462 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

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.

But the cahracters in DAO responded.  To each other, via party banter, and to the plot by making comments and observations.  Wynne, for example will reaction negatively towards permitting the use of blood magic.  Lelliana will point out to Sten that he's not as gruff and stoic as he pretends to be.  Allistair will not be happy with you if you allow Eamon's wife or son to die.  Characters (not just rival LIs) will acknowledge if you are in a relationship with someone.  And so on. 

It's not that the characters drive the plot.  It's that they react to the plot, and to your choices affecting it.  In ME2, yes, you get a good mission out of Thane.  You learn a lot abou thim, his family, his motivations.  But once it's done, his personality evaporates.  It doesn't matter what other missions you take him on, he doesn't react.  He doesn't advocate, he's just sort of there.  Same with the other characters. 

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

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

[Whatever42]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

That's another debate entirely! Personally, I think what we saw at the end of ME2 was that the Reapers are really cyborgs. That their mind is really made up of the consciousness of the race they ascended. The machine part of Reaper is responsible for keeping the organic unified through the indoctrination field.

So if the organic part of the Reaper dies, you still have the machine part but it has no real consciousness. It will generate an indoctrination field but no cognative ability. For example, I doubt Sovereign ran around consciousless indocrinating people, I think its very presence just pulled people into line because the field is always just on.

Well we actually found out that "Reaper" is a misnomer and that each one is actually one of these races that has been turned into goo.
That also means that each one could be quite different in how it operates. The indoctrination field might be the mechanical aspect but you still need a will behind it.

Granted it's not the sort of kills you could boast about .. A baby and an Invalid , but hey a win is a win.

Yup, like a good wolfpack, we eat their weak and young first. Rawr!

[Il Divo]

MajesticJazz wrote...

My point is that what does ME2 ADD to the OVERALL story arch that is sooooooo relevant? What important information did we learn in ME2 that will be vital to understanding ME3?

I bring up the Episode V example (once more). What did we learn that was so vital to the "overall" story? Vader as Luke's father in the long run served absolutely no purpose for Rebels vs. Empire. Had Luke never encountered his father on the Death Star, Han would have still taken down the shields and Lando would've destroyed the Death Star.

But your point still fails because of the flawed analogy. You say that we didn't learn anything vital in  Mass Effect 2. How can you know this without playing Mass Effect 3? It's a simple contradiction. You are presupposing an unproven conclusion in thinking that Mass Effect 3 will rely on nothing in Mass Effect 2.

ME1 DOES go deeper into the Reaper psychological profile through the Virmire conversation with Soverign, Talks with Saren (Virmire/Citadel) and the chat with Vigil (Illos). Through this, the Reapers background and motives are fleshed out more. 

ME2 DOESNT go deeper into the Reaper psychological profile.

This is nonsensical. We learn absolutely nothing about Reaper motivation in Mass Effect. Methods? Yes. Motivations? Absolutely not. The entire problem of Mass Effect was that we never got to find out about their motivations. How does hearing about the Prothean extinction tell us absolutely anything about Reaper thought patterns? Mass Effect 2 tells us:

1)Reapers are in fact machine-organic hybrids.
2) The cycle is intended as their equivalent of Reaper reproduction.
3) The Reapers look upon their creation as a form of 'ascension'.

By way of motives, that's more than we are given in Mass Effect.

As for Shepard:

ME1 DOES go deeper into the psychological profile of Commander Shepard. Through conversations and side missions, we learn more about his/her past.

I'd say I felt more fleshed out speaking with Dr. Chakwas in Mass Effect 2 than any of the psychological profiles. The only moment in Mass Effect I truly 'fleshed out' Shepard was the Ashley locker room scene.

ME2 DOES NOT continue with this? There were no more further mentions of Shepard's past prior to ME1. We didn't learn anything new about the character in that regard. Furthermore, our relationships aren't continued (Wrex, Ashlye/Kaiden, and Liara). Yes, we got the Shadow Broker DLC for Liara, but because that wasn't included in the retail version of ME2 back in Jan 2010, that doesn't count. Yes, we can continue these relationships in ME3 but that only goes to even further validate the point that ME2 was pointless and that I can goto ME3 straight from ME1 and feel normal.

Again, how do you know this? How can you know the middle part of a trilogy is pointless without playing the final instalment? How do you know what elements Bioware intends to bring forward from Mass Effect 2?

No one mentions Shepard's path in Mass Effect 2 because it's simply irrelevant by this point. At that time, Shepard's destruction of Torfan, etc, was his claim to fame. By Mass Effect 2, this has reached a new scale. People don't recognize Commander Shepard "Butcher of Torfan". They recognize Commander Shepard, Saviour of the Citadel.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 février 2011 - 08:26 .

[Nozybidaj]

Il Divo wrote...

I bring up the Episode V example (once more). What did we learn that was so vital to the "overall" story? Vader as Luke's father in the long run served absolutely no purpose for Rebels vs. Empire.

I think the mistake you are making here is in identifying Rebels vs Empire as the main conflict in that story.

[Slayer299]

DarthSliver wrote...
Well in ME2 i didnt have to get to know my companions everytime i replayed the game just to make sure they wouldnt leave. Neither did i have to hassle with giving them gifts to improve their liking of me. There also the fact ME2 felt different when you played again with the opposite gender that you played with first time around. Also i think i enjoy space faring games over middle earth type games. I did enjoy Dragon Age, just wasnt fun for me the second time. Like i said the fact i had to talk to my companions to keep them happy with me was something that really degrades replay value to me.

You don't have to give them gifts of any sort, that is 100% optional. And having to "talk" to your companions is part of building a team. A team just doesn't form because your PC says "we're a team", in DAO they were individuals with opinions who may or may not agree with you and sometimes those disagreements can turn to violence and by "talking" to them you're building loyalty to your Warden. One example is Sten who didn't like my Warden, but after I beat the snot out of him during the SA quest when he challenged me he had reason to respect and follow me. When did any of the ME2 char's ever disagree with any of your actions? At all??

I happen to have loved DAO and I've played it 5 times (not a lot compared to some, but at an avg playtime of 75+hours).

Personally, I haven't seen a big difference in the reactions between male and female Shep, I'm sure someone can point out if there were any, but overall I didn't see anything significant that comes to mind. Did you try the Dwarf Noble or Dalish Elf origins? Both I found were very fun, especially seeing dwarven politics first hand

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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

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

How about:

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

[Slayer299]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Well, the core is still active, including energy generation, mass effect fields, and indoctrination field.  You might say its in a coma. 

I believe that the brain was dead but the mechanical autonomous system was still functional; we murdered a brain dead Reaper.

It was still capable of indoctrination and creating husks and scions. I don't think that qualifies as brain dead. Maybe paralysed would be better ? After all it could not move but it could still perform all the other Reaper functions.

That was dicussed as to be autonomic and not a conscious effort. You can have person who is technically brain dead but the body still has the autonomic (heart, lungs, etc,) functions continue automatically. If the Reaper wasn't dead then why allow either Cerberus, Legion or the Normandy to even come close to it? And after 37 million years I'd think it would be able to repair itself to *some* degree.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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

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

How about:

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

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

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

How about:

The characters are well-written.

And there it ends,at least for me. No game could be character driven without character interaction.And that means more then just shepardt and that particular character. Especially a a game where shepardt is supposed to build a team and didnt command some mercs collected at random places.
Otherwise Fallout New Vegas is also character driven...

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 février 2011 - 10:32 .

[AkiKishi]

Slayer299 wrote...

That was dicussed as to be autonomic and not a conscious effort. You can have person who is technically brain dead but the body still has the autonomic (heart, lungs, etc,) functions continue automatically. If the Reaper wasn't dead then why allow either Cerberus, Legion or the Normandy to even come close to it? And after 37 million years I'd think it would be able to repair itself to *some* degree.

It's more likely paralysed it simply can't move but it can do all other Reaper type things.It may have been hibernating until the research team found it and only started repairing from that point.  It looks like slow moving objects are not stopped by the kinetic barrier. It's not like it let them on , it just could not do anything to stop them.

Like I said it's not a kill you can boast about but it is a kill.

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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

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

How about:

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

Sure. ME2 has been described as episodic and I would agree with that. Like a television show, every character usually has episodes devoted to their own story arcs. And that was undoubtedly the intention. I know we've both read whole thread on that so I won't go there again.

[Iakus]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

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

The game is character based.  We've been told as much.  My reply is that it was a badly done character based  story.  There was good material, good resources, but unlike DAO, it was simply not put to good use.  Perhaps lack of money, perhaps lack of time.  The fact is participation outside their own missions is minimal.  And without a strong central plot to fall back on, it now falls to ME 3 to salvage ME 2.

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

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

The game is character based.  We've been told as much.  My reply is that it was a badly done character based  story.  There was good material, good resources, but unlike DAO, it was simply not put to good use.  Perhaps lack of money, perhaps lack of time.  The fact is participation outside their own missions is minimal.  And without a strong central plot to fall back on, it now falls to ME 3 to salvage ME 2.

Mileage obviously varies. It's clear you don't like the way they did it.  Overall, I really enjoyed the experience and don't think anything needs to be salvaged. I do agree with you, however, that more interaction with the characters, more contributions from the characters, throughout all the missions would have been awesome but it doesn't break it for me. I enjoyed what they did do.

On the other hand, I found the staggering amount of exposition in DA tedious. Listening to Alistair go on and on bored me to tears, especially after my first playthrough. I much prefered the cinematic character arcs of ME2. But I very much liked both games and hope that they learn from each other. But even if ME3 is just like ME2 and DA2 is just like DA, I'd love both games. Fortunately, we'll see improvements in both, I'm confident and more than a little excited.

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Sure. ME2 has been described as episodic and I would agree with that. Like a television show, every character usually has episodes devoted to their own story arcs. And that was undoubtedly the intention. I know we've both read whole thread on that so I won't go there again.

It's more than that, though.  Characters don't respond even when in situation where they should.  Does anyone have something noteworthy or poingant or even angry to say about the fate of the Collectors?  Mordin gets a line back at the Normandy, but that's it.  It's beennoted before, the third companion in loyalty missions is so silent it's a wonder why we're required to take a third.  THe game goes beyond "episodic" and into "insular", nothing touches anything else.

Look at character-based  programs.  Let's take Lost for example.  Definitely character based (cause it's not like the plot ever made much sense ) Each episode focused on a particular character.  But it's not like the other characters turned into mindless zombies in the meantime.  They would be around, make observations, talk, argue.  Even if they weren't the star of that particular episode.

That may be part of the question about whether or not ME 2 matters.  Everything is so segmented, so removed from each other, that really, how can we tell what will be important and what won't?  Will your actions at Tali's trial matter to the Migrant Fleet?  Or will something happen in ME 3 that will bring them to your side anyway?  How about Sidonis?  Does his living or dying make a difference?  It didn't in ME 2.  How about the geth?  Tali had nothing to say about blowing them up or rewriting them.  WIll that end up making a difference?  Logic says "yes" but, if the crew is so apathetic about these choices, can we really be sure?

[AkiKishi]

They are only really talkative in the respective loyalty missions which makes me believe Bioware wanted to cut down on redundant material and save on VA costs ( I believe they are paid by the line).

Not everything has to make a difference a news story is more than enough for minor events.
Tali does mention what you did with the Geth when she is arguing with Legion.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 11:04 .

[cachx]

How do you define "character driven" anyway? I don't think it involves witty banter and group hug sessions as a prerequisite.

Maybe it's something as sketchy as defining RPG. In wich case, this thread will go on forever .

[JohnnyBeGood2]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Sure. ME2 has been described as episodic and I would agree with that. Like a television show, every character usually has episodes devoted to their own story arcs. And that was undoubtedly the intention. I know we've both read whole thread on that so I won't go there again.

It's more than that, though.  Characters don't respond even when in situation where they should.  Does anyone have something noteworthy or poingant or even angry to say about the fate of the Collectors?  Mordin gets a line back at the Normandy, but that's it.  It's beennoted before, the third companion in loyalty missions is so silent it's a wonder why we're required to take a third.  THe game goes beyond "episodic" and into "insular", nothing touches anything else.

Look at character-based  programs.  Let's take Lost for example.  Definitely character based (cause it's not like the plot ever made much sense ) Each episode focused on a particular character.  But it's not like the other characters turned into mindless zombies in the meantime.  They would be around, make observations, talk, argue.  Even if they weren't the star of that particular episode.

That may be part of the question about whether or not ME 2 matters.  Everything is so segmented, so removed from each other, that really, how can we tell what will be important and what won't?  Will your actions at Tali's trial matter to the Migrant Fleet?  Or will something happen in ME 3 that will bring them to your side anyway?  How about Sidonis?  Does his living or dying make a difference?  It didn't in ME 2.  How about the geth?  Tali had nothing to say about blowing them up or rewriting them.  WIll that end up making a difference?  Logic says "yes" but, if the crew is so apathetic about these choices, can we really be sure?

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

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

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

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

[JohnnyBeGood2]

BobSmith101 wrote...
They are only really talkative in the respective loyalty missions which makes me believe Bioware wanted to cut down on redundant material and save on VA costs ( I believe they are paid by the line).
Not everything has to make a difference a news story is more than enough for minor events.
Tali does mention what you did with the Geth when she is arguing with Legion.

If they're "paid by the line" then it is absolutely a money issue and risk mitigation issue.

[AkiKishi]

cachx wrote...

How do you define "character driven" anyway? I don't think it involves witty banter and group hug sessions as a prerequisite.

Maybe it's something as sketchy as defining RPG. In wich case, this thread will go on forever .

TIM is the only character that drives the plot forward.You get sent to plot area 1 by TIM. You do some side quests, you get a call from TIM with the location of plot area 2. You do some more side quests and you get plot area 3 and so on.

While you may be preparing to face those areas by collecting people. The people you are collecting are not themselves driving the plot forward in any meaningful way. There are a few exceptions but for the most part TIM has total control over the plot development.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 11:15 .

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Mileage obviously varies. It's clear you don't like the way they did it.  Overall, I really enjoyed the experience and don't think anything needs to be salvaged. I do agree with you, however, that more interaction with the characters, more contributions from the characters, throughout all the missions would have been awesome but it doesn't break it for me. I enjoyed what they did do.

I might have gotten more milage out of it if there was a stronger central plot.  I found ME 1 to be light on character development and interaction as well.  But it didn't bother me becasue I had a celar goal to focus on.  ME 2 had no such goal.  The focus stayed on teh characters.  As such, I expected more out of them, and wound up disappointed.

On the other hand, I found the staggering amount of exposition in DA tedious. Listening to Alistair go on and on bored me to tears, especially after my first playthrough. I much prefered the cinematic character arcs of ME2. But I very much liked both games and hope that they learn from each other. But even if ME3 is just like ME2 and DA2 is just like DA, I'd love both games. Fortunately, we'll see improvements in both, I'm confident and more than a little excited.

Huh.  I never get tired of listening to Allistair.  The guy's a riot!  

But it's not jst exposition that's needed. It reaction.  Something happens, and the characters respond to it.  Particularly if it's something they have a connection to.  For example.  Taking Legion to the Migrant Fleet garners a very strong reaction.  One of the few in the game (a pity you don't pick up Legion until so late in the game or it could be more widely appreciated)  Why aren't there more scenes like this?  Why isn't Miranda commenting on the Teltin facility?  Or Samara?  Jacob was on Eden Prime, shouldn't he have something to say about Legion's loyalty mission?  Aside from the Archangel recruitment mission, Zaeed has nothing to say about Blue SUns you face elsewhere.  Like I said, very little matters to your team, so what really matters?

[The Big Nothing]

BobSmith101 wrote...


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.

Mass Effect - You discover the Reapers
Mass Effect 2 - You learn the nature of the Reapers
Mass Effect 3 - You stop the Reapers

Modifié par The Big Nothing, 03 février 2011 - 11:27 .

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

How do you define "character driven" anyway? I don't think it involves witty banter and group hug sessions as a prerequisite.

Maybe it's something as sketchy as defining RPG. In wich case, this thread will go on forever .

In the context that I understand it's being used for here, it seems to mean that the focus of the story is on the actions and personalities of the individual characters, how they react and grow in the story, rather than the ultimate goal.  I guess you could say the "journey" is more important in this case than the "destination", which would be a plot-oriented story. 

That's probably not the accurate definition, but it's what I'm getting based on the context here.  So that's the context I argue from.

[Iakus]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
They are only really talkative in the respective loyalty missions which makes me believe Bioware wanted to cut down on redundant material and save on VA costs ( I believe they are paid by the line).
Not everything has to make a difference a news story is more than enough for minor events.
Tali does mention what you did with the Geth when she is arguing with Legion.

If they're "paid by the line" then it is absolutely a money issue and risk mitigation issue.

And a definite sign that Bioware bit off way more than they could chew with so many characters. 

[Dean_the_Young]

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



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

[Schneidend]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Mass Effect - You discover the Reapers
Mass Effect 2 - You learn the nature of the Reapers
Mass Effect 3 - You stop the Reapers

This.