127 réponses à ce sujet

[AdamBoozer]

They killed shep to show his mortality. That was a big selling point in ME2 that you could die and had all us craping our pants at that teaser trailer. They are just genius down their at bioware.

[Massadonious1]

EA killed my cat.

[jasonontko]

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--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.

OK, you got me, I surrender.  It is not DEM, it just has some but not all characteristics of it.  There is no conflict being solved by the use of this plot device unless you count the conflict the writer had with how to link ME1 in with ME2 which is outside of the story.  It does however invalidate the ME1 universe by taking the cartoonishly evil Cerberus and making into a some what respectable organization that just uses dubious methodes.  Then have them resurrect Shep using technology, talk about "God from the machine", that came out of nowhere, to fight the collectors that also came out of nowhere.  It is contived solution that comes out of nowhere, however its just a solution to the writer's problem and not the protagonist's problem. 

You are right and I am wrong. 
           

[Xenoseroster]

[quote]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.[/quote]
[/quote]

A.) How?  Why?  What would the story have gained by blowing up the ship and Shepard being A-OK as opposed to dead for 2 years to become a cyborg?  I personally find it laughable that people think we could've had the current ME2 setting if Shepard lived.  Do you REALLY think the guy & crew who hijacked a multi-billion dollar stealth spaceship and saved the galaxy are just going to sit around while the higher-ups tell them to go play in the corner & ignore what they feel they need to do?  Hell no.  And if you're a shepard of the renegade thought process, that sentiment is quadrupled.  In addition to removing the "kingpen" of the Reaper Resistance, killing him also made the few people who believe in them other than Shepard lose a figurehead and leader to drive them foreward.  Killing Shepard is the only way to go 2 years w/ 0 anti-reaper action IMO.  I suppose they could've labled him crazy or something and put him in an institution.  But it's Shepard, he could've killed anyone who came after them with a rubber band and a plastic spoon.  No matter which side of the isle you play your Shepard as, he comes across as a guy that will do anything he feels neccesary to do what he needs to do.  If that includes going rogue and cutting ties to the citadel and the alliance, I'm sure that's within his realm of capability.  But then he'd probably end up as generic space mercenary x23a with no cyborg parts (Which was fun IMO) and no high-powered funding.  And that makes for a very un-interesting space opera, when you're too busy trying to make $$ to eat to save the galaxy.  It'd be like Cowboy Bebop with worse music.  Except for the Cthulu-esque spaceship monsters are waiting in the wings to devour society.

If you're saying you'd prefer the death of Shepard & the blown up Normandy, and then we get the original crew back, that I could see.  I feel like they kinda did the "video game sequel thing" and ushered in a new crew just so we could "see new people".  I'm neutral overall bc I liked several of the new crew mates (though I wish we'd had our original Asari back, the [optionally] 2 we  got were major buzz-kills).  Zaeed was cool, though i find it dissapointing not everyone's going to see him.  Mordin was epic.  Grunt was an interersting alternative to Wrex.  I'm not sure why we had to deal w/ Garrus again, he just doesn't strike me as very interesting.  Always seems like he just wants revenge on someone somewhere, semi-tangent to the current story frame.  Probably my favorite thing crew wise was Tali back w/ a romance option.  I was vg-crushing on her in the first one, was terribly dissapointed we didn't get the option then.    In counter-point to that, WTF could the Shadow Broker do to Liara to make her stay away from someone she made such a big deal about melding with in the first one?  THAT was bad writing IMO.  "Well I can't come, because I've got to enact my vengeance upon someone who may or may not be multiple people in reality because it/they did something to me while you were dead.  Let's make out though!"

B.)   I'm not sure how killing the main character at the end would've made this video game stand out?  As I'd previously mentioned, killing the main char right after slaying the big bad is pretty common.  I don't think doing it in ME2 would've given it any more or less sales than it has already.  Killing him early makes for a good plot twist, killing him late makes for "Oh, another one of those tragic heroes. /yawn"  I really would've screamed Cliche if they'd flat out killed him at the end.  SO overdone.

C.)  IDK how much of the stuff you read about ME2 before it came out, but everything I saw was basically "Shepard will be playable again.  One of the possible endings is that he dies."  That doesn't tell me that he's going to die at any point before the end of the current story.  It also doesn't tell me that he's going to be playable for more than the 2 minutes you play him at the start of the game.  Ergo, it was suprising.  My first thought on watching it was "Oh, the Collectors will have stolen his floating body and we have to save it!"  Of course, we didn't and I was dissapointed, but it WAS suprising.

[Xenoseroster]

jasonontko wrote...

OK, you got me, I surrender.  It is not DEM, it just has some but not all characteristics of it.  There is no conflict being solved by the use of this plot device unless you count the conflict the writer had with how to link ME1 in with ME2 which is outside of the story.  It does however invalidate the ME1 universe by taking the cartoonishly evil Cerberus and making into a some what respectable organization that just uses dubious methodes.  Then have them resurrect Shep using technology, talk about "God from the machine", that came out of nowhere, to fight the collectors that also came out of nowhere.  It is contived solution that comes out of nowhere, however its just a solution to the writer's problem and not the protagonist's problem. 

You are right and I am wrong. 
           

First off, lol @ your continued use of a term you seem to not have a firm grasp on.

Second, the Collectors were already established as a possibly antagonistic alien species in ME lore from the novels.  If you didn't know anything about the novels, I could see the collectors seemingly coming out of left field.  HOWEVER if you're really getting into "Oh this is so out of the lore!" it would help to have a grasp on more of the lore than is presented in a single, albeit the most promintent, slice of it.

I don't know that I'd define Cerberus in ME1 as "cartoonish" but they were illustrated to be on basically the opposite side of the "moral" fence from Shepard.  IE, sneaky, clandestine, etc. where Shepard is generally "heroic"(even as a renegade type), and action-oriented.  Having him suddenly essentially work for them does seem out of character, especially for a Paragon-style Shepard. 

Of course, when you look at the realities of the situation, it looks less like he worked for them, and more like they gave him a crap-ton of money and resources and said "Here, go save the galaxy!"  They did a poor job of presenting this in the story IMO, because everything you did was pretty much outlined by Cerberus & The Man's schemeing (because they wanted to "stream-line" the game. ).  But the reality was they gave him the tools he needed to take it to the Collectors and then just let him do whatever he wanted, with occasional intelligence leads from Cerberus HQ.  At the end of the story, you still get to tell Cerberus to shove it now that the crisis is over. 

One thing I'm on the fence with about the current story until ME3 is, if you save the Collector base, did you give it to Cerberus?  If so, why would a Paragon Shepard give it to them?  I'm not sure how saving the base in the first place is a prototypical "Renegade" move, destroying one of the galaxies best hope to create anti-reaper level technology bc you're pissed they killed some humans seems more renegade to me.  Now, if you're forced to give it to Cerberus that kinda sends it down the renegade pathway.  But personally, I would have saved it, spaceshipped my arse to the Citadel and said "HEY LOOK, FREE TECHNOLOGY!  ALSO, F*CK YOU I FOUND REAPERS!" and see what the council did.  How this all plays into ME3 is anyone's guess, but I'm witholding my thoughts on the entirety of the ME2-Cerberus plot until we see how things end up. 

[binaryemperor]

I wonder what the plot opening is going to be for ME3. They can't possibly kill/rebuild him a second time... Are we keeping our shepard from ME2 as the same?

Maybe we start at lvl 30 to 60...

Modifié par binaryemperor, 25 mars 2010 - 07:17 .

[Xaijin]

A.) How?  Why?  What would the story have gained by blowing up the ship and Shepard being A-OK as opposed to dead for 2 years to become a cyborg?  I personally find it laughable that people think we could've had the current ME2 setting if Shepard lived.  Do you REALLY think the guy & crew who hijacked a multi-billion dollar stealth spaceship and saved the galaxy are just going to sit around while the higher-ups tell them to go play in the corner & ignore what they feel they need to do?  Hell no.  And if you're a shepard of the renegade thought process, that sentiment is quadrupled.  In addition to removing the "kingpen" of the Reaper Resistance, killing him also made the few people who believe in them other than Shepard lose a figurehead and leader to drive them foreward.  Killing Shepard is the only way to go 2 years w/ 0 anti-reaper action IMO.  I suppose they could've labled him crazy or something and put him in an institution.  But it's Shepard, he could've killed anyone who came after them with a rubber band and a plastic spoon.  No matter which side of the isle you play your Shepard as, he comes across as a guy that will do anything he feels neccesary to do what he needs to do.  If that includes going rogue and cutting ties to the citadel and the alliance, I'm sure that's within his realm of capability.  But then he'd probably end up as generic space mercenary x23a with no cyborg parts (Which was fun IMO) and no high-powered funding.  And that makes for a very un-interesting space opera, when you're too busy trying to make $$ to eat to save the galaxy.  It'd be like Cowboy Bebop with worse music.  Except for the Cthulu-esque spaceship monsters are waiting in the wings to devour society.

If you're saying you'd prefer the death of Shepard & the blown up Normandy, and then we get the original crew back, that I could see.  I feel like they kinda did the "video game sequel thing" and ushered in a new crew just so we could "see new people".  I'm neutral overall bc I liked several of the new crew mates (though I wish we'd had our original Asari back, the [optionally] 2 we  got were major buzz-kills).  Zaeed was cool, though i find it dissapointing not everyone's going to see him.  Mordin was epic.  Grunt was an interersting alternative to Wrex.  I'm not sure why we had to deal w/ Garrus again, he just doesn't strike me as very interesting.  Always seems like he just wants revenge on someone somewhere, semi-tangent to the current story frame.  Probably my favorite thing crew wise was Tali back w/ a romance option.  I was vg-crushing on her in the first one, was terribly dissapointed we didn't get the option then.    In counter-point to that, WTF could the Shadow Broker do to Liara to make her stay away from someone she made such a big deal about melding with in the first one?  THAT was bad writing IMO.  "Well I can't come, because I've got to enact my vengeance upon someone who may or may not be multiple people in reality because it/they did something to me while you were dead.  Let's make out though!"

B.)   I'm not sure how killing the main character at the end would've made this video game stand out?  As I'd previously mentioned, killing the main char right after slaying the big bad is pretty common.  I don't think doing it in ME2 would've given it any more or less sales than it has already.  Killing him early makes for a good plot twist, killing him late makes for "Oh, another one of those tragic heroes. /yawn"  I really would've screamed Cliche if they'd flat out killed him at the end.  SO overdone.

C.)  IDK how much of the stuff you read about ME2 before it came out, but everything I saw was basically "Shepard will be playable again.  One of the possible endings is that he dies."  That doesn't tell me that he's going to die at any point before the end of the current story.  It also doesn't tell me that he's going to be playable for more than the 2 minutes you play him at the start of the game.  Ergo, it was suprising.  My first thought on watching it was "Oh, the Collectors will have stolen his floating body and we have to save it!"  Of course, we didn't and I was dissapointed, but it WAS suprising.

A. Gained? It would have gained notoriety and immediate fan concern and speculation. The fact that Shepard is going to win in the third installment is completely written in stone, via the fact he could be killed has been rendered completely toothless. Your lack of creativity is not my problem. I can think of three situations right off the bat that would separate Shepard and the crew for two years, two of which are blatantly hinted at in the first game.

B. You see fade to black-credits, whether he's dead or not is up to Bioware or perhaps even the fans, and since death didn't mean jack sh!t this time it wouldn't mean anything in starting the third installment either, again your failure to conceptualize thematics isn't something I should need to address. Are you capable of creatively imagining anything for yourself?

C. Then you clearly didn't see the material I did or are somehow unable to conceptualize outside the literal, again... that seems to be something you need help with, not me. If you require spoonfed and diagrammed entertainment, perhaps this is not exactly the best product for your tastes and mindset, since it literally requires empathic conceptualization and literal player logistic investment. It don't play itself.

Modifié par Xaijin, 25 mars 2010 - 07:25 .

[Xenoseroster]

Xaijin wrote...

A. Gained? It would have gained notoriety and immediate fan concern and speculation. The fact that Shepard is going to win in the third installment is completely written in stone, via the fact he could be killed has been rendered completely toothless. Your lack of creativity is not my problem. I can think of three situations right off the bat that would separate Shepard and the crew for two years, two of which are blatantly hinted at in the first game.

B. You see fade to black-credits, whether he's dead or not is up to Bioware or perhaps even the fans, and since death didn't mean jack sh!t this time it wouldn't mean anything in starting the third installment either, again your failure to conceptualize thematics isn't something I should need to address. Are you capable of creatively imagining anything for yourself?

C. Then you clearly didn't see the material I did or are somehow unable to conceptualize outside the literal, again... that seems to be something you need help with, not me. If you require spoonfed and diagrammed entertainment, perhaps this is not exactly the best product for your tastes and mindset, since it literally requires empathic conceptualization and literal player logistic investment. It don't play itself.

You replied without really saying anything. 
a.) How does him living after the ship blows up instead of dying gain notoriety?  How does it increase speculation?  If he'd died when the normandy blew up and NOT gotten resed by Cerberus, that for sure would've made a more interesting plot twist.  (Course, anywhere in the 2nd one would've been interesting as long as it wasn't right after he killed the big bad.)  But that's not what we we're discussing really, we were discussing why the "Shepard was ressurected by cerberus" is a better option than "Shepard spent 2 years sitting around with his thumb in his butt".  If you can think of 2 scenarios as described, please enlighten me and then we can discuss why they were or were not better options, simply saying you know them is akin to the old bait & switch.  "I have these really cool ideas, but you should know them already so I'm not telling you!" OK!

C) The material I was presented was a.) First trailer, says he died on XX date.  b.) forum trolling for information they released in press conferences that I didn't have interest to look up individually c.) Mass Effect on Wikia's ME2 web page.  These sources were pretty clear on 2 points: His death was a possiblity in the ENDING; and he would be playable.  Thus, it is pretty clear NOW that they were trying to set us up for the shocker that played out as it did.  I'm sorry that I just assumed he would be the main character and his death would be a possible seque into ME3.  This was exactly what they wanted us to think, so that we would be SUPRISED when he died before you even got to shoot anyone.  So I guess I fell into an intentional marketing ploy!  GASP!

It's funny that you're so keen on bashing my creativity, I'm frequently told I'm an amazing writer.  I guess I just expect different story elements to make a "good" story than you do.  His death played a major thematic part in the story.  As tough as things were (supposedly) in ME1, things were THAT much worse in ME2.  Would the effect have been more profound if he'd stayed dead?  Sure.  But that wasn't the point.  The point of the death was symbolicly and thematically important to the tone of ME2.  It strikes me as infinitely more believable that he was dead for 2 year than that he was ignored by the galactic governments for 2 years and that he & his companions would accept such a situation willingly.  If you, as said, have things he could've been doing for 2 years that would've left him with less combat ability, less resources, and as an outcast from his government(s), and would've had the same dramatic effect, please tell me. 

On the other hand, bringing him back is something that stretchest the bounds of believability in-universe.  In addition to being pretty much beyond known science in the game universe, they pretty much ignored the existential ramifications to bringing someone back from literally being dead.  I guess we're supposed to assume that his brain managed to stay 100% intact during his 2 years and being dead for said 2 years had no effect on his memories, personality, or motor skills, let alone his combat abilities.  Hrm...  (A wizard did it)

Also "empathic conceptualization and literal player logistic investment"?  Srsly?  So I guess I must be heartless and... well to be honest IDK what you're trying to say with "literal player logistic investment"?  Please repeat this in more coherent english so that I may refute it.  "Logistic" would seem to be related to symbolic logic.  But how would it be "literal", and how would I "invest" it?  You'll probably say this is me being non-creative again, but I'm sorry I just have problems conceptualizing poorly expressed sentances.

I guess to explain myself, the way I enjoy video games, or any form of media really, is by seeing how the parts (music, plot, setting, atmosphere, imagery, etc.) come together to reinforce the goal of the story.  I find his death, -and to a much lesser extent- his ressurection as a positive thematic plot device.  His death reinforced that things had reached a new level of intensity in the galaxy vs. the reapers fight, and also showed that space is a cold, hard, uncaring place.  (Which I think is a major thematic element in ME lore.)  This is somewhat diminished by his ressurection, but I think I prefer playing Shepard again compared to pulling in some new joker to be the main char that hasn't seen the Prothean/reaper visions or experienced the events of the first game.  After all, as awesome as Shepard was in ME1, it would be dissapointing for him to go out like a b!tch in the first 2 minutes of the next game.  I suppose Liara would kinda fit the bill for someone who saw the visions & experienced the first one, but I just can't see a video game based around Liara as a main char.  So that would've been less fulfilling anyway.

Modifié par Xenoseroster, 25 mars 2010 - 11:12 .

[SimonTheFrog]

binaryemperor wrote...

I wonder what the plot opening is going to be for ME3. They can't possibly kill/rebuild him a second time... Are we keeping our shepard from ME2 as the same?

Maybe we start at lvl 30 to 60...

Yeah, this is a question that has been asked a few times already... it would really be the cherry on the top of silliness to have him killed again in the beginning of ME3... 


Edit: @ Xenoseroster: hmm i'm actually surprised to see some people DID enjoy this part of the plot. There seems to be a market for everything 

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 25 mars 2010 - 09:03 .

[AdamBoozer]

I do wonder how they are going to wipe his skills this next one around. I read an article that said their currently working on the opening of mass effect 3.

[Collider]

They could have other things, but Cerberus rebuilding Shepard imbues that sense of obligation and debt.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Nightwriter wrote...

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.

You DO sound like Dink bro. We're not talking about a simple plot device, we're talking about the driving force of the entire plot. The scene itself just fits so well into the thematic elements of the story.

What Shepard's death accomplishes:

#1 it sets the overall tone of ME2 and tells us the stakes have been significantly raised.

#2 it serves to immediately move us away from the life and crew Shepard had before and move right on with things.

#3 it gives Shepard a personal reason to be dedicated to the mission

#4 because of this Shepard is now partially cybernetic, which ties in with the larger themes in the series dealing with organic and inorganic life

#5 it gives Shepard a base of operations to work from without the political bull**** we had to go through in the first game. I.E. he's finally working for people who put their trust in him and this is in conflict with people who believe he's working for the wrong side.

#6 along with everything else, this also allows a story-driven reason for all the improvements in game, which include improvements to the combat and leveling systems and our upgraded ship.

#7 as awesome as it was to fly to some random planet and for us (the players not Shepard) to witness a turian killing another turian we didn't care about followed by walking around like an idiot on the Citadel trying to nail the big bad  politically the whole set up for Mass Effect 2 prepares us for a much more grittier and visceral experience which we jump right into from the beginning and rarely get a break from in between.

So ya basically your idea of doing something different than having Shepard die at the beginning would require dismantling this story. There's just few other ways they could've accomplished what they did with this, if any at all.

If you can't understand that, quite frankly you simply don't understand why they choose to write it in there.

Oh ya, and as for ME3 I'm betting the level cap will be raised to 60 and default Shep will start at level 30 rather than any death scenario or something similar happening. It just feels right, I also fully expect ME3 to take place relatively soon after ME2 and for your squad and everything to be mostly the same.

If there's an option to "choose sides" with Cerberus or the Council, I think you did it at the end of ME2 already when you decided to blow up the collector base and tell TIM to f*ck himself.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 25 mars 2010 - 11:27 .

[Collider]

That seems like a lot of leveling up for new players.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Collider wrote...

That seems like a lot of leveling up for new players.

What, 30 levels is too much? We need the game to be even more casual friendly?

[Spartas Husky]

Suron wrote...

Time Well Spent wrote...

It's a simple way of bring Shepard's stats back down and enabling a rejig of his face/powers if you wanted, plus it made for a hell of an opening

well.that's just it..they could have done the same openning...destroyed the Normandy...without killing shepard...

perhaps it's a hospital we wake up while it's being attacked instead of the cerberus lazerus base...etc.

just seems a stupid gimick with an outcome that could have been dealt with/explained much better with the relative same outcome

Dont really get you man. I dont see anything wrong with shepherd dying. Dont get your sense of "killing him off" ???

Is just a story. He died, neither council nor alliance made much attempt to find him, nevertheless for many individuals in organizations behind the scenes he is a symbol. Bringing him back would give cerberus a big asset.

[zer0netgain]

Time Well Spent wrote...

It's a simple way of bring Shepard's stats back down and enabling a rejig of his face/powers if you wanted, plus it made for a hell of an opening

+1

That AND if you look at the game's dynamics in ME2, they really reworked a lot of powers...this couldn't be explained away without Cerberus bringing him back.

Shepard had the L3 implant (if he was biotic) in ME.  Now he has the L5x (IIRC).  New biotic abilities.  Special talents not in the first game.  All thanks to Cerberus installing "upgrades" not normally available.

I suppose you could have Cerberus doing upgrades after recruiting him, but the death and resurrection bit allows you to pursue the "I don't trut you TIM" angle while still working for TIM.  It'd make no sense to be adverse to TIM if you agreed to come over to Cerberus and allow extensive modifications.

Modifié par zer0netgain, 25 mars 2010 - 01:15 .

[Xaijin]

zer0netgain wrote...

Time Well Spent wrote...

It's a simple way of bring Shepard's stats back down and enabling a rejig of his face/powers if you wanted, plus it made for a hell of an opening

+1

That AND if you look at the game's dynamics in ME2, they really reworked a lot of powers...this couldn't be explained away without Cerberus bringing him back.

Shepard had the L3 implant (if he was biotic) in ME.  Now he has the L5x (IIRC).  New biotic abilities.  Special talents not in the first game.  All thanks to Cerberus installing "upgrades" not normally available.

I suppose you could have Cerberus doing upgrades after recruiting him, but the death and resurrection bit allows you to pursue the "I don't trut you TIM" angle while still working for TIM.  It'd make no sense to be adverse to TIM if you agreed to come over to Cerberus and allow extensive modifications.

Says who? The next Witcher starts over again mechanic-wise with no explanation because, being people who write high Level rpgs, CDPR have made the apparently egalitarian assumption those buying the game are smart enough to figure it's an RPG, you're going to be ganing levels... CAUSE IT'S AN RPG.

OH NO WAIT GUYS OUR FANS ARE TOO STUPID THEY WON'T UNDERSTAND, STORY AND MECHANICS HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED OR THIS GAME IS A DISASTER OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE.

really?

The game is rated for people who have very very VERY likely played other games before, possibly even BioWare products... like say... ME1, which features level gaining. NO where in the bible of things that make clicky noises on a television screen does it imply say or otherwise indicate that ANY mulligan was needed to justify gameplay. They didn't have an extensive training section wherein they explained that this game is now much MUCH more like an active shooter than a press X to damage with [INSERT ATTRIBUTE] here game, and lo and behold players managed to get out of the Cerberus facility somehow despite the changes in mechanics.

without saying anything

As stated, you don't seem to understand how it can have the capacity to remove aspects of the game which are integral to immersion, and it's not my job to explain how they crippled the impacts of decision making and longevity, because it should be fairly apparent ot anyone who's ever read a story or played a game where you can die permanently. Main Character death is now a worthless concept and carries exactly zero thematic or mechanical gravity. The deaths of folks around you may still matter, dependent on how much empathy you allow the game to evoke, or perhaps the death of races may have some sort of allegorical or gameplay impact, but Shepard biting/buying the farm is meaningless. This is why you don't give the main character script immunity 101.

[Nightwriter]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

You DO sound like Dink bro. We're not talking about a simple plot device, we're talking about the driving force of the entire plot. The scene itself just fits so well into the thematic elements of the story.

What Shepard's death accomplishes:

#1 it sets the overall tone of ME2 and tells us the stakes have been significantly raised.

#2 it serves to immediately move us away from the life and crew Shepard had before and move right on with things.

#3 it gives Shepard a personal reason to be dedicated to the mission

#4 because of this Shepard is now partially cybernetic, which ties in with the larger themes in the series dealing with organic and inorganic life

#5 it gives Shepard a base of operations to work from without the political bull**** we had to go through in the first game. I.E. he's finally working for people who put their trust in him and this is in conflict with people who believe he's working for the wrong side.

#6 along with everything else, this also allows a story-driven reason for all the improvements in game, which include improvements to the combat and leveling systems and our upgraded ship.

#7 as awesome as it was to fly to some random planet and for us (the players not Shepard) to witness a turian killing another turian we didn't care about followed by walking around like an idiot on the Citadel trying to nail the big bad  politically the whole set up for Mass Effect 2 prepares us for a much more grittier and visceral experience which we jump right into from the beginning and rarely get a break from in between.

So ya basically your idea of doing something different than having Shepard die at the beginning would require dismantling this story. There's just few other ways they could've accomplished what they did with this, if any at all.

If you can't understand that, quite frankly you simply don't understand why they choose to write it in there.

Oh ya, and as for ME3 I'm betting the level cap will be raised to 60 and default Shep will start at level 30 rather than any death scenario or something similar happening. It just feels right, I also fully expect ME3 to take place relatively soon after ME2 and for your squad and everything to be mostly the same.

If there's an option to "choose sides" with Cerberus or the Council, I think you did it at the end of ME2 already when you decided to blow up the collector base and tell TIM to f*ck himself.

First off, yes, but unlike Dink I feel properly disgusted with myself upon self-reflection, so I'm hoping that makes me different. Second off bro refers to a gender I do not have. An easy mistake. Neutral username, neutral avatar.

And third off...

I perfectly understand, for the record, that Shepard dying was the only way they could've done this with the story the way it is.

But about the way it is... Didn't you kind of think - and don't explode on me here - that the story of ME2 kind of... left something to be desired?

I mean, I loved the loyalty quests and so many things, I loved the characters and the improved combat, the improved acting. I loved the new Normandy, the better dialogue, the interrupts.

But the plot itself felt kind of threadbare. I felt like the Collectors were this strange, confusing detour from the main story of the Mass Effect games. The focus of the series was the Reapers, they were the overaching plot to me, and after I'd killed the Collectors that plotline was completely unchanged; they were still coming.

If I question Shepard's death, I'm questioning the story decisions. The fact that he died and was gone for two years somehow resulted in everyone I fought for in the first game turning their backs on me. And why? Because I'm with Cerberus now? I had absolutely no choice, I would've gone to the Council first if I'd been given the option. But I wasn't. Because I died and woke up on a Cerberus table I am now somehow bound to association with them. This excuses the Council and the Alliance abandoning me. I didn't buy it.

Not to mention the whole story of ME2 was really buildup to a single mission, which made it feel almost anticlimactic. I love Mass Effect, I wanted the plot to be longer and for there to be more to the story than that. I'm running around collecting people like I'm filling a grocery list.

It could've been different. I muse about how with my fellow forumites. Is this so bad?

[Inquisitor Recon]

Why? So there would be a ME2 to play. Duh.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Nightwriter wrote...

1. If I question Shepard's death, I'm questioning the story decisions. The fact that he died and was gone for two years somehow resulted in everyone I fought for in the first game turning their backs on me. And why? Because I'm with Cerberus now? I had absolutely no choice, I would've gone to the Council first if I'd been given the option. But I wasn't. Because I died and woke up on a Cerberus table I am now somehow bound to association with them. This excuses the Council and the Alliance abandoning me. I didn't buy it.

2. Not to mention the whole story of ME2 was really buildup to a single mission, which made it feel almost anticlimactic. I love Mass Effect, I wanted the plot to be longer and for there to be more to the story than that. I'm running around collecting people like I'm filling a grocery list.

It could've been different. I muse about how with my fellow forumites. Is this so bad?

1. Hmm, I could be wrong, but you may be confusing some things here. The Council/Alliance didn't just abandon you after you joined with Cerberus. Cerberus happened to be the only ones who believed/wanted to deal with the Reaper threat. As Jacob explains, the Alliance/Council had thrust you aside right after you died. They wanted to focus on rebuilding rather than deal with a 'possible' Reaper threat. Politically, they wanted to distance themselves from you. This was why you side with Cerberus- they're believe you and will supply you with any resources you need: ship, allies, money, etc.

2. See, I actually loved the pacing of the suicide mission. They definitely could have designed a more elaborate main quest, but this seemed to take a different turn which I liked from most Bioware games. Kotor, Jade Empire, ME1, etc. all seem to rely on this 'extra long final sequence'. You never really feel like the clock is ticking, the game moves at your pace. The suicide mission felt the exact opposite; the idea was go in fast, go in hard. And hopefully come back alive. The fast pace really added to the tension.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 26 mars 2010 - 03:30 .

[Nightwriter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

1. If I question Shepard's death, I'm questioning the story decisions. The fact that he died and was gone for two years somehow resulted in everyone I fought for in the first game turning their backs on me. And why? Because I'm with Cerberus now? I had absolutely no choice, I would've gone to the Council first if I'd been given the option. But I wasn't. Because I died and woke up on a Cerberus table I am now somehow bound to association with them. This excuses the Council and the Alliance abandoning me. I didn't buy it.

2. Not to mention the whole story of ME2 was really buildup to a single mission, which made it feel almost anticlimactic. I love Mass Effect, I wanted the plot to be longer and for there to be more to the story than that. I'm running around collecting people like I'm filling a grocery list.

It could've been different. I muse about how with my fellow forumites. Is this so bad?

1. Hmm, I could be wrong, but you may be confusing some things here. The Council/Alliance didn't just abandon you after you joined with Cerberus. Cerberus happened to be the only ones who believed/wanted to deal with the Reaper threat. As Jacob explains, the Alliance/Council had thrust you aside right after you died. They wanted to focus on rebuilding rather than deal with a 'possible' Reaper threat. Politically, they wanted to distance themselves from you. This was why you side with Cerberus- they're believe you and will supply you with any resources you need: ship, allies, money, etc.

2. See, I actually loved the pacing of the suicide mission. They definitely could have designed a more elaborate main quest, but this seemed to take a different turn which I liked from most Bioware games. Kotor, Jade Empire, ME1, etc. all seem to rely on this 'extra long final sequence'. You never really feel like the clock is ticking, the game moves at your pace. The suicide mission felt the exact opposite; the idea was go in fast, go in hard. And hopefully come back alive. The fast pace really added to the tension.

Well, I will grant that that's really down to opinion. I personally like more meat to my story, more of a sense of transition and progression from event to event. I think this can be done while still achieving tension, or a time limit.

And on number one, I'm sorry, I guess what I meant was that it felt as though the writers had the Alliance trash you publicly after you died as a way of pushing you further toward Cerberus and the story they desired. If they hadn't have chosen to kill you and have Cerberus bring you back so you HAD to work with them, would they have had the Alliance/Council turn on you?

Anderson and the Council themselves, though, say that they cannot help you overtly because of your affiliations with Cerberus. Lol. I remember thinking, why isn't there a "well I'll denounce them right now, then" option? Say no more! I'll leave Cerberus right now. Sadly, tho, no option.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Nightwriter wrote...

1. Well, I will grant that that's really down to opinion. I personally like more meat to my story, more of a sense of transition and progression from event to event. I think this can be done while still achieving tension, or a time limit.

2. And on number one, I'm sorry, I guess what I meant was that it felt as though the writers had the Alliance trash you publicly after you died as a way of pushing you further toward Cerberus and the story they desired. If they hadn't have chosen to kill you and have Cerberus bring you back so you HAD to work with them, would they have had the Alliance/Council turn on you?

3. Anderson and the Council themselves, though, say that they cannot help you overtly because of your affiliations with Cerberus. Lol. I remember thinking, why isn't there a "well I'll denounce them right now, then" option? Say no more! I'll leave Cerberus right now. Sadly, tho, no option.

1. That's fine. On the whole, I would agree with you. I did think that this one time it was a nice change of pace from Bioware's typical 'in-depth style' finishes.

2. Meh, don't apologize. Your opinion- you're entitled to it. I thought dying/working with Cerberus was symbolic of the darker theme and that Shepard had to cut ties to his previous life. As to your question, none of can really say. If they hadn't killed Shepard and still forced you to work with Cerberus, I definitely would have a bigger problem. The fact that you're 'gone' for two years for me gives a clearer context why it's better to not bother with the Council.

3. This depends for me. I would never picture Udina helping me. The same for the paragon Council, although to a lesser extent. They definitely know how to play politics. I do agree with you on Anderson though- he always seemed to be pulling for you, even on the Reaper threat. I don't see why he wouldn't try 'something', although I guess Spectre status might have been that rather weak effort...

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 26 mars 2010 - 03:51 .

[Xaijin]

The Council/Alliance didn't just abandon you after you joined with Cerberus.

Actually, they do exactly that.

The council says, you can be a Spectre again... over there, waaaay over there, no further... no further, no, we can still see you, further.

Joker, while being his typical bombast self is pretty spot on with the Alliance angle. The help you receive is from Hackett and Anderson, who don't necessarily name-represent the Alliance... in fact, we pretty much know Anderson doesn't.

Modifié par Xaijin, 26 mars 2010 - 04:02 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Xaijin wrote...

Actually, they do exactly that.

The council says, you can be a Spectre again... over there, waaaay over there, no further... no further, no, we can still see you, further.

Joker, while being his typical bombast self is pretty spot on with the Alliance angle. The help you receive is from Hackett and Anderson, who don't necessarily name-represent the Alliance... in fact, we pretty much know Anderson doesn't.

Jacob explains that the Council/Alliance had already begun distancing themselves from you when Shepard died. The whole thing about joining Cerberus was merely another nail in the coffin.

[Nightwriter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

1. Well, I will grant that that's really down to opinion. I personally like more meat to my story, more of a sense of transition and progression from event to event. I think this can be done while still achieving tension, or a time limit.

2. And on number one, I'm sorry, I guess what I meant was that it felt as though the writers had the Alliance trash you publicly after you died as a way of pushing you further toward Cerberus and the story they desired. If they hadn't have chosen to kill you and have Cerberus bring you back so you HAD to work with them, would they have had the Alliance/Council turn on you?

3. Anderson and the Council themselves, though, say that they cannot help you overtly because of your affiliations with Cerberus. Lol. I remember thinking, why isn't there a "well I'll denounce them right now, then" option? Say no more! I'll leave Cerberus right now. Sadly, tho, no option.

1. That's fine. On the whole, I would agree with you. I did think that this one time it was a nice change of pace from Bioware's typical 'in-depth style' finishes.

2. Meh, don't apologize. Your opinion- you're entitled to it. I thought dying/working with Cerberus was symbolic of the darker theme and that Shepard had to cut ties to his previous life. As to your question, none of can really say. If they hadn't killed Shepard and still forced you to work with Cerberus, I definitely would have a bigger problem. The fact that you're 'gone' for two years for me gives a clearer context why it's better to not bother with the Council.

3. This depends for me. I would never picture Udina helping me. The same for the paragon Council, although to a lesser extent. They definitely know how to play politics. I do agree with you on Anderson though- he always seemed to be pulling for you, even on the Reaper threat. I don't see why he wouldn't try 'something', although I guess Spectre status might have been that rather weak effort...

What I wanted was to be able to make a choice: work with Cerberus or work with Cerberus undercover for the Council.

I often wonder why they didn't do this, or if there was some reason it could not be done. I would've liked it if the Council, during our meeting, had said that they do believe me, but that the galaxy simply does not, and that their hands are tied. They do, however, know that Cerberus knows something important about it, so they send you to spy.

God, I would even have dug it if something was starting to go horribly wrong with some of the people in power in the galaxy, that the political stability of Citadel space was mysteriously changing. The other councilors suspect the turian councilor has been somehow indoctrinated or possessed. Politicians everywhere are suddenly showing odd signs, behaving strangely, turning on one another and threatening war. You have to figure it out and get the galaxy together in time for the Reapers.