672 réponses à ce sujet

[Kusy]

^ This

(now you have to see what's on the previous page lol)

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:46 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

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: [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

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.

I know quoting yourself is in bad taste, but I felt it was appropriate here for emphasis.

Modifié par BiancoAngelo7, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:54 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

^ LOL!

The fact of the matter is, Mass Effect might as well have been two parts: ME1 and ME3. As it stands, ME2 is nothing short of mere filler until ME3 comes along. This is, of course, excluding the awesome sauce that is LOTSB, which is essentially what ME2 should have been from the get-go.

Period.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:00 .

[Ryzaki]

In Exile wrote...

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.

That's...a really weird bug.

Jeez that sucks my favorite one is to let the savages rip him apart.

[InvaderErl]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

^ LOL!

The fact of the matter is, Mass Effect might as well have been two parts: ME1 and ME3. As it stands, ME2 is nothing short of mere filler until ME3 comes along. This is, of course, excluding the awesome sauce that is LOTSB, which is essentially what ME2 should have been from the get-go.

Period.

ME3 will draw more on ME2 than ME1.

The Quarian/Geth conflict escalating, Harbinger, Liara becoming the Shadowbroker, Dark Energy, the Reaper reproduction cycle, Shepard becoming a freelancer, the Krogan and Genophage situation and others were more or less were all introduced in 2 and you can be sure they'll play a major part in 3.

In this manner it follows the Original Star Wars trilogy in that RoTJ had more to do with Empire Strikes Back than A New Hope.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:37 .

[Aeowyn]

But the question still remains. If ME2 was about the characters, and all of those characters have a chance to be reduced to cameos in ME3, then what the hell was the point of "team building" in ME2 if you have to do it all over again ME3?

[InvaderErl]

As I don't have ME3 in front of me I have no idea what the team situation is so I obviously can't comment on it. Neither can anyone at this point.  Regardless, as I just pointed out ME2 sets up far more plotlines for ME3 to explore than ME1 does.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:49 .

[Rykoth]

Comparing ME1 to ME2 in terms of story is apples to oranges.
Or as I posted in a different thread... comparing a movie plot to a television plot.

ME1 is one big sweeping story. Side missions aside.... we start wih Eden Prime, and then its a race against time. Sounds like a movie. A big blockbluster movie, with some character development.

I hate to say it, but the ONLY characters that get sufficient character development throughout ME1 are the love interests. Wrex? He gets a brief moment in Virmire. Tali and Garrus? Yeah okay, so through dialogue on the Normandy, its easy to mold the Turian's behavior. And sure, Tali gets to talk on and on about her rite of passage. But ultimately? Most of the "character development" with the squad is reserved to the two human squad mates, and the Asari.

Tali, Wrex, Garrus? They are underused in ME1. Big time when it comes to stuff like the debriefing (which is one of the better parts of ME1, post mission debriefings.) Sure, on main missions they get vocal, but that also goes for ME2.

In ME2, the "problem" is there's a ton of squad mates. So, you know what happens? Someone or a few someones likely get underused. Case in point, my latest ME2 playthrough. I never used Jack, I never used Samara, and I rarely used Thane. Everyone else got alot of attention.

I will agree, that loyalty missions are odd without dialogue from the third companion, BUT...

That's not a game breaker. Hell, in ME1, if not for the debriefing scenes, we wouldn't have much character interaction.

All they need to do is to take the best of both games and put them in ME3.

[Terror_K]

Aeowyn wrote...

But the question still remains. If ME2 was about the characters, and all of those characters have a chance to be reduced to cameos in ME3, then what the hell was the point of "team building" in ME2 if you have to do it all over again ME3?

That's why I'm kind of hoping squaddies take kind of a back-seat in ME3 when it comes to narrative and the story of the main game, simply because there's likely a greater chance of seeing old faces again in your squad if that's the case. That way BioWare can give us lots of varied dialogue and variations without the repercussions of "who lived, who died?" messing with the overall plot of the third game. If each companion maybe has just one side-quest related to them specifically and beyond that just some quest-related and Normandy dialogue and doesn't impact too much on the main plot beyond being a squaddie, then  it shouldn't be difficult to actually have them as proper squaddies and not just cameos.

Perhaps a few new squaddies get a little more plot-related meat and some extra dialogue since their presence isn't determined as much by previous actions from the other games and we haven't learned as much about them as we have those we already know, but that should be about it. It also ups the chance of fan-favourites who may have died such as Shiala, Captain Kirrahe, Kal'Reegar, etc. being squaddies, since they have about as much chance of being in that role as pretty much anybody bar the Virmire Survivor and maybe Liara (though I doubt she will be a squaddie given LotSB).

[Bourne Endeavor]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

^ LOL!

The fact of the matter is, Mass Effect might as well have been two parts: ME1 and ME3. As it stands, ME2 is nothing short of mere filler until ME3 comes along. This is, of course, excluding the awesome sauce that is LOTSB, which is essentially what ME2 should have been from the get-go.

Period.

Ironic, you should mention this because I have often pondered if following the completion of ME. Bioware realized they simply did not have enough content for a trilogy however they had already announced one. Thus, to compensate they stretched what was two and half games into three.

[In Exile]

Moiaussi wrote...
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.

They are plot holes becase they are incoherent unjustified implications (and possible contradictions) within ME1 lore by itself.

Shepard is seen as a stark-raving, frothing at the mout lutantic the entire game by everyone not named Anderson whenever it comes to the reapears. Then, with no new evidence whatsoever, they start to take him at his word. That's a completely unjustified 180. The Council (and Udina) never have proof that Sovereign is an actual repear. They just have proof that Saren attacked the Citadel with his massive geth warfleet and supership.

We also know that the entire turian, asari and salarian political and industrial base is completely unharmed. The council is dead, and the council fleet is broken, but these are not the political leaders of each species and the council fleet is not their entire military might.

So humanity taking over in ME2, like was suggested by the Council is dead endings (whether leading heroically or by force) is silly. That ME2 takes the Council as being dead as Always Human Powergrab is a good move, because regardless of Shepard's motives it makes sense for the move to be perceived that way.

I use the word plot hole because, relative to only things we know in ME1, both endings in ME1 are plot holes.

Modifié par In Exile, 10 janvier 2011 - 12:23 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

But that isn't the case at all. There many references to the different political situation between the Council being dead and alive. Human is percevied differently (e.g. weapon shop turian) and there are lots of breakaway points (like the turians arming for war instead of making inroads for reparations after Shanxi).

I suppose your complaint is that ME2 does not keep Shepard as a Council Spectre, and I agree that the Cerberus deal is entirely out of left field. But the Council wasn't at all central to ME1, either. Aside from meeting with them three times, every other encounter with them is optional.

The Alliance themselves, probably the next biggest influence in the original game, are pretty much a non-entity.

Yes, the Cerberus deal is just out of left field, I completely agree. Don't know why Bioware wanted that particular retcon.

Your mentor is another optional cameo in ME2 with only one scene and a handful of lines.

Anderson was not a big or important part of ME1 at all.

Your Spectre status is treated terribly, making one of the most poignant and epic moments in the original game feel shallow and utterly meaningless.

You mean, ''Shepard: Here's some evidence that is easy to fake on 20th century Earth, totally take our word for it that it proves exactly what we want'' ''Council: Lolz omg, terrified dockworker is not good enough proof, but audio-recording totally is, Shepard u SPECTRE now.''

If by epic and poignant, you mean as incoherent as Shepard's rants during the first council meeting, then sure.

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.

The Kaiden/Ashley thing was a wtf, I agree. Wrex got a good deal, though. Potentially dead companion as a totally different story path on his own world? 

With regard to the Collectors - sure, it's about an enemy we never heard of, but there was no enemy to take up in ME2 short of the reapers invading that would provide continuity with ME1. Unless you wanted the geth to remain cut-out anatagonists?

I agree with you re: the Cerberus switch and all of the incoherence that follows (the marginalization of the Alliance, Kaiden/Ashley wtf) and the Collectors were executed poorly... but everything else  I just don't see.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

I have to admit that the "plot hole blah blah discussion" about ME2 I find completely onerous on the part of fans.

I admit to thinking that if you are not actually getting a piece of paper certifying your study (in some literary or sociological way) about the "plot hole ins and outs" then you'all probably just need to go spend your time doing something more meaningful and useful.... rather than twisting the whisker over the nuances of "this and that" and "so and so plot failings"

The star wars fans and star trek fans probably did it aswell, but I dare say its one of the lesser nerd crafts around.

So, to answer the OP: I liked ME2 and most people regard it as one of the top ten games of 2010. And yes, for me: the characters were the story and they were internally coherent for the most part and made plenty of sense despite (what I'm told) is gaping plot holes.

Leave it at that?

[Fiery Phoenix]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

^ LOL!

The fact of the matter is, Mass Effect might as well have been two parts: ME1 and ME3. As it stands, ME2 is nothing short of mere filler until ME3 comes along. This is, of course, excluding the awesome sauce that is LOTSB, which is essentially what ME2 should have been from the get-go.

Period.

Ironic, you should mention this because I have often pondered if following the completion of ME. Bioware realized they simply did not have enough content for a trilogy however they had already announced one. Thus, to compensate they stretched what was two and half games into three.

That's what I'm supposing it is right now, because as mentioned above, BioWare may have it all planned out from the beginning, and they know exactly what ME2 has and has not done.

In other words, ME3 will "complete" ME2. But again, that's being optimistic. I certainly hope it's the case regardless, since this is practically the only way to justify ME2 as it currently appears from a story perspective.

EDIT: JohnnyBeGood, no one here is denying that ME2 is one hell of a game. It only fails to live up to its name as a sequel to that epic space opera called Mass Effect. That is to say, ME2 is a great game through and through, but not so much as a sequel.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 10 janvier 2011 - 12:40 .

[In Exile]

Nightwriter wrote...
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.

I thought we did get something like DA:O. An interesting and dissapointing main story with little attraction or relevance to the main body of the game (collecting the army), and isolated and otherwise unconnected adventures that do more to flesh out the world than provide any kind of coherent hook.

DA:O had some more party banter, but I do not feel 4-5 smart-ass comments between party members as they travel with you are the difference between well-executed characters or not.

For ME2 to provide the kind of thing you wanted (dramatic interparty drama), you'd wind up with combinatorial explosion. We'd need 1/2 the party to even make any sort of thing like that feasible. I agree with you that ME2 should have gone that route if ''the characters were the story'' (which I still maintain is a post-hoc BSG justification), but I don't think the designers ever really considered that. 

You'll find that I'm a harsh critic, though. It's not that I think the ME2 story is that great, just that ME1 wasn't either, and I do feel that ME2 improved on ME1 in several respects. I just always point out criticisms of the previous title when discussing the current one.

Once we move to ME3, you'll get to see my ''the writers have to idea wtf Paragon/Renegade means'' rants.

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

But that isn't the case at all. There many references to the different political situation between the Council being dead and alive. Human is percevied differently (e.g. weapon shop turian) and there are lots of breakaway points (like the turians arming for war instead of making inroads for reparations after Shanxi).

Aside from some news reports and  an overall different feeling on The Citadel (which I actually admit was fairly well done) you don't really see that much difference at all though. Everywhere else everybody is in the same places doing the same things in either case, and it's all cheaply swept under the rug with a throwaway line from Jacob early in the game as if the writers knew it was a half-assed job and were trying to explain it away and get away with it by acknowledging it. Admittedly we're more in The Terminus Systems than we are in Council Space, but unless there are massive differences in ME3 I just don't see any real impact on your final ME1 decision of The Council on the Mass Effect universe, and it really should have made a big difference.

I suppose your complaint is that ME2 does not keep Shepard as a Council Spectre, and I agree that the Cerberus deal is entirely out of left field. But the Council wasn't at all central to ME1, either. Aside from meeting with them three times, every other encounter with them is optional.

You're kidding, right? The entire first game is you serving The Council. That's what Spectres do. They're a major part of the first section of the game before you can even leave The Citadel and a constant presence throughout the rest. Even you simply being a Spectre is a direct and constant reminder of their presence and influence. They're basically your bosses in ME1, just like how TIM basically is in ME2. On top of that you've got that whole tension of "do I serve The Council or The Alliance first and foremost?" They're just as important to ME1 as TIM is to ME2.

In fact, I actually wish I had as many opportunities to ignore, insult and cut off TIM in ME2 as I did with The Council in ME1.

Anderson was not a big or important part of ME1 at all.

Yes he was. He dominated the first sections of the game, had a previous history with the main antagonist, is pretty much Shepard's mentor and father-figure, as well as his whole "almost the furst human Spectre" angle, the fact that he's the only one who really sticks up for Shepard and believes in him/her, and finally plays a major role in your escape after Lockdown. In ME2 he's a shadow of what he was in ME1.

You mean, ''Shepard: Here's some evidence that is easy to fake on 20th century Earth, totally take our word for it that it proves exactly what we want'' ''Council: Lolz omg, terrified dockworker is not good enough proof, but audio-recording totally is, Shepard u SPECTRE now.''

If by epic and poignant, you mean as incoherent as Shepard's rants during the first council meeting, then sure.

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it, the actual transition to Spectre is one of the most defining moments in the original game. It's a key moment for Shepard that changes him/her forever and defines him/her throughout the rest of the game. In ME2 it's treated like a cheap prize found in the bottom of a cereal box.

Modifié par Terror_K, 10 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[Raizo]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

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: ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png

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.

I know quoting yourself is in bad taste, but I felt it was appropriate here for emphasis.

My God that's brilliant and so true. If Casey Hudson or anyone else at Bioware does not get this than I pitty them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

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.

You know what would have been an excellent occassion to put in a nightmare scene which could also reflect back on ME1?

Right before Shepard wakes up on Lazarus station.

Not just the prothean flashback, but intermingled with the critical story elements of ME1: in between the scenes and sounds of synthetic horror, flashes, voice-clips, telling images reflecting the ME1 game choices: glimpse of the beacon to start, flashes of the teammates, a image/sound clip appropriate to the Wrex Virmire decision, a piece on the Virmire-death, culminating in the climax of Saren, the Council decision, Sovereign, and the whole end of the Beacon vision. Everything mixed in, chaotic, jumbled. Context for those who haven't played, familiarization for those who have.

And then Shepard is woken up by Miranda.

[Kusy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

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.

You know what would have been an excellent occassion to put in a nightmare scene which could also reflect back on ME1?

Right before Shepard wakes up on Lazarus station.

Not just the prothean flashback, but intermingled with the critical story elements of ME1: in between the scenes and sounds of synthetic horror, flashes, voice-clips, telling images reflecting the ME1 game choices: glimpse of the beacon to start, flashes of the teammates, a image/sound clip appropriate to the Wrex Virmire decision, a piece on the Virmire-death, culminating in the climax of Saren, the Council decision, Sovereign, and the whole end of the Beacon vision. Everything mixed in, chaotic, jumbled. Context for those who haven't played, familiarization for those who have.

And then Shepard is woken up by Miranda.

And this is why game developers should hire people out from the street... so to speak.

[Mister Mida]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You know what would have been an excellent occassion to put in a nightmare scene which could also reflect back on ME1?

Right before Shepard wakes up on Lazarus station.

Not just the prothean flashback, but intermingled with the critical story elements of ME1: in between the scenes and sounds of synthetic horror, flashes, voice-clips, telling images reflecting the ME1 game choices: glimpse of the beacon to start, flashes of the teammates, a image/sound clip appropriate to the Wrex Virmire decision, a piece on the Virmire-death, culminating in the climax of Saren, the Council decision, Sovereign, and the whole end of the Beacon vision. Everything mixed in, chaotic, jumbled. Context for those who haven't played, familiarization for those who have.

And then Shepard is woken up by Miranda.

Good idea, but alas too late.

[Reiella]

TMA LIVE wrote...

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.

Quite, the characters are a big part of the story, but they are each a bunch of short-stories, set in a really annoying frame-story.

[Pacifien]

Not that it actually adds much to the discussion, but I'm looking at the 2009 E3 Reveal Trailer where Preston Watamaniuk says quite specifically "the squadmates are the focus of the game." Eventually I'll find the video where another developer mentions they were deliberately taking a risk with the focus of their game.

[glacier1701]

Nightwriter wrote...

....snip.....
You know I don't like what they did with ME2 anymore than you do. But I've always maintained that that's only my subjective opinion. How can I expect BioWare to objectively apologize for something I subjectively perceived? Much as it confounds me, there are people out there who were happy with ME2, and my opinion isn't any better than theirs. You can only apologize to a room that is unanimously unhappy. The ME fanbase isn't.

 

 There is a lot of truth to the fact that opinions we have are subjective and not objective yet this also means that the developers opinions of the game are also subjective. Being told that ME2 by them is a good game is ONLY their opinion. By now most of us are not willing to take that on faith due to the way we view advertising in general. Does it not strike you as being logical that if a lot of people state that they are finding a problem with parts of your game that there is indeed a problem? While each individual is voicing a subjective opinion the fact that so many are voicing the same one means that the problem is objective and needs to be addressed. Yet Casey dismisses the problem with a casual well the players are not playing the game right. This hardly shows any understanding of what the problem is, why people believe its a problem nor of a willingness to listen to others whose opinions differ from your own. It also does not bode well for future 'changes' to ME3 and perhaps explains why we got what we did in ME2. 
 

Nightwriter wrote...
It sounds like what I am getting is:
"Mr. Hudson, we did understand your game. We realize you intended us to think that the characters were the story. However, we did not feel that this really came across as being the case. Character involvement in the story is achieved through dialogue, discussion, emotional investment, and interaction. Your characters provided none of these things beyond the narrow scope of their own loyalty missions, which is disappointing."
That about right?

 I dont think I could have expressed it any better.

 

[glacier1701]

Pacifien wrote...

Not that it actually adds much to the discussion, but I'm looking at the 2009 E3 Reveal Trailer where Preston Watamaniuk says quite specifically "the squadmates are the focus of the game." Eventually I'll find the video where another developer mentions they were deliberately taking a risk with the focus of their game.

 As I recall it was Casey who said that in an interview after the release of ME2 and when the first bits of fan feedback about the characters was starting to become negative after the intitial OMG great game rush on the boards. It was also an interview with one of the online game sites but for the life of me I cant recall which one.

[Pacifien]

Actually, the video I'm thinking about I believe predates the release of ME2 and it wasn't Casey Hudson. Dammit, now I have to devote time to finding it.