Starke said:
Only at the most abstract level. By that definition someone masturbating in the bathroom is a plot. Though even under that definition, Mass Effect is dodgy at best.
For one thing there is no narrative climax. A plot is more than "random stuff happens, and then a goat giant terminator baby". A plot implies that there are some connective themes, elements, or just goddamn anthropomorphic rabbits, anything. Anything is precisely what we don't get here, every single mission is isolated off into its own little sub-continuity streams with minimal regard for what has happened elsewhere.
Why should we need another definition? The only contention I'm putting forward is that there exists a plot in Mass Effect 2. The word implies only that there is a deliberate series of events in a particular order so as to illicit an understanding. The events in the game are not random as you claim, nor is there a lack of cohesiveness between them.
The merit of the format of the plot is a different discussion. However, just because the game is broken into subplot "missions" does not mean it is discontinuous. One could argue that this format is necessitated by the goals of the game designers, namely that the game gives choice to the player in terms of the order of events and decisions (more on that later).
Starke said:
If the only missions in the game were the tutorial mission, the first colony, recruiting Mordin, recruiting Grunt (maybe), the second colony, the collector ship, the derelict, and the endgame, and you might be able to convincingly claim the game has a plot, unfortunately, that represents about 12% of the game, and the remaining 88% has nothing to do with anything, and a bit more than half of the game is mandatory to progress the game triggers.
So your argument is that only 12% of the game is actual plot, while 88% is irrelevant and only serves to muddle it up? Therefore a plot does not exist? I guess Oblivion doesn't have a plot, nor does the Empire Strikes Back. No, that tells me that there is much more content between the major plot points than in a normal work. The difference and challenge of writing a story for a video game is that, unlike film or books, there is much less of a constraint on content. Movies are two hours, games like ME2 are 25 hours plus. A story must then either be much more complex or more extensive and sometimes extraneous.
Starke said:
As a result, this isn't a plot. Hell, ignoring the endgame map, there isn't even a real gameplay climax. Each recruitment and loyalty mission has some combat challenge escalation as it progresses, but, honestly, the missions don't generate a sense of increasing stakes, or difficulty.
Look, I agree that the giant terminator baby idea is stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that it's on the mission that is obviously intended to be the climax. The entire game all they talk about is going through the Omega 4 relay. I don't think difficulty progression really factors into this. The game ends with an extensive boss battle; I'd say that counts as a "gameplay climax."
nightwolf667 said:
The side portions of Mass Effect 2 have plots, the companion collection quests and the loyalty quests, but each plays out more like its own short episode in a television series rather than part of the cohesive whole. There's a plot there, a beginning, middle, end, climax and denouement where they reflect on their actions and wind down. These are actually very good.
However, Shepard's story, the main plot of the game is virtually non-existent. To have a plot, or even a character arc, the character is required to end up in a place that is different from where they started. What was the point of stopping the Collectors? Yes, they were puppets of the Reapers and yes, they were creating a "Human Baby whatever". Why? Who cares. It doesn't actually matter. It's a mcguffin, but it means nothing to Shepherd's overall story. The Horizon mission the Collector's ship/the Derelict Reaper, and the Collector's Base. There's nothing connecting these threads together except the Illusive Man. These are events, not plot points.
A plot requires that a character have a journey, that they learn something, and that they end up in a place at the end of the story that is different than where they began.
I see what you're saying. Within the story of Commander Shepard fighting the Reapers, ME2 is basically unimportant filler. In a sense, the game is more of a spinoff or bridge than a true narrative sequel. As such, however, it makes main character development less important in a three game arc. You don't expect a character to have some great introspective revelation in every single game do you? Also, I have to point out that a character arc is not required in a plot. Look at ancient Greek tragedy or any ancient epic; the hero or heroes don?t always change. Often, they are static. We do not say these works have no plot based on these grounds.
nightwolf667 said:
I could argue that Shepherd's death at the hands of the Collectors at the beginning is meaningless, and it is. Shepherd gains nothing from it and learns nothing from it.
Well, I would say that the beginning has a few purposes. One could surmise that served the purpose of justifying the player being able to re-customize their character. Assuming that's not the only reason, I think I could offer a few. For one, they reference the Bible when they name it the Lazarus project. One could also draw parallels to Nietzche?s Superman among other things. As well as being unexpected, it tries to make the player dislike the Collectors.
That brings me to another point about video game characters that I think is important. Shepard serves as more than a mere character. The medium of the video game is distinct from that of any other in a very interesting way, methinks. The folly of many games is to directly imitate other mediums. By giving the player choices (or at least some semblance of choice), giving the option to customize the character, and making the plot less linear, the player can not only witness the experience but feel as if he/she is a part of it. Shepard is a canvas for the player to project him/herself.
nightwolf667 said:
We have Cerberus as a stand in for the Alliance, but there is literally difference between them. Shepherd could have been working for Alliance and it would have been the same game. Shepherd gains nothing and learns nothing (except for the shiny ship and the leather, but that's not plot or character growth now is it?).
I would contend that Cerberus adds a whole different element to the game and to player choice. It exemplifies the theme of moral ambiguity in that the player must choose between what is right for humans and what is right for everyone (this, of course, is also present in the end of ME1). All of this is not relevant to the plot and at this point, so you're correct in saying that they?re a stand in for the Alliance of the first game. However, I suspect that in Mass Effect 3 their circumspective purpose will be much distinguished from the Alliance.
nightwolf667 said:
In fact, if one wiped out the events in the game that act as the main plot...we'd still have the exact same game.
Not true. There would be far more people complaining that the game had no plot and was just a jumble of individually well thought out missions in no particular order.
