462 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Character driven does not mean party banter. And the party banter in DA:O did not mean it was character driven. It was awesome. It was a great tool for making the characters seem more real. It was a serious highlight of my experience. But you can't say it was required for character development.

And dismissing the missions as "little" means you weren't paying attention. We learned tons about Thane in his mission. We saw what he would be willing to do to save his son. It was heads-and-shoulders above almost anything in DA:O.

I adored the banter in DA:O too, don't get me wrong. The comments by various characters in ME1 was great but the characters really seem to breath when interacting spontaneously so much. I wholly support more of that in ME3. But to dismiss all the character development in ME2 because of lack of banter is just wrong.

We learn a lot about Thane but it does not contribute to the plot. To be character driven the plot must be driven by the characters. Dragon Age is very character driven , ME is more background information on my companions.

In ME2 the fact that you can skip a lot of the characters completely or just ignore the loyalty missions if you don't mind the body count shows that it is not character driven since the plot moves on whether those characters are there or not.

Take Alistair out of Dragon Age and you have a very different plot. Take Morrigan out of Dragon age and you have a very different ending. I don't think you could say the same for any of the ME2 characters.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 02:10 .

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


Character driven does not mean party banter

That may be your opinion. But party banter actually make me feel that partymembers are "alive".Without it,they are like puppets that only react when shepardt press a button. Not very convincing. Especially in a "character driven game".

Sometimes it even feels that merc groups have more companionship then shepardts team...

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 février 2011 - 02:29 .

[Whatever42]

True, Morrigan and Alistair did have a stronger role in the main plot than any of the squadmates from ME2, especially Alistair; Morigan was more flavour. But you only really needed Alistair there. As you said, it was really all about him. But did I care less about the other characters because they weren't needed at the end? Nope.

I disagree that to say character driven means it has to have a direct impact on the end (beyond a tearful coffin scene). It means that the reason you are watching this show is that you want to learn about the characters and how they develop. The plot is just a hanger for that.

And I thought the characters in DA were totally puppets. Oh, she's mad at me for not killing the kitten and won't have sex with me. Here, I'll give her this necklace and she'll take her clothes off. Dance, puppet, dance.:-)

But I don't think we disagree mostly, I think its merely a discussion about terminology. I think there are mechanisms that make the characters feel more real and more important. The relationship system (without the cheesy gifts) made you think about your party when choosing certain actions. The lightside/darkside system of ME2 wasn't about your party. And the banter made the DA characters breathe in a way that really makes you wish for more of it in ME2.

But I think we can't simply dismiss the character development of ME2 because Miranda didn't stop sleeping with me for not shooting Tali in the face until I give her a sweet necklace.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 03 février 2011 - 02:38 .

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


Character driven does not mean party banter

That may be your opinion. But party banter actually make me feel that partymembers are "alive".Without it,they are like puppets that only react when shepardt press a button. Not very convincing. Especially in a "character driven game".

Sometimes it even feels that merc groups have more companionship then shepardts team...

pfft... DA characters were totally puppets. They where my gift-****s and I was their pimp. Not very convincing.

Again, I'm not saying that banter isn't awesome or that I wouldn't prefer a properly done relationship system but seriously... you are hanging absolutely everything on that. You have a very narrow view of what makes a game or characters good.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


And I thought the characters in DA were totally puppets.

Betrayal,attacking the player? All that could happen there and what i would expect in a character driven game.Why jack should actually stay with shepardt after she got what she wanted and shepardt maybee sided with miranda? Dont answer me with sense of responsibility in this case...

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

pfft... DA characters were totally puppets. They where my gift-****s and I was their pimp. Not very convincing.

Again, I'm not saying that banter isn't awesome or that I wouldn't prefer a properly done relationship system but seriously... you are hanging absolutely everything on that. You have a very narrow view of what makes a game or characters good.

You could give lelianna as many gifts as you want.If you destroy the ashes she will attack you nonetheless.(if you didnt did the marjoleine quest and "harden" her)

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


And I thought the characters in DA were totally puppets.

Betrayal,attacking the player? All that could happen there and what i would expect in a character driven game.Why jack should actually stay with shepardt after she got what she wanted and shepardt maybee sided with miranda? Dont answer me with sense of responsibility in this case...

We're bickering about two different things.

DA was a game centered around party-member relationships. There was no darkside/lightside morality mechanism but a party relationship mechanism. I agree that that's a great system - when its done better and I can't simply buy my way out of trouble.

What I'm talking about in ME2, though, is the writing. It was centered around you building your team. It was centered around personal missions where your squadies developed and you learned deeply personal things about them. But, yes, you are correct that the gameplay mechanisms were not centered around the relationships. But again, that doesn't mean the writing is not character driven. We are in a thread about plot, after all.

But lets look at the writing. Leliana tells us a great deal about herself but other than a short scene with her former mentor, there is very little about her in the story. Its not about her. Oh, there are gameplay mechanisms that make me pay attention to my relationship about her if I want her to like me but its not about her.

In ME2, we'd have a whole subplot surrounding her. In ME1, Tali told us all about herself and her home. In ME2, she didn't need to tell us. We saw her home. We saw the admiralty and how they acted. We saw the obsession of the Quarians about the Geth. We didn't need exposition, we experienced it. You can't simply say that doesn't count as character development because I can't give Tali a necklace and make her strip.

But I'm done, I promise. If I can't communicate what I'm trying to say by now then I simply don't have the ability.

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

pfft... DA characters were totally puppets. They where my gift-****s and I was their pimp. Not very convincing.

Again, I'm not saying that banter isn't awesome or that I wouldn't prefer a properly done relationship system but seriously... you are hanging absolutely everything on that. You have a very narrow view of what makes a game or characters good.

You could give lelianna as many gifts as you want.If you destroy the ashes she will attack you nonetheless.(if you didnt did the marjoleine quest and "harden" her)

Yeah, there were a few moments but you knew exactly what would happen. But I'd prefer a system where there was no gift giving. That the relationship system forced more choices on you and you simply couldn't buy your way out of trouble. And I'd make certain choices matter, whether the party member was there or not.

If I kill the kitten, Morrigan likes me but Leliana hates me. I can't simply give Leliana a gift to make it better. Or leave her at home when I go on my kitten killing rampage - or if I do then I won't be able to build up enough relationship points (by saving kittens) to develop anything with her.

I think its a great system - they just cheaped it out in DA. I'm hoping they improve it though! I did love DA but like ME2, it wasn't perfect. But sorry, this isn't a DA discussion. :-)

[Chewin]

This is getting way over my head. I will just wait for ME 3, play it, and see for myself if ME 2 was pointless...

[MajesticJazz]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I think we learned a lot about the Reapers in ME2. We learned that the squid is a shell and not the Reaper. We learned that Reapers "reproduce" around every 50,000 years by distilling a speices into a goo and growing a cyborg and that a Human Reaper looks just like a T-800.
We also learned that a lot the the Reaper terror is in fact a myth based on what were upto the point of ME very good strategies.

We know that you can fly through a Reaper ME field and that likely slow moving objects will not be stopped by it.

All in all we learned the Reapers are mortal and will die , especially if you shoot a Cain at them.

All that is very important for dispelling the Reaper "myth" that was prevelent in ME1.

Definately not pointless, but maybe could have been a bit more story focused.

Are you serious? Your reply has FAIL written all over it.

Either you were being sarcastic which is fine, or you were literally serious and you truely believe in the bottom of your heart that those reasons you gave are makes the validation point that ME2 wasn't pointless because we learned that you can fly through a Reaper ME field.

You're just making up reasons now.

Just admit it people! Bioware wanted ME2 to be a great entry point into the series (instead of putting the focus on ME1 as the entry point) and thus the results are shown in ME2. ME2 was meant to be a key entry point and it was meant to be a stand alone game. With that being said, it wasn't developed to "carry a trilogy" or a key middle part in a trilogy. Instead it was created as just another Action-Shooter game that you can just get in and get out of.

If you watch A New Hope, skip ESB, and jump to Return of the Jedi, then you're going to be lost.

If you watch The Phantom Menace, skip Attack of the Clones, and jump to Revenge of the Sith, then you're going to be lost.

If you watch The Matrix, skip Reloaded, and jump to Revolution, then you're going to be lost.

However, the way it is going now,

If you play ME1, skip ME2, and jump to ME3, you're probably going to feel like the jump was smooth and that you probably didn't miss anything relevant. Because at the end of ME1, the Reapers were coming and you needed to stop them and at the beginning of ME3, the Reapers came and you'll stop them. ME2 has no place....

[bjdbwea]

Anyone who says that ME 2 was more character-driven than DA, is probably doing the same with the term "character-driven" that some people do with the term "RPG": Redefine the meaning of the word until it fits, just because they want it to fit for a game that they like and want to defend.

[WilliamShatner]

If ME2 was any more pointless it would be a sphere.

Modifié par WilliamShatner, 03 février 2011 - 03:40 .

[Whatever42]

MajesticJazz wrote...

I think we learned a lot about the Reapers in ME2. We learned that the squid is a shell and not the Reaper. We learned that Reapers "reproduce" around every 50,000 years by distilling a speices into a goo and growing a cyborg and that a Human Reaper looks just like a T-800.
We also learned that a lot the the Reaper terror is in fact a myth based on what were upto the point of ME very good strategies.

We know that you can fly through a Reaper ME field and that likely slow moving objects will not be stopped by it.

All in all we learned the Reapers are mortal and will die , especially if you shoot a Cain at them.

All that is very important for dispelling the Reaper "myth" that was prevelent in ME1.

Definately not pointless, but maybe could have been a bit more story focused.

Are you serious? Your reply has FAIL written all over it.

Either you were being sarcastic which is fine, or you were literally serious and you truely believe in the bottom of your heart that those reasons you gave are makes the validation point that ME2 wasn't pointless because we learned that you can fly through a Reaper ME field.

You're just making up reasons now.

Just admit it people! Bioware wanted ME2 to be a great entry point into the series (instead of putting the focus on ME1 as the entry point) and thus the results are shown in ME2. ME2 was meant to be a key entry point and it was meant to be a stand alone game. With that being said, it wasn't developed to "carry a trilogy" or a key middle part in a trilogy. Instead it was created as just another Action-Shooter game that you can just get in and get out of.

If you watch A New Hope, skip ESB, and jump to Return of the Jedi, then you're going to be lost.

If you watch The Phantom Menace, skip Attack of the Clones, and jump to Revenge of the Sith, then you're going to be lost.

If you watch The Matrix, skip Reloaded, and jump to Revolution, then you're going to be lost.

However, the way it is going now,

If you play ME1, skip ME2, and jump to ME3, you're probably going to feel like the jump was smooth and that you probably didn't miss anything relevant. Because at the end of ME1, the Reapers were coming and you needed to stop them and at the beginning of ME3, the Reapers came and you'll stop them. ME2 has no place....

I think it was written this way from the start, although I won't argue that it advances the main plot to defeat the Reaper invasion.

But dropping the whole Jabba subplot, which is not relevant to the main plot at all except to show how badass Luke has become, what in ESB is critical to enjoying Jedi. Nothing except some critical character development - Luke is a better Jedi and Darth Vader is his poppa. That's important because Luke uses that to turn daddy back from the darkside. If you had a single scene in Jedi showing Luke training with Yoda and and a exposition explaining his relationship with the tall, black-robed villain, it would have sufficed.

I think the whole ME series was based off Star Wars. We have the trilogy with the darkside/lightside mechanics. We have the triumphant end of the first episode and the dark middle chapter. Luke exhanges Ben for Yoda. Shep exchanges Anderson/Hacket for TIM. ESB was more about the characters - Han/Leia, Luke/Yoda - so was ME2.

I'm not going to argue that ME2 did as good a job of it as ESB or that ESB did it right but I do think they did it on purpose. I just hope ME3 wraps it up better than Jedi.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 03 février 2011 - 03:45 .

[Moiaussi]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think it was written this way from the start, although I won't argue that it advances the main plot to defeat the Reaper invasion.

But dropping the whole Jabba subplot, which is not relevant to the main plot at all except to show how badass Luke has become, what in ESB is critical to enjoying Jedi. Nothing except some critical character development - Luke is a better Jedi and Darth Vader is his poppa. That's important because Luke uses that to turn daddy back from the darkside. If you had a single scene in Jedi showing Luke training with Yoda and and a exposition explaining his relationship with the tall, black-robed villain, it would have sufficed.

I think the whole ME series was based off Star Wars. We have the trilogy with the darkside/lightside mechanics. We have the triumphant end of the first episode and the dark middle chapter. Luke exhanges Ben for Yoda. Shep exchanges Anderson/Hacket for TIM. ESB was more about the characters - Han/Leia, Luke/Yoda - so was ME2.

I'm not going to argue that ME2 did as good a job of it as ESB or that ESB did it right but I do think they did it on purpose. I just hope ME3 wraps it up better than Jedi.

Critical? Maybe not, but ESB definately advances the plot. Showing 'how badass Luke has become' is character development of a main character. Shepard goes backwards. Neither Harbinger nor the baby reaper seemed as tough as Saren. You need to go do LotSB to get a fight equivalent to the Saren fight, IMO.

ESB was about the other characters too, but it was about development of the characters from the first one, not about tossing Han, Chewie, Leia, etc, off into oblivion, then introducing a whole new set of characters and trying to develop them instead, without tieing them to the central plot other than that they were picked up by the main character.

ME2 wasn't a 'dark middle chapter' either. It was only 'dark' in that old allies inexplicably cut ties with you and that you seem to go along with someone who seems trying as hard to sabotage defence against the reapers as improve it, yet you can't really call him out on that without accepting his answers pretty much blindly anyway.

[WilliamShatner]

ESB turns the situtation 180 degrees. At the end of Star Wars (we believe) the empire is defeated. But the end of ESB they have the rebels on the run again.



At the end of ME the reapers are coming.

At the end of ME2 the reapers are still coming.



No change.

[Whatever42]

At the end of Star Wars, the rebel alliance save themselves from certain destruction by destroying the death star.
At the end of ESB, the rebel alliance save themselves from certain destruction by running away.
No change.

At the end of ME1, Shepard saves the galaxy by preventing Sovereign from capturing the Citadel and opening a portal to dark space.
At the end of ME2, Shepard saves the galaxy by preventing Harbinger from building a new Reaper.
No change.

Seems similar to me.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 03 février 2011 - 04:40 .

[Babli]

Continuity suffers in ME 2. Period.

[AkiKishi]

MajesticJazz wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

I think we learned a lot about the Reapers in ME2. We learned that the squid is a shell and not the Reaper. We learned that Reapers "reproduce" around every 50,000 years by distilling a speices into a goo and growing a cyborg and that a Human Reaper looks just like a T-800.
We also learned that a lot the the Reaper terror is in fact a myth based on what were upto the point of ME very good strategies.

We know that you can fly through a Reaper ME field and that likely slow moving objects will not be stopped by it.

All in all we learned the Reapers are mortal and will die , especially if you shoot a Cain at them.

All that is very important for dispelling the Reaper "myth" that was prevelent in ME1.

Definately not pointless, but maybe could have been a bit more story focused.

Are you serious? Your reply has FAIL written all over it.

Either you were being sarcastic which is fine, or you were literally serious and you truely believe in the bottom of your heart that those reasons you gave are makes the validation point that ME2 wasn't pointless because we learned that you can fly through a Reaper ME field.

You're just making up reasons now.

Just admit it people! Bioware wanted ME2 to be a great entry point into the series (instead of putting the focus on ME1 as the entry point) and thus the results are shown in ME2. ME2 was meant to be a key entry point and it was meant to be a stand alone game. With that being said, it wasn't developed to "carry a trilogy" or a key middle part in a trilogy. Instead it was created as just another Action-Shooter game that you can just get in and get out of.

If you watch A New Hope, skip ESB, and jump to Return of the Jedi, then you're going to be lost.

If you watch The Phantom Menace, skip Attack of the Clones, and jump to Revenge of the Sith, then you're going to be lost.

If you watch The Matrix, skip Reloaded, and jump to Revolution, then you're going to be lost.

However, the way it is going now,

If you play ME1, skip ME2, and jump to ME3, you're probably going to feel like the jump was smooth and that you probably didn't miss anything relevant. Because at the end of ME1, the Reapers were coming and you needed to stop them and at the beginning of ME3, the Reapers came and you'll stop them. ME2 has no place....

The common claim is that ME2 does nothing to advance the Reaper plot I just pointed out it does. Since ME3 is very likely to be about killing Reapers what you learn in ME2 is both valid and important.

ME is all about the Reapers as big scary boogey men ME2 shined a light on them.

I'll just borrow your lines with a minor alteration.

ME 1 you stop the Reaper Vanguard.
ME 2 you realise that was a waste of time and they are coming anyway.
ME 3 you most likely kill them all.

You could easily say ME was pointless by your logic. What you did in ME1 had no effect on the Reaper threat.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 04:53 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Anyone who says that ME 2 was more character-driven than DA, is probably doing the same with the term "character-driven" that some people do with the term "RPG": Redefine the meaning of the word until it fits, just because they want it to fit for a game that they like and want to defend.

Considering you can't even provide a definition of RPG that will satisfy most gamers, I don't really think you're in any position of authority to say that the term has been 'redefined' in the first place.

To offer the opposite scenario, I could say that you seek to redefine the meaning of RPG just to attack a game you dislike.  

[AkiKishi]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


And I thought the characters in DA were totally puppets. Oh, she's mad at me for not killing the kitten and won't have sex with me. Here, I'll give her this necklace and she'll take her clothes off. Dance, puppet, dance.:-)

Works in real life too

But only to a certain extent there were actions that gift giving would not make up for. Destroying the ashes for example.

[Il Divo]

MajesticJazz wrote...

If you play ME1, skip ME2, and jump to ME3, you're probably going to feel like the jump was smooth and that you probably didn't miss anything relevant. Because at the end of ME1, the Reapers were coming and you needed to stop them and at the beginning of ME3, the Reapers came and you'll stop them. ME2 has no place....

So how can you possibly reach this conclusion having not played, nor having any idea, where Mass Effect 3 is headed? If we need to examine all three instalments in order to determine whether something is 'relevant', then your Mass Effect example does not follow. I needed to see Empire Strikes Back in order to watch Return of the Jedi.Mass Effect 2 being 'relevant' will depend entirely on how it is implemented in the final instalment.

[Moiaussi]

WilliamShatner wrote...

ESB turns the situtation 180 degrees. At the end of Star Wars (we believe) the empire is defeated. But the end of ESB they have the rebels on the run again.

At the end of ME the reapers are coming.
At the end of ME2 the reapers are still coming.

No change.

What? At the end of star wars, the Rebels took out their new planet killer, but didn't hit their production at all, nor the main body of the Imperial fleet.

Meanwhile, the Empire now still knows where much of the rebel command is. They didn't magically lose that knowledge simply because the death star went boom.

And the empire isn't some distant navy that needed something like the citadel to get here quickly, the empire is the ruling government and the  rebels are the underdogs.

The rebels won a victory in Star Wars, but hardly a decisive one, strategicly. It isn't even clear that Return of the Jedi represents a decisive victory. It is still a representative government. Luke could I suppose walk into the senate and say 'hi, I just killed your emperor, vote for me or you're next' ,but then he wouldn't be much better than Palpatine. It is implied that there is no meaningful successor to Palpatine, and thus it probably is an end to the struggle, but still.....

In Star Wars, the threat and main characters are introduced, and there is an initial victory (ME1 filled that part very well). In Empire, the threat is now less complacent due to the rebel victory, and thus the Rebels are on the run, while trying to find allies/not die/find answers. Luke trains and gets tougher, which is a big part of the solution.

Luke challenges the enemy, but this time isn't successful, establishing the enemy as a real threat, and setting up the third movie.

ME2's Collectors hardly seemed a threat at all. ME1 required not just tough battles against Saren, but hard choices still under debate, and fleet actions with major losses. ME2 required... Joker to stop showboating and use the Normandy to actually shoot back. Oh, and an enemy whose main offense consisted of bad heckling.

[Il Divo]

Moiaussi wrote...

In Star Wars, the threat and main characters are introduced, and there is an initial victory (ME1 filled that part very well). In Empire, the threat is now less complacent due to the rebel victory, and thus the Rebels are on the run, while trying to find allies/not die/find answers. Luke trains and gets tougher, which is a big part of the solution.

Luke challenges the enemy, but this time isn't successful, establishing the enemy as a real threat, and setting up the third movie.

I just want to comment on this right now. How exactly was this not established in Episode IV? We watched Grand Moff Tarkin give the order to destroy an entire planet and Darth Vader execute Obi Wan Kenobi. Whether or not the rebels won a decisive victory, Episode V was not what established the Empire as a threat.

[cachx]

Super quoting myself time!

Through the recruitment / loyalty missions, we got to learn and
experience a lot of stuff related to the ME universe, including stuff
like:

+The fate of migrant fleet
+The fate of true/heretic geth
+The escalating conflict between the previous 2
+The Krogan culture and how they're dealing with the genophage (wich can vary depending on ME1 decisions).
+Life on the terminus systems (Illium, Omega) or "why is the council is scared ****less of it".
+The various merc groups.
+Cerberus, and more stuff they had done.
+The Shadow Broker

And that's not counting the whole Collector plan and all that it tells us about the Reapers.

I really don't have anything else on this subject. You may have not liked the hows, and that's fine. But this "not
needed" or "pointless" crap is just plain wrong.

[AkiKishi]

Sovereign killed itself through stupidity. In ME2 we killed 2 Reapers albeit a geriatric and baby one.

Thats progress.