462 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

More screen time does not equate to more character development. Their personalities don't really change as a result of the missions or dialogue, other than perhaps Miranda's miraculous conversion if you destroy the collector's base.

Actually, it does. If a character does not appear on screen, he or she does not develop, simple as that. If Han Solo's role in the Star Wars films had been confined to flying Luke and Obi-Wan to Alderaan, there would have been substantially less about his character. Now, to be fair, depending on how well the writing is handled, even a character who appears on screen may not develop.

While you are right that a character does need to actually appear in order to develop, the character has to appear and interact as well.  A character who silently follows the protagonist around fro two hours may spend a lot of time on screen, but you can't say they develop much.  Said character needs to speak, observe, interact, and learn, in order to grow.  If you limit that to one segment of the game, you are also limiting the character's growth.

However, your second sentence also confuses what it means to be a dynamic character and to be 'developed'. A character can still be static and developed (such as Princess Leia) who does not undergo much change throughout the series but whom we still learn quite a bit about. Character development is about learning what they value, 'fleshing them out', etc. It doesn't mean a character has to experience a major shift in their personality.

Major personality shifts aren't the definition of growth.  The character does have to react and adapt to the conditions around them in order to grow,

[Il Divo]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you claim that the quest with Wrex which allows him to be saved on Virmire is growth. Then you must accept that the quests you do to prevent a companions death is equally valid because they are exactly the same....

Not so. Development, yes. Growth? No. Wrex does not die because through his family armor quest (which was very lacking) he comes to trust Shepard and his leadership. Unfortunately, this is not carried out past Virmire. The loyatly missions are great, I love them. But they really do function strictly as 'don't kill me' triggers. The characters experience development in the loyatly missions, but this has nothing to do with why they don't take a rocket to the face, carried off by seekers, etc. Wrex's ability to live is plot related while the companions' is a game mechanic.  

[AkiKishi]

Il Divo wrote...

Not so. Development, yes. Growth? No. Wrex does not die because through his family armor quest (which was very lacking) he comes to trust Shepard and his leadership. Unfortunately, this is not carried out past Virmire. The loyatly missions are great, I love them. But they really do function strictly as 'don't kill me' triggers. The characters experience development in the loyatly missions, but this has nothing to do with why they don't take a rocket to the face, carried off by seekers, etc. Wrex's ability to live is plot related while the companions' is a game mechanic.  

Growth

–noun
1.
the act or process, or a manner of growing; development; gradual increase.
2.
size or stage of development: It hasn't yet reached its full growth.
3.
completed development.
4.
development from a simpler to a more complex stage: the growth of ritual forms.
5.
development from another but related form or stage: the growth of the nation state.

Tomato - Tomato

Do the loyalty mission they don't die in the course of the plot. Do Wrex' armour quest and he does not die in the course of the plot..

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 février 2011 - 06:18 .

[Iakus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you claim that the quest with Wrex which allows him to be saved on Virmire is growth. Then you must accept that the quests you do to prevent a companions death is equally valid because they are exactly the same....


Without stating the obvious if you don't do her loyalty then you can't romance Jack, so yes by doing her loyalty she does change.

Lot's of dialogue variations depending on the outcome of the loyalty missions too.

Slightly different though:

Finding Wrex's armor changes a decision he makes later on.  He trusts you now.   One might even say he is "loyal"  Failing to do a loyalty mission only seems to result in plot armor failling.  They don't say or do anything differently.  They just...fail.  Believe me I would have loved to see a direct correlation between not doing/failing a loyalty mission and how they get themselves or others killed.  Jack getting Teltin flashbacks and going all panicy as the bubble collaspses or something.

I had not realized that completing a loyalty mission is needed to start the romances.  So that's three examples of at least a little character growth down, and nine to go (unless there's secret Legion romance options...?)

dialogue variations...you mean the "Thanks fro helping me, now go away while I do some calibrations" conversations?

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

While you are right that a character does need to actually appear in order to develop, the character has to appear and interact as well.  A character who silently follows the protagonist around fro two hours may spend a lot of time on screen, but you can't say they develop much.  Said character needs to speak, observe, interact, and learn, in order to grow.  If you limit that to one segment of the game, you are also limiting the character's growth.
 

But a character following you around is not what is meant by screen time. No Bioware character has ever demonstrated growth in this manner, except BG and DA:O. Dawn Star does not grow as a character because I dragged her around, but through dialogue. Hence why saying that character development requires screen time.

The simple statement: "If Dawn Star does not appear, then Dawn Star does not develop" is sufficient to show us this.

I however would also point out that it is not 1 but two segments of the game ME2 where development is demonstrated: dialogue and loyalty missions. Mass Effect incorporates 2-3 (dialogue, character missions, and interactions with their environment). The best solution is (of course) to have all 3, which some characters do. Screen time means more dialogue and (usually) more development. Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions did a great job of fleshing out the characters in this way. Thane's loyalty mission was a great improvement on Carth's from Kotor (although this was still excellent). Comparatively, Garrus and Tali feature extremely lacking character missions which inhibits development in other ways.

Major personality shifts aren't the definition of growth.  The character does have to react and adapt to the conditions around them in order to grow,

However, I'm arguing that characters don't need to 'grow' in order to be developed. The Black Whirlwind experiences great character development but doesn't really change in any fashion. His only purpose remains to walk around and kill things. Likewise with Henpecked Hou and Sky (if not changed). To put it another way, why do we look at it as beneficial that every character 'grows'? Garrus grew as a character and I found the presentation to be horrible.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 février 2011 - 06:19 .

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
And does any of this change their outlook on the mission?  Do they say or do anything differently based on how their loyalty mission goes, aside from the "don't kill me" shield they get for the suicide mission?  Does letting Sidonis live or killing him change Garrus in any way for the rest of the game?  Does Jack say or do anything differently?  You  learn about the characters, sure.  BUt do you change them?

You know, I thought about what I said in comparison to ME1 so that I could come up with a reply. The so called "loyalty quests" that these characters had, had absolutely no effect on the main plot. ME2's sidequests, on the other hand, not only change their POV on the world -which is the point of character development, by the way, and not their outlook on the mission- but made them focus on the mission and forget about everything else. That's mentioned several times throughout the game.

And on Virmire, trusts Shepard enough to go along with destroying Saren's genophage cure, preventing the necessity of kiling him.  Somehthng you;d otherwise need near-maxed diplomacy or intimidate to accomplish (not that this means anyhting anymore, thanks to the comic)

Don't go around saying that the loyalty mechanism is pointless to char. development and then contradict yourself, iakus. 

Paragon:

"I've thought a lot about what you've told me.  About not sacrificing innocents to achieve the goal.  About finding the best way through, not just the fastest.  And I've been thinking about Dr. Saleon.  I convinced myself that he deserved to die.  But then I started thinking about why I wanted him dead  I realized it wasn't what he did to those people.  That was part of it, but I think most of it was because he got away from me.  He escaped under my watch and I let it become personal.

"I'm going back to C-Sec.  I think I can make a difference there.  I'll also reapply for Spectre training, but I'll do it right.  I won't comprmise myself to get there.  If the people I'm sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"

Translation: I shouldn't make work stuff personal, I need to be better at what I do and not compromise myself

Renegade:

"I've thought about what you've said.  About eliminating the threat immediately, regardless of the cost.  You were right.  You were right about Dr. Saleon too.  Killing him was the only solution.  This way we'll know he'll never hurt anyone again.

"I'm going to reapply for Spectre training.  It will probably kill my father.  But I've got to try.  If that doesn't work, I'll do just about anything, except go back to C-Sec.  I'm done with them.  No more red tape. No more politics.  From now on, I do things my way."

Looks like character growth to me.  Wonder where all that went in ME 2.

"I must kill the target immediately, and I should re-apply as a Spectre so that I can be a Mighty Vigilante TM"

vs

"So, the universe isn't made of black and white, but shades of grey?" 

Do I need to mention that the latest is for some people the greatest revelation of their lives? 

[true, but if you romance them, you eventually get the opportunity to paragon Ashley or renegade Kaiden, changing thier outlook on the Council and aliens in general.  You can actually get Ashely to advocate saving the Destiny Ascension, or Kaiden to sacrifice it.

And that, with the small scene 'I killed my teacher'/'So yeah, I am religious' is supposed to be all of the character development that these characters have?

You get these scenes even if you don't have a character as your LI in ME2. Not to mention that you can change their outlook on what they just did after loyalty missions.

Modifié par Phaedon, 06 février 2011 - 06:28 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

But a character following you around is not what is meant by screen time. No Bioware character has ever demonstrated growth in this manner, except BG and DA:O. Dawn Star does not grow as a character because I dragged her around, but through dialogue. Hence why saying that character development requires screen time.

The simple statement: "If Dawn Star does not appear, then Dawn Star does not develop" is sufficient to show us this.

I however would also point out that it is not 1 but two segments of the game ME2 where development is demonstrated: dialogue and loyalty missions. Mass Effect incorporates 2-3 (dialogue, character missions, and interactions with their environment). The best solution is (of course) to have all 3, which some characters do. Screen time means more dialogue and (usually) more development. Mass Effect 2's loyalty missions did a great job of fleshing out the characters in this way. Thane's loyalty mission was a great improvement on Carth's from Kotor (although this was still excellent). Comparatively, Garrus and Tali feature extremely lacking character missions which inhibits development in other ways. [/quote]

What I was referring to is that if you take, say Garrus on every mission, you are not going to see much interaction from him outside of his own personal mission.  You need him on-screen for him to develop.  But just being on-screen isn't enough.  It is in his missions, and only his missions that he really comes alive as a character.  I'm not really referring to growth here but..fleshing out?  Charactarization?  I dunno.  He just becomes an object, the "brick" that people accuse Shepard of being.  Only more so.  The same goes for the other eleven characters on Shepard's squad.  Is it really a good thing that only one squadmate can really be "alive" at a time?

[quote]
Major personality shifts aren't the definition of growth.  The character does have to react and adapt to the conditions around them in order to grow, [/quote]

However, I'm arguing that characters don't need to 'grow' in order to be developed. The Black Whirlwind experiences great character development but doesn't really change in any fashion. His only purpose remains to walk around and kill things. Likewise with Henpecked Hou and Sky (if not changed). To put it another way, why do we look at it as beneficial that every character 'grows'? Garrus grew as a character and I found the presentation to be horrible. [/quote]

I suppose it depends on the story, and where the focus lies.  The one that Mass Effect 2 gave us "build a team, earn its loyalty, prepare them for Suicide Mission" pretty much demands it.  Given the wide variety of characters that simply must work together, combined with all the personal problems Shepard must solve for them, growth and development is pretty much a requirement.  Vigilantes, justicars, criminals, mercenaries, assassins, and so on.  Personality clashes seem inevitable.  Arguements over methods, racial animosities, rivalries, and so on.  Not to mention the variety of problems and potential solutions that some characters would have (or should have) advocated over others.   Forging a group like that into a single cohesive team should have demanded growth and development.  But development was minimal, and growth even less so.

[In Exile]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
None of us are objective. I liked the game. I enjoyed playing it more than I enjoyed playing ME1. In any analysis, I will begin with that and then try to justify it.  Someone who disliked ME2 will likewise find reasons to dislike it.

It's possible to think the ME2 plot went nowhere and still like the game, including thinking it is far superior to ME1.

[In Exile]

Moiaussi wrote...
That they make human squishies? And this adds to anything... how? For many of us, that ranks right up there with learning they really all look like bambi and speak in really cute voices in person.

What else? They pre-purpose other races? We already knew that about the keepers. The collectors weren't even on the radar... literally... in ME1, Discovering in ME2 that the Reapers repurposed a second race isn't that big a deal, especially when the collectors really weren't that big a deal.

How does hyper-intelligent machine rachine that harvests organics every 50,000 years tell us anything?

When you ask Vigil "Why?" all you get back is "Your job is to stop them, not understand them."

Neither game tells us anything about the psychology of the reapers. For that, we'd have to understand where they came from, i.e. basically their origin story.

[upsettingshorts]

Which I'd prefer not to know, personally. They're fine being un-knowably alien hyper-intelligent machine race things as far as I'm concerned.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

What I was referring to is that if you take, say Garrus on every mission, you are not going to see much interaction from him outside of his own personal mission.  You need him on-screen for him to develop.  But just being on-screen isn't enough.  It is in his missions, and only his missions that he really comes alive as a character.  I'm not really referring to growth here but..fleshing out?  Charactarization?  I dunno.  He just becomes an object, the "brick" that people accuse Shepard of being.  Only more so.  The same goes for the other eleven characters on Shepard's squad.  Is it really a good thing that only one squadmate can really be "alive" at a time?
 

Ah, but what I am referring to is simply the impossibility of character development without a character.

Much like how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square. Character development requires screen time, but screen time might not necessarily involve character development, even with dialogue.

But my chief concern is the idea that these characters only come alive during their missions. Dialogue has always been a key component of Bioware games and even on the Normandy these characters come alive, just given the nature of some of these conversations. The problem, as you say, is that they don't interact with their environments on a regular basis. But while an issue, it's important to keep in mind that those characters do interact at least during their loyalty missions. Yes, we don't see Thane talk to Samara about being a parent. But during his loyalty mission, we see how he goes about conducting his business. I'd say this goes a longer way to developing a character than the rare elevator conversation.

I suppose it depends on the story, and where the focus lies.  The one that Mass Effect 2 gave us "build a team, earn its loyalty, prepare them for Suicide Mission" pretty much demands it.  Given the wide variety of characters that simply must work together, combined with all the personal problems Shepard must solve for them, growth and development is pretty much a requirement.  Vigilantes, justicars, criminals, mercenaries, assassins, and so on.  Personality clashes seem inevitable.  Arguements over methods, racial animosities, rivalries, and so on.  Not to mention the variety of problems and potential solutions that some characters would have (or should have) advocated over others.   Forging a group like that into a single cohesive team should have demanded growth and development.  But development was minimal, and growth even less so.

Growth, yes. Development? Not so much. Tali was developed more in a single Mass Effect 2 conversation than all of Mass Effect 1 put together, which I consider a substantial problem.

[AkiKishi]

Il Divo wrote...

Growth, yes. Development? Not so much. Tali was developed more in a single Mass Effect 2 conversation than all of Mass Effect 1 put together, which I consider a substantial problem.

I'm finding it very hard to follow your arguement. One reason is that growth and development are pretty much the same thing (which is why I posted the dictionary reference). The other is that you say that ME2 has no character development and then write lines like that.

What exactly are your expectations ? 

All RPGs are like Toy Story or Gnomeo and Julliet (to be current) The characters do other things, just not when you are around.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 février 2011 - 07:07 .

[Il Divo]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm finding it very hard to follow your arguement. One reason is that growth and development are pretty much the same thing (which is why I posted the dictionary reference). The other is that you say that ME2 has no character development and then write lines like that.

What exactly are your expectations ? 

All RPGs are like Toy Story or Gnomeo and Julliet (to be current) The characters do other things, just not when you are around.

I will admit I'm not using conventional definition with respect to growth and depth. To me, growth deals with how a character changes over the course of a story. Luke 'grows' as a character while becoming a Jedi Knight, learning the dangers of the dark side, etc. Development for me is more strictly learning about a character, preferably not in the form of an info dump. Han Solo in Episode IV doesn't 'grow' but his character is developed as we learn what type of person he is (shooting Greedo, charging Stormtroopers, etc).

Few of Mass Effect 2's characters undergo growth, but are developed extremely well through their personalities/actions. Tali in ME1 shows little growth or development as we learn next to nothing about her; the entire time she spends talking about the Migrant Fleet with few references to herself as a person. In Mass Effect 2, she is developed rather well as we are granted greater insight into her personality, emotions, etc.  

Apologies for the confusion.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 février 2011 - 07:18 .

[AkiKishi]

Il Divo wrote...
I will admit I'm not using conventional definition with respect to growth and depth. To me, growth deals with how a character changes over the course of a story. Luke 'grows' as a character while becoming a Jedi Knight, learning the dangers of the dark side, etc. Development for me is more strictly learning about a character, preferably not in the form of an info dump. Han Solo in Episode IV doesn't 'grow' but his character is developed as we learn what type of person he is (shooting Greedo, charging Stormtroopers, etc).

Few of Mass Effect 2's characters undergo growth, but are developed extremely well through their personalities/actions. Tali in ME1 shows little growth or development as we learn next to nothing about her; the entire time she spends talking about the Migrant Fleet with few references to herself as a person. In Mass Effect 2, she is developed rather well as we are granted greater insight into her personality, emotions, etc.  

Apologies for the confusion.

Well all the characters grow. They don't start at level 30 , much like Luke did not start out a Jedi Knight. Luke underwent a lot of growth in power compared to SW, but very little in terms of maturity. He still runs off to save his friends, he's still as impetuous as he was in SW. It's only in the opening scenes of Jedi that we see how much he has grown and all that takes place off camera between ESB and Jedi. When Jack yanks 4 collectors of a platform to their deaths, that's growth, that's something she could not do at the start of the game.

Jack is probably the most obvious example to use. When you get her she's like a Feral cat. Over the course of the game if you follow the Paragon route you get to see just what an emotionally scared little girl she is inside. Which is a million miles removed from the introduction cut scene. What we don't see in ME is the result of that growth... Because the game ends.

[Iakus]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

You know, I thought about what I said in comparison to ME1 so that I could come up with a reply. The so called "loyalty quests" that these characters had, had absolutely no effect on the main plot. ME2's sidequests, on the other hand, not only change their POV on the world -which is the point of character development, by the way, and not their outlook on the mission- but made them focus on the mission and forget about everything else. That's mentioned several times throughout the game.[/quote]

Change their point of view on the world?  Given some of these missions can have radically different outcomes based on your choices, you'd think they'd have something of an attitude adjustment for the remainder of the game to reflect that. 

Focus I can get behind.  I just think that it shouldn't be the only part of the game (aside from  maybe three conversations) where the character actually grows a personality.

[quote]
And on Virmire, trusts Shepard enough to go along with destroying Saren's genophage cure, preventing the necessity of kiling him.  Somehthng you;d otherwise need near-maxed diplomacy or intimidate to accomplish (not that this means anyhting anymore, thanks to the comic)[/quote]
Don't go around saying that the loyalty mechanism is pointless to char. development and then contradict yourself, iakus. [/quote]

See my later post about loyalty missions affecting the choice a character makes, rather than simply preventing plot armor failure

[quote]"I must kill the target immediately, and I should re-apply as a Spectre so that I can be a Mighty Vigilante TM"

vs

"So, the universe isn't made of black and white, but shades of grey?" 

Do I need to mention that the latest is for some people the greatest revelation of their lives? [/quote]

Not sure what the question here is.


[quote]
And that, with the small scene 'I killed my teacher'/'So yeah, I am religious' is supposed to be all of the character development that these characters have?

You get these scenes even if you don't have a character as your LI in ME2. Not to mention that you can change their outlook on what they just did after loyalty missions.

[/quote]

There's more to their conversations than that.  If we do ever do get VS DLC, I hope to meet Ashley's sisters.

And while you do get a "thanks for helping me" conversation.  But does that alter their outlook at all for the rest of the game?  Does the outcome of Jack's loyalty mission change her views on keeping/destroying the Collector Base?    Does killing or letting Sidonis go change anything?  Heck, only in four missions is it even possible to not get the person's loyalty, regardless of outcome.

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...
And while you do get a "thanks for helping me" conversation.  But does that alter their outlook at all for the rest of the game?  Does the outcome of Jack's loyalty mission change her views on keeping/destroying the Collector Base?    Does killing or letting Sidonis go change anything?  Heck, only in four missions is it even possible to not get the person's loyalty, regardless of outcome.

Why would Jack loyalty mission have anything to do with keeping the collector base ? They are totally unrelated. Jacks defining moment is what she does to Aresh.

What sort of change are you expecting exactly ? You don't let him Kill Sidonis and you don't get his loyalty ? That's how Zeead reacts, but you have history with Garrus so he reacts differently and understands.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

But my chief concern is the idea that these characters only come alive during their missions. Dialogue has always been a key component of Bioware games and even on the Normandy these characters come alive, just given the nature of some of these conversations. The problem, as you say, is that they don't interact with their environments on a regular basis. But while an issue, it's important to keep in mind that those characters do interact at least during their loyalty missions. Yes, we don't see Thane talk to Samara about being a parent. But during his loyalty mission, we see how he goes about conducting his business. I'd say this goes a longer way to developing a character than the rare elevator conversation. [/quote]

No arguement that during the loyalty mission we do see a lot of fleshing out of the characters.  That's good.  I just wish we could see some more of it outside his or her  own little story.  And I'm not saying ME 1 was great at it either.  But even the rare elevator conversation is "better" (not the same thing as "good") as what we got.

Think of it this way:  If ME 2 was an entire season of Star Trek.  Then Spock would get one, and only one episode to flesh out his character, and spend the rest of the season as "Crewman #6"

[quote]
I suppose it depends on the story, and where the focus lies.  The one that Mass Effect 2 gave us "build a team, earn its loyalty, prepare them for Suicide Mission" pretty much demands it.  Given the wide variety of characters that simply must work together, combined with all the personal problems Shepard must solve for them, growth and development is pretty much a requirement.  Vigilantes, justicars, criminals, mercenaries, assassins, and so on.  Personality clashes seem inevitable.  Arguements over methods, racial animosities, rivalries, and so on.  Not to mention the variety of problems and potential solutions that some characters would have (or should have) advocated over others.   Forging a group like that into a single cohesive team should have demanded growth and development.  But development was minimal, and growth even less so.[/quote]

Growth, yes. Development? Not so much. Tali was developed more in a single Mass Effect 2 conversation than all of Mass Effect 1 put together, which I consider a substantial problem. [/quote]


And that is a weakness of ME 1 .  But ME 2 the lack is even more apparant, even worse for what it claimed to be ("about the characters").  Does Tali ever acknowledge EDI?  Shackled or no?   Does she "freak" at the idea of Legion joining the crew?  Does she ever talk about Wrex?  Liara?  or Garrus?  (aside from the "I've got a shotgun" conversation)

[Iakus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Why would Jack loyalty mission have anything to do with keeping the collector base ? They are totally unrelated. Jacks defining moment is what she does to Aresh.

What sort of change are you expecting exactly ? You don't let him Kill Sidonis and you don't get his loyalty ? That's how Zeead reacts, but you have history with Garrus so he reacts differently and understands.

I'm simply using these as examples.  We're told that these loyalty missions are majot turning points for the characters, that can change their perspective on the world and bring closure to unfinished business.  Yet despite how the mission turns out, whether you even did their mission or not, they don't act any differently (save being able to start the romances) 

As I said, at least with Ashley/Kaiden, you can potentially change their point of view, to the point of flipping their stance on teh Destiny Ascension.  Garrus mission in ME 1 was going to shape his activities after Saren was dealt with (of course, ME 2 showed just how much that mattered)

These aren't big changes, in the grand scheme of the game.  But the loyalty missions don't even have that kind of effect.  All they provide is plot armor for the Suicide Mission.

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...

And that is a weakness of ME 1 .  But ME 2 the lack is even more apparant, even worse for what it claimed to be ("about the characters").  Does Tali ever acknowledge EDI?  Shackled or no?   Does she "freak" at the idea of Legion joining the crew?  Does she ever talk about Wrex?  Liara?  or Garrus?  (aside from the "I've got a shotgun" conversation)

Never watched her scene when she first arrives. I'm like Jacob for petes sake SHUT UP!! He says all the wrong things.
Yes she does freak, did you miss the standoff in the AI core ? 

If you are expecting that they will carry on every instance in conversion, that's not going to happen. Unless you want to pay the voice acting bill, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to have every little inconsequantial trivia explored. As it is with voice acting being expensive (and paid by the line) you only get a small selection.

If ME2 is guilty anywhere it's that they made the characters so alive in their own side missions that the expectation was they would be that way any time you had them in your party. It's understandable, but given the costs unrealistic.

I'll let you into a secret too, the elevator conversations were added as a distraction for the long load times on the Xbox. Now personally I can't abide the "loading" screens , but with loading screens there is no need for elevator conversation.

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...

Change their point of view on the world?  Given some of these missions can have radically different outcomes based on your choices, you'd think they'd have something of an attitude adjustment for the remainder of the game to reflect that.

Like what, should Thane, for example be praying more/less after the LM? No, seriously, I am waiting for suggestions.

Focus I can get behind.  I just think that it shouldn't be the only part of the game (aside from  maybe three conversations) where the character actually grows a personality.

I agree, which is why I think that ME1 did a bad job with the characters.

See my later post about loyalty missions affecting the choice a character makes, rather than simply preventing plot armor failure

I actually agree with this. Which is why Wrex's LM was much better, since it gave you the opportunity to unlock the plot armor that you would otherwise have to- Whooooops. :PAnd the LMs for the rest of the characters have no effect whatsover.

"I must kill the target immediately, and I should re-apply as a Spectre so that I can be a Mighty Vigilante TM"
vs
"So, the universe isn't made of black and white, but shades of grey?" 
Do I need to mention that the latest is for some people the greatest revelation of their lives?

Not sure what the question here is.

I think you do. There is no contest between the two 'revelations'.

There's more to their conversations than that.  If we do ever do get VS DLC, I hope to meet Ashley's sisters.
And while you do get a "thanks for helping me" conversation.  But does that alter their outlook at all for the rest of the game?  Does the outcome of Jack's loyalty mission change her views on keeping/destroying the Collector Base?    Does killing or letting Sidonis go change anything?  Heck, only in four missions is it even possible to not get the person's loyalty, regardless of outcome.

Yes, it does change their outlook. Not just for a single decision, but it changes their outlook for...everything. They battle their inner demons, they encounter the greatest dillemas of their life. Now, that's character development. 

[Slayer299]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Never watched her scene when she first arrives. I'm like Jacob for petes sake SHUT UP!! He says all the wrong things.
Yes she does freak, did you miss the standoff in the AI core ? 

Bob, Tali only freaks after Legion scans her Omni-tool and finds out about Rael's tests on the reactivated Geth aboard the Alarai. But not before or even after her recruitment. Tali shows no reaction about EDI or prior to Legion being activated (Miranda&Jacob briefing room scene after IFF). To be honest I was not only expecting to see a reaction out of Tali but shocked when there was nothing from her at all.

edit - typo

Modifié par Slayer299, 06 février 2011 - 08:38 .

[Iakus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never watched her scene when she first arrives. I'm like Jacob for petes sake SHUT UP!! He says all the wrong things.
Yes she does freak, did you miss the standoff in the AI core ? 

If you are expecting that they will carry on every instance in conversion, that's not going to happen. Unless you want to pay the voice acting bill, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to have every little inconsequantial trivia explored. As it is with voice acting being expensive (and paid by the line) you only get a small selection.

If ME2 is guilty anywhere it's that they made the characters so alive in their own side missions that the expectation was they would be that way any time you had them in your party. It's understandable, but given the costs unrealistic.

I'll let you into a secret too, the elevator conversations were added as a distraction for the long load times on the Xbox. Now personally I can't abide the "loading" screens , but with loading screens there is no need for elevator conversation.

All Tali does when Jacob brings up EDI is glare (at least, I think it's a glare.  Kinda hard to tell)  But she never brings it up with Shepard.  Never even says "EDI" as far as I can tell.  This is not trivial, given quarians' history with the geth.  In fact, I'm suprised Shep doesn't have mroe to say about an AI on the ship, given that every single AI or rogue VI in ME 1 tries to kill him.

And Tali "freaks" when Legion tries to hack her omnitool after both their loyalty missions are done.  Tali should have "freaked" pretty much the moment Shep reactivates Legion.  Or even the moment Legion is brought on board.   It should have been the very next conversation topic with her.  Heck bringing Legion aboard should have jeopardized Tali's loyalty right then and there.

I'm not saying every possible topic needs to be addressed.  But I am saying it's bizaare when what should be extremely personal interests or beliefs are simply not addressed, or addressed in a very trivial matter.  It makes me fear for consequences in ME 3 when having a geth and a quarian on a ship is cause for only mild inconvenience. 

If the costs were so prohibitave, then honestly, they should have made do with a smaller squad.  Holld onto some characters for ME 3.

Elevator conversations:  Maybe they were meant as a distraction.  But then, every Bioware game that has more than one follower since BG1 had some sort of banter.  Except ME 2.

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...

All Tali does when Jacob brings up EDI is glare (at least, I think it's a glare.  Kinda hard to tell)  But she never brings it up with Shepard.  Never even says "EDI" as far as I can tell.  This is not trivial, given quarians' history with the geth.  In fact, I'm suprised Shep doesn't have mroe to say about an AI on the ship, given that every single AI or rogue VI in ME 1 tries to kill him.

And Tali "freaks" when Legion tries to hack her omnitool after both their loyalty missions are done.  Tali should have "freaked" pretty much the moment Shep reactivates Legion.  Or even the moment Legion is brought on board.   It should have been the very next conversation topic with her.  Heck bringing Legion aboard should have jeopardized Tali's loyalty right then and there.

I'm not saying every possible topic needs to be addressed.  But I am saying it's bizaare when what should be extremely personal interests or beliefs are simply not addressed, or addressed in a very trivial matter.  It makes me fear for consequences in ME 3 when having a geth and a quarian on a ship is cause for only mild inconvenience. 

If the costs were so prohibitave, then honestly, they should have made do with a smaller squad.  Holld onto some characters for ME 3.

Elevator conversations:  Maybe they were meant as a distraction.  But then, every Bioware game that has more than one follower since BG1 had some sort of banter.  Except ME 2.

It's still a reaction, it does all it needs to do to get Tali's feeling on the matter across.

I seem to recall her saying something after finding Legion but I'm not certain enough. You probably only get it if you talk to her right after the event though.

You should bring legion to Talis recruitment and then to her trial it's pricless.

Where I disagree is that you expect Tali to act in a certain way. And a typical Quarian might act that way. But she's not a typical Quarian. She may disaprove, but she does not get hysterical until an action is taken, Legion trying to take her data. Then she reacts, however afterwards (given the right option) she even offers and olive branch, which makes think she's not as radical as other Quarians and makes her lack of protest quite fitting with her character.

Wholly agree on the less squadmembers thing. Half as many members with twice as many lines would have been a better experience all around.

They do chat but it's usually at fixed points and depending on who is in your party. But again I totally agree after watching Alistair and Morrigan go at it, it's just not the same. I could listen to those two argue all day.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 février 2011 - 09:01 .

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...
Like what, should Thane, for example be praying more/less after the LM? No, seriously, I am waiting for suggestions.

That would be a nice start.  If you fail, maybe some more conversations where he seems colder, dead inside since he's lost his last reason for living.  Or make bleak observations.

Succeed and perhaps there's a few more conversations beyond the last one, where he talks more about Kolyat's past and present.  Not just the "thanks for helping me" talk.  Perhaps even at the Collector Base he could have a line about how he's fighting for his son.

Or Jacob.  Arrest Ronald and perhaps he's happier, more cheerfu, ready to "spill drinks on the Citadel".  Kill him or leave him and he's harder, more businesslike, focused on the mission

I agree, which is why I think that ME1 did a bad job with the characters.

I call ME 1's job "adequate"  Not great, but given the story, it got the job done.  ME 2's expectations were higher, given the nature of the story they chose to tell.  And was actually worse than ME 1. 

I actually agree with this. Which is why Wrex's LM was much better, since it gave you the opportunity to unlock the plot armor that you would otherwise have to- Whooooops. :PAnd the LMs for the rest of the characters have no effect whatsover.

Without armor:  You must make a very difficult P/R check to talk him down.  Otherwise you have to kill him.  With the armor, Wrex's character development goes in the direction of "Shepard is worthy of trust" and stands down.

If you fail Tali's loyalty mission in ME 2, does she choose to try to deflect a rocket with her helmet?  Suicide by Collector?  Nope.  It's exactly the same outcome as if you sent Jacob through the pipe. 

I think you do. There is no contest between the two 'revelations'.

Um, one he more fully embraces "paragon" ideals:  protecting innocents, working within the system, don't cut corners  The other he embraces his renegade side more completely:  Get the job done, screw red tape, criminals hide behind the law.

Yes, it does change their outlook. Not just for a single decision, but it changes their outlook for...everything. They battle their inner demons, they encounter the greatest dillemas of their life. Now, that's character development. 

Do they?  After their "thanks fro helping me" conversation where does any of it get mentioned?  How do they act differently?  Talk differently.  Sure they might dress differently, if you're so inclined.  But how does loyal Thane speak or act any differently than unloyal Thane?

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...

If you fail Tali's loyalty mission in ME 2, does she choose to try to deflect a rocket with her helmet?  Suicide by Collector?  Nope.  It's exactly the same outcome as if you sent Jacob through the pipe. 

I don't think you are quite understanding what the loyalty missions represent. The loyalty missions are all about unresolved issues. Whether they be something from the past that haunts a character (Jack) or something current (Tali). What they represent are distractions.

By solving the loyalty missions the characters are more focused and thus more aware of danger. It's not about jumping in front of anything , it's about your mind being on something else when someone shoots a rocket at you

There are numerous real life accounts of soldiers who are killed in action because their mind was not on the job for whatever reason. ME2 is not doing anything unrealistic, or pointless. Once you understand what it is actually doing.

You won't see them reflected in diologue because they are very personal to the character. They are reflected when it matters on the suicide mission.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 février 2011 - 09:26 .