462 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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

The feeling I got was Tali thinking "Jacobs an ::expletive:: "  Not "Oh, frak, there's an AI on this ship!"  The fact that it was a Cerberus vessel got a stronger reaction from her.

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.

I believe it's a generic statement made during the Reaper IFF mission.  Just about anyone would say something to the effect of "Are you sure this is a good idea, Shepard?"

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

I've seen video of it, and yes that's precisely what I'm talking about.  I've said before it's a pity that Legion doesn't appear until so late in the game, since those scenes are so easy to miss.  There needs to be far more of those, covering other characters.  It makes the characters seem involved in the missions.

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[i] her character.

That's just it, she doesn't even voice disapproval.  She acts like nothing is going on.  There's no one else on the Ship but Shepard!

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

Common ground!

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.

It is at fixed points, but there's so many lines for so many possible combinations of characters that it feels spontaneous.  Some of the lines even refer to events in the game!  If ME 2 had implemented something like that, they could keep their elevator conversations, this is way better!

Modifié par iakus, 06 février 2011 - 09:30 .

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...

It is at fixed points, but there's so many lines for so many possible combinations of characters that it feels spontaneous.  Some of the lines even refer to events in the game!  If ME 2 had implemented something like that, they could keep their elevator conversations, this is way better!

I am talking about ME2 there.

[SnakeSNMF]

MASS EFFECT 3 REAPERS KILL ALL OLOLOL

[Il Divo]

BobSmith101 wrote...


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 showed during her recruitment mission that she was able to tear apart two heavy mechs as if they were paper, I don't see how yanking 4 collectors truly demonstrates 'growth'. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the point. While growth can be demonstrated through an increase in one's personal power (Compare Luke in Episode IV vs. Episode VI), this is not enough to constitute the word. For someone to grow as a character, it is necessary that we see something significant change about them in a larger context, which never happens in Mass Effect 2. Thane has an emotional moment, but we never see that pan out past his interactions with Kolyat. Same with Garrus.

Iakus' example of Kaidan advocating the destruction of the Destiny Ascension is a perfect example of growth, which we never see from any character, except Jack.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

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.

I think this comes down to a simple issue of what we focus on. Personally, I always viewed characters speaking in the background as an extra; it's nice to have and I appreciate it, but it doesn't have my full attention. What I remember when I think of characters from Bioware games are those personal conversations where I got to more fully explore that character.

When I think of Bastila, I think of the conversation where she explained to me about how it was possible to turn someone's own mind against them. When I think of Kreia, I recall all the philosophical conversations where she would explain the nature of the Force. So on and so forth. While I think it's great when a character exists outside of dialogue/loyalty missions, it's not what seals the deal. When I think of Wrex, my first thought is not of him and Kaidan discussing whether he could take Shepard in a fight, for example.

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)

And you raise valid questions, but I still don't see Mass Effect 2 making it 'more apparent'. Characters have always been a significant aspect of Bioware games. That Mass Effect is plot-centric still leaves the question: why was the cast of characters so weak, even in comparison to past Bioware games? Mass Effect 2, despite its lack of party dialogue, still brought back what made Bioware characters so interesting, while expanding on that ten fold with the loyalty missions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 février 2011 - 12:49 .

[Iakus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It is at fixed points, but there's so many lines for so many possible combinations of characters that it feels spontaneous.  Some of the lines even refer to events in the game!  If ME 2 had implemented something like that, they could keep their elevator conversations, this is way better!

I am talking about ME2 there.

Okay I'm confused here.  I don't recall any point in the game besides "I've got a shotgun" on any of the maps where the squadmates talk to each other.  And only one spot where Shepard responds to one of the characters' musings (Garrus' comment about fighting in hospitals not being much fun).

There are, however many places where characters in DAO seemingly spontaneously talk to each other

[Whatever42]

Well, Jacob does make a comment about the conditions on Omega and Miranda does tell him to grow up, that things will never change. But I really can't recall any more than that.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

I think this comes down to a simple issue of what we focus on. Personally, I always viewed characters speaking in the background as an extra; it's nice to have and I appreciate it, but it doesn't have my full attention. What I remember when I think of characters from Bioware games are those personal conversations where I got to more fully explore that character.

When I think of Bastila, I think of the conversation where she explained to me about how it was possible to turn someone's own mind against them. When I think of Kreia, I recall all the philosophical conversations where she would explain the nature of the Force. So on and so forth. While I think it's great when a character exists outside of dialogue/loyalty missions, it's not what seals the deal. When I think of Wrex, my first thought is not of him and Kaidan discussing whether he could take Shepard in a fight, for example.

Ah, but Bioware has always gone the extra mile, making their characters seem more alive.  THat's part of what's made Bioware Bioware.  Even in their upcoming MMO players will have companions they can talk to and earn influece with.

With Bastilla, I recall Carth laughing at her for losing her lightsaber.  Mission Annoying her to a point where Bastilla causes her to trip and fall.  Or advocating leaving the hunter on Tattoine who neglected his wife to his fate.  Even beyond the quest for her mother, they show her as a far more three dimensional character.  A real character.  Not just someone with an on/off switch.  Lacking this is a disappointment for a Bioware game.  Especially a game that touts itself as being about the characters.

And you raise valid questions, but I still don't see Mass Effect 2 making it 'more apparent'. Characters have always been a significant aspect of Bioware games. That Mass Effect is plot-centric still leaves the question: why was the cast of characters so weak, even in comparison to past Bioware games? Mass Effect 2, despite its lack of party dialogue, still brought back what made Bioware characters so interesting, while expanding on that ten fold with the loyalty missions.

It's more apparant because the spotlight is on the characters, rather than the Collectors (in which case there's be a thread about how boring they are...oh wait )  At this point, I'm not even sure anymore if the charactarization is actually stronger or weaker in ME 2, or simply distilled into maybe one hour of content, leaving the character a lifeless zombie for the rest of the 30-40 hours of the game. While in ME 1 ther was at least low-end life signs spread throughout the game.

This is why I wonder about the theory that we're building a team for ME 3.  Are we really?  Or are we making NPCs for particular sections of ME 3's story?  BEcause tehy certainly don't react anywhere except very specific areas.

[Nightwriter]

I don't know that it was pointless. It just didn't really give me a sense of accomplishment.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't know that it was pointless. It just didn't really give me a sense of accomplishment.

This too, to get the thread a bit more on track

[AkiKishi]

Il Divo wrote...
Jack showed during her recruitment mission that she was able to tear apart two heavy mechs as if they were paper, I don't see how yanking 4 collectors truly demonstrates 'growth'. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the point. While growth can be demonstrated through an increase in one's personal power (Compare Luke in Episode IV vs. Episode VI), this is not enough to constitute the word. For someone to grow as a character, it is necessary that we see something significant change about them in a larger context, which never happens in Mass Effect 2. Thane has an emotional moment, but we never see that pan out past his interactions with Kolyat. Same with Garrus.

Iakus' example of Kaidan advocating the destruction of the Destiny Ascension is a perfect example of growth, which we never see from any character, except Jack.

We can do my loathing of cutscenes that reflect abilities characters don't posses another day.
Yes it does constitute the word, the problem here is that you are making up your own definition of what you think it should mean rather than what it does mean

Why should we see that ? There is no reason for those events to change external behaviour only to bring peace of mind to the individual and make them more focused (hence use new powers and be more aware of danger).

Again though just to be very clear if you dont do the loyalty mission for Garrus and Thane the romance option does not come up. Not that I've gone that way , but that's how it is. In that respect the loyalty mission has changed them.

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...
Okay I'm confused here.  I don't recall any point in the game besides "I've got a shotgun" on any of the maps where the squadmates talk to each other.  And only one spot where Shepard responds to one of the characters' musings (Garrus' comment about fighting in hospitals not being much fun).

There are, however many places where characters in DAO seemingly spontaneously talk to each other

On Jacks loyalty mission depending on who you have in your party you get a response when you enter the lab. There are lots' of those triggered by area but it's a short conversation.

If you have someone other than Garrus in your party you get a different line there.

Like I said more squad mates less lines.Also if you have a lot of squad mates you get a lot of redundancy. Which is why on their own loyalty missions they are so talkative. Bioware knows at that point you WILL have them in your party.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Well, Jacob does make a comment about the conditions on Omega and Miranda does tell him to grow up, that things will never change. But I really can't recall any more than that.

There are a couple on Omega, 1 or 2 on Illium and 1 on Chichanka , that I recall. Depeding on who is in your party. They are actual static points that you have to click on.

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

[MajorStranger]

You can't always fight the Reapers, That wouldn't make any sense. They're supposed to be in dark space, a helluva long way out of our Galaxy. Instead they used Collectors as their proxy to prepare the attack. Sure we never heard of them before, but for me it only give us more dept inside the universe. Did you know in 2010 some anthropologist discover a tribe in South America that never saw anyone else before?



So how could it be possible for a species who just left their solar System 3 decade ago to know every species in the galaxy (and consider many think the Collectors are a myth, something of a space boogeyman, so why would people talk about them if most don't even believe in them?)

[GuardianAngel470]

iakus wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

iakus wrote...

It is at fixed points, but there's so many lines for so many possible combinations of characters that it feels spontaneous.  Some of the lines even refer to events in the game!  If ME 2 had implemented something like that, they could keep their elevator conversations, this is way better!

I am talking about ME2 there.

Okay I'm confused here.  I don't recall any point in the game besides "I've got a shotgun" on any of the maps where the squadmates talk to each other.  And only one spot where Shepard responds to one of the characters' musings (Garrus' comment about fighting in hospitals not being much fun).

There are, however many places where characters in DAO seemingly spontaneously talk to each other

Actually, Garrus and Shepard have at least two spots where they talk back and forth. There's the time on Mordin's loyalty mission and then the one on Thane's recruitment.

There's also his comments on Tali's Recruitment mission (Colossus) and elsewhere about "Just like old times". As I understand it Grunt has some unique things to say at this point too.

Though I do wish they had done something similar to KotOR but it might have been too immersion breaking or something. I did love Carth's jabs at Bastila regarding her lightsaber (Literally just beat KotOR again yesterday).

[Phaedon]

[quote]iakus wrote...
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.[/quote]
And that is...the character development that existed in ME1 and ME2 didn't have?  Because you know, the only reactions were in ME2, and those were after choices made right after LMs.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Regardless of what I have addressed, I don't think that expecting Thane to start spilling out his life story just like that is...

[quote]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[/quote]
...realistic expectation.

[quote]
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. [/quote]
And that is not only a fact, but it is an incorrect opinion as well.

 Mass Effect 2's characters were much more interesting personalities than the ones of ME1.
Don't even try to argue about that, I don't think that any further justification is needed. :happy:

Mass Effect 2's characters had more time for character development.
1 recruitment mission, 1 loyalty mission and overall more inter-ship banter, despite the fact that ME2 had more characters than ME1.

Character Development had visible effects
You use Garrus' short comment after his LM, and VS's dialogue in the end to support your side.
I use everyone's comments after the Loyalty Missions, the choices after the Loyalty Missions, and the drastic change in the character's personality to counter your point.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Stop right there.
Without loyalty mission done: You must set the squadmate in the right specialist position if you want him to survive.

And that's just the mechanism that you called negligible. They are the same things. Add to this the great personality change that happens after the LM and you have a very nice cocktail. As for the "Shepard is worthy of trust, this exists in ME2, too, and to all characters.

What you basically present me is a badly done LM that is nothing but a game mechanism (yeah, recover a useless piece of armor that isn't even visible in-game, what great storyline ) to 12 loyalty missions. Oh, well, I don't think so.

[quote]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.  [/quote]
And? Wrex's dialogue is the same, LM or not.


[quote]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.[/quote]
Um, yeah, which is my point exactly.
Compare those to finding out that the universe is not made of black and white? Yeah, I don't think so. 


[quote]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?[/quote]
Nice attempt at trying to evade my point there, but yes, they do talk differently anyway. Especially after you make the post-LM choice. And yes, they are different characters. Jack has encountered her entire childhood, Jacob found his long-lost dad only to discover that he is a monster, Mordin realizes the full consequences of his actions, and the list goes on. That is character development. Not, "So umm, thanks for helping me get this piece of armour. Yeah, well, it's also useless and of no sentimental value to me"


Considering that you have steered the discussion to this direction, then you do accept that if ME2's character development was great, it's story was not pointless and it fits the right outline for the second act almost perfectly? 
[/quote]

Modifié par Phaedon, 07 février 2011 - 08:22 .

[CroGamer002]

^You are amazing!

[Phaedon]

*bows*

[Il Divo]

Phaedon wrote...


 Mass Effect 2's characters were much more interesting personalities than the ones of ME1.
Don't even try to argue about that, I don't think that any further justification is needed. :happy: 

As much as I may agree with you, is this truly what we've resorted to attempting to prove Iakus wrong? How far we have fallen...

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 février 2011 - 03:04 .

[Il Divo]

BobSmith101 wrote...
We can do my loathing of cutscenes that reflect abilities characters don't posses another day.
Yes it does constitute the word, the problem here is that you are making up your own definition of what you think it should mean rather than what it does mean 

No, it doesn't. Even taking your definition into account, people are not asking for 'new abilities' when they want to see characters grow. When people discuss how Alistair grows into his role as a character, they do not mean that he can now use Shield Bash IV instead of Shield Bash I. If Luke Skywalker never grew as a person from Episode IV to Episode VI, people would not regard Star Wars as such a perfect example of the Hero's Journey.
 
I'm also curious how we've concluded that Jack did not possess the ability to destroy heavy mechs?

Why should we see that ? There is no reason for those events to change external behaviour only to bring peace of mind to the individual and make them more focused (hence use new powers and be more aware of danger).
 In that respect the loyalty mission has changed them.

Beyond the fact that every other Bioware game (barring Mass Effect and Neverwinter Nights) has demonstrated character growth, and that it makes for an overall more enjoyable story?

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 février 2011 - 03:13 .

[AkiKishi]

Il Divo wrote...

No, it doesn't. Even taking your definition into account, people are not asking for 'new abilities' when they want to see characters grow. When people discuss how Alistair grows into his role as a character, they do not mean that he can now use Shield Bash IV instead of Shield Bash I. If Luke Skywalker never grew as a person from Episode IV to Episode VI, people would not regard Star Wars as such a perfect example of the Hero's Journey.
 
I'm also curious how we've concluded that Jack did not possess the ability to destroy heavy mechs?


Beyond the fact that every other Bioware game (barring Mass Effect and Neverwinter Nights) has demonstrated character growth, and that it makes for an overall more enjoyable story?

My definition as you call it is the one in the dictionary. By that definition the characters grow. That's all there is to it.

Take her to the crate mission and see how long she lasts against the 3 Ymirs there.


Exactly how do the characters grow in Baldurs Gate except between games ? 

Mordin starts off with the attitude that what he did with the Genophage was the right thing to do. When he encounters first hand what the Genophage does , his attitude changes. When you go back to the ship you can talk to him about it. How is that not growth?

[Phaedon]

Il Divo wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


 Mass Effect 2's characters were much more interesting personalities than the ones of ME1.
Don't even try to argue about that, I don't think that any further justification is needed. :happy: 

As much as I may agree with you, is this truly what we've resorted to attempting to prove Iakus wrong? How far we have fallen...

You mean the no justification is needed part? Oh, I can provide justification just fine, but I just don't think that it's necessary.

[Moiaussi]

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.

It is funny that you mention BG, since that is essentially where Bioware started and where it developed its reputation from. But you are being a bit disingenuous here, Of course characters have to have dialogue to develop. They also have to appear. But even both does not equate to development.

Garrus appearing and calibrating weapons forever doesn't count as development, even though it involves dialogue.

Character development is more than just character background, too. Most of the loyalty missions are more background missions. We learn more about how the characters are, but in almost all cases don't see them actually learn anything from them. They do the missions and seem moved by them but in the end seem untouched.

Garrus and Wrex and the VS are dynamic in ME1. They actually change their outlook over the course of the game, depending on Shepard's conversations with them. You don't really see that in ME2, not even from Garrus, who, even if he did revert back to his former pre-Shepard outlook, still doesn't even ponder that change in ME2.

Noone seems actually touched by the missions other than by way of their performance in the SM (which shouldn't have been affected if these are really the uber skilled professionals they are presented as being).

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.

I guess we are discussing different aspects of character development. You seem to be including background information. In my case, I want to see actual development, not just seeing who they are, but seeing them actually be something more than just cardboard cutouts.... seeing them interacting and evolving from their experiences.

How did Garrus grow as a character for you? To me it seemed more like he didn't really change at all even from his loyalty mission, and any development from ME1 was tossed right out the window..... even development which made him more ruthless (i.e. the same direction that Shepard's death is presented as causing).

[darth_lopez]

Sith Reaper wrote...


P.S. Can't we just like both Mass Effects for once? I seem to see a lot of "Mass Effect 1 had better ____" "But Mass Effect 2 has ____" as if they are from completely separate series. It's actually perplexing why there is such a division.

it is quite confusing sometimes

Moiaussi wrote...
How did Garrus grow as a character for you? To me it seemed more
like he didn't really change at all even from his loyalty mission, and
any development from ME1 was tossed right out the window..... even
development which made him more ruthless (i.e. the same direction that
Shepard's death is presented as causing).

i think he is talking about Garrus' development from ME 1 ---> ME 2 in ME 1 he seemed frustrated by the system and only felt as if though the system was broken, He still wasn't sure how to take action against the broken system and was beginning to feel that working outside the bounds of the law was the answer, This wasn't confirmed for him until the encounter with saleon where even if yiou tried to arrest saleon the Dr. turned and attacked needing to be gunned down. Really whatever shepard says to him after the event has no effect because at that point Garrus has decided it's best to not give the bad guys a chance to turn on you shepards comment is merley seen as guiding advice that has no true purpose except to reflect the values of shepard. Garrus between shepards death is certain the only way to handle the system and serve the poeple is to work outside of it. And that's why he goes to omega 1) to help the people there 2) to put the real bad guys no one can touch(due to being outside Cit.-Space) down. He follows in shepards Footsteps assembling a team and innadvertantly gets them kileld thanks to a sellout. After that he's certain the next best thing is to Kill the Sell out and Avenge the teamates, He loses track of Jsutice and vegence Shepard either allows him to Be a vengeful Jduge in ME 2 or intervenes and Returns him to his senses where later, the player at least, finds out that the Sell out turned himself into C-Sec. The impact we see on garrus is simply his senses returning, Though he is still certain That Working outside the law is correct as he stays with shepard willingly. On the SM He keeps the fire team alive showing his resolution of his original failure or his confidence in his commander you take your pick on that.

But garrus Did develop substantially we can certainly see his character is failry naive still but now he is decisive and knows how he plans to achieve his goals. though at the end of his LM he seems to be enlightened by the presence of  Gray morality and the use of impartial judgment. ME 1 we saw him restle with options ME 2 we saw him Choose. Weather he Chose right or wrong is up to shepard to correct.

EDIT: my comment that in ME 1 garrus has decided that what's best is to not give the bad guys a chance, by the end of his arch in ME 1, is best shown through his feelings on saren adn the fear that the council might continue to protect him after they find and capture him, he suggests outright killing him to prevent needless deliberation on the councils part as to Saren's Crimes. It is at this point Garrus has made his decision. Whatever shepard says in response is simply Garrus following the commanders lead not necessarily taking it to heart. Garrus is a Turian and it is socially ingrained in him to follow orders He respects Shepard Greatly and it's because of his respect that in ME 2 He doesn't Shoot thorugh shep to Kill his mark and He doesn't Deviate from Shepards Desires in ME 1 regarding Saren.

In ME 2  he will come to a similar conlculssion pertaining to Ethics + Ruthelessness, One can be ethically Rutheless. although the result can only be seen in his LM i believe.


EDIT EDIT:

Keep in mind this is an on-going series there will be no final step in Character Dev until the End Episode, just like star wars Han didn't develope into a rebel General in Act 1 or 2 it wasn't until Act 3 we catually see him allied entirely with the Rebellion. Lea was still warming to han until ROTJ and Luke was Not trully understanding what is needed of him until ROTJ as well.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 07 février 2011 - 07:21 .

[Moiaussi]

Phaedon wrote...

You mean the no justification is needed part? Oh, I can provide justification just fine, but I just don't think that it's necessary.

If the only one you are interested in convincing is yourself, then why post at all? 

More to the point, though, 'interesting' is subjective. Fair game to say that any given character or all of them are more interesting... to you. Saying that they are generally, for everyone, though is telling people what their tastes are.

Non-starter, really.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
It is funny that you mention BG, since that is essentially where Bioware started and where it developed its reputation from. But you are being a bit disingenuous here, Of course characters have to have dialogue to develop. They also have to appear. But even both does not equate to development.[/quote]
I can't understand your point there at all.

[quote]Garrus appearing and calibrating weapons forever doesn't count as development, even though it involves dialogue.[/quote]
Yes, Garrus had more dialogue than some other squadmates *cough* 

[quote]Character development is more than just character background, too.[/quote]
Which is why ME1 failed at this aspect.

[quote]Most of the loyalty missions are more background missions. We learn more about how the characters are, but in almost all cases don't see them actually learn anything from them. They do the missions and seem moved by them but in the end seem untouched.[/quote]
I mean no offence, that could not be more contradicting.
And you are absolutely wrong. Just because they involve their past, it doesn't mean that we don't learn nothing new about the character. We see Mordin show remorse for the first time, Miranda losing her elitism, Garrus realizing a very important moral aspect etc. That literally hardly happens in ME1.

[quote][quote]Garrus and Wrex and the VS are dynamic in ME1.[/quote] They actually change their outlook over the course of the game, depending on Shepard's conversations with them. You don't really see that in ME2, not even from Garrus, who, even if he did revert back to his former pre-Shepard outlook, still doesn't even ponder that change in ME2.[/quote]
So that's basically character molding and not development? 
In any case, you are wrong, there are multiple choices during and after LMs that the character will react to. Not necessarily in a 'Zomg, Shepard, you are so right!' fashion, but you convince them too.


[quote]Noone seems actually touched by the missions other than by way of their performance in the SM (which shouldn't have been affected if these are really the uber skilled professionals they are presented as being).[/quote]

Well I certainly hoped that I read that before reading the rest of your posts. Denial won't help.
Wrex's LM has no effect on his character. Every LM in ME2 has a visible effect.
Post LM? There is a whole dialogue part focused on it, and there are multiple cases where some characters will be aggressive to you from now on.

[quote]I guess we are discussing different aspects of character development. You seem to be including background information. In my case, I want to see actual development, not just seeing who they are, but seeing them actually be something more than just cardboard cutouts.... seeing them interacting and evolving from their experiences.[/quote]:mellow::mellow:You know, like Garrus learning that the world is not made of black and white? Or Mordin realizing that the Genophage was bad, Zaeed understanding that revenge blinded him, I can go on.

[quote]How did Garrus grow as a character for you? To me it seemed more like he didn't really change at all even from his loyalty mission, and any development from ME1 was tossed right out the window..... even development which made him more ruthless (i.e. the same direction that Shepard's death is presented as causing).[/quote]
Yeah...not worth it. Not when you don't show any effort reading any of my previous posts.

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
If the only one you are interested in convincing is yourself, then why post at all? 
[/quote]
Well, I never thought that I'd have to prove that the sky is blue, since I hope that some people are clever debaters and not some fanboys set on denial mode. I can however justify it if you wish.


[quote]More to the point, though, 'interesting' is subjective. Fair game to say that any given character or all of them are more interesting... to you. Saying that they are generally, for everyone, though is telling people what their tastes are.

Non-starter, really.[/quote]


Aaaaaaand.... here we go!
I recognize this argument, the stage of the debate and the outcome of the thread. It's absolutely pointless. Everyone can go around spreading that killing people and abducting kids is not bad, since bad is subjective! 

Well, it doesn't work that way. Thankfully the society works with standards. Some might even call it democracy. Just because you liked the Mario Bros. movie, it doesn't make it good, and it doesn't mean that it's totally subjective. 

Go on and spread around that ME2 was utterly pointless, and that's a fact. Because you know, the good parts of the game were subjectively viewed as good! <3

Modifié par Phaedon, 07 février 2011 - 07:22 .