185 réponses à ce sujet

[Piecake]

Getorex wrote...

Piecake wrote...

ME2's focus on characters instead of plot was definitely a positive in my eyes since I find characters infinitely more enjoyable/interesting than plot. I thought ME2 did what it needed to do in terms of plot, bridge the gap between ME1 and ME3, but just went with a much more interesting story structure than just sticking a bunch of twists and turns, political intrigue, or what-have-you into the plot.

Of course, I realize I am probably in the minority who prefer characters over plot, but whether its movies, TV, and especially literature, the thing has to have interesting characters to keep my interest. Heck, some of my favorite novels have the most simplistic plots you've ever seen

Must it be one or the other?  Character OR plot?  The two must not, cannot mix? 

What I see is developers "playing" with a game concept and a story concept, seeing what they can do with it.  ME1 explored a cool, pretty well thought out story with a fairly new game mechanic.  ME2 has them playing a bit more with the mechanics and graphics (at the expense of story).  Not bad in and of itself, you gotta play with your toys to see what they can do, but to fill the entire enterprise with an wise, knowing, overwatching genious is too much.  The story wasn't licensed from some bigtime author who ONLY cares about story and logical development, leaving the game developers to work THEIR craft on the story of a book.  It was a story developed by committee (ME2 certainly more than ME1) with some corporate exec lording over the process saying, "Money!  Show me the money!  Here's your deadline!  Give us SOMETHING by then.  Do what you need to in order to make the deadline!  MONEY!" 

When did I say they can't mix?  All I said is that I need interesting characters for me to enjoy a story.  If it has an interesting plot, great.  If it doesnt, that's ok too.  As for my opinion's of ME1 and ME2's plot, I'd say that ME1 had a pretty good plot while ME2's plot was decent.  But, personally, I enjoyed ME2's story more than ME1's because I found the characters a lot more interesting.  I'll admit that the plot was better in ME1, but like I said, I dont care about that as much as I do characters.

As for the rest of your post, I consider that speculative BS.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Khayness wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

But he can't anymore. Did you play ME1?

Ilos was merely a setback.

I don't have to write a fully detailed fanfic in order make a point.

The Reapers were around for quite a while, maybe this wasn't the first glitch in the Cycle, who knows.

yeah... but still, the whole thing about ME1 is that shepard stopped the whole signal thing. Since what made the signal possible is gone, the human reaper wouldn't have been able to do the same thing as Sovereign.

[Getorex]

The main reason you can look at ME2 as, to a great extent, expendable in the ME series is the fact that you can end the game with Shepard dead. Shepard.



Shepard is the heart of the story. It is from his eyes, his experience, that the entire story is told. It is via his eyes that the story is viewed. It is HIS decision you are making (yeah, sure, or "hers" if you do a femshep but you know what I mean here) that is shaping the way the story unfolds.



You can get him croaked at the end of ME2. So, what, are we in for a reboot of the ME2 reboot in ME3? Will the game start with yet another miraculous regeneration of Shepard from carbonized ash (or rotting meat)?



Naw, much of ME2 is throwaway fill-the-time-between-ME1-and-ME3. You can even get a key character like Tali killed off in addition to Shepard. C'mon! This whole thing screams "not really important to the overall story - just enjoy ME2 for what it is, a test drive of the new engine and control system."

[vanslyke85]

I'm pretty shocked that people actually think it's not needed. Unless your entire squad died, which if you want it's really not hard to have everyone survive, this game is a huge stepping stone from 1 to 3. Obviously your not going to be recruiting 10 more people for your squad in ME3. The squad that you recruited and made loyal to you and spent so much time learning about in ME2 is going to be your squad in ME3. Except for maybe 2 or 3 deletions and add-ons. (Thane could be gone since he said he basically has 8-12 months to live). In ME2 you learn so much about the Geth and the Quarians and play a major role in the future of both races. Same with the Krogan and Grunt. If you kept or destroyed the Genophage data that could have huge implications for ME3. I have posted a thread earlier today actually about 10 different plot points and choices that will play huge parts in ME3 in my opinion. http://social.biowar...3/index/5812753

In it are many reasons why ME2 was definitely needed and a great game.

[Piecake]

Getorex wrote...

The main reason you can look at ME2 as, to a great extent, expendable in the ME series is the fact that you can end the game with Shepard dead. Shepard.

Shepard is the heart of the story. It is from his eyes, his experience, that the entire story is told. It is via his eyes that the story is viewed. It is HIS decision you are making (yeah, sure, or "hers" if you do a femshep but you know what I mean here) that is shaping the way the story unfolds.

You can get him croaked at the end of ME2. So, what, are we in for a reboot of the ME2 reboot in ME3? Will the game start with yet another miraculous regeneration of Shepard from carbonized ash (or rotting meat)?

Naw, much of ME2 is throwaway fill-the-time-between-ME1-and-ME3. You can even get a key character like Tali killed off in addition to Shepard. C'mon! This whole thing screams "not really important to the overall story - just enjoy ME2 for what it is, a test drive of the new engine and control system."

Having your characters die is not important to the game's story?  Wow, hahaha.

It does sound like you are a bit confused how ME2 saved data is going to work though.  If you get the very very worst ending of ME2, your save file wont transfer to ME3, since, well, your story is already done.  Every other ending, from second worst to best, will be transfered, along with all consequences, especially relating to character status

[Fdingo]

This is what happens to a lot of movie trilogies as well. The second part has a difficult task of setting up the finale while stalling the actual plot. Right now it's too early to say whether ME2 is a filler or not. Depends on how many things from #2 come back and bite you in the ass in #3.

[Evil Johnny 666]

vanslyke85 wrote...

I'm pretty shocked that people actually think it's not needed. Unless your entire squad died, which if you want it's really not hard to have everyone survive, this game is a huge stepping stone from 1 to 3. Obviously your not going to be recruiting 10 more people for your squad in ME3. The squad that you recruited and made loyal to you and spent so much time learning about in ME2 is going to be your squad in ME3. Except for maybe 2 or 3 deletions and add-ons. (Thane could be gone since he said he basically has 8-12 months to live). In ME2 you learn so much about the Geth and the Quarians and play a major role in the future of both races. Same with the Krogan and Grunt. If you kept or destroyed the Genophage data that could have huge implications for ME3. I have posted a thread earlier today actually about 10 different plot points and choices that will play huge parts in ME3 in my opinion. http://social.biowar...3/index/5812753
In it are many reasons why ME2 was definitely needed and a great game.

Eh, actually Bioware already told us the ME2 squad mates will mostly have limited roles. That's why Ashley or Kaiden are not in ME2, they told us it was because they could die, so it would be too complicated to make them important in ME3 because they could die. The only ones I can see being slightly important would be Tali and Garrus. But Tali can die too, so ME3 should be able to work properly without her around, I don't see how anyone who can die in a preceding game can be important in a sequel. That would mean the game could be incredibly different, which I doubt would be the case. Tell me, are you going to make long dialogue lines for 10 characters who could all be dead? So you'll need other characters to replace them if they die, and write dialogue and all for them too. Do you know how damn complex this would be? And just look how ME1's big choices had limited impact on the game. I think anyone can say without fear that ME2's squad mates role will in ME3 will range from non-existent to slightly important, the vast majority of them not fitting in the latter.

[Getorex]

Piecake wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Piecake wrote...

ME2's focus on characters instead of plot was definitely a positive in my eyes since I find characters infinitely more enjoyable/interesting than plot. I thought ME2 did what it needed to do in terms of plot, bridge the gap between ME1 and ME3, but just went with a much more interesting story structure than just sticking a bunch of twists and turns, political intrigue, or what-have-you into the plot.

Of course, I realize I am probably in the minority who prefer characters over plot, but whether its movies, TV, and especially literature, the thing has to have interesting characters to keep my interest. Heck, some of my favorite novels have the most simplistic plots you've ever seen

Must it be one or the other?  Character OR plot?  The two must not, cannot mix? 

What I see is developers "playing" with a game concept and a story concept, seeing what they can do with it.  ME1 explored a cool, pretty well thought out story with a fairly new game mechanic.  ME2 has them playing a bit more with the mechanics and graphics (at the expense of story).  Not bad in and of itself, you gotta play with your toys to see what they can do, but to fill the entire enterprise with an wise, knowing, overwatching genious is too much.  The story wasn't licensed from some bigtime author who ONLY cares about story and logical development, leaving the game developers to work THEIR craft on the story of a book.  It was a story developed by committee (ME2 certainly more than ME1) with some corporate exec lording over the process saying, "Money!  Show me the money!  Here's your deadline!  Give us SOMETHING by then.  Do what you need to in order to make the deadline!  MONEY!" 

When did I say they can't mix?  All I said is that I need interesting characters for me to enjoy a story.  If it has an interesting plot, great.  If it doesnt, that's ok too.  As for my opinion's of ME1 and ME2's plot, I'd say that ME1 had a pretty good plot while ME2's plot was decent.  But, personally, I enjoyed ME2's story more than ME1's because I found the characters a lot more interesting.  I'll admit that the plot was better in ME1, but like I said, I dont care about that as much as I do characters.

As for the rest of your post, I consider that speculative BS.

Uh...Bioware is a COMPANY.  It lives to make money.  Period.  It is NOT an altruistic "artist colony".  Money is the beginning, middle, and end of the entire development process. 

It was developed, as all company operations must, by committee.  It could be a small committee or a big committee (committees tend to grow larger when the first run is a success and there's seen to be more money to be made in continuation).

There will not be any games based entirely on character.  Bleh.  That wont sell but you can get that in either Secondlife or the Sims - no plots, no timelimit, no story.  Just "doing stuff".

Now having said that I have no problem with character-driven STORIES (that have beginnings, middles, and resolving ends).  They're great in their way and all but ME is not the vehicle for that.  It is a vehicle for adventure/action with character along for the ride (riding shotgun if you like). 

ME1 was very strong on story, pretty decent on characters (though truncated...3 or 4 friendly conversations and you bag your babe - Ash or Liara), but fairly clumsy on mechanics.  ME2 was strong on character and mechanics (though not universally to the good - ammo clips) but was clearly a "Oh sh*t, we've got the mechanics down, now we have to come up with a story and we only have X many months left to finish the whole thing!  C'mon people!  Brainstorm here.  What is ME2 about?"

[Getorex]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

vanslyke85 wrote...

I'm pretty shocked that people actually think it's not needed. Unless your entire squad died, which if you want it's really not hard to have everyone survive, this game is a huge stepping stone from 1 to 3. Obviously your not going to be recruiting 10 more people for your squad in ME3. The squad that you recruited and made loyal to you and spent so much time learning about in ME2 is going to be your squad in ME3. Except for maybe 2 or 3 deletions and add-ons. (Thane could be gone since he said he basically has 8-12 months to live). In ME2 you learn so much about the Geth and the Quarians and play a major role in the future of both races. Same with the Krogan and Grunt. If you kept or destroyed the Genophage data that could have huge implications for ME3. I have posted a thread earlier today actually about 10 different plot points and choices that will play huge parts in ME3 in my opinion. http://social.biowar...3/index/5812753
In it are many reasons why ME2 was definitely needed and a great game.

Eh, actually Bioware already told us the ME2 squad mates will mostly have limited roles. That's why Ashley or Kaiden are not in ME2, they told us it was because they could die, so it would be too complicated to make them important in ME3 because they could die. The only ones I can see being slightly important would be Tali and Garrus. But Tali can die too, so ME3 should be able to work properly without her around, I don't see how anyone who can die in a preceding game can be important in a sequel. That would mean the game could be incredibly different, which I doubt would be the case. Tell me, are you going to make long dialogue lines for 10 characters who could all be dead? So you'll need other characters to replace them if they die, and write dialogue and all for them too. Do you know how damn complex this would be? And just look how ME1's big choices had limited impact on the game. I think anyone can say without fear that ME2's squad mates role will in ME3 will range from non-existent to slightly important, the vast majority of them not fitting in the latter.

Ahem.  *cough!*

Shepard can die in ME2.  Clearly, death is not any hindrance to the playing and development of ME3.  Shepard is THE main character and his death in ME2 (for the clowns that left it at that, with him dead) is clearly a simple throw-away option. 

[vanslyke85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

vanslyke85 wrote...

I'm pretty shocked that people actually think it's not needed. Unless your entire squad died, which if you want it's really not hard to have everyone survive, this game is a huge stepping stone from 1 to 3. Obviously your not going to be recruiting 10 more people for your squad in ME3. The squad that you recruited and made loyal to you and spent so much time learning about in ME2 is going to be your squad in ME3. Except for maybe 2 or 3 deletions and add-ons. (Thane could be gone since he said he basically has 8-12 months to live). In ME2 you learn so much about the Geth and the Quarians and play a major role in the future of both races. Same with the Krogan and Grunt. If you kept or destroyed the Genophage data that could have huge implications for ME3. I have posted a thread earlier today actually about 10 different plot points and choices that will play huge parts in ME3 in my opinion. http://social.biowar...3/index/5812753
In it are many reasons why ME2 was definitely needed and a great game.

Eh, actually Bioware already told us the ME2 squad mates will mostly have limited roles. That's why Ashley or Kaiden are not in ME2, they told us it was because they could die, so it would be too complicated to make them important in ME3 because they could die. The only ones I can see being slightly important would be Tali and Garrus. But Tali can die too, so ME3 should be able to work properly without her around, I don't see how anyone who can die in a preceding game can be important in a sequel. That would mean the game could be incredibly different, which I doubt would be the case. Tell me, are you going to make long dialogue lines for 10 characters who could all be dead? So you'll need other characters to replace them if they die, and write dialogue and all for them too. Do you know how damn complex this would be? And just look how ME1's big choices had limited impact on the game. I think anyone can say without fear that ME2's squad mates role will in ME3 will range from non-existent to slightly important, the vast majority of them not fitting in the latter.

So you think your going to be recruiting more squad members and the Normandy's just going to magically be empty again?  It would be a real shame if Bioware just copped out like that and disregarded all the characters that everyone worked so hard to get through the final mission.  If you romanced Miranda or Jack you think they're just not gonna be around or you'll get to say hi to them once or twice?  I can't see that.

[Khayness]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

yeah... but still, the whole thing about ME1 is that shepard stopped the whole signal thing. Since what made the signal possible is gone, the human reaper wouldn't have been able to do the same thing as Sovereign.

Yup, I have edited my post, thinking "someone will nitpick it to hell" before your comment.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Fdingo wrote...

This is what happens to a lot of movie trilogies as well. The second part has a difficult task of setting up the finale while stalling the actual plot. Right now it's too early to say whether ME2 is a filler or not. Depends on how many things from #2 come back and bite you in the ass in #3.

I think it's just a design choice. Did The Empire Strikes Back stalled the story of the trilogy? Did The Clone Wars stalled the story? Did Aliens stalled the story? (not that 3 was of any good). Did The 2 Towers stalled the story?

I think it was a matter of all those who didn't play ME1, and considering the series turned multi-platform. If ME1 was an important part in understanding ME2, PS3 players would miss an important chapter. How do you make them not suffer for not owning the game on the xbox or pc? To not make the first game important to the rest of the trilogy. In ME2, we all know the reapers are some dangerous living ships who wants to kill us, and there's no need to know more than that. A good trilogy has every part being important, every part needs to be building on the preceeding one to make it as good as possible. When you stall the story, you make sure you can't build on as much, you make sure to lower the greatness it can accomplish. It's simple, in a trilogy, if the second installment builds upon the first, and the 3rd one builds on the second, the 3rd one is sure to be able to go higher than a 2nd installment which doesn't buil on the first. And then you're not even sure if the 3rd builds on either of them.

So all you have, are stand alones. What's the point of a trilogy if you make them stand alones? Isn't the point of a trilogy to make what you can't do with one outing? To make something big and all?

[Getorex]

Fdingo wrote...

This is what happens to a lot of movie trilogies as well. The second part has a difficult task of setting up the finale while stalling the actual plot. Right now it's too early to say whether ME2 is a filler or not. Depends on how many things from #2 come back and bite you in the ass in #3.

Well said, actually.  This is not NECESSARILY the case but is often the case when movie #1 (or game #1) does well and is picked up for continuation, but the overarching story to carry the trilogy isn't already written.  Oops.  Now #2 needs to be tossed together while we REALLY work on the real story that is #3. 

When done right, the story is written at the beginning.  You map out what #1, 2, and 3 will handle out of the finished story.  It all flows well, one to the next, and there's no clumsiness or appearance of tape and glue trying to hold the entire thing together. 

That didn't happen here (rarely does, especially for games, so I'm not going to kick their balls TOO hard). 

[Evil Johnny 666]

vanslyke85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Eh, actually Bioware already told us the ME2 squad mates will mostly have limited roles. That's why Ashley or Kaiden are not in ME2, they told us it was because they could die, so it would be too complicated to make them important in ME3 because they could die. The only ones I can see being slightly important would be Tali and Garrus. But Tali can die too, so ME3 should be able to work properly without her around, I don't see how anyone who can die in a preceding game can be important in a sequel. That would mean the game could be incredibly different, which I doubt would be the case. Tell me, are you going to make long dialogue lines for 10 characters who could all be dead? So you'll need other characters to replace them if they die, and write dialogue and all for them too. Do you know how damn complex this would be? And just look how ME1's big choices had limited impact on the game. I think anyone can say without fear that ME2's squad mates role will in ME3 will range from non-existent to slightly important, the vast majority of them not fitting in the latter.

So you think your going to be recruiting more squad members and the Normandy's just going to magically be empty again?  It would be a real shame if Bioware just copped out like that and disregarded all the characters that everyone worked so hard to get through the final mission.

I'm sure of it. Well, you had to recruit all over again in ME2 anyway. And what, if they all die in ME2, you'll have a ghost ship in ME3 and only Ashley/Kaiden and Liara? For a huge crew of 2? Not a chance. Like I said, Bioware themselves specifically said the reason Ashley or Kaiden are out of the game as well as Liara was for them to return in ME3 and be an important of it. That of course means any squad mate in ME2 won't be important in ME3, or at least as important, otherwise they wouldn't have put them in your squad like they did with Kaiden/Ashley and Liara.

If you romanced Miranda or Jack you think they're just not gonna be around or you'll get to say hi to them once or twice?  I can't see that.

That's what happened in ME2 when you romanced Kaiden or Ashley...

[Piecake]

Getorex wrote...

Uh...Bioware is a COMPANY.  It lives to make money.  Period.  It is NOT an altruistic "artist colony".  Money is the beginning, middle, and end of the entire development process. 

It was developed, as all company operations must, by committee.  It could be a small committee or a big committee (committees tend to grow larger when the first run is a success and there's seen to be more money to be made in continuation).

There will not be any games based entirely on character.  Bleh.  That wont sell but you can get that in either Secondlife or the Sims - no plots, no timelimit, no story.  Just "doing stuff".

Now having said that I have no problem with character-driven STORIES (that have beginnings, middles, and resolving ends).  They're great in their way and all but ME is not the vehicle for that.  It is a vehicle for adventure/action with character along for the ride (riding shotgun if you like). 

ME1 was very strong on story, pretty decent on characters (though truncated...3 or 4 friendly conversations and you bag your babe - Ash or Liara), but fairly clumsy on mechanics.  ME2 was strong on character and mechanics (though not universally to the good - ammo clips) but was clearly a "Oh sh*t, we've got the mechanics down, now we have to come up with a story and we only have X many months left to finish the whole thing!  C'mon people!  Brainstorm here.  What is ME2 about?"

I am well aware that Bioware is a company.  My complaint with your assertion is that you take it to the extreme.  My take is that while money is definitely a factor, writers still want to creat the best story/plot/characters that they can that will fit into a video game structure - and don't have a bureaucractic taskmaster constantly looking over their shoulder who swats them with a switch if they get too artistic.

You don't get to decide what ME is or isnt.  You just get to decide whether you like it or not.  To me, I thought the purpose of ME2's story was to not only bridge the gap between 1 and 3, but also to expand on the universe and make it more personal - which a character driven story does well. 

I am quite sure that ME3 will focus more on plot than ME2 did since this is the finale

[vanslyke85]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

vanslyke85 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Eh, actually Bioware already told us the ME2 squad mates will mostly have limited roles. That's why Ashley or Kaiden are not in ME2, they told us it was because they could die, so it would be too complicated to make them important in ME3 because they could die. The only ones I can see being slightly important would be Tali and Garrus. But Tali can die too, so ME3 should be able to work properly without her around, I don't see how anyone who can die in a preceding game can be important in a sequel. That would mean the game could be incredibly different, which I doubt would be the case. Tell me, are you going to make long dialogue lines for 10 characters who could all be dead? So you'll need other characters to replace them if they die, and write dialogue and all for them too. Do you know how damn complex this would be? And just look how ME1's big choices had limited impact on the game. I think anyone can say without fear that ME2's squad mates role will in ME3 will range from non-existent to slightly important, the vast majority of them not fitting in the latter.

So you think your going to be recruiting more squad members and the Normandy's just going to magically be empty again?  It would be a real shame if Bioware just copped out like that and disregarded all the characters that everyone worked so hard to get through the final mission.

I'm sure of it. Well, you had to recruit all over again in ME2 anyway. And what, if they all die in ME2, you'll have a ghost ship in ME3 and only Ashley/Kaiden and Liara? For a huge crew of 2? Not a chance. Like I said, Bioware themselves specifically said the reason Ashley or Kaiden are out of the game as well as Liara was for them to return in ME3 and be an important of it. That of course means any squad mate in ME2 won't be important in ME3, or at least as important, otherwise they wouldn't have put them in your squad like they did with Kaiden/Ashley and Liara.

If you romanced Miranda or Jack you think they're just not gonna be around or you'll get to say hi to them once or twice?  I can't see that.

That's what happened in ME2 when you romanced Kaiden or Ashley...

Yea all true...but this is the FINAL game.  They can't just leave stuff up in the air like that.  anyways that's my opinion.  

[vanslyke85]

I guess if they truly want to make ME3 a game anyone can play not having played the others then they can just make up back stories for everyone as to why the left the Normandy during the 2 years and start with new crew mates all over again and enrage millions of ME fans.

[Babli]

RaduM wrote...
Finally, character personalities being changed. Are you perhaps refering to Liara's radical change? Given she's Matriarch Benezia's daughter,I do not find this surprising at all. Liara's time aboard the Normandy,her participation in the fight against Saren and Sovereign is impossible not to have changed her.

That's she's now a badass as opposed to a vulnerable doe...  seriously, that's your gamebreaker?

SPOILERS
So it´s normal that prothean expert, who:
have seen Sovereign´s power
seen conversation with Sovereign on Virmire and Vigil on Ilos
who lost her mother because of Reapers

is it normal for someone like that to ignore Reapers and go after some petty revenge because of some random drell, who even bettrayed her a few times? She was with him only on one mission. Yes, you can argue that she felt guilty after he saved her BUT is it worth it to waste time with him when frakking REAPERS are on march and she knows it?

Even Ali Hillis, her voice actor found her change ...weird

You can also argue that now as SB she is more useful but before LotSB she never mentioned that she would become a new SB to help Shep to stop the Reapers.

I´ll never accept that as natural change of character.
Same goes for other ME 1 squadmates excpet Garrus and Tali.

[Fdingo]

Getorex, I agree with you 100%. As much as it pains me to say it, Mass Effect is not that perfectly thought out trilogy. Mass Effect, instead, is more like the Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean or even Back to the Future trilogy.

[Getorex]

Piecake wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Uh...Bioware is a COMPANY.  It lives to make money.  Period.  It is NOT an altruistic "artist colony".  Money is the beginning, middle, and end of the entire development process. 

It was developed, as all company operations must, by committee.  It could be a small committee or a big committee (committees tend to grow larger when the first run is a success and there's seen to be more money to be made in continuation).

There will not be any games based entirely on character.  Bleh.  That wont sell but you can get that in either Secondlife or the Sims - no plots, no timelimit, no story.  Just "doing stuff".

Now having said that I have no problem with character-driven STORIES (that have beginnings, middles, and resolving ends).  They're great in their way and all but ME is not the vehicle for that.  It is a vehicle for adventure/action with character along for the ride (riding shotgun if you like). 

ME1 was very strong on story, pretty decent on characters (though truncated...3 or 4 friendly conversations and you bag your babe - Ash or Liara), but fairly clumsy on mechanics.  ME2 was strong on character and mechanics (though not universally to the good - ammo clips) but was clearly a "Oh sh*t, we've got the mechanics down, now we have to come up with a story and we only have X many months left to finish the whole thing!  C'mon people!  Brainstorm here.  What is ME2 about?"

I am well aware that Bioware is a company.  My complaint with your assertion is that you take it to the extreme.  My take is that while money is definitely a factor, writers still want to creat the best story/plot/characters that they can that will fit into a video game structure - and don't have a bureaucractic taskmaster constantly looking over their shoulder who swats them with a switch if they get too artistic.

You don't get to decide what ME is or isnt.  You just get to decide whether you like it or not.  To me, I thought the purpose of ME2's story was to not only bridge the gap between 1 and 3, but also to expand on the universe and make it more personal - which a character driven story does well. 

I am quite sure that ME3 will focus more on plot than ME2 did since this is the finale

Let me put it this way (with apologies if I have offended you):  I have no doubt that the developers that came up with ME in the first place REALLY want to tell a great story.  They want THEIR baby to be great.  They would do anything they can to make it so.

Sadly it is not in their control.  Not ultimately.  They have to work within the timelines and within the limits placed upon them by suits.  The suits come down and say, "Money!  Time frame!  Get crackin'!"  The developers are then sitting there thinking GodD@MNIT!  These suits don't know WTF is involved in creating this stuff!  And then they do what they can, trying to make the most it under the (largely artificial) constraints imposed from on high.

They may be good but they aren't miracle workers. 

[Getorex]

vanslyke85 wrote...

I guess if they truly want to make ME3 a game anyone can play not having played the others then they can just make up back stories for everyone as to why the left the Normandy during the 2 years and start with new crew mates all over again and enrage millions of ME fans.

IF they had done what they SHOULD have done, they would have ported #1 to the same platforms that they chased after in #2 and simply made #2 properly flow from #1 (and consequently, #3 from 2).  You want to play #2, appreciate and understand it?  THEN PLAY #1 FIRST!  It's a d@mned trilogy! If you can't be bothered to play #1 first, suck it up then. 

Ah-ha!  But ME mega fans wont be enraged until AFTER they bought ME3 and started playing it, only to find little connecting it to everything they did before (except superficially).  But the thing is, you will already have purchased it.  Mission accomplished. By the way, I will be among those who may well be disappointed early as I will be among the early purchasers.

There are perils involved in investing hope in game companies (particularly those taken over by bigger, yuckier game companies).  First, you have to worry about how much control the creators are being given by the suits.  Then you have to worry about what platforms they are developing/releasing for (the lowest common denominator console will stupid down the game play, graphics, freedom for those not so encumbered because they will create for the crap device and simply port over to the stronger device(s)).  Finally you have to concern yourself with who has been brought into the team vs those who have left or been shuffled elsewhere. 

Modifié par Getorex, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:16 .

[Tasker]

RaduM wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

-snip-

As a sequel following on from ME1 however, ME2 is awful. The hud, the inventory and the skills systems are terrible, they have no continuity with the first game and on top of that, there's no story progression other than to try and convice people that Cerberus aren't evil, ( despite the first game doing everything to prove that they are, ) and totally changing characters personalities from the first game.

-snip-

Hud, inventory and skills systems are terrible ? That's an...unconventional opionion. Care to elaborate?

The HUD in ME1 was very simple and easy to understand.  You could tell at a glance wether you're team mates were ok or not thanks to an easy to read hitpoint bar next to their names, in ME2 you have these ugly little heads representing them that turned grey if they were down, - they're already pretty colourless so you have to really look at them to tell what's going on, not to mention that their health and shield bars only show up when they're taking fire - at which point they're usually dead before you notice.  The Crayola crayon damage veins are horrid to look at and look like a child had drawn them, what was wrong with the damage indicators of ME1? And the maps, what the hell happened to the maps?

Inventory is practically non existant.  In ME1 you could pick up any armour or weapons your enemy dropped - did you end up with loads of them? Yes, but going from "too many" to the practically non existant of ME2 was cutting the nose off to spite the face, especially when you get them from the same same place and in a certain order every time you play, not to mention their lack of stats. How the hell do I know which weapon does what better than the others? Oh that's right, the last weapon I picked up is the best weapon I have, I know that because all my team mates automatically equip it. And as for armour, where are the medium and light armour parts? Jack can waltz around in a piece of string but my stealthy infiltrator Shepard has to wear bulky heavy armour, wow that's great for crouching down and sneaking about - oh hang on I can't crouch anymore what was I thinking making a stealthy Shephard in the first place?

Skills are as linear as the missions. In ME1 I could pretty much sculpt my Shepard in to being how I wanted. In ME2 I know that nomatter what I do, i'll end up with all of them, I just have to pick which ones I don't want all 4 levels in.

So yes, to me these systems are terrible.

RaduM wrote...


Also, I wouldn't classify ME2 gameplay as "a quest to prove Cerberus aren't evil" at all. I would say you gravely misunderstood what you experienced. From Jack's backstory, to the Cerberus incidents with the Quarians, to the Illusive Man willingly sending you into a Collector trap at one moment and last,but not least,the tense stand-off during the last discussion with the Illusive man. Regardless of the final decision made, Shepard and the Illusive Man do not see eye-to-eye.

Everything in ME1 that involved Cerberus had them torturing and killing inocent people for no reason.

ME2 forced you into working for them and then had everyone you meet go to great lengths about how they're just missunderstood and are prefferable to the Alliance. What a load of bollocks.

RaduM wrote...


Finally, character personalities being changed. Are you perhaps refering to Liara's radical change? Given she's Matriarch Benezia's daughter,I do not find this surprising at all. Liara's time aboard the Normandy,her participation in the fight against Saren and Sovereign is impossible not to have changed her.

That's she's now a badass as opposed to a vulnerable doe...  seriously, that's your gamebreaker?

Liara spent decades away from civilisation and had to fend for herself on her Prothian digs, so I know that she can be badass, but those decades alone also made her a bit naive and not sure around people, so how in the 2 years between ME1 and ME2 does she manage to create an information empire and turn into a cold heartless **** out only for revenge?  The revenge wasn't even for somebody she'd known all that long, she's know him for a couple of days and she then spends 2 years getting bitter and twisted over it, even going so far as to giving Shepard - one of here greatest friends and possibly even lover if you had her as a love interest, - the cold shoulder when he/she needs her the most.

Ashley and Kaiden are both ok untill they find out that Shepard is working with Cerberus, then they go all holier than thou and don't even give him/her a chance to explain. Shepard saved them over and over again in ME1 and he/she really needs them at his/her back for a galaxy changing mission and they don't even give Shepard a chance, they just tell him/her to ****** off, turn around and walk off.

Modifié par Orkboy, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:19 .

[samurai crusade]

vanslyke85 wrote...

I'm pretty shocked that people actually think it's not needed. Unless your entire squad died, which if you want it's really not hard to have everyone survive, this game is a huge stepping stone from 1 to 3. Obviously your not going to be recruiting 10 more people for your squad in ME3. The squad that you recruited and made loyal to you and spent so much time learning about in ME2 is going to be your squad in ME3. Except for maybe 2 or 3 deletions and add-ons. (Thane could be gone since he said he basically has 8-12 months to live). In ME2 you learn so much about the Geth and the Quarians and play a major role in the future of both races. Same with the Krogan and Grunt. If you kept or destroyed the Genophage data that could have huge implications for ME3. I have posted a thread earlier today actually about 10 different plot points and choices that will play huge parts in ME3 in my opinion. http://social.biowar...3/index/5812753
In it are many reasons why ME2 was definitely needed and a great game.

I like to think the Squadies will be on the Normandy doing crew functions... since the Cerberus crew that may or may not have been killed by the Collectors may not be on Shep's ship.   Since they will most likely have smaller roles.... why not just put them on-board the Normandy for a few dialogues.... I always wished I could talk with the Random NPC's on-board.
I still can't believe the number of people who can't see past their dislike of the game and actually understand the plot.    There is more to a war than fighting the enemy... and we learned that the enemy has many arms.  Collectors to research the species.. even create cross-species plagues.   The Collectors/Reapers distribute technology for trade... technology that assures the Reapers that the galactic community will progress around planned routes..   this allows them to predict where society is going and at what technological level.          I'm sorry that everyone wanted to fight a Reaper in ME2... I thought it was genious... because fighting the same enemy in 3 games may seem redundant and get boring.

[Getorex]

Liara spent decades away from civilisation and had to fend for herself on her Prothian digs, so I know that she can be badass, but those decades alone also made her a bit naive and not sure around people, so how in the 2 years between ME1 and ME2 does she manage to create an information empire and turn into a cold heartless **** out only for revenge?  The revenge wasn't even for somebody she'd known all that long, she's know him for a couple of days and she then spends 2 years getting bitter and twisted over it, even going so far as to giving Shepard - one of here greatest friends and possibly even lover if you had her as a love interest, - the cold shoulder when he/she needs her the most.

Ashley and Kaiden are both ok untill they find out that Shepard is working with Cerberus, then they go all holier than thou and don't even give him/her a chance to explain. Shepard saved them over and over again in ME1 and he/she really needs them at his/her back for a galaxy changing mission and they don't even give Shepard a chance, they just tell him/her to ****** off, turn around and walk off.

To be fair to Ash...if she was your babe in ME1 and you stayed faithful (at least up to that point), after her holier-than-though blowoff, she emails you a big apology and lets you know it's all good. 

Oh, and as for Cerberus just being misunderstood...hey, now HITLER was just misunderstood too fella.  Stalin too.  If you got to KNOW Mussolini, you'd see he was misunderstood too.  And Caligula as well.

Modifié par Getorex, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:24 .

[Tasker]

Getorex wrote...

To be fair to Ash...if she was your babe in ME1 and you stayed faithful (at least up to that point), after her holier-than-though blowoff, she emails you a big apology and lets you know it's all good. 

True, but at that point you could be dead thanks to her not being there to watch your back.  Surly she'd want to know what was really going on and help you if she could.

Getorex wrote...

Oh, and as for Cerberus just being misunderstood...hey, now HITLER was just misunderstood too fella.  Stalin too.  If you got to KNOW Mussolini, you'd see he was misunderstood too.  And Caligula as well.

Very true, but what anoys me is the complete 180 Bioware did with them. One minute they were evil then they're not.

Modifié par Orkboy, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:28 .