1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Torhagen]

There seems to be a lot of residual "uneasiness" left

smudboys answer just for the kick

Modifié par Torhagen, 29 mars 2011 - 01:11 .

[Iakus]

I too am very curious to hear what SMudboy has to say about this final set of videos.  But I just want to address a particular segment on the final portion myself"

It's not about creating a universe where everything is explained and everything makes sense and everything has a proper place.  It' is about taking you on a fantastic  journey that you would never experience in the real world.  To show you fantastic sites and give you fantastic situations with fantastic characters that you really care about and enjoy.  To put you up against desperate odds and make you really feel like you are making a difference.

First off, kudos on thinking to play the Suicide Mission music during that portion.  One of the best songs in the soundtrack and really goes for the emotion.

At any rate, I can't argue that this is what a good game should do.  And in fact that is the sense that I get in most other Bioware games.  But ME 2 fails in this for me.

As to things being explained and making sense:  To me, worldbuilding is a vital part of any sustained series.  My favorite authors create whole worlds, or many worlds, which operate on rules that are different from ours, but still rules.  I don't require, for example to know how Allomancy is possible in the Mistborn series.  But I do need to know how it is used.  I don't need to know how prolong works in David Weber's Honor Harrington series.  But I do need to know its limitations.  This is why things have to make sense.  It is in order to understand how the universe works and provide stability.  Simply introducing new elements "because it's awesome" means anything and everything goes. 

Fantastic:  Yes, as long as there's a fantastic story to go along with it.  Without that, though, it's sites are just images and the journeys are cutscenes,  Unfortunately ME 2 did not give me that story. 

I had a hard time caring about the characters.  They were interesting concepts, but they never really developed outside their own little arcs.  In other characters, in the main story, they were dull and lifeless.

I didn't feel like I made a difference.  My ME 1 accomplishments were so marginalized I felt penalized for having played it.  Old allies didn't trust me.  I couln't trust my new allies.  Desperate odds?  Maybe but I kept getting the impression that I wasn't fighting to get to the goal.  Fighting was the goal.  

I can't even be sure what exactly the Collectors, my supposed main enemies were trying to accomplish.  How did I make a difference against the Reapers.  Heck even Harbringer says "You have changed nothing"  I haven't played ME 2 in six months, because all it causes is confusion and sadness. There is no fun involved, not like every other Bioware game I've ever played.  And yes, that includes DA2. 

LOTSB is a more proper ME 2 than ME 2 is, imo.  That fufilled your definition better then ME 2 did for me.

[Fhaileas]

^ That's a good, concise summary of the problems plaguing ME2 iakus; though you're still somewhat more generous towards its shortcomings than I am. Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight and haven't become jaded and apathetic like I have.

Love the smudoy videos BTW...!

EDIT: Just heard smudboy's rebuttal to squee and say what you will of smudboy, he indeed has a solid grasp on narrative deconstruction.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 29 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

Indeed there is. But this is the game he was ressurected in.   What made Shepard "unique" or "special" in this game?  Even in Empire Strikes Back, that sequel ME 2 is always being compared to, Luke learned what it was that made him "special". 

Besides, who is to say there won't be a second catastrophic reset button for ME 3, to be an "entry point" for latecomers?

We can't predict the future. But no one could have accomplished in ME2 what Shepard did. Miranda said she couldn't. As I said, Aria wouldn't have talked with Miranda. She wouldn't have been able to recruit half the squad or half the crew of the Normandy.

However, you *seem* to think that something deeper was warranted - something besides a general superhero aura and a great reputation. If you think something should have been done with Shepard's visions or some such from ME1, I agree with you.

iakus wrote...

If they want the VS to get to Shepard, then why aren't they after Tali?  Wrex?  Garrus?  Liara? 

The fact that the Collectors have some bizzare interest in Shep would have made a great jumping off point for gathering intel, imo.  Instead it's just left hanging there, more potential unfufilled.

Tali was either with the fleet or flitting around space with her marine outfit. Hard to track down. Liara was on Illium and an information broker. Hard to hit Illiam. Hard to sneak up on her. No one knows where Garrus is. Archangel was a man of mystery. Wrex is sitting a planet of billions of the most violent, warlike creatures in the galaxy and not a good target.

TIM leaked it out to everyone that the VS was sitting out in the Terminous systems on a lightly defended colony. Bingo!

As to your second point, should they have done more with the Collectors? Yes, I agree completely. Not because it was a plothole but just because it would have been more interesting.

iakus wrote...
With Shepard dead, the story cannot go forward.  Or perhaps it can, but with a bearded marine named Commander Hawke taking over    At any rate, that is a definite problem to overcome.  The Lazarus Project provides an extremely convenient (or "contrived") solution to that problem.  Given that both the problem and solution are hardly referenced after the fact may show that it isn't the sole problem faced, but it was a problem
which threatned to derail the entirety of the stroy.

Shepard only died because he would be ressurected. Its not a central problem of the story. Yes, it was an obvious plot device and not very subtle but derail the story?? How? If Shepard had been recovered from the wreck of the Normandy in a coma and had to be rebuilt that way, yes it would be more realistic and no longer a plot hole. However, the result would have been exactly the same, just a little less dramatic and little more believable. Either way, I can't see any derailing happening unless the player is extremely sensitive to plot holes, in which case I suspect they're often very disappointed with most fiction.

iakus wrote...
Everything?  No.  But a couple of lines about things that were tried and failed would give us a reference point as to what exactly Cerberus has been doing for the last two years besides waiting for Shepard to wake up.  Lack of information only tells us TIM doesn't have information.  Not that he actually tried anything.

"Mere"?  All indications are that 4 billion is a substantial amount of money.  Otherwise why should Shep fear death ever again?

Again, while it would be interesting to know what TIM had tried, not knowing what TIM had tried is not a plothole. Do we really have to be explicitly told everything that's happened while we were gone? Anderson never told us what he was up to. Should we just assume he was in that office the entire last 2 years?

The SR-2 cost what? $150 billion credits? Yes, that is a large amount of money for a medical bill. It is not a large amount of money for Cerberus. Cerberus probably spends more money bribing politicians every year.  The two years rebuilding him is probably a larger barrier. Plus, it looks like a substancial portion of Shepard is already cybernetic, who knows if its possible to rebuild him further.

However, I agree that the ressurection was a plot hole. I just disagree that it was a dues ex machina, as we commonly apply the term. The protheans magically providing the virus in ME1 is a better candidate for that. Up until that point, Shepard had zero way of stopping Saren.

iakus wrote...
Not literally.  But the next closest thing to it.  He gave Shep a stealth frigate who's stealth doesn't work on Collector scanners (but it has leather seats!), zero information on what the mission he's recruiting people for will eventually entail, and oh yeah, authorized strapping 37 millin year old untested Reaper tech to the brand spanking new Normandy to see what happens.

Yup, that sounds like the illusive man.  Doesn't that sound like the illusive man? He throws Shepard down on Horizon, knowing that he is at huge risk. He sends them into an obvious trap on the Collector Ship, which is an even bigger risk.  TIM is a man who clearly likes to go all in.

Frankly, it speaks of desperation. TIM clearly was entirely convinced about the Reapers before the SR-1 was destroyed. It's pretty clear that he's known about them for a while, even ignoring the comic books. TIM probably thinks we're screwed and is just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.

It's obvious he thinks Shepard will be needed for some sort of stealth mission and is proceeding on that basis. He thinks its a mission to the Collector homeworld. He knows he can't blow it up (he doesn't know its just a base) so he's obviously not sending Shep to fight a space battle or to invade. It's simple to gather intel and technolgy and perhaps maybe do some damage. But its a hail mary and its completely consistant with everything TIM has ever done.

Now, would it have made some sense to replicate an IFF and send it through just ahead of the Normandy to see what was there? I think so. I could argue that Shep was probably in a hurry to save his crew but it would have made sense. However, it would have been far less dramatic and this is a cinematic experience. Sometimes a cool scene takes precedence over realism.

iakus wrote...
Not destroy.  Survive.  Survive to return and download information.  Then the Shadow Broker can go "Huh.  So that's what's been smashing all my probes" and decide what his next move should be.

We do not know how reliably his probes get through.  Though it looks like he did receive the remains of more than one.

Without the IFF, it couldn't have been that regular.  And the Occulus ripped right through an upgraded normandy. What kind of battleship probe could survive that? It's obvious the SM had no success. And perhaps TIM had even less. He had almost no intelligence on the collectors, the SB had at least some.

Again, as mentioned above, once he had the IFF, probles probably would have made sense but it would have meant less drama and a poorer story.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 29 mars 2011 - 01:41 .

[Torhagen]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Indeed there is. But this is the game he was ressurected in.   What made Shepard "unique" or "special" in this game?  Even in Empire Strikes Back, that sequel ME 2 is always being compared to, Luke learned what it was that made him "special". 

Besides, who is to say there won't be a second catastrophic reset button for ME 3, to be an "entry point" for latecomers?

We can't predict the future. But no one could have accomplished in ME2 what Shepard did. Miranda said she couldn't. As I said, Aria wouldn't have talked with Miranda. She wouldn't have been able to recruit half the squad or half the crew of the Normandy.

However, you *seem* to think that something deeper was warranted - something besides a general superhero aura and a great reputation. If you think something should have been done with Shepard's visions or some such from ME1, I agree with you.

iakus wrote...

If they want the VS to get to Shepard, then why aren't they after Tali?  Wrex?  Garrus?  Liara? 

The fact that the Collectors have some bizzare interest in Shep would have made a great jumping off point for gathering intel, imo.  Instead it's just left hanging there, more potential unfufilled.

Tali was either with the fleet or flitting around space with her marine outfit. Hard to track down. Liara was on Illium and an information broker. Hard to hit Illiam. Hard to sneak up on her. No one knows where Garrus is. Archangel was a man of mystery. Wrex is sitting a planet of billions of the most violent, warlike creatures in the galaxy and not a good target.

TIM leaked it out to everyone that the VS was sitting out in the Terminous systems on a lightly defended colony. Bingo!

As to your second point, should they have done more with the Collectors? Yes, I agree completely. Not because it was a plothole but just because it would have been more interesting.

iakus wrote...
With Shepard dead, the story cannot go forward.  Or perhaps it can, but with a bearded marine named Commander Hawke taking over    At any rate, that is a definite problem to overcome.  The Lazarus Project provides an extremely convenient (or "contrived") solution to that problem.  Given that both the problem and solution are hardly referenced after the fact may show that it isn't the sole problem faced, but it was a problem
which threatned to derail the entirety of the stroy.

Shepard only died because he would be ressurected. Its not a central problem of the story. Yes, it was an obvious plot device and not very subtle but derail the story?? How? If Shepard had been recovered from the wreck of the Normandy in a coma and had to be rebuilt that way, yes it would be more realistic and no longer a plot hole. However, the result would have been exactly the same, just a little less dramatic and little more believable. Either way, I can't see any derailing happening unless the player is extremely sensitive to plot holes, in which case I suspect their often very disappointed with most fiction.

iakus wrote...
Everything?  No.  But a couple of lines about things that were tried and failed would give us a reference point as to what exactly Cerberus has been doing for the last two years besides waiting for Shepard to wake up.  Lack of information only tells us TIM doesn't have information.  Not that he actually tried anything.

"Mere"?  All indications are that 4 billion is a substantial amount of money.  Otherwise why should Shep fear death ever again?

Again, while it would be interesting to know what TIM had tried, not knowing what TIM had tried is not a plothole. Do we really have to be explicitly told everything that's happened while we were gone? Anderson never told us what he was up to. Should we just assume he was in that office the entire last 2 years?

The SR-2 cost what? $150 billion credits? Yes, that is a large amount of money for a medical bill. It is not a large amount of money for Cerberus. Cerberus probably spends more money bribing politicians every year.  The two years rebuilding him is probably a larger barrier. Plus, it looks like a substancial portion of Shepard is already cybernetic, who knows if its possible to rebuild him further.

However, I agree that the ressurection was a plot hole. I just disagree that it was a dues ex machina, as we commonly apply the term. The protheans magically providing the virus in ME1 is a better candidate for that. Up until that point, Shepard had zero way of stopping Saren.

iakus wrote...
Not literally.  But the next closest thing to it.  He gave Shep a stealth frigate who's stealth doesn't work on Collector scanners (but it has leather seats!), zero information on what the mission he's recruiting people for will eventually entail, and oh yeah, authorized strapping 37 millin year old untested Reaper tech to the brand spanking new Normandy to see what happens.

Yup, that sounds like the illusive man.  Doesn't that sound like the illusive man? He throws Shepard down on Horizon, knowing that he is at huge risk. He sends them into an obvious trap on the Collector Ship, which is an even bigger risk.  TIM is a man who clearly likes to go all in.

Frankly, it speaks of desperation. TIM clearly was entirely convinced about the Reapers before the SR-1 was destroyed. It's pretty clear that he's known about them for a while, even ignoring the comic books. TIM probably thinks we're screwed and is just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.

It's obvious he thinks Shepard will be needed for some sort of stealth mission and is proceeding on that basis. He thinks its a mission to the Collector homeworld. He knows he can't blow it up (he doesn't know its just a base) so he's obviously not sending Shep to fight a space battle or to invade. It's simple to gather intel and technolgy and perhaps maybe do some damage. But its a hail mary and its completely consistant with everything TIM has ever done.

Now, would it have made some sense to replicate an IFF and send it through just ahead of the Normandy to see what was there? I think so. I could argue that Shep was probably in a hurry to save his crew but it would have made sense. However, it would have been far less dramatic and this is a cinematic experience. Sometimes a cool scene takes precedence over realism.

iakus wrote...
Not destroy.  Survive.  Survive to return and download information.  Then the Shadow Broker can go "Huh.  So that's what's been smashing all my probes" and decide what his next move should be.

We do not know how reliably his probes get through.  Though it looks like he did receive the remains of more than one.

Without the IFF, it couldn't have been that regular.  And the Occulus ripped right through an upgraded normandy. What kind of battleship probe could survive that? It's obvious the SM had no success. And perhaps TIM had even less. He had almost no intelligence on the collectors, the SB had at least some.

Again, as mentioned above, once he had the IFF, probles probably would have made sense but it would have meant less drama and a poorer story.

your point being ?

[Whatever42]

Torhagen wrote...

your point being ?

Wow, you told me. Anything useful to contribute? Or are you just here to sneer at people?

[Torhagen]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Torhagen wrote...

your point being ?

Wow, you told me. Anything useful to contribute? Or are you just here to sneer at people?

easy, cowboy why are you so aggresive ?
just asked a question

[Whatever42]

Torhagen wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Torhagen wrote...

your point being ?

Wow, you told me. Anything useful to contribute? Or are you just here to sneer at people?

easy, cowboy why are you so aggresive ?
just asked a question

Sorry, easy to misread the tone in text.

I think I covered my points in the text you quoted. If you want me to sum it up (which you probably don't), I think Iakus's problems aren't plotholes per se. I think it simply that he didn't think the main story was well told and that he didn't feel that the relationship mechanics and dialogues tied the characters and their missions together in a meaningful way. I can generally agree with that, although it seems to bother him far more than me, which is fine.

Smudboy, on the other hand, thinks everything is a plot hole, which is, in my opinion, completely ludicrous.

That's my point.

[squee913]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

I was hard on you in your first video, but your final portion of vid 2 and final video won me over. Well done, Squee.

One thing Smud doesn't account for is marketing and game developing metaknowledge. The story's realism, at times, needs to take a backseat to what we as gamers want to see, and what the developers have time to develop. Realism can only go so far before it becomes boring and tedious, and your account about this point in the final vid sums it up really nicely.

While I do agree with your argument about Shepard as a character, I still believe that scenes that delve deeper into his character would be beneficial (scenes ala the Liara LotSB scene in the Normandy). However, they'd be beneficial for the reasons you've detailed, which is that Shepard's motivations are our motivations; thus our motivations are further explored. In general, the game needs to do this more often: attempt to frame Shepard/us as a character, as opposed to simply framing Shepard's/our decisions & motivations.

That said, I felt you really poured your heart out in the final vid (especially the closing), and it was really nice and refreshing to see a positive Mass Effect 2 argument that wasn't all "OMFG I LOVEZOR MASS EFFECT! SPACE BOOBS!"

Has Smuddy made a response yet? I'm not sure if he will, but if he does/did, I'd love a link to it.

Wow. That means more to me than you might think. Making a video that people who already agree with you like is one thing, but convincing someone who did not agree with you is something else. Thank you. Yes Smud has made responses to Video 1 and 2. I have put them as video responses to my vids so you can see them if you go to my videos. Sadly, I feel he completely side steps a lot of my arguments. However, you can decide for yourself. 

[squee913]

The difference between people like Iakus and people like Smud is that iakus may not have liked the story, and felt they should have done things differently, but they don't run around claiming the story is fundamentally flawed for everyone and that the writers at bioware are dumber than grade school children. Iakus never pretends that his opinion is more important than anyone else's, and says on many occasions that this is just how he feels. And most importantly, even if he does not agree with me, he teats me with respect, and can admit when someone has a valid point. Not to mention he does a hell of a lot better job defending Smud's ideas than Smud does himself. If Iakus had made a video serious, I never would have done this. As I said, it is not Smud's view I have a problem with. It is the silly arguments he uses to defend them.

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

We can't predict the future. But no one could have accomplished in ME2 what Shepard did. Miranda said she couldn't. As I said, Aria wouldn't have talked with Miranda. She wouldn't have been able to recruit half the squad or half the crew of the Normandy.

However, you *seem* to think that something deeper was warranted - something besides a general superhero aura and a great reputation. If you think something should have been done with Shepard's visions or some such from ME1, I agree with you.

Thank you

Because while Miranda and Jacob could not have done exactly what Shepard did, nothing that took place made me think they couldn't have done a "good enough" job.  Different roster, more casualties, but the job would have gotten done.

And TIM would have been 4 billion credits richer

Tali was either with the fleet or flitting around space with her marine outfit. Hard to track down. Liara was on Illium and an information broker. Hard to hit Illiam. Hard to sneak up on her. No one knows where Garrus is. Archangel was a man of mystery. Wrex is sitting a planet of billions of the most violent, warlike creatures in the galaxy and not a good target.

And they've traded with others for "samples" before. 

I actually kinda hoped it would be revealed that the three-merc army sent against "Archangel" was really a ginormous bounty put on him by the Collectors

As to your second point, should they have done more with the Collectors? Yes, I agree completely. Not because it was a plothole but just because it would have been more interesting.

This is probably where Smudboy and I differ.  He seems most bothered by plot holes.  I'm most bugged by the anemic story.  OVer and over again I see great potential in the story, only to have nothing interesting addressed.   

Shepard only died because he would be ressurected. Its not a central problem of the story. Yes, it was an obvious plot device and not very subtle but derail the story?? How? If Shepard had been recovered from the wreck of the Normandy in a coma and had to be rebuilt that way, yes it would be more realistic and no longer a plot hole. However, the result would have been exactly the same, just a little less dramatic and little more believable. Either way, I can't see any derailing happening unless the player is extremely sensitive to plot holes, in which case I suspect they're often very disappointed with most fiction.

By "derailing" I mean without the Lazarus Project Shepard would have stayed dead.  Thus nothing beyond the destruction of the Normandy could have taken place.  Yes Shepard died in order to be reset/ressurected, but that doesn't remove the fact that Shepard, the main protagonist whose story this is,  did in fact di.   And was in fact ressurected using a contrived piece of technology (imo of course)

Again, while it would be interesting to know what TIM had tried, not knowing what TIM had tried is not a plothole. Do we really have to be explicitly told everything that's happened while we were gone? Anderson never told us what he was up to. Should we just assume he was in that office the entire last 2 years?

Never said it was a plot hole.  In fact, I don't think I have used the term plot hole at all.  IT is a thin point in the story though.  A mysterious alien race no one knows much about, and you are somehow supposed to oppose.  But you're not allowed to go learning more about them.  Because some mysterious guy you can't really trust says so.

However, I agree that the ressurection was a plot hole. I just disagree that it was a dues ex machina, as we commonly apply the term. The protheans magically providing the virus in ME1 is a better candidate for that. Up until that point, Shepard had zero way of stopping Saren.

As I demonstrated, it may not be a common application of the term, but it does fit in the strictest terms.

It's obvious he thinks Shepard will be needed for some sort of stealth mission and is proceeding on that basis. He thinks its a mission to the Collector homeworld. He knows he can't blow it up (he doesn't know its just a base) so he's obviously not sending Shep to fight a space battle or to invade. It's simple to gather intel and technolgy and perhaps maybe do some damage. But its a hail mary and its completely consistant with everything TIM has ever done.

In a stealth frigate who's stealth is useless, into a completely unknown region against unknown number of forces, potentially with prisoners in need of rescuing?

This is where the whole probe thing bugs me.  By not sending probes, TI is making it more of a Hail Mary than it should have.  Just imagine if the IFF mission was done first  Probes show what's on the other side, and TIM assembles dossiers for a commando team designed to infiltrate and sabotage a base? 

Without the IFF, it couldn't have been that regular.  And the Occulus ripped right through an upgraded normandy. What kind of battleship probe could survive that? It's obvious the SM had no success. And perhaps TIM had even less. He had almost no intelligence on the collectors, the SB had at least some.

Fast, nimble probes that can maneuver long enough to not get hit and make some quick scans?

Modifié par iakus, 29 mars 2011 - 03:17 .

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

In a stealth frigate who's stealth is useless, into a completely unknown region against unknown number of forces, potentially with prisoners in need of rescuing?

This is where the whole probe thing bugs me. By not sending probes, TI is making it more of a Hail Mary than it should have. Just imagine if the IFF mission was done first Probes show what's on the other side, and TIM assembles dossiers for a commando team designed to infiltrate and sabotage a base?

Fast, nimble probes that can maneuver long enough to not get hit and make some quick scans?

Well, he couldn't send probes before getting the IFF. We know that the SB had minimal progress, but perhaps that was just luck. TIM might have had no success, in fact its likely.

And a mission into the known is less dramatic or exciting than a mission into the unknown. I generally like the way the game ended, althought the boss fight wasn't that exciting.

BTW, I don't think they wanted the VS for samples, I think they wanted the VS to get to Shepard. Until they knew Shepard was back, there was no real reason to go after the crew. However, that could have been changed and would have created some great tension as part of the main story - if the old crew was being hunted down by the Collectors, it would have added some great intrigue and possibly provided some missions that could rival the character missions so the main story wasn't completely outshone.

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

The difference between people like Iakus and people like Smud is that iakus may not have liked the story, and felt they should have done things differently, but they don't run around claiming the story is fundamentally flawed for everyone and that the writers at bioware are dumber than grade school children. Iakus never pretends that his opinion is more important than anyone else's, and says on many occasions that this is just how he feels. And most importantly, even if he does not agree with me, he teats me with respect, and can admit when someone has a valid point. Not to mention he does a hell of a lot better job defending Smud's ideas than Smud does himself. If Iakus had made a video serious, I never would have done this. As I said, it is not Smud's view I have a problem with. It is the silly arguments he uses to defend them.

As I said somewhere in that wall of text I just posted, my problem with ME 2 isn't plot holes as such.  It's that so much more could have been done with the plot to really make the Mass Effect franchise great.  So much more could have been made with:Shepard's death and ressurection,  learning about the Collectors, preparing for the Reapers, integrating all these squadmates into a single cohesive team. 

The material was there, just waiting to be explored and used.  ME 1 was a pretty good start to a series.  ME 2 could have really wowed me.  Yet at every turn, it seems, the quick and easy way was chosen, glossing over topics, ignoring plot points, Characters standing mute when they should be speaking up.  Where Smudboy says "plot hole"  I say "wasted potential"  It just so happens that our opinions intersect at a lor of points.

Me doing a video review?  Nah.  What I really wanna do is direct

[squee913]

 For anyone who cares, Smud released a reply to 3-1. I'm starting to wonder if he knows that a video game has a budget and must consider more than just the story. *shrug* Apparently my pictures are juvenile... Odd that we would agree on something 

[CroGamer002]

squee913 wrote...

 For anyone who cares, Smud released a reply to 3-1. I'm starting to wonder if he knows that a video game has a budget and must consider more than just the story. *shrug* Apparently my pictures are juvenile... Odd that we would agree on something 

I think you should tell him that today video games have budget like Hollywood movies.

Most expensive game ever made is GTA 4 - 100 million $!

[Zahxia]

Mass Effect 2 (much like Dragon Age 2, the Fable games and Fallout 3) is basically a game that has great set pieces and grand ideas but is left with designers and writers who have no idea how to construct those ideas into a coherent and meaningful story without a lengthy contrivance. You can tell by the fact that whenever a particular point in the main storyline is criticised the defense will usually be a lengthy two or three paragraphs retelling the plot up to that point. As if the person criticising really needed it explained again.

Writers in game development are nobodies. They work hard for little creative input and less accolade then writers working in film and television and games that tout being 'well written' are really about as good as a b-grade action movie when held up to scrutiny. You might be able to bring up the Metzen's and Avellone's of the field but lets face it when push comes to shove those exceptions to the rule will always sacrifice their work to appease someone in a design role.

Gaming will never have its Citizen Kane due to the way they are developed and due to the way games are played. Even those games that we consider to have merit fall flat either because they aren't interactive enough (Heavy Rain) or because they involve far more combat than anything resembling symbology or theme (Bioshock).

On gaming budgets: Money is a funny thing perhaps if Bioware weren't working on an MMO they would be able to follow Rockstars example and make games that while familiar add more content or feature new technology. There's a reason Red Dead Redemption won so many people over and why L.A. Noire is being hyped. Meanwhile Bioware is simply considered a 'safe' developer.

[Autoclave]

I agree with all smudboy critisism. ME2 would be my all time favorite game if not for the beginning and its ending including the very very disappointing final boss.

[Whatever42]

Zahxia wrote...

Mass Effect 2 (much like Dragon Age 2, the Fable games and Fallout 3) is basically a game that has great set pieces and grand ideas but is left with designers and writers who have no idea how to construct those ideas into a coherent and meaningful story without a lengthy contrivance. You can tell by the fact that whenever a particular point in the main storyline is criticised the defense will usually be a lengthy two or three paragraphs retelling the plot up to that point. As if the person criticising really needed it explained again.

Writers in game development are nobodies. They work hard for little creative input and less accolade then writers working in film and television and games that tout being 'well written' are really about as good as a b-grade action movie when held up to scrutiny. You might be able to bring up the Metzen's and Avellone's of the field but lets face it when push comes to shove those exceptions to the rule will always sacrifice their work to appease someone in a design role.

Gaming will never have its Citizen Kane due to the way they are developed and due to the way games are played. Even those games that we consider to have merit fall flat either because they aren't interactive enough (Heavy Rain) or because they involve far more combat than anything resembling symbology or theme (Bioshock).

On gaming budgets: Money is a funny thing perhaps if Bioware weren't working on an MMO they would be able to follow Rockstars example and make games that while familiar add more content or feature new technology. There's a reason Red Dead Redemption won so many people over and why L.A. Noire is being hyped. Meanwhile Bioware is simply considered a 'safe' developer.

I'll start by picking a fight then I'll agree with you on the big point.

Bioware is considered a "safe" developer yet here are a large number of Bioware fans screaming because Bioware, in their opinion, changed things too much? Bioware is not a safe developer.

As for writing 2 or 3 paragraphs to explain the story is too much... if people miss things in the plot then it needs to be explained to them, obviously.  The ME story is perfectly coherent and meaningful. It's not told perfectly, I freely admit, but it is completely coherent. If you need me to explain it to you in 2 or 3 paragraphs because you're having trouble following along, let me know.

I agree completely with you that there are some limitations with stories in video games. Getting the top talent versus movies is likely a problem. Although Drew has written some best sellers, if I recall. As is the nature of video games - almost all video games by definition have to be actionish (I know there are a few 100% story based games but those are few). That means they will be more like action movies with lots of cool set scenes than Citizen Kane. There really is no way Citizen Kane could be made into a game or even really an interactive movie. 

Even with the absolute best screen writers in the business, games are going to be written very differently than novels and movies. Expecting a game to give you the detail of a novel or even a 2 hour movie is a little unrealistic.

[Zahxia]

I consider Bioware to be a 'safe' developer because they seem to have found a formula that worked with games such as KoTOR and will continue using this formula. It's why there's a fan made Bioware stereotype chart and why avid Bioware fan/escapist contributor Shamus Young will spend their time writing an article on the the various Bioware character archetypes. The reason posters rally against games like Dragon Age 2 and even Mass Effect 2 is because they're reusing an effective formula while providing more polish and marketing at the cost of content and gameplay.

Citizen Kane would make a lousy game but it is the example that is supposed to validate film as an art form. Games could go a long way to being validated by stepping away from walls of text, cutscenes, conversation trees (or at least making them more fluid) or simply barking orders at the player. It's why I've always liked the Half-Life series, particularly HL2 I'd never consider it to be perfect but they've always gotten the big things right: leaving the player to their own devices, they tend to show instead of tell (and a cutscene is 'telling' a player something is happening) and made interactions with other characters as succinct and meaningful as possible.

Also while Citizen Kane would make a lousy game I'm fairly certain
there's people out there who have made their own Charles Foster Kane's
in the Sims... or at least some Hugh Hefners. While the SIms is a
'dollhouse'/sandbox series it's incredibly popular due to the kinds of
lives Sims can live out and the players attachment to their avatars.
There's a blog post out there of someone who told a story through the
use of their Sims a homeless father and daughter that was filled with
conflict, drama, sadness, friendship simply by screening and captioning events that take place during their playthrough. (look up Alice and Kev if you're interested enough)

Even 4chan can get together and
tell a story about their Sims: there's even screenshots and archives of
one thread involving a poster telling a story through their Sim that
keeps striking out in the love department who resorts to destructive behaviour to gain attention/take revenge and other viewers glued to
their actions. I'd consider the Sims a good example of a player driving a
story even if its optional to consider it a story or because the developer never crafted it intentionally.

To say a game can't tell a story as in depth as a movie or novel is absurd too, gaming is a very visual medium. Colour and lighting aren't just there for pretty screenshots they can be symbolic, they can create emotion, they can show safe havens and  they can show danger. If you can picture light struggling to entire a dark or poorly lit room. That light could be falling onto a character to make them look pure or even pious or it could be the only refuge for the player.

A good example (with no spoilers): Mass Effect 2 the player is at the bottom of the flight of stairs in Engineering and sees a shadow walk by.

However all of these examples are just pieces of a puzzle that I doubt anyone will ever bother putting together: Not with our level of technology and not the way we develop games today.

As for Mass Effect 2: It's great if people loved its story however when you play it multiple times you really start to question what the sequel ever accomplished. I'd go further but this is a spoiler-free zone.

[Iakus]

"So it's probable a Reaper absorbs the essence of a species.

Okay.

What the hell is the 'essence of a species'?"

A very good question there.

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Bioware is considered a "safe" developer yet here are a large number of Bioware fans screaming because Bioware, in their opinion, changed things too much? Bioware is not a safe developer.

I think, in point of fact, that people complain because BioWare made a series that actually was a little unique and unusual and then turned it into something "safe" with ME2 by making it more like a typical shooter.

[habitat 67]

iakus wrote...

"So it's probable a Reaper absorbs the essence of a species.

Okay.

What the hell is the 'essence of a species'?"

A very good question there.

Think organic Borg collective.

[squee913]

 Anyone else notice how Smud's 3-2 reply has more guess work then even my first video? Not that I'm against guess work, but I thought he was criticizing me for that sort of thing. btw, his math for making the reaper only works if you make the giant assumption that they have been building the reaper for 2 years. They could have started it yesterday for all we know. The volume of the liquid being pumped into the Reaper would make one think that processing humans is not as slow as he claims. I can't know this for sure of course, but I still seriously doubt it would take 20 something years to make the thing.

[squee913]

Double post <_<

Modifié par squee913, 01 avril 2011 - 01:42 .

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

"So it's probable a Reaper absorbs the essence of a species.

Okay.

What the hell is the 'essence of a species'?"

A very good question there.

A Reaper is a cyborg. A Reaper is a nation of programs. A Reaper is constructed from decontructed individuals of a particular species.

The Reapers apparently don't want cloned material. They want original DNA. So the that's important to them. They also want specific individuals, which is another clue.

I think its clear that these programs use the individual minds of those they "ascend" in their creation, molded into a borg-like group mind by the indoctrination field. Bioware has been dropping hints like candy from a piniata. It has to be something like that.