Mass Effect 3 Details Coming In April

subversus said:
that's a valid argument but by
destroying another Reaper threat, they've obtained the knowledge about their race which they can use in the upcoming battle. So it does sound like setting the stage for ACT III to me
Click to expand...

We don't know what was on the data disk we got from the Collector Base. Honestly how people view ME2 in the future is going to depend on ME3. ME3 will either invalidate ME2 or show how good the setup was for the entire trilogy. It's hard now to view what will be important, if half our squad comes back from ME2 and ME1 and actually serve an important purpose plot-wise, then there was a purpose to the recruitment missions. If they use the dark matter they continuously brought up in Tali's mission as some sort of weapon then that would help tie ME2 into the trilogy.
 
Confidence Man said:
If their writers weren't fucking monkeys the whole resurrection thing could have made for an interesting struggle in terms of whether Shepard is really the same Shepard, whether someone can come back to life after being dead and be the same person, especially when you're resurrected by a secretive organization with their own agenda. A huge missed opportunity to involve Ashley's religious beliefs, as well.
Click to expand...

it's SO TRUE.

But if we start criticizing their writers that would turn into the bloody mess because Bioware's writing is serviceable at best. It is cookie-cutter fantasy/sci-fi stuff but it had heart in it and if the most banal shit has heart it works.
 
Jarmel said:
But it's also a RPG. Look how many people are complaining about Arrival in that they didn't have an option to save the colonists. In order for there to be consistent character growth, a player would have to be locked into Paragon or Renegade which some people would hate. You can't have Shepard being morally agonized over killing someone then watch him casually shoot a guy in the foot less than a hour later.
Click to expand...

You have ethical (or "tactical" as Bioware would say) choices to make, but that doesn't prevent the game from exploring or developing Shepard as a character, particularly given the situation he/she's in.

Having Shepard question himself as to whether his choices are really his own or are being maniupulated by Cerberus given that they rebuilt him doesn't prevent you as the player from making those choices.
 
Confidence Man said:
You have ethical (or "tactical" as Bioware would say) choices to make, but that doesn't prevent the game from exploring or developing Shepard as a character, particularly given the situation he/she's in.

Having Shepard question himself as to whether his choices are really his own or are being maniupulated by Cerberus given that they rebuilt him doesn't prevent you as the player from making those choices.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point though, the player is supposed to identify with Shepard. I remember a bunch of comments way back that people had issues looking at other people's Shepard since they were so used to their own. Creating that philosophical(or possibly literal if they had gone down that route) question would have made people question if this was really their Shepard.

Also let me argue this from another aspect. It is impossible to do consistent character growth for a character when their actions are determined by an outside party and can switch at any time. A player can play a Renegade halfway through the game, who is determined to do whatever it takes to get the mission done, to a Paragon who wants to save people even at the cost of the mission. Now before you cite John Marston or other cases, none of those to my knowledge have a drastic impact on the story except possibly one or two missions near the end. Even Marston isn't that great of an example as his motivations throughout the game are pretty consistent.
 
To anyone saying you can't have character development while letting the player make choices that have actual consequences. Please go play The Witcher.
 
Lostconfused said:
To anyone saying you can't have character development while letting the player make choices that have actual consequences. Please go play The Witcher.
Click to expand...

So going from some sort of evil character in Witcher to a good guy actually makes sense in context of the story and character? Mid-game I might add, such as being one of the worst people alive to a saint less than five minutes later.

You could have Shepard become an alcoholic or go insane but it serves nothing to further the story and for some people it wouldn't make sense based off of their character's previous actions.
 
Jarmel said:
So going from some sort of evil character in Witcher to a good guy actually makes sense in context of the story and character? Mid-game I might add, such as being one of the worst people alive to a saint less than five minutes later.

You could have Shepard become an alcoholic or go insane but it serves nothing to further the story and for some people it wouldn't make sense based off of their character's previous actions.
Click to expand...
The entire point is that there are some aspects of the character that you can't control. By exploring what those fixed aspects are and what they mean is developing that character. That doesn't mean the player can't make choices that might influence the game.

Edit: And no that doesn't mean you have to lock the player into either Paragon or Renegade path. Although Bioware certainly tries to with their positive feedback loop.
 
Lostconfused said:
The entire point is that there are some aspects of the character that you can't control. By exploring what those fixed aspects are and what they mean is developing that character. That doesn't mean the player can't make choices that might influence the game.
Click to expand...

The point though is making it consistent with prior actions. Like why would a character become evil half-way through the game? Now you can force the character to become evil due to a scripted event but then what happens if the player wants to be good again? Look at Infamous for example, you can flip flop between different choices in the game and so because of that, Cole has to be a blank slate for the player. Now you could assign specific traits such as the main character being an alcoholic but this has to be done at the beginning of the game rather than halfway through. For example let's say the RPG hero has no choice to kill an entire town to save the nation. They then become an alcoholic midway through the game due to the seriousness of their actions. This might work if the player has no further choices in the game. That's because the player may be playing their character as a villain and so for them, killing the town was fun. So the character becoming alcoholic only works in the context of the player playing their character as a good guy. Then what happens if the player wants their character to become evil after becoming a drunk? That's why JRPGs can allow more drastic character growth in that there aren't real options for the player to choose from.

The only way for the character to make sense from a story and character development point of view would be to lock them into one set morality stance from the get go.
 
subversus said:
the main plot = recruiting people for your suicide mission with suicide mission as climax in the end.

I can't get these "ME2 has no plot" complaints. It's like people have never read novellas written in letters.
Click to expand...

Its plot is pointless. There is no moving the story forward. You end up exactly where you started at the end of ME1.
 
Lothars said:
No I think it had a good story, the recruitment missions are part of the story as well but we may disagree.
Click to expand...

No the recruitment missions are self contained. They dont spill over into the main plot, which is what sucks. There is no interconnection. They are just there to serve the dumb loyalty mechanic.
 
Jarmel said:
The only way for the character to make sense from a story and character development point of view would be to lock them into one set morality stance from the get go.
Click to expand...
For some reason you are sticking to good/evil morality as the only form of character development.

The point of character development is to establish a framework, a set of traits around which the players can build their view of the character. Those traits don't have to be obvious, they can become apparent over time, they might even change over time. You are stuck in this good vs evil morality argument. Which is the problem because its an extremely shallow way to look at it.
 
HK-47 said:
No the recruitment missions are self contained. They dont spill over into the main plot, which is what sucks. There is no interconnection. They are just there to serve the dumb loyalty mechanic.
Click to expand...

So what would they do, have a Collector kidnap Jacob's dad?

I agree that Mass Effect 2's main story was poor and not well-developed, but the recruitment / loyalty missions were fine as self-contained mini-arcs. They helped to get to know the characters and they were a break from the ordinary, I had a great time with them. It's just Bioware didn't bother to develop the main story enough, which resulted in shitty shoot-em-up missions that the base story comprised of like Horizon and the godawful Reaper IFF mission.
 
Lostconfused said:
For some reason you are sticking to good/evil morality as the only form of character development.

The point of character development is to establish a framework, a set of traits around which the players can build their view of the character. Those traits don't have to be obvious, they can become apparent over time, they might even change over time. You are stuck in this good vs evil morality argument. Which is the problem because its an extremely shallow way to look at it.
Click to expand...

These traits though have to be established in the beginning of either the game or series otherwise it won't make sense in regards to the story. For example KOTOR and Revan. Also they can't have any impact on the gameplay. Then how do you develop those traits or habits with it being consistent to prior events or gameplay? How do you make it so that the player still identifies with the characters after demonstrating those traits? The more you restrict the player's choices and background, the less they identify with the character. Look at all the rage for the lack of origin stories for Dragon Age 2. I can't count the number of posts on the Bioware forums of people saying they preferred the Warden over Hawke as it felt more like he/she was their character.
 
Jarmel said:
As for me, the dead Reaper was done amazingly well. Indoctrination is so strong that it can make people huskify themselves. Also we finally see an indepth process of how it happens instead of just the effects. Considering it takes millions if not billions of people to create one Reaper, it gives you an idea of the scale of the genocide that Reapers orchestrate. It also gives the villain a tangible motive other than they kill us just to kill us. Yes the baby Reaper was not done all that well, mostly due to the art design. The artbook had some alternative designs for the Reaper, some of which actually liked cool.
Click to expand...

We saw this in 1 already.
 
Jarmel said:
These traits though have to be established in the beginning of either the game or series otherwise it won't make sense in regards to the story. For example KOTOR and Revan. Also they can't have any impact on the gameplay. Then how do you develop those traits or habits with it being consistent to prior events or gameplay? How do you make it so that the player still identifies with the characters after demonstrating those traits? The more you restrict the player's choices and background, the less they identify with the character. Look at all the rage for the lack of origin stories for Dragon Age 2. I can't count the number of posts on the Bioware forums of people saying they preferred the Warden over Hawke as it felt more like he/she was their character.
Click to expand...


Look at The Nameless One, the Spiriteater or the Exile.
 
HK-47 said:
We saw this in 1 already.
Click to expand...

No we didn't. The husks we just see in ME 1 magically appear. Here in ME2 it's explained that the Indoctrinated build those pikes(or whatever they're officially called) and impale themselves on it to become husks. While they do show the pikes in ME1, it was never really confirmed that this was the cause of the huskification. In regards to Indoctrination on Virmire, again the after effects mostly. They don't mention the mind melding in ME1. They do touch on the organics start to view the Reapers as gods under Indoctrination in ME1 due to Saren but here it is much more straightforward and obvious with the shrine.
 
Jarmel said:
No we didn't. The husks we just see in ME 1 magically appear. Here in ME2 it's explained that the Indoctrinated build those pikes(or whatever they're officially called) and impale themselves on it to become husks. In regards to Indoctrination on Virmire, again the after effects mostly. They don't mention the mind melding in ME1. They do touch on the organics start to view the Reapers as gods under Indoctrination in ME1 due to Saren but here it is much more straightforward and obvious with the shrine.
Click to expand...

What? We see the husk process happen on Eden Prime. The very first mission in the first game.

The Husks in ME2 were different to those in ME1, it's even touched upon by Shep when he first encounters them on Horizon...where they magically appear.
 
Speedymanic said:
What? We see the husk process happen on Eden Prime. The very first mission in the first game.
Click to expand...

Not to mention there is a colony that uncovers a dragons tooth, gets indoctrinated and turns themselves to husks.
 
Srewwwww the haters. If they make this co-op me and my wing are going dudebro all over the fucking galaxy. Not sure why some people seem to think there can't be a good coop rpg. (Legend of Mana 1 and 2, Baldur's Gates, Tales of Series, etc)
 
Speedymanic said:
What? We see the husk process happen on Eden Prime. The very first mission in the first game.

The Husks in ME2 were different to those in ME1, it's even touched upon by Shep when he first encounters them on Horizon...where they magically appear.
Click to expand...

It's implied but the Reaper mission confirmed it. In ME1, on the side mission where the husks are on the ship, the ship's log if I remember correctly stated that they went to some unknown space and came back huskified. In the first mission the Geth had to have thrown people on the pikes. They never outright state the pikes themselves are the cause of the change which I believe they do on the Reaper ship. Indoctrination in the first game was made to be strong but not to the point of suicide, ME2 changed that.

Also I don't know how accurate the Mass Effect wiki is but it seems the in-game theory in the first game is that it was ambiguous whose technology it was and ME2 clarified it.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon's_teeth
 
Jarmel said:
It's implied but the Reaper mission confirmed it. In ME1, on the side mission where the husks are on the ship, the ship's log if I remember correctly stated that they went to some unknown space and came back huskified. In the first mission the Geth had to have thrown people on the pikes. They never outright state the pikes themselves are the cause of the change which I believe they do on the Reaper ship. Indoctrination in the first game was made to be strong but not to the point of suicide, ME2 changed that.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. It may have been implied but we knew that being under the effects longer enough made people huskify themselves. Hell we saw the cybernetic additions to Saren too.

They also point out in ME1 that Dragon's Teeth dont seem like geth tech.
 
HK-47 said:
Sure it was. It may have been implied but we knew that being under the effects longer enough made people huskify themselves. Hell we saw the cybernetic additions to Saren too.

They also point out in ME1 that Dragon's Teeth dont seem like geth tech.
Click to expand...

Again it's implied. My understanding in regards to Saren is that the 'upgrades' were not exactly optional and Nazara forced it on him. It's fairly obvious that it's Reaper tech but the Reaper IFF mission confirmed it, a minor plot point either way.

Now that I think about it, they setup the whole Reaper harvesting thing from the get-go. The Teeth drain nutrients similar to what the Collector Base was doing for the Reaper baby.
 
Jarmel said:
Again it's implied. My understanding in regards to Saren is that the 'upgrades' were not exactly optional and Nazara forced it on him. It's fairly obvious that it's Reaper tech but the Reaper IFF mission confirmed it, a minor plot point either way.

Now that I think about it, they setup the whole Reaper harvesting thing from the get-go. The Teeth drain nutrients similar to what the Collector Base was doing for the Reaper baby.
Click to expand...

He was only able to force them on him cause he indoctrinated him first. Also you dont need to spell out everything. There was enough to piece together what happens when people stay around Dragon's Teeth.
 
Jarmel said:
Now that I think about it, they setup the whole Reaper harvesting thing from the get-go. The Teeth drain nutrients similar to what the Collector Base was doing for the Reaper baby.
Click to expand...
One drained nutrients, the other 'genetic material', the only thing in common here is that something's being siphoned off into something else.
 
HK-47 said:
He was only able to force them on him cause he indoctrinated him first.
Click to expand...

As he points out in the final fight, he was starting to fight the indoctrination and Nazara decided to do the implants to solidify his control over Saren. This didn't seem willing on Saren's part even with the indoctrination effects.

@rufus
Good point, I forgot about the genetic data aspect.
 
Jarmel said:
It's implied but the Reaper mission confirmed it. In ME1, on the side mission where the husks are on the ship, the ship's log if I remember correctly stated that they went to some unknown space and came back huskified. In the first mission the Geth had to have thrown people on the pikes. They never outright state the pikes themselves are the cause of the change which I believe they do on the Reaper ship. Indoctrination in the first game was made to be strong but not to the point of suicide, ME2 changed that.
Click to expand...

The first game doesn't treat players like idiots in spelling out every little detail. Everyone pretty much knew the teeth were behind the change, the fact that it's confirmed in ME2 is a moot point as virtually everyone already knew.

Forgotten what the scientist on Virmire had to say about Indoctrination? The suicide aspect plays no part, once it's taken hold, the person loses all freewill and is completely under the control of the reapers. They basically become husks without the cybernetic implants or undergoing any physical change.

Like those we see on Virmire.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Indoctrinate
 
HK-47 said:
Its plot is pointless. There is no moving the story forward. You end up exactly where you started at the end of ME1.
Click to expand...
no,
you have more info on Reapers after downloading this shit from their base. This info might be crucial in the future
 
Indoctrination in the first game was made to be strong but not to the point of suicide, ME2 changed that.
Click to expand...
Benezia? The husks? The victims of indoctrination? The VI's entire story of the Prothean downfall involving enslavement and husk-making?

How does suicide make that much of an impact compared to empire destroying? Such a small point.
 
Speedymanic said:
The first game doesn't treat players like idiots in spelling out every little detail. Everyone pretty much knew the teeth were behind the change, the fact that it's confirmed in ME2 is a moot point as virtually everyone already knew.

Forgotten what the scientist on Virmire had to say about Indoctrination? The suicide aspect plays no part, once it's taken hold, the person loses all freewill and is completely under the control of the reapers. They basically become husks without the cybernetic implants or undergoing any physical change.

Also, Indoctrinated can't think for themselves, they've lost all free will and thought, so how can they commit suicide?

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Indoctrinate
Click to expand...

In ME1, the effects of Indoctrination are much less absolute. Saren was able to fight the effects before the implants and even after the implants was able to commit suicide. Benezia was also able to fight the effects for a little while. In ME2, nobody shows any signs of resistance again it.

Interestingly enough I was going through the wiki and it appears that there are two types of Dragon's Teeth, the first being that of the Geth design and the other being the Reaper design. So again I guess they were clarifying that it was a Reaper design. Also the wiki mentions one mission where it wasn't the Teeth that caused the change but rather an orb, so possibly the teeth aren't necessary to become husks.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Husk
 
The first game doesn't treat players like idiots in spelling out every little detail. Everyone pretty much knew the teeth were behind the change, the fact that it's confirmed in ME2 is a moot point as virtually everyone already knew.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I don't have the exact squadmate quotes so I'll have to defer to the wiki for the moment.

UNC: Missing Survey Team

A log entry in one of the computers points them toward an excavation site where the survey team apparently found some sort of alien technology.
Click to expand...

Head down in to both tunnels to discover stacks of dragon's teeth, but there's no explanation as to where they came from or who buried them here. One of your squadmates will say that they have heard of something similar to this and puts forward the theory that the alien technology they found transformed them, turning them into machine cultists.
Click to expand...

This heavily implies that the teeth are what changes them to husks, in addition to seeing humans being impaled when the spike is raised and husks coming off when the spikes come back down of course. In this case, it hints that the survey team were indoctrinated to the point that they impaled themselves and became husks as there is no evidence of third party involvement (Geth).
 
Deathcraze said:
Pretty much. I don't have the exact squadmate quotes so I'll have to defer to the wiki for the moment.

UNC: Missing Survey Team





This heavily implies that the teeth are what changes them to husks, in addition to seeing humans being impaled when the spike is raised and husks coming off when the spikes come back down of course. In this case, it hints that the survey team were indoctrinated to the point that they impaled themselves and became husks as there is no evidence of third party involvement (Geth).
Click to expand...

Did the characters themselves ever state in ME1 that it was Reaper technology? I don't think so. On Eden Prime, it's assumed to be Geth. The missing survey team it was left as a mystery and the derelict freighter it was assumed to be Geth. I don't remember any dialogue on Virmire commenting on the Teeth so maybe they made some sort of connection there.

Either way this is a ridiculously minor plot point.
 
Jarmel said:
In ME1, the effects of Indoctrination are much less absolute. Saren was able to fight the effects before the implants and even after the implants was able to commit suicide. Benezia was also able to fight the effects for a little while. In ME2, nobody shows any signs of resistance again it.

Interestingly enough I was going through the wiki and it appears that there are two types of Dragon's Teeth, the first being that of the Geth design and the other being the Reaper design. So again I guess they were clarifying that it was a Reaper design. Also the wiki mentions one mission where it wasn't the Teeth that caused the change but rather an orb, so possibly the teeth aren't necessary to become husks.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Husk
Click to expand...

Not really, it's pretty much spelled out the scientist on Virmire and by Vigil later, that those who succumb to Indoctrination lose all freewill and thought. Sure, there might be some who can momentarily resist the effects, but that's less about indoctrination and more about them retaining some level of themselves so they can carry out orders.

Again, the teeth are pretty much shown to be the main reason for people turning into cybernetic husks in the first game. There's no confusion, it's shown and I'm surprised anyone can claim it's only implied.

What about it is only implied? We see fully indoctrinated that haven't been placed on teeth and they are just brainless husks who attack on sight, we also see indoctrinated who have been placed on the teeth = cybernetic husks.

ME2 only really 'confirmed' it for those who haven't play the first game. That's the only reason it's even mentioned.
 
Jarmel said:
Did the characters themselves ever state in ME1 that it was Reaper technology? I don't think so. On Eden Prime, it's assumed to be Geth. The missing survey team it was left as a mystery and the derelict freighter it was assumed to be Geth. I don't remember any dialogue on Virmire commenting on the Teeth so maybe they made some sort of connection there.
Click to expand...

The difference is that some people here feel that the ME1 implied more than enough for people to draw their own conclusions. You seem to prefer it being spelled out.

Personally, I feel that it's more well done when you just imply and allow the gamer to draw their own conclusions. Show, not tell.
 
Jarmel said:
Did the characters themselves ever state in ME1 that it was Reaper technology? I don't think so. On Eden Prime, it's assumed to be Geth. The missing survey team it was left as a mystery and the derelict freighter it was assumed to be Geth. I don't remember any dialogue on Virmire commenting on the Teeth so maybe they made some sort of connection there.
Click to expand...

Don't think so, but it doesn't make much sense for the Geth to go to a random colony and bury dragons teeth in the hope someone finds them. It's hinting that they are not Geth technology, and that the colonists compelled themselves onto the spikes for some reason. Something for the player to put together rather than being force fed the idea, that's how I understand it anyway.

Either way this is a ridiculously minor plot point.
Click to expand...

It's a GAF Mass Effect thread, nothing is minor! :p
 
Patryn said:
The difference is that some people here feel that the ME1 implied more than enough for people to draw their own conclusions. You seem to prefer it being spelled out.

Personally, I feel that it's more well done when you just imply and allow the gamer to draw their own conclusions. Show, not tell.
Click to expand...

I much prefer stuff to be implied as well but it seemed they put that little scene on the Reaper to clarify everything. Again it's a horribly minor plot point that only us nerds would even bother to argue about as it really doesn't affect the plot in any way.
 
daviyoung said:
In its defense though, Mass Effect 2 smashed Mass Effect 1's sales. So for a lot of players Mass Effect 2 is their first game, with Mass Effect 3 being its sequel.
Click to expand...

Can you source this claim? I've read comments from a senior designer at EAWare that recent sales figures are ~2.37M for ME2. That's hardly a smashing success compared to ME.
 
IoCaster said:
Can you source this claim? I've read comments from a senior designer at EAWare that recent sales figures are ~2.37M for ME2. That's hardly a smashing success compared to ME.
Click to expand...

lol, that's actually less as far as I know.

I think a lot of people rented the game.
 
Lostconfused said:
To anyone saying you can't have character development while letting the player make choices that have actual consequences. Please go play The Witcher.
Click to expand...

Tactics Ogre as well.

I haven't played the Witcher(getting around to that soon, hopefully), but I know the difference between these two games and Mass Effect is that Geralt and Denam are partially pre-established characters, rather than bland receptacles for the player like Shepard. And while you can make choices for them, it doesn't contradict what we already know of their personalities.
 
Fimbulvetr said:
I know the difference between these two games and Mass Effect is that Geralt and Denam are partially pre-established characters, rather than bland receptacles for the player like Shepard. And while you can make choices for them, it doesn't contradict what we already know of their personalities.
Click to expand...
I should play Tactics Ogre then.

Geralt is an established character in the books. In the game he starts of with the classic cliche of amnesia. So the player gets to discover along with Geralt as to what kind of a character he is. Personally I think its pretty well done.

I also think it was a bad call by Bioware to not make Shepard more of a defined character. Its too late for Hawke/Shepard to be a player stand in like the Grey Warden so they might as well take it into a different direction. Where they become their own character like Geralt.
 
Fimbulvetr said:
Tactics Ogre as well.

I haven't played the Witcher(getting around to that soon, hopefully), but I know the difference between these two games and Mass Effect is that Geralt and Denam are partially pre-established characters, rather than bland receptacles for the player like Shepard. And while you can make choices for them, it doesn't contradict what we already know of their personalities.
Click to expand...

This is basically how The Witcher plays out, yeah. And it does work better than what Bioware employs for Mass Effect, in my opinion. Though I will say it has an obvious downside, in that it's not hard to wind up with the player not really being fond of the character that is being played out. That's sort of where I wound up with The Witcher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom