1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Well, he's pointing out stuff that we saw in ME1.  We saw characters react to the main plot - remember what happens when you bring Wrex to the Rachni queen? - as well as to each other during elevator conversations.  In other Bioware games - DA:O, KOTOR, and apparently DA2 - characters have conversations with each other and depending on what is happening as part of their development.

We honestly don't see much of that in ME2.  The characters have a few arguments but it really doesn't matter who you bring as far as development is concerned. 

Yes, exactly, and those aren't even games "about the team" 

[Almostfaceman]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Well, he's pointing out stuff that we saw in ME1.  We saw characters react to the main plot - remember what happens when you bring Wrex to the Rachni queen? - as well as to each other during elevator conversations.  In other Bioware games - DA:O, KOTOR, and apparently DA2 - characters have conversations with each other and depending on what is happening as part of their development.

We honestly don't see much of that in ME2.  The characters have a few arguments but it really doesn't matter who you bring as far as development is concerned. 

We have character interaction but they deliver it in a different manner - usually in the conference room.  So it's not missing, it's just n a different place.  He doesn't counter the point, he just points out he thought it could have been better by doing X.  Anybody can do that with any game since there's always room for improvement.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Well, he's pointing out stuff that we saw in ME1.  We saw characters react to the main plot - remember what happens when you bring Wrex to the Rachni queen? - as well as to each other during elevator conversations.  In other Bioware games - DA:O, KOTOR, and apparently DA2 - characters have conversations with each other and depending on what is happening as part of their development.

We honestly don't see much of that in ME2.  The characters have a few arguments but it really doesn't matter who you bring as far as development is concerned. 

Yes, exactly, and those aren't even games "about the team" 

Look, you didn't counter the point - there IS character development in the game and that's what he was saying.  You just don't like how it was pulled off.  That's all I was saying.

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

I never said that character development was great in ME 1.  It wasn't.  What I am saying is that charactarization was so compartmentalized in ME 2 that it might as well not have existed outside the characters own personal missions.  ME 1 (and most other Bioware games) at least gives characters a semblence of life even when the spotlight wasn't focused directly opn them.

My point still stands, and again just because you think something can be done better, doesn't mean it wasn't done - and since it was done it is why the person you were respnding to made their point.

If a character has a personality and character for 1-2 hours of a game, and is a silent, gun-toting mercenary much akin to the hireling in Diablo 2  the other 30 hours, how is that "good charactarization?"  Particularly in the face of things which those two hours show you is a matter of particular interest to them?

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

I never said that character development was great in ME 1.  It wasn't.  What I am saying is that charactarization was so compartmentalized in ME 2 that it might as well not have existed outside the characters own personal missions.  ME 1 (and most other Bioware games) at least gives characters a semblence of life even when the spotlight wasn't focused directly opn them.

My point still stands, and again just because you think something can be done better, doesn't mean it wasn't done - and since it was done it is why the person you were respnding to made their point.

If a character has a personality and character for 1-2 hours of a game, and is a silent, gun-toting mercenary much akin to the hireling in Diablo 2  the other 30 hours, how is that "good charactarization?"  Particularly in the face of things which those two hours show you is a matter of particular interest to them?

I dont need them to comment those other 30 hours - you do.  It's personal taste.  But characters are developed and they become interesting.  I'm looking forward to having them on my squad in ME3 if that's the direction the developers take.  Would I have hated more dialogue?  Nope.  I'm sure if they can squeeze it into the next game they'll do it.

But none of this was what I was responding to earlier.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 06 avril 2011 - 04:55 .

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

iakus wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

I never said that character development was great in ME 1.  It wasn't.  What I am saying is that charactarization was so compartmentalized in ME 2 that it might as well not have existed outside the characters own personal missions.  ME 1 (and most other Bioware games) at least gives characters a semblence of life even when the spotlight wasn't focused directly opn them.

My point still stands, and again just because you think something can be done better, doesn't mean it wasn't done - and since it was done it is why the person you were respnding to made their point.

If a character has a personality and character for 1-2 hours of a game, and is a silent, gun-toting mercenary much akin to the hireling in Diablo 2  the other 30 hours, how is that "good charactarization?"  Particularly in the face of things which those two hours show you is a matter of particular interest to them?

I dont need them to comment those other 30 hours - you do.  It's personal taste.  But characters are developed and they become interesting.  I'm looking forward to having them on my squad in ME3 if that's the direction the developers take.  Would I have hated more dialogue?  Nope.  I'm sure if they can squeeze it into the next game they'll do it.

But none of this was what I was responding to earlier.

Yes, I do.  I need that for them to feel lifelike.  As it is, these characters, which I'm supposed to recruit and earn their loyalty, feel like windup toys.  Take them off the shelf, give them a few twists, and they come alive!  Then their mission ends, you get the "Thanks for the help" or the "I want to sleep with you now" lines, and that's it.  They stop developing, they are no longer intersting.  They're just...there... To not speak up in the face of a momentous event, or something that touches them personally, that's the exact opposite of development.  That drains personality form them

Some people seem to be afraid that ME 3 will be Dragon Age in Space.  I say it's already happened.  The squadmates don't resemble Alistair, Morrigan, Sten, and Leliana so much as Zathrien, Harrowmont/Bhelen, Arl Eamon, or First Enchanter Irving. " Solve my problem and I'll stand with you at the end.  But don't bug me otherwise"  Fine for an NPC who just hangs around one area you only occassionally visit.  But someone you're out doing missions with?

RE:  What you said earlier.  As Nightwriter put so well "Why must ME 1 always be brought into it?"

I did not mention ME 1 first, btw.  I was responding, humorously, I hope, to the assertion that character development was the plot of ME 2.  But to answer your question:  No, I do not believe that it was improved in ME 2.  It was concentrated.  You get one short blast of really good development, then you spend the rest of the game with a lifeless shell following you around.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Almostfaceman wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Soo, you're saying there wasn't any improvements in charater development from ME1 to ME2?  Pointing out things you'd LIKE to see does not mean that there wasn't character development or that it wasn't better than ME1.

Well, he's pointing out stuff that we saw in ME1.  We saw characters react to the main plot - remember what happens when you bring Wrex to the Rachni queen? - as well as to each other during elevator conversations.  In other Bioware games - DA:O, KOTOR, and apparently DA2 - characters have conversations with each other and depending on what is happening as part of their development.

We honestly don't see much of that in ME2.  The characters have a few arguments but it really doesn't matter who you bring as far as development is concerned. 

We have character interaction but they deliver it in a different manner - usually in the conference room.  So it's not missing, it's just n a different place.  He doesn't counter the point, he just points out he thought it could have been better by doing X.  Anybody can do that with any game since there's always room for improvement.

How often do we spend in the conference room?  There may be some single character development, but not as it relates to the mission or each other.  

I mean, everyone agreed that destroying the base was the best idea?  Really? 

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

I must admit it was quite cool to see the responses of the different characters as they go through the Teltin facility and hear Jack's story.  Miranda in particular since she's such a Cerberus loyalist.  And Samara's sense of justice really...

Oh, wait.

Well, it was interesting to hear their concepts of vengence while Garrus was plotting to kill Sidonis.  Thane's views in particular...

Umm, nvm

But I really appreciated their input on the genophage data.  I mean, that kind of decision can affect the entire galaxy.  Given all the walks of life the squadmates come from, it's really cool to see how...

Oh.

But the Collectors themselves, how they react when they start to see what the stakes really are, the kind of foe they're facing.  When the Prothean connection was discovered, I couldn't believe that Grunt asked...

Err...

It's not that I would not have loved for this kind of stuff to be in the game, but I think it is less an oversight by the writer and more to do with the limitations of a video game. This is not a book. It is not just a matter of writing more dialog. There is already a mind boggling amount of voiced dialog in the game. This would had hours more.13 characters, each having unique dialog for every loyalty mission in the game? You have to pay the writers to write all of that. Then you have to pay the voice actors to say all of that. Then you have to pay the animators to animate all of that, and the programmers to put it all in. And THEN you have to find space on a disk that is already chalk full of stuff. If any of these steps becomes un-doable at any point, due to money, time, or any other mater, you can not do it at all.

What seems like such a simple thing to add, is a massive undertaking for any game. How many games do you know that do this? Yes "some" Characters have special lines in ME1, but they also do this in ME2. Like tali and Kasumi in the Lia Vial Quest. KOTOR and other had party banter, but no where near the scale you are talking about. it is very possible they tried to do this and could not. Unless you know that they COULD have done this and just close not to, it is unfair to criticize them for it.

[Bamboozalist]

iakus wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Well, he's pointing out stuff that we saw in ME1.  We saw characters react to the main plot - remember what happens when you bring Wrex to the Rachni queen?

We honestly don't see much of that in ME2.  The characters have a few arguments but it really doesn't matter who you bring as far as development is concerned. 

Yes, exactly, and those aren't even games "about the team" 

Wait, wait, wait are you guys honestly using the ME1 as a good example of character reacting to the plot? Because half your squad was completely bipolar on how they felt about the plot. In ME2 at least the generic mission lines had variation from squadmate to squadmate. In ME1 most of the mission lines were the same for squadmates, example: 1 squadmate would always sarcastically say "take the vehicle into the big creepy underground cave" regardless of personality it was always that same exact line, no variation, nothing.

Also the elevator conversations were pretty bad banter. They didn't always trigger, were restricted to only the Citadel and only certain elevators on the Citadel. It was nice when we got it but I shouldn't have to ride the same elevator just to hear my squadmates talk to each other.

ME1 had more banter than ME2, yes but when most of it involved having to exit an elevator and then re ride it just to have a chance at hearing it, it might as well not be in the game since I have to interrupt what I'm doing. Any main mission besides the citadel? Completely silent.

Did people even play Mass Effect 1 before going on about how much better it is than ME2?

Would I have liked to see more squad interaction in ME2? Yes. Would I like a twelve disc game? Yes. If I had to, gun to my head, choose between Shepard on Squadmate interaction and Squadmate on Squadmate interaction in a game about Shepard recruiting a squad? I'd chose Shepard on Squadmate interaction every time.

Edit: Since you seem to keep ignoring this, ME2 was about SHEPARD (AKA THE PLAYER CHARACTER) building and getting to know the team, not the team getting to know itself. I'm not arguing that one is better, just what the game is objectively about.

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 06 avril 2011 - 09:39 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Yes, I do.  I need that for them to feel lifelike.  As it is, these characters, which I'm supposed to recruit and earn their loyalty, feel like windup toys.  Take them off the shelf, give them a few twists, and they come alive!  Then their mission ends, you get the "Thanks for the help" or the "I want to sleep with you now" lines, and that's it.  They stop developing, they are no longer intersting.  They're just...there... To not speak up in the face of a momentous event, or something that touches them personally, that's the exact opposite of development.  That drains personality form them

Now I would regard this as the problem. It's not that I don't enjoy party banter/dialogue/whatever. It's awesome. Dragon Age: Origins did it very well, and DA2 did it even better. I will always support the inclusion of more party banter.

But what it comes down to is I'm not sitting there with a pen and paper in hand counting how many times Garrus talks to Miranda or Tali, or things of that sort. If the characters do interact, great! It makes things more interesting, but it's not critical in comparison to other aspects of the experience; I'm not focused on it.

Even take Kotor for example. I just finished my 18th playthrough this past Sunday. I had a grand total of 5 instances of party members having their own conversations:

Carth and Bastila (regarding dropped lightsaber and Mandalorian Wars)
Mission and Zaalbar (regarding Zaalbar's scruffiness/ Vulkar Imprisonment)
Carth and Canderous (regarding Mandalorian Wars)

I love it when characters talk, especially given the nature of their conversations, but the conversations with the PC are what hold those characters together. Ex: Compare against Dragon Age 2 which is (more or less) Mass Effect 2's opposite. I much prefer detailed conversations with my PC over party banter with each other.

RE:  What you said earlier.  As Nightwriter put so well "Why must ME 1 always be brought into it?" 

I'd say it's guilt by association. Mass Effect 2 is a sequel. More often than not, when someone is disappointed with a sequel, they compare it to the installments they enjoyed.

Ex: When people discuss how much they dislike the Star Wars prequels, it's almost always that 'the Original trilogy was so much better'. This is the case with pretty much all movies in a series. I agree that Mass Effect 1 comparisons shouldn't be necessary, but no one here should be surprised at the very least.

I did not mention ME 1 first, btw.  I was responding, humorously, I hope, to the assertion that character development was the plot of ME 2.  But to answer your question:  No, I do not believe that it was improved in ME 2.  It was concentrated.  You get one short blast of really good development, then you spend the rest of the game with a lifeless shell following you around.

Depends on how you define lifeless. The characters have their loyalty missions, recruitment mission, in addition to whatever dialogue you have on the ship. It's still a substantial amount. I also felt that characters were much more interesting than Mass Effect 1, which was a huge plus which can impact how much you enjoy the interactions.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 avril 2011 - 01:58 .

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...

Protip: That is the main plot. Character development is plot, most 2nd chapters in trilogies are more plot heavy and the story itself doesn't move at all. You don't want a story heavy 2nd chapter because then it will start to feel like the same thing over and over and over again by the time the 3rd one rolls around, you want the 2nd chapter to change things up to keep it fresh. Now this may not work for you but it works for the vast majority of audiences and critics so it's clear why it was done.

I must admit it was quite cool to see the responses of the different characters as they go through the Teltin facility and hear Jack's story.  Miranda in particular since she's such a Cerberus loyalist.  And Samara's sense of justice really...

Oh, wait.

Well, it was interesting to hear their concepts of vengence while Garrus was plotting to kill Sidonis.  Thane's views in particular...

Umm, nvm

But I really appreciated their input on the genophage data.  I mean, that kind of decision can affect the entire galaxy.  Given all the walks of life the squadmates come from, it's really cool to see how...

Oh.

But the Collectors themselves, how they react when they start to see what the stakes really are, the kind of foe they're facing.  When the Prothean connection was discovered, I couldn't believe that Grunt asked...

Err...

It's not that I would not have loved for this kind of stuff to be in the game, but I think it is less an oversight by the writer and more to do with the limitations of a video game. This is not a book. It is not just a matter of writing more dialog. There is already a mind boggling amount of voiced dialog in the game. This would had hours more.13 characters, each having unique dialog for every loyalty mission in the game? You have to pay the writers to write all of that. Then you have to pay the voice actors to say all of that. Then you have to pay the animators to animate all of that, and the programmers to put it all in. And THEN you have to find space on a disk that is already chalk full of stuff. If any of these steps becomes un-doable at any point, due to money, time, or any other mater, you can not do it at all.

What seems like such a simple thing to add, is a massive undertaking for any game. How many games do you know that do this? Yes "some" Characters have special lines in ME1, but they also do this in ME2. Like tali and Kasumi in the Lia Vial Quest. KOTOR and other had party banter, but no where near the scale you are talking about. it is very possible they tried to do this and could not. Unless you know that they COULD have done this and just close not to, it is unfair to criticize them for it.

+1

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...


It's not that I would not have loved for this kind of stuff to be in the game, but I think it is less an oversight by the writer and more to do with the limitations of a video game. This is not a book. It is not just a matter of writing more dialog. There is already a mind boggling amount of voiced dialog in the game. This would had hours more.13 characters, each having unique dialog for every loyalty mission in the game? You have to pay the writers to write all of that. Then you have to pay the voice actors to say all of that. Then you have to pay the animators to animate all of that, and the programmers to put it all in. And THEN you have to find space on a disk that is already chalk full of stuff. If any of these steps becomes un-doable at any point, due to money, time, or any other mater, you can not do it at all.

"Limitations of a video game?" Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 beg to differ.  Even older games such as KOTOR and the BG games had this.  Less, sure, but they are older games.  Over a decade in the case of Baldur's Gate.

Nor am I advocating everyone having unique dialogue in all the missions.  but in missions where they would have a unique insight or interest in the topic., yes, there should be unique dialogue.  Grunt likely wouldn't care whast was done to Ronald Taylor.  Samara would.  And so on.

If it was a matter of too many characters, then to be brutally honest, there should have been fewer characters.  The way it's set up now, it's like we had twelve writers each locked in a seperate office creating their own portion of the game.  With no communication between them.  The use of characters in DA 2 all by itself makes the game superior to ME 2, imo. Because it feels like a whole game.

What seems like such a simple thing to add, is a massive undertaking for any game. How many games do you know that do this? Yes "some" Characters have special lines in ME1, but they also do this in ME2. Like tali and Kasumi in the Lia Vial Quest. KOTOR and other had party banter, but no where near the scale you are talking about. it is very possible they tried to do this and could not. Unless you know that they COULD have done this and just close not to, it is unfair to criticize them for it.

Every single game Bioware has made that had more than one companion did this to some degree.  I'm including Hordes of the Underdark here.  Maybe it is a massive undertaking.  I don't know anything about game design.  But if a game is going to be about "the companions", getting to know them, earning their loyalty, building a team, rather than chest-high walls and armies of mercs, then I expect at least some effort to go into it. 

Some here seem to think I hold ME 1 as some great example of this.  No, it's not.  It's actually pretty weak at it.  I'm not saying ME 1 was good.  I'm saying ME 2 is worse

Dragon Age:  Normandy full of your favorite squad members.

ME 1:  Cerberus

ME2:  Reapers

It's like you said in one of your videos "They spent the game getting you to know and love the characters on your team"  That was the point.  Me, not feeling the love.  It got used up on their loyalty missions

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

Now I would regard this as the problem. It's not that I don't enjoy party banter/dialogue/whatever. It's awesome. Dragon Age: Origins did it very well, and DA2 did it even better. I will always support the inclusion of more party banter.

But what it comes down to is I'm not sitting there with a pen and paper in hand counting how many times Garrus talks to Miranda or Tali, or things of that sort. If the characters do interact, great! It makes things more interesting, but it's not critical in comparison to other aspects of the experience; I'm not focused on it. [/quote]

I'm not taking notes like that either.  But it's easy to notice when Garrus never talks to Miranda.  Or Grunt.  Or Thane.  And only once to Tali.  i don't need paper when I can count them on my hands.

[quote]
Even take Kotor for example. I just finished my 18th playthrough this past Sunday. I had a grand total of 5 instances of party members having their own conversations:

Carth and Bastila (regarding dropped lightsaber and Mandalorian Wars)
Mission and Zaalbar (regarding Zaalbar's scruffiness/ Vulkar Imprisonment)
Carth and Canderous (regarding Mandalorian Wars)[/quote]

I love it when characters talk, especially given the nature of their conversations, but the conversations with the PC are what hold those characters together. Ex: Compare against Dragon Age 2 which is (more or less) Mass Effect 2's opposite. I much prefer detailed conversations with my PC over party banter with each other. [/quote]

This is why when I see posts about "keep the DA2 team away from ME 3" I want to say "What, don't you like character interaction?"

Yes, the talks you can have with the characters on the Normandy are well done.  When they don't involve calibrations or something similar, that is.  I definitely wish DA 2 had done something like that.

But I'mnot even asking for the level of detail seen in teh Dragon Age games.  I am holding them up as great examples of good banter.  But if there were only two banter topics between each character pair in the game, and a few lines of unique dialogue in places where the character's personality and intersts would demand tehy spoke up, it would be "good enough"

As it is, Tali is the only one who has anything resembling that, as she seems to have unique dialogue whenever quarians are brought up./


[quote]Depends on how you define lifeless. The characters have their loyalty missions, recruitment mission, in addition to whatever dialogue you have on the ship. It's still a substantial amount. I also felt that characters were much more interesting than Mass Effect 1, which was a huge plus which can impact how much you enjoy the interactions.

[/quote]

I define it as "lacking dialogue or activities in regards to anything they would find of interest outside of missions centered on the person"

Samara will watch a refinery and all its worker burn without comment
Thane will watch Garrus go down the same path he did without voicing an opinion
Miranda (and Jacob) will not say anything about the Teltin facility
No one has anything to say about the Prothean connection to the Reapers (save Mordin in a conversation on the Normandy)
No one seems to have an opinion about the genophage or Rael'Zorah's experiments

The whole thing leaves an unfinished feel to ME 2.  Even worse than KOTOR 2.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Nearly every mission in mass effect has 1 character or a team that will net you a ton of extra dialogue, but it's hard to discern this without trial and error. (Bring Zaeed on Jacob's mission, I think he has the most to say about the situation from your entire squad. Mordin and Jacob is a good set for Grunt's recruitment, especially if you have Rana there, totally changes the feel of that mission. Jacob and Tali add alot to the Reaper IFF. I wish there was a wealth for every single character but unfortunately they didn't do that. Maybe 3 will just have tons of character dialogue to make up for it...

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Also hey here's something: The reaper general thing that smudboy kept suggestion, I just can't help but feel that it would fly in the face of what was established in the first game with the Keepers, the nature of the reapers, and Shepard's entire arguement with Saren. Also it woulda just made ME2 be the same villain as ME1 but this time he's a bug.


And Smudboy keeps harping on "they should collect prothean relics to fight the reapers with or something" shepard is able to have a conversation about this with liara to where he talks about how the protheans weren't able to get any farther than warning the next generation about the reapers and helping them save the citadel. Their entire race was wiped out because they had no idea how to stop the reapers. The twist of ME1 was that the protheans were not special or anything, they just happened to get a warning out to the next generation. If they knew how to defeat the reapers they probably would have defeated the reapers!!! holy**** was that hard to understand????

[piemanz]

iakus wrote...

.......Snip

Since i can't really argue that having more banter wouldn't be nice, i won't even try.

Maybe this is something to consider though.Bioware set the trilogy up with the idea that the players choices will have an effect on events throughout.You're playing commander shepard you're meant to be decisive.Events and unfolding events are meant to seem like they  hang on your decisions.

Lets take Jacobs loyalty mission as an example.When confronting jacobs father you basicly have the choice to either send him away, let jacob shoot him, or shoot him yourself.This is meant to be your decision. The guy/girl you're playing is meant to be a decisive leader. Now i'm not saying getting an idea of your team mates feelings on the situation is a bad thing but it does kind of detract from the idea that the decision is yours to make, if you're like "hmmm i dunno, what do you think samara?".

Now, regarding the team having opinions about actions you've taken. Theres a very fine line to walk here.Personally having my squad constantly second guessing my decisions would get annoying.

Modifié par piemanz, 06 avril 2011 - 11:36 .

[piemanz]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

And Smudboy keeps harping on "they should collect prothean relics to fight the reapers with or something" shepard is able to have a conversation about this with liara to where he talks about how the protheans weren't able to get any farther than warning the next generation about the reapers and helping them save the citadel. Their entire race was wiped out because they had no idea how to stop the reapers. The twist of ME1 was that the protheans were not special or anything, they just happened to get a warning out to the next generation. If they knew how to defeat the reapers they probably would have defeated the reapers!!! holy**** was that hard to understand????

It shouldn't be hard to understand no.I think the problem with some of Smudboys arguements are, he's dissected and added his own twist to the main plot so much, he forgets what the real plot really is.

Modifié par piemanz, 06 avril 2011 - 11:32 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I'm not taking notes like that either.  But it's easy to notice when Garrus never talks to Miranda.  Or Grunt.  Or Thane.  And only once to Tali.  i don't need paper when I can count them on my hands.

I can't say that I agree to that. As I said, noticing a lack of party banter requires that I am playing the game in a very game meta-game manner. When Illusive Man gives me the Collector Ship mission, my first thoughts are not "I wonder what Garrus and Samara have to say to each other about this". The same when I'm wandering about on Omega, or any other mission. I notice party banter when it happens, but it's not my primary focus otherwise. In other words, I focus on what is there to analyze, not on what isn't there.

This is why when I see posts about "keep the DA2 team away from ME 3" I want to say "What, don't you like character interaction?"

Well, that usually stems from bitterness towards DA2 more than anything else. It has its flaws, but I can't help but laugh when some argue that Origins was superior 'in every way'. Absolutes are always difficult to defend.

Edit: I just realized the hypocrisy. I mean to say: "Absolutes can be difficult to defend".

But I'mnot even asking for the level of detail seen in teh Dragon Age games.  I am holding them up as great examples of good banter.  But if there were only two banter topics between each character pair in the game, and a few lines of unique dialogue in places where the character's personality and intersts would demand tehy spoke up, it would be "good enough"

But I'm contesting how necessary those interactions are in the first place. I enjoyed those discussions, but neither Carth, nor Bastila felt 'more real' because they chose to discuss the Mandalorian Wars. That one interaction was such a small aspect to each individual character. Had that entire conversation never existed, it would not have had substantial impact on my enjoyment of the game. On the other hand, such interactions fuel Dragon Age 2, not the Mass Effect 2 cast.
 
If I were to compare this to eating a sundae, Party banter in Bioware games has always felt like the cherry on top, whereas the actual conversations are the icecream. I will never say no to a cherry, but I can't pretend it's the entire dessert.

I define it as "lacking dialogue or activities in regards to anything they would find of interest outside of missions centered on the person"

Samara will watch a refinery and all its worker burn without comment
Thane will watch Garrus go down the same path he did without voicing an opinion
Miranda (and Jacob) will not say anything about the Teltin facility
No one has anything to say about the Prothean connection to the Reapers (save Mordin in a conversation on the Normandy)
No one seems to have an opinion about the genophage or Rael'Zorah's experiments

The whole thing leaves an unfinished feel to ME 2.  Even worse than KOTOR 2.

Well, considering how Kotor 2 is almost universally considered to be 'unfinished' for obvious flaws, I'd consider that a remarkably strong claim there, cowboy.

But in an abstract sense, I could agree with you. Having played Mass Effect 2, I could look back and say "Wow, alot of the characters are suspiciously quiet even in areas where they have strong reason to comment". And you'd be right in saying so. Yet, I'd still argue that's still only a small aspect. During Mordin's loyalty mission, my mind isn't drawn to Grunt, or Samara, or Tali in the background but rather the focus at hand (Mordin and the Genophage). This is not 'Mordin's and Grunt's loyalty mission' unfortunately.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 avril 2011 - 11:47 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

piemanz wrote...

It shouldn't be hard to understand no.I think the problem with some of Smudboys arguements are, he's dissected and added his own twist to the main plot so much, he forgets what the real plot really is.

Yeah I mean, most of those "fixing mass effect 2" things are like...either completely disreguarding parts of ME1's plot or outright copying elements but this time the asari has bigger boobs.

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...


It's not that I would not have loved for this kind of stuff to be in the game, but I think it is less an oversight by the writer and more to do with the limitations of a video game. This is not a book. It is not just a matter of writing more dialog. There is already a mind boggling amount of voiced dialog in the game. This would had hours more.13 characters, each having unique dialog for every loyalty mission in the game? You have to pay the writers to write all of that. Then you have to pay the voice actors to say all of that. Then you have to pay the animators to animate all of that, and the programmers to put it all in. And THEN you have to find space on a disk that is already chalk full of stuff. If any of these steps becomes un-doable at any point, due to money, time, or any other mater, you can not do it at all.

"Limitations of a video game?" Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 beg to differ.  Even older games such as KOTOR and the BG games had this.  Less, sure, but they are older games.  Over a decade in the case of Baldur's Gate.

Nor am I advocating everyone having unique dialogue in all the missions.  but in missions where they would have a unique insight or interest in the topic., yes, there should be unique dialogue.  Grunt likely wouldn't care whast was done to Ronald Taylor.  Samara would.  And so on.

If it was a matter of too many characters, then to be brutally honest, there should have been fewer characters.  The way it's set up now, it's like we had twelve writers each locked in a seperate office creating their own portion of the game.  With no communication between them.  The use of characters in DA 2 all by itself makes the game superior to ME 2, imo. Because it feels like a whole game.

What seems like such a simple thing to add, is a massive undertaking for any game. How many games do you know that do this? Yes "some" Characters have special lines in ME1, but they also do this in ME2. Like tali and Kasumi in the Lia Vial Quest. KOTOR and other had party banter, but no where near the scale you are talking about. it is very possible they tried to do this and could not. Unless you know that they COULD have done this and just close not to, it is unfair to criticize them for it.

Every single game Bioware has made that had more than one companion did this to some degree.  I'm including Hordes of the Underdark here.  Maybe it is a massive undertaking.  I don't know anything about game design.  But if a game is going to be about "the companions", getting to know them, earning their loyalty, building a team, rather than chest-high walls and armies of mercs, then I expect at least some effort to go into it. 

Some here seem to think I hold ME 1 as some great example of this.  No, it's not.  It's actually pretty weak at it.  I'm not saying ME 1 was good.  I'm saying ME 2 is worse

Dragon Age:  Normandy full of your favorite squad members.

ME 1:  Cerberus

ME2:  Reapers

It's like you said in one of your videos "They spent the game getting you to know and love the characters on your team"  That was the point.  Me, not feeling the love.  It got used up on their loyalty missions

All of those games you held up as examples also did not have a fully voiced Protagonist (have not played DA2 yet, Going to Blind LP it, but it's hard to fault ME2 for not being as good as a game that built upon it.) They had more space to do things like party banter, because they did not have to worry about the hundreds of lines the protagonist had to say. They also had nowhere near as many unique levels and locations as ME2. Every single Side/ loyalty quest had a new and different location. Compare this to games like Dragon age that (while it had a lot of locations) used the same places for many missions. Again, these extra levels and such take up space, time, and money.  If you want to argue that there should have been fewer locations, then you are not longer arguing story, but simply taste in video game priorities. Ultimately, the Developers felt it was better to create a bigger and more unique world, and spend more time on Shep/party interaction, then party/party interaction. Can't say I blame them.
As for having so many characters; You guys know that I feel the point of ME2 was to make you grow attached to your team. I think the number of party members was so that there was a greater chance you would still have some left in ME3. Face it, you had to try pretty hard to get EVERYONE killed. This way, even if you screwed up pretty bad, you would still have some people you knew and cared about on your team.

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

All of those games you held up as examples also did not have a fully voiced Protagonist (have not played DA2 yet, Going to Blind LP it, but it's hard to fault ME2 for not being as good as a game that built upon it.) They had more space to do things like party banter, because they did not have to worry about the hundreds of lines the protagonist had to say. They also had nowhere near as many unique levels and locations as ME2. Every single Side/ loyalty quest had a new and different location. Compare this to games like Dragon age that (while it had a lot of locations) used the same places for many missions. Again, these extra levels and such take up space, time, and money.  If you want to argue that there should have been fewer locations, then you are not longer arguing story, but simply taste in video game priorities. Ultimately, the Developers felt it was better to create a bigger and more unique world, and spend more time on Shep/party interaction, then party/party interaction. Can't say I blame them.

Can this wait for a bit?  I'm in the middle of some calibrations.

As to the rest, I fear that awesome scenery should not have trumped awesome dialogue.  Especially if the entire point of the game is to get to know the characters.  You're only taking Grunt on the Suicide Mission, not the entire planet of Tuchanka.

As for having so many characters; You guys know that I feel the point of ME2 was to make you grow attached to your team. I think the number of party members was so that there was a greater chance you would still have some left in ME3. Face it, you had to try pretty hard to get EVERYONE killed. This way, even if you screwed up pretty bad, you would still have some people you knew and cared about on your team.

I'll just remind you that you cannot import an ME 2 save without at least two live squadmates.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

I can't say that I agree to that. As I said, noticing a lack of party banter requires that I am playing the game in a very game meta-game manner. When Illusive Man gives me the Collector Ship mission, my first thoughts are not "I wonder what Garrus and Samara have to say to each other about this". The same when I'm wandering about on Omega, or any other mission. I notice party banter when it happens, but it's not my primary focus otherwise. In other words, I focus on what is there to analyze, not on what isn't there.

TO me, party banter adds a third dimension to the characters.  It makes them more lifelike, I care more about what happens to them because...they talk!  without prompting from me!

But I'm contesting how necessary those interactions are in the first place. I enjoyed those discussions, but neither Carth, nor Bastila felt 'more real' because they chose to discuss the Mandalorian Wars. That one interaction was such a small aspect to each individual character. Had that entire conversation never existed, it would not have had substantial impact on my enjoyment of the game. On the other hand, such interactions fuel Dragon Age 2, not the Mass Effect 2 cast.
 
If I were to compare this to eating a sundae, Party banter in Bioware games has always felt like the cherry on top, whereas the actual conversations are the icecream. I will never say no to a cherry, but I can't pretend it's the entire dessert.

Ideally a game has both.  Think of the main character conversations as banter with the player.  And to me, Bioware game banter is part of what makes them a cut above any other game developer.  They go the extra mile to make characters seem real.

At least, before ME 2.  Glad to the the DA team hasn't abandoned that.

Well, considering how Kotor 2 is almost universally considered to be 'unfinished' for obvious flaws, I'd consider that a remarkably strong claim there, cowboy.

Good.  It's supposed to.  Because I've played KOTOR 2 (with and without the restoration mod) and I feel strongly about this concept. 

But in an abstract sense, I could agree with you. Having played Mass Effect 2, I could look back and say "Wow, alot of the characters are suspiciously quiet even in areas where they have strong reason to comment". And you'd be right in saying so. Yet, I'd still argue that's still only a small aspect. During Mordin's loyalty mission, my mind isn't drawn to Grunt, or Samara, or Tali in the background but rather the focus at hand (Mordin and the Genophage). This is not 'Mordin's and Grunt's loyalty mission' unfortunately.

Characters failing to respond to something that their background explicitly states should be of interest to them reduces attempts to make them characters.  They become more character concepts.  A Cerberus loyalist walking through a facility where the staff may or may not have gone rogue, yet says nothing, detracts from teh personality the game is trying to foster in her.  The genophage has been an aspect of the galaxy for a thousand years.  Some of the longer lived races still remember the Krogan Rebellions.  Now you hold the key to greatly speeding up research to find a cure.  And no one says anything?  How is this supposed to create amazing characters you get to know and love?

Why did they even make the three squad member requirement anyway?  The third squaddie might as well have been a security bot.

[Almostfaceman]

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...

All of those games you held up as examples also did not have a fully voiced Protagonist (have not played DA2 yet, Going to Blind LP it, but it's hard to fault ME2 for not being as good as a game that built upon it.) They had more space to do things like party banter, because they did not have to worry about the hundreds of lines the protagonist had to say. They also had nowhere near as many unique levels and locations as ME2. Every single Side/ loyalty quest had a new and different location. Compare this to games like Dragon age that (while it had a lot of locations) used the same places for many missions. Again, these extra levels and such take up space, time, and money.  If you want to argue that there should have been fewer locations, then you are not longer arguing story, but simply taste in video game priorities. Ultimately, the Developers felt it was better to create a bigger and more unique world, and spend more time on Shep/party interaction, then party/party interaction. Can't say I blame them.

Can this wait for a bit?  I'm in the middle of some calibrations.

As to the rest, I fear that awesome scenery should not have trumped awesome dialogue.  Especially if the entire point of the game is to get to know the characters.  You're only taking Grunt on the Suicide Mission, not the entire planet of Tuchanka.

*looks at all the complaining about DA2's cookie cutter scenery*

Well it looks like Bioware is damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I guess it's good they made people like me happy.

[piemanz]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

piemanz wrote...

It shouldn't be hard to understand no.I think the problem with some of Smudboys arguements are, he's dissected and added his own twist to the main plot so much, he forgets what the real plot really is.

Yeah I mean, most of those "fixing mass effect 2" things are like...either completely disreguarding parts of ME1's plot or outright copying elements but this time the asari has bigger boobs.

Like i said, he does have some very valid points.

[Iakus]

Almostfaceman wrote...

*looks at all the complaining about DA2's cookie cutter scenery*

Well it looks like Bioware is damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I guess it's good they made people like me happy.

Yeah, even I noticed the recycled maps, and I wasn't bothered by the copy/paste bunkers in ME 1.

That said, though.  I will happily take cut and paste scenery over cut and paste squadmates.