Honestly for me Mass Effect 2's story got a big fat fail for, well, a lot of reasons, but for this in particular. Humans and genetic diversity. Humans are not actually that genetically diverse as compared to other species on this planet. We are not genetically diverse enough to sustain interbreeding between cousins unlike, say, cats and a host of other animals. This is made even more painful when it comes out of a universe that has aliens like the Asari who interbreed with other races. I don't care that they were trying to do a take back all through Mass Effect 2, they established it in Mass Effect and they don't get to retconn. Mostly because it's idiotic and the way they try to present it is even more stupid.
Also, I refuse to believe that a race that is as ancient and intelligent as the Asari wouldn't be doing something like that without sufficient scientific evidence to back it up. Well, they're supposed intelligent anyway, I've yet really to see any intelligence on the part of any race.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed playing the game. But I take great pleasure in sniping Harbinger because he's made of narm, along with the rest of the collectors. I shoot him first to shut him up as fast as possible.
It's my background, but when I come at any story, whether it be for a movie, a game, a comic, or a novel I have a different critical bent from the average gamer. That's because I'm a literature major and it's just what I do. I spent a lot of money to be trained to do this by professors who know what they are talking about and at this point it's reflex. Nudge, poke, take apart. How did you do it? Why did it go there? What was your theme? Where did you get this from? Etc. For me most of Bioware's stories are like glass houses, they look good on the outside but the minute you poke them they'll crumble and collapse. There's no real support system in place, the pieces are there and so are the concepts, but it's but's mostly just tacked up to look impressive and despite the massive gaping plot holes a lot of people buy into it. Bioware's characters are always written from the outside looking in and not from the inside looking out. There's no real personal connection and from the way they're written it's painfully obvious that the writers don't know what makes them tick. Often it's the voice actors who are making up for where the screenplay is lacking and sometimes it works and sometimes it's terribly and unintentionally hilariously cheesy. They usually rely on a stock set of cliches for character development and what you get is archetypes not people. Not that I don't enjoy the archetypes for what they are. (Garrus ends up being a personal favorite.) But at the same time, I'm not going to give them more credit than they're due.
That doesn't mean the game isn't fun and I have nothing to say about the game play or anything else, but I have a hard time reading people celebrating Bioware for their "innovative storytelling and deep characters" because under any true critical lens they have neither. Half the enjoyment I got out of beating the game was beating the suicide mission round one without losing anyone, including some characters that I didn't have loyalty with. No one died. I never lost Wrex either in the first game.
When I play a Bioware game, I know exactly what I'm supposed to do and what to say and to plug points into whatever gets me my persuasion score the highest so I can convince my characters that my way is the right way. It's not a challenge to figure out and a Bioware game never requires anything more than a surface level involvement, it never asks for anything more either. It expects me to take what it gives me and smile and thank them for such a wonderful experience. If I want a game that amuses me on a literary level, where the cleverness comes from real intelligence instead of gimmicks, I go somewhere else. I stick in KoTOR II and enjoy telling the Jedi Masters to shove it while still being light side. I enjoy listening to Kreia. And when I can find my boyfriend's copy of Planescape Torment, I will be playing that. I'm enjoying Vampire: The Masquerade also for the same reason. Those games require a little more than surface level involvement and I appreciate a game that asks me to turn on my brain instead of turning it off.
But as a shooter, I fully enjoy Mass Effect 2 and I wouldn't trade Joker's quips for anything. So, I guess it all comes down to what we want from a video game. I don't particularly enjoy being punished for not playing the game the way Bioware expects me too, because in the end they are giving me my experience but it's also an RPG and I paid sixty some dollars (no I didn't my bf was all sweet and bought it for me) for it, I want the right to carve out my own story and if I'm going to have consequences I don't want them to be arbitrary. A game is about the players experience, not about what the developer had in mind for the story, it's a video game, it's not their Shepherd's story, it's mine.
At least, that's what I thought a video game was about. Maybe I'm wrong. Hmm...
Still, I'm addicted to that sniper rifle and the rolling amounts of laughable narm makes the game completely worth it. It's not a total wash, there are parts that are very enjoyable but for me the overarching story is poorly thought out and just plain bad. There's nothing that's gonna change that.
Here's to the Collectors and the Reapers! Narm!
Also, I refuse to believe that a race that is as ancient and intelligent as the Asari wouldn't be doing something like that without sufficient scientific evidence to back it up. Well, they're supposed intelligent anyway, I've yet really to see any intelligence on the part of any race.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed playing the game. But I take great pleasure in sniping Harbinger because he's made of narm, along with the rest of the collectors. I shoot him first to shut him up as fast as possible.
It's my background, but when I come at any story, whether it be for a movie, a game, a comic, or a novel I have a different critical bent from the average gamer. That's because I'm a literature major and it's just what I do. I spent a lot of money to be trained to do this by professors who know what they are talking about and at this point it's reflex. Nudge, poke, take apart. How did you do it? Why did it go there? What was your theme? Where did you get this from? Etc. For me most of Bioware's stories are like glass houses, they look good on the outside but the minute you poke them they'll crumble and collapse. There's no real support system in place, the pieces are there and so are the concepts, but it's but's mostly just tacked up to look impressive and despite the massive gaping plot holes a lot of people buy into it. Bioware's characters are always written from the outside looking in and not from the inside looking out. There's no real personal connection and from the way they're written it's painfully obvious that the writers don't know what makes them tick. Often it's the voice actors who are making up for where the screenplay is lacking and sometimes it works and sometimes it's terribly and unintentionally hilariously cheesy. They usually rely on a stock set of cliches for character development and what you get is archetypes not people. Not that I don't enjoy the archetypes for what they are. (Garrus ends up being a personal favorite.) But at the same time, I'm not going to give them more credit than they're due.
That doesn't mean the game isn't fun and I have nothing to say about the game play or anything else, but I have a hard time reading people celebrating Bioware for their "innovative storytelling and deep characters" because under any true critical lens they have neither. Half the enjoyment I got out of beating the game was beating the suicide mission round one without losing anyone, including some characters that I didn't have loyalty with. No one died. I never lost Wrex either in the first game.
When I play a Bioware game, I know exactly what I'm supposed to do and what to say and to plug points into whatever gets me my persuasion score the highest so I can convince my characters that my way is the right way. It's not a challenge to figure out and a Bioware game never requires anything more than a surface level involvement, it never asks for anything more either. It expects me to take what it gives me and smile and thank them for such a wonderful experience. If I want a game that amuses me on a literary level, where the cleverness comes from real intelligence instead of gimmicks, I go somewhere else. I stick in KoTOR II and enjoy telling the Jedi Masters to shove it while still being light side. I enjoy listening to Kreia. And when I can find my boyfriend's copy of Planescape Torment, I will be playing that. I'm enjoying Vampire: The Masquerade also for the same reason. Those games require a little more than surface level involvement and I appreciate a game that asks me to turn on my brain instead of turning it off.
But as a shooter, I fully enjoy Mass Effect 2 and I wouldn't trade Joker's quips for anything. So, I guess it all comes down to what we want from a video game. I don't particularly enjoy being punished for not playing the game the way Bioware expects me too, because in the end they are giving me my experience but it's also an RPG and I paid sixty some dollars (no I didn't my bf was all sweet and bought it for me) for it, I want the right to carve out my own story and if I'm going to have consequences I don't want them to be arbitrary. A game is about the players experience, not about what the developer had in mind for the story, it's a video game, it's not their Shepherd's story, it's mine.
At least, that's what I thought a video game was about. Maybe I'm wrong. Hmm...
Still, I'm addicted to that sniper rifle and the rolling amounts of laughable narm makes the game completely worth it. It's not a total wash, there are parts that are very enjoyable but for me the overarching story is poorly thought out and just plain bad. There's nothing that's gonna change that.
Here's to the Collectors and the Reapers! Narm!
/flee!
