Aller au contenu

Photo

"The characters WERE the story."


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
672 réponses à ce sujet

#576
SithLordExarKun

SithLordExarKun
  • Members
  • 2 071 messages

Moiaussi wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Im surprised none of you are acclaimed writers.


Pretty sure there is more criticism for ME2's writing than acclaim, at least on these boards. Yet ME1 there was a lot of acclaim for.

If as consumers, we are not allowed to be critical of what we watch or read, then I would like the royalty cheques for my posts here. Personally I think they are fantastic, and that you in particular should be entertained immensely and sending me scads of cash.

Strangely, I suspect you don't consider my posts worthy of such acclaim.

Strangely, we don't consider ME2's writing worthy of much acclaim either. I will concede that it is better than my posts, but that is not saying much :)

Strangely the criticism for ME2's writing comes from an incredibly small minority =]

It has alot of  flaws, but since when ME1 was a perfect story as some fanatics claim it to be? Would i say the story in ME1 is better than ME2? Partly yes and no because noveria and feros part of ME1 was horribly boring and incredibly draggy, i only got interested with the story after interacting with Sovereign and that lasted really short.

I did like the episodic feel to ME2 more so than the full structred story in ME1, but eh thats just me.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 14 janvier 2011 - 12:06 .


#577
Arijharn

Arijharn
  • Members
  • 2 850 messages
 In terms of squad interaction amongst each other, I think rather ironically that Jacob's loyalty is the best example, specifically when you run into the woman-only village and the person other than Jacob talks with you in 'length' about it, and post op too where Jacob is grilling the Illusive Man.

In terms of the OP's question though, I thought generally the characters were interesting but too static, I also think with the exception of the Lair of the Shadow Broker, the character of Shephard him/herself is ignored way too much. I liked it when in the first game Shephard slumps by his locker in frustration or whatever... I like the humanizing elements of this scene and I liked the promise of Shephard's interactions with Liara after the Shadow Broker as well.

#578
didymos1120

didymos1120
  • Members
  • 14 580 messages

Moiaussi wrote...


Pretty sure there is more criticism for ME2's writing than acclaim, at least on these boards. Yet ME1 there was a lot of acclaim for.


Have you read the old boards? 

#579
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages
Haven't been on here for ages...



Bourne Endeavor wrote...

I am going to say this one more time. Everything I am discussing is for character development in the main plot, interaction, or dialogue during the main plot.


And suddenly, Mass Effect 2 is considered a recruitment game but the character plot is not considered as 'main'. Interesting. No, you can't criticize a game for having a 'poor plot', because it has an apparently 'poor character development', in 5 missions out of the 25 missions the game has. These 20 or so missions, exist solely for character development. Dismissing them because they are not the 'main plot' is false, unless I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The other angle of my debate is squad banter and acknowledgment of their existence when playing the third wheel role or again during the main plot. This seemingly eludes you in virtually every post. I never once claimed ME had superior character development as whole. What I did claim was it was superior during the main plot. Virmire was mentioned for this precise reason. Wrex reacts based on the main plot, Ashley reacts to Wrex’s hostility, and Kaidan, Garrus, Tali and Liara all have dialogue about the eventual results.


Since 5% of the plot is considered as the main, I have to ask you... How did you jump from 'there is not enough banter in 5/20 missions' to 'character development is poor' and then to 'the game's story was poor'. I can understand the reasoning behind the last two stages, but otherwise I just don't get it.

#580
glacier1701

glacier1701
  • Members
  • 870 messages
I'll remind everyone that the purpose of this thread is do you believe that the statement made by Casey Hudson 'The characters were the story' is justified? It is not about which is better ME1 or ME2. To answer that question some digression IS ok but becoming snarky with comments about others being RPG elitists or ME fanboys or whatever IS not the point of the thread and could lead to it being locked. For the most part most people posting have been VERY, VERY civil to each while disagreeing vehemently with what is being said. Keep to the point and make you point without the use of inappropriate language.

#581
DarthCaine

DarthCaine
  • Members
  • 7 175 messages

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story.

No it doesn't. It got tons of Best Story awards in both critics and fans awards.

#582
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 766 messages

iakus wrote...
Shepard does indeed have an impressive resume.  "But bringing back from the dead"-worthy?  "Spending as much as an army of mercs" and "a brand new warship" worthy? 


Shepard in Mass Effect showed that he was able to fight through a Geth army singlehandedly. This, along with everything else he does in Mass Effect, already stretches beyond the bounds of 'mere mortal'. I don't think an army of mercs could have accomplished in any manner what Shepard achieved in Mass Effect by himself. I would certainly say this makes him resurrection worthy. He has a proper motivation, he understands the full scope of the threat, he has exceptional ability, has dealt with the enemy previously, and has saved the galaxy through his own personal inititiative. I would say this is certainly enough for resurrection to be a worthy effort.

I don't know many other individuals who make claims to these kinds of feats in Mass Effect's history. I don't recall hearing about any exceptional krogan who single handedly killed 100 rachni, or Turians who fought through armies of Krogans. Shepard already performs super human feats without taking into account Mass Effect 2. The reason why he seems less like a 'super hero' is that most of these feats occur throughout Mass Effect, barring your service history. But by the game's end? No, he does not strike me as only  'exceptional marine' material. Even an exceptional marine could not have waded through a geth army so easily.

For a symbol?  A symbol now seen as a crackpot, if not an outright traitor?  You say yourself later, Shepard is now a stranger to the galaxy.  What us is he/she as a symbol? 


Shepard is a stranger by virtue of being dead for two years. "What is Anderson up to? Where are the Geth?" He probably couldn't answer most of these questions. Which he means he doesn't have a full grasp of the situation when he wakes up.

Yet he still hasn't been forgotten by the galaxy, more like set aside. He is ultimately a figure behind which people can rally (and have) in the past. Hence, the whole image as the Alliance 'poster boy'. Again, as Jacob says Shepard was the human ideal. Not simply an 'exceptional human'. He was looked on as the definition of everything a human aspired to be, which is right up Illusive Man's alley.

Given the timing of the revelation, I find it very highly relevent.  This is the point where the Illusive Man is trying to win Shepard's trust.  Cerberus is, after all a terrorist organization.  Shepard is likely to have run across several of their projects in ME 1, and reacted violently to them.  Shepard may in fact have been a victim in one of their little experiemtns on Akuze.  This is not the time for handwaving.  This is the time for TIM to lay cards on the table, or tell a convincing lie.  Or both.  Anything less is an obvious attempt to push Shepard's buttons.  Itmakes Shepard look foolish and credulous


I think offering to pay for Shepard's crew, a brand new Normandy, and most other expenses goes a long way to gaining Shepard's trust. Not to mention resurrection. The point is that why TIM believes Shepard is irrelevant to the entire function of the story. Shepard doesn't care why TIM believes him any more than he cares why the Council believes him; all he wants is action from these galactic players. If TIM says "Oh, I saw the video feed of Sovereign attacking the Citadel and decided to help you", then great! Shepard has his resources. If TIM says "Oh, the evidence is there, buried where most can't find it, but I still want to help you", (which he does say) then still great! Shepard has his resources. Laying the cards on the table is about proving to Shepard that TIM is willing to provide aid, which he does.

The lack of a control chip also is a significant investment on this front. If TIM didn't care about trust, he could have simply placed the chip and forced you to aid him, which he didn't. Clearly, he thinks there is some kind of advantage to Shepard aiding of his own volition. And he also straight up tells Shepard "If you don't believe me after Freedom's Progress, you can walk away".  Regardless, TIM picks you up where everyone else merely laid you aside.

It can't be a coincidence that the writers chose the Collectors to be Protheans repurposed.  Any other race could have been made up.  Even a variation of Keepers would have made sense.  But they chose Protheans,  I don't have to tell you that Protheans hold a special place in the ME universe.  They were the last race to fight the Reapers.  They were the creators of the Conduit, the beacons, Vigil, and had a galaxy-wide empire.  It's largely because of them that this cycle has gone off the rails.  Heck the Hanar worship them.  To see such a people, who were once the pinnacle of civilization in the galaxy, fall so far, if that doesn't mean something, it should.  Both Shepard and any squadmate brought with should react with horror and revulsion.  EIther becasue this is the remains of he people other civilizations strive to be like, or fear that this may be their future


Well, your squad mates do actually remark on your bolded statement. But regardless, it could not have been anyone but the Protheans or a Keeper variant. The reason why EDI is even able to determine the original race is because she was able to compare it to DNA sequences of actual protheans in her data banks. She had no such faculty available for some 'invented race' as she would have had for Protheans or keepers. I'm still confused though why you should think that anything has changed as far as the Protheans 'falling so far'.  As of Mass Effect, we were under the impression that the Protheans were all dead, although the Collectors were hinted at by Vigil by the reference to 'Reaper agents'. The fate of the Protheans should not have meant any more than it previously did when we thought they were exterminated.

I'm not saying that Shepard working for Cerberus wasn't inevitable, or even a bad move, story-wise.  What I'm saying is the process was done backwards.  Shepard had not had an oportunity to see just how bad things had gotten with the Alliance or the CItadel.  In fact, before encountering Tali on Freedom's Progress, Shepard doesn't speak to any nonCerberus personel.  He doesn't try to verify that anything TIM said is true, aside from the fact that, yes, at least one colony seems to have disappeared. 

Shepard clearly forgot the old saying: "Trust everybody, but cut the cards"


What I'm saying is that Shepard joining Cerberus was not done backwards. What TIM tells you regarding the Alliance/Council is no different than what we are told in the prologue. Again, how could the situation with the Council have gotten any better in the time since Shepard's been gone? He was the leading proponent of the Reaper theory, he was the one sent to discover more proof regarding the Reapers. And then he died. For two years. That doesn't exactly do brownie points for his investigation. Going back to the Alliance/Council would lead back to the same point : "Hey, we need proof before we help you" which Shepard already knows, only now everyone's forgotten about the Reapers so they don't want these theories brought up again.
 
Cerberus doesn't require that he go scavenging through Prothean ruins to find potential Reaper evidence.  
They skip that entire first step and basically say "Hey, we believe you, if you "trust" us, then we can help you" and that's really all Shepard needs.  So he can either go digging through old ruins, scavenge for shreds of evidence, or he can actually take TIM's offer and do something.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 janvier 2011 - 02:47 .


#583
Fixers0

Fixers0
  • Members
  • 4 434 messages

DarthCaine wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story.

No it doesn't. It got tons of Best Story awards in both critics and fans awards.


Of course, Mass effect has a story that works, but their is a difference between plot and story, and the plot doesn't work.

If Mass effect 2 is all about the Characters them why is it called  Mass effect 2? does game even has something to do with the reaper plot.

#584
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

glacier1701 wrote...

I'll remind everyone that the purpose of this thread is do you believe that the statement made by Casey Hudson 'The characters were the story' is justified? It is not about which is better ME1 or ME2. To answer that question some digression IS ok but becoming snarky with comments about others being RPG elitists or ME fanboys or whatever IS not the point of the thread and could lead to it being locked. For the most part most people posting have been VERY, VERY civil to each while disagreeing vehemently with what is being said. Keep to the point and make you point without the use of inappropriate language.

Justified? I won't say that I didn't like ME2's Reaper storyline at all, but the character storylines I liked a lot. So, yes, in this way, the characters 'are' the story. It doesn't mean that they are the main focus of the plot, but quality-wise, it's why the plot was so good, imo.

#585
Lewie

Lewie
  • Members
  • 963 messages


The characters were at the forefront but aside from the collectors and what you find out i found a lot of story behind, which is why i pause for thought still at decisions Shepard has to make. 2 showed me theres a lot more going on with the alliance than i realised, why did the batarians want to nuke an alliance spaceport and the city?, the various mercenary groups was a big part of it. These things are not canon plot obviously but open your thinking into whats going on around you. I cant criticise the writers because their writing of the characters was excellent in 2 and the plot in 1 was excellent also, i just hope for more for Shepards owns character. Arijharn made the point well about humanising him, seeing him frustrated at whats happening, touches like that make a big difference. The loyalty missions really opened up the characters i think a plot for Shepard would work really well.

#586
frylock23

frylock23
  • Members
  • 3 037 messages
To me, ME2 suffers from a lack of editing and some missed opportunies.

I think we had way too many squad members.  Every critical role that needs to be filled in the SM has an "heir and a spare" so to speak.  And if by some weird circumstance you happen to not recruit either of the two suited to fill those roles (Tali/Legion or Samara/Jack), you can get someone else on the team to do the task albeit with casualties.

Additionally, you are recruiting a team of specialists who will mostly be just so much additional firepower at the end.  Only one of the characters has any real importance to the overall mission, and Mordin's important bit happens simply because you drop him off in the Normandy's science lab.  There isn't any way to play through his discovery; it just happens.  None of the others have any important role to play in the overarching storyline plot.  For example, you recruit the best assassin in the known galaxy, but you don't use his assassin skills.  He's just an extra hired gun.  The specialists you do use - tech expert and biotic - both have redundancies in your recruiting, so unless you skip the extra, you will have one tech expert and one biotic who are just extra hired guns.  And then, you have your extra hired guns.

IMO, they should have edited the number of characters available for recruitment.  By cutting the available number of characters, they could have increased the importance of the remaining characters by both extending their personal stories and making them critical to the overall storyline plot in one way or another.  Every character in a good story has a role to play, and in ME2 many of our characters are simply along for the ride when it comes to the main plot.  Where is the small bit that only Grunt could do?  Why don't we have a bit that only Thane can do?  By editing down the number of characters they could have spent that time building the characters into the overall plot along with adding more squad interation and better character stories that extended beyond one loyalty mission into more convos on the ship or perhaps more complicated loyalty scenarios involving more than simply wiping out a bunch of mercs/geth/etc.

I also think the game suffers from an enemy that just isn't that menacing.  The Collectors themselves have no character aside from the one being possessed by Harbinger.  They don't talk or communicate in any recognizable way.  While we see scenes of empty colonies and get some sense of how quickly a colony can be picked up, we aren't emotionally tied in.  Imagine the impact of Horizon if we had seen the paralyzed VS about to be picked up by some Collectors?  Imagine if we had seen Collectors interacting with the same pods the melting colonists were in?  As it is, there just isn't anything that really tugs ones heartstrings about the Collectors and that tends to make the big revelation of their origins somewhat less than powerful.  We have no emotional connection to either the Protheans or the Collectors, so it's just a simple fact rather than some big, horrific truth.

Maybe if there had been some interaction with a Collector or maybe if the storyline missions were missions where the whole team was involved similar to the suicide mission, then it would have made ME2 more emotionally engaging for me.  Perhaps if we were able to experience more cut scenes like the conflicts between Tali and Legion or Miranda and Jack, I would have cared more about my crew.  As it is, I find the gameplay itself to be enjoyable, but I play the whole game less like a story where I'm eager to get to the next chapter to learn more, and more like a series of isolated vignettes.  Playing any one recruitment or loyalty mission does not hook me into wanting to run the next, and IMO that's a failing of the overall story.  I should want to move on to advance the story, but when your story is mostly 12 isolated vignettes, there isn't anything to afvance and nothing compelling me to move forward.

#587
Nightwriter

Nightwriter
  • Members
  • 9 800 messages
"The problem isn't that there are too many squad mates, it's that only a few of them have any sort of significance to the plot and they all exist within a vacuum. If you took away 2, 4 or 5 from the game it wouldn't matter since those that remain will still be ultimately irrelevant."

This is my stance on the matter.

My other problem with the characters is that we only need them in a utilitarian way. Each one is, essentially, a tool. I do not want them to be necessary and plot relevant as tools; I want them to be necessary and plot relevant as people.

Yet the only time we see them developed as people is when it has nothing to do with the story or their presence in it whatsoever.

#588
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages
As a whole, they definitely could have been tied to the plot much better. As it was, only Mordin's recruitment had anything directly to do with the Collectors, while Grunt's only vaguely referenced them.



Jack's mission could have been, instead of the Warden just being greedy, being paid a triple fortune by the Collectors for both Jack (as an exotic/rare specimen) and for Shepard.



Garrus could have been tied to the Collectors because his team interferred with a Collector operation, and the Collectors wanted payback.



The Collectors could have been interested in Morinth as well (interference in Samara's mission), worked with Nassana Dantius (motivation for Thane's mission), been researching/interfering with the Quarian research on Haestrom, and/or been tied to the Lazarus Station disaster as well.

#589
RiouHotaru

RiouHotaru
  • Members
  • 4 059 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

As a whole, they definitely could have been tied to the plot much better. As it was, only Mordin's recruitment had anything directly to do with the Collectors, while Grunt's only vaguely referenced them.

Jack's mission could have been, instead of the Warden just being greedy, being paid a triple fortune by the Collectors for both Jack (as an exotic/rare specimen) and for Shepard.

Garrus could have been tied to the Collectors because his team interferred with a Collector operation, and the Collectors wanted payback.

The Collectors could have been interested in Morinth as well (interference in Samara's mission), worked with Nassana Dantius (motivation for Thane's mission), been researching/interfering with the Quarian research on Haestrom, and/or been tied to the Lazarus Station disaster as well.


Except none of these situations makes any sense save Jack's, and that requires for the Collectors to have some foreknowledge that Shepard was going to go pick Jack up in the first place...which they don't have.

Your squaddies don't need a direct line of connection to the Collectors.  You're recruiting them because you're going on a mission where almost all the parameters are unknown, and need people with a wide variety of skills and talents, just in case.  The fact you don't necessarily utilize all their talents isn't a fault of the story.  Sometimes when you come Crazy Prepared you don't make use of everything.

#590
Destroy Raiden_

Destroy Raiden_
  • Members
  • 3 408 messages
Mordin due to his genophage work will come back in 3, Tali’s work on Hastrom and with the fleet will come out in 3, and possibly Kasumi’s grey box will be useful/hurt in 3 that’s it for character side quest relations for 3. Garrus (while interesting and moral dilemma) going after Sidonis, Jacks (well done) going to blow up her old home, Samara’s (nice dark concept and interesting mission), plus others have no baring on 3. Kasumi though an interesting character could’ve been cut, Thane too. Garrus I love the fact he returns but honestly his loyalty side quest didn’t advance ME2’s main plot story either and won’t effect 3 and if it does I can’t see how it will.

#591
Moiaussi

Moiaussi
  • Members
  • 2 890 messages

didymos1120 wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...


Pretty sure there is more criticism for ME2's writing than acclaim, at least on these boards. Yet ME1 there was a lot of acclaim for.


Have you read the old boards? 


Yes I did. There was considerable criticism of the gameplay (particularly survey missions and tromping over nigh identical planetscapes over and over), but what was criticized about the writing?

The threads I remember regarding the writing were people debating endlessly that they were the ones who made all the right decisions, which is a tribute to the writing not a criticism. It means people cared about whether they did the right thing in a game

The only possible criticism I can think of regarding the writing was from those who were complaining that they weren't allowed to join Cerberus.

#592
frylock23

frylock23
  • Members
  • 3 037 messages
"Your squaddies don't need a direct line of connection to the Collectors.  You're recruiting them because you're going on a mission where almost all the parameters are unknown, and need people with a wide variety of skills and talents, just in case.  The fact you don't necessarily utilize all their talents isn't a fault of the story.  Sometimes when you come Crazy Prepared you don't make use of everything."

In reality this is true, but in fiction, the whole suffers if you dilute your plot too much.  Having so many characters who are just there to be there just in case runs the risk that the story is too diluted, and I think that's the biggest issue with ME2.  I lose track of the main story plot in the midst of all the unrelated stuff.  They either needed to tie the characters in by giving them something of importance that only they could do or they needed to greatly expand the main story line plot missions so that the main story seemed like the main story even with all the recruitment and loyalty missions. Or, maybe both.

Modifié par frylock23, 15 janvier 2011 - 01:17 .


#593
SithLordExarKun

SithLordExarKun
  • Members
  • 2 071 messages

Phaedon wrote...

Haven't been on here for ages...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
I am going to say this one more time. Everything I am discussing is for character development in the main plot, interaction, or dialogue during the main plot.

And suddenly, Mass Effect 2 is considered a recruitment game but the character plot is not considered as 'main'. Interesting. No, you can't criticize a game for having a 'poor plot', because it has an apparently 'poor character development', in 5 missions out of the 25 missions the game has. These 20 or so missions, exist solely for character development. Dismissing them because they are not the 'main plot' is false, unless I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The other angle of my debate is squad banter and acknowledgment of their existence when playing the third wheel role or again during the main plot. This seemingly eludes you in virtually every post. I never once claimed ME had superior character development as whole. What I did claim was it was superior during the main plot. Virmire was mentioned for this precise reason. Wrex reacts based on the main plot, Ashley reacts to Wrex’s hostility, and Kaidan, Garrus, Tali and Liara all have dialogue about the eventual results.

Since 5% of the plot is considered as the main, I have to ask you... How did you jump from 'there is not enough banter in 5/20 missions' to 'character development is poor' and then to 'the game's story was poor'. I can understand the reasoning behind the last two stages, but otherwise I just don't get it.

Because hes a fanboy...

#594
Moiaussi

Moiaussi
  • Members
  • 2 890 messages

DarthCaine wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story.

No it doesn't. It got tons of Best Story awards in both critics and fans awards.


Best story of the year, not 'ever' and not 'generally' but specificly video game. What was the competition?

Interestingly I was reading the review  on IGN of one of the other contenders, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhoodand among the reviewer's conclusions was:

Brotherhood is a great game, but it’s hard to wholeheartedly recommend. This is really a title designed for fans of Assassin’s Creed II, as it’s a continuation of that story, but the reality is that people who finished that game want something new – or that at least represents a clear step forward. Brotherhood doesn’t deliver that.


Strangely that echoes the common criticism of ME2... I can't help but wonder where that reviewer was for those reviews.

#595
Moiaussi

Moiaussi
  • Members
  • 2 890 messages

Strangely the criticism for ME2's writing comes from an incredibly small minority =]

It has alot of  flaws, but since when ME1 was a perfect story as some fanatics claim it to be? Would i say the story in ME1 is better than ME2? Partly yes and no because noveria and feros part of ME1 was horribly boring and incredibly draggy, i only got interested with the story after interacting with Sovereign and that lasted really short.

I did like the episodic feel to ME2 more so than the full structred story in ME1, but eh thats just me.


Individual tastes do vary, and nothing wrong with your preferring ME2's style over ME1's. As for your 'incredibly smally minority' comment, keep in mind a couple things.

1) The awards are not awards for best story in a science fiction novel, but best story for a game for that year. That really limits the significance of the praise.

2) If you read review sites that allow commentary, there is a lot of criticism of the reviews themselves, mostly for being over generous. Some of the reviews even praise planet scanning, or claim that decisions in ME1 'really matter', or that decisions in ME2 will 'really matter in ME3'. Which decisions from ME1 'really matter' in ME2?

ME2 is a collection of well written short stories, and deserves praise as such, but as a sequel and in terms of overall plot or relation to ME's overall plot, not so much.

#596
SithLordExarKun

SithLordExarKun
  • Members
  • 2 071 messages

Moiaussi wrote...


Individual tastes do vary, and nothing wrong with your preferring ME2's style over ME1's. As for your 'incredibly smally minority' comment, keep in mind a couple things.

1) The awards are not awards for best story in a science fiction novel, but best story for a game for that year. That really limits the significance of the praise.

2) If you read review sites that allow commentary, there is a lot of criticism of the reviews themselves, mostly for being over generous. Some of the reviews even praise planet scanning, or claim that decisions in ME1 'really matter', or that decisions in ME2 will 'really matter in ME3'. Which decisions from ME1 'really matter' in ME2?

ME2 is a collection of well written short stories, and deserves praise as such, but as a sequel and in terms of overall plot or relation to ME's overall plot, not so much.

Then again, the only people contantly bashing and criticising the game are from a very small minority who goes to dozens of different sites to evangalize how ME2 is a total failure. What makes you think that the vocal minority here stays on these forums?

And really? Did you actually expect the decisions in ME1 to totally change the game in ME2? Really?

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 15 janvier 2011 - 04:55 .


#597
Notho

Notho
  • Members
  • 809 messages

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.


I think this is where the story team missed big time. I mean, we didn't even get amusing party banter like in DA:O or even the elevator conversations in ME1.

#598
Moiaussi

Moiaussi
  • Members
  • 2 890 messages
[quote]SithLordExarKun wrote...

Then again, the only people contantly bashing and criticising the game are from a very small minority who goes to dozens of different sites to evangalize how ME2 is a total failure. What makes you think that the vocal minority here stays on these forums?[/quote[

So you figure the criticism is all some sort of conspiracy? Never even looked at those reviews til now. These forums are likely a lot more often read by the devs than fan comments on any third party site.

Other than your own paranoia, do you have any evidence that the posters are the same people here?

[quote]And really? Did you actually expect the decisions in ME1 to totally change the game in ME2? Really?[/quote]

You completely misunderstood what I said. The reviewer stated decisions in ME1 have a significant effect on ME2, and those in ME2 will have a significant effect on ME3.

I am not talking about my expectations. I am talking about a reviewer misrepresenting the product in a review. The reviews may be positive, but seem to either focus primarily on gameplay (which is improved), or gloss over or misrepresent continuity to the point where the review becomes questionable.

#599
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 293 messages

RiouHotaru wrote...

Your squaddies don't need a direct line of connection to the Collectors.  You're recruiting them because you're going on a mission where almost all the parameters are unknown, and need people with a wide variety of skills and talents, just in case.  The fact you don't necessarily utilize all their talents isn't a fault of the story.  Sometimes when you come Crazy Prepared you don't make use of everything.


While I do agree that they don't need a motivation roght out of the gate, I think they do need to develop a connection.  Something beyond "Shepard helped me so now I'll do this mission"  That's where I think things go wrong.  I mean, the loyalty missions are good missions and all, but they aren't good story missions. They simply don't contribute to the story of "build a team and prepare for the mission"  None of the loyalty missions really integrate the squad into the team. Or provide equipment or intelligence for the mission.  It was all "put the mind at ease" rather than "maximize the chances of us getting through this mission alive"  No, I don't include the loyalty "don't kill me" flag as part of that Image IPB

#600
Iakus

Iakus
  • Members
  • 30 293 messages
@Il Divo

While I love to debate the merits of ME 2's story with someone who doesn't accuse me of being an elitist hater who kicks puppies in his spare time, I suspect we're getting way past the scope of this particular thread  Unless we want to stretch it to include Commander Shepard as a character Image IPB  if you want to start another thread about this, I'll be glad to meet you on the field of battle.