163 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorosaur]

This is a complaint I honestly have never understood, and I continue to see it persist. Unlike in a movie where a director like Michael Bay can literally choose to devote more time having action scenes cover the run time,  a game like Mass Effect is broke up into segments of story and of action. In many ways they are completely seperate from one another.

I would also like to point out that two different parts of development go into making the action driven gameplay and writing the story. These are groups of people who have specific jobs and whose work on the game largely doesn't affect the other portions.

Does Mass Effect 2 and possibly 3 have more action than the original installment? Actually, 2 and 1 have about the same amount of action sequences and 3 will most likely follow suit. Does anyone remember those sidequests in Mass Effect that essentially just involved you running into a warehouse and shooting things up? Apparently people don't.

I'm not saying the story in Mass Effect 2 is better than that of one, but the inclusion of flashier action sequences overall does not affect the quality of the games story.

So please, when judging Mass Effect 3 keep this in mind. Enjoy the action for what it is, and hope that the story team pulls itside of the bargain to give us an overall great game.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

There's nothing wrong with more action... and there was roughly just as much story in ME2 as there was in ME1... it was just squad-based instead of objective-based.

[Gorosaur]

You see I agree with you, I just see a disturbing amount of people list a focus on action as a detriment to the series.

[GreenDragon37]

I'm not against more action, I just don't want the story to be all about the action and nothing but the action. *see Micheal Bay*

[ShadowSplicer]

Meh, in my opinion the story and writing was better in Mass Effect 2, with a stronger main objective than both previous games, I have no doubt that the third will top it.

*Uses Tech Armor*

Modifié par ShadowSplicer, 25 juillet 2011 - 07:30 .

[celuloid]

The problem of ME2 is not surplus of action, but lack of roleplaying.

[GreenDragon37]

ShadowSplicer wrote...

Meh, in my opinion the story and writing was better in Mass Effect 2, with a stronger main objective than both previous games, I have no doubt that the third will top it.

*Uses Tech Armor*

I disagree, but to each his own. I thought the action and gameplay was better, but the story was not as great as ME1. Great, but not as great as ME1. Now Lair of the Shadow Broker... that's a different story.

[KainrycKarr]

ME2 had amazing writing and characters, but the background plot was...lackluster, to me.

Give me ME2's writing and character depth, with ME1's epic story-arch, now that would be an amazing game overall.

[GreenDragon37]

KainrycKarr wrote...

ME2 had amazing writing and characters, but the background plot was...lackluster, to me.

Give me ME2's writing and character depth, with ME1's epic story-arch, now that would be an amazing game overall.

Eh, maybe not ME2's character depth. I was tired of the whole "calibrations" and "I put my past behind me" thing. There wasn't enough character development when it came to the ME2 squad, but there were exceptions. For example, I loved Legion's character.

They had great development in-loyalty mission, but out of loyalty mission, I didn't feel it, at least not as much.

Maybe it's just me wanting more than what we got? *sigh*

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 25 juillet 2011 - 07:45 .

[Eurhetemec]

celuloid wrote...

The problem of ME2 is not surplus of action, but lack of roleplaying.

You didn't link to a post about roleplaying.

You linked to a post which is about how you didn't like be rail-roaded story-wise.

That's a fair thing to dislike, but it's not the same as not have role-playing opportunities. In terms of decisions that characterize your Shepard, ME2 did a bit better than ME1, imho, with the interrupts and more frequent Renegade/Paragon choices. It wasn't perfect, but it was good.

However, I too disliked how much the story rail-roaded you. Good news is, according to BioWare, the story structure in ME3 is apparently much more like ME1.

[Bobad]

As long as there is sufficient character development and interacion for me to personally invest in the characters, I'm all for more action crucial to the story.

[KainrycKarr]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

ME2 had amazing writing and characters, but the background plot was...lackluster, to me.

Give me ME2's writing and character depth, with ME1's epic story-arch, now that would be an amazing game overall.

Eh, maybe not ME2's character depth. I was tired of the whole "calibrations" and "I put my past behind me" thing. There wasn't enough character development when it came to the ME2 squad, but there were exceptions. For example, I loved Legion's character.

They had great development in-loyalty mission, but out of loyalty mission, I didn't feel it, at least not as much.

Well that's what I'm talking about; what was there, had a lot of depth, but you reached the wall in non-mission conversations a bit too quickly.

Either way, it was far better than ME1's, imo. ME2 did the whole "personal" story bits better, but ME1 did the master-plot much better.

[Xarathox]

Gorosaur wrote...

This is a complaint I honestly have never understood, and I continue to see it persist. Unlike in a movie where a director like Michael Bay can literally choose to devote more time having action scenes cover the run time,  a game like Mass Effect is broke up into segments of story and of action. In many ways they are completely seperate from one another.

I would also like to point out that two different parts of development go into making the action driven gameplay and writing the story. These are groups of people who have specific jobs and whose work on the game largely doesn't affect the other portions.

Does Mass Effect 2 and possibly 3 have more action than the original installment? Actually, 2 and 1 have about the same amount of action sequences and 3 will most likely follow suit. Does anyone remember those sidequests in Mass Effect that essentially just involved you running into a warehouse and shooting things up? Apparently people don't.

I'm not saying the story in Mass Effect 2 is better than that of one, but the inclusion of flashier action sequences overall does not affect the quality of the games story.

So please, when judging Mass Effect 3 keep this in mind. Enjoy the action for what it is, and hope that the story team pulls itside of the bargain to give us an overall great game.

I would hazard a suggestion that ME1 had far more action than ME2 did, by a mile. Mostly in the form of side quests. ME2 had very few side quests compared to it's predecessor, which I was certainly disappointed in. But, I never thought the story took a back seat like quite a few believe.

[GreenDragon37]

KainrycKarr wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

ME2 had amazing writing and characters, but the background plot was...lackluster, to me.

Give me ME2's writing and character depth, with ME1's epic story-arch, now that would be an amazing game overall.

Eh, maybe not ME2's character depth. I was tired of the whole "calibrations" and "I put my past behind me" thing. There wasn't enough character development when it came to the ME2 squad, but there were exceptions. For example, I loved Legion's character.

They had great development in-loyalty mission, but out of loyalty mission, I didn't feel it, at least not as much.

Well that's what I'm talking about; what was there, had a lot of depth, but you reached the wall in non-mission conversations a bit too quickly.

Either way, it was far better than ME1's, imo. ME2 did the whole "personal" story bits better, but ME1 did the master-plot much better.

I'll give you that.

Another thing I didn't like was that it seemed like my background didn't mean anything. In ME1, it meant something, heck had missions designed for them. It just pissed me off that a Sole Survivor Shep could never bring up Akuze to TIM or Miranda. It would have been great if certain squad members came to you and asked you questions about your past, and maybe you can relate to them. Like Colonist Shep's side-quest "I Remember Me".

But alas...

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 25 juillet 2011 - 07:49 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Gorosaur wrote...

You see I agree with you, I just see a disturbing amount of people list a focus on action as a detriment to the series.

Ah, then I agree with you also... that's not right.

[TexasToast712]

ShadowSplicer wrote...

Meh, in my opinion the story and writing was better in Mass Effect 2, with a stronger main objective than both previous games, I have no doubt that the third will top it.

*Uses Tech Armor*

I agree

*Activates Barrier*

[celuloid]

Moreover, ME2 story was
1. short
2. randomly appearing between side-missions
3. non-sensical

And character side-stories do not count, because they were just substitute for Uncharted Worlds missions.

[Gorosaur]

celuloid wrote...

Moreover, ME2 story was
1. short
2. randomly appearing between side-missions
3. non-sensical

And character side-stories do not count, because they were just substitute for Uncharted Worlds missions.

Except that the character stories were what the majority of the story for Mass Effect 2 was about. Its essentially like saying that everything in the Empire Strikes Back outside of Darth Vader searching for Luke isn't part of the story because it doesn't contribute to the main plot of the series.


Also, as the middle of a trilogy railroading is expected. Mass Effect 2's story's purpose was to carry us somewhere in Mass Effect 3. Its not really fair to judge Mass Effect 2 as pointless until we see how the plots are completed in the final installment.

[celuloid]

Eurhetemec wrote...

celuloid wrote...

The problem of ME2 is not surplus of action, but lack of roleplaying.

You didn't link to a post about roleplaying.

You linked to a post which is about how you didn't like be rail-roaded story-wise.

That's a fair thing to dislike, but it's not the same as not have role-playing opportunities. In terms of decisions that characterize your Shepard, ME2 did a bit better than ME1, imho, with the interrupts and more frequent Renegade/Paragon choices. It wasn't perfect, but it was good.

However, I too disliked how much the story rail-roaded you. Good news is, according to BioWare, the story structure in ME3 is apparently much more like ME1.

ME1 story rail-roaded you too. You had to become Spectre and travel to 3-4 worlds to come to endgame.

However, main story gave you ample opportunities to make decisions, big and small. I was generous when I referenced Horizon, because there are other ME2 "story" missions which are absolutely pure shooting galleries. If I had to sum it up, the least developed ME1 midgame story mission (Liara's rescue) was about as rich with roleplaying as the most developed ME2 one (Horizon).

[Eurhetemec]

celuloid wrote...

ME1 story rail-roaded you too. You had to become Spectre and travel to 3-4 worlds to come to endgame.

However, main story gave you ample opportunities to make decisions, big and small. I was generous when I referenced Horizon, because there are other ME2 "story" missions which are absolutely pure shooting galleries. If I had to sum it up, the least developed ME1 midgame story mission (Liara's rescue) was about as rich with roleplaying as the most developed ME2 one (Horizon).

Wow, I totally disagree with that. Horizon wasn't that well-developed, RP-wise - VS basically gives their speech whatever you say, and there's only one other human being you interact with, and he's a cantankerous wanker whatever you say. I'd say stuff like Thane's mission, or the the Dr Okeer mission had tons more roleplaying than Horizon. Why do you feel Horizon was well-developed, given it only has two conversations in the whole thing? (three if you count the quasi-convo over the body early on)

ME2 doesn't have any single mission as well-developed as the best-developed ME1 missions (say, Noveria or Feros, you decide), but any three loyalty missions have as much RP in them, imho.

The thread you linked really seemed to be mostly complaining about rail-roading though.

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:10 .

[celuloid]

Gorosaur wrote...

The character stories were what the majority of the story for Mass Effect 2 was about. Its essentially like saying that everything in the Empire Strikes Back outside of Darth Vader searching for Luke isn't part of the story because it doesn't contribute to the main plot of the series.

ME2 felt surprisingly empty for a 36 hour game. Empire Strikes Back did not for a 2 hour movie.
Now I am trying to investigate why it felt so empty. So far I found that
1. the main story is short
2. characters are modular (pretty much everyone except Miranda, Jacob and Mordin can be cut out and sold as DLC by toggling few variables)
3. there is minimum roleplaying in main story
4. exploration is totally gone (no need ever to check the map)

Also, as the middle of a trilogy railroading is expected. Mass Effect 2's story's purpose was to carry us somewhere in Mass Effect 3. Its not really fair to judge Mass Effect 2 as pointless until we see how the plots are completed in the final installment.

Let's pray.

Modifié par celuloid, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:12 .

[Someone With Mass]

I thought the loyalty missions were better than the main missions, anyway.

[Shepard Lives]

The problem with ME2's plot was that the squadmates were supposed to BE the plot, but had too little dialogue and character development (not so much individual-wise as team-wise) to pull it off successfully. It wasn't a matter of bad writing, it was a matter of misallocation of resources.

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I thought the loyalty missions were better than the main missions, anyway.

They were.  The problem is they had nothing at all to do with the main mission.  And by main mission, I mean "building a team and preparing them for the Omega IV relay misson"  Solving the problems of your squadmates might make for interesting stroies, but they don't forge a team, and they don't prepare said team for taking on a mysterious, highly advanced people from beyond known space.

Good chapters.  Wrong story.

The action is probably no more or less than ME1.  But ME1 wqas way more focused on the end goal.  ME2 was more about wandering the galaxy righting wrongs.  Lke Conrad Verner.  Only more competant.

[Iakus]

Shepard Lives wrote...

The problem with ME2's plot was that the squadmates were supposed to BE the plot, but had too little dialogue and character development (not so much individual-wise as team-wise) to pull it off successfully. It wasn't a matter of bad writing, it was a matter of misallocation of resources.

This too.  you'r ebuilding a team, but is mainly a team of random bad****es personally loyal to Shepard.  Teams depend on other teammates, not just the warlord directing them.  Hopefully, ME3 will remedy this somehow.

 Honestly, except for the one scene on the CItadel stairs, did Garrus and Tali ever interact?  At all?