672 réponses à ce sujet

[Pwner1323]

It is a bridge. ME2 is still my favorite game of all time, and I think ME3 won't change that. Mainly because it let's me work alongside cerberus, something I think ME3 won't have. : (

[Nightwriter]

Sidney wrote...

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.

Dude, there is no need to be hostile.

The Reapers have been elaborate string pullers in the past. I would have been tickled if ME2 was about the Reapers frantically starting to pull strings in the galaxy and screw up intergalactic politics in huge ways so that we are unbalanced and frail by the time they get here. ME1 could've been about the discovery of the Reapers, ME2 could've been about the Reapers as chessmasters, and ME3 could've been the actual battle when they get here.

This is an example of what someone might "want the middle part of a trilogy to do anyways".

[Sidney]

Nightwriter wrote...

The Reapers have been elaborate string pullers in the past. I would have been tickled if ME2 was about the Reapers frantically starting to pull strings in the galaxy and screw up intergalactic politics in huge ways so that we are unbalanced and frail by the time they get here. ME1 could've been about the discovery of the Reapers, ME2 could've been about the Reapers as chessmasters, and ME3 could've been the actual battle when they get here.

This is an example of what someone might "want the middle part of a trilogy to do anyways".

Right and so what you you call the Collectors? The Reapers pulling strings to disrupt the galaxy and weaknen their greatest foe? So you should be happy, right?

Oh and while the human-reaper larvae was an idiotic looking thing and 100% suck final boss the fact that the Reapers harvest genetic material to create new reapers has to count as some sort of "wow" moment for anyone?

[Aeowyn]

Pwner1323 wrote...

It is a bridge. ME2 is still my favorite game of all time, and I think ME3 won't change that. Mainly because it let's me work alongside cerberus, something I think ME3 won't have. : (

And thank God for that. I gave the base to Cerberus and let them keep David, and frankly I'm done with them.

ME2 was a recruitment game, I agree with this. If the plot however was the characters, then what was the point if there's a chance that neither of the characters we recruited and made loyal in ME2 won't appear in ME3?

Little things that bugged me was character interaction. There were several missions and situations where I feel that our squaddies should've spoken up more. Grunt if you bring him to Mordin's LM, Tali should have had an extra conversation line if you decided to keep Legion, because like someone else mentioned, after I got Legion the first time and Jacob said "Tali is gonna freak" I went down to Tali and she acted like everything was normal.

Also, Tali and Garrus should've at least have been acknowledged by Wrex and Liara. I mean what the hell?

You should've been able to voice your opinion against Cerberus more. The conversation with Miranda was all good and well, but it just felt like she got the last word on that. You couldn't even mention Akuze. My Shepard is SS and while the incident on Akuze didn't exactly ruin her life, she would very much like an explanation or a reasoning to why they felt it necessary. 

And then we have the Shepard was dead....or was she? - situation.

Jacob: "You were dead...dead as dead can be."
Shepard: "I was in some kind of coma while Cerberus rebuilt me."
XYZ: "I thought you were dead."
Shepard: "Nah I was only mostly dead, try finding that on government paper work."

And "Ah yes...Collector were Protheans" that was very nicely concluded as:
*dramatic sound effect*
"My God, the Protheans didn't vanish. They just work for the Reapers now."
....
"Oh well, let's move."

Eh seriously? In the first game we received clues from the Protheans, we hear everything about how great the Protheans were, their Empire, the fact that everyone thinks they built the Mass Relay and the Citadel. And that's how we treat it?

Don't get me wrong. I like ME2, but I liked the story in ME1 better.

[Cyberfrog81]

Probably won't read the whole thread, because I imagine it'll just be the usual complaining. I'll just respond to the OP for now.

Nightwriter wrote...
To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

Yes, I totally saw recruitment and loyalty missions as "main quests" or "missions" (rather than "side quests" or assignments). The "weak story" criticisms that completely ignore these missions (not that all of the critics do) never seemed fair to me.

On the other hand, when so many people don't "get it", maybe it is somewhat fair. I followed the game closely before it was released, so the whole "recruit a bunch of badasses, secure their loyalties and go on a suicide mission" thing was ME2 to me. But if the story doesn't work for people without the benefit of having seen the promos, then that could be considered a failure to tell (or "sell"?) the story to an unsuspecting audience.

[Mister Mida]

In response to the OP I say: it depends on every individual character. Some did feel part of the story, some didn't.
 
Mordin, Tali and Legion felt truly part of the story, mostly because of their loyalty missions. The issues there are the same we dealt with in ME (1) (genophage, Morning War, heretics hostility towards organics), so I felt some continuation in them. With these cases it's kinda unfortunate that loyalty missions aren't mandatory, because not dealing with these issues can bite you in the butt.

Grunt, Garrus, Jacob and Miranda sort of; Grunt is a product of Collector technology (which were the point of the whole game) and Garrus has been with us from the start altough I find his activities between the games to be bad writing: I felt he gave up on the actual fight until Shepard came back. Jacob and Miranda joined in a similar matter as the squaddies in ME (1), but they could've been replaced with any other Cerberus lackeys.

All the others not so much. Going after Morinth, getting revenge on Vido Santiago, destroying an abondened Cerberus facility doesn't feel like a part of the bigger picture.

Not every character's mission has to part of the big picture, like Garrus' and Wrex' 'loyalty missions', but only three out of twelve is not enough for me. I can go on about this matter, but everything has been said by others and way better than I ever could.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 09 janvier 2011 - 06:24 .

[Nightwriter]

Sidney wrote...

Right and so what you you call the Collectors? The Reapers pulling strings to disrupt the galaxy and weaknen their greatest foe? So you should be happy, right?

Oh and while the human-reaper larvae was an idiotic looking thing and 100% suck final boss the fact that the Reapers harvest genetic material to create new reapers has to count as some sort of "wow" moment for anyone?

Nah, I depicted the Reapers as chessmasters. Chessmasters move many pieces in many places. Loghain was more of a chessmaster than the Reapers in ME2: had Arl Eamon poisoned, manipulated Uldred, betrayed Cailan, hired Zevran to assassinate the Wardens... many pieces, many places.

That wasn't a wow moment for me. My wow moments happened on loyalty missions. Nothing that happened on plot missions directly stimulated me. Not sure why.

[dan350z]

Phaedon wrote...

Alright, in my previous post, I made no effort to explain what I was saying, but I rather reposted my previous rant.

In my opinion, saying that ME2's story was poor compared to ME1's is wrong based on this:

The formula used in ME1's plot was reused in ME2. You don't see it? Well, let's see.
-Find some squaddies
-Do some story-based missions
-Kill the bad guy

Let's take a closer look at each step.

In my opinion, there is no point to comparing the recruitment stage between the two games. There simply is no comparison. Apart from the fact that loyalty missions are missing from the first game, the recruitment missions are much more interesting, and instead of recruiting (almost) your whole squad on the Citadel, you had to travel to various places around the galaxy.  

I can't compare the story-based missions, since that would be completely subjective, but I mainly prefer ME1's missions. It should be noted, however, that ME2 had more story-based missions than ME1 had, so saying that ME2 wasn't as story-based as it should, is wrong.

The 'Kill the bad guy' part? Honestly, I did find the Battle of the Citadel impressive, but the actual mission that you were part of was far from impressive. Find Saren, talk to him, (fight him), Saren is revived, kill him again. On the other hand, the suicide mission was easily my favourite part of ME2. It depended heavily on your choices, and the story/action had an excellent pacing.

I felt like in ME2 they tried to introduce to many characters, with so many new characters there wasn't enough time to really get to know them, I felt no connection with the new cast as I did with ME1 smaller cast.    I felt like they just gave us cliff notes about the ME2 cast.

I think a better approach would be to cut the ME2 cast in half and concentrate the story more on the reapers / collectors.

I was reading about J.J. Abrams approach to the next Star Trek Movie.  He said in the first one, it was all about getting to know the crew, the heroes... But in the next movie it was going to be all about the villain...

I really don't know why Bioware felt they had to toss out the old crew and introduce a new one, time would of been better spent if they kept the old crew and just added maybe 1 or 2 new characters and spent more time explaining the villains of the game (IE The Reapers / Collectors)...  They could of gotten really dark and twisted with ME2 from the villain perspective but unfortunately they missed the chance.

Modifié par dan350z, 09 janvier 2011 - 06:28 .

[FeelTheMighty]

It's not as if ME1 had some brilliant story. It was pretty damn basic, actually. Both games follow the same formula of "discovering more secrets about the Protheans, and hunting down the underlings of the Reapers."



The things that ME2 does better than ME1 is actually allowing you to witness the things mentioned in the Codex, and how the antagonist of the story is presented. Saren barely had a presence in the first game, we really didn't get to know him, and he just didn't seem like a threat. The Collectors were a way better villain, because they actually seem like a threat, and are actively involved in the story.



The problem BOTH games have is truly integrated the characters into the plot. In ME1, only Liara, Ashley/Kaiden seemed to matter whenever the crew was discussing things of great importance. The same with ME2 and Jacob/Miranda/Mordin.

[Nightwriter]

^ I agree with that. ME1's characters were better integrated than ME2's, but still not greatly integrated.

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Probably won't read the whole thread, because I imagine it'll just be the usual complaining. I'll just respond to the OP for now.

Nightwriter wrote...
To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

Yes, I totally saw recruitment and loyalty missions as "main quests" or "missions" (rather than "side quests" or assignments). The "weak story" criticisms that completely ignore these missions (not that all of the critics do) never seemed fair to me.

On the other hand, when so many people don't "get it", maybe it is somewhat fair. I followed the game closely before it was released, so the whole "recruit a bunch of badasses, secure their loyalties and go on a suicide mission" thing was ME2 to me. But if the story doesn't work for people without the benefit of having seen the promos, then that could be considered a failure to tell (or "sell"?) the story to an unsuspecting audience.

Now I'm curious to know why you think we didn't "get it".

I followed the pre-release hype really closely myself, and I didn't get it either. I knew what the game was about, I knew what the threat and the mission were. I still got the feeling that the characters were just there, and I was so confused by the opening of the game. I was on Omega before I'd even understood what the heck was going on. I still don't really understand all of it.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 09 janvier 2011 - 06:34 .

[Pwner1323]

I didn't like how the meetings in ME1 with the teammates only 3 out of 6 people talked. One meeting only lasted 10 seconds. What was up with that?

[Fiery Phoenix]

FeelTheMighty wrote...

(...)

The problem BOTH games have is truly integrated the characters into the plot. In ME1, only Liara, Ashley/Kaiden seemed to matter whenever the crew was discussing things of great importance. The same with ME2 and Jacob/Miranda/Mordin.

Don't forget that Tali was the reason you could ever expose Saren.

[Aeowyn]

Pwner1323 wrote...

I didn't like how the meetings in ME1 with the teammates only 3 out of 6 people talked. One meeting only lasted 10 seconds. What was up with that?

Who talked in your playthrough? I've had playthroughs were Kaidan, Ashely, Liara, Garrus, Wrex and Tali have spoken. It's all depending on how you go about with your missions.

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...

Inspired by Casey Hudson’s statement that people who speak of ME2’s lack of story do not understand that the characters are the story. I think this deserves some thought and respect. Actual quote I paraphrased is here.

To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

I maintain the criticism. They said they planned the ME games as a trilogy, but what we get for the second part is an anthology of character-centered stories. The character stories were mostly good, but they are *NO* substitute for a good advancement of the overarching story. That all of the characters can die makes things infinitely worse, for it suggests that none of them has anything to do with the overarching story at all (which I still hope proves wrong).

We wanted a continuation of the epic started with ME1, instead we got that anthology of character stories. Very, very disappointing. As a standalone game, the absence of a good main plot would still have been disappointing but it might have worked. As part of a greater whole, ME2 is a complete failure - for the character stories, good as they are, do nothing for that greater whole..

[Pwner1323]

Aeowyn wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

I didn't like how the meetings in ME1 with the teammates only 3 out of 6 people talked. One meeting only lasted 10 seconds. What was up with that?

Who talked in your playthrough? I've had playthroughs were Kaidan, Ashely, Liara, Garrus, Wrex and Tali have spoken. It's all depending on how you go about with your missions.

You're talking about the first one. All of the others were unnecesary.

I can imagine Wrex complaining...

Wrex: Now i gotta take that slow ass elevator again when the meeting only lasted 15 seconds.

Garrus: You said it.

Kaidan: Good thing BW put me in the mess hall.

Ash: Shut up LT!

[Mr.House]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I maintain the criticism. They said they planned the ME games as a trilogy, but what we get for the second part is an anthology of character-centered stories. The character stories were mostly good, but they are *NO* substitute for a good advancement of the overarching story. That all of the characters can die makes things infinitely worse, for it suggests that none of them has anything to do with the overarching story at all (which I still hope proves wrong).

We wanted a continuation of the epic started with ME1, instead we got that anthology of character stories. Very, very disappointing. As a standalone game, the absence of a good main plot would still have been disappointing but it might have worked. As part of a greater whole, ME2 is a complete failure - for the character stories, good as they are, do nothing for that greater whole..

I agree 100%, as a stand alone game ME2 is good, could do with a bit of work but as a second chapter in a overreaching story it failed.

[Pwner1323]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Inspired by Casey Hudson’s statement that people who speak of ME2’s lack of story do not understand that the characters are the story. I think this deserves some thought and respect. Actual quote I paraphrased is here.

To fans, I ask:

Did you feel that the characters constituted the story, like Casey says, or did the characters feel separate from the story? If they did feel separate to you, why did they feel separate? Why didn't you experience the story-character fusion Casey describes? Were the characters enough to carry the game to your satisfaction?

ME2 gets a lot of criticism for lack of story. If Casey's suggestion is right (and I think it at least deserves consideration), and the characters are the story, a lot of that criticism becomes unfair. So... is it unfair?

I maintain the criticism. They said they planned the ME games as a trilogy, but what we get for the second part is an anthology of character-centered stories. The character stories were mostly good, but they are *NO* substitute for a good advancement of the overarching story. That all of the characters can die makes things infinitely worse, for it suggests that none of them has anything to do with the overarching story at all (which I still hope proves wrong).

We wanted a continuation of the epic started with ME1, instead we got that anthology of character stories. Very, very disappointing. As a standalone game, the absence of a good main plot would still have been disappointing but it might have worked. As part of a greater whole, ME2 is a complete failure - for the character stories, good as they are, do nothing for that greater whole..

Yeah, because it's not like Tali, grunt, Miranda, mordin, legion, Zaeed have anything to do with any big organizations that can help against the reapers. Not to mention the importance of Tali and Legion and that mordin is the only one willing to destroy the Genophage.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I maintain the criticism. They said they planned the ME games as a trilogy, but what we get for the second part is an anthology of character-centered stories. The character stories were mostly good, but they are *NO* substitute for a good advancement of the overarching story. That all of the characters can die makes things infinitely worse, for it suggests that none of them has anything to do with the overarching story at all (which I still hope proves wrong).

We wanted a continuation of the epic started with ME1, instead we got that anthology of character stories. Very, very disappointing. As a standalone game, the absence of a good main plot would still have been disappointing but it might have worked. As part of a greater whole, ME2 is a complete failure - for the character stories, good as they are, do nothing for that greater whole..

Basically this.

Moving on...

[Aeowyn]

Pwner1323 wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

I didn't like how the meetings in ME1 with the teammates only 3 out of 6 people talked. One meeting only lasted 10 seconds. What was up with that?

Who talked in your playthrough? I've had playthroughs were Kaidan, Ashely, Liara, Garrus, Wrex and Tali have spoken. It's all depending on how you go about with your missions.

You're talking about the first one. All of the others were unnecesary.

I can imagine Wrex complaining...

Wrex: Now i gotta take that slow ass elevator again when the meeting only lasted 15 seconds.

Garrus: You said it.

Kaidan: Good thing BW put me in the mess hall.

Ash: Shut up LT!

I'm sorry, what? They are having a DE-BRIEF after each mission. So what if it only lasted for 10 seconds? It's still a mission de-brief which is important.

[jlb524]

What Ieldra said.



Also, it was disappointing that a lot of decisions and resultant events of them that occurred in ME1 where downplayed or even ignored in ME2....all for these short character stories that had little to do with the main plot.

[Pwner1323]

Aeowyn wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

I didn't like how the meetings in ME1 with the teammates only 3 out of 6 people talked. One meeting only lasted 10 seconds. What was up with that?

Who talked in your playthrough? I've had playthroughs were Kaidan, Ashely, Liara, Garrus, Wrex and Tali have spoken. It's all depending on how you go about with your missions.

You're talking about the first one. All of the others were unnecesary.

I can imagine Wrex complaining...

Wrex: Now i gotta take that slow ass elevator again when the meeting only lasted 15 seconds.

Garrus: You said it.

Kaidan: Good thing BW put me in the mess hall.

Ash: Shut up LT!

I'm sorry, what? They are having a DE-BRIEF after each mission. So what if it only lasted for 10 seconds? It's still a mission de-brief which is important.

So sitting around for 10 seconds is good as long as it's a de-brief? Im sorry, but YOU make no sense.

[Pwner1323]

jlb524 wrote...

What Ieldra said.

Also, it was disappointing that a lot of decisions and resultant events of them that occurred in ME1 where downplayed or even ignored in ME2....all for these short character stories that had little to do with the main plot.

Yeah, I hated the E-mails. And after running around the citadel scanning Keppers, that's all I got.

Sorry Shepard, no one believed us.

Shepard: Story of my life......

[Cyberfrog81]

Nightwriter wrote...
Now I'm curious to know why you think we didn't "get it".

I followed the pre-release hype really closely myself, and I didn't get it either. I knew what the game was about, I knew what the threat and the mission were. I still got the feeling that the characters were just there, and I was so confused by the opening of the game. I was on Omega before I'd even understood what the heck was going on. I still don't really understand all of it.

Heh, now you're just trying to be difficult.

Maybe I was giving people too much credit. Maybe it's as simple as "the ME1 way or the highway", i.e. resistance to change. Thing is, I didn't connect with the characters in ME1 (they were just sort of there). With the exception of the blue alien, but then, the whole galaxy likes the Asari.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 09 janvier 2011 - 07:03 .

[Nightwriter]

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?

[Bourne Endeavor]

Aeowyn essentially covered what I would have mentioned in regards to the Prothen discovery and how marginalized it was. The folly of the Larazus Project and Reaperinator have been beaten to death mercilessly. Thus, I am hopeful we have limit needing to reiterate those respective debates. What I would fancy addressing is the mention of too many characters. I had long thought we could combined or remove a good portion of them, which would allot for a much larger development process. I have even contemplated how this process would function and what I would alter to better accomplish a more compelling story. (A brief summary of those posts can be seen here and here for those interested.)

Now instead of diving headfirst into this further. I offer this video that recommends a solid means of limiting the cast and developing them properly with the main plot.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 09 janvier 2011 - 07:08 .