462 réponses à ce sujet

[wulf3n]

title: "Why ME2 was ""pointless"" to me"



1) Everything achieved in ME1 was reset.

2) Characters were the main focus, but they weren't essential to the game.

[Il Divo]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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?

Your 'definition' is useless in the manner that you are employing it. When someone asks to see a character grow, they are not talking about the difference between level 1 and level 3 spells. Hence why pointing out Jack's ability to kill heavy mechs does nothing. The Luke Skywalker example comes up again. The Hero's Journey was about more than Luke learning to swing a lightsaber and move things with his mind. It was about self-discovery. This is how Luke 'grows'. If Luke had kept the whiny, childish personality he had in Episode IV, it is unlikely that anyone would have regarded his character as having 'grown' in any substantial manner. 

Also, gameplay is not plot.  Jack's lack of ability to destroy heavy mechs throughout gameplay does not equate to her being 'unable'; it's simply a gameplay mechanic.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

wulf3n wrote...

title: "Why ME2 was ""pointless"" to me"

1) Everything achieved in ME1 was reset.
2) Characters were the main focus, but they weren't essential to the game.

This. I still loved the game, though.

[CroGamer002]

wulf3n wrote...

title: "Why ME2 was ""pointless"" to me"

1) Everything achieved in ME1 was reset.

How?

You have Council if survived.
You have Rachni if not killed.
You have ME1 cameos that were effected by you( except Conrad do to bug)
You have ME1 LI if you had one

2) Characters were the main focus, but they weren't essential to the game.

And how is that pointless?

[Il Divo]

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.

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

Yet you are being equally disingenuous with the Garrus example. Calibrating weapons does not qualify as 'screen time' any more than Carth asking 'What's on your mind?' qualifies as character development. Rather, screen time refers to the number of potential conversations which can occur with a character.

Would you not agree that a character who has 5 dedicated conversation options is probably going to be more developed than a character who has 3?

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.

Garrus, yes. Wrex, no. Wrex's actions on Virmire have little to no effect on his outlook. Wrex's growth is a one trick pony, which has very little relevance to the rest of the story. But even the Garrus example was a feeble attempt at character development in comparison to others (such as Alistair).

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).

Perhaps, but even the best professionals are merely human (or rather, organic), with potential issues. No matter how professional Thane may be, can we really expect that he's going to be as effective with unresolved issues left behind?

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.

I certainly like to see development, simply not from all my characters. Black Whirlwind doesn't change almost at all over the course of Jade Empire which I like, while others (Sky, Dawn Star, etc) can undergo radical developments. Mass Effect 2 features little growth, while Mass Effect features lackluster growth (Garrus).

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).

Well, I wouldn't say Garrus underwent much growth in Mass Effect 2. On the other hand, I thought his personality (and Tali's) were given a much needed boost on the whole. I'm also not certain how Garrus' 'more ruthless' development was tossed out the window. Considering how he intended to kill Sidonis, I think this falls into renegade fairly well.  

[Fixers0]

One thing that we should keep in mind, is that they were Remaking Mass effect and not making ''another'' Mass Effect.

Modifié par Fixers0, 07 février 2011 - 08:28 .

[Il Divo]

Iakus wrote...
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 yet, is this really what people 'remember' about these characters? I can certainly recall all those same conversations you did, including others (Canderous and Carth arguing about the Mandalorian Wars) and while fun, they hardly strike me as how I identified each particular character.

DA:A did some of these things you describe, yet the overall the lack of dedicated conversations was one of the largest criticisms directed at it. All the party dialogue was there, yet it wasn't enough. Mass Effect 2 admittedly presents the opposite scenario (little party dialogue), yet many consider the characters amongst Bioware's best. Which ultimately is more critical to making a character feel real? Characters interacting with each other, or interacting with the PC? I'm inclined to say the latter.

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 ) 

Yet, if this is true, shouldn't Mass Effect's lack of decent character missions still be a critical issue, even as a plot centric tale? You said it yourself that Bioware has always gone the extra mile on its characters.

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.

And this is where I disagree. It wasn't simply an hour of content (Loyalty Mission). In addition, we are also given each recruitment mission, as well as more than a few conversations on the ship, which I'd say were just as critical in learning about Mordin.

[James2912]

I just want to be able to talk to my crew on missions like ME1 and have them make at least semi relevant comments. Also I miss the elevators convos, elevators were the best I was so sad that we just get a stupid loading screen now because people had to whine about it!

[AkiKishi]

Il Divo wrote...

Your 'definition' is useless in the manner that you are employing it. When someone asks to see a character grow, they are not talking about the difference between level 1 and level 3 spells. Hence why pointing out Jack's ability to kill heavy mechs does nothing. The Luke Skywalker example comes up again. The Hero's Journey was about more than Luke learning to swing a lightsaber and move things with his mind. It was about self-discovery. This is how Luke 'grows'. If Luke had kept the whiny, childish personality he had in Episode IV, it is unlikely that anyone would have regarded his character as having 'grown' in any substantial manner. 

Also, gameplay is not plot.  Jack's lack of ability to destroy heavy mechs throughout gameplay does not equate to her being 'unable'; it's simply a gameplay mechanic.

Let me re-iterate dictionary definition. Your the one making up your own definitions to support a weak arguement. 

If Luke had not increased in power then he would never have been able to take on the Emperor,thats like going from level 1 to 30. That is growth. It's as important if not more so than the other kind. A winy level 30 kid can still beat the Emperor, a mature level 1? Not so much.

Luke becomes a Jedi Knight between ESB and Jedi we don't see it happen on screen. The same thing may happen between ME2 and ME3.

If she is unable to do it in gameplay then it's completely pointless, it's a game, gameplay is what matters not what flashy cutscenes designers come up with.

[Null_]

The only way to know if ME2 was pointless is to see ME3.

Considering ME2 is 80% characters 15% fighting collectors..If we get mostly new squad in ME3 then yes ME2 becomes pointless.

[Lunatic LK47]

James2912 wrote...

I just want to be able to talk to my crew on missions like ME1 and have them make at least semi relevant comments. Also I miss the elevators convos, elevators were the best I was so sad that we just get a stupid loading screen now because people had to whine about it!

Too bad those elevator conversations are already drowned out by the sheer volume of news announcements I've heard for the 500th time.

[Moiaussi]

Il Divo wrote...

Yet you are being equally disingenuous with the Garrus example. Calibrating weapons does not qualify as 'screen time' any more than Carth asking 'What's on your mind?' qualifies as character development. Rather, screen time refers to the number of potential conversations which can occur with a character.

Would you not agree that a character who has 5 dedicated conversation options is probably going to be more developed than a character who has 3?

They should be, but that doesn't mean they will. The conversations in ME2 don't really lead to anything. They provide deeper insight into the characters (background), but no actual development. That is why I consider ME2's loyalty missions more like a companion piece to the ME series than the actual promised sequal. "Optional reading" as it were.

Besides, Garrus had something new to say several times over the course of ME1. Wrex and the VS were the same. The only one who was stagnant most of ME1 was Tali.

Garrus, yes. Wrex, no. Wrex's actions on Virmire have little to no effect on his outlook. Wrex's growth is a one trick pony, which has very little relevance to the rest of the story. But even the Garrus example was a feeble attempt at character development in comparison to others (such as Alistair).

Vermire was near the end, though. It would have been good to have had one more conversation in ME1 dealing with Wrex and the ramifications of destroying the cure, but there had been development all the way along til then. And the relationship with Shepard from the earlier conversations does effect Wrex's outlook (and therefore survival chances) on vermire, so the conversations did have relevance. Vermire related to how the mission affected Wrex, so that was definately core plot related. Also the earlier conversations with Wrex set up his returning to take back clan leadership, so they tie into the plot that way too.

Discussion of the cure should have been an aspect of ME2, but wasn't discussed with Wrex or Grunt. Wrex doesn't ask about the Reapers either.

Perhaps, but even the best professionals are merely human (or rather, organic), with potential issues. No matter how professional Thane may be, can we really expect that he's going to be as effective with unresolved issues left behind?

If it worked that way in RL, noone would ever win any important battle because everyone has 'issues.' Soldiers spend months or years away from loved ones in war time. There is no option to let everyone have everything they want.

I certainly like to see development, simply not from all my characters. Black Whirlwind doesn't change almost at all over the course of Jade Empire which I like, while others (Sky, Dawn Star, etc) can undergo radical developments. Mass Effect 2 features little growth, while Mass Effect features lackluster growth (Garrus).

As I said, there is nothing much done with Tali in ME1 either. This isn't an all or nothing complaint. For a 'character driven' game, though, there just didn't seem like much in ME2. Well written short stories with no substance.

Well, I wouldn't say Garrus underwent much growth in Mass Effect 2. On the other hand, I thought his personality (and Tali's) were given a much needed boost on the whole. I'm also not certain how Garrus' 'more ruthless' development was tossed out the window. Considering how he intended to kill Sidonis, I think this falls into renegade fairly well. 

If Shepard balks at letting him kill Sidonis, "renegade" Garrus doesn't call Shepard out on that. That is just as much a lack of continuity as shepard having to work so hard and be a human shield to talk "paragon" Garrus down. What kind of boost do you think Garrus got in ME2? Is this really just a matter of you having a preference for renegade, therefore ME2 is a better game for you?

[Moiaussi]

Null_ wrote...

The only way to know if ME2 was pointless is to see ME3.
Considering ME2 is 80% characters 15% fighting collectors..If we get mostly new squad in ME3 then yes ME2 becomes pointless.

ME1 didn't need ME2 to vindicate it though. If ME2 needs ME3 to do so, how much of a point does ME2 really have?

[James2912]

Null_ wrote...

The only way to know if ME2 was pointless is to see ME3.
Considering ME2 is 80% characters 15% fighting collectors..If we get mostly new squad in ME3 then yes ME2 becomes pointless.

I would defintely be pretty pissed if all that recruiting and dealing with daddy issues was a big waste of time. 

[Praetor Knight]

przemichal wrote...

If ME2 was pointless - many people on this forums say so - why not consider also ME1 pointless? I mean, the Reapers are going to invade the Milky Way anyway, so what's the point of ME1? Isn't it just as pointless as stopping the Collectors? One will say: it developed the world etc. etc. But ME2 did as well; in fact, in ME2 we had even more insight into ME world than in ME1. I know that one can argue; but come to think about it I'm pretty sure it did more for developing the setting than ME1; it did all the things ME1 done and more; if you're a PS3 player you will surely know what I mean. You'll say it revealed nothing new; but in fact it did. (Like: it gave us a lot of insight into Cerberus, for example.) Let's be honest, when playing ME1 you knew NOTHING about the asari, quarians, krogans; you only knew what your crew told you (and God those conversations were BORING!). What do you think?

I agree with the OP.

ME2 is worth the time to play. And I'm still having fun playing both games.

[przemichal]

Well
I believe people consider ME2 pointless mostly because they believed that it will reveal MORE about the Reapers'. And what they take for 'more' may vary: from JUST EVERYTHING (with some kind of new threat for ME3) to JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE. It's not a real problem as I see it; they believed this game is about the Reapersonly (seems to me) and they are dissapointed because it's not (what a surprise...); actually, it's about just a lot of things. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if those people are dissapointed also with ME3.

Personally I'd like it to develop them characters even further. They are not necessary -- right -- but tell me, IS NOT THAT WHY YOU PLAY RPGs: BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY YET STILL THEY ARE IMPORTANT? (I mean the choice you have, the impact it makes etc.)

Modifié par przemichal, 07 février 2011 - 10:06 .

[Whatever42]

ME2 is simply parallel to ME1 in structure because we are experiencing the game from the renegade-side faction instead of the paragon-side faction. That is entirely intentional. It is like playing part 1 of the campaign as the human faction and part 2 as the orc faction, except we get to keep the same character.

During both games we can resist our faction and at the end we can set both factions back and advance the other.

In ME3, we get to choose which faction triumphs. Its all pointed and deliberate.

Storywise, the plot against the Reapers does advance, we gain new allies, we learn more about the enemy. Its actually a very nice construction overall.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 07 février 2011 - 10:16 .

[Iakus]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
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]

No, It's an example of what I think would have been good character development in ME 2.  ME 1 style charactarization would not have cut it for ME 2.   

[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...

...realistic expectation.[/quote]

Doesn't have to be exactly as I described.  Just some acknowledgement that the choices I made actually have an effect on the game.  Makes it feel less, you know, pointless.

[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:[/quote]
Well, I can't argue with logic like that.  Interpret it as you will

[quote]
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.[/quote]

All good.  Though I question the more intership banter.  But for eight out of 12 of those missions, it really doesn't matter what you do.  It affects nothing.  And that's aside from the compartmentalization of the "team"

[quote]
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]

I use Garrus' comments as what could have been character development.  If it had actually had any effect on ME 2.  The comments after the loyalty missions in ME 2 are largely the same "Gee, Shepard, I really learned something from our time together"  Then nothing.  No further mention.  No changes in attitude (except the LIs)
no altered choices. 

We saw how little Garrus's change in ME 1 meant in ME 2.  How do you know what Garrus "learned" in ME 2 wil have any difference in ME3?  ME, I think Sidonis living or dying will have more of an effect.  If he lives maybe we'll get an email or meet him in a bar with an inane sidequest.

[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.[/quote]

Personality change after the mission?  Where?  You get a thank you, and potential LIs now want to sleep with you.  But where do you see a personality change?  Do Thane's mission, don't do Thane's mission.  The only difference is one "thank you " talk, and a  bigger chance of him dying in the Suicide Mission.

[quote]
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]

Actually, I'm not talking about game mechanics.  I'm talking about story mechanics.  Do Wrex's mission, Wrex trusts you and makes a crucial choice.  He changes his mind about something very important to him.  Whereas in ME 2, these loyalty missions manifest as "doesn't flub the job" which is in no way different from picking the wrong person to begin with.

[quote]

[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]

Except for all the dialogue he has after you shoot him


{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]

Okay, I think I finally get what you're saying.  So, what makes you think this lesson will stick any better than the last one?  Assuming he's even around next game to learn from it?


[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"[/quote]

I honestly don't understand here.  Not trying to be difficult.  How does Jack's, Jacob's or anyone else's dialogue or attitude change for having done their loyalty mission?  Yes, there's good stuff in the loyalty missions.  But after the "thank you"  or "I want you", there's nothing.  The mission might as well not have happened.  And I suspect that with a few exceptions, that will be the case in ME 3.

[quote]
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]

I admit that there was good material in ME 2, but implemented poorly.
Character development was good where it took place, but nonexistant everywhere else.
I don't know if the story was pointless or not.  ME 1 going into ME 2 is not a good sign though.
Doesn't feel like a second act, more like Mass Effect 1: No Wait, This is How It Really Starts

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

And yet, is this really what people 'remember' about these characters? I can certainly recall all those same conversations you did, including others (Canderous and Carth arguing about the Mandalorian Wars) and while fun, they hardly strike me as how I identified each particular character.

DA:A did some of these things you describe, yet the overall the lack of dedicated conversations was one of the largest criticisms directed at it. All the party dialogue was there, yet it wasn't enough. Mass Effect 2 admittedly presents the opposite scenario (little party dialogue), yet many consider the characters amongst Bioware's best. Which ultimately is more critical to making a character feel real? Characters interacting with each other, or interacting with the PC? I'm inclined to say the latter.

I can't speak for certainty about others.  Though I doubt that I'm unique.  The conversations between characters makes them more alive, less like puppets who only speak when spoken to.

I am actually doing an Awakening run now on my mage.  The problem with it is that to get a conversation with a companion, yo have to click on an object of interest to get a response.  It is an annoyance.  A balance needs to be struck.  Awakening lacked in player to character conversation.  ME 2 massivly lacked in inter-party dialogue.

Yet, if this is true, shouldn't Mass Effect's lack of decent character missions still be a critical issue, even as a plot centric tale? You said it yourself that Bioware has always gone the extra mile on its characters.

It is.  Like I said, ME 1's character development is "adequate" for the purposes of the story.  ME 2, as a teambuilding game, needed more.

And this is where I disagree. It wasn't simply an hour of content (Loyalty Mission). In addition, we are also given each recruitment mission, as well as more than a few conversations on the ship, which I'd say were just as critical in learning about Mordin.

Are there really that many conversations on the ship?  I don't recall there being any more than ME 1 (remember what I said about it merely being "adequate" for that game?)  And I don't see how the recruitment missions add a whole lot of development fro that character since the very fact that you're off to "recruit" them means thy don't get much screen time til the very end.  Mordin's recruitment mission, for example, was more useful for learning about the COllectors than Mordin himself.

[Moiaussi]

Heh, Zaeed's recuitment mission consisted of 'hi we've hired you" "Remember, that is on the condition you do my loyalty mission!" "Right, that is what we agreed"

[Lance Gardner]

It occurs to me they could fix the majority of these percieved problems with Mass Effect 2 by releasing a DLC consisting of nothing but character dialogues - conversations for the characters and lines to say in specific situations. It would be a great way to flesh out the characters and give a reason to revisit the universe that isn't only true for 1 or 2 hours of DLC but instead stays with you throughout the whole game.

[didymos1120]

iakus wrote...

Are there really that many conversations on the ship?  I don't recall there being any more than ME 1 (remember what I said about it merely being "adequate" for that game?) 

Yes, for most of the squaddies. They also have a larger number of lines.

[bjdbwea]

Lance Gardner wrote...

It occurs to me they could fix the majority of these percieved problems with Mass Effect 2 by releasing a DLC consisting of nothing but character dialogues - conversations for the characters and lines to say in specific situations. It would be a great way to flesh out the characters and give a reason to revisit the universe that isn't only true for 1 or 2 hours of DLC but instead stays with you throughout the whole game.

Indeed, but of course that DLC should be released for free, because it would only deliver what should have been in the main game.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I can't speak for certainty about others.  Though I doubt that I'm unique.  The conversations between characters makes them more alive, less like puppets who only speak when spoken to.

I am actually doing an Awakening run now on my mage.  The problem with it is that to get a conversation with a companion, yo have to click on an object of interest to get a response.  It is an annoyance.  A balance needs to be struck.  Awakening lacked in player to character conversation.  ME 2 massivly lacked in inter-party dialogue.

I do not deny that the overall atmosphere is improved when characters are able to speak of their own volition. Yes, a balance is always preferred. But when balance is thrown out of wack, which truly prevails? I found both Anders and Nathaniel Howe to be incredibly interesting characters, yet for all their lack of puppetry there was not enough dialogue to really create a link with the character. Mass Effect 2's system demonstrates certain flaws, but overall the scale on which Bioware took character dialogue put previous efforts to shame. I've always looked at inter-character banter as a nice addition, but not what seals the deal in making a character.

Are there really that many conversations on the ship?  I don't recall there being any more than ME 1 (remember what I said about it merely being "adequate" for that game?)  And I don't see how the recruitment missions add a whole lot of development fro that character since the very fact that you're off to "recruit" them means thy don't get much screen time til the very end.  Mordin's recruitment mission, for example, was more useful for learning about the COllectors than Mordin himself.

There were indeed. Some time back someone made a series of youtube videos displaying all of Mass Effect 2's conversations. For most party members, both the number of conversations and overall time in dialogue came out to more than Mass Effect, not including loyalty missions.