672 réponses à ce sujet

[dan350z]

wulf3n wrote...

Ignoring the fact that even a good "character" driven story needs a good story, I'm curios as to why Bioware thought a character driven story is what the series needed.

Were people on the forums saying "For ME2 i don't want to try and solve the reaper threat, no. What I want to do, is solve the problems of random people who are completely irrelevant to the overall plot, because that's where the fun is." ?

A lot of truth with that statement.... I would of preferred to get my old crew back together and have Bioware spend more time progressing the story arc against the reapers, instead they had me running around getting to know a new crew, with half of them not even being interesting...

[Marta Rio]

wulf3n wrote...
I'm curios as to why Bioware thought a character driven story is what the series needed.

I figure it's because in the intial planning stages they didn't want a ****-ton of hanging plot lines to carry over into ME3.  So they decided to make it about characters to avoid a huge tree of possible storylines.  Although they kind of shot themselves in the foot in that department by making a huge number of the ME2 characters killable...

[RiouHotaru]

Slidell505 wrote...
Loyalty Missions Bullet point.
Shepard, My supposed dead father with wich I have no trauma about may still be alive, let's investigate!
Shepard, My crazy father is going to kidnap my sister, wich I in turn kidnapped when she was a baby.
Shepard, I need help rescuing my protege, and explore the ethics of of the genophage while we do so!
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge, and you might convince me to take a moral choice.
Shepard, I was raised in a lab to be a weapon, I need to face my past.
Shepard, I was made in a laboratory and grew up in a tank, show me my heritage and the ways of my people.
Shepard, I need to liberate a refinery and kill my enemy of 20 years.
Shepard, I need help stealing the only memory of my dead boyfriend.
Shepard, My whole race thinks I betrayed them because of my dad, and I need a lawyer.
Shepard, My son may be following my bad footsteps, also I'm dying.
Shepard, My daughter is a space vampire and I love her, but we need to kill her.
Shepard-Commader, the stuff we need to do is too complex to explain in a single sentence

Finally someone actually gets it right.  I always eyeroll so hard whenever people default to "daddy issues" despite the fact that technically only applies to two of them.  Thank you VERY much.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 10 janvier 2011 - 01:03 .

[cachx]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...
Loyalty Missions Bullet point.
Shepard, My supposed dead father with wich I have no trauma about may still be alive, let's investigate!
Shepard, My crazy father is going to kidnap my sister, wich I in turn kidnapped when she was a baby.
Shepard, I need help rescuing my protege, and explore the ethics of of the genophage while we do so!
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge, and you might convince me to take a moral choice.
Shepard, I was raised in a lab to be a weapon, I need to face my past.
Shepard, I was made in a laboratory and grew up in a tank, show me my heritage and the ways of my people.
Shepard, I need to liberate a refinery and kill my enemy of 20 years.
Shepard, I need help stealing the only memory of my dead boyfriend.
Shepard, My whole race thinks I betrayed them because of my dad, and I need a lawyer.
Shepard, My son may be following my bad footsteps, also I'm dying.
Shepard, My daughter is a space vampire and I love her, but we need to kill her.
Shepard-Commader, the stuff we need to do is too complex to explain in a single sentence

Finally someone actually gets it right.  I always eyeroll so hard whenever people default to "daddy issues" despite the fact that technically only applies to two of them.  Thank you VERY much.

You're welcome.
Brofist!


We need to make, like a radio show or something...

[RiouHotaru]

iakus wrote...

Nobody knows anyone else has issues because no one talks to each other!  Period!  I say they have every reason to comment when they see events unfolding before their very eyes.  Oath or no oath, is Samara going to let innocent  people burn to death without saying a word?  Even to warn Shep and Zaeed that she will be compelled to hunt them down later over this?  Is Tali going to say nothing while Shep considers unfying the geth?  Thane has literally spent years trying to atone for what he did to his wife's killers, trying to make the galaxy better.  Do you think he'd pass up the chance to counsel someone in a similar situation to avoid his pain?  By the same token, could you not see Jack egging Garrus on, telling him betrayal must be paid back in blood (in coarser language, obviously) it's not like she'd be respectful of anyone's feelings.

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree.  I understand what you're getting at, but I think such things would be unnecessary fluff, and for me, in a lot of places, make no sense.  But believe, I understand that you want it.  I just don't think the same way.

Dragon Age is a very different game from Mass Effect.  1 or 2.  But the way the companions interact is precisely what a character driven game like ME 2 needed.  These are all strong, independant characters.  With a variety of motives and outlooks.  How these characters respond to each other should have been a major part of the game.  Particularly a game where getting to know them and earning their loyalty was a key part.  Loyalty to each other is a vital part of teamwork.   The two arguements we do get is just a pale shadow of what we should have had.

Eh, again, I disagree.  It's generally assumed they'll work together, with the exception of the two major argument events.  Remember, they're there for Shepard, not necessarily for each other.  Shepard is what makes them work together well as a cohesive unit.  Dragon Age is different because there's no clear leader.  They're all equals.  In Mass Effect it's clearly subordinate/superior.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 10 janvier 2011 - 01:16 .

[RiouHotaru]

cachx wrote...
We need to make, like a radio show or something...

Podcast?

[xlavaina]

[quote]RiouHotaru wrote...

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree.  I understand what you're getting at, but I think such things would be unnecessary fluff, and for me, in a lot of places, make no sense.  But believe, I understand that you want it.  I just don't think the same way.

Dragon Age is a very different game from Mass Effect.  1 or 2.  But the way the companions interact is precisely what a character driven game like ME 2 needed.  These are all strong, independant characters.  With a variety of motives and outlooks.  How these characters respond to each other should have been a major part of the game.  Particularly a game where getting to know them and earning their loyalty was a key part.  Loyalty to each other is a vital part of teamwork.   The two arguements we do get is just a pale shadow of what we should have had.

Eh, again, I disagree.  It's generally assumed they'll work together, with the exception of the two major argument events.  Remember, they're there for Shepard, not necessarily for each other.  Shepard is what makes them work together well as a cohesive unit.  Dragon Age is different because there's no clear leader.  They're all equals.  In Mass Effect it's clearly subordinate/superior.[/quote]

[/quote]

Dude I completely agree with you. I've never played DA though, so I won't be able to comment on that. However, your point about squad interactions is vital. I've always thought that BW skimped out on this part of the game, and hopefully they'll do a better job in ME3. Here's the problem though: ironically, they missed their chance. If they were to have a game with rich character interactions it would've been ME2. Now, they're stuck in a ridiculously deep plot hole (ie. suicide mission). 

Now in ME3 they're going to be constrained by the lack of potential squad members. 

Anyway, replying to the original topic, are the characters the story? Yes they are. ME2's plot was sadly predictable (unlike ME1's) and the only thing that made the story interesting were the characters. Think about it: there were so many more (SO MANY MORE) character related missions than there were story missions. We had 10 recruitment missions and 12 loyalty missions. Thats 22 character related missions, as compared to the... what? 3 story missions lol. Thats a joke! 

So yes the characters drove the intensity and interestingness of the story, undoubtedly. The feeling of "we're all going through Hell together" makes the game very deep, and the richness and clarity of the characters is exceptional, making them all very engaging... Well most of them 

Modifié par xlavaina, 10 janvier 2011 - 01:23 .

[cachx]

RiouHotaru wrote...

cachx wrote...
We need to make, like a radio show or something...

Podcast?

ha ha... could be fun.
"In today's episode, our guest Nightwriter discusses character interaction on Mass Effect 2. Then we discuss who's better, Trask or Jenkins?. All that and more after these messages".
Problem is I haven't spoken english in a while, my pronunciation is probably terrible .

[The Smoking Man]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree.  I understand what you're getting at, but I think such things would be unnecessary fluff, and for me, in a lot of places, make no sense.

Ah yes, "story" (exposition thereof, more precisely). It's unnecessary fluff and makes no sense.

RiouHotaru wrote...

Eh, again, I disagree.  It's generally assumed they'll work together, with the exception of the two major argument events.  Remember, they're there for Shepard, not necessarily for each other.  Shepard is what makes them work together well as a cohesive unit.  Dragon Age is different because there's no clear leader.  They're all equals.  In Mass Effect it's clearly subordinate/superior.

(Insert something about "there is no 'I' in 'team'" here)

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 10 janvier 2011 - 01:54 .

[Pacifien]

PureMethodActor wrote...
I have a question about unecessary characters in Mass Effect 1, because there seems to be a major point people are missing...

Wasn't Tali able to be non-recruited?

You are forced to recruit Tali in ME1 whether you want to or not. You are also forced to have Garrus or Wrex. You didn't have to have both, but you must have one.

[Ryzaki]

Ah yes the way to avoid Wrex leaving you regardless of choice was to go to Virmire without recruiting Garrus and Liara right?

[darth_lopez]

in all honesty in my last play through when i slowed down and picked and chose my party to what i wanted i enjoyed it more. I felt the characters were fairly well fleshed out. I definately agree after a year of playing that the party is the story.



However i can see how many people would reject that as the traditional video game focuses around your Antagonist and Protagonist only. Typically the story is only what the main character is experiencing with Squaddies falling into a silent role. What BW did here in ME 2 may have been aided by ambient dialogue on missions, more so than a few lines here or there, like DA:O. That certaintly cemented Alistair to my party in DA:O. However in ME my party choices are made differently. Like i'd rather ask myself who can i use best for this. In DA:O party members fill a certaint role but they also have a very distinctive Personality. In ME up until ME 2 most party members were just ambient tools who had a few extra XP points on them. However this is what happens in alot of games. If bioware had had the party carry it's own discussions more often, with less cutscenes, i think that definately could've enhanced the story substantially. But i think the OP is definately on to something here

[SnakeStrike8]

I'll certainly agree that the crewmates were the focus of the story, given how much of the game revolved around their stories and how little of it revolved around the Collectors. You had a total of five missions that were related to the Collectors at all (Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, derelict Reaper, suicide mission). Every other mission was either related to your companions (recruiting/ loyalty) or was a side quest.

What I don't understand is why Bioware then decided to make loyalty ops optional. It's through those that you really get to know your team, and if they're the focus of the story, why not actually put them in focus?

Instead, they make it optional, and people who don't play them complain that the game didn't have enough story. I'm not certain who to blame more; Bioware of those gamers.

[Leonia]

Call my crazy but I didn't think ME1 had much of a story.. "Stop Saren by visiting Noveria, Feros, and Virmire..and don't forget to pick up Liara on the way!"

And sure, you can over-simplify ME2 and say it was pretty short as well but I'll tell ya what.. I spent 50 hours on ME2 and barely 30 on ME1 and would take ME2's sidequests over ME1's any day.

But this is all coming from someone who played 8 playthroughs of DA:O and thought even that game had a really basic plot but still kept enjoying every playthrough all the same.

I spend most of my time trying to put pieces of information together from codex entries and stuff I find in the Wiki.. if Bioware writes such poor stories then why am I constantly thinking about things like "What is Cerberus really after? Who is the Illusive Man? Why were the Reapers really so interested in humans? What's the deal with Harbinger? Who are Shepard's parents and why does it seem like Cerberus is so involved in his/her life?" etc. And I could go on about all the questions I have for Dragon Age as well.

The thing is, sure the plot of the actual game itself is basic and doesn't seeem all that interesting.. on paper. But if you look at it in more detail, take into account side-quests, companions, NPCs, the world at large.. then you find something that you can get immersed and even lost in if you try hard enough. Bioware has always been really good at character development and world building and that's the charm of the ME franchise.

I think saying "The characters are the story" is one hell of an over-simplification. There's much more to look at here.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 janvier 2011 - 04:06 .

[In Exile]

Nightwriter wrote...
Their elevator dialogue proved to me they were at least aware of each other's existence. Banter is always better than no banter. ME1 had banter. ME2 didn't. Will you allow me this? Anyhoo...

I always skipped the elevators because you would get quest triggers there, and that would remove the "mission" briefing from Hackett if you stumbled on them exploring, which made sidequesting even more incoherent (Shepard: I heard something on the news! Normandy Away!).

That Bioware cut banter (and the ability to click to talk to companions at all - wtf was up with that?) was a bad move.

Hmm. Now you make me reconsider my point. Hmm again. I guess because the crew was smaller, these interactions felt bigger. But ME2's crew is huge. The same amount of interaction feels meager. I suppose that is why it feels like it's on a different scale to me.

I think, sans romance, you have about the same amounts of chat with each crew member you had out of either Tali, Garrus or Wrex. 

No! That isn't it. It's that ME1 was not a character focused game, so any character interaction it gives feels like a bonus, whereas ME2 is a character focused game, and any character interaction it does not deliver feels like an unmet requirement. Yes that's it exactly.

Now that's a fair criticism, and I happen to agree with you here. Bioware, at least IMO, is backtracking on this. But this is a meta-level design criticism of ME2. The stuff I was complaining about was much more specific criticism.

It wasn't "ME2 didn't go far enough above ME1" but rather "ME1 was better" and I believe we can reject the latter claim.

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...

No actually. Chosing neutral has you leav his dad to be turn apart by the savages, choosing paragon has him arrested and choosing renegade has Jacob give his dad a gun to kill himself with.

My game has to be bugged. I always get the arrest angle, regardless of the option I pick.

[In Exile]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...
What I don't understand is why Bioware then decided to make loyalty ops optional. It's through those that you really get to know your team, and if they're the focus of the story, why not actually put them in focus?

Instead, they make it optional, and people who don't play them complain that the game didn't have enough story. I'm not certain who to blame more; Bioware of those gamers.

I think that was to try and push "Oh noes! Everyone can die! Failure is possible!" as a gameplay feature.

[Leonia]

On the subject of "optional content", I think people would complain just as loudly if Bioware had forced you to do loyalty missions or to do major missions in a certain order (well, they sort of do that with the end of ME2 and I think I have seen a bit of complaining about that). If you take people's "illusion of choice" away they get cranky. If you make them do things to advance the plot, they get cranky. If you didn't do all the loyalty missions in ME2 then that's your, the player's, fault not Bioware's.

[Terror_K]

If the characters ARE the story, then that's actually part of the problem, even if the stories for the individual characters are good. When you've got the second part of what is supposed to be a trilogy, then you should be focusing on the main overarching story more than ever.



It's fine to say that "the characters ARE the story" if the characters and their stories relate directly to the main plot, but for the most part they really don't. It's not that the writing of the characters' stories is bad that's the problem with ME2's narrative because they're not, it's that the whole thing deviates far too much from what should be the main focus of the second part.



That --along with the fact that seemingly important things from ME1 are sidelined, ignored or made insignificant-- is probably why ME2 fails as a sequel and doesn't so much feel like the middle chapter of a trilogy as it does a completely separate story that just happens to be set in the same universe and happens to involve the same protagonist. ME2 feels more like Aliens or Temple of Doom than it does The Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers.

[Leonia]

Meh, felt like Empire Strikes Back to me.. lots of character development.. major confrontation at the end.. introduction of a potential new villain (Boba Fett/Cerberus)..even opened with a battle, somewhat.. sure we still don't know who Shepard's father is but I can live without that.



Anyway, we've only seen 2/3 of the triology so far so it's going to be hard to talk about the bigger picture at this stage. We can make guesses and criticisms, sure, but I have a feeling it won't all make sense until we've seen the final act.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote..
That --along with the fact that seemingly important things from ME1 are sidelined, ignored or made insignificant-- is probably why ME2 fails as a sequel and doesn't so much feel like the middle chapter of a trilogy as it does a completely separate story that just happens to be set in the same universe and happens to involve the same protagonist. ME2 feels more like Aliens or Temple of Doom than it does The Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers.

Which things? The only loose ends from ME1 I can think off were the new/old Council fallout and the declaration by Udina/Anderson to hunt the repears, but I thought ME2 actually addressed both of those brutal plotholes well.

I agree that ME2 didn't do a good job as a bridge trilogy because it didn't actually advance the plot, but what things are you thinking of? I'm genuinely curious since I can't think of any.

[PrinceLionheart]

The biggest thing ME2 suffered from IMO was, to quote tvtropes, "Show, Don't Tell." You're told how much everything changed in the course of two years, but Shepard hardly gets to experience it. It's given the "Wait until ME3 to see the full effects."

And really I can't help but feel "The Characters were the story" is a cop-out argument. The character's individual storylines could've tied in better with the main mission. But, as pointed out by quite a few people, the story focusing on a squad who hardly interact with one another is incredibly weak.

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 10 janvier 2011 - 05:49 .

[RiouHotaru]

The Smoking Man wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree.  I understand what you're getting at, but I think such things would be unnecessary fluff, and for me, in a lot of places, make no sense.

Ah yes, "story" (exposition thereof, more precisely). It's unnecessary fluff and makes no sense.

Squadmates making off-hand remarks during another squadmate's loyalty mission hardly constitute "story"

The Smoking Man wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Eh, again, I disagree.  It's generally assumed they'll work together, with the exception of the two major argument events.  Remember, they're there for Shepard, not necessarily for each other.  Shepard is what makes them work together well as a cohesive unit.  Dragon Age is different because there's no clear leader.  They're all equals.  In Mass Effect it's clearly subordinate/superior.

(Insert something about "there is no 'I' in 'team'" here)

...This is relevant how?  I'm saying Dragon Age's "squad" is completely different from Mass Effect's "squad".  Are you saying this isn't true?

[Moiaussi]

In Exile wrote...

Which things? The only loose ends from ME1 I can think off were the new/old Council fallout and the declaration by Udina/Anderson to hunt the repears, but I thought ME2 actually addressed both of those brutal plotholes well.

I agree that ME2 didn't do a good job as a bridge trilogy because it didn't actually advance the plot, but what things are you thinking of? I'm genuinely curious since I can't think of any.

Ummm.... what do you mean 'plot holes?' When they happen at the end of a work, they are cliffhangers, and holes. Since you feel that they were dealt with in ME2, I think you should stop using the term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

By the way, I am not sure that the Council acting essentially the same regardless of whether they were saved or not and suddenly dismissing the reapers counts as 'actually addressing,' but there is a whole separate thread here somewhere discussing that.