is two years later and now Shepard's a has-been hero, disrespected and looked down upon by the very people he saved. He doesn't get an officially sanctioned crew, or an officially sanctioned ship. Sure, he (maybe, depending on what you did at the end of ME1) gets his Spectre status back, but really it's just in name only. He's forced to work with thieves, mercenaries and murderers in order to once again, stop the reaper threat - But this time, no one cares. It's not big, it's not public and it's not with any fanfare.

I think BioWare always wanted to put Shepard into that situation, to remove from him his Alliance/Council support network, and force him to work with the people he'd been fighting against. Killing him off and bringing him back 2 years later was definitely a way to do this.

... or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Nah, you're not. It's interesting to consider that they wanted to go this route all along. It's a comforting thought, for some reason.

None of us like the idea that our writers are forced to take the plot in specific directions, do we? We don't want to hear that because of the confines of marketing or development the story had to go down a certain path that the writers couldn't avoid, and that our game is limited by it.

For instance, for some reason I don't want to know that because they absolutely had to bring in new players, Shepard absolutely had to die. It makes me irrationally worried about what they might do to my story next time they have to bring in new gamers, even though I had no problem with the concept of Shepard dying and coming back.

Still, they didn't do it badly. My only qualm was that I did not get to protest my affiliations with Cerberus quite so much as I wanted. My old friends treated me like Cerberus and I were bosom buddies, which irked me to no end.

[Raphael diSanto]

Yeah, I think that bit annoyed a lot of people. If you're gonna railroad shep into working with his enemies, at least give him some dialogue with others that says "Yeah, I freakin' hate these guys, but what can ya do?"



At the end of the day, the story is still BioWare's, not ours. We get to choose how Shep accomplishes these things, but BioWare are the ones who choose what those things are.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

jasonontko wrote...

1. One man's morality inversion is another's dues ex machina

No offense, but you're an  idiot. First off you spelled it wrong. It's deus ex machina, second the phrase means "god from the machine" and it refers to very f*cking specific story situations, like when the protaganist in your story is about to die and gets saved out of nowhere by god himself or something like it that undermines the previous logic of the story.

Example: when Neo suddenly raises from the dead and kills Agent Smith in The Matrix that is deus ex machina, because it undermines the previous logic in the story. Before this we are told very clearly that if you die in the Matrix you die irl. The film violates the logic it set for it's own world by having Neo rise from the dead with no explanation.

If Shepard had died at the beginning and was miraculously raised from the dead at the very end despite the story telling us that it was not possible to revive him through any known technology, and he then saved your team from the termireaper or w/e that would be deus ex machina. But since the situation is not contrived in such a way it is not deus ex machina, it is simply Shepard being raised from the dead and you don't like so tough sh*t pal.

Fact of the matter is that it's a plot device that is there for a number of reasons, the most logical reason for the player is to give a reason why you have to level up your Shepard again.

Yes this could've been accomplished by "simply having Shepard in a coma" and yes that would've been completely and utterly weak, from a character perspective and a story perspective. I mean you don't just take the biggest badass human in the galaxy and have him sit in a hospital from a coma for two years. There's no excitement in that, and it would totally undermine him as a character.

If he's gonna be a hospital, ya Shepard better damn well be f*cking dead, and he better have died by the most extreme way possible.

The reason having Shepard die at the beginning is so great from a story point of view is because it gives the ending so much more emotional weight when Shepard finally destroys the collectors, or if he dies trying.

The only thing cringe worthy about any of this is some of you were so damn attached to the first game that you can't see that the second really is superior in almost every way imagineable, including having a story with real emotional beats to it, whereas the first game is practically devoid of any personal reason for Shepard to be involved at all.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 25 mars 2010 - 02:36 .

[Nightwriter]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Yeah, I think that bit annoyed a lot of people. If you're gonna railroad shep into working with his enemies, at least give him some dialogue with others that says "Yeah, I freakin' hate these guys, but what can ya do?"

At the end of the day, the story is still BioWare's, not ours. We get to choose how Shep accomplishes these things, but BioWare are the ones who choose what those things are.

They are. But they're a great company, and our trust is not unearned.

I think I have always been a bit different from my other forumites in that I always see the game from a consumer's perspective, a player's. Whereas with most hardcore fans, you spend enough time on these boards and you start to see the game from a developing standpoint. From the inside, as it were.

[Raphael diSanto]

Nightwriter wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Yeah, I think that bit annoyed a lot of people. If you're gonna railroad shep into working with his enemies, at least give him some dialogue with others that says "Yeah, I freakin' hate these guys, but what can ya do?"

At the end of the day, the story is still BioWare's, not ours. We get to choose how Shep accomplishes these things, but BioWare are the ones who choose what those things are.

They are. But they're a great company, and our trust is not unearned.

I think I have always been a bit different from my other forumites in that I always see the game from a consumer's perspective, a player's. Whereas with most hardcore fans, you spend enough time on these boards and you start to see the game from a developing standpoint. From the inside, as it were.

This is true. I think, to a certain extent, it's about expectations, too.

Once I stopped expecting to be able to control the plot, and accept that I could only control bits of it, within the larger context of the story that BioWare is trying to tell, a lot of this stuff became a lot easier to swallow, hype about "choices affecting the universe" be dammned.

[Masticetobbacco]

practical reason: shepard is rebuilt so there is a mass effect 2 and revenue for bioware

story reason: Illusive man wants shepard to do his dirty work

[Raphael diSanto]

Masticetobbacco wrote...

practical reason: shepard is rebuilt so there is a mass effect 2 and revenue for bioware
story reason: Illusive man wants shepard to do his dirty work

Well, that's the story reason why Cerberus rebuilt him, certainly.

The thing being discussed here, I think, is the larger question of why BioWare decided the plot called for him to die in the first place.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

^Which I already explained

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

Fact of the matter is that it's a plot device that is there for a number of reasons, the most logical reason for the player is to give a reason why you have to level up your Shepard again.

Yes this could've been accomplished by "simply having Shepard in a coma" and yes that would've been completely and utterly weak, from a character perspective and a story perspective. I mean you don't just take the biggest badass human in the galaxy and have him sit in a hospital from a coma for two years. There's no excitement in that, and it would totally undermine him as a character.

If he's gonna be a hospital, ya Shepard better damn well be f*cking dead, and he better have died by the most extreme way possible.

The reason having Shepard die at the beginning is so great from a story point of view is because it gives the ending so much more emotional weight when Shepard finally destroys the collectors, or if he dies trying.

/thread

kthxbaibai

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Masticetobbacco wrote...

practical reason: shepard is rebuilt so there is a mass effect 2 and revenue for bioware
story reason: Illusive man wants shepard to do his dirty work

Well, that's the story reason why Cerberus rebuilt him, certainly.

The thing being discussed here, I think, is the larger question of why BioWare decided the plot called for him to die in the first place.

Aside from possibly allowing new-comers to the game, I think it was meant as a symbolic gesture. As the "dark sequel", starting the game with the protagonist getting offed sets a certain tone to it. You really do get this sensation that you've lost 'everything': your squad, rank, respect, ship, etc.

[Raphael diSanto]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

Masticetobbacco wrote...

practical reason: shepard is rebuilt so there is a mass effect 2 and revenue for bioware
story reason: Illusive man wants shepard to do his dirty work

Well, that's the story reason why Cerberus rebuilt him, certainly.

The thing being discussed here, I think, is the larger question of why BioWare decided the plot called for him to die in the first place.

Aside from possibly allowing new-comers to the game, I think it was meant as a symbolic gesture. As the "dark sequel", starting the game with the protagonist getting offed sets a certain tone to it. You really do get this sensation that you've lost 'everything': your squad, rank, respect, ship, etc.

Yes, I definitely agree, which is why I posted what I said a few posts above. If I could find the original poster who put those thoughts into my head, I'd quote him (or her) here, as they said it far better than I could.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Raphael diSanto wrote...


Yes, I definitely agree, which is why I posted what I said a few posts above. If I could find the original poster who put those thoughts into my head, I'd quote him (or her) here, as they said it far better than I could.

Ah, sorry. I kinda cycled through the replies pretty quickly.

[jasonontko]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

1. One man's morality inversion is another's dues ex machina

No offense, but you're an  idiot. First off you spelled it wrong. It's deus ex machina, second the phrase means "god from the machine" and it refers to very f*cking specific story situations, like when the protaganist in your story is about to die and gets saved out of nowhere by god himself or something like it that undermines the previous logic of the story.

Example: when Neo suddenly raises from the dead and kills Agent Smith in The Matrix that is deus ex machina, because it undermines the previous logic in the story we are told clearly that if you die in the Matrix you die irl.

If Shepard had died at the beginning and was miraculously raised from the dead at the very end despite the story telling us that it was not possible to revive him through any known technology, and he then saved your team from the termireaper or w/e that would be Deus ex Machine. But since the situation is not contrived in such a way it is not deus ex machina, it is simply Shepard being raised from the dead and you don't like so tough sh*t pal.

Fact of the matter is that it's a plot device that is there for a number of reasons, the most logical reason for the player is to give a reason why you have to level up your Shepard again. The reason from a story point of view is because it gives the ending so much more emotional weight when Shepard finally destroys the collectors, or if he dies trying.

Yes this could've been accomplished by "simply having Shepard in a coma" and yes that would've been completely and utterly weak, from a character perspective and a story perspective. I mean you don't just take the biggest badass human in the galaxy and have him sit in a hospital from a coma for two years. There's no excitement in that, and it would totally undermine him as a character.

If he's gonna be a hospital, ya Shepard better damn well be f*cking dead, and he better have died by the most extreme way possible.

"If he's gonna be a hospital" I could say that it would be stupid to say that  Shepard was remade into a building but that would be nit picking, would it not?

And saying 'no offense' before calling me an 'idiot' does not make it any less offensive.  Now that is idiotic.

But to your point,

""god from the machine" and it refers to very f*cking specific story situations, like when the protaganist in your story is about to die and gets saved out of nowhere by god himself or something like it that undermines the previous logic of the story."

1. Undmines the previous logic of ME1. 

2.  OK he died and was resurrected instead of being saved outright, not exactly the same but close enough for me.

3.  I do not see the difference between God doing the saving or some other plot device. 

Your argument is all semantics and insults.

Modifié par jasonontko, 25 mars 2010 - 03:00 .

[smudboy]

The Enkindler wrote...
I think it was an exciting morality inversion - Cerberus - the bad guys in ME1 suddenly are your allies and are fighting for human survival and the greater good - your goals intersect.

It would've been an "exciting morality inversion" if Cerberus wasn't just some unknown purely evil entity from ME1.  Instead, we get some guy named The Illusive Man.  (What was wrong with the Shadow Broker?  What's next, the Dark Trader?)

Whom we never get to confront about any of the events in ME1.  You know Cerberus?  Guys who killed Admiral Kohoku?  A whole slew of marines?  You and your team?  What, does this mean nothing?  Include the potential Thresher Maw attack that (if you chose Sole Survivor) that killed your entire unit and left you psychologically scarred?

Shepard: "Oh?  I'm still a block of wood?  Okay?  Move the plot along?  Gotcha."

Then, the evil Collectors turn out to be the Protheans - the ancient good guys who supposedly left behind all their fabulous tech (although it was actually Reaper tech).

It blew my mind. Well, actually that is an exaggeration, but it was very cool in my opinion. It has much more impact and gravitas than creating some new pseudo-organisation you never heard of before. And being clinically dead is way more cooler than being in a regular coma after an attack - which you ARE in for two years while Cerberus rebuilds you anyway.

Yeah.  I had to.  Sit in awe.  At that twist.  So.  Mind.  Blowing.

So because Protheans are Collectors, from 50k years ago, it had much more impact and gravitas than some pseudo-organization?  Like, let's say Cerberus?

And being clinically dead after vacuum decompression, body moisture evapoarting from absolute zero temperatures, entering orbit seemingly not burning up in the atmosphere, and crashing down at untold speeds onto a planet, (as well using a supplemental comic book to tell some kind of backstory here), and use a Deus Ex Machina device at the beginning of a story such to come back as Cyber Jesus, aka "Exactly as you were before", only better, is "way more cooler" than being in a coma for 2 years.  Okay then.  So glad BW pulled that one out of their ass.

I think the plot twists and turns were handled well in ME2 - it cleared up some loose ends from ME1 - you never find out if Cerberus survives your blowing up their operations and the mysterious disappearance of the Protheans wasn't satisfactory. Vigil says they are all slowly wiped out, but he said even the Prothean Ilos survivors sent out their beacon message hoping that some pockets of Protheans were still out there in that big galaxy....

What plot twists?
What plot turns?
What loose ends?
What do you mean your never find out Cerberus never survives your blowing up their operations? 
So talking to Vigil wasn't satisfactory, but finding out Collectors are Protheans was?

Wow.

Modifié par smudboy, 25 mars 2010 - 03:00 .

[Nightwriter]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

^Which I already explained

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

Fact of the matter is that it's a plot device that is there for a number of reasons, the most logical reason for the player is to give a reason why you have to level up your Shepard again.

Yes this could've been accomplished by "simply having Shepard in a coma" and yes that would've been completely and utterly weak, from a character perspective and a story perspective. I mean you don't just take the biggest badass human in the galaxy and have him sit in a hospital from a coma for two years. There's no excitement in that, and it would totally undermine him as a character.

If he's gonna be a hospital, ya Shepard better damn well be f*cking dead, and he better have died by the most extreme way possible.

The reason having Shepard die at the beginning is so great from a story point of view is because it gives the ending so much more emotional weight when Shepard finally destroys the collectors, or if he dies trying.

/thread

kthxbaibai

I think everyone here agrees that it was a plot device, you know. What we are discussing is whether or not it was a strictly necessary plot device. Could they have done it differently?

People only wonder this when they feel that the implementation of the plot device compromised the story somehow, or when it feels gimmicky.

But you can't blame people for talking about how the game could've been better, despite perfectly reasonable explanations. We're only human.