163 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

People has to realize that the loyalty mission was part of ME2's main mission. I think the idea that it was optional led people to think of them as sidequests when in truth the LM were the MM.

The ARCS concerning the Reaper and Collector's were mediocre but the ARCS concerning the squad was brilliant.

So in my opinion the story of ME2 didn't suck but the overarching plotline about the Reapers suffered because the main focus was on the character arcs instead.

ME2=Character-driven story

[Someone With Mass]

iakus wrote...

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.

No argument there. I hope they can connect the story and the squad a little better in ME3.

And have them acknowledge the rest of the team, because it was as if they lived inside their own little worlds outside combat in ME2.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:39 .

[celuloid]

Eurhetemec wrote...

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)

It is well developed relatively to Collector cruiser and Reaper missions. They have no real dialogues if I recall correctly.

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

What do you mean by rail-roading? That term was not mentioned once in the linked thread.

Modifié par celuloid, 25 juillet 2011 - 08:42 .

[Eurhetemec]

celuloid wrote...

It is well developed relatively to Collector cruiser and Reaper missions. They have no real dialogues if I recall correctly.

Collector cruiser doesn't have much - it's true, it's basically just exposition and fighting, like fighting your way up the Spire in ME1 - no real "RP" choices, tons of fighting. Reaper mission actually does have what I would consider "RP" choices, because you choose who does what, and to me, that's RPing. You're welcome to disagree. It doesn't have much dialogue, of course.

One problem with ME2 that I would point certainly agree on is that the main badguys are basically silent apart from Harbinger, who doesn't talk, just rants.

What do you mean by rail-roading? That term was not mentioned once in the linked thread.

Being forced to go on missions and not given choices you think should be there and so on.

[wizardryforever]

Well I think the loyalty and recruitment missions were supposed to be the real plot of ME2, and the Collector missions were just supposed to loosely tie the team together.  I agree that they didn't interact much, and that was a shame, but it makes some sense given how many squadmates there were and how many possible combinations of squadmates you could have at any given time.  It was also difficult to write reams of dialogue for all 12 squadmates (or 10, if you consider that Zaeed and Kasumi don't really converse with you).  Garrus is the most noticable, but that's mostly because you recruit him early.  Tali actually has the exact same amount of non-romance dialogue, but it is less noticable because you get her later.  Anyway, with a smaller squad this time, I expect we'll see more development per character.

As for the action, I agree with the OP.  Thus far the series has been pretty consistent with the balance between story, action, and roleplaying.  I don't see how ME2 was any worse in any of those categories than ME1 was, nor do I "worry" about ME3.

[celuloid]

Eurhetemec wrote...

celuloid wrote...

It is well developed relatively to Collector cruiser and Reaper missions. They have no real dialogues if I recall correctly.

Reaper mission actually does have what I would consider "RP" choices, because you choose who does what, and to me, that's RPing. You're welcome to disagree. It doesn't have much dialogue, of course.

I meant Derelict Reaper mission. The endgame mission is, of course, up to the standard. Except Arnold. But that is another problem.

What do you mean by rail-roading? That term was not mentioned once in the linked thread.

Being forced to go on missions and not given choices you think should be there and so on.

Yes, autostarting missions kind of defeats any purpose of free world and choice - staples of RPG game.

[AdmiralCheez]

To be honest, the tidbits I've heard about ME3's story make me eager to hear more. It sounds like a wild ride. As for the action, it's way easier to show off in ten minutes without spoiling the game than plot points or character development.

But really, I'm more into the characters than anything else. The combat is just something fun to do while chillin' with my crew, and the story's the glue holding it together. Not that I don't love a great story and great action, but at this point my squadmates feel like an investment. I can't wait to cash in.

[Lumikki]

celuloid wrote...

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

Not it's not. Role-playing is comming from player as playing role. Don't mix role-playing, choises and story, they aren't same. Just because they usually gives better experience togather, doesn't mean they are same.

What you should have sayed is: Lack of story path variety and choises.

In general comment, I hope they get action and story balanced well in ME3.

I have allways feeled that cinematic scenes purpose is keep the story flow. So, it's about keeping players interest into story and not cause player to feel like this is all about combat or get bored in too much talking, because can't seem to do anything else. When the balance is done right, it's fluid storytelling with action. That allows player to conserate in role-playing in all situations.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 juillet 2011 - 11:25 .

[celuloid]

OK, by this definition RPG game is any game where player assumes a role, which is basically every shooter out there.

Modifié par celuloid, 26 juillet 2011 - 12:22 .

[Shepard the Leper]

celuloid wrote...

OK, by this definition RPG game is any game where player assumes a role, which is basically every shooter out there.

And what definition makes a game a RPG? An inventory? Conversations? The option to do mission A first or last? Gaining XP? Distributing skill points? LI? Exploration? What?

RPG is just a name, nothing more or nothing less.

[LilyasAvalon]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

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*

[Slayer299]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

celuloid wrote...

OK, by this definition RPG game is any game where player assumes a role, which is basically every shooter out there.

And what definition makes a game a RPG? An inventory? Conversations? The option to do mission A first or last? Gaining XP? Distributing skill points? LI? Exploration? What?

RPG is just a name, nothing more or nothing less.

If RPG is just a name, than that means that when I'm playing Plants vs. Zombies I'm roleplaying, at least according to the statement that "RPG is just a name,".

[Shepard the Leper]

Slayer299 wrote...

If RPG is just a name, than that means that when I'm playing Plants vs. Zombies I'm roleplaying, at least according to the statement that "RPG is just a name,".

If you consider a level-up system to make games RPGs.

Please explain why ME or whatever game out there IS a RPG.

[Slayer299]

Oh, no no no no. I am *not* getting into the whole "what makes a RPG a RPG" debate here. My point was just that RPG is more than just an empty name to be applied to any and everything game that exists and I disagree with that.

[Shepard the Leper]

Slayer299 wrote...

Oh, no no no no. I am *not* getting into the whole "what makes a RPG a RPG" debate here. My point was just that RPG is more than just an empty name to be applied to any and everything game that exists and I disagree with that.

So let us stop using this label because it represents nothing but air. Instead we could all call things by their real names, like the story, conversations, interactions, inventory, powers, weapons, mods, explorations and so on - no more pointless RPG discussions.

[Iakus]

Slayer299 wrote...

Oh, no no no no. I am *not* getting into the whole "what makes a RPG a RPG" debate here. My point was just that RPG is more than just an empty name to be applied to any and everything game that exists and I disagree with that.

Dang, and here I was going to assert that Fallout 2 was a shooter because the characters fired guns 

[Kaiser_Wilhelm]

Nothing wrong with having action. However I see your concern, and it's something a lot of people have thought. ME3 is moving away from storyline and a deep RPG to a typical action game, but I don't think that's true. I'm sure Bioware can mix the two well.

[stonbw1]

It seemed with ME2 that much of the story was told in a movie-style, through predetermined cutscenes than was ME1 (I stress the word 'seemed'). Thus, I can understand when people complain about not having directional control (e.g. "RPG") over their characters. ME2 came across much more as an interactive mini-series, in my opinion.

[Lumikki]

celuloid wrote...

OK, by this definition RPG game is any game where player assumes a role, which is basically every shooter out there.

You did not say RPG, you sayed Role-playing.

They are not same thing. Role-playing in one main aspect of RPG's, but it's not ONLY aspect. Role-playing is about taking role, like player is acting of role or role-playing through character, like been in character role.. RPG is game design for role-playing, but because it's game, it has sertain features to support role-playing. So, you can role-play in many games, that doesn't mean they become RPG's, because of it. Where the line is drawn, is not clear, because so many people have different idea what RPG is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 26 juillet 2011 - 02:01 .

[xentar]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

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.

Actually, there is, too much action makes a game unrealistic possibly destroying suspension of disbelief.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

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.

But if this argument is true for ME2, then BG2 fails also. Defeating the Unseeing Eye cult, or liberating De'Arnise Hold, or opening the Planar Sphere, and so on and so on, also has nothing to do with the PC's mission.

Though if you want to take ME2 down a peg, I wouldn't object too hard.

Edit: come to think of it, most RPGs ever made would fail if this is the standard.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[JamieCOTC]

First of all, Michael Bay sucks. Secondly, you can have both action and story, but they have to blend just right. And there's nothing wrong w/ more action as long as it's balanced with a story that is just as visceral and compelling.

[bboynexus]

Mass Effect 2 did indeed have a very weak central context. But I think that's more to do with it being the second in the trilogy than anything else. I think the series would have benefited in terms of writing if there had only been two. That said, I think ME3 will be much stronger!

[sp0ck 06]

If you count all the side missions in ME1, seems to me like there was a lot more "action" than there was "story." You can argue that the recruitment and loyalty missions are not directly relevant to the main plot - although I was disagree, seeing how the plot was "build a team." Even so, every one of those missions containing compelling story arcs, and some of them didn't have any action at all (Thane, Samara).

I think people feel like ME2 was all action because the combat felt more like an action game and less like a bastard child of stat based action and TPS. Crappy RPG combat does not = story, and ME1 was chock full of crappy combat.

[Buckwheat530]

In ME2 there are (roughly) 30 hours worth of missions. Most of those give you a direct reason for being there and have some story, if minimal at times. Yes, you can skip Loyalty Missions, but they were part of the main story. Side Missions were severely lacking in ME2(which wasn't always bad, but I wish there had been more). Some Side Missions even had connecting stories.

On the other hand, ME1's story can be completed in roughly 18 hours. There are tons of side missions, many of which give you no reason for showing up other than "I was passing through." These Side Missions, like ME2's, have some story and some even connect. More often than not, though, you were blasting your way through generic warehouses. I'm not complaining, I enjoyed this and it gave me a chance to flex the stats I gained through constant leveling(early on in the game anyways).

I can understand why people were taken aback by a lack choice in leveling and in a few circumstances for the story(like being forced to do Horizon/the Collector Ship). Other than those examples, the amount of story was on par with ME1. It was just a different type of story. The developers have said (more than a few times) that it was a Dirty Dozen esque story. Yes, some of the characters' conversations were paced funny on the Normandy(we all know about the calibrations) and without elevators we didn't get much of a chance for companions to talk about what was going on.

Regardless, I still have people walk by when I play ME2 and ask if all I ever do in that game is walk around and talk to people because that's all they ever see me doing.