1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

If you are going to make a character focused game, I do not think you should make the whole game about sidequests. Rather, you should weave each character's story into the main storyline.

what? and reduce the universe by magically having everyone connected to the main story? no thanks - i'm all for meaningful character interaction (and with each other) but it has to be done properly - not me2's way and certainly not me1's way. you don't need to force links where there are none - can there be overlap? yes of course, where it makes sense; but forcing connections where there shouldn't be any is a no no.

Uh, right, because the Liara-Benezia connection and the Wrex-Virmire-genophage connection totally reduced the Mass Effect universe.



Oh, or wait, did it actually enhance the story experience?

Seriously, it's like every time I ask for something you say "NO NO WE CAN'T HAVE IT!" What's the deal with that? You're crampin' ma style, man.

[GodWood]

Jebel Krong wrote...

iakus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Xeranx wrote...
That's a flawed argument considering the stated fact that ME2 is about the characters and Mass Effect (ME1) wasn't stated to be character driven.  If I'm going to get a story that's supposed to be about the characters and is supposed to be character driven then the characters should have more say in anything that happens.  

it's not - because the characters do. what they don't do is make odd comments in a few places when you're walking around - the important things are done interacting in conversations.

Which squadmates think Garrus should kill Sidonis?
Which squadmates favor rewriting the heretic geth?  Which favor killing them?
Which characters want to expose Rael'Zorah's activities, which favor letting Tali take the fall?
Which squadmates favor arresting Jacob's father?  Killing him?  Leaving him?
Which characters favor destroying the genophage data?
Does having their loyalty alter any of these statements?
Why does Jacob distrust merceneries (and assassins)?  At what point doe he come to accept Thane as part of the team?
What's Mordin's thoughts on a certain tank-bred krogan?  Or Miranda's genetic engineering?  Or Shepard's ressurection?
Which renegade options does Samara remark to?  Which paragon choices?
Do Jacob Taylor and Ashley Williams know each other?
What observations does Zaed have about the Warden of Purgatory?
At what point does Samara show approval/disapproval of the following squadmates:  Jack, Zaed, Garrus, Kasumi?.
And finally:
How is this a character-centric story?

yeah and we'd all like an unlimited budget, unlimited time-frame to spit out the perfect game - ME2 already has, what, twice the dialogue of me1(?) and is a much longer game. i, too would love a 100+ hour game that you're suggesting, but we all know game development is not that, and compromises have to be made - pie in the sky fantasies are great but not realistic, and it's not like any precedent was set in the first game, lest you forget. a lot of those things are touched on - jacob in the initial conversation on the normandy after recruiting thane - you get the snapshots of the world, but it can't be all spoon-fed/explained to you.

Having the characters comment on choices/acknowledge the other squadmates exist would not require an unlimited budget nor 100+ hours of gameplay.
DA:O did it perfectly, theres no reason ME2 couldn't.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

If you are going to make a character focused game, I do not think you should make the whole game about sidequests. Rather, you should weave each character's story into the main storyline.

what? and reduce the universe by magically having everyone connected to the main story? no thanks - i'm all for meaningful character interaction (and with each other) but it has to be done properly - not me2's way and certainly not me1's way. you don't need to force links where there are none - can there be overlap? yes of course, where it makes sense; but forcing connections where there shouldn't be any is a no no.

Uh, right, because the Liara-Benezia connection and the Wrex-Virmire-genophage connection totally reduced the Mass Effect universe.



Oh, or wait, did it actually enhance the story experience?

Seriously, it's like every time I ask for something you say "NO NO WE CAN'T HAVE IT!" What's the deal with that? You're crampin' ma style, man.

you didn't say "one or two" (acceptable), you said "each".

GodWood wrote...

DA:O did it perfectly, theres no reason ME2 couldn't.

very different games, very different toolsets.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 novembre 2010 - 09:57 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Interesting.

This is not what I would ever want, because it's phony, like over emotional behaviors. In reality people are not that emotional or interesting. I want more real life like people, not this over emotional acting to increase players interest. Meaning there is different between increase game enviroment feel more alive and over do it with unrealistic stuff.

It's little like DA2 is doing the graphics, the "cool" affect are over done there, the problem is that it doesn't feel anymore right. It's over done, exaggerated. The Normandy crew and squad members are not like family where everyone is close to each others, they just do they jobs.

How would character interaction be "phony"?  I'm not saying the characters should all grow to like each other.  That would be phony.  Some I think would get along.  Others not so much.  But they should all learn to at least get along.  Good teams don't just magically meld together by proximity.  They work together, train together, get to know each other to the point where they can anticipate each others reactions.  The point of the objective isn't to bring a group of lone gunmen on this mission.  It's to bring a well-prepared team.

Ask you self does it fit these character personality have curiosity learn more about each others or is it just your real life players curiosity. Teams? There is Shepard and 2 squad members in allmost every mission, choosen by Shepard (player) based usually by missions. They follow Shepards lead, they learn how Shepards want to do stuff by doing it with Shepards. Team work doesn't come better by talking about socks. These squad members aren't some noobies, they are veterans who has done 100's of team missions. Just because they are in new team, doesn't mean they don't know how to do they job.

My point is, I don't want, what you two seem to want, because it makes my gameplay experience worst. I do agree little bit more would be nice, more like they work related talk, but not like suggested here, it's just over done. Normal people don't behave that way, mostly people are very booring. Having so many not normal people in same place, makes hole situation unrealistic, extreme, phony.

And here I thought the characters were already overdone, and I was trying to bring them back to more "human" levels

Over done as too quiet? Yes, i agree. How ever, over talking is also phony. Example in work place in real life, people talk, but mostly about they job related stuff. In coffee or lounch breaks they may talk more about they "personal" life stuff. So, if you want more reality in missions and Normandy, they should talk more about they work and missions, not personal stuff as trying to introduce characters to player.  If player want to know about personal stuff they can go and ask directly from those characters. But assuming that every squad members is interested  about others, is just phony. Can happen sometimes, but that's all. Also why we assume Shepards is there that time? Usually people breaks they personal talk when someone new enteres to room. If boss as higher rank enters in situation, they become usually very quiet.

My point over quiet is bad, but also over talking is too. Also subject of talk should fit in situation.

Example I would assume there is more talking when character are in Normandy or cities, but less in missions. Because missions at least in combat ones, soldier usually tryes to be more quiet, not to reveals what they are doing or locations.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:08 .

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

you didn't say "one or two" (acceptable), you said "each".

Right, so I’m guessing it’s also too convenient that Alistair was the king’s son, right? Oh and I suppose it reduced the universe that Morrigan was Flemeth’s daughter?

And I expect the fact that Oghren was the husband of a main quest figure is just totally forced and stupid. The universe gets smaller as we speak, right? And damn, that Zevran was an assassin hired by the main villain to kill you, what a contrived connection. Wynne also, by having a connection to the Circle of Magi quest, that totally ruined things.

I'm not trying to be hostile here, I'm just saying it's a little unreasonable to say these things don't make the story better, because they do. The story is enhanced by their presence, not compromised by it. No, not all characters should have huge story connections, but in DA:O, at least half did, and it was awesome.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

you didn't say "one or two" (acceptable), you said "each".

Right, so I’m guessing it’s also too convenient that Alistair was the king’s son, right? Oh and I suppose it reduced the universe that Morrigan was Flemeth’s daughter?

And I expect the fact that Oghren was the husband of a main quest figure is just totally forced and stupid. The universe gets smaller as we speak, right? And damn, that Zevran was an assassin hired by the main villain to kill you, what a contrived connection. Wynne also, by having a connection to the Circle of Magi quest, that totally ruined things.

I'm not trying to be hostile here, I'm just saying it's a little unreasonable to say these things don't make the story better, because they do. The story is enhanced by their presence, not compromised by it. No, not all characters should have huge story connections, but in DA:O, at least half did, and it was awesome.

ignoring the hostility, there's a massive difference in the scale of the games you are comparing here - mass effect takes place over a whole galaxy - the chances of any event being connected to another is amazingly remote, unlike whatever machinations happen in one fantasy land. c'mon - you're not stupid and you know this, so why argue for it - the entire events of dragon age could take place in the mass effect universe and no-one would ever know. just because you are famous/notorious on omega, doesn't mean anyone on the citadel would know you. liara, a prothean expert, knowing about ilos - that's logical, i can accept it, but someone like wrex, or zaeed, or even thane - no, absolutely not.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 novembre 2010 - 12:17 .

[Nightwriter]

Uh, again, no. Jebel, it's not like you are going to be randomly bumping into these people and they're just going to happen to have a connection to the main story. You are hunting them down specifically because they have a connection to the main story. It's as if you were saying you just *happened* to find an asari justicar or a stealth assassin who would be useful to your mission. No, you purposefully went and looked for them. 

And honestly - few science fiction stories observe the realistic size of the universe. You're constantly bumping into people you know. I know you'd like for them to treat it like a big galaxy, but sadly, they don't.

[Iakus]

Jebel Krong wrote...
yeah and we'd all like an unlimited budget, unlimited time-frame to spit out the perfect game - ME2 already has, what, twice the dialogue of me1(?) and is a much longer game. i, too would love a 100+ hour game that you're suggesting, but we all know game development is not that, and compromises have to be made - pie in the sky fantasies are great but not realistic, and it's not like any precedent was set in the first game, lest you forget. a lot of those things are touched on - jacob in the initial conversation on the normandy after recruiting thane - you get the snapshots of the world, but it can't be all spoon-fed/explained to you.

I question the "much longer game" part.  THey felt about the same to me.  If in fact ME 2 is longer, I seriously doubt it's "much"

As to dialogue:

the simple fact of the matter is in a character-driven story, there's dialogue.  Lots and lots of dialogue.  More than you'd get in your standard "save the universe" game.  Part of how you get to know a character is seeing how they respond in different situations and to different people.  This is probably why character-driven games are so rare, and why those that do exist do not have a ton of companions for you to get to know.  One reason why I think Bioware's reach exceeded its grasp in this game.  

Jebel Krong wrote...

GodWood wrote...

DA:O did it perfectly, theres no reason ME2 couldn't.

very different games, very different toolsets.

And DAO was by far the more character-driven game.  Heck, the most character driven game Bioware has ever done.  And it wasn't even a 'build a team and earn their loyalty" game!

Modifié par iakus, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:27 .

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Uh, again, no. Jebel, it's not like you are going to be randomly bumping into these people and they're just going to happen to have a connection to the main story. You are hunting them down specifically because they have a connection to the main story. It's as if you were saying you just *happened* to find an asari justicar or a stealth assassin who would be useful to your mission. No, you purposefully went and looked for them. 

And honestly - few science fiction stories observe the realistic size of the universe. You're constantly bumping into people you know. I know you'd like for them to treat it like a big galaxy, but sadly, they don't.

nu-uh: you're hunting them down because they have skills possibly useful for your suicide mission, not because of any connection to the reapers/collectors - when was your assertion ever mentioned?

and the last part is a good thing about me2 - it recognises the scale of the galaxy (actually that applies to me1, too), unlike a lot of other science fiction.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:37 .

[Jebel Krong]

iakus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
yeah and we'd all like an unlimited budget, unlimited time-frame to spit out the perfect game - ME2 already has, what, twice the dialogue of me1(?) and is a much longer game. i, too would love a 100+ hour game that you're suggesting, but we all know game development is not that, and compromises have to be made - pie in the sky fantasies are great but not realistic, and it's not like any precedent was set in the first game, lest you forget. a lot of those things are touched on - jacob in the initial conversation on the normandy after recruiting thane - you get the snapshots of the world, but it can't be all spoon-fed/explained to you.

I question the "much longer game" part.  THey felt about the same to me.  If in fact ME 2 is longer, I seriously doubt it's "much"

As to dialogue:

the simple fact of the matter is in a character-driven story, there's dialogue.  Lots and lots of dialogue.  More than you'd get in your standard "save the universe" game.  Part of how you get to know a character is seeing how they respond in different situations and to different people.  This is probably why character-driven games are so rare, and why those that do exist do not have a ton of companions for you to get to know.  One reason why I think Bioware's reach exceeded its grasp in this game.  

all my me2 playthroughs average around 10 hours longer than my me1 ones, and i'm a completionist so it's a pretty baseline comparison.

i agree re they could have done with a few less squadmates, but i'm kind of attached to most of them now, which says a lot about the game's success in this area, so i wouldn't like to be the one to suggest which ones should have been dropped in favour of more development for the rest.

[Nightwriter]

Now I am so lost. Obviously I am suggesting it's quite believable to hunt down people because of their story connections, just as much as for their skills, so I don't know what you mean. It doesn't matter.

Look, Jebel, it seems like you are instinctively opposed to ANY suggestions that this game could've been better, and that your ultimate goal is to deny it was even possible for the game to be better in any way.

So... I respectfully disagree, and we can leave it at that.

[Iakus]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

How would character interaction be "phony"?  I'm not saying the characters should all grow to like each other.  That would be phony.  Some I think would get along.  Others not so much.  But they should all learn to at least get along.  Good teams don't just magically meld together by proximity.  They work together, train together, get to know each other to the point where they can anticipate each others reactions.  The point of the objective isn't to bring a group of lone gunmen on this mission.  It's to bring a well-prepared team.[/quote]
Ask you self does it fit these character personality have curiosity learn more about each others or is it just your real life players curiosity. Teams? There is Shepard and 2 squad members in allmost every mission, choosen by Shepard (player) based usually by missions. They follow Shepards lead, they learn how Shepards want to do stuff by doing it with Shepards. Team work doesn't come better by talking about socks. These squad members aren't some noobies, they are veterans who has done 100's of team missions. Just because they are in new team, doesn't mean they don't know how to do they job.[/quote]

But they are all getting ready for the Suicide mIssion.  That's what Shep recruited them for in the first place.  If I were going along, I would want to know as much about the people who would be watching my back as possible.  How dependable they are, any quirks they had,  How they're styles could complement my own so we could both increase our chances of getting out alive.  And it turns out, in the SM, yes, they do have to operate without Shepard babysitting them (secondary fire team, distraction team, Hold the Line)

[quote]Over done as too quiet? Yes, i agree. How ever, over talking is also phony. Example in work place in real life, people talk, but mostly about they job related stuff. In coffee or lounch breaks they may talk more about they "personal" life stuff. So, if you want more reality in missions and Normandy, they should talk more about they work and missions, not personal stuff as trying to introduce characters to player.  If player want to know about personal stuff they can go and ask directly from those characters. But assuming that every squad members is interested  about others, is just phony. Can happen sometimes, but that's all. Also why we assume Shepards is there that time? Usually people breaks they personal talk when someone new enteres to room. If boss as higher rank enters in situation, they become usually very quiet.

My point over quiet is bad, but also over talking is too. Also subject of talk should fit in situation.

Example I would assume there is more talking when character are in Normandy or cities, but less in missions. Because missions at least in combat ones, soldier usually tryes to be more quiet, not to reveals what they are doing or locations.

Overdone as too many strong, silent, superpowered bad****es in silly outfits.     I think it would take a lot to have too much talking in this game. 

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Now I am so lost. Obviously I am suggesting it's quite believable to hunt down people because of their story connections, just as much as for their skills, so I don't know what you mean. It doesn't matter.

Look, Jebel, it seems like you are instinctively opposed to ANY suggestions that this game could've been better, and that your ultimate goal is to deny it was even possible for the game to be better in any way.

So... I respectfully disagree, and we can leave it at that.

then write what you mean and not something completely different - just look at your statements in your last few posts.

i am not opposed to improvements and never said mass effect 2 was perfect in any way, it has many faults, just not the ones a lot of people here seem to think it has (certainly compared with anything else: including me1).

[Nightwriter]

The first thing I did was look at my last few posts.

It depends on what you mean by the "faults a lot of people here seem to think it has". Do you mean lack of character interaction? Yes, I believe that is a fault.

[CaptainZaysh]

Jebel, having characters that are unrelated to the plot is bad writing.

Aristotle wrote...

[A good plot] will be disjointed and disturbed if one of its parts is displaced or removed.

(Meaning, don't put anything in if it could be cut and the plot would still make sense.)

Anton Chekhov wrote...

One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.

(Meaning, don't put in any unnecessary elements.)



Having characters who are not connected to the main story is a hallmark of a writer Aristotle would call a "bad poet".

[glacier1701]

Il Divo,

Normally I do NOT do this but there is something interesting if you read the book Mass Effect:Revelation. It turns out that information about Sovereign's existance was made known to the Council 20 years (or so) ago. It was clearly shown to be NON-GETH and possibly even NON-Prothean. Now I will acknowledge that information contained in the books is, at best, secondary canon but it is interesting that the idea of the Council denying the existance of The Reapers started 20 years before the attack on the Citadel. However as I said this is secondary canon and while interesting may not primae facea (spelling?) evidence that we can use. 

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

The first thing I did was look at my last few posts.

It depends on what you mean by the "faults a lot of people here seem to think it has". Do you mean lack of character interaction? Yes, I believe that is a fault.

yes, of course it's a fault - but it's a damn fault of every single other game in existence. sure we'd love to have games that have interaction just like real life, or even better - be able to see every conversation in every characters life for the duration of the game, but that's not going to happen, so why do people think Bioware will do exactly that?! i expect more and better in ME3 but not radically more and better, it's just not possible.

captainzaysh: the characters are related to the plot in as much as they are deemed necessary to recruit for the final mission. along the way you get to find out more about them and gain their loyalty. are they all related to the collector/reaper plot? no. is that realistic? yes.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 novembre 2010 - 02:59 .

[Nightwriter]

Jebel, ME1's characters felt more involved in the plot than ME2's characters did - and I thought ME2's characters were the plot?

And I think DA:O did achieve what you're saying isn't achievable.

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Jebel, having characters that are unrelated to the plot is bad writing.

Aristotle wrote...
[A good plot] will be disjointed and disturbed if one of its parts is displaced or removed.

(Meaning, don't put anything in if it could be cut and the plot would still make sense.)

Anton Chekhov wrote...
One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.

(Meaning, don't put in any unnecessary elements.)

Having characters who are not connected to the main story is a hallmark of a writer Aristotle would call a "bad poet".

This. So, so much. And he even put Chekhov and Aristotle quotes in there. What style. I can't compete.

[CaptainZaysh]

*High fives Night*

Jebel Krong wrote...

captainzaysh: the characters are related to the plot in as much as they are deemed necessary to recruit for the final mission. along the way you get to find out more about them and gain their loyalty. are they all related to the collector/reaper plot? no. is that realistic? yes.

Jebel: realism isn't actually what you should be striving for as a writer (except in one or two niche literary genres, I suppose - certainly not when you're writing space opera).  What you're looking for is verisimilitude or the appearance of realism.

(Example: what's the real way you recruit specialists for a crucial project?  You pay them a s**tload of money.  Realistic but not as compelling as rescuing them from warzones and high security facilities.)

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:15 .

[cachx]

Jebel Krong wrote...
the characters are related to the plot in as much as they are deemed necessary to recruit for the final mission. along the way you get to find out more about them and gain their loyalty. are they all related to the collector/reaper plot? no. is that realistic? yes.

Have to agree here, they really don't need to be chilhood friends or have their house burned down by collectors to be part of the story. Having a couple directly or coincidentally related to the "main thread" of the plot is fine. When you have like, 12 or more, is just too much, almost Soap Opera worthy.

Next thing you know, Somebody is going to be somebody's twin brother.

[Jebel Krong]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

*High fives Night*

Jebel Krong wrote...

captainzaysh: the characters are related to the plot in as much as they are deemed necessary to recruit for the final mission. along the way you get to find out more about them and gain their loyalty. are they all related to the collector/reaper plot? no. is that realistic? yes.

Jebel: realism isn't actually what you should be striving for as a writer (except in one or two niche literary genres, I suppose - certainly not when you're writing space opera).  What you're looking for is verisimilitude or the appearance of realism.

(Example: what's the real way you recruit specialists for a crucial project?  You pay them a s**tload of money.  Realistic but not as compelling as rescuing them from warzones and high security facilities.)

indeed. however forcing all the plot-threads to intersect with all the characters somehow would not be realistic, appear realistic, nor would it be good writing.

edit: cachx - finally - someone else gets it! 

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 novembre 2010 - 03:27 .

[CaptainZaysh]

cachx wrote...

Have to agree here, they really don't need to be chilhood friends or have their house burned down by collectors to be part of the story. Having a couple directly or coincidentally related to the "main thread" of the plot is fine. When you have like, 12 or more, is just too much, almost Soap Opera worthy.

Next thing you know, Somebody is going to be somebody's twin brother.

If they're not related to the main thread of the plot, they shouldn't be in it really.  Only a Bad Poet would shine a spotlight on extraneous characters.

I feel the writers tried to make some effort to do this - Grunt was built with Collector technology, Samara tangled with the Collectors in her past, Mordin cured the Collector plague, etc - but they didn't really push it hard enough to make them real motivations.  I think it would have been better if TIM's introduction of the dossiers had been something like: "They're the best we could find: and they all have a reason to hate the Collectors."  It would have made much more sense for the characters to join in the mission, then.  As it is, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why someone like Jack is actually on board.

[Nightwriter]

cachx wrote...

Have to agree here, they really don't need to be chilhood friends or have their house burned down by collectors to be part of the story. Having a couple directly or coincidentally related to the "main thread" of the plot is fine. When you have like, 12 or more, is just too much, almost Soap Opera worthy.

Next thing you know, Somebody is going to be somebody's twin brother.

They may not need to have their houses burned down by the Collectors, no, but you still have this group of characters that feels radically disconnected from the plot. It seems like the main disagreement here is that my side feels this should have been remedied, but yours doesn't - if I'm getting this right.

I want the characters to feel more involved in the plot. The best way to do this is to weave them into it somehow. Doesn't mean they each come prepackaged with a plot connection - they could develop one over the course of the game somehow.

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Overdone as too many strong, silent, superpowered bad****es in silly outfits.     I think it would take a lot to have too much talking in this game. 

For you maybe, but for me it's opposite. Too much talking is for me more annoying, than too little talking. When I play Mass Effect, I want to feel as been part of science fiction military. Not to get feel like I'm in some sims, what's is focus to some social aspect of the human nature. Too much social aspect make hole game just feel wrong. That's why I sayed, the talking should be more related the job what character do.

[gethslayer7]

i have no dissapointment