Baconmonster723 said:
I have only played Mass Effect 1 + 2, I have never read any of the novels or comics, never played anything outside of those two games. The story makes total sense, flows fine, and is well written.
This is the only thing I can story being written well:
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion. But honestly I find this rather funny. You are either saying that you have never read or played anything outside of those games, which I find hard to believe, or that you have never read or played anything in the Mass Effect universe outside of those games. You might want to be more specific about that. I have only played Mass Effect 1 and 2, my attempts to read either novel ended up with me rolling on the floor laughing at the pathetic attempts at writing by Drew Karpyshyn. It also forever made it impossible for me to take the Mass Effect universe seriously.
I believe you think the writers should spoon feed you every little detail.
No I don't. What I believe is that if you are going to write a trilogy, you should have the basic plot of the first game (themes and all, for what little theme Mass Effect has other than SPACE!) with the second. That includes major characters (no not the characters you pick up and find or the new races you meet) like TIM, who should have been foreshadowed in the first game especially when you were running around all those Cerberus bases and picking up information and messages from them.
I suppose you could argue that Cerberus itself is made up of terrorist cells that have very little contact with one another. However, this is completely blown out of the water by the Cerberus organization retcon of Mass Effect 2. Especially in regards to Jack's sidequest, where you find voice files of Cerberus scientists discussing TIM by name and how unhappy this is going to make him. What it shows is that TIM is a tangible presence in Cerberus operations and has strong connections to the different cells. Also, since TIM is the head of the Cerberus organization and Cerberus activities are not limited only to the Terminus Systems, there should have been mentions of him in the previous game. Also, given that Cerberus was once a part of the System's Alliance Military, it also doesn't make sense for him to go unmentioned. Even more important, since TIM is not his actual name but a codename to be used on open channels or those that could be broken, there is no reason for Cerberus to hide his existence.
It's not about spoon feeding details, it's about having details that make logical sense when placed in the universe around them. Especially ones that are directly relevant to the plot.
I find that pathetic and juvenille, a good novel has a story that causes people to talk about the possibilities of meaning of not only the overall story but individual parts of the story as well.
Mass Effect doesn't have meaning, there is nothing it is trying to say.
A plot only becomes valuable when you can crack it over the head, take it apart and see how it works. When it still holds up after it's bits and pieces have been scattered across the floor through narrative deconstruction, that is when it becomes interesting. The plot of Mass Effect is held together by fairy dust and paper clips. It looks good on the surface and as long as you don't think about it for too long, you might still be able to believe that it's a good story, but once you split it's sides to see what's inside, you realize that there's really nothing there. It doesn't go any deeper than the surface level and while it believes it's something more than it is, it really isn't.
I am by no means comparing Bioware to some amazing novelist who should be cherished for all time
You're not, but the writers themselves are. I have actually watched their promotional videos for Mass Effect 2 in which they compare themselves and the game to Isaac Asimov and his discussion of what it is to be human. By the way, Asimov is still more relevant today both to the sci-fi community and the culture at large with the philosophical points he made. Bioware is not. They are trying and failing in their attempt to create something meaningful, especially since the first game was an homage to the genre as a whole.
Yet all they can do is take what they've been given from other sources without adding anything interesting to it. There is no real study or contemplation of philosophy in the Mass Effect universe, they don't take a deep look at what it is that makes us human. It would have been insightful for the 1960s, because those are the themes of the material that they're pulling from. You don't even have to peer to deeply into Mass Effect 1 to see what novels and shows they've been looking that. It's okay, but that doesn't make it incredible or even good. It's more of a fan boy celebration of the sci-fi genre: it combines Star Wars with Star Trek and Lovecraft. (Giant space squid anyone?) And I'm fine with that, but it's not original or intelligent.
The narrative of Mass Effect 1 is tight, controlled, and does what it's supposed to do so I really have no complaints about it other than it being shallow and not adding anything more than the original source materials gave them. (Or misinterpreting it all together)
In fact you'll find that many characters in Mass Effect 2, when they aren't being blatant archetypes are actually rip offs of other characters from other sci-fi series. Mordin comes to mind. Verbatim, he's Elim Garak from Deep Space Nine. Though this time he's a spy masquerading as a doctor instead of a spy masquerading as a tailor. He's got it all right down to his wacky sense of humor and the fact that he's so widely read even in culture's that aren't his own. Sure he's a shallow rip off, but that doesn't stop him from being one or from being fun and one of the best characters in the game. But the one thing he isn't is original. The only real difference between the characters is that Garak is colder and played by a different actor.
The writers have compared Shepherd to Kirk and that's clearly the source they've patterned off of, but Shepherd fails to live up to the standard.
but I do believe that the story is much like any good novel you read.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry but I just get the feeling you have never ever been in any sort of advanced literature class.
Starke may not have, but I'm a college senior who's getting a degree in English Literature and I've been knee deep in the sci-fi genre since my father introduced it to me at the age of ten. It's my first love when it comes to that sort of thing and so I am actually incredibly well versed in the subject. (Better in fantasy.) Which could be why I get the references and see the similarities. If you had taken any sort of advanced literature class (including high school level AP English) you'd know that. If you have taken some sort of advanced course, I suggest you either get your money back or transfer schools because it's clearly not doing you any good.
It's also why I'm much harder on Mass Effect than Starke is. I understand narrative deconstruction and how to apply it to any genre, whether that be TV, literature, popular literature, movies, comics, or video games. I am also fully capable of taking a story on it's own merits within it's own genre and I do understand that a video game narrative is than that of a novel or a movie. That's also not what I'm asking it to be. There are plenty of well structured narratives in video games to compare, that have both witty writing and interesting, well developed worlds. Black Isle, Obsidian, and Bethesda all come to mind. Deus Ex is another good example and even the first Bioshock knows what it's attempting and delivers on it's promises while providing the player with an interesting world based on a failed objectivist utopia. There is no rule that says video game writing has to be bad and therefore being bad is okay, there are more than a few examples of games that rise above.
Mass Effect is not one of them.
Every good story makes people ask the question why. Mass Effect is no exception.
No, you got that wrong. Every story asks the question why. Every good story answers it's own question. The good ones do it without requiring that the reader look to deeply and the best ones answer it so that you find new answers the more deeply you look.
Mass Effect doesn't even bother to ask the question on any tangible level and that's why it has no answer.
However, it seems to me everytime you ask the question why, you simply blame it on the writers being lazy instead of looking for an answer. I find this incredibly disappointing and I have zero respect for it.
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!
What does this mean?
...zuh?
What does this say about culture and human society?
...zuh?
What are we saying we saying about human beings in general?
...um...squeak?
Why is the most basic question, but there are other questions to be considered. The who, the what, the where and the how. It's what those answers reveal both about the story and it's relevance to society that make it important and give it meaning. The worst thing a story can do is say nothing at all. The good narratives are those that reach beyond the surface level, the ones that reward you for looking deeply and inspire contemplation on the nature of something, it doesn't really matter what. They don't just ask the big questions, they ask pointed ones, and it's gets even better if they have a sense of humor while they do it.
This is also something Bioware lacks. Intelligent dark humor. They don't parody and when they pull in what they've carried off (usually wholesale) from other sources, they don't expect the player to be able to point to it and say HA! that came from there! There are no rewards for thinking or critiquing. It's more that the game says: "Sit down, shut up and play the way we think you should. Here are two moral paths to make you feel better about it. But if you deviate we will punish you."
As opposed other games that reward you for hunting and searching for meaning.
If you were providing anything other than ZOMG BIOWARE IS FULL OF BS hate and actually making relevant points I wouldn't be saying these things. Hit me with your questions and try to prove me wrong. You very well may just hate the storyline, which I can accept. But at least back up your words.
You know, they were. You must have missed them. Which doesn't really surprise me because, hey you kinda missed the point when it came to asking questions and narrative deconstruction. There were plenty of legitimate points in the above arguments and examples, and even things that they said they liked about the story. So it doesn't just come down to hate. I wouldn't be having an issue with Bioware if they weren't reusing their standard cliches when it comes to party member design and the fact that their plot is so full of holes that it is currently resembling a spider web (which doesn't mean that the threads connecting the pieces are strong). There's also all the ass kissing that they're fans have been giving them lately, which, believe it or not has caused the quality of their writing to substantially drop and has given them no reason to attempt to improve.
I'm fairly sure that's one of the reasons why video game writing is so bad in general because they can put out stories that taste like shit and people believe that it's gold. Also, good writing and story development takes time. We can't all be Stephen King and when it comes down to it, most of the best stories have taken at least two to five years to write. The Lord of the Rings took Tolkien's entire life. It's also a craft where you improve over time, hitting your best stride in your forties if not sixties. Any good writer will tell you that on average it can take at least 10 years to break into the business, if you ever make it at all. It isn't easy and as an aspiring writer myself I do understand that.
That doesn't change the fact that Mass Effect 2 comes off like a bad fanfic where the first one was a love letter to Sci-Fi from the sixties and seventies. There is nothing that they do in the game that hasn't been done already and done better. The joke coming out of it is that it believes it's original while failing to live up to the standard, it falls even further short than where Mass Effect 1 did. And though it compares itself to Empire Strikes Back as the dark second act, there really isn't anything dark about it other than a suicide mission that you could fail if you don't do the prep work for. (Which I passed with flying colors the first time through). So other than a few colonists dying, you basically end the game in the same place you were before. The Reapers are still coming, the Council still does not believe you (you may or may not have blown up the only evidence with which to prove them wrong), and you still have no idea how to beat them. This is why people are saying that Mass Effect 2 acts more like filler than the second part of a trilogy. There is nothing relevant about it and overall it really doesn't add anything to the series other than letting us see the Terminus Systems. If anything it turns the Reapers into a joke, the same way Harbinger did with the Collectors. Anything that could potentially make them scary has been stripped out as opposed to antagonists like the Many from System Shock 2 or the Borg.
Now, if you come back to me saying that I have not thought about the story, you're wrong. I have played through Mass Effect 2 twice now, the first time for first impressions, the second to examine it (though the first round was really all it took). The game is still fun, but fun does not = good, especially not in the narrative sense you're arguing for.
It's the same as with GI:Joe, I really enjoy watching it but that doesn't mean I'm going to say it's brilliant, the best movie ever, or a great example of the genre. It's pure fun and coming at it from that approach lets me enjoy it. It's an excellent example of a story that knows exactly what it's trying to be and delivers precisely that. As MovieBob said: "six year old children and twenty somethings who remember being six year old children".
Mass Effect's problem is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Does it want to be an RPG with FPS elements? Does it want to be an FPS with RPG elements? It switches from one to the other between both games. Does it want to be an example of hard hitting sci-fi like the original Star Trek, the new Battlestar Galactica, and Babylon 5 or soft sci-fi like the original Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek or a space opera like Star Wars? The problem there is that it comes down to it wanting to be both. It doesn't pick. I don't think the writers even registered the differences between them before they started writing the story. The narrative also shows a lack of decisive direction that makes me feel that when they started writing the plot of the second game, they decided to retcon without putting in the necessary explanations other than "Cerberus is more versatile than you originally thought", without giving the player a chance to give them shit.
There are other reasons why Mass Effect 2's narrative falls to pieces, but that's the bare bones of it.
