672 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

And there is a focus on the overarching story.  Does everyone just want to forget Horizon, The Collector Ship, or the Reaper Ship?  Did all these plot-shaking revelations and reveals just slip through the cracks?  Yes, the character missions do take up more screen-time, but that doesn't mean the Reaper plot is completely ignored.

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.

But they do relate to the main plot.  Why are you gathering them in the first place?  Why do you recruit them and help them put their affairs in order (or not)?  Maybe it's not as MUCH relation to the main plot as you'd like, but there is relation.

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.

Well ME2 was meant to be played as a standalone game in addition to a sequel.  So yes, some of "important" things in ME1 were glossed over.  Though I'm curious to hear examples.

[Iakus]

[quote]RiouHotaru wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Indeed I did want it.  You see it as "fluff"  I see it as "character development"  Far more important than any email, dossier, or mission report. 

Actually, if you look at the Shadow Broker dossiers, you see activities the squaddies have been doing on their off time.  Do you know how much I would have paid to have that stuff, or even a fraction of that stuff incorporated into the game?  Heck, just to have them mentioned in in-game?  Miranda's medical condition, Garrus' family problem, and Mordin helping out with it.  Jack's first tentative (and not too successful) attempts to interact with society, not to mention her attempts to channel her rage into something more creative..  Grunt's facination with Earth.  Or at least certain aspects of it.  All would have been forgiven!  Okay almost all.  Spread this stuff out over a game and you wouldn't have twelve interesting individuals, you'd have a group of well developed characters.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

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]

That assumption is the first problem.  Looking at the squad, you have

A Cerberus apologist
a dangerous, possibly unstable criminal who hates Cerberus
A mercenary with a reputation for getting people killed
a vigilante who's more intersted in justice than the law
a justicar who's more interested in the law than justice
a notorious thief
a violent krogan of uncertain temperment
a repentant assassin
a former Alliance soldier with a thing against mercenaries
a geth
a quarian
a salarian who' depending on your point of view, either helped preserve the safety of the galaxy, or helped perpetrate genocide

You can't possibly expect that in this mix, everyone's gonna get along.  Shepard or no Shepard.  They may be subordinate to Shep, but they sure aren't gonna admit to being subordinate to anyone else!  Yet for the most part, they do get along.  Most of them admit they aren't used to working as a unit, but alone, or in small groups.  But without training, without even speaking to each other, they watch each others' backs and support each other.  Why?  How do they overcome their differnces so easily?  Does Shepard have some kind of Jedi battle meditation?

  I actually expected this to be the main part of the game:  Keep the squadmates from killing each other before the mission.  "Earn their loyalty" by showing them that they all had an enemy in common with the Reapers.  Balance my squad to be the most effective one I could build

[Moiaussi]

RiouHotaru wrote...

And there is a focus on the overarching story.  Does everyone just want to forget Horizon, The Collector Ship, or the Reaper Ship?  Did all these plot-shaking revelations and reveals just slip through the cracks?  Yes, the character missions do take up more screen-time, but that doesn't mean the Reaper plot is completely ignored.

But they do relate to the main plot.  Why are you gathering them in the first place?  Why do you recruit them and help them put their affairs in order (or not)?  Maybe it's not as MUCH relation to the main plot as you'd like, but there is relation.

Well ME2 was meant to be played as a standalone game in addition to a sequel.  So yes, some of "important" things in ME1 were glossed over.  Though I'm curious to hear examples.

One man's plot-shaking is another man's head scratching. The collectors were too throw away to be considered to advance the plot. They did shake the plot but only in the 'we will shake you to distract you from the reapers' sense.

Top soldiers and assassins manage just fine with such issues all the time. Appearantly the concepts of professionalism and duty are outdated or 'unbelievable' in fiction? Pulling a filler enemy out of a hat and saying 'see it still relates to the plot' isn't particularly good writing. They could even have had ME2 sorting out the politics of the region. Taming/eliminating/recruiting pirate and merc factions for the coming war. Samara had ties to the Asari and whatever forces Illium has, Jack is a former pirate and Zaeed, merc leader. Tali, the Quarians, Grunt ties back into Wrex or his replacement, etc etc etc...

They sort of did that with Tali and Grunt, but much of the rest of it was wasted opportunity. It doesn't help that Shepard is so often portrayed as politicly inept to the point of absurdity.

ME2 could still have been a standalone game, and they didn't even have to deal with all the races yet. The Collectors could still have been involved, yet presented more as a vanguard, with more out there.... a darker ending but with hope based on the prep.

The result would have been just as character driven, but at least tied to the overall plot better.

[Moiaussi]

PureMethodActor wrote...


So wait, how does the convo go if you try to reject each's offer to join?

potential squad member: hey can I join you? I think we should team up to beat Saren!

Shepard: um... no thanks..

plothammer or Anderson/Udina(in the case of Tali): NO YOU MUST RECRUIT THEM! GYAAAAAAHHHHH1!!!!

Shepard:   *in the voice of Master Tang from "Kung Pow: Enter The Fist*    OK!

There is simply no option to turn down Tali. Shepard cannot say 'no thanks.'

[Leonia]

I agree with iakus here.. I was really expecting loyalty missions to turn into "Make sure everyone gets along" missions, especially after playing Dragon Age and being so used to inter-party banter (really wish ME2 had more interaction between squad-mates in general). I guess.. Shepard is just so awesome that people will follow her/him regardless of who she/he picks for their team to save the galaxy, Jedi battle meditation indeed. But I'll get over the lack of such content since the games are really focused on Shepard moreso than the squaddies.

Moiaussi wrote...

ME2 could still have been a standalone game, and they didn't even have to deal with all the races yet. The
Collectors could still have been involved, yet presented more as a vanguard, with more out there.... a darker ending but with hope based onthe prep.

I kind of *did* treat the Collectors as some sort of vanguard. They were the tools of the Reapers.. in my mind that made them synonymous with the Reapers' agenda so it always seemed like the groundwork for the Reaper invasion was being laid out throughout ME2 and it was up to Shepard to stop them. The only problem was a lack of true resolution and all this Harbinger knowing who Shepard is stuff. But if you sort of think of the Collectors as actually being Reapers.. or think of them as the way the geth were treated in ME1 as instruments of the Reapers.. then you sort of, kind of have minor plot advancement.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:02 .

[Weiser_Cain]

If the characters were the story they should have been able to interact with each other more.

[didymos1120]

Moiaussi wrote...

There is simply no option to turn down Tali. Shepard cannot say 'no thanks.'

You can make the attempt.  It's simply futile.

[Marta Rio]

Phaedon wrote...
Could we be overrating ME1's story?

I'll concede that ME1's plot is sort of generic (pursue a bad guy, but wait there's a twist!).  Compared to other sci-fi works it's not the greatest thing out there.  But...we're really just comparing it to ME2.  ME1 was certainly more focused, and for that reason it felt like there was something really at stake.  Every one of the main missions was about accomplishing one epic goal: pursue Saren and stop him from causing all organic life to be exterminated (with the character recruitment folded nicely into that). 

Even if it's fun as heck to play, ME2 lacks focus.  Sure, ostensibly the main goal is: pursue the Collectors and stop them.  But as far as I'm concerned this takes a back seat to the "recruit some dudes and fix their problems" part of the plot, making most of the game a giant distraction from what is supposed to be the main objective. 

I think this is what most people are talking about when they say ME1 has a "better" plot. 

[didymos1120]

leonia42 wrote...
 The only problem was a lack of true resolution and all this Harbinger knowing who Shepard is stuff.

Um, what, they can't monitor the extranet, but they can remotely-control organic slaves thousands of light-years away? 

[Leonia]

The whole Harbinger business confused me to no end.

[Slayer299]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Frankly, I perceive that as an excuse to avoid conceding the main plot was lackluster and riddled with plot-holes and inconsistencies. The stories are entirely divorced from the Collector plot, some having absolutely nothing even remotely relative to the overall development. This is all the more prominent when the main plot resurfaces, the characters that are supposedly the story, are entirely nonexistent. In actuality, they remain nonexistent in virtually every aspect of the game that is not their individual bubble arc.

The Suicide Mission is arguably the only portion of the game when the characters display momentary individualization. When Shepard or EDI mention a plausible means to break through the doors. Jacob is quick to voice his opinion and likewise, Miranda with hers. When Miranda voices her opinion of her being the ideal choice for a leader, Jack and Garrus are vocal in their disagreement; well not Garrus, who only nods along unless Jack is dead.

Unfortunately that is the extent of the exchanges. You have partial dialogue whilst you traverse the Collector Base in regards to the dangers the squad is facing but little else. Due to the nature of this mission, one could theoretically conclude ample discussion is unnecessary but that is frankly the most vocal the squad is with one another devoid of the brief conflict scenes.

In a Mass Effect synopsis I watched, using Ash in the proceeding example. Should you have been involved with her. Shepard is provided the option of saying he could never leave her, to which she responds, "I know, and I'm grateful but... Kaidan died because of me. Because of us." Shepard can than chastise her for being a martyr or comfort her, citing she has nothing to prove.

This is a fantastic demonstration of attaching a separate story arc to the main plot and both characters grow because of it. Once again on the SM. If you chose Tali as a squad leader Miranda mentions how she got her entire team killed on Haestrom and thus brought Tali's recruitment mission arc into the main plot. Why this was such a rarity is absolutely baffling. It is the definition of plot development and not only acknowledges each character is aware of one another but offers their opinion of that character.

As it is Mass Effect 2 is a collection of individualized stories that exist in their own little bubble with the minimalist of exceptions. Garrus' qualms with Sidonis has about as much to do with the Collectors or the Reapers as Final Fantasy VII does with Final Fantasy VIII. (Read: Absolutely nothing)

A character driven story would acknowledge the characters, would attach their plights and blunders to the overarching plot. In spite of Tali's failure as a leader. She is no less able than Miranda according to the game. The death of your Tech Expect is due to a stray rocket, which has no bearing whatsoever on her leader capabilities.There was once again no individualism, no separation.

While I cannot be certain since you admittedly paraphrased, TC. If Casey insinuated we simply did not understand the story. That is partially insulting. I understood everything and thoroughly enjoyed most of the recruitment and loyalty missions. It does not change that in my understanding. I found your main story weak.

Wow! That is a very well thought out, clear and concise piece about ME2 and its char's and I agree with it 110%

edit - fixed, sounded mocking of BE and not meant that way.

Modifié par Slayer299, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Things like The Council overall who were so pushed into the background it wasn't funny. Their appearance at all, survival or not, is completely optional content and whether you chose to save them or not doesn't really seem to change the galaxy much at all. The Alliance themselves, probably the next biggest influence in the original game, are pretty much a non-entity. Your mentor is another optional cameo in ME2 with only one scene and a handful of lines. Your Spectre status is treated terribly, making one of the most poignant and epic moments in the original game feel shallow and utterly meaningless. Kaidan and Ashley are treated to weak, substitute cameos, Wrex doesn't fare much better, and Liara didn't get proper screentime until a DLC. Now everything is about Cerberus and a group of enemies that never even appeared in the first game at all.

RiouHotaru wrote...

And there is a focus on the overarching story.  Does everyone just want to forget Horizon, The Collector Ship, or the Reaper Ship?  Did all these plot-shaking revelations and reveals just slip through the cracks?  Yes, the character missions do take up more screen-time, but that doesn't mean the Reaper plot is completely ignored.

It's not ignored, no. But it does seem secondary and sidelined, and it really shouldn't be. I remember once spending about 10 hours just doing character-related quests and then returned to The Normandy to have Kelly say, "The Illusive Man wants to talk to you" and I suddenly kind of went "Oh, yeah... that guy." The main plot shouldn't fade so much into the background that you can completely forget about it in-game. It also doesn't help that the overall main plot just isn't that good, and that the excellent character-related plots just shine so brightly as to completely obfuscate it.

But they do relate to the main plot.  Why are you gathering them in the first place?  Why do you recruit them and help them put their affairs in order (or not)?  Maybe it's not as MUCH relation to the main plot as you'd like, but there is relation.

Again though, that has little to nothing to do with their own personal stories. All that is is a motivation, it's not actually a plot point for them as such. And because there are so many of them and all but a few have both a recruitment and a loyalty mission that isn't in itself related to what is supposed to be the main plot (except for Mordin), it just diverts attention away from it. Now, I'm not saying every companion should have a personal stake in the mission and somehow be directly linked to The Collectors, because that would be as trite as ME2's story already is unfocussed, but that they just overwhelm the main plot to the point where the primary focus of the game really isn't where it should be. You've essentially got an overkill of sub-plots overwhelming the main one, which would be okay perhaps if they were sidequests, but they're really not.

Well ME2 was meant to be played as a standalone game in addition to a sequel.  So yes, some of "important" things in ME1 were glossed over.  Though I'm curious to hear examples.

Which I believe was one of the biggest mistakes the devs made. The games should have been a true trilogy made primarily for those who planned to go from ME1 all the way to ME3, not a bunch of stand-alone individual games that just happen to be only a trilogy in name and because there are three parts. It was an opportunity to make a truly unique, truly connected game series, but it was wasted because rather than make the trilogy they initially stated they were making BioWare instead decided to simply make three games in a row with a few loose connections. You don't go watching Return of the Jedi or Return of the King without seeing the predecessors and the same should have applied here. BioWare were too concerned with making sure new players could jump into the middle of things rather than making a proper trilogy and the series has suffered for it, IMO.

As for examples, I've given them above already in response to In Exile. ME2 feels far too separated and isolated from the first game to be a true "second part of three" IMO.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 janvier 2011 - 07:31 .

[didymos1120]

PureMethodActor wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

There is simply no option to turn down Tali. Shepard cannot say 'no thanks.'

You can make the attempt.  It's simply futile.

Hmm... interesting. Maybe those people who I've seen complain of Tali ninja-romance on the forums may actually have a point

Umm, we're talking about ME1: no matter what you say, you're required to accept Tali as a squadmember.  Any objection you make just gets overruled and she comes along anyway.

[Nightwriter]

In Exile wrote...

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.

I really should thank you for leading me to that realization, it helped me understand my own impressions a bit more and reach the heart of the matter.

I now see that ME1 failed to be something it never promised to be, and ME2 failed to be something it did promise to be - and that this is the only real difference.

Well, perhaps this is somewhat harsh. When we all heard "it's about the characters", it seems we all expected more of a DA:O experience.

[Bluko]

The problem is as great as the characters were, they really had nothing to do with the story of Mass Effect. Except Mordin and with Legion determining the fate of the Geth. Really everyone was kind of un-needed or optional at best. If the characters actually all had an impact on the game's story maybe you could say the characters were the story. But they don't really.

Frankly ME2's plot is riddled with problems. Most of them have to do with the inclusion of the Collectors. And the whole deal with Cerberus doesn't help matters. They just weren't very well thought out antagonists and the mission structures indicates this as well. The Collectors/Cerberus and what they were trying to do just really felt out of place for where most of us expected the story to go. Rather then actually learn anything new about the Reapers or the Galaxy, we basically just kill lots of bug guys that were Protheans and that are trying to build a human Reaper for what seems to be an ultimately futile purpose.

Modifié par Bluko, 10 janvier 2011 - 08:29 .

[Element_Zero]

*Whew* Where to begin. . . Well when I started reading this post it was litterally 6 pages. . . Then by the time I read to 6 it had already bumpped up to 10. . So I left for awhile. . .

Ok my take. . . I think some of the early posters had made some good points and some bad. . But really all of this is subjective, and based on your preception. Just like my take is based on mine.

I think in one of my prior postings I said the ME 2 story was 'rough' or felt 'rough' at least to me.

I took the ME2 story as a sort of team building exercise, while fighting a smaller elusive enemy who's employ seemed to be the Reapers who were still light years away and trapped outside the galaxy.

I felt the BioWare team did a good job in establishing a character relationship for the most part between Shepard and each Squadmate on face value, they did get each individual squad member's concerns out in front of the player, but it didn't come across in combat very well. I guess what I'm saying is the lack of interaction between squadmates felt like their only tie was to Shepard and not to each other nor did they seem concerned about the mission. (course there were some exceptions.)

During combat I was looking for certain things as well, and to me the AI failed to promote those characters storywise. Sure 'Grunt' charges like other Krogan (and it's a character defining action). . . Kasume had some major skills (which bumped her mobility sky high) as well which defined her too. Yet the others didn't seem to come together, even though they were suppost to be the 'best' in the galaxy. Lack of squad interaction (simple comments between them) during battles and while just walking also didn't promote a sence of team coheasion, at least to me. Add in the fact you had to manage their cover issues, it kinda deflated the story side aspect. I tend to think that the combat side of ME 2 tried to promote their use more, than it did in ME 1.

I felt that the squad should have been able to speak up about some concerns (like some of the other posters have stated.) Yet I also felt they most likely would stay quiet about some things if you went the Renagade route. The Renagade route really dismisses alot of concerns with members of the squad. And I would be willing to say they wouldn't want to 'rock the boat' or even bring up issues with a Shepard protrayed this way,  unless it was something that they felt really strongly about. I also tend to think that with some of the loyality missions if you went a route that had a negative effect on them it would in turn, effect there loyality in someway. And they might want to just get off at the next stop or sabotage the mission in someway before the final event. Like if you had them with you they might try to 'talk' the others out of listening to Shepard or simply walk out on him / her.

I tend to think that the BW team could have reinforced some of Shepard's issues and his / her need to save these colonies by adding in some story elements to that effect. Something like nightmares (with the way the beacon burned the horrors of the Prothenian fall from ME 1) or just more comments here and there promoting the need to gather up these folks for a major fight with the Collectors. Or if they utilized the lone survivor route, war hero, or colonist approach to effectively bring about some reason for Shepard's need to get involved within the ME 2 story. Even if they went the Shepard - death trama route I think it would have helped, they could have left the religion aspect still aside. I guess my take on it, was Shepard is in a sort of state of denial about it, based on his / her comments as the story progresses.

Humpt. . Well I've babbled on long enough about my thoughts on it. . .

Modifié par Element_Zero, 10 janvier 2011 - 09:09 .

[Nightwriter]

Good post, Zero! I especially liked this part:

Element_Zero wrote...

I felt the BioWare team did a good job in establishing a character relationship for the most part between Shepard and each Squadmate on face value, they did get each individual squad member's concerns out in front of the player, but it didn't come across in combat very well. I guess what I'm saying is the lack of interaction between squadmates felt like their only tie was to Shepard and not to each other nor did they seem concerned about the mission. (course there were some exceptions.)

Totally agree there.

Element_Zero wrote...

During combat I was looking for certain things as well, and to me the AI failed to promote those characters storywise. Sure 'Grunt' charges like other Krogan (and it's a character defining action). . . Kasume had some major skills (which bumped her mobility sky high) as well which defined her too. Yet the others though didn't seem to come together though, even though they were suppost to be the 'best' in the galaxy. Lack of squad interaction (simple comments between them) during battles and while just walking also didn't promote a sence of team coheasion, at least to me. Add in the fact you had to manage their cover issues, and for me it kinda deflated the story side aspect. I tend to think that the combat side of ME 2 tried to promote their use more, than it did in ME 1.

This is interesting. I never really asked myself: I'm traveling and fighting with the best; do I feel like I'm traveling and fighting with the best? I guess they could've reinforced its characters story skills more in combat. But it's not a game breaker for me.

Element_Zero wrote...

I felt that the squad should have been able to speak up about some concerns (like some of the other posters have stated.) Yet I also felt they most likely would stay quiet about some things if you went the Renagade route. The Renagade route really dismisses alot of concerns with members of the squad. And I would be willing to say they wouldn't want to 'rock the boat' or even bring up issues with a Shepard protrayed this way,  unless it was something that they felt really strongly about. I also tend to think that with some of the loyality missions if you went a route that had a negative effect on them it would in turn effect there loyality in someway. And they might want to just get off at the next stop or sabotage the mission in someway before the final event. Like if you had them with you they might try to 'talk' the others out of listening to Shepard or simply walk out on him / her.

I tend to think that the BW team could have reinforced some of Shepard's issues and his / her need to save these colonies by adding in some story elements to that effect. Something like nightmares (with the way the beacon burned the horrors of the Prothenian fall from ME 1) or just more comments here and there promoting the need to gather up these folks for a major fight with the Collectors. Or if they utilized the lone survivor route, war hero, or colonist approach to effectively bring about some reason for Shepard's need to get involved within the ME 2 story. Even if they went the Shepard - death trama route I think it would have helped, they could have left the religion aspect still aside. I guess my take on it, was Shepard is in a sort of state of denial about it, based on his / her comments as the story progresses.

Humpt. . Well I've babbled on long enough about my thoughts on it. . .

I am in agreement with all of this also. I'm guessing they didn't include Shepard having nightmares about the beacon visions and such because that would give too much attention to ME1? They really seemed to want to sever the ME2 Shepard from the ME1 Shepard.

[Element_Zero]

@Nightwriter

Who knows. I tend to think the team was a bit overwhelmed by the complexity a bit, sometimes. . But in truth only they know.

Modifié par Element_Zero, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:10 .

[Moiaussi]

Personally I think they were originally going to go in a different direction, with Shepard being recovered and put back together by the Geth, but realized they were trying too hard to be clever and fell back to the collector plot.



Not the kind of thing they would be likely to comment on either way though.

[khevan]

I guess the biggest thing for me was this: ME1 had a good story, but not amazingly so. I thought the presentation of the story was very well done, and the fact that our choices were supposed to affect events in susequent games that really hooked me onto the Mass Effect franchise.

Now, ME1 was supposed to be this epic cinematic experience, and while there were certainly issues with the plot, at least in my opinion, it had enough success at trying to be epically cinematic that I could forgive most of the plot's weaknesses.

ME2 was supposed to be this intense character driven story, about recruiting a squad and getting them ready to (try to) survive a sucicide mission. The characters themselves were at the "outstanding" level, in my opinion. Each recruitment mission fit the characters, and that particular story was well told. The loyalty missions, the same. Each did a great job of expanding that particular character. However, I felt like many other posters in this thread, that once a character was recruited, and the loyalty mission was run, they might as well have not been on the ship for as much relevance to the overall plot they had.

In ME1, the squadmates were only minimally tied to the main plot, but during said main plot the game expanded on their personalities, and they reacted to the story as it was unfolding. Liara at the Benezia fight, Wrex with the genophage issue, Ash/Kaiden either dying or reacting to the other's death. That reaction changed if you were actively pursuing the survivor as a LI.

You can argue (and probably quite successfully) that ME2 had more character development per squadmate, by way of the loyalty missions, and as I said earlier, the loyalty missions were well done. The problem is that they're too self contained. There's no connection between the loyalty mission and the main plot of the game except a flag that makes it easier for them to survive the SM. But not in any sensical way, not because of some plot thing, but same exact situations, everything happens the same way, except someone dies if they're loyal and they live if they're not. Makes no real sense to me.

It basically boils down to this:

ME1 didn't do great with the characters, but it did enough considering the game it was intended to be.

ME2 did a bit more with the characters than ME1 did, but in a manner that left much to be desired, and considering the type of game ME2 was touted to be, it didn't do nearly enough with the squadmates in terms of development.

That's my main beef with ME2. I loved the game, I've been playing it steadily for the last year (and will probably play it thru at least 3-4 more times before ME3 comes out), but it certainly had its flaws, and I hope Bioware corrects some of them for ME3.

Edit: formatting (dang default double space between paragraphs...)

Modifié par khevan, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:33 .

[Kusy]

This is a really good thread as it defines what I disliked about this game. No, the characters were not the story.

As I see it, you could compare Mass Effect to a book while Mass Effect 2 was a set of well writen but short and not connected in any way novelettes. As for combat... well it all got down to skills. I couldn't notice too much of a reall diffrence between characters - from the basic ones (no dlc) only Grunt was well desinged combatwise - you could recognise him, other characters were just the same running around soldier with diffrent skills. I'm not entirely sure if it was any other way around in the first installment, but even if it was - it wasn't that visible.

Game had awesome and well made side missions. But no mather how many side missions you pump into a tile - it won't work as a substitute to a well writen, clear and well desinged main objective.

But I think I can see what they are trying to achive with this... hopefully I'm somewhat right. Mass Effect 1 did a well job in both - introducing a threat to the galaxy and showing us awesome characters like Wrex, Garrus, Tali, Liara, Keydash and others. Mass Effect 2 expanded the cast and made it feel more real (to some extent at least). Third should concentrate on the story itself so everyone can reach one great synchronised storytelling orgasm.

The one thing that can doom the wole series is ME3 having a reset button for newcomers. Reseting the story like in ME2 would kill the game in my opinion. Making ME2 more apealing to new players was a mistake from the begining.

Moiaussi wrote...

Personally I think they were originally going to go in a different direction, with Shepard being recovered and put back together by the Geth, but realized they were trying too hard to be clever and fell back to the collector plot.

Not the kind of thing they would be likely to comment on either way though.

I remember of hearing about this one interview with a writer. The "tutorial" was suposed to be played with Liara and Legion, and instead of Shepard waking in a Cerberus facility - the first mission was about Legion and Liara rescuing him... a bit like in that comic. But it was changed in one of the final stages of development. Still - don't quote me on that. Might be a rumor as well.

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:44 .

[Big I]

I would have bought that "the characters WERE the story" if it hadn't been possible to get them killed in the Suicide  Mission.


Because it's the second part of a trilogy, you'd expect plot elements (the characters in this case) to carry over to ME3 and help resolve the overarching story. To use a Star Wars analogy, ESB gave us Luke's struggle against the dark side as personified by his father, Han frozen in carbonite, and the Emperor, all elements we saw play out in RotJ. So, if ME2 had been about recruiting 12 badasses, and in ME3 we used those badassess to take out the ME1 badguys the Reapers, then it would make sense.


Unfortunately this doesn't work because they can all die. Because games only work (and sell) if you can beat them, it must therefore be possible to beat ME3 after importing a save where only Morinth and Kasumi are alive.  That means you Bioware can't make a story dependent on say Garrus rallying the turians or Mordin curing the genophage. It would be hugely unsatisfying to anyone who let them be killed.


I loved ME2, especially the characters. I just think that having the possibility of killing off everyone the game is actually about makes it a little disconnected from the rest of the series.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Terror_K wrote...

Well ME2 was meant to be played as a standalone game in addition to a sequel.  So yes, some of "important" things in ME1 were glossed over.  Though I'm curious to hear examples.

Which I believe was one of the biggest mistakes the devs made. The games should have been a true trilogy made primarily for those who planned to go from ME1 all the way to ME3, not a bunch of stand-alone individual games that just happen to be only a trilogy in name and because there are three parts. It was an opportunity to make a truly unique, truly connected game series, but it was wasted because rather than make the trilogy they initially stated they were making BioWare instead decided to simply make three games in a row with a few loose connections. You don't go watching Return of the Jedi or Return of the King without seeing the predecessors and the same should have applied here. BioWare were too concerned with making sure new players could jump into the middle of things rather than making a proper trilogy and the series has suffered for it, IMO.

As for examples, I've given them above already in response to In Exile. ME2 feels far too separated and isolated from the first game to be a true "second part of three" IMO.

Just voicing my agreement with this.

BioWare quite literally contradicted the very defining feature of Mass Effect with this standalone nonsense. Apparently ME3 will be standalone as well. I don't know what to think anymore, but who with their brain in the right place would start with ME3? ME2, I can understand and swallow it with some water, but ME3? Starting with ME3? Really?! I don't know why the developers even bother thinking of it that way.