145 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

I think part of the dilemma that Bioware faces is that they need to attract new players while keeping old players happy.  For this reason, their games will be more or less "standalone" so that a newcomer wouldn't have too much trouble getting into the story.  They also run the risk of alienating the old players by making it too standalone and not referencing their previous works. 

Is ME2 part of a trilogy or is it a standalone game?  If it's the former, then the story should be judged over the whole trilogy (ie, judge The Lord of the Rings, not just The Two Towers).  If it's the latter, then referencing the previous work is just a nice bonus.  I think it should be part of an overarching story myself, and hope that Bioware doesn't listen to this review.

[Nightwriter]

I very much agree with that.

I think most of my complaints don't come from how many individual references the game makes about the previous one, but rather, the story itself.

I was less concerned about callbacks to ME1 as I was about story continuity. ME2 felt like it broke story continuity.

I think once I play ME3 I will feel like ME1 and ME3 were parts one and two and ME2 was nothing but this short little bridge in between that played like a large DLC package.

[Moonbox]

Night I completely agree with you. I hope that BioWare realizes that IGN is a 100% completely HACK website with no credibility, because its ME2 review was probably the worst one of all that I read.

The problem with ME2 was the terrible story and the throw-away plot. We could all LITERALLY forget that ME2 happened and we would be in the same place as we are now in the ME story arc. The only reason they gave us a completely new cast of characters (rather than just 1 or 2) was because they didn't actually have a plotline to advance things from ME1. They gave us a whole set of new party members to waste time with doing "loyalty missions" and if you take away those the game was literally 3-4 hours long.

The story writing in this game was amateurish AT BEST and I hope, if anything, BioWare listens to THAT criticism. I don't know who's in charge down there now since EA took over, but they need to go back to their old writers. ME1's story was masterful. KoToR I was just as good. Dragon Age was about as derivative as games come and ME2 was absolutely pathetic. A giant robot final boss...They couldn't have come up with something dumber if they tried.

Modifié par Moonbox, 26 octobre 2010 - 04:09 .

[wizardryforever]

Nightwriter wrote...
I think once I play ME3 I will feel like ME1 and ME3 were parts one and two and ME2 was nothing but this short little bridge in between that played like a large DLC package.

I don't know, you might be surprised.  I have faith that Bioware made ME2 knowing what the story of ME3 will be, and took that into account.  Meaning the story of both games will matter for the final game.  Bioware is not incompetant, they know that the first two installments have to tie together.

But again, they are still trying to bring in new players.  And if one more person (not directed at you, Nightwriter) says that ME2's combat was improved to appeal to the "scum-of-the-gaming-world shooter crowd," I'm going to scream.  Don't act like you're so much smarter, deeper, and overall better just because you like RPGs and not shooters.  Shooters and RPGs are both games, and games are played to have fun.  Neither is superior to the other in value.

[Shadesofsiknas]

Moonbox wrote...

Night I completely agree with you. I hope that BioWare realizes that IGN is a 100% completely HACK website with no credibility, because its ME2 review was probably the worst one of all that I read.

The problem with ME2 was the terrible story and the throw-away plot. We could all LITERALLY forget that ME2 happened and we would be in the same place as we are now in the ME story arc. The only reason they gave us a completely new cast of characters (rather than just 1 or 2) was because they didn't actually have a plotline to advance things from ME1. They gave us a whole set of new party members to waste time with doing "loyalty missions" and if you take away those the game was literally 3-4 hours long.

The story writing in this game was amateurish AT BEST and I hope, if anything, BioWare listens to THAT criticism. I don't know who's in charge down there now since EA took over, but they need to go back to their old writers. ME1's story was masterful. KoToR I was just as good. Dragon Age was about as derivative as games come and ME2 was absolutely pathetic. A giant robot final boss...They couldn't have come up with something dumber if they tried.

I agree with you completely here.

But as far as them coming up with dumber goes...please dont dare them.

[Nightwriter]

Oh, I'm more than willing to give BioWare the benefit of the doubt, wiz. And I think too much blame is placed at the feet of shooter fans, what we usually mean is we don't think combat should be improved at the price of story, which is what we really loved about ME1. Improving combat is great. Improving combat while drastically cutting back on story sends a certain message.

Moonbox, I actually thought the writing of the characters was great.

The writing of the story made me feel like BioWare was busy and couldn't be bothered so they quickly hired a temp writer who had never played ME1 to write the story of ME2.

[SimonTheFrog]

Well, we can say that Mass Effect seems to have a tendency to offer great endings and then screw them shortly before the credits:



The fight in the citadel was frigging brilliant. Outside the citadel tower fighting through the geth and krogans with Sovereign above and all the debri flying... i was just standing and enjoying the view for minutes there! Then Saren outs the frog in him and it all goes to hell.



Likewise, the omega-4 mission is really cool, splitting the team, rescuing the crew and all that created a cool tension. But then... again it all goes to hell. And not even "The faunts" to make up for it.



Its like the ugly child in the family. We're all a bit disappointed but we love it nontheless.

[Nightwriter]

What do you mean? "Saren outs the frog in him and it all goes to hell"?

[Big I]

I don't think that ME3 will be less referential. If anything, I think it will be more.


In this article Casey Hudson says that they were surprised by how many people imported from Mass Effect. Based on his comments I expect them to increase the support they've given to player choices having an effect. Also, they've always said ME3 would be the most reactive because they don't have a direct sequel to worry about afterwards.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

 I think too much blame is placed at the feet of shooter fans, what we usually mean is we don't think combat should be improved at the price of story, which is what we really loved about ME1.

Love this line.  Love it.

The writing of the story made me feel like BioWare was busy and couldn't be bothered so they quickly hired a temp writer who had never played ME1 to write the story of ME2.

I had noted that the story seems to have been written by someone operating off of notes about ME 1 rather than someone with firsthand knowledge of the game.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I agree with Iakus; that line is so good, Night!

[Nightwriter]

Edit: well, you know. I have my moments.

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I don't think that ME3 will be less referential. If anything, I think it will be more.

In this article Casey Hudson says that they were surprised by how many people imported from Mass Effect. Based on his comments I expect them to increase the support they've given to player choices having an effect. Also, they've always said ME3 would be the most reactive because they don't have a direct sequel to worry about afterwards.

Omg, I remember that article, the one where he said they were moving toward even less dialogue.

It crushed my little Nightwriter hopes. You crave more party banter in ME1, and then in ME2 you crave it even more, and then you hear this...

And is it weird that I'm kind of scandalized that they're so surprised so many people imported? 

Of course we imported! We wanted our experiences to mean something.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 26 octobre 2010 - 05:13 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Nightwriter wrote...

What do you mean? "Saren outs the frog in him and it all goes to hell"?

[wizardryforever]

Nightwriter wrote...
we don't think combat should be improved at the price of story, which is what we really loved about ME1. Improving combat is great. Improving combat while drastically cutting back on story sends a certain message.

Well I don't think that it was quite that simple myself.  It's not like combat is all that they improved.  Much of the overall gameplay experience and dialogue is improved, and it's not like the story is worlds better in either game.  I'd take a vast improvement in gameplay (including combat) and a minor hit in story quality than no improvement in gamplay for a slightly better story.  Of course, it's subjective about story quality, but most everyone agrees that gameplay was smoother in ME2.  I just don't see the story as being that much worse than ME1's, worse yes, just not much.

[SimonTheFrog]

Nightwriter wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

[...snip...]

Omg, I remember that article, the one where he said they were moving toward even less dialogue.

It crushed my little Nightwriter hopes. You crave more party banter in ME1, and then in ME2 you crave it even more, and then you hear this...

And is it weird that I'm kind of scandalized that they're so surprised so many people imported? 

Of course we imported! We wanted our experiences to mean something.

I think you misinterpreted that one. If i remember correctly Hudson said they were happy that so many people are actually listening and reading through pretty much all the dialogs and that this makes it worth the effort they put into them. 
I think it's quite the opposite of what you feared.

[Moonbox]

Nightwriter wrote...

Moonbox, I actually thought the writing of the characters was great.

The writing of the story made me feel like BioWare was busy and couldn't be bothered so they quickly hired a temp writer who had never played ME1 to write the story of ME2.

I didn't mind a lot of the characters either.  They were deeper, more fleshed out, and some of them were more interesting.  At the same time, some of them were terrible and most of them didn't fit into the story as far as I could tell.

Other than Miranda, Jakob and a couple others, it made no sense why they were joining.  I could understand Mordrin's motivation, and even Grunt, but people like Thane and Jack and the Asari girl all had practically power-ranger introductions to the game. 

It was kind of like, "Hey you're pretty tough, want to go fight Collectors?"

"Coll...who?"

"Collectors.  Bad guys."

"Oh!  Ummm.....Okay!" 

The context of the terrible story took away from the characters themselves.  They weren't believable, thus they weren't good characters in my mind. 

[Nightwriter]

wizardryforever wrote...

Well I don't think that it was quite that simple myself. It's not like combat is all that they improved. Much of the overall gameplay experience and dialogue is improved, and it's not like the story is worlds better in either game. I'd take a vast improvement in gameplay (including combat) and a minor hit in story quality than no improvement in gamplay for a slightly better story. Of course, it's subjective about story quality, but most everyone agrees that gameplay was smoother in ME2. I just don't see the story as being that much worse than ME1's, worse yes, just not much.

I thought it was a really big step down, but that's just little old me.

I'd strangle gameplay with a telephone cord on a sacrificial altar before I'd let the story get treated like this, but again, that's just little old me.

I guess I'm frustrated. I had no real complaints about ME1's combat, I didn't notice anything. In ME2 I didn't notice anything either. Suddenly my shields are like tissue paper, I have global cooldowns and I can't crouch, but other than that I saw no difference. Everybody's clamoring that the combat's better. I saw nothing. Nothing.

Feels like my whole game experience (the story) was gutted for a triviality.

The story is gone, the combat is smoother and the world is prettier.

[Iakus]

Moonbox wrote...
I didn't mind a lot of the characters either.  They were deeper, more fleshed out, and some of them were more interesting.  At the same time, some of them were terrible and most of them didn't fit into the story as far as I could tell.

Other than Miranda, Jakob and a couple others, it made no sense why they were joining.  I could understand Mordrin's motivation, and even Grunt, but people like Thane and Jack and the Asari girl all had practically power-ranger introductions to the game. 

Yeah the characters themselves were good for the  most part.  The only problems were:

Needed to fit better into the overall story.  This is supposed to be "Shepard's story" not "with special guest star, Commander Shepard"

Too many of them.  Maybe should have saved a few for ME 3 (just don't ask which.  Like I said, I liked them)

Most of them were way to over-the-top in how cool and bad**** they were.  It was like Shepard was recruiting for the Justice League or something.

[SimonTheFrog]

Which is exactly what they were trying to convey. At least that's what i understood from a couple of interviews. ME2 steers in the direction of comics and this underlined by all the ME-comics that are being released. Too bad for people that prefer a more realistic approach to story telling.

[Nightwriter]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I think you misinterpreted that one. If i remember correctly Hudson said they were happy that so many people are actually listening and reading through pretty much all the dialogs and that this makes it worth the effort they put into them.
I think it's quite the opposite of what you feared.

Casey says:

"More and more we're trying to create something dynamic and exciting like a really great movie and we're trying to get away from dialogue, though even a movie has conversations."

They are trying to get away from dialogue.

[Moonbox]

wizardryforever wrote...

Well I don't think that it was quite that simple myself.  It's not like combat is all that they improved.  Much of the overall gameplay experience and dialogue is improved, and it's not like the story is worlds better in either game.  I'd take a vast improvement in gameplay (including combat) and a minor hit in story quality than no improvement in gamplay for a slightly better story.  Of course, it's subjective about story quality, but most everyone agrees that gameplay was smoother in ME2.  I just don't see the story as being that much worse than ME1's, worse yes, just not much.

Yes.  It IS like the story is worlds better in ME1.  There was a story arc.  There was mystery.  There was buildup throughout.  You were constantly learning new things and the whole game propelled the overall narrative forward. 
ME2 hardly had a story.  It was a collection of sidequests to recruit and gain the loyalty of new party members, all of which were completely unconnected to the game's main story, which was itself only ludicrously connected to ME1 via GIANT DEATH ROBOT final boss.  

As for gameplay, ME1 was created as an RPG.  It was produced by a studio known pretty much exclusively for RPG's and the reason people loved it (just like BioWare's previous titles) was because it provided a theatrical narrative in the confines of a relatively entertaining game. 

I'll agree that ME2's GAMEPLAY was better than ME1's, but the improvements in that department didn't even come close to making up for the sacrifice that was (unnecessarily) made in story.  The new writers completely botched the job IMO, and it's not like ME2 was a AAA shooter for gameplay.  If I wanted to play a third person shooter, I'd play Gears of War or Uncharted, not ME2.  I expected the same quality of story as I got with Baldur's Gate, KoToR and ME1.  The new writers BioWare has working for it now are jokes.  The stories for ME2 and Dragon Age were pathetic.  At least Dragon Age, however, still had interesting RPG elements and tactical combat.  ME2 really didn't have any redeeming features IMO and I haven't played it since February and probably won't load it up again. 

[Moonbox]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Which is exactly what they were trying to convey. At least that's what i understood from a couple of interviews. ME2 steers in the direction of comics and this underlined by all the ME-comics that are being released. Too bad for people that prefer a more realistic approach to story telling.

I don't think it's really too bad for us.  It's more too bad for BioWare and the ME franchise.  They're turning what was (ME1) a mature, well-written and exciting story into a campy, comic-book style farce, and failing even in that. 

The story for Dragon Age was no winner either.  Mass Effect 1 positioned BioWare as the undisputed king of the western RPG.  Since then, their half-baked stories have been eroding that foundation.  Unless Dragon Age 2 impresses, EA will have succeeded in turning them into a run-of-the-mill shop. 

[SimonTheFrog]

Nightwriter wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I think you misinterpreted that one. If i remember correctly Hudson said they were happy that so many people are actually listening and reading through pretty much all the dialogs and that this makes it worth the effort they put into them.
I think it's quite the opposite of what you feared.

Casey says:

"More and more we're trying to create something dynamic and exciting like a really great movie and we're trying to get away from dialogue, though even a movie has conversations."

They are trying to get away from dialogue.

I was refering to:

BioWare found that only 15% of conversations were skipped in Mass Effect 2, with the rate higher in non-critical moments like in the hub worlds and much lower later in the game at the climax.
"If we found that 80% or 90% of the lines were being skipped, we would have to reevaluate the work that we were putting into the digital acting."

It seems Hudson it talking rubbish once again, contradicting himself. What is it: dialog is good or dialog is bad?!

Anyway: you were right, it does seem like they are skeptical concerning dialogs in general. 

[cachx]

Nightwriter wrote...
Of course we imported! We wanted our experiences to mean something.

But it is surprising! from a videogame producer standpoint.

Most players never finish the game they start.
Most players never bother with expansions or extra material.

We are actually a rarity =/

ME is also the first game that puts emphasis on the whole savegame transfer thing and works it to such extent (as much as we love to complain that is not enough). I remeber the old Suikoden games to have a similar feature but can't recall if other games did this.

And now that I think about it, how many game series follow a single story with the same characters, without reeboting or going prequel? not many.

[Nightwriter]

Yeah, I found that confusing! Hard to understand Casey's answers sometimes. Especially when he goes all general and you realize the descriptive statement he just made could be applied to any person, concept or object in the known universe.

Moonbox, that is... harsh. I see where you're coming from, but it's a bit harsh. ME2 did have some redeeming features, they just didn't make up for what it did wrong. And I loved DA:O, I think it's the game ME2 could've been.

Myself, I see ME2 as less of an outrage and more of a... tragedy.