672 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Inspired by Casey Hudson’s statement that people who speak of ME2’s lack of story do not understand that the characters are the story. I think this deserves some thought and respect. Actual quote I paraphrased is here.

To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

Modifié par Nightwriter, 09 janvier 2011 - 01:34 .

[Dionkey]

I have said this quite a few times now. People are mad because the collectors are "bad" plot device but you have to think that you can't really sub in anything else for the characters to develop. Only thing I really didn't like was the human reaper, they should have left the larva.

[LorDC]

ME2 "Characters' story" is good. Problem is that most fans wanted something more like ME1. And they got not what they expected. It confused most of the people. And that's how we've got all this "no story whining.

[TMA LIVE]

The characters are the story simply because you're going through all their stories. And based on how things end, the suicide mission could be the end of them. You recruit them, you talk to them, and get involved in a personal moment of their lives. You get about 12 of these, as if you're playing an anthology, where the Shepard is the only connection between them.

The only problem is, the characters aren't connected to each other. If it was about them, you'd be exploring how they interact as a team and apart of your crew. Like any TV show, or Star Trek to be more specific, there's more then just the relationship between the main character and his crew. It's suppose to be about the crew itself being a family, or not.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 09 janvier 2011 - 01:42 .

[Count Viceroy]

Dionkey wrote...

I have said this quite a few times now. People are mad because the collectors are "bad" plot device but you have to think that you can't really sub in anything else for the characters to develop. Only thing I really didn't like was the human reaper, they should have left the larva.

Well said, sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[Asheer_Khan]

To put this simple as simple could be.



Bioware FAILED to create good character story but they are too proud to admit that failure so now they try to shift entire fault in that matter on players "inability to create proper character story".



That's all i have to say in this subject.

[Dionkey]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

To put this simple as simple could be.

Bioware FAILED to create good character story but they are too proud to admit that failure so now they try to shift entire fault in that matter on players "inability to create proper character story".

That's all i have to say in this subject.

Whaaa? They made good characters first of all and second I have never seen them try to shift the blame for anything, they are usually quiet on the subject in general. Only person I have seen do that was Dennis Dyack with Too Human, what a piece of work that guy is.

[thedaghdha]

Dionkey wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

To put this simple as simple could be.

Bioware FAILED to create good character story but they are too proud to admit that failure so now they try to shift entire fault in that matter on players "inability to create proper character story".

That's all i have to say in this subject.

Whaaa? They made good characters first of all and second I have never seen them try to shift the blame for anything, they are usually quiet on the subject in general. Only person I have seen do that was Dennis Dyack with Too Human, what a piece of work that guy is.

 i agree dennis is a piece o' work but regardless i actually enjoyed too human

[Nightwriter]

Dionkey wrote...

I have said this quite a few times now. People are mad because the collectors are "bad" plot device but you have to think that you can't really sub in anything else for the characters to develop. Only thing I really didn't like was the human reaper, they should have left the larva.

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying they needed to develop these characters, so they just created a throwaway enemy as an excuse for doing this?

[adam_grif]

The characters are divorced from the story because they are interchangeable, expendable and in no way important to resolving the plot. Except for the Biotic part, any character can do any character's job , and although some of them get killed you still get through just fine. Nothing felt very personal to any specific character. But wanting to focus on character development (the game was more like a short story anthology than it was one continuous narrative) is not an excuse for a weak plot.



The main plot of the game was a pretty weak framework for Bioware to introduce the characters, who are generally strong. The loyalty missions are the best parts of the game, presumably because they focused so strongly on them.

[Eudaemonium]

I actually came to appreciate ME2's 'character-centric' mode of storytelling when I first played the game. I thought the recruitment and loyalty missions were very well done and fleshed out the different squad members very well. So, if "the characters are teh story", then ME2 had an excellent story. My main issue came with integrating those characters, who you spend most of the game recruiting/assistaing, into the 'core plot' focussed on the Collector threat. A good but very simple example is when you "assemble the team" for briefing and it consists of Jacob, Miranda and Mordin - the other members are just not there. I don't see why it would have been too difficult to just stick the recruited members' models in that scene, even if they said/did absolutely nothing.

In short, the characters are amazing, I just find that the story 'build a team' ended up feeling less like a team and more like a motley collection fo separate individuals who happened to be on the same ship. The suicide mission itself was relatively okay for this, but the rest of the main story missions felt somewhat lacking.

EDIT: Adam_gif basically said exactly what I thought. Particularly the comment about the story feeling more like an anthology of (high-quality) short stories.

Modifié par Eudaemonium, 09 janvier 2011 - 01:56 .

[adam_grif]

I just find that the story 'build a team' ended up feeling less like a team and more like a motley collection fo separate individuals who happened to be on the same ship.

Definitely agree here. I always frown when I see the 3rd party member in the background barely interacting with anything during the loyalty quest. Grunt staying totally silent throughout Mordin's is the worst



The lack of crew interaction really killed the atmosphere of the ship for me. There should have been one or two opportunities for more interaction between the great characters.

[PsychoWARD23]

adam_grif wrote...

I just find that the story 'build a team' ended up feeling less like a team and more like a motley collection fo separate individuals who happened to be on the same ship.

Definitely agree here. I always frown when I see the 3rd party member in the background barely interacting with anything during the loyalty quest. Grunt staying totally silent throughout Mordin's is the worst

The lack of crew interaction really killed the atmosphere of the ship for me. There should have been one or two opportunities for more interaction between the great characters.

Completely agree with everything said here.

[AntiChri5]

The Collectors are a disposable enemy created to give us an excuse to spend an entire game developing characters

Since ME2's story was the characters and a flimsy excuse to explore them then we cannot truly judge whether or not it was a failure until we see how the characters are treated in ME3.

if they are as disposable as the Collectors then ME2 will just be the part of the trilogy where they sorted out the gameplay.

[Dionkey]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

I have said this quite a few times now. People are mad because the collectors are "bad" plot device but you have to think that you can't really sub in anything else for the characters to develop. Only thing I really didn't like was the human reaper, they should have left the larva.

Not sure I understand this. Are you saying they needed to develop these characters, so they just created a throwaway enemy as an excuse for doing this?

In way yes in others no. They needed to tie up the protheans so ME3 could be focused on the Reapers, theres your foot soldier. This was their way to give more game time to develope characters and other future plot devices like Cerberus. I am not saying its a bad plot I just think that people complain about something that can't really be handled any other way. I can also see people complaining about cameos and the email system etc, but they have to understand they reworked nearly every department of the gameplay, that easily took 1/3 of the dev time.

[marshalleck]

AntiChri5 wrote...

The Collectors are a disposable enemy created to give us an excuse to spend an entire game developing characters
Since ME2's story was the characters and a flimsy excuse to explore them then we cannot truly judge whether or not it was a failure until we see how the characters are treated in ME3.
if they are as disposable as the Collectors then ME2 will just be the part of the trilogy where they sorted out the gameplay.

This thread is now about returning squadmates in Mass Effect 3. 






You're completely right, though. 

[BiancoAngelo7]

They did a very good job on the character stories and development, even though they limited the amount of things people say because of the amount of squad mates.

However, what Bioware or Mr. Hudson fails to see is that you can make the BEST dam character story in the world, but it still won't make for a good plot or provide for a satisfying entertainment experience.

Can you imagine if they made an Avengers movie and the entire movie was just Captain America going around the world and resolving little conflicts or disputes to get people to join him? They could be the most interesting well thought out and executed characters in the history of movies, and the movie would still suck hard.

Focusing almost solely on recruiting a squad causes a snake eating its own tail conundrum:

Bioware: ME2 has a story because the story is about the characters.

Fan: Oh ok, so what do we go do with this amazing team?

Bioware: Three short linear missions and fight a baby human reaper with your assault rifle.

Fan: uh....what?

Bioware: Oh yeah, and we're not guaranteeing that the squad you spent the entire game recruiting is even going to come back for ME3.

Fan: But you just said the characters ARE the story?!

Bioware: Its the DARK Empire Strike Back of Mass Effect!!

Fan: Dark? What the hell are you talk....

Bioware: Collectors are taking humans

Fan: Ok, but...what about the Reapers?

Bioware: Oh yeah, they're coming.

Fan: But...weren't they already coming??

Bioware: LOOK AT OUR AWARDS!!!

Fan: <_<

They basically made the plot of ME2 be a bunch of side quests, (well made ones but still side quests) to then have the "main" plot (collectors) play out like a slightly bigger side quest.

No matter your opinion on the subject, the best side quest in the history of gaming is still a ****ty main plot.

[Phaedon]

I have to say, when I posted this, I was not entirely sure about it, but think of this:

I totally agree with you!



ME1's story was so much better!



I mean, in ME2 what you do is gather companions from several places, whereas in ME1 you just gather them from the Citadel and Therum! Isn't that awesome?



In ME2, then you had 4 story-based missions (First colony,Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF), whereas in ME1 you had...wait for it... 3 story based missions! (Feros,Noveria,Virmire). Isn't that awesome?



And then, heh, all you had to do in ME2 was to kill the bad guy (Suicide Mission). I mean, lol. It didn't have a much more complex ending like ME1 had. You know, kill the bad guy (Final Mission).



I'd continue, but my sarcasm would probably become lethal. Yes, ME2 had a story. Where is this amazing story that ME1 had? I don't see the difference.

Could we be overrating ME1's story?

[Nightwriter]

Dionkey wrote...

In way yes in others no. They needed to tie up the protheans so ME3 could be focused on the Reapers, theres your foot soldier. This was their way to give more game time to develope characters and other future plot devices like Cerberus. I am not saying its a bad plot I just think that people complain about something that can't really be handled any other way. I can also see people complaining about cameos and the email system etc, but they have to understand they reworked nearly every department of the gameplay, that easily took 1/3 of the dev time.

You're saying they were too busy focusing on gameplay to focus on story? I really don't like that answer, it seems to feed everyone's worst accusations about what BioWare did with ME2... I grow weary of the story/gameplay war.

Most of the time when people say it couldn't be handled any other way, they mean it wasn't handled any other way.

Also, why did they need to tie up the Protheans so ME3 could be focused on the Reapers?? You act like the Protheans were getting in the way somehow.

[marshalleck]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Focusing almost solely on recruiting a squad causes a snake eating its own tail conundrum:

Bioware: ME2 has a story because the story is about the characters.

Fan: Oh ok, so what do we go do with this amazing team?

Bioware: Three short linear missions and fight a baby human reaper with your assault rifle.

Fan: uh....what?

Bioware: Oh yeah, and we're not guaranteeing that the squad you spent the entire game recruiting is even going to come back for ME3.

Fan: But you just said the characters ARE the story?!

Bioware: Its the DARK Empire Strike Back of Mass Effect!!

Fan: Dark? What the hell are you talk....

Bioware: Collectors are taking humans

Fan: Ok, but...what about the Reapers?

Bioware: Oh yeah, they're coming.

Fan: But...weren't they already coming??

Bioware: LOOK AT OUR AWARDS!!!

Fan: <_<

Awesome. 

[Nightwriter]

adam_grif wrote...

The characters are divorced from the story because they are interchangeable, expendable and in no way important to resolving the plot. Except for the Biotic part, any character can do any character's job , and although some of them get killed you still get through just fine. Nothing felt very personal to any specific character. But wanting to focus on character development (the game was more like a short story anthology than it was one
continuous narrative) is not an excuse for a weak plot.

The main plot of the game was a pretty weak framework for Bioware to introduce the characters, who are generally strong. The loyalty missions are the best parts of the game, presumably because they focused so strongly on them.

This is exactly how I have always felt, and I am hoping someone will come along and rescue me from feeling it with good arguments that make me go, "Oh, I was misjudging it and being cynical."

adam_grif wrote...

I just find that the story 'build a team' ended up feeling less like a team and more like a motley collection fo separate individuals who happened to be on the same ship.

Definitely agree here. I always frown when I see the 3rd party member in the background barely interacting with anything during the loyalty quest. Grunt staying totally silent throughout Mordin's is the worst

The lack of crew interaction really killed the atmosphere of the ship for me. There should have been one or two opportunities for more interaction between the great characters.

I also really agree with all of this.

Still waiting for that argument that will rescue me from icky negativity.

[Dionkey]

Nightwriter wrote...

You're saying they were too busy focusing on gameplay to focus on story? I really don't like that answer, it seems to feed everyone's worst accusations about what BioWare did with ME2... I grow weary of the story/gameplay war.

Most of the time when people say it couldn't be handled any other way, they mean it wasn't handled any other way.

Also, why did they need to tie up the Protheans so ME3 could be focused on the Reapers?? You act like the Protheans were getting in the way somehow.

They weren't really getting in the way but it is sure convienent way to fix the mystery behind them while providing the enemy. For the story/gameplay, it can't be handled any other way. While some people don't agree with having all the squad members thats not really up for debate at this point, but to say the plot is bad is kind of missing the point on how they created the game. They point out they wanted it centered around characters and its a little too soon to judge how its handled in ME3.

[Phaedon]

Alright, in my previous post, I made no effort to explain what I was saying, but I rather reposted my previous rant.



In my opinion, saying that ME2's story was poor compared to ME1's is wrong based on this:



The formula used in ME1's plot was reused in ME2. You don't see it? Well, let's see.

-Find some squaddies

-Do some story-based missions

-Kill the bad guy



Let's take a closer look at each step.



In my opinion, there is no point to comparing the recruitment stage between the two games. There simply is no comparison. Apart from the fact that loyalty missions are missing from the first game, the recruitment missions are much more interesting, and instead of recruiting (almost) your whole squad on the Citadel, you had to travel to various places around the galaxy.



I can't compare the story-based missions, since that would be completely subjective, but I mainly prefer ME1's missions. It should be noted, however, that ME2 had more story-based missions than ME1 had, so saying that ME2 wasn't as story-based as it should, is wrong.



The 'Kill the bad guy' part? Honestly, I did find the Battle of the Citadel impressive, but the actual mission that you were part of was far from impressive. Find Saren, talk to him, (fight him), Saren is revived, kill him again. On the other hand, the suicide mission was easily my favourite part of ME2. It depended heavily on your choices, and the story/action had an excellent pacing.

[Moiaussi]

Not only did the crew not interact, but the game goes out of the way to inhibit even the concept.

Instead of the crew being housed together in a single barracks (like, you know, the one the ship is supposed to have for the marine contingent it isn't carrying?), recruited crew members are being stuck in hall closets.... and the assassin you just met in life support, and the potentially dangerous AI Geth in with the mainframe, and the allegedly psychopathic space pirate in engineering.

They are stuck in places so secure, you as ship's captain aren't even allowed to enter them until you recruit these complete strangers, whom you appearantly have no qualms about sticking alone in such secure areas of the ship.

They didn't even attempt common sense.

The point about most of the crew being interchangable and pointless on the final mission is very legit too. The concept that it doesn't matter who you send into the vent or if they live or die is just nuts. Appearantly it wasn't important to send anyone in at all.....

[kregano]

Phaedon wrote...

I have to say, when I posted this, I was not entirely sure about it, but think of this:

I totally agree with you!

ME1's story was so much better!

I mean, in ME2 what you do is gather companions from several places, whereas in ME1 you just gather them from the Citadel and Therum! Isn't that awesome?

In ME2, then you had 4 story-based missions (First colony,Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF), whereas in ME1 you had...wait for it... 3 story based missions! (Feros,Noveria,Virmire). Isn't that awesome?

And then, heh, all you had to do in ME2 was to kill the bad guy (Suicide Mission). I mean, lol. It didn't have a much more complex ending like ME1 had. You know, kill the bad guy (Final Mission).

I'd continue, but my sarcasm would probably become lethal. Yes, ME2 had a story. Where is this amazing story that ME1 had? I don't see the difference.

Could we be overrating ME1's story?

Yeah, I definitely believe that ME1's story is massively overrated on this forum. The overall plot was pretty weak and generic, and while the characters and the main quest planets were well done, they couldn't make up for the deficiencies in the plot. Honestly, by the end of ME1 you just about everything you need to know about the Reapers- how they do things, what they do, and where they are. The only questions are why they do what they do and if they have a backup plan, which are things that ME2 can only partially answer because it's the second part of the trilogy. ME1 casually chucked the potential mystery of the Reapers out the window that they had to create the Collectors as a mysterious force because they gave us practically everything in the Reaper playbook.

Then you have to add in the Karpyshn factor, since he came up with the overall plot of the trilogy and it's not that surprising that the plot kinda sucks in both games.