672 réponses à ce sujet

[Pwner1323]

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?

yup

[Aeowyn]

Pwner1323 wrote...

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.

Ok please point me to the brief that lasted for 10 seconds, because at the moment YOU are making no sense. And I honestly wondering if I'm feeding a troll.

[The Smoking Man]

The characters were the story? So you mean the story was about calibrations?

[Iakus]

Lots of stuff here.  But just a few points to make

The funny thing is that people will say 'other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there.' But that is the story."

1)Gathering a crew we do.  Though   as other posters state, we bring people aboard, then stuff them in closets, cellars, workrooms, or whatever until they're needed for their personal mission. 

2) At what point do we "build a team" exactly?  They do not interact with each other.  At all.  Part of building a team is getting people to work together, to trust that they'll have each other's backs.  To get to know each other to a degree that they can anticipate each other's reactions, and know what they can and cannot handle.  That may have been the intent of the personal missions, but if so, it failed hard.  Shepard is the entirety of the characters' universe.  The third squadmate may as well have not been there at all.  Most of the characters don't even acknowledge that you have other squad members on board the Normandy.  What we get are 12 bad****es that are personally loyal to Shepard.  Shep simply pulls them out of his utility belt, Batman-style, as they are needed.

Take Samara on Zaeed's personal mission.  See what she has to say about setting fire to the refinery and endangering the innocent workers.  Take Thane on Garrus's mission.  See what he has to say about killing in anger.  Maybe he'll mention his wife's death and his reaction to it. Or not.  How about taking Miranda on Jack's mission.  Maybe we'll get a Cerberus point of view on the Teltin facility.  Nah.  Take Garrus on Tali's recruitment of loyalty mission.  Do they say one word to each other?

"Part of what's great about a roleplaying game is that you have the choice of going off and doing other side stories, but that can be a problem, and that was one of the pieces of feedback we had about Mass Effect 1, that because the core story had so much intensity and pressure around it, when you would go off and do a side mission, it didn't have that kind of intensity and it wasn't directly linked as part of the story. That's where that Dirty Dozen team building structure addressed a lot of that on a fundamental level."

Again, where's the teambuilding?  Have the writers actually seen The Dirty Dozen?  Or any other story with an ensemble cast?  Most of the fun comes from people with differnt personalities play off each other.  The characters are good.  A little over the top.  But good.  And given nothing to do.  I feel like Bioware set out all these ingredients:  dough, tomatoes, cheese, assorted meat and veggies.  But instead of baking it into a pizza, declared the job done while they all still in their seperate containers.  They declared it a team before they actually come together as a single unit.

This is why one of my current favorite threads on this board is the banter thread.  It's nice to see and post some of the dialogue that could have gone into the game and add flavor and personality into the characters, but for whatever reason did not.

[Pwner1323]

Aeowyn wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

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.

Ok please point me to the brief that lasted for 10 seconds, because at the moment YOU are making no sense. And I honestly wondering if I'm feeding a troll.

I haven't played ME1 like for a year so I don't remember exactly but after it I was like "What the hell?" since only Shepard and Liara talked while everyone else just sat there.

[CC-Tron]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


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

This is true for the biotic expert as well. No matter which biotic is picked the expert doesn't fail to get the squad to the door. The only difference is the 'right candidate' throws the collectors at the end. All of the biotics struggle to hold the barrier up at exactly the same point on the path. The seeker swarms kill a squad member only because they didn't fall back with Shephard behind the door.

[Nightwriter]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

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.

Bah. Tis not resistance to change. It is perplexity at forcing us to work with a terrorist organization because of a threat that doesn't really seem important with the prerogative of recruiting apathetic characters of no real plot relevance or connection.

Also I didn't really connect with the ME1 characters either.

Also also I would make this my sig:

The characters were the story? So you mean the story was about calibrations?

if my sig wasn't busy being a plug for the Character Room.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 09 janvier 2011 - 07:18 .

[Pwner1323]

iakus wrote...

Lots of stuff here.  But just a few points to make

The funny thing is that people will say 'other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there.' But that is the story."

1)Gathering a crew we do.  Though   as other posters state, we bring people aboard, then stuff them in closets, cellars, workrooms, or whatever until they're needed for their personal mission. 

2) At what point do we "build a team" exactly?  They do not interact with each other.  At all.  Part of building a team is getting people to work together, to trust that they'll have each other's backs.  To get to know each other to a degree that they can anticipate each other's reactions, and know what they can and cannot handle.  That may have been the intent of the personal missions, but if so, it failed hard.  Shepard is the entirety of the characters' universe.  The third squadmate may as well have not been there at all.  Most of the characters don't even acknowledge that you have other squad members on board the Normandy.  What we get are 12 bad****es that are personally loyal to Shepard.  Shep simply pulls them out of his utility belt, Batman-style, as they are needed.

Take Samara on Zaeed's personal mission.  See what she has to say about setting fire to the refinery and endangering the innocent workers.  Take Thane on Garrus's mission.  See what he has to say about killing in anger.  Maybe he'll mention his wife's death and his reaction to it. Or not.  How about taking Miranda on Jack's mission.  Maybe we'll get a Cerberus point of view on the Teltin facility.  Nah.  Take Garrus on Tali's recruitment of loyalty mission.  Do they say one word to each other?

"Part of what's great about a roleplaying game is that you have the choice of going off and doing other side stories, but that can be a problem, and that was one of the pieces of feedback we had about Mass Effect 1, that because the core story had so much intensity and pressure around it, when you would go off and do a side mission, it didn't have that kind of intensity and it wasn't directly linked as part of the story. That's where that Dirty Dozen team building structure addressed a lot of that on a fundamental level."

Again, where's the teambuilding?  Have the writers actually seen The Dirty Dozen?  Or any other story with an ensemble cast?  Most of the fun comes from people with differnt personalities play off each other.  The characters are good.  A little over the top.  But good.  And given nothing to do.  I feel like Bioware set out all these ingredients:  dough, tomatoes, cheese, assorted meat and veggies.  But instead of baking it into a pizza, declared the job done while they all still in their seperate containers.  They declared it a team before they actually come together as a single unit.

This is why one of my current favorite threads on this board is the banter thread.  It's nice to see and post some of the dialogue that could have gone into the game and add flavor and personality into the characters, but for whatever reason did not.

/thread

[The Smoking Man]

Pwner1323 wrote...

I haven't played ME1 like for a year so I don't remember exactly but after it I was like "What the hell?" since only Shepard and Liara talked while everyone else just sat there.

The closest thing to a 10 second long debrief is this, which is awesome anyway.

[Pwner1323]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

I haven't played ME1 like for a year so I don't remember exactly but after it I was like "What the hell?" since only Shepard and Liara talked while everyone else just sat there.

The closest thing to a 10 second long debrief is this, which is awesome anyway.

Joker got that right.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

2) At what point do we "build a team" exactly?  They do not interact with each other.  At all.  Part of building a team is getting people to work together, to trust that they'll have each other's backs.  To get to know each other to a degree that they can anticipate each other's reactions, and know what they can and cannot handle.  That may have been the intent of the personal missions, but if so, it failed hard. Shepard is the entirety of the characters' universe.  The third squadmate may as well have not been there at all.  Most of the characters don't even acknowledge that you have other squad members on board the Normandy.  What we get are 12 bad****es that are personally loyal to Shepard.  Shep simply pulls them out of his utility belt, Batman-style, as they are needed.

This is exactly what I want, but seeing it written... iakus, do you think this is asking for too much?

[kmcd5722]

The Smoking Man wrote...

The characters were the story? So you mean the story was about calibrations?

Lol.  Yup.  Yeah, unfortunately, if the story was supposed to be the characters some of them could have seen more development.  If all the characters had as much dialogue and background as Thane, I don't think this would have been a problem.  The loyalty quests were a chance to explore a character's background, however, the majority of them were too linear to offer any off-topic dialogue. 

If it truly was about the characters, we could have seen that implemented with more dialogue and interaction BETWEEN squad members.  For example, the arguments between Legion and Tali, and Miranda and Jack, don't really constitute the vast oppurtunities that could have occured.  Even simple squad chatter in missions would have added some depth.  Cutscenes often lacked dialogue, and those god forsaken mission complete screens denied us the possibility of discussing the mission with the crew.  There were a lot of missed oppurtunities to make this a story about the characters.  Oh well.

[Cyberfrog81]

Well yeah, the third character is definitely "just there" on the loyalty missions. That was indeed a problem. My favourite part is Legion sitting down during Tali's trial.

Edit: Whoops. Worse example than intended. Bringing Legion does result in some unique dialogue.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 09 janvier 2011 - 07:27 .

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

This is exactly what I want, but seeing it written... iakus, do you think this is asking for too much?

Honestly, I don't know.  Maybe there were too many squadmates to cram actual interaction into the game.  Still, DAO did a great job of at least providing the illuson of interaction via banter and some cutscenes in camp.  And companions providing input and opinions about choices you face.  That was with a total of nine companions (well, eight and a dog).

[JuicElawl]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Well yeah, the third character is definitely "just there" on the loyalty missions. That was indeed a problem. My favourite part is Legion sitting down during Tali's trial.

Edit: Whoops. Worse example than intended. Bringing Legion does result in some unique dialogue.

ahahahaha, u can have legion attend tali's trial?? if i do another playthrough, i need to do that.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

This is exactly what I want, but seeing it written... iakus, do you think this is asking for too much?

Honestly, I don't know.  Maybe there were too many squadmates to cram actual interaction into the game.  Still, DAO did a great job of at least providing the illuson of interaction via banter and some cutscenes in camp.  And companions providing input and opinions about choices you face.  That was with a total of nine companions (well, eight and a dog).

DA:O was six years in development, though. Did ME2 get that benefit?

... Will ME3?

[Pwner1323]

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

This is exactly what I want, but seeing it written... iakus, do you think this is asking for too much?

Honestly, I don't know.  Maybe there were too many squadmates to cram actual interaction into the game.  Still, DAO did a great job of at least providing the illuson of interaction via banter and some cutscenes in camp.  And companions providing input and opinions about choices you face.  That was with a total of nine companions (well, eight and a dog).

DA:O was six years in development, though. Did ME2 get that benefit?

... Will ME3?

Wish it did. Imagine the quality of it. It would be the greatest game in history. But no, it feels like BW wants to rid themselves of ME as soon as possible. I sometimes think they bite more then they can chew.

[In Exile]

I thought each character's story was very well done, especially the loyalty mission.

But this is like when BSG says it was about the characters. Sure, you can say that. But it doesn't excuse incoherence in the main plot. Personally, I don't really care about many of the details other harp about, and I generaly prefer rule-of-cool over consistency and can appreciate how BS lore to justify gameplay (no ammo in ME1) is replaced by other BS lore to justify gameplay (ammo in ME2) but would rather they just bite the bullet on this stuff.

The problem is that ME2 does not advance the plot at all. The galaxy at the end of ME2 is in the same state as at the end of ME1. That's the problem with the plot.

Had they at least written something were you fail to really stop the reapers (like they are turning one star into a wormhole to get into the galaxy, you blow that up via a suicide mission, but it turns out there are tens of stars like this and the reapers are colming) that would be something.

But as it is, the whole plot is just a car spinning its wheels in place.

[Nightwriter]

In Exile wrote...

The problem is that ME2 does not advance the plot at all. The galaxy at the end of ME2 is in the same state as at the end of ME1. That's the problem with the plot.

I don't think you'd even care about this if characters commented heavily during each other's loyalty missions, interacted extensively via cutscenes on the Normandy that you can contribute to, and went on a journey that makes everyone come together as a team.

[Pwner1323]

In Exile wrote...

I thought each character's story was very well done, especially the loyalty mission.

But this is like when BSG says it was about the characters. Sure, you can say that. But it doesn't excuse incoherence in the main plot. Personally, I don't really care about many of the details other harp about, and I generaly prefer rule-of-cool over consistency and can appreciate how BS lore to justify gameplay (no ammo in ME1) is replaced by other BS lore to justify gameplay (ammo in ME2) but would rather they just bite the bullet on this stuff.

The problem is that ME2 does not advance the plot at all. The galaxy at the end of ME2 is in the same state as at the end of ME1. That's the problem with the plot.

Had they at least written something were you fail to really stop the reapers (like they are turning one star into a wormhole to get into the galaxy, you blow that up via a suicide mission, but it turns out there are tens of stars like this and the reapers are colming) that would be something.

But as it is, the whole plot is just a car spinning its wheels in place.

I truly feel sorry for the people that feel this way. ME2 (fro me) really advanced the plot and delivered a lot. frankly, I loved it all. But some people here are so hard to please that nothing will satisfy them.

And I heard that fallout forums are worse (yikes).

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

i agree with the OP 100% i meen no one gets it. sure the main plot might be very straightforward with your average SAVE THE GALAXY FROM DOOM thing, but the well developed characters strengthen the story and thats ultimatley what makes the games plot better then the first

[Jzadek72]

In Exile wrote...

I thought each character's story was very well done, especially the loyalty mission.

But this is like when BSG says it was about the characters. Sure, you can say that. But it doesn't excuse incoherence in the main plot. Personally, I don't really care about many of the details other harp about, and I generaly prefer rule-of-cool over consistency and can appreciate how BS lore to justify gameplay (no ammo in ME1) is replaced by other BS lore to justify gameplay (ammo in ME2) but would rather they just bite the bullet on this stuff.

The problem is that ME2 does not advance the plot at all. The galaxy at the end of ME2 is in the same state as at the end of ME1. That's the problem with the plot.

Had they at least written something were you fail to really stop the reapers (like they are turning one star into a wormhole to get into the galaxy, you blow that up via a suicide mission, but it turns out there are tens of stars like this and the reapers are colming) that would be something.

But as it is, the whole plot is just a car spinning its wheels in place.

My comparison for Mass Effect 2 and 3 is that it's like the Hyperion Cantos, only with a prequel.
Those books are extremely good and well-praised Sci-fi that has affected the way the genre is written greatly. It also predicted the internet about ten years in advance. The first book, however, had even less story content than ME2, and focussed entirely on the induvidual stories of the people in them, leading them up to the moment when the story kicked in for book 2.

If they do the same in Mass Effect 3, and have these people as key to the plot, or at least your squadmates again, then Mass Effect 2 will have served its purpose in leading onto the third game.


I think the Collectors were tacked on to give some story content to
prevent complete uproar. As it was, Mass Effect 2 seems designed to
introduce key characters. If, however, they decide to make you recruit a
mostly new team in the third game, then Mass Effect 2 will have a much
weaker standing than it would otherwise.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Nightwriter wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The problem is that ME2 does not advance the plot at all. The galaxy at the end of ME2 is in the same state as at the end of ME1. That's the problem with the plot.

I don't think you'd even care about this if characters commented heavily during each other's loyalty missions, interacted extensively via cutscenes on the Normandy that you can contribute to, and went on a journey that makes everyone come together as a team.

Exactly.

This makes it all the more realistic to call ME2 filler, as much as it hurts to say so. I've said too many times before, but as far as I'm concerned, LOTSB is ME2. ME2 itself was just a fancy dream of Shepard's for all I care.

Hopefully the next DLC is more along the lines of LOTSB.

[In Exile]

Aeowyn wrote...
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.

That makes sense to me. It's just like your conversation with Vigil in ME1, when you ask why the reapers are doing the whole harvesting thing, and the reply is ''your job is to stop them, not understand them.''

Quite simply, it doesn't matter. That's horrible re: their fate, but it's done, we can't save them, and we need to stop the repears to prevent that from happening to us. I actually thought ME2 handled this particular revelation well.

We also had less insane screaming from Shepard, which was nice.

[KainrycKarr]

Hrm. This presents an interesting issue for Bioware.

If the characters were the story, and those characters are all cameo'd or similarly cast aside in ME3 as so many expect, then everyone will ask  "Just what the hell was the point of ME2 then, in the scope of the trilogy?"

Of course, if the squaddies return, or at least some of them, then it won't be a big deal, but this could be a pretty bad bit of PR if it turns out the ME2 squad gets the shoe in ME3.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 09 janvier 2011 - 08:01 .