462 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

"Isolated" I would probably not say. That they don't respond or argue when they "should" I don't disagree. But again, the sheer number of iterations and permutations for character-on-character events against the total amount of content I think is staggering.

12 character stories with up to 10-11 different scripted sequences for each content line is a truckload of scripted content.

Personally I'm glad they made the choices they did within the constraints or time and money they were presented with. ME2 was a more than respectable shooter. the "isolated" character development was very very good. (excellend? idk).

But did they lack a complete and full development in EVERY context and situation they were presented in? Yes they did. Why? Because it was not of main importance - simple. They just bridged it as best they could.

I don't think 'it was a more than respectable shooter' is much of a defense of the plot.....

[Bourne Endeavor]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I agree with you. DA:O made the characters "live" more than ME2. I don't think ME2 was completely bereft of character interaction, though. I just took Mordin on the Grunt recruitment mission just to hear his insights on Okeer. But it wasn't the same as DA, where I would walk around with different party members just to hear their interactions. It would have been amazing if ME2 would have had that level of interaction and I've seen that on pretty much everyone's ME3 wishlist.

But I wasn't arguing against that. I was simply saying that just because that mechanic does not exist, doesn't mean you can't say that the ME2 characters aren't written well and that the ME2 story isn't character driven.

How about:

The characters are well-written, but only within the confines of their own chapters in the story?  The game is "character driven", but only one character at a time.

Whether "one character at a time" or not, it's still character driven. The complaint about "not enough interpersonal between the characters" is almostly completely based on time and money considerations for Bioware.

Your definition of a character driven narrative is inaccurate. For a story to proceed through its characters, their actions must impact and develop the plot. A proper story is subjected to two principle necessities; cause and effect. If the cause represents the characters than the effect would be the main plot. This does not happen in Mass Effect 2, as the characters (cause) have no bearing to the main plot (effect.) The discovery of Ronald Taylor and the atrocity he committed settles Jacob's conscious and he personally grows as a character however the plot is stagnate. His loyalty mission is made entirely irrelevant due to the plot progressing regardless. The only component which drives forward the plot is a hidden valuable which dictates we complete five missions whilst the plot takes a coffee break.

For those whom argue Tali and her loyalty mission is driving the story. Her relevance is equally marginalized from the Mass Effect 2 perspective. Were we to factor her against the series, her loyalty mission is a prominent example of continuality. The Geth and Quarian conflict were maintained as a subplot we were given leisure to explore, although it was never mandatory. That ME2 allotted additional exposition on content from its predecessor is worthy of praise. It does not however equate to a character driven story.

The only exception is Mordin. We are informed by EDI that any exposure to the Seeker Swarms would result in death, and recruiting Mordin is necessary to develop an immunity to the Seeker Swarm. In this manner, he has become plot-integral. We cannot complete Horizon without Mordin's plot device. Therefore, his recruitment has altered and developed the plot. This is an example of a character driving the storyline.

Unfortunately, it is the only example. At no other instance do the remaining eleven characters specifically matter. Sure their presence is required to complete the theme, however doing so has no bearing on the plot. In conclusion, despite BioWare's claim. Mass Effect 2 is not a character driven story. It is a story structured through several individual side stories, which are completely episodic and do not contribute to the overall main plot.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 février 2011 - 01:05 .

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I really wonder what most people would have considered a point-ful second piece in the trilogy, knowing that the Reaper confrontation would have to come in the third act.

No matter what, you weren't going to defeat the Reapers in the second act. Short of the Reapers actually arriving, as opposed to a nigh-imminent approach?

Gathering nations/allies/resources for the coming war rather than just gathering a replacement team. They could even have been tied in. Tali's aguably counts, since the trial could count as rallying the Quarians, but Wrex doesn't discuss the Reapers with you. There is nothing relating the Mordin's ties to the Salarians, at least nothing resembling bringing them on board.

Garrus actually had negative character development. His personality reverted to before meeting Shepard. No ties with the Turians via him or anyone else.

Jack..... once the 'scourge of the cosmos'.... now? Maybe she'll try to take over Shepard's ship for giggles. Why not pursue ties to the pirate bands in the Terminus systems? Extra ships is extra ships and more importantly, if they are on guard against indoctrination, there might be fewer enemies. And why aren't they concerned with dissappearing colonies in the region?

Zaeed..... like Jack, only merc ties. Actually taking control back rather than petty revenge, or alternatively getting them onside diplomaticly. And why aren't the mercs concerned with disappearing colonies in the region?

Samara.... Asari ties. As a Justicar, she has some respect from the Asari people.

Thane... same deal with his people.

If the plan for ME3 involves Earth, then the Alliance could have been put off for them on the assumption that they were already onside.

That basicly leaves actually fighting the Reapers for ME3, as well as figuring out how to defeat them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I really wonder what most people would have considered a point-ful second piece in the trilogy, knowing that the Reaper confrontation would have to come in the third act.

No matter what, you weren't going to defeat the Reapers in the second act. Short of the Reapers actually arriving, as opposed to a nigh-imminent approach?

Gathering nations/allies/resources for the coming war rather than just gathering a replacement team.

Doesn't quite answer my quesiton, since you mostly focused on what you didn't like about this game. Like how not everyone is an ambassador to their race.


Let me try and rephrase: what would have happened in ME2 while leaving a serious story in ME3? Even doing away with ME3's forshadowed 'DA recruit the armies' plot (which, if we did in ME2, would rather detract from ME3).

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 février 2011 - 01:37 .

[Iakus]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I really wonder what most people would have considered a point-ful second piece in the trilogy, knowing that the Reaper confrontation would have to come in the third act.

No matter what, you weren't going to defeat the Reapers in the second act. Short of the Reapers actually arriving, as opposed to a nigh-imminent approach?

Indeed, so the second act should be Shepard losing to the Reapers.  Something that shows that for all Shep's prowess, Shepard is still just one man/woman.  Mortal, fallible.  Flesh and blood, not one whom killing would just p*ss him/her off.  If one were to go really dark, one could have done an episode which the Reapers had been manipulating events all through the game, effectively tricking Shepard into undoing all the good done in the first game:  the Savior of the Citadel unwittingly lets the Reapers back into the galaxy.  Either way, in the end, the Reaper invasion is imminent, everyone's scrambling, and Shepard just learned the hard way that price of overconfidence.

Instead we have Shepard the unstoppable cyborg killing machine foiling the Reapers yet again with only a dozen (max) allies and the only backing being a secretive quasi-terrorist organization.  What was stopped?  Doesn't matter. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Speaking as players, we could say that the proposed ME2 did nothing to advance the plot either: the Reapers are still out there intending to make their way in, and the galaxy still hadn't made progress towards working against them. Simply reworking the Suicide Mission to a point in which casualties were significant would have de-sue-d Shepard.



Parry-Parry-Thrust is no less advancing or reasonable a progression than Parry-Fail to Parry-Thrust.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Doesn't quite answer my quesiton, since you mostly focused on what you didn't like about this game. Like how not everyone is an ambassador to their race.


Let me try and rephrase: what would have happened in ME2 while leaving a serious story in ME3? Even doing away with ME3's forshadowed 'DA recruit the armies' plot (which, if we did in ME2, would rather detract from ME3).

Everyone doesn't have to be an ambassador. Garrus, for instance, doesn't fit that role well at all.

And why would 'recruiting armies' detract from ME3? Why does that aspect of the war have to be in the final act? Why can't the armies stand ready at the end of part 2, with reports that worlds are already falling?

Then in the final act, as the navies and nations fight a desperate struggle for survival in space, the intrepid Commander Shepard embarks on a perilous mission to solve the riddle of the Reapers once and for all, and to find.... the answer!

You talk as if uniting the nations is the answer in and of itself... what are you expecting, a B5 style unified "we don't want you here, please go away" with the reapers replaying "O'Tay" and turning around back to Dark Space?

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Speaking as players, we could say that the proposed ME2 did nothing to advance the plot either: the Reapers are still out there intending to make their way in, and the galaxy still hadn't made progress towards working against them. Simply reworking the Suicide Mission to a point in which casualties were significant would have de-sue-d Shepard.

Parry-Parry-Thrust is no less advancing or reasonable a progression than Parry-Fail to Parry-Thrust.

A war going backwards or losing can still be part of a plot going forward. LoTR had the fellowship break up due to people getting separated and due to a betrayal caused by the ring (thus directly plot related). The Wheel of Time has the situation getting more and more dire through most of the series.

It isn't just a lack of forward progress in ME2. It is an entirely self contained event that would have been a threat whether reapers were behind it or not, and is hard to understand how it slowed them down, or even why it was expected to succeed. If TIM hadn't been withholding information, it is a safe bet Mordin isn't the only Salarian scientist in creation (someone else might have taken longer, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have come up with a solution to the swarms). Certainly there is rather a lot more naval capacity out there than the Normandy represents.

There is nothing in ME2 that felt like it needed Shepard for. So many ties from ME1 were tossed aside or ignored.

Even if Shepard destroyed the proto-reaper, only to have Joker announce a Collector or Reaper fleet was approaching, it would have felt more like it progressed the plot.

[AdmiralCheez]

Mass Effect 1 wasn't a self-contained event?  The couldn't have nominated a different human for Spectredom?

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 04 février 2011 - 06:07 .

[Ryzaki]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Mass Effect 1 wasn't a self-contained event?  The couldn't have nominated a different human for Spectredom?

They could've of. But would that human have reacted the same to the beacon?

Would that person have had the power of save and reload?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 février 2011 - 06:09 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Ryzaki wrote...

They could've of. But would that human have reacted the same to the beacon?

Would that person have had the power of save and reload?

By Jove, you're right!  Shepard is the only being in the galaxy capable of do-overs!

[Ryzaki]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

They could've of. But would that human have reacted the same to the beacon?

Would that person have had the power of save and reload?

By Jove, you're right!  Shepard is the only being in the galaxy capable of do-overs!

Well duh.

Soveriegn and Saren obviously lack the power of reload.

Seriously though: Shepard to me felt more intergral in ME1's plot. Probably because it kept going back to the Prothean visions implanted in Shep's skull. While ME2 was about solving everyone's family issues and the collector's popped up once in a blue moon to troll Shep.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 février 2011 - 06:20 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Ryzaki wrote...

Well duh.

Soveriegn and Saren obviously lack the power of reload.

Good thing, too, otherwise the entire universe would be caught in an infinite loop.

*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*et cetera*

Seriously though: Shepard to me felt more intergral in ME1's plot.
Probably because it kept going back to the Prothean visions implanted in
Shep's skull. While ME2 was about solving everyone's family issues.

But remember, TIM brought Shepard back SPECIFICALLY, obviously considering him/her important.

ME2's plot in a nutshell: It happened because TIM said so.

As for the "daddy issues," it's a result of the devs going for a "character-based" approach.  I didn't have a problem with it, but I don't want to do it again in the next game.  It's a one-time gimmick.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 04 février 2011 - 06:23 .

[DarthSliver]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Well duh.

Soveriegn and Saren obviously lack the power of reload.

Good thing, too, otherwise the entire universe would be caught in an infinite loop.

*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*Saren wins, Shepard reloads*
*Shepard wins, Saren reloads*
*et cetera*

Seriously though: Shepard to me felt more intergral in ME1's plot.
Probably because it kept going back to the Prothean visions implanted in
Shep's skull. While ME2 was about solving everyone's family issues.

But remember, TIM brought Shepard back SPECIFICALLY, obviously considering him/her important.

ME2's plot in a nutshell: It happened because TIM said so.

As for the "daddy issues," it's a result of the devs going for a "character-based" approach.  I didn't have a problem with it, but I don't want to do it again in the next game.  It's a one-time gimmick.

Hey doesnt soveriegn get a reload lol

[282xvl]

It made many many many millions of dollars for those who created it.



/thread.

[Bourne Endeavor]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Mass Effect 1 wasn't a self-contained event?  The couldn't have nominated a different human for Spectredom?

Correct, this was what defined Shepard as a realistic character. (S)he is merely high ranking alliance soldier, who happens to be at a specific location at a specific time and in this instance acquired information which remains their and their alone. In Mass Effect 2, Shepard is primarily a passenger, who offers his/her input when requested but has limited, if any necessity to the story. TIM claims Shepard is unique and a born leader, yet this is never demonstrated. Why is Shepard unique, what makes him/her a born leader?

Shepard is perhaps the least developed character in ME2 of the principle cast. When you fill the role as the protagonist, this is bad.

282xvl wrote...

It made many many many millions of dollars for those who created it.

/thread.

Eh, no. That is a mistaken assumption. The annual salary on a statistical average for game designers does not exceed $100,000. That is an acute rarity and only lead programmers would command that amount. Most earn between $40,000 and $70,000. EA accumulates the majority of the profits, which would be significantly less than most perceive. Video Games have an enormous cost attached to their development. I would estimate Mass Effect 2 weighed in between forty or fifty million.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 février 2011 - 09:24 .

[Jabarai]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

282xvl wrote...

It made many many many millions of dollars for those who created it.

/thread.

Eh, no. That is a mistaken assumption. The annual salary on a statistical average for game designers.....

There's no reason whatsoever to even entertain such a non-argument.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Someone insinuated BioWare employees were millionaires. It is a frequent misconception and I chose to correct it. I see no harm in doing so.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 04 février 2011 - 09:42 .

[Moiaussi]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Someone insinuated BioWare employees were millionaires. It is a frequent misconception and I chose to correct it. I see no harm in doing so.

Actually they insinuated that the game yielded net profits in the millions, which isn't the same thing.

[Whatever42]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Correct, this was what defined Shepard as a realistic character. (S)he is merely high ranking alliance soldier, who happens to be at a specific location at a specific time and in this instance acquired information which remains their and their alone. In Mass Effect 2, Shepard is primarily a passenger, who offers his/her input when requested but has limited, if any necessity to the story. TIM claims Shepard is unique and a born leader, yet this is never demonstrated. Why is Shepard unique, what makes him/her a born leader?

Shepard is perhaps the least developed character in ME2 of the principle cast. When you fill the role as the protagonist, this is bad.

Shepard had already been selected for spectredom when he encountered the beacon on Ilos. He was actually the best of the best, who was ordered into that situation because they wanted to evaulate him. Why they thought that would be a good test for him, when they expected little trouble, is a bit of a plot hole.

Even in ME1, Shepard was little more than a cheerleader and squad leader. Sure, he had the prothean knowledge but he never exploited that, others did. Anderson and Udina gave him his first 3 missions. Hacket gave him all the side missions. The Council sent him to Virmire. Liara gave him Ilos and when the council tried to stop him, it was Anderson who got him set loose. Shepard may have sparked events and was the vessel for the Prothean visions but other than that, he was always told where to go.

But his leadership in the two games was more that he inspired other to involve themselves. Why did Garrus join him in ME1, leaving a job in C-Sec? Why did the fleet listen to him about when to engage Sovereign or save the Destiny Ascension? Why did most of the squad join up in ME2, except that it was Shepard?

I agree Shepard is underdeveloped and that is deliberate. In ME1, they framed a back story but that only popped up a couple of times and never defined who Shepard was. Shepard is a blank slate for the player to project themselves on. That was a game design decision, not a problem with the writing.

[AkiKishi]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Shepard had already been selected for spectredom when he encountered the beacon on Ilos. He was actually the best of the best, who was ordered into that situation because they wanted to evaulate him. Why they thought that would be a good test for him, when they expected little trouble, is a bit of a plot hole.

Even in ME1, Shepard was little more than a cheerleader and squad leader. Sure, he had the prothean knowledge but he never exploited that, others did. Anderson and Udina gave him his first 3 missions. Hacket gave him all the side missions. The Council sent him to Virmire. Liara gave him Ilos and when the council tried to stop him, it was Anderson who got him set loose. Shepard may have sparked events and was the vessel for the Prothean visions but other than that, he was always told where to go.

But his leadership in the two games was more that he inspired other to involve themselves. Why did Garrus join him in ME1, leaving a job in C-Sec? Why did the fleet listen to him about when to engage Sovereign or save the Destiny Ascension? Why did most of the squad join up in ME2, except that it was Shepard?

I agree Shepard is underdeveloped and that is deliberate. In ME1, they framed a back story but that only popped up a couple of times and never defined who Shepard was. Shepard is a blank slate for the player to project themselves on. That was a game design decision, not a problem with the writing.

Games like ME are sort of half way between a game with a pre-generated character and a character you create yourself.
Sometimes the distinction can be quite important.

For example if you compare DA and ME. 

In ME you must be a human called Shepard.
In DA you must be a GreyWarden.

Obviously DA allows you a much greater freedom of character but at at the cost of loss of focus on the story of a particular individual.

Shepard is just a name that allows the VO to address the character. Just like the title Commander.Beyond that it has no real significance.

I'm sure this has occured to many people but if you take the background of Shepard in ME , then why is he level 1 and in the case of the infiltrator unable to hit the broadside of a barn with his signiture weapon? That's not exactly special forces material is it?

The backstory added a few sidequests but in the great sceme of things it mattered not a bit.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 février 2011 - 01:29 .

[Frybread76]

Ha! I leave for six months, come back and people STILL feel they have to argue that ME 2 wasn't pointless. If the game actually advanced the main story this discussion wouldn't still be going on.

[AkiKishi]

Frybread76 wrote...

Ha! I leave for six months, come back and people STILL feel they have to argue that ME 2 wasn't pointless. If the game actually advanced the main story this discussion wouldn't still be going on.

Or maybe if people reaslised that it actually did.

[Frybread76]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Ha! I leave for six months, come back and people STILL feel they have to argue that ME 2 wasn't pointless. If the game actually advanced the main story this discussion wouldn't still be going on.

Or maybe if people reaslised that it actually did.

Why do you care what others think?  This discussion seems to begin with the fanboys and fangirls who seem offended other people think ME2 has a weak overaching story.  Which it does, btw.

[AkiKishi]

Frybread76 wrote...

Why do you care what others think?  This discussion seems to begin with the fanboys and fangirls who seem offended other people think ME2 has a weak overaching story.  Which it does, btw.

It happens when people try to present their opinion as fact.

Do we know more about the Reapers post ME2 than we knew pre-ME2. The answer is yes therefore ME2 was not pointless.

Could it have been done better ? Sure, but then the blame really lies with the OP for the choice of title.