672 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Phaedon wrote...

Well the examples that I posted do change the story imho, not the goal ofcourse (that doesn't happen in ME either). I guess that it's a matter of personal taste then.

You're doing all this just to confuse me, aren't you.

Every story mission in ME1 reveals a different piece of Saren's plan and broadens your knowledge of what he's up to. Noveria eliminates his top lieutenant, Virmire reveals he isn't even the real threat.

[Mr.House]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Cerberus wasn't explained in ME1, what are you talking about???

The reapers want to reproduce and anhiliate everything.

You have no idea what your saying,

Cerberus was explained in some detail in mE, but most detail was explained in a book, not ME2.

[Crimmsonwind]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Crimmsonwind wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

No I do not Night. I only liked five out of the 12 for one. There was hardly any squad interaction with each other. Nothing pushed the overall story at all(excluding LotSB) Plus not to mention Ash/Kai/Liara(before LotSB) got such crappy treatment some people don't even care for the game, hell depending on my Shepard I can sometimes hate ME2.

The point of the second chapter in a trilogy is to advance the overall plot and bring in a huge revelation. ME2 did not do anything at all, all it did was introduce a crapload of characters, most I don't care for. Plus the Suicide mission, the thing Bioware kept on marketing was a huge letdown.

ANd then there is the Lazarus project <_<

So finding out the fate of the Protheans, what Cerberus is and the Reaper's true motives is irrelevant. Somebody does not know what the hell they are talking about.

They weren't irrelevant. Actually, that's the problem. They were treated in-game as though they were irrelevant. We barely touched on these points. These should have been explored more, but they weren't.

First off, The Reaper's motives were introduced at the end and thus could not be elaborated just like the beacon in Illos in ME1. Cerberus is explained throught the entire game, no point in a single conversation about it. As for the Prothean's fate, after the revelation it is mentioned all over the rest of the game, specially by mordin.

Yes, the Reaper part is true. I don't mind that part, because I thought the ending was pretty intense, and I prefer to keep it fairly ominous. Cerberus is explained, but we don't get to really voice much of an opinion. There is that one moment in the beginning with Jacob, and a few slight inclinations, and you can argue about TIM's motives personally, but if Cerberus is such a big part of the game, given our history with them, shouldn't we have stronger opinions either for or against them? As for the revelation about the Collecters being Protheans, maybe it was just me but there was almost no emotional impact when that came up. I just though "oh. Well, that was unexpected." And carried on. Mordin mentions it, yes. But he talks about is like he's talking about the weather. We were told the Protheans were wiped out in ME1, they were a big part of the backstory. I can't put my finger on why there was so little impact for me with the Prothean revelation.

[Nightwriter]

Mr.House wrote...

No I do not Night. I only liked five out of the 12 for one. There was hardly any squad interaction with each other. Nothing pushed the overall story at all(excluding LotSB) Plus not to mention Ash/Kai/Liara(before LotSB) got such crappy treatment some people don't even care for the game, hell depending on my Shepard I can sometimes hate ME2.

The point of the second chapter in a trilogy is to advance the overall plot and bring in a huge revelation. ME2 did not do anything at all, all it did was introduce a crapload of characters, most I don't care for. Plus the Suicide mission, the thing Bioware kept on marketing was a huge letdown.

And then there is the Lazarus project <_<

I liked all the characters. Thought they were awesome. But they never felt involved in anything but their own loyalty missions. I felt like BioWare gave me all these checks but wouldn't let me cash them in for plot involvement/development.

[Crimmsonwind]

I'm starting to get the impression that Pwner is trolling.

[Phaedon]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
Now before i'm labelled an ME2 hater, i love ME2. So i kinda just pre-emptively burst your bubble.

What bubble, I have never labeled you as a 'hater'? Anyway, moving on.

First, ME2 was a recruitment game. The whole basis of the game was to recruit people for a suicide mission. The point was to recruit the most deadly and intelligent life forms to take on a seemingly impossible task. The whole story of the game revolved around recruiting these people, the game could not be completed without recruiting these people. With ME1, recruitment was not at all necessary, and was no part of the overarching plot. 12 recruitment missions were in ME2. These were specific missions meant for specific recruits. There were no such missions in ME1, they were only options, side quests if you will. Now don't say Liara T'soni. Liara was not intended to be recruited onto the team, she was sought after for information. Shepard never intended her to be part of the crew, so the Therum mission was not a recruitment mission.

Actually, if I remember correctly, there is only one squaddie that you can choose not to recruit.

Yes, ME2 was a recruitment game and so was ME, but not so much. The point where you are wrong is where you say that ME2 was exclusively a recruitment game, which it was not. It has the same number (if not more) number of plot-based missions, so saying that it doesn't progress the plot as much as ME seems wrong to me. The recruitment missions were not needed to advance the plot, as you say, because the plot was about taking down the Collectors.

If you really stretch things, maybe ME1's amount of time in story missions and ME2's can come relatively close. But the substance mate, the substance. There was so much more learnt and explored in ME1's main missions, ME2's story missions were non stop "go-go-go don't stop get the **** out of there now or you'll get juiced" ALL the time.

In the contrary, in ME1 you were told that Saren and Benezia were looking for the Conduit and you just travelled to where Saren was witnessed. You didn't have an idea as to what the Conduit was until the very last mission.

And, ME1's was just better. With Sovereign, Saren and the whole mystery of the reapers, the story was just great. In ME2 there's the silent and completely unterrifying collectors, and Harbinger, the villain with the least amount of dialogue in all of villain history.

Now, that's just subjective. I could say that ME1 was about the completely unterrifying geth, and Saren, the villain with most impossible reasoning in video game history (I need to find a relay in order to sneak into the Citadel while I can just pass through the main door just fine).

Modifié par Phaedon, 09 janvier 2011 - 05:21 .

[Phaedon]

Nightwriter wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Well the examples that I posted do change the story imho, not the goal ofcourse (that doesn't happen in ME either). I guess that it's a matter of personal taste then.

You're doing all this just to confuse me, aren't you.

Every story mission in ME1 reveals a different piece of Saren's plan and broadens your knowledge of what he's up to. Noveria eliminates his top lieutenant, Virmire reveals he isn't even the real threat.

Ok, that's two of them. :happy:

[Pwner1323]

Everytime Cerberus is mentioned we can voice an opinion on them. I think that's enough. Those conversations with Miri are also pretty good.

[Pwner1323]

Crimmsonwind wrote...

I'm starting to get the impression that Pwner is trolling.

Nooooooooooooo

Seriously, Im not. I've been permanently banned twice for it, I've learned my lesson.

[Mr.House]

Nightwriter wrote...

I liked all the characters. Thought they were awesome. But they never felt involved in anything but their own loyalty missions. I felt like BioWare gave me all these checks but wouldn't let me cash them in for plot involvement/development.

That's one way to think of it!

[Pwner1323]

Mr.House wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I liked all the characters. Thought they were awesome. But they never felt involved in anything but their own loyalty missions. I felt like BioWare gave me all these checks but wouldn't let me cash them in for plot involvement/development.

That's one way to think of it!

They gave us bad checks? That's hilarious. It's like the bazaar all over again.

Modifié par Pwner1323, 09 janvier 2011 - 05:29 .

[Crimmsonwind]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Crimmsonwind wrote...

I'm starting to get the impression that Pwner is trolling.

Nooooooooooooo

Seriously, Im not. I've been permanently banned twice for it, I've learned my lesson.

Apparently old habits die hard.

[Stormy-B]

But the characters were'nt the story. Above it all you have the story of the coming of the Reapers and how the sapient lifeforms of the galaxy try to thwart (or help, in some cases) this. I think that when they made the decision to make the story more centred on the characters they took out alot of the oomph from the major story. The way that I see it that made neither of the storytypes very strong, but both became so-so. I actually felt that the story of ME2 would have made an awesome expansion to ME1. It's more like it's there to answer some questions from ME1 than to actually bring something new to the table.

The only really relevant thing to the major story is that the Reapers is more interested in humanity after humans was responsible for the destruction of their vanguard. Well, that wasn't really a surprise.



I'm not in any way opposed to making strong and interesting characters, but when the major story suffers for it, it's time to think twice.

Thankfully ME2 makes up for some of it with strong gameplay instead. I really hope they make a good combination of story, characters and gameplay in ME3.

[Pwner1323]

Crimmsonwind wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

Crimmsonwind wrote...

I'm starting to get the impression that Pwner is trolling.

Nooooooooooooo

Seriously, Im not. I've been permanently banned twice for it, I've learned my lesson.

Apparently old habits die hard.

Yes they do.

[Pwner1323]

Stormy-B wrote...

I'm not in any way opposed to making strong and interesting characters, but when the major story suffers for it, it's time to think twice.

The story didn't suffer. ME2 had the same amount of main plot missions as ME1, I think more. That is why ME2 is three times the size of ME1, not because they took away, they added. Add twice the amount of teammates to ME1 and give them all two missions and you get the same thing.

Do you people get it now?

[Crimmsonwind]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

He also... died... which is just impossible. It's on the same level as the Mass Effect statement in the ME1 opening scene (which is acceptable, given that we know there are many secrets of Universe). But we do understand the brain cannot be resurrected after death, making such idea plain wrong.

I'm willing to let it go because it could have provided some serious potential for Shepard's character, how they dealt with being brought back to life and dumped into Cerberus' lap, being kept on a leash. But they let a good opportunity like that slip away.

[Pwner1323]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

I think Casey Hudson doesn't understand that we do understand they are the story. Seriously, they are all over the place. How can you call us not understanding it. The problem with them is that there's no focus - you can't genuinely care for them all. For that matter, they do not come together to a single "whole" in the end, either.

The stories should be less and should develop connection and utilize conflicts.

Also, any fun of story development was destroyed by the Illusive Man handing you the assignments as if you're just running a script... what's the point? And even... why is this all happening. The rage of Shepard can be felt hard, but the game just goes on and on. Right, it's because we feel the rage, not you.

He also... died... which is just impossible. It's on the same level as the Mass Effect statement in the ME1 opening scene (which is acceptable, given that we know there are many secrets of Universe). But we do understand the brain cannot be resurrected after death, making such idea plain wrong.

As for the teammates, anyone of these crazy people could have just gone and done what Shepard is doing anyway. The first game was very toned down in this respect. It gave anything that happened more weight. Also notice how extra big statements (the one about Mass Effect at the opening scene) are toned down. They are cringe-inducing. They need to be toned down.

As for the rest... the characters... were the stories; seriously, wtf - there is TONS more of conflicts left unexplored. You even set up a perfect route to the second game, and for some reason decide that the success of the first didn't exist... That's just professional misleading.

Don't talik about it like it's all facts. I disagree with everything you say here. This is your pesonal opinion, not the actual stuff.

EDIT: talking about the lazarus project like it's real is pointless. It's a videogame. F-a-n-t-a-s-y. Aliens aren't real 
           either, did you know that?

Modifié par Pwner1323, 09 janvier 2011 - 05:43 .

[Sidney]

Mr.House wrote...
Compared to the relevation in ME? The "relevations" in ME2 where poor, cheap and badly written. Plus when you already had a feeling that the Collectors where protheans that "twist" does not really hit you at all, I had a feeling so that part did nothing for me.

Wow, you are one of those super smart guys that knew who the killer was on the 3rd page of the mystery novel too right?

I'm not sure what you want the middle part of a trilogy to do anyways. It is, by definition, a bridge story so it can't give you the big bang of starting things nor ending them.

You learn more about Cerebus - they were ALL evil in ME1 and they're a more complex organization. The first game was played in the shadow of the Prothean extinction and to discover that extinction wasn't their fate - or likely the fate of humanity - is certainly "big" news.

There was enough plot the only difference in the plot was that instead of you pushing it forward you had externalities that moved the plot. That to me was a huge success. Why are you wating time doing X in ME2...well you are waiting on more intel or a new collector attack. Why are you dinking around in ME1....umm, no reason I just want to give Saren more time to win.

[Stormy-B]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Stormy-B wrote...

I'm not in any way opposed to making strong and interesting characters, but when the major story suffers for it, it's time to think twice.

The story didn't suffer. ME2 had the same amount of main plot missions as ME1, I think more. That is why ME2 is three times the size of ME1, not because they took away, they added. Add twice the amount of teammates to ME1 and give them all two missions and you get the same thing.

Do you people get it now?

I'm sorry, but I'm more of a quality over quantity kind of guy. And storywise I don't think that ME2 were as interesting as ME1. It didn't really develop anything in the same way. As I said, I think that the story of ME2 would have been better for an expansion rather than a sequel.

[Crimmsonwind]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Stormy-B wrote...

I'm not in any way opposed to making strong and interesting characters, but when the major story suffers for it, it's time to think twice.

The story didn't suffer. ME2 had the same amount of main plot missions as ME1, I think more. That is why ME2 is three times the size of ME1, not because they took away, they added. Add twice the amount of teammates to ME1 and give them all two missions and you get the same thing.

Do you people get it now?

Length-wise, yes, they added. The actual quality of the content? I'm standing by my opinion that it was a different kind of content, each game was enjoyable in a different way.

[Pwner1323]

Crimmsonwind wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

Stormy-B wrote...

I'm not in any way opposed to making strong and interesting characters, but when the major story suffers for it, it's time to think twice.

The story didn't suffer. ME2 had the same amount of main plot missions as ME1, I think more. That is why ME2 is three times the size of ME1, not because they took away, they added. Add twice the amount of teammates to ME1 and give them all two missions and you get the same thing.

Do you people get it now?

Length-wise, yes, they added. The actual quality of the content? I'm standing by my opinion that it was a different kind of content, each game was enjoyable in a different way.

Exactly. What everyone here is doing is comparing a volvo to a Hummer. No sense.

[Bourne Endeavor]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...
Smudboy agrees with you.

That was the sypnosis I watched and referenced to, although are opinions are similar. I found that particular example quite a nice example.

Phaedon wrote...
Rebuttal!

Aye, and excluding their individual arcs. How does the game acknowledge their existence? Samara and Garrus’ conflict are never again referenced to or even mentioned subsequent to their conclusion. When the focal point of a storyline is the characters and not the main plot; these characters should transcend and be predominant throughout the game. Samara’s code is in absolute contrast to virtually everyone aboard the Normandy, yet she has no words to express her opinion. Using the demonstration between Ash and Shepard, both characters develop during the main story, and in only mere seconds of dialogue. If Samara had questioned the crew or even herself for having to be apart of injustice based upon her perspective. She would grow and develop as a character outside of her loyalty mission. This would be an example of a character story. What ME2 can be described as is an episodic story. The qualm is it has a primary plot to adhere to; the Reapers. This was underdeveloped and frequently ignored to focus on episodic stories that are forgotten upon their conclusion.

Every one of your rebuttals mentioning individualization is in regards to only when that character is on center stage. In every story excluding their own, they are almost entirely silent. No one says anything during another squad’s loyalty mission with few exceptions. Miranda is a hilarious example because a large portion of her character development is optional. She is arrogant enough to mention Veetor being returned unharmed if brought along for Tali’s loyalty mission, yet has no opinion beyond that? The Suicide Mission is even worse. She has a critical, character defining moment that is completely optional. If she is not in your party, you will never witness her development; that she has affirmed her loyalty to Shepard over TIM. This should be an essential part of her character but anyone not using her during the final boss will never see it.

Arguably, one of the worst examples is Legion during Tali’s loyalty mission. If brought, the entire early portion of the mission is altered. The Quarian guard is hostile immediately upon your arrival, Tali is weary of Shepard’s decision to bring Legion, Admiral Koris insinuates Tali is attempting to coerce support by bringing a Geth, each Admiral will offer their opinion of Legion and finally, Legion will answer their opinions with his own. This is the fundamental example of cause and effect in a narrative. Legion’s presence was the cause of hostility and as a result, it affect Tali’s loyalty mission because dialogue and character interaction was changed. Even better, Legion grew and Tali grew as characters, which is made apparent when Tali agrees with Legion after hearing Admiral Xen’s desire to dissect him. This is all exquisite development because every plot arc is addressed and developed. There is one significant problem. It was removed from the actual game and only accessible through modding. One of the best development moments of the entire game was removed and you wonder why we criticize the main story.

What I described above should have been the standard. No, not every character would have an opinion of that magnitude but at least one or two would. Samara would have never walked away silently when innocents were stranded because of Zaeed’s selfish desire to pursue Vido. She may have accepted it because of her oath to Shepard but she most certainly should have commented.

Yet another example is Garrus and Tali having nothing at all to say when meeting Wrex. This is all the more evidence of them not existing in the main plot. No one else has unique dialogue at that moment so why should Garrus or Tali? That was Bioware’s position.

This happens literally in 60% of the dialogue with the squaddies.

This almost never happens and in a character driven storyline, it should be the absolute. Take away my quotes from your post and you have nearly as much content in ME2 where characters offer opinions outside their own arc.

Lazuli actually offered a rather accurate description of ME2. The story coincides with a television series and is episodic in structure, as aforementioned. There would nary a qualm if there was not a main plot and that these characters were supposed to be that plot. A television show like Friends or Law & Order’s ‘main plot’ as it were, is about everyday life. They frankly, do not have a plot that leads outside of each episode. Coincidently, each character acknowledges one another, has discusses about what is transpiring in that specific episode and if there is a subsequent reference later into the series in another episode; the characters are all aware of or become aware of it. This does not happen in Mass Effect 2 and it has a main plot, hence why people criticize it.

And again, you make sure that your squaddies are focused for the suicide mission.

Correct, yet once they step outside the limelight. They no longer have an opinion or seem to exist. If I again reference to television. Friends has six characters, all of whom have an opinion regardless of who that episode is focusing on. Joey is a lady’s man and the remaining five cast always have an opinion about this, mostly negative. No one has an opinion other than Shepard about Garrus and Sidonis. It is never even mentioned afterward. I have already addressed this above but made the TV reference to drive home the point.

I believe there is something you are misconstruing. I do not believe Mass Effect’s story is the end all be all, hardly. It has numerous perplexing moments where my eyebrow raises, most noticeably about how inept Shepard is ay providing evidence. In addition, I do not dislike the recruitment or loyalty missions by their lonesome. It is both the main plot and how the characters interact in said plot, loyalty, and recruitment missions.

Edit: I would go into detail about how Shepard is a brick and more often than not a NPC in her own story but Glacier has that covered and is doing an admirable job. Please not I do not agree with everything in his/her post.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 09 janvier 2011 - 05:58 .

[Crimmsonwind]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Crimmsonwind wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

Stormy-B wrote...

I'm not in any way opposed to making strong and interesting characters, but when the major story suffers for it, it's time to think twice.

The story didn't suffer. ME2 had the same amount of main plot missions as ME1, I think more. That is why ME2 is three times the size of ME1, not because they took away, they added. Add twice the amount of teammates to ME1 and give them all two missions and you get the same thing.

Do you people get it now?

Length-wise, yes, they added. The actual quality of the content? I'm standing by my opinion that it was a different kind of content, each game was enjoyable in a different way.

Exactly. What everyone here is doing is comparing a volvo to a Hummer. No sense.

I still feel that, in the over all trilogy, ME2 is little more than a bridge and that ME1 and ME3 will be the strongest of the three games. In comparison, yes, ME2 felt a little lacklustre to me. As a standalone game (I hate saying that, because that's not how I want the game to be treated, but that seems to be how I enjoy viewing it the most right now) ME2 did a lot of great things. They have a right to compare, seeing as ME2 is a part of the trilogy, though.

[Badpie]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


Yet another example is Garrus and Tali having nothing at all to say when meeting Wrex. This is all the more evidence of them not existing in the main plot. No one else has unique dialogue at that moment so why should Garrus or Tali? That was Bioware’s position.

Uuuugh.  I haated this.  Really?  No one has anything to say to Wrex or Liara?  At all?  Also, Liara never even acknowledges Miranda's presence if you bring her into her office even though they've interacted before.  I mean would a simple

"Tsoni."
"Miss Lawson."

be too much ask here?

Say what you want, but the characters of Mass Effect 2 did not matter one bit.  They existed so Bioware would have stand alone missions for you to do so they wouldn't have to put effort into writing a cohesive, coherent main plot.  Not to mention all semblence of "character development" goes right out the window if you're not romancing one of the characters.