Out of Sight Out of Mind (Mass Effect 2)

[Always_Remain]

Wrong. Very Wrong.

Wait who is wrong? I'm a little confused.

 

[Starke]

I wanted to believe this guys isn't a troll but his latest post convince me otherwise. Yeah I'm done with him and this whole argument. I have my opinions and if he thinks I'm weak willed or whatever fuck it.

There's a fine line between someone who's making a point poorly, and one who's trolling. Ascadian isn't even trying to make an argument, he's flame baiting. It doesn't mean you can't try to offer him a legitimate counterargument, just that he's not likely to care.

You sir, deserve a cookie of wisdom.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Again, your skill at fouling up details from the original game is staggering. TIM is not exclusive to the Terminus systems. And again, it's not that he isn't mentioned in ME1, it's that he DOES NOT EXIST in it, even though Cerberus does.

What you're arguing here is that inherently video game writing cannot be good, therefore it's not worth complaining about it's quality, or analyzing it. I'm sorry, I reject your thesis. I've played a number of games (though, none of them from bioware), that had writing that was on par or superior to most of the shit on TV.

His argument boils down to writing in video games is inferior to that of other media. It's not what it looks like at first glance, but ultimately, that's where he's at.

That is not at all what I'm saying and you know it. Stop attacking straw men. I'm not saying video game writing can't be GOOD, I'm saying that it is inherently different from writing in books, television shows, and movies. Interactivity changes everything in the way you approach writing a video game. Having new concepts introduced in ME2 is a consequence of this interactive media, not a consequence of bad writing. The writers had to contort the storyline a tiny bit to accommodate for some variety in ME2, and in my eyes they did a damn good job of it. You discount the entire story and writing process of ME2 due to the fact that TIM and the Collectors weren't mentioned. Can those be seen as plot holes and obvious retcons? Yeah, I can see that argument. Does that mean that the entire game is poorly written? Of course not!

Whether or not ME2 connects perfectly with ME1 has no effect on the quality of the dialogue, characterization, setting, and plot of ME2. It is still a very well written game, it's just a well written game that may have one or two plot holes.

Second, there's this word "trilogy", I do not think it means what you think it does. A trilogy is three separate interconnected pieces of a larger story. The Two Towers isn't about how Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir headed off north to stop a goblin invasion in Arnor, no, it stays more or less on topic between Felloships and Return of the King. There's a pretty good argument to be made that Two Towers is filler, but it's more relevant to the narrative than ME2 is.

His failure to understand the word "trilogy" is also slightly staggering and baffling.

You're right, I have no knowledge about what's in ME3. What I can tell you is the content of ME2 isn't the second part of a narrative trilogy. It's a random off kilter little story that serves no long term purpose. At best it gives you the tools to prove to the council that the reapers are real, which means the entire game is effectively a goddamn side quest.

How can you possibly tell me that? Now I agree with you that much of the content of ME2 appeared to have little impact on the overall threat of the Reaper invasion, as it was established in ME1. I also agree that new things were introduced in ME2 that were not present in ME1. This is not a problem exclusive to Mass Effect, it's a problem with the second installment in pretty much every trilogy ever written.

Let's take Star Wars, for example. Empire Strikes Back is probably the best second installment in movie history, but it has the EXACT same problems you're describing here. Where was the Emperor in A New Hope? Why wasn't he mentioned? You think Obi-Wan Kenobi might have mentioned Yoda to Luke once or twice? Vader being Luke's father didn't exactly have much foreshadowing.

Or the Indiana Jones trilogy (fuck you its only a trilogy! that movie never happened!) another example. You don't think Temple of Doom was basically a sidequest?

Name any movie trilogy meant to be a cohesive, three-part saga and I will tell you why the middle installment suffers exactly because it is the middle child. I've yet to play a game trilogy that even makes a reasonable attempt at it.

The Two Towers is about the worst example you could come up with, as the Lord of the Rings was written as a single volume book. It was never meant to be a trilogy, so its much more cohesive than any other trilogy in existence.

For all we know The Illusive Man will play a much greater role in ME3 than anyone introduced to us in ME1. Most of the characters in ME1 who were not members of your party were one-shot quest dispensing filler. They knew they had to flesh out the world more in ME2, so we get great side characters like The Illusive Man, Aria, the Quarian Admirals, etc, that are likely to play a big role in ME3. You don't have as many of those in ME1. The people we meet, places we go, and things we learn in ME2 will ultimately be more important to the Mass Effect Saga than most of what occurred in ME1.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

I wanted to believe this guys isn't a troll but his latest post convince me otherwise. Yeah I'm done with him and this whole argument. I have my opinions and if he thinks I'm weak willed or whatever fuck it.

Do you always give up on a discussion when someone disagrees with you? Also, I don't disagree with you. I just called you out on coming off as a little holier-than-thou. I'm interested in why you think the writing in Mass Effect 2 is poor, or at least worse than ME1. Your argument seems to be "well it introduces new things that don't match up very well in ME2". That's not an argument against the quality of writing, it's an argument against plot cohesion in a trilogy, which I argue is due to the nature of writing in an interactive medium. You have to introduce new things to keep the games interesting.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

]There's a fine line between someone who's making a point poorly, and one who's trolling. Ascadian isn't even trying to make an argument, he's flame baiting. It doesn't mean you can't try to offer him a legitimate counterargument, just that he's not likely to care.

You sir, deserve a cookie of wisdom.

Yes, clearly I'm a troll with no valid point, except for the long post I made in which I made my point and you made several counterpoints. You need to re-examine the definition of flame-baiting, sir.

Who's trolling here, the guy arguing that even though one of the most popular games this year has some plot problems it's still a well written and enjoyable experience, or the guy telling everyone who enjoyed this popular game that they are idiots and fools because they don't have the mental aptitude to see all the problems that his superior intellect can point out?

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Maybe all this hate would go away if they had actually followed through on their plans to introduce transitory DLC for ME1 leading into ME2.

I'd like to think that, but no matter what BioWare does at this point they will receive unmitigated hate from people who either a) don't like dialogue trees, b) hold BioWare to the same standards as Asimov because they mentioned him in passing, or c) just want to be contrary to what is currently popular. This thread has a lot of all three.

They definitely should have made some DLC to connect the two games, rather than the two relatively awful ones they ended up releasing. It would have at least satisfied fans.

 

[Daemascus]

I dont see the problem about bringing in new places and people into the game in the sequel. If they didnt bring in new things you would just be playing the same game again.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

You clearly haven't spent much time looking for the answer either or you probably would as be disappointed with game's narrative as I am. Or maybe you just accepted the surface level bullshit and never thought to ask why. There are also different levels of why when it comes to narrative, there's the plot relevant: why are you doing this?

Mass Effect's answer is that you are doing this to save the galaxy. You must stop the Reapers, save the colonists, and be a goddamn hero.

Why is this happening?

the Reapers.

Then comes the next level the what:

What are the themes?

SPACE! BULLETS!

For someone with such a giant ego about his own literary genius, you sure do like to use hyperbole for the sake of an argument. You don't think there's a theme of organic vs. artificial life? Not even a little bit? No? The Reapers are just obstacles to you? You don't think maybe there's a question of fate? Changing the inevitable? Fighting against a foe more powerful than any we've ever known? If you're as educated as you claim you are, you know these themes. You know what they mean, what they say about society, and what that says about human beings. It's not as if Machine vs. Man is a new idea in Sci-Fi, Mr. Literature.

Is Mass Effect guilty of shamelessly ripping off common elements, archetypes, and themes from classic Sci-Fi? Of course! But it's never been successfully done in an interactive environment, so I'm personally willing to forgive them. If you want to see how big of a rip off, just read the Berserker series by Fred Saberhagen.

While I choose to see Mass Effect as a way to interact with those classic themes and characters from my favorite sci-fi, you're judging it on the same standards you would judge a new sci-fi book. I don't think you can do that when these stories cross media. Thousands of people who don't know the literature will be introduced to it with Mass Effect, and maybe even pick up a book or two.

We haven't had very many good sci-fi epics in gaming (read: none), so while Mass Effect has the same narrative problems that every other game has - I'm still going to enjoy it for what it is; an interactive romp through my favorite sci-fi tropes.

 

[Robbob1508]

If Bioware wanted to do a trilogy, they should have ended Mass Effect 2 on a sad note. Not sad whether or not you lose all your party members and you yourself die, but sad in the sense that there is no light in the galaxy and leaves the player going "OMG! HOW AM I GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS?" And leaves you waiting in breathless anticipation for the next game because it threw you off a cliff and left you there.

There is no happy ending to a trilogy's second act because that is not the end of the story. Plenty mechanics are available in learning how to write one, but it should be possible no matter what genre you choose. However, it does require foresight and planning. Bioware has another major problem in the Reapers, that will probably be handled by an ass pull in the third game on how you beat them. Because by the sequel you are no closer to knowing how to stop them. However, had they ended the game with you failing to stop the Reapers and with them beginning to take over the galaxy, that would be dark. Then you pick up in the third game as a resistance fighter figuring out how to kick them back out of the galaxy or destroy them forever. There are plenty of legitimate ways to do it, this just wasn't it.

sry to interject here, but didn't the final scene of the game show a huge fleet of reapers flying over a colony? Can you explain how an invasion fleet of reapers does not qualify as a "OMG!HOW AM I GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS" moment? Because that is exactly what was going through my head as I saw the final scene...

 

[Starke]

Again, your skill at fouling up details from the original game is staggering. TIM is not exclusive to the Terminus systems. And again, it's not that he isn't mentioned in ME1, it's that he DOES NOT EXIST in it, even though Cerberus does.

What you're arguing here is that inherently video game writing cannot be good, therefore it's not worth complaining about it's quality, or analyzing it. I'm sorry, I reject your thesis. I've played a number of games (though, none of them from bioware), that had writing that was on par or superior to most of the shit on TV.

His argument boils down to writing in video games is inferior to that of other media. It's not what it looks like at first glance, but ultimately, that's where he's at.

That is not at all what I'm saying and you know it. Stop attacking straw men.

I'm not. That is the underlying argument you made, regardless of your intention. If this was simply a miscommunication on your part, I appologize.

I'm not saying video game writing can't be GOOD, I'm saying that it is inherently different from writing in books, television shows, and movies. Interactivity changes everything in the way you approach writing a video game.

As an aside, you're absolutly right. With the exception of strictly linear games like Quake 4 (which can still be well written), this is a different kind of writing, something a number of developers do far better.

Having new concepts introduced in ME2 is a consequence of this interactive media, not a consequence of bad writing.

No, the introduction of new material is a consequence of this being a sequel. Movies, and books both introduce new material in their sequels. And nominally TV does it with every new episode. The issue is that way Mass Effect 2 introduces new material is utter bullshit ass pulls.

The writers had to contort the storyline a tiny bit to accommodate for some variety in ME2, and in my eyes they did a damn good job of it. You discount the entire story and writing process of ME2 due to the fact that TIM and the Collectors weren't mentioned.

I don't actually discount it on the count of the collectors. On the count of TIM not being mentioned? Yeah, that is a massive fuckup on bioware's part in regard to how one structures a trillogy.

Can those be seen as plot holes and obvious retcons? Yeah, I can see that argument. Does that mean that the entire game is poorly written? Of course not!

Poorly written? No. That the trillogy was poorly planned? Yes.

Whether or not ME2 connects perfectly with ME1 has no effect on the quality of the dialogue, characterization, setting, and plot of ME2. It is still a very well written game, it's just a well written game that may have one or two plot holes.

Second, there's this word "trilogy", I do not think it means what you think it does. A trilogy is three separate interconnected pieces of a larger story. The Two Towers isn't about how Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir headed off north to stop a goblin invasion in Arnor, no, it stays more or less on topic between Felloships and Return of the King. There's a pretty good argument to be made that Two Towers is filler, but it's more relevant to the narrative than ME2 is.

His failure to understand the word "trilogy" is also slightly staggering and baffling.

You're right, I have no knowledge about what's in ME3. What I can tell you is the content of ME2 isn't the second part of a narrative trilogy. It's a random off kilter little story that serves no long term purpose. At best it gives you the tools to prove to the council that the reapers are real, which means the entire game is effectively a goddamn side quest.

How can you possibly tell me that? Now I agree with you that much of the content of ME2 appeared to have little impact on the overall threat of the Reaper invasion, as it was established in ME1. I also agree that new things were introduced in ME2 that were not present in ME1. This is not a problem exclusive to Mass Effect, it's a problem with the second installment in pretty much every trilogy ever written.

As I said before, your inability to understand the meaning of the word trillogy continues to befuddle me.

Let's take Star Wars, for example. Empire Strikes Back is probably the best second installment in movie history, but it has the EXACT same problems you're describing here. Where was the Emperor in A New Hope? Why wasn't he mentioned?

I'm sorry, I didn't know about your memory problems, here:

The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

...Oh, look, the Emeror is mentioned in A New Hope.

You think Obi-Wan Kenobi might have mentioned Yoda to Luke once or twice? Vader being Luke's father didn't exactly have much foreshadowing.

Including to Mark Hamil. David Prowse never even heard that line of dialog until he was in the theater. It's a George Lucas ass pull of the most egregious manner.

Or the Indiana Jones trilogy (fuck you its only a trilogy! that movie never happened!) another example. You don't think Temple of Doom was basically a sidequest?

No, I think Indiana Jones, like Star Wars is a homage to an earlier form of entertainment. The Indiana Jones "trillogy" is basically four completly different films tied together by a convienent marketing label... oh, wait, Trillogy is three... so there isn't an Indiana Jones trillogy. Just a series.

Like I said, you don't seem to know what trillogy really means. While we're on the subject Star Wars wasn't intended to be a trillogy either. It's a throwback to the sci-fi adventure searials from the 30s and 40s, in six parts. Unfortunatly the first 3 are so much worse, were produced second, and are basically unworthy of the name, so it gets dubbed as a pair of trilogies.

Name any movie trilogy meant to be a cohesive, three-part saga and I will tell you why the middle installment suffers exactly because it is the middle child. I've yet to play a game trilogy that even makes a reasonable attempt at it.

Lord of the Rings

The Two Towers is about the worst example you could come up with, as the Lord of the Rings was written as a single volume book. It was never meant to be a trilogy, so its much more cohesive than any other trilogy in existence.

Except, unlike every example you have offered, Lord of the Rigns is a trillogy. Indiana Jones isn't, Star Wars isn't. Hell, the Jason Bourne books and film aren't. Like Indy they're just the continuing adventures of the character. Hell, even the Star Trek trilogy (2-4) really isn't a trilogy. It's chapter one, then chatper 2 part 1, chapter 2 part 2. Which is what you do get off A New Hope through Jedi. Not a trillogy, a stand alone film, followed by parts one and two. What you need to do is find a film that bucks that, and honestly, Lord of the Rings is one of the only ones I can think of off hand.

For all we know The Illusive Man will play a much greater role in ME3 than anyone introduced to us in ME1.

Which doesn't absolve him of being a poorly insterted character, and proof that Bioware has taken a page from David Lynch and is making up shit as they go along.

Most of the characters in ME1 who were not members of your party were one-shot quest dispensing filler.

That is often how it ends up in game design, btw. Well... poor game design. If you take a game like Bloodlines, there's a number of one off quest characters that later become important in other ways. Even The Witcher does this.

They knew they had to flesh out the world more in ME2, so we get great side characters like The Illusive Man, Aria, the Quarian Admirals, etc, that are likely to play a big role in ME3.

Two of these things are not like the other. The Admiralty Board is identified, and discribed point blank in ME1. What we get in ME2 is a little off that description, but life goes on. Aria may be mentioned by Wrex in ME1, but that's debatable. Even if he doesn't, she has absolutly zero relevance to any of the content in ME1. What isn't debatable is that Cerberus is in ME1. Which, by extension should be that at least TIM's codename should appear at some point. But it doesnt. The reason it doesn't is because he didn't exist when ME1 went to print. The only reason he exists at all is because Bioware decided to start dicking around with the format, decided to upgrade the normandy between 1 and 2 and blew the ship to shit in the opening scene, rather than, I don't know, holding off and destroying the normandy durring the suicide mission, making it actually a suicide mission, instead of a suicide mission where NO ONE DIES? But because they killed you for no narrative reason in the opening cutscene they needed to introduce Cerberus as the good guys, and for that they needed to create a new quest giver: TIM. If this starts to sound bullshit, it's because you have a modicum of intellegence that Bioware lacks.

You don't have as many of those in ME1. The people we meet, places we go, and things we learn in ME2 will ultimately be more important to the Mass Effect Saga than most of what occurred in ME1.

No. It won't. And here's why.

Wrex is working to save the krogen people, right? It is possible that Wrex was killed on Vermire in ME1 by the player. So the logical assumption is that Wrex had a unique perspective that changes the course of the krogen species based on your decisions. Except, that isn't the case. Whichever choice you made, the game enforces a status quo. A different krogen rises on Tutchanka and is working to rebuild the krogen people using Wrex's methods. Which ultimatly means killing or saving Wrex has no effect on the story whatsoever.

The Ash/Kaiden Vermire choice funnels down to a single result regardless of decision as well, the only difference is which voice actor you have bittching you out in ME2.

Killing or saving the council changes nothing.

Destroying or sparing the collector base will change nothing substantive.

All of these choices and their consiquences are cosmetic. They don't affect a thing. They're only there to give you the illusion of choice, layered over a rapidly deteriorating narrative. My one regret is you don't have the ability to see that.

 

[Starke]

]There's a fine line between someone who's making a point poorly, and one who's trolling. Ascadian isn't even trying to make an argument, he's flame baiting. It doesn't mean you can't try to offer him a legitimate counterargument, just that he's not likely to care.

You sir, deserve a cookie of wisdom.

Yes, clearly I'm a troll with no valid point, except for the long post I made in which I made my point and you made several counterpoints. You need to re-examine the definition of flame-baiting, sir.

Who's trolling here, the guy arguing that even though one of the most popular games this year has some plot problems it's still a well written and enjoyable experience, or the guy telling everyone who enjoyed this popular game that they are idiots and fools because they don't have the mental aptitude to see all the problems that his superior intellect can point out?

Spoiler: An example of your deep and complex rebuttals.

I agree with both of you. The novel thing is ridiculous. I'm afraid to even touch a copy. I almost agree with you completely actually Starke. The quality in ME2's writing is nowhere near as good as ME1, which in general was a little on the shaky side. Bioware ARE full of themselves. All the fans need to stop ass kissing and tell them like it is. I mean don't get me wrong I like the game but as I examine ME2 there is a considerable amount of problems with the writing and general logic.

Spoiler: Mass Effect 2 major plot point Spoiler

Like Shepard should have blown off the Collector's main gun and engines when he went aboard the derelict Collector ship. Even if TIM says the ship is offline Shepard shouldn't risk trusting him 100%. Of course that would of killed a good chunk of game play and exposition. Sort of.

Bioware needs to get their heads out of their asses and pick the shit out of their noses because if ME3 is anything like ME2 there will be disappointment. (consider that I'm very tired while typing this so sorry for the errors or nonsensical bullshit.)

The nonsensical bullshit quota in your post is far lower than anyone else's in this thread, myself included. You're saying the same things I've been saying for most of a year now, and it's creeping me out. As a complete non-sequitor, when you said "TIM" for a second all I could think of was the character from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail, (which would make the illusive man far more amusing.)

The only thing I can really add is, if ME3 follows in step with 2, there will be disappointment among people like us. The masses will continue to consume it mindlessly and pray at it's alter. Honestly I predicted that based on DAO, ME2's writing would be bad enough that people would rebel. ME2's writing is worse than I expected, and they're still getting praised to hell and back.

It's sad, I'm sitting here remembering Black Isle fondly. And realizing just how fucked up the western RPG market is when Bioware is releasing crap like this, and most of the people playing it have never even heard of games like Deus Ex or Planescape. (And wouldn't have heard of Fallout if not for Bethesda.)

Hey. I did have a PC in the days of the 90's. Plus I wasn't even old to understand basic writing concepts. (maybe some) So Fallout 3 introduced me to the franchise and I'd really like to play the original and it's predecessor. Looks like a real RPG.(even though I enjoy 3 lol)I'm happy the old devs are tackling New Vegas.

BUT, regarding Bioware, I think they really need to hire more skilled writers because The jump of quality from Mass Effect to DA:O is fucking staggering. I bet a guy like you could out write half their staff. They need to stop focusing so heavily on game, even though it's important, and really improve the writing. Hell they could keep the same exact combat from ME2 with a few bells and whistles, give back the strong leveling system (Seriously), expand the inventory a little but not as much as ME1, improve the writing a lot and boom. Great game.They'll have a good game. Probably.

You both need a crowbar in order to remove your heads from your asses.

Ah, yes I'd missed the subtle nuances before, but they're definatly there. This is a very well crafted argument with a number of highly valid points... if you're a troll.

I've been calling you various shades of uninlightened because you entered this thread with posts of this caliber, and the extreemly poor first impression you made. You've followed it up with shaky arguments that possessed serious logical or factual flaws. That doesn't mean I won't discuss it with you or that I'll be intentionally condecending to you. But after that entry, I can admit, not stepping on your ego, and restraining myself from viewing you with contempt isn't easy.

If you're seriously trying to participate in this thread, then I'll try to moderate my responses more, and I appologize. If you're just here to fuck around, please don't.

 

[Starke]

You can find another prothean beacon on a side mission in mass effect 2, it gives you a shorter version of the vision you get in mass effect 1. it freezes for a few seconds on one of the frames showing a collector, I went back to mass effect one and looked at the 'complied' vision that Liara allows you to see again and I'm pretty sure the same frame was in the original vision, just not tacked onto it.

People have dug through the original vision in depth without seeing the collectors. It's possible we're wrong, it's possible Bioware patched it (though my steam client doesn't show a patch to it). The thing that makes me really suspicious is, in the original vision there was a stock footage quality to almost everything, but then you have collectors drawn with what is clearly art, and I'm not sure, but I think it's a new art style, from the image of the protheans in bunkers freaking out.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

As I said before, your inability to understand the meaning of the word trillogy continues to befuddle me.

No, I think Indiana Jones, like Star Wars is a homage to an earlier form of entertainment. The Indiana Jones "trillogy" is basically four completly different films tied together by a convienent marketing label... oh, wait, Trillogy is three... so there isn't an Indiana Jones trillogy. Just a series.

Like I said, you don't seem to know what trillogy really means. While we're on the subject Star Wars wasn't intended to be a trillogy either. It's a throwback to the sci-fi adventure searials from the 30s and 40s, in six parts. Unfortunatly the first 3 are so much worse, were produced second, and are basically unworthy of the name, so it gets dubbed as a pair of trilogies.

Lord of the Rings

Except, unlike every example you have offered, Lord of the Rigns is a trillogy. Indiana Jones isn't, Star Wars isn't. Hell, the Jason Bourne books and film aren't. Like Indy they're just the continuing adventures of the character. Hell, even the Star Trek trilogy (2-4) really isn't a trilogy. It's chapter one, then chatper 2 part 1, chapter 2 part 2. Which is what you do get off A New Hope through Jedi. Not a trillogy, a stand alone film, followed by parts one and two. What you need to do is find a film that bucks that, and honestly, Lord of the Rings is one of the only ones I can think of off hand.

I more or less agree with you on most of your post, except for this bit about trilogy.

So your argument is that there is no such thing as a trilogy? Not Star Wars, not Indiana Jones, not Jason Bourne, nothing? Again, Lord of the Rings was written as a single book. It is not a trilogy. It was changed into a trilogy by editors who thought the book would be too long to sell. If you take one book and split it into three parts, then yes it will have tons of plot cohesion.

A trilogy doesn't necessarily mean that one story is told over three installments. That's just one story cut into three parts. The Lord of the Rings is an exception to this, not the rule. Most trilogies, sagas, or series are not written at the same time. They may be planned out, but it's very common to introduce new allies and adversaries in each installment in order to keep things fresh and interesting to your audience, or because the writer(s) come up with an interesting character or idea that makes their story more complete.

BioWare just had to do a bit of a retcon in order to include a leader for Cerberus, which I don't think is totally unreasonable. The Illusive Man will ultimately enrich the Mass Effect universe, and Martin Sheen is awesome.

Where are you coming up with these arbitrary rules for what does and does not constitute a trilogy? A trilogy is just a series of three stories that are related by their subject, setting, theme, or characters. It is not, as you seem to think, one story arc split into three parts.

 

[Starke]

As I said before, your inability to understand the meaning of the word trilogy continues to befuddle me.

No, I think Indiana Jones, like Star Wars is a homage to an earlier form of entertainment. The Indiana Jones "trilogy" is basically four completely different films tied together by a convenient marketing label... oh, wait, Trilogy is three... so there isn't an Indiana Jones trilogy. Just a series.

Like I said, you don't seem to know what trilogy really means. While we're on the subject Star Wars wasn't intended to be a trilogy either. It's a throwback to the sci-fi adventure serials from the 30s and 40s, in six parts. Unfortunately the first 3 are so much worse, were produced second, and are basically unworthy of the name, so it gets dubbed as a pair of trilogies.

Lord of the Rings

Except, unlike every example you have offered, Lord of the Rings is a trilogy. Indiana Jones isn't, Star Wars isn't. Hell, the Jason Bourne books and film aren't. Like Indy they're just the continuing adventures of the character. Hell, even the Star Trek trilogy (2-4) really isn't a trilogy. It's chapter one, then chapter 2 part 1, chapter 2 part 2. Which is what you do get off A New Hope through Jedi. Not a trilogy, a stand alone film, followed by parts one and two. What you need to do is find a film that bucks that, and honestly, Lord of the Rings is one of the only ones I can think of off hand.

I more or less agree with you on most of your post, except for this bit about trilogy.

So your argument is that there is no such thing as a trilogy? Not Star Wars, not Indiana Jones, not Jason Bourne, nothing?

I should probably relent a little on Bourne. The books aren't a trilogy at all. There's a fair argument that the films, based on the first three Bourne books are. Indiana Jones doesn't pass a scratch and sniff test for a trilogy by any extent of the imagination. There's Holy Grail, which was a stand alone film and a send up of the old Pulp adventure stories. There's a prequel, Temple of Doom, which is also a completely stand alone film, the only thing it shares with the previous film is the character of Indy. Finally there's Last Crusade, a sequel that has nothing to do with either of the previous films except Indy and a few characters from Holy Grail who return. There's no lager narrative threads or really even larger themes that tie the films together aside from Indy going off in search of legendary artifacts. There aren't even any Nazis in Temple of Doom (IIRC). In the interests of fairness, Indy started getting marketed as a trilogy six or seven years ago. That doesn't mean it is a trilogy, just that it's being called one for the purpose of selling DVDs. Before Resurrection came out there were Alien Trilogy box sets, but Alien isn't a trilogy, it's three completely separate films with continuing characters.

Again, Lord of the Rings was written as a single book. It is not a trilogy. It was changed into a trilogy by editors who thought the book would be too long to sell. If you take one book and split it into three parts, then yes it will have tons of plot cohesion.

Yes, you're correct, which is why LotR is such an exceptional example. You can write three separate books that all build together a larger narrative, but aren't intended to be a single book and have a trilogy though. For example the Timothy Zhan Heir to the Empire trilogy in the Star Wars EU. Each book does posses it's own plot (somewhat), but the focus is on a larger more cohesive narrative, something that that Mass Effect is starting to have issues with.

A trilogy doesn't necessarily mean that one story is told over three installments.

Yes it does.[footnote]Though you are technically correct, this is a meaning of trilogy neither of us are using. This is also a meaning of trilogy that you would be very hard pressed to find anywhere outside of literature.[/footnote]

That's just one story cut into three parts.

...and called a trilogy.

The Lord of the Rings is an exception to this, not the rule.

Technically you are correct. The individal chapters of Lord of the Rings don't stand up as individual works. Beyond that, it's a trilogy.

Most trilogies, sagas, or series are not written at the same time. They may be planned out, but it's very common to introduce new allies and adversaries in each installment in order to keep things fresh and interesting to your audience, or because the writer(s) come up with an interesting character or idea that makes their story more complete.

If they were creating a new character simply to create a new character, I'd be all for that. But, they haven't. Fundamentally what distinguishes TIM from the Shadow Broker? Given the information we have on him? What fundamental reason could prevent ME2 from using the Shadow Broker in exactly the same capacity that it actually uses TIM? And remember, the Shadow Broker does obtain and use agents for specific objectives.

BioWare just had to do a bit of a retcon in order to include a leader for Cerberus, which I don't think is totally unreasonable.

That they have a leader? Yeah, that's completly reasonable.

The Illusive Man will ultimately enrich the Mass Effect universe, and Martin Sheen is awesome.

Yes, Martin Sheen is very awesome. No, TIM doesn't really enrich the universe. What he does do is pose some very strange questions regarding continuity.

Now, having to retcon things in a trilogy to make it work and flow is basically the first sign that something has gone egregiously wrong. A trilogy fundamentally is a preplanned narrative spread over three parts. Each part has a role, you can ask nightwolf what those roles are if you really want them. I can tell you what they are in film. Part 1 of a trilogy is exposition, it sets up the conflict and sets up the setting. Part 1 is critical because this is creating the ground rules that the rest will be building off of. Part 2 is alternately the buildup, or the preparation phase. Your hero knows who he/she is facing, and is preparing to go after them. Part 3 is the climax, everything hits the fan, and at the end somebody's going home in a blender. The problem is, Mass Effect 2 isn't part 2, it's just another round of Mass Effect with a different enemy. You've learned more, but, in destroying the collector base (or giving it to Cerberus) you're no closer to stopping the reapers. Nothing has fundamentally changed at the end of ME2 from ME1.

Where are you coming up with these arbitrary rules for what does and does not constitute a trilogy?

At the risk of being snippy, and because I am literally tired of writing this post: because of the meaning of the word. Additionally the definition I'm providing you with is actually in sync with what Bioware is claiming a trilogy is, and what Mass Effect will be. They're just doing it very badly.

A trilogy is just a series of three stories that are related by their subject, setting, theme, or characters. It is not, as you seem to think, one story arc split into three parts.

Again, you're giving some very bad examples for what trilogies are. But, what Bioware is aiming for is a large three part story. What Mass Effect 2 is is a shitty midgame. Now, as for my prediction that Mass Effect 3 will be shit? That is based on looking at the narrative in ME1 and 2 and making an educated guess, based on the failure to sync the narratives.

 

[Always_Remain]

I wanted to believe this guys isn't a troll but his latest post convince me otherwise. Yeah I'm done with him and this whole argument. I have my opinions and if he thinks I'm weak willed or whatever fuck it.

Do you always give up on a discussion when someone disagrees with you? Also, I don't disagree with you. I just called you out on coming off as a little holier-than-thou. I'm interested in why you think the writing in Mass Effect 2 is poor, or at least worse than ME1. Your argument seems to be "well it introduces new things that don't match up very well in ME2". That's not an argument against the quality of writing, it's an argument against plot cohesion in a trilogy, which I argue is due to the nature of writing in an interactive medium. You have to introduce new things to keep the games interesting.

Well I got you confused with catchphrase cuz my inbox was being assy. You're not a troll and you and Starke keep slinging around valid points I suppose. For the first few weeks I had ME2 I found it kinda hard to like cuz I wasn't completely used to massive overhaul they gave it so I guess I pointed my finger towards plot. And the reason I'm not giving a good debate is because all my english teachers were piss poor and barely covered debate. lol I actually really like most of the dialouge and VA in it so that writing is solid. Certain things I don't like in the main plot is how Shepard keeps trusting the Illusive Man after he's walked into two traps. Also I have a little problem with the collectors and how instead of boarding the SR1 they just blow it to shit. It seems like they could have done smarter stuff but it sets up the rest of the game. I dunno, I was just on the fence for a while but I'm really enjoying ME2 now. OH and Jacob's Loyalty mission is kind of a joke. Ship stranded on planet for 10(8?) years using modern heat sinks and mechs. Did I miss something or was Bioware just like "THE REST OF THE GAME IS SOLID, FUCK YOU JACOB"?

EDIT: Also I have a lot of problems with The Illusive Man. Same as Starke really. He just comes in out of the blue and starts "guiding" Shepard. It's poor prep. They really should have released some DLC mentioning him as stated above somewhere in this thread.

 

[Always_Remain]

I wanted to believe this guys isn't a troll but his latest post convince me otherwise. Yeah I'm done with him and this whole argument. I have my opinions and if he thinks I'm weak willed or whatever fuck it.

Do you always give up on a discussion when someone disagrees with you? Also, I don't disagree with you. I just called you out on coming off as a little holier-than-thou. I'm interested in why you think the writing in Mass Effect 2 is poor, or at least worse than ME1. Your argument seems to be "well it introduces new things that don't match up very well in ME2". That's not an argument against the quality of writing, it's an argument against plot cohesion in a trilogy, which I argue is due to the nature of writing in an interactive medium. You have to introduce new things to keep the games interesting.

Well I got you confused with catchphrase cuz my inbox was being assy. You're not a troll and you and Starke keep slinging around valid points I suppose. For the first few weeks I had ME2 I found it kinda hard to like cuz I wasn't completely used to massive overhaul they gave it so I guess I pointed my finger towards plot. And the reason I'm not giving a good debate is because all my english teachers were piss poor and barely covered debate. lol I actually really like most of the dialouge and VA in it so that writing is solid. Certain things I don't like in the main plot is how Shepard keeps trusting the Illusive Man after he's walked into two traps. Also I have a litttle problem with the collectors and how instead of boarding the SR1 they just blow it to shit. It seems like they could have done smarter stuff but it sets up the rest of the game. I dunno, I was just on the fence for a while but I'm really enjoying ME2 now. OH and Jacob's Loyalty mission is kind of a joke. Ship stranded on planet for 10(8?) years using modern heat sinks and mechs. Did I miss something or was Bioware just like "THE REST OF THE GAME IS SOLID, FUCK YOU JACOB"?

I wanted to believe this guys isn't a troll but his latest post convince me otherwise. Yeah I'm done with him and this whole argument. I have my opinions and if he thinks I'm weak willed or whatever fuck it.

There's a fine line between someone who's making a point poorly, and one who's trolling. Ascadian isn't even trying to make an argument, he's flame baiting. It doesn't mean you can't try to offer him a legitimate counterargument, just that he's not likely to care.

You sir, deserve a cookie of wisdom.

FUCK i just was typing a semi long response to you and my friend's laptop decided to CLOSE THE PAGE. But anywho see above for my final(Ish) thoughts.

 

[WolfThomas]

well, do you go on holiday to Greece and bump into Australian police?

This guy did:

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=11240

 

[WolfThomas]

thanks internet, now any point i may have made is destroyed. point taken, but that's more like an asari escaping and being tracked down by justicars. the example i was thinking of was more Australian police in full police uniform going to Greece for a stroll around and to tell anyone who'll listen that they are Australian police.

I really didn't have any opinion on the topic, I just couldn't resist pointing that out once I thought of it.