127 réponses à ce sujet

[mostonmarauder]

2years in a coma somewhere just wouldn't have been Epic enough thats pretty obvious



just a thought, but maybe in ME3 you will be able to choose which association you join with...



paragon shep rejoins the council & Spectres allowing access to more paragon mission

renegade shep stays with cerebus and gets more renegade mission options



thus killing you off, bringing you back and tying you to cerebus in ME2 actually has a purpose

and gives you a choice about who'l you'l join up with in ME3..

[marshalleck]

jasonontko wrote...

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.

1. How so? 

2. Ties into the first item

3. "God from the machine" does not literally mean God has anything to do with it. It's a term derived from how dramas were performed in the ancient world. Another example of a DEM that I seen thrown around way too often is the suggestion that the Reapers will get their tentacles kicked in by an even more powerful but benevolent race of aliens in ME3 that are until that point completely unknown throughout the galaxy. What makes it a DEM is resolving an established conflict with a contrived solution that comes out of nowhere--in the case of plays in the ancient world, a character representing a deity would be lowered onto a stage via crane, hence 'god from the machine'. Shepard getting spaced and coming back in ME2 is not in any way a deus ex.

You may think his tone is insulting but he is right to correct you on your misconception.

Modifié par marshalleck, 25 mars 2010 - 04:15 .

[Nightwriter]

marshalleck wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

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.

1. How so? 

2. Ties into the first item

3. "God from the machine" does not literally mean God has anything to do with it. It's a term derived from how dramas were performed in the ancient world. Another example of a DEM that I seen thrown around way too often is the suggestion that the Reapers will get their tentacles kicked in by an even more powerful but benevolent race of aliens in ME3 that are until that point completely unknown throughout the galaxy. What makes it a DEM is resolving an established conflict with a contrived solution that comes out of nowhere. Shepard getting spaced and coming back in ME2 is not in any way a deus ex.

You may think his tone is insulting but he is right to correct you on your misconception.

I would tend to agree.

I believe that it was by all accounts a plot device. Just not a deus ex machina.

[Xaijin]

Considering he should be unrecoverable as well as dead, DEM pretty much covers it to a tee, right down to WHY it's used and the connection to greek sophistry. There's no way they should have been able to salvage ANYTHING if in fact, he decayed orbit and fell into atmo. The gods of mass market sci fi deemed otherwise, and cast their magic plot and credibility destroying juju.

[marshalleck]

It's definitely a plot device, of course. It could yet be salvaged into something interesting if Shepard, our stoic, unflinching, and always unquestioning hero suddenly suffers an existential crisis when (s)he discovers all the implants and technology used for reanimation are derived from Reaper tech.

Modifié par marshalleck, 25 mars 2010 - 04:21 .

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Nightwriter wrote...

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?

There is no such thing as a necessary plot device, these things are only necessary within the plot they are contained.

If they wanted to cut Shepard off from his previous life and have him join up with Cerberus the answer to your question is NO. There isn't really any better way they could've handled this, not without severely mishandling the character.

As I demonstrated there are more than just practical reasons for Shepard dying at the beginning, it is not just a plot device it is the inciting incident of the story and it is used in such a way that it adds emotional weight to the climax of the game. It succeeds very well at this. Which is the exact opposite of how ME1 plays out, literally Shepard had no personal reasons to get involved, he was just kind of forced into the situation.

See the problem is you people here have no idea what story structure even is and you form unhealthy attachments to video games. You need to take a step back and learn to see things for what they really are.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 25 mars 2010 - 04:24 .

[Nightwriter]

Xaijin wrote...

Considering he should be unrecoverable as well as dead, DEM pretty much covers it to a tee, right down to WHY it's used and the connection to greek sophistry. There's no way they should have been able to salvage ANYTHING if in fact, he decayed orbit and fell into atmo. The gods of mass market sci fi deemed otherwise, and cast their magic plot and credibility destroying juju.

I actually bought that Cerberus had massive resources and access to highly advanced technology (who knows what they were able to get from studying that dead Reaper?).

But, barring that, I also make allowances for the fact that it's science fiction. Shepard coming back fits in the confines of science fiction. Also, this has been done before - heroes "die" and then come back to life when they shouldn't all the time. I saw Ellen Ripley fall into a pit of lava with an alien bursting out of her stomach, for Christ's sake.

For some reason, if it's used frequently, it's not so much of a DEM anymore, you know? It's more allowable.

[marshalleck]

It doesn't defy categorization as a deus ex based on perceived overuse or sci-fi trope status; it defies categorization as a deus ex because while it may beggar belief and incite incredulity amongst the audience, all the players in its resolution were more or less established already. In other words, the fact that someone just doesn't like the direction the story went doesn't mean it came clean out of left field.

Also, if Shep's reanimation becomes a part of an overarching plot in ME3 dealing with identity, the nature of organic & synthetic life, and how the boundaries between them blur as Mass Effect has clearly been built upon, then it again cannot be classified as a deus ex. Personally I think the writing is on the wall, if you look at Shepard's overall activities. There are strong parallels between Shepard and Saren.

Modifié par marshalleck, 25 mars 2010 - 04:37 .

[Xaijin]

Well I was hoping for a higher level. B5, it made sense. It was a LITERAL DEM. Same for DS9, we give you juju but when we call for you, you leave EVERYTHING behind, no matter what.



I give you 20 more years, but not one day more, and everything you cherish will be altered and what you sought to achieve will come to be, but it will be bittersweet. There's nothing like that here, and WAY WAY too many resources were spent on contrivance that should have been spent on story. Whihc would have done FAR more to attract new heavy users than contrived hand holding for new casuals. That's marketing's job, not the writers or designers, and they need to EARN their pay too.



And in regard to Alien, a perfect example of greed overcoming both logic and quality, and the first sign of series degradation that persists to this day.



As EA exerts more and more influence over BioWare post sale, you can expect more commodity rather than continuity or community based decisions. Happens every time unfortunately.

[marshalleck]

Complaint about personally not liking the story: check

Assurance that a sinister EA is manipulating Bioware behind the scenes to make them sacrifice their artistic vision for increased sales: check

Nothing new or particularly interesting here, smells like fandumb. Got anything else?

Modifié par marshalleck, 25 mars 2010 - 04:44 .

[Xaijin]

Seeing as I wasn't addressing you, no.

"We are not here for your amusement."

Secondly, I've never stated ANYTHING about liking or not liking the story, simply over-arcing the mechanics by which it is introduced, which are amateurish when compared to many MANY (as in thousands) other science fiction venues, mass market or otherwise. If you honestly think EA does not directly influence the direction and content of ME, here's your sign.

Modifié par Xaijin, 25 mars 2010 - 04:51 .

[marshalleck]

Doesn't really matter who you were addressing, it's a public forum. But whatever.

[Xaijin]

Context says otherwise.

[Geth Knight]

Can't really recall the OP saying just *why* the original team would be leaving Shepard if he wasn't killed. I understand Tali leaving; as well as Garrus, Wrex, and Liara. But you are talking about a group who risked court martial to get to Illos to help Shepard save the galaxy. They would rush back to Shepard as soon as he woke from his little "coma".



I will concede the point of there being some writing that wasn't put it (i.e. Not making mention of Joker up and walking without braces, no comments on Shepards diffrent looks) but the fact of the matter is it was a kickass opening that helps new players understand the controls.

[Xaijin]

Actually, bracketing was made for just that in ME1. The only characters without anything in plan or conjunction after Saren were Kaidan and Ash. Everyone else had an eventual agenda, some of which was directly influenced by Shepard.

Modifié par Xaijin, 25 mars 2010 - 04:54 .

[Nightwriter]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

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?

There is no such thing as a necessary plot device, these things are only necessary within the plot they are contained.

If they wanted to cut Shepard off from his previous life and have him join up with Cerberus the answer to your question is NO. There isn't really any better way they could've handled this, not without severely mishandling the character.

As I demonstrated there are more than just practical reasons for Shepard dying at the beginning, it is not just a plot device it is the inciting incident of the story and it is used in such a way that it adds emotional weight to the climax of the game. It succeeds very well at this. Which is the exact opposite of how ME1 plays out, literally Shepard had no personal reasons to get involved, he was just kind of forced into the situation.

See the problem is you people here have no idea what story structure even is and you form unhealthy attachments to video games. You need to take a step back and learn to see things for what they really are.

...

Wow. You really had me up until “you people”. You mean us videogame forumites? You're a videogame forumite.

Anyway, I actually thought everything you said was right. But since you’ve been impolite and I don’t like you I’ve decided I now disagree out of spite.

We know what story structure is. We understand. That doesn't mean we don't still like talking about it. There's never just one way to do things. It's fun to muse. And I'm not saying Bioware handled it badly, because they didn't at all. But I do wish there were a few things they’d done differently.

You need to learn to stop telling people that they are stupid any time they wish to have a critical discussion about the game simply because it is a critical discussion.

Oh, god. Look what you’ve done. You’re making me sound like Dink and I shall never forgive you. If he sees me like this, I’ll never hear the end of it.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 25 mars 2010 - 05:01 .

[marshalleck]

Oh come on Nightwriter, nobody else cares what Dink thinks. You shouldn't either.

[Nightwriter]

marshalleck wrote...

Oh come on Nightwriter, nobody else cares what Dink thinks. You shouldn't either.

I know it. But the amount of pleasure it would bring him would be unbearable. After all I've said about his constant complaining and Grinchiness.

[Xenoseroster]

I dunno what else has been said since the first page, but just reading the OP made my eyes hurt.

Killing the main character 2 minutes into the game is NOT poor writing, unless you have bad taste, or expect the in-game universe to behave in absurd ways.  Did it effect much in the long run?  Not particularly.  But it made a hell of a lot more sense than "Well, we know you're the super-awesome-hero of the universe, but we're just going to ignore you for 2 years and expect our hardcore shadow ops commando to not to stir up public distrust or go rogue on us.  Cause that NEVER happens when super-elite soldiers with the love of the galactic society are told to STFU and go away.  AMIRITE?"

Second, as has been stated, it gave people an in-game-lore excuse to a.) Chose a new class/face for Sheppard if they wanted to be different than their ME1 sheppard b.) create a totally new Shepard if they didn't have one from before.  This also gave a sufficient reason for him to have to re-level himself and not start out in godmode at the level cap w/ all his old equipment and such.

Third, it was actually very suspensful... for a few minutes.  I thought they might make us play another main character for the duration of the main story with the intent of saving him somehow.  It also matched up well with the promo material, IE lots of rumors that Sheppard is Dead. 

Finally, I'm not sure how it qualifies as bad writing at all?  Could they have blown up the Normandy and just dispersed the team?  I'm sure they could have.  Would that have been as dramatic, or as interesting, or as believable?  Not when you take into consideration the main character has already proven willing and able to go to any length (including apparent treason, or at minimum insubordination, by stealing the normandy & flying to Ilos) to accomplish their goals.  If you add in the option of a Renegade outlook, it is 100% believable that Sheppard would have basically told the alliance to shove it and stole their crew and bajillion dollar stealth ship.  

It also steps up the level of "hardcore", as seemed to be a theme in this one.  "You thought saving the world was hard before?  Well now you're a CYBORG and you're still getting beat down." (Of course, from an actual game difficulty point of view, it wasn't really.  But combat mechanics aside, it was apparently terribly impressive in-universe.)   It also showed that the Collectors were more uber than the geth & Saren.  I'm still not terribly sure why Sovereign didn't just show up & blow up the Normandy in ME1, but the new antagonist doing it first rattle out of the box gives the impression of "OK, NOW we're serious."  To have your universe-saving ship, crew, and main protagonist decimated in seconds, and then say "Yeah, you have to kill THEM." is a great way to set up a hated primary antagonist IMO.

I'm not sure how much you read, but I read a lot, and killing your heavily established main character in the opening scene is about as "cliche" as the main character graphically taking a dump onto a real-world religious text in the opening scene.  Never happens.  Bit characters die in the opening scene?  Side-kicks?  Antagonists?  Sure.  Well-established main Protagonists?  Negative.  If you're going to kill a protagonist, you do it at the end of a story.  Whether that story is a chapter, or an episode, or a book, if the main char is gonna die, he's gonna do it right after he's killed the big bad (or one of the minions of the big bad) 99.9% of the time.  Main character getting pimp-slapped into the afterlife to start of a new story just isn't normal writing procedure.

Having said all this, if you knew well in advance that Shepard was gonna die & them just re-construct him, I could see it being at least anti-climactic.  But if you're sitting down on launch day and you're seeing Shepard vent gas into the cold, endless abyss of deep-space with no idea what happens next, it's very far from bad writing.

[AdamBoozer]

We can rebuild him. We have the technology.
dun de dun!
The Four Billion Dollar Man.

Modifié par AdamBoozer, 25 mars 2010 - 05:42 .

[GuardianAngel470]

I thought this thread was going to be about the lack of symbolic value of shepard. I mean, the illusive man and miranda bring him back because the races of the galaxy would follow him, but they don't. The council blows you off again, and with air quotes no less. talk about a failed symbol.

[Nightwriter]

Xenoseroster wrote...

I dunno what else has been said since the first page, but just reading the OP made my eyes hurt.

Killing the main character 2 minutes into the game is NOT poor writing, unless you have bad taste, or expect the in-game universe to behave in absurd ways.  Did it effect much in the long run?  Not particularly.  But it made a hell of a lot more sense than "Well, we know you're the super-awesome-hero of the universe, but we're just going to ignore you for 2 years and expect our hardcore shadow ops commando to not to stir up public distrust or go rogue on us.  Cause that NEVER happens when super-elite soldiers with the love of the galactic society are told to STFU and go away.  AMIRITE?"

Second, as has been stated, it gave people an in-game-lore excuse to a.) Chose a new class/face for Sheppard if they wanted to be different than their ME1 sheppard b.) create a totally new Shepard if they didn't have one from before.  This also gave a sufficient reason for him to have to re-level himself and not start out in godmode at the level cap w/ all his old equipment and such.

Third, it was actually very suspensful... for a few minutes.  I thought they might make us play another main character for the duration of the main story with the intent of saving him somehow.  It also matched up well with the promo material, IE lots of rumors that Sheppard is Dead. 

Finally, I'm not sure how it qualifies as bad writing at all?  Could they have blown up the Normandy and just dispersed the team?  I'm sure they could have.  Would that have been as dramatic, or as interesting, or as believable?  Not when you take into consideration the main character has already proven willing and able to go to any length (including apparent treason, or at minimum insubordination, by stealing the normandy & flying to Ilos) to accomplish their goals.  If you add in the option of a Renegade outlook, it is 100% believable that Sheppard would have basically told the alliance to shove it and stole their crew and bajillion dollar stealth ship.  

It also steps up the level of "hardcore", as seemed to be a theme in this one.  "You thought saving the world was hard before?  Well now you're a CYBORG and you're still getting beat down." (Of course, from an actual game difficulty point of view, it wasn't really.  But combat mechanics aside, it was apparently terribly impressive in-universe.)   It also showed that the Collectors were more uber than the geth & Saren.  I'm still not terribly sure why Sovereign didn't just show up & blow up the Normandy in ME1, but the new antagonist doing it first rattle out of the box gives the impression of "OK, NOW we're serious."  To have your universe-saving ship, crew, and main protagonist decimated in seconds, and then say "Yeah, you have to kill THEM." is a great way to set up a hated primary antagonist IMO.

I'm not sure how much you read, but I read a lot, and killing your heavily established main character in the opening scene is about as "cliche" as the main character graphically taking a dump onto a real-world religious text in the opening scene.  Never happens.  Bit characters die in the opening scene?  Side-kicks?  Antagonists?  Sure.  Well-established main Protagonists?  Negative.  If you're going to kill a protagonist, you do it at the end of a story.  Whether that story is a chapter, or an episode, or a book, if the main char is gonna die, he's gonna do it right after he's killed the big bad (or one of the minions of the big bad) 99.9% of the time.  Main character getting pimp-slapped into the afterlife to start of a new story just isn't normal writing procedure.

Having said all this, if you knew well in advance that Shepard was gonna die & them just re-construct him, I could see it being at least anti-climactic.  But if you're sitting down on launch day and you're seeing Shepard vent gas into the cold, endless abyss of deep-space with no idea what happens next, it's very far from bad writing.

Well, I felt more like Shepard actually died at the end of ME1, even though that's not the way it was. To me his death was on the other side of that two year gap that separates games 1 and 2, and I felt like ME2 actually began when Shepard woke up on Lazarus Station.

But anyway, I pretty much agree with you. I don't mind Shepard dying and coming back. But I may catch myself disliking some of the things they did with it. It was used to excuse and explain quite a few injustices and inconsistencies.

Two years have passed and all your closest friends have moved on. Okay. I'll buy that. But now I'm working with Cerberus? And the way my friends alienated me... I didn't understand Ash's behavior. Tali and Garrus trusted me enough to follow me and help me no matter what, but the others didn't?

Not to mention I hated the fact that just because I woke up in a Cerberus base I was now considered to be affiliated with them choicelessly. They brought me back, I woke up on their station, and because of this the Alliance and the Council turned their back on me, and ditto for Ash. I never had a chance to go to them first.

I had a hard time not feeling dazed when Shepard actually agreed right away to go to Freedom's Progress and work with Cerberus. I don't know why. I felt it was all going terribly wrong. I kept wondering when Shepard was going to ditch Cerberus and go back to his proper friends.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 25 mars 2010 - 05:55 .

[Xaijin]

Xenoseroster wrote...

I dunno what else has been said since the first page, but just reading the OP made my eyes hurt.

Killing the main character 2 minutes into the game is NOT poor writing, unless you have bad taste, or expect the in-game universe to behave in absurd ways.  Did it effect much in the long run?  Not particularly.  But it made a hell of a lot more sense than "Well, we know you're the super-awesome-hero of the universe, but we're just going to ignore you for 2 years and expect our hardcore shadow ops commando to not to stir up public distrust or go rogue on us.  Cause that NEVER happens when super-elite soldiers with the love of the galactic society are told to STFU and go away.  AMIRITE?"

Second, as has been stated, it gave people an in-game-lore excuse to a.) Chose a new class/face for Sheppard if they wanted to be different than their ME1 sheppard b.) create a totally new Shepard if they didn't have one from before.  This also gave a sufficient reason for him to have to re-level himself and not start out in godmode at the level cap w/ all his old equipment and such.

Third, it was actually very suspensful... for a few minutes.  I thought they might make us play another main character for the duration of the main story with the intent of saving him somehow.  It also matched up well with the promo material, IE lots of rumors that Sheppard is Dead. 

Finally, I'm not sure how it qualifies as bad writing at all?  Could they have blown up the Normandy and just dispersed the team?  I'm sure they could have.  Would that have been as dramatic, or as interesting, or as believable?  Not when you take into consideration the main character has already proven willing and able to go to any length (including apparent treason, or at minimum insubordination, by stealing the normandy & flying to Ilos) to accomplish their goals.  If you add in the option of a Renegade outlook, it is 100% believable that Sheppard would have basically told the alliance to shove it and stole their crew and bajillion dollar stealth ship.  

It also steps up the level of "hardcore", as seemed to be a theme in this one.  "You thought saving the world was hard before?  Well now you're a CYBORG and you're still getting beat down." (Of course, from an actual game difficulty point of view, it wasn't really.  But combat mechanics aside, it was apparently terribly impressive in-universe.)   It also showed that the Collectors were more uber than the geth & Saren.  I'm still not terribly sure why Sovereign didn't just show up & blow up the Normandy in ME1, but the new antagonist doing it first rattle out of the box gives the impression of "OK, NOW we're serious."  To have your universe-saving ship, crew, and main protagonist decimated in seconds, and then say "Yeah, you have to kill THEM." is a great way to set up a hated primary antagonist IMO.

I'm not sure how much you read, but I read a lot, and killing your heavily established main character in the opening scene is about as "cliche" as the main character graphically taking a dump onto a real-world religious text in the opening scene.  Never happens.  Bit characters die in the opening scene?  Side-kicks?  Antagonists?  Sure.  Well-established main Protagonists?  Negative.  If you're going to kill a protagonist, you do it at the end of a story.  Whether that story is a chapter, or an episode, or a book, if the main char is gonna die, he's gonna do it right after he's killed the big bad (or one of the minions of the big bad) 99.9% of the time.  Main character getting pimp-slapped into the afterlife to start of a new story just isn't normal writing procedure.

Having said all this, if you knew well in advance that Shepard was gonna die & them just re-construct him, I could see it being at least anti-climactic.  But if you're sitting down on launch day and you're seeing Shepard vent gas into the cold, endless abyss of deep-space with no idea what happens next, it's very far from bad writing.

A. Yes, blowing it up but keeping the crew as normal would have been better.

B. Saving the Shepard gets blown up for the END of ME2 in a cliffhanger motif and reemphasizing exactly how big a threat the Reapers are would have been far far better and also made BioWare more money through incidence purchase and instant autohype.

C. UMM WE DID know what would happen they wouldn't shut up about it. OH LAWD SHEPAHD GONE DIE EVEHBODEH GONE DIE, started MONTHS before the game was released. You literally couldn't avoid it and get any other information about the game.

[Nightwriter]

Xaijin wrote...

A. Yes, blowing it up but keeping the crew as normal would have been better.

B. Saving the Shepard gets blown up for the END of ME2 in a cliffhanger motif and reemphasizing exactly how big a threat the Reapers are would have been far far better and also made BioWare more money through incidence purchase and instant autohype.

C. UMM WE DID know what would happen they wouldn't shut up about it. OH LAWD SHEPAHD GONE DIE EVEHBODEH GONE DIE, started MONTHS before the game was released. You literally couldn't avoid it and get any other information about the game.

Ooh. B sounds very... interesting. Very, very interesting.

[Xaijin]

Terribly wasted potential, both financially and thematically.

Modifié par Xaijin, 25 mars 2010 - 06:11 .