Xavier323 said:
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).
No, the mere act of splitting the game into individual segmented missions presented in the order the player chooses does not invalidate the possibility of a plot. The absence of a plot, and the lack of any narrative interconnectivity between those missions is what invalidates the possibility of a plot.
You yourself phrased it as "stuff happens" but, again, the shit that happens is completely random. Let's compare for a moment.
In the first game, you can Rescue Liara, go freeze your ass off, or go get shot at by geth. Rescuing Liara will give you a small piece of what Saren is after, and she will be able to offer more insight after each of the other two missions. Freezing your ass off will give you an idea of WHERE Seren is trying to go, and getting shot at by geth tells you how Seren planed to interpret the data he was getting his hands on. Completing two of these will let you go off and kill the squad member that's annoying you the most (a win for me), and also gives you more information, which Liara can help you process.
In rough terms all of these work towards understanding the setting, and building towards a cohesive whole. You know, events that aren't random, that are all precipitated by one individual, and it's also the person you're trying to find.
Additionally, Eden Prime, The Citadel, T'Sonni's world/Noveria/Feros (as a set), Vermire, Ilos, and the final crawl up the spire do demonstrate an increase in tension, heading towards a narrative and gameplay climax. (There is a bit of wierdness where you can insert Vermire before one of the previous set, but, whatever, these things happen, and Vermire sets up for an after the storm lull).
In contrast, none of the recruitment, except Mordin's are in any way vital to the overall plot. No one else brings any ability to the crew that cannot be replaced with a disposable meatshield. I listed Grunt's recruitment, but that's because the intent of the recruitment mission, the oddly Irish sounding named krogen would, like Mordin represent an irreplacable crew member. Of course, that's not what happens, but I'm less inclined to mock it outright.
That said, Thane, Samara, Talli, Garrus, Jack... especially fuckin' Jack, are all completely fuckin' irrelevant to the narrative, and their recruitment missions are at best distractions from what should be the plot of the game.
None of the recruitment missions, except Legion's (and, I suppose Jacob's and Miranda's if you want to call it that) have any direct implications for a potential plot, and Mordin's actually does start up a potential plot only to let it die the instant he boards the ship.
EDIT: No, wait, Jacob and Miranda's introduction mission is completely irrelevant, I forgot.
Again, this game has a plot, much the way a teenage girl's scrap book has a plot. "I was there, shit happened, I met these people, the end, turn the page."
Xavier323 said:
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.
It's not the amount that's at issue here. The problem is this: For there to be a plot, there needs to be some kind of consistent theme. About 12% of the game has a consistent theme, dealing with the collectors, and what they've affected from one perspective or another, and, if we were talking about a TV series, or a comicbook, that'd probably be fine to say there's a weakly represented metaplot in place. Unfortunately, to get that 12% out and say that that's this game's plot requires us to edit the work itself, cutting out huge amounts of wasted content in order to argue that it has a plot. Now, as anyone with any training in content analysis will tell you, that's cheating. Also, it's probably worth pointing out, a metaplot isn't a plot, it's a mechanic in TV that refers to an ongoing overarching story occurring in the background, that isn't, but some day may become, the focus of the series.
So, let's go through your counter examples. Oblivion is an amusing side note because, you're right, the game itself doesn't have a plot, it's a sandbox, go anywhere, do anything, kill anyone. But, it does actually have one... well, five. Six if you count Knights of the Nine. Each of the factions has a coherent plot thread, with different themes, the Mages are dealing with dissension from the Necromancers, the Fighters Guild are dealing with a new competitor, the Thieves Gulid are trying to reclaim their place, the Dark Brotherhood move from simply killin' dudes for money to a scrabble to survive once it becomes apparent they've been betrayed from within, and of course the main quest revolves around saving the world from an invasion by hell. Well, Mehrunes Dagon's plane of Oblivion, but still. If we're counting the DLC, Knights of the Nine has you reforming the order, and going on a quest to find artifacts so you can fight off a greater evil.
It's probably worth holding KotN up in comparison to ME2 though, and here's why: Both spend most of their plot sending you around randomly collecting bits (artifacts in KotN and characters in ME2) with a goal of ultimately defeating something evil. The difference is, none of the Artifacts of the Crusader are expendable. Mechanically you need all of them, and they tend to build into a common theme of the dominant religion in Tamerial, explaining some aspects of its mythology. Additionally, collecting pieces does from time to time actually unlock methods of accessing other pieces. While with ME2 it doesn't matter, you can ignore Samara and leave her to rot over there in the corner, and not come back and say hi until long after the reaper threat is over. Or for that matter anyone else who isn't Jack, Grunt, Mordin or Garrus. Sure, Samara is the best choice for the biotic bubble, but there literally isn't anything you can assign Thane to that isn't better handled by someone else.
As for Empire Strikes Back? Yeah, that's kinda funny. Good one.
Now, if you want to say games can't have plots, go back and play the original Mass Effect. As discussed earlier, it's got a plot. If you so choose, you can wander off and fuck around until the galaxy burns, but there is a coherent plot, unlike, you know, ME2. For bonus points, the games clock in at about the same length on a straight playthrough, and a full completionist playthough actually takes longer in ME1 than 2.
Xavier323 said:
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."
Yeah, but there's no escalation, and no real consistency. Now maybe I'm forgetting something, but as I recall, the boss fight at the end of ME2 is based on different mechanics from the rest of the game. Unless I'm forgetting other giant multi-stage "shoot me in my giant glowing weak spot" enemies I'm forgetting. It's not a climax, it's a "and then a goat" moment.
Xavier323 said:
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.
Greek Tragedy is defined
exclusively by its character arcs, and how those differ from character arcs in other genres.
Xavier323 said:
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 Ubermensch among other things. As well as being unexpected, it tries to make the player dislike the Collectors.
You know why you never see that translated into English? Because it's not the same goddamn concept. Shepard is to the Ubermensch what Jack Bauer is to a trauma surgeon.
Drawing direct biblical comparisons? Yeah, that's edgy... for the 1500s. The fact of the matter is, biblical alliterations are an intellectual low hanging fruit, and have been for nearly a thousand years. If you want to say calling your project to
bring someone back from the fucking dead "Lazarus" is clever, you need to get out and consume more quality media. It might also be a good idea to never mention the words "Nietzsche" or "Ubermensch" again until after you've actually read some of his work, and have a functional understanding of it that doesn't include TV tropes.
The only function of waxing Shepard at the beginning of the game is to let the player re-roll the character, and to let Bioware redesign the
Normandy. Are these valid things to do from a gameplay perspective? Sure. Is the method they coaxed it into the story valid so it has to be explained in character? No. It's at best condecending, saying, "hey, we shuffled up the character generation system in this game, but we don't trust you to be able to figure that out if we don't hold your hand through it."
Now... if they waxed Shepard at the beginning of ME2, and you spent the game playing as someone else, like Jacob, only to have Shepard being brought back for ME3? That might have at least had some legitimate shock value.
EDIT: Also, the collectors are in a shooter, and they're not you. Wanting to kill them isn't a function of liking them, it's a function of "I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one." Unless, you're saying we're supposed to blame the collectors for Cerberus' team pants on head naming scheme.
Xavier323 said:
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.
If Cerberus actually added a level of moral ambiguity? Sure. But it doesn't.
Shepard: "Hey, you're those guys that wiped out my whole team and kept my buddy alive for tests of dubious scientific value. Fuck you."
Tim: "That was a rogue operation."
Shepard: "Okay."
---
Shepard: "Hey, you're that fucker that killed Admiral Whatsisname in the last game."
Tim: "That was a rogue operation."
Shepard: "Okay."
---
Shepard: "Hey, you fucked up Jack pretty good."
Tim: "That was a rouge operation."
Shepard: "Okay."
The list goes on. There is no difference in the moral system between games. There's also no narrative impact of any of this. Aside from voice actors, Tim is exactly as oblivious and unhelpful as Udina and Anderson combined... into one hideous mind breaking amalgamation with a side of that turian councilor.
Then again, like Captain "It was about 20 years ago" Anderson, Tim is a walking exposition dispenser... well, actually he might not even be ambulatory, I'm not sure, not a character.
Xavier323 said:
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.
Hardly. They can't tell that that's all it is now. If you cut those missions, the game would still get people heralding it's plot, while everyone with any experience as a writer would continue to look at it and vomit.
Xavier323 said:
Yeah.