163 réponses à ce sujet

[nutshell43]

AlanC9 wrote...
Didn't share a lot of those feelings.

And which would that be specifically? Because his key points were pretty irrefutable.

In addition, I'm not certain it's necessary or even particularly useful for a game plot to be tightly integrated the way you want. ME2 reminded me of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer season. Some episodes are directly related to this year's Big Bad, some have a tangential connection, some are unrelated. I like this kind of structure just fine. YMMV.

If I talk about the season's plot, I talk about the Big Bad, the rest is filler. Sometimes very good filler but filler. The storyline of Buffy's 6th season (was that the one were she got resurrected?) wasn't "and in the 2nd episode we fight this forgettable guy and the 5th is a musical and so on";the storyline was Buffy coping with the aftereffects of having been dead (and probably something else I forgot).
In ME2 the storyline is that Shepard gets resurrected to fight against the Collectors.
The game neither gives you the opportunity to explore the impact of death and resurrection on Shepard ("But you're dead", "I got better", wow, deep), nor does it explore your motivations for fighting against the Collectors (both ideally by allowing you to role-play it with different options. Kinda like the three backgrounds in ME1). It doesn't even establish the necessity of all your actions (because the Collectors only had one ship they would have been destroyed the first time they hit a defended colony).

The filler's great for the most part, but the story is weak. And the story is the subject of this thread.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

You're right.  They don't, save, as an opportunity to make money to continue the story.  Or after that, to raise or lower your reputation.  These quests don't pretend to be more than side quests.

But the point is, you do get to continue the story, rescue Imoen, get your soul back, and so on.  

In ME2, you recruit a team, but you don't forge a team.  You do tasks for your squadmates, but you don't prepare for your own task (the Suicide Mission)  You mow down mercs by the score for little reason other than "they're in my way".  They have no connection to the Collectors, Reapers, or your mission.  I will be greatly amused if ME 3 mentions that there has been a precipitous drop in merc activity in the Terminus Systems in the last year.

But the Collectors themselves, whom it is suggested are actively interested and pursuing Shepard, are almost never seen,.  Their presence almost never felt .  Only once do you even find out they're working through intermediaries (Mordin's recruitment)  BG2 at least you feel Bodhi's presence whenever the sun goes down and the "assassin's guild" started becoming active.  Or the dreams Irenicus sentds you.

This is why I suspect people complain that ME2 was far more action oriented.  It's in part because combat works differently, but more because combat was clearly worked on so much, and the story is so slapdash.

 Tell the truth, I see more than a few similarities between ME2 and DA2's plots.  Nto the details, so much as the lack of focus.  But DA2 did have the advantage of having characters that acknowledged the existence of each other 

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...


That was basically the point.  It was there, but the order of presentation and quality of presentation stole it's impact.  Joining Cerberus felt artificial and forced because there was no buildup; the council's abandonment felt like a mishandling of the Idiot Ball because it had no real motivation behind it; the collectors felt like bullet sponges and not a real threat because they were revealed at no cost in the first 5 minutes and did not develop as the story moved on.  They took a potentialyl good story and nerfed it.  Take the same elements and move them around, shift the focus and time investment and you have epic.  It's all in there as I said, but they didn't use it.

Didn't share a lot of those feelings.

In addition, I'm not certain it's necessary or even particularly useful for a game plot to be tightly integrated the way you want. ME2 reminded me of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer season. Some episodes are directly related to this year's Big Bad, some have a tangential connection, some are unrelated. I like this kind of structure just fine. YMMV.

I support this. I wouldn't want to see it every time, but the shorter, more episodic, missions were a refreshing change from spending 4+ hours completing a single objective, ala DA:O.

[Iakus]

Unfortunately, in this case it felt like only about three episodes of an entire season dealt with the Big Bad while the rest of the season was almost exclusively "monster of the week" episodes. Nothing wrong with the occasional sidequest or personal mission. But there is supposed to be a Reaper arc in there somewhere, yes?

[DarthSliver]

Well when bringing up ME2's downside, I would like to say they did make ME1 a stand-alone game because it mightve not done as well as it did. They made the story work with an end that was satisfying if ME1 happen to not pick up as well as it did. But I do agree with most that Shepard death thing in ME2 was a bad idea on Bioware's part. But I did like ME2's story and I overall like the ME series that I miss ME1 because it was never ported to the PS3.

Now I seen people bring up DA2 and in no way is it in anyway better than ME2. DA2 is the worst tasteful game Bioware has produced and I am surprised its a Bioware title. All the negatives of DA2 outweigh any positives the game has and believe it does have positives. But unlike ME2, DA2 is the beginning to Dragon Age series end, I just hope DA3 can redeem the series. Also to the note of DA2's bad taste it has made ME3 become a questionable game because ME3 is a Bioware title. I seen people on these very forums question ME3 because of DA2.

But back to ME2 and ME3, there is one thing i must agree with on ME2's part it didnt have any major choices that you will see effect ME3 other than squadmates appearing in ME3 that were killed in the Suicide Mission. Most of the choices in ME3 that you will see play more of a effect will be coming from ME1. Oh and seem to have forgotten the Geth choice in ME2, Tali's and Legion's Loyalty missions depending how they played out in the end seem like they will affect ME3 too.

[celuloid]

Phaedon wrote...

celuloid wrote...

Moreover, ME2 story was
1. short

In comparison to?

I did not clock exact times, but ME2 story was around 6 hours, ME1 was easily two times longer.
ME2 - Lazarus station, Freedoms Progress, Horizon, Collector cruiser, Derelict Reaper, Collector Base
ME1 - Eden Prime, Citadel investigation, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Feros, Ilos + endgame

Around the same amount of missions, but they are ~2 times longer in the first game.

[Praetor Knight]

celuloid wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

celuloid wrote...

Moreover, ME2 story was
1. short

In comparison to?

I did not clock exact times, but ME2 story was around 6 hours, ME1 was easily two times longer.
ME2 - Lazarus station, Freedoms Progress, Horizon, Collector cruiser, Derelict Reaper, Collector Base
ME1 - Eden Prime, Citadel investigation, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Feros, Ilos + endgame

Around the same amount of missions, but they are ~2 times longer in the first game.

What? I have a playthrough of ME1 where I finished ME1 in ~6 hours. I'll post a shot of it, I've got to get a pic for proof.

Edit: This if from the ME2 Import utility, sorry for the very bad quality, but I don't have good hardware for pics

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 27 juillet 2011 - 09:39 .

[celuloid]

AlanC9 wrote...

As for Noveria vs Horizon, straight up comparisons are not workable when one game has more but shorter main missions.  Of course the longer mission generates more bullet points. If you want to make this case, you'll need a less tendentious presentation of the evidence.

I am still not convinced why character missions should be counted as part of the main story. They have no relevance to the main plot.

[celuloid]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

What? I have a playthrough of ME1 where I finished ME1 in ~6 hours. I'll post a shot of it, I've got to get a pic for proof.
Edit: This if from the ME2 Import utility, sorry for the very bad quality, but I don't have good hardware for pics

Good for you, but you do not want me to believe that this speedrun was your first playthrough of ME1, do you?

[Praetor Knight]

celuloid wrote...

Good for you, but you do not want me to believe that this speedrun was your first playthrough of ME1, do you?

What I posted was only a "speed run" in the sense that with the Mako sections, I just kept on truckin' and I ignored all secondary assignments.

So doing only the Main missions of the ME1 story line should run at that average length of time. And I want to say I brought Wrex and a tech for most of those, with Tali and Liara for Ilos and after. Try it yourself if you like. And I did have all achievements, so I benefited from their bonuses. And I think I stayed on Veteran for that run, all the way through.

[Lumikki]

celuloid wrote...

RPG is a game that has role-playing in its story. ME1 had more of it than ME2.

Just commenting this. ME1 is more RPG than ME2, I Agree.

But, ME1 is not more role-playing in story than ME2. Could be even opposite, that ME2 has more role-playing than ME1, but I don't think so. In my opinion they are about same. Because it's harder to role-play if you have less role-playing support features, but when role-playing can be more smooth without interuptions, it's also easyer. So, both are better and worst, but in different areas of role-playing experience. ME1 supports more customation and statical role-playing, while ME2 supports more impression based role-playing. So, I don't consider one better than other, when it's related role-playing. How ever, as RPG with role-playing support features, ME1 was a lot better. That's why they are improving ME3's RPG features, like customation and choises. Because many RPG playes where not happy how simpler those RPG features where in ME2.

People argue a lot here about what RPG is, because some people think that role-playing can be arrived only from statical perspective (PnP RPG), while others see it can also be arrived from impression perspective (Actors in movies). They aren't really conflicting each other, but other is more narrow view looking role-playing, than other.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 juillet 2011 - 11:08 .

[celuloid]

Praetor Shepard wrote...
What I posted was only a "speed run" in the sense that with the Mako sections, I just kept on truckin' and I ignored all secondary assignments.

I am sure you just clicked through conversations as well.
So, could you clock how long take core missions in ME2? I guess it will be around 3 hours.

[Praetor Knight]

celuloid wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...
What I posted was only a "speed run" in the sense that with the Mako sections, I just kept on truckin' and I ignored all secondary assignments.

I am sure you just clicked through conversations as well.
So, could you clock how long take core missions in ME2? I guess it will be around 3 hours.

You mean investigating with options on the left side of the dialogue wheel? I tended to stay curt with conversations though so I tended to end conversations quicker.

I can try to find that out, but I'd need to time them, and my current run is already past Horizon, which was ~19 hours or so.



Also, since the Recruitment missions are mandatory before Horizon, and then you need to trigger a set number of missions for the Collector Ship, and then the Reaper IFF, those I feel should be considered in such a count.

The question then also goes do LotSB and Arrival count when weighing out a length of a ME2 playthrough?

[celuloid]

Recruitment missions are side stuff to flesh out the universe.
We need to assess the length of central plot now.

Arrival and LotSB are separate stories that were released ~1 year after the game. They do not count.

Modifié par celuloid, 27 juillet 2011 - 11:33 .

[Praetor Knight]

celuloid wrote...

Recruitment missions are side stuff to flesh out the universe.
We need to assess the length of central plot now.

Arrival and LotSB are separate stories that were released ~1 year after the game. They do not count.

Okay, sounds good.


I just wonder what other's might already have terms of their ME2 runs. And it might take me a while, since I'm lacking sleep right now, and I've got a few busy days coming up for me.

[LGTX]

Since Silverman started it all, I call this a feasible argument.
 

[Gorosaur]

celuloid wrote...

Recruitment missions are side stuff to flesh out the universe.
We need to assess the length of central plot now.

Arrival and LotSB are separate stories that were released ~1 year after the game. They do not count.

Question: Do you consider the story of Han and Leia in Star Wars, Mary and Pippin in LOTR, Locke's struggle with faith in LOST part of the story?

Just because they are not part of the main plot does not cheapen side missions as being part of the game's story.

The recruitment and loyalty missions all posess cinematics, dialogue, and indepth plots. The only difference being its character driven. Mass Effect 2 and opposed to the first game, is a character driven game. Like LOST the game centers its characters to drive the plot forward, but explores them at the same time. I'm not saying this was executed perfectly because some people have some valid complaints. However, claiming that these missions aren't the games plot for the reasons you gave is rediculous.

[100k]

A great game makes the action revolve around the story, not the other way around.

Take God of War III for example. Now, I don't know much about its development process, but I will bet you that at the beginning of GoWIII's development cycle, the director sat down with his team and said: "okay, I want Kratos to fight on these massive moving levels in the form of titans, I want these powerful weapons, and this kind of giant section at the end".

This left his team at Santa Monica to scramble to make a game that revolved around these fantastical moments, but meant that the story area of the game had to revolve around this. The result? GOWIII had some of the most inspirational level design in gaming history, but also had a really lackluster story -- especially for the conclusion of the series.

It's the Michael Bay aspect of big budget gaming, and it really cheapens the feel of the game.

I don't know if ME3 will be like that, simply because we haven't seen anywhere near enough of it to adequately judge its content.

You can ALWAYS come up with big ideas and cool set piece moments. But if those moments end up eclipsing the story, then they should probably be taken out. But you can also ALWAYS come up with ways to tie massive moments into the story, and have them feel organic.

[AlanC9]

nutshell43 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Didn't share a lot of those feelings.

And which would that be specifically? Because his key points were pretty irrefutable.

I said I didn't share his feelings. Sure, it's irrefutable that he felt certain ways. How could that be refuted?

If I talk about the season's plot, I talk about the Big Bad, the rest is filler. Sometimes very good filler but filler. The storyline of Buffy's 6th season (was that the one were she got resurrected?) wasn't "and in the 2nd episode we fight this forgettable guy and the 5th is a musical and so on";the storyline was Buffy coping with the aftereffects of having been dead (and probably something else I forgot).

And what of it? Plot, filler.... why should I classify episodes that way? I'm watching the whole season, and whether a particular episode is "plot" or "filler" is not relevant to me. Can you tell me why I should classify episodes in that fashion? Or rather, why I should first classify episodes in that fashion and then demand a higher ratio of "plot" to "filler," which is how we got onto the subject.

I guess that's the same response I'd make to celuloid too, except substituting the appropriate gaming terminology.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juillet 2011 - 01:14 .

[Zeratul20]

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.

No offence, but Michael Bay is hardly the paradigm of a good director. When action takes precedence over the story, the complete picture usually suffers from it.
Personally, I'm not one to complain about action. Nevertheless, when action dominates the scene, it can also grow tiresome and seem drawn out. E.g.: Dragon Age II. Because most combats took far too long, especially due to the mid-combat reinforcements (not always a bad thing, but rubbish if it happens in every single combat scene), the story felt rather thinly spread and the game often grew somewhat boring and repetitive at times. (Mind you, I liked Dragon Age II, but this is something I didn't really like.)

An RPG (even an action RPG) needs a firm basis in story. When story and gameplay go hand in hand, a great game is born. So, as long as the action scenes are decent and not too drawn out, I'm sure they'll add to the story rather than detract from it. Nevertheless, I hope the story will still be the most important part.

[Gorosaur]

I was actually using Michael Bay as a negative example of a director who can choose to include more action to story. Alot of people seem to be missing the point I was attempting to make with my original post.

[100k]

Gorosaur wrote...
The recruitment and loyalty missions all posess cinematics, dialogue, and indepth plots. The only difference being its character driven. Mass Effect 2 and opposed to the first game, is a character driven game. Like LOST the game centers its characters to drive the plot forward, but explores them at the same time. I'm not saying this was executed perfectly because some people have some valid complaints. However, claiming that these missions aren't the games plot for the reasons you gave is rediculous.

They aren't for a number of reasons, the biggest reason being that everyone has their own little plot which is concluded by the end of the game. They are very well put together, and highly interesting, but they just simply don't constitute an actual plot overarching/game spanning plot. 

And plot filler is fine, so long as it is being used to satisfactorily stretch a story with a good reason for doing so. LOST has an over all plot, theme, and development cycle for its characters. It can focus on the individuals that make up the cast, because without doing so, we (as viewers) wouldn't know or care about who lived or died.

Mass Effect 2 consists of almost nothing but plot filler. We grow to care for the actual characters, yes. But we still don't know enough about the plot. All that needed to be done for ME2 was extend the plot with four or five missions that reveal more on who the collectors are, and why we should kill them.

Modifié par 100k, 27 juillet 2011 - 01:27 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

In ME2, you recruit a team, but you don't forge a team.  You do tasks for your squadmates, but you don't prepare for your own task (the Suicide Mission)  You mow down mercs by the score for little reason other than "they're in my way".  They have no connection to the Collectors, Reapers, or your mission.  

Again, not different from other RPGs. ME1 is a serious outlier here because you fight so many geth.

I'm not quite clear what you mean by "forge" there. Unless you mean that the loyalty mechanism is only quasi-rational, which I do agree with.

But the Collectors themselves, whom it is suggested are actively interested and pursuing Shepard, are almost never seen.  Their presence almost never felt .  Only once do you even find out they're working through intermediaries (Mordin's recruitment)  BG2 at least you feel Bodhi's presence whenever the sun goes down and the "assassin's guild" started becoming active.  Or the dreams Irenicus sentds you.

Well, except for the whole boarding the Normandy thing, of course.

I guess this didn't bother me because I didn't see any plausible way for the Collectors to continually find Shepard. It's a big galaxy.

[100k]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

In ME2, you recruit a team, but you don't forge a team.  You do tasks for your squadmates, but you don't prepare for your own task (the Suicide Mission)  You mow down mercs by the score for little reason other than "they're in my way".  They have no connection to the Collectors, Reapers, or your mission.  

Again, not different from other RPGs. ME1 is a serious outlier here because you fight so many geth.

I'm not quite clear what you mean by "forge" there. Unless you mean that the loyalty mechanism is only quasi-rational, which I do agree with.

By "forge", I believe he means train and discipline. Yes, you have a squad of professionals. But Shepard never gets them all together for a training run to allow each of them to stop working as individuals, and start working as a squad.

Samara, Jack, and Thane are loners. They tend to be antisocial, despite their great combat skill.

Zaeed and Grunt are blood thirsty brutes. They survive by shooting everything twice.

Garrus, Miranda, and Jacob are all highly trained professionals, so they'd likely work together well. But they also have conflicting ideals and mission priorities.

Tali, Mordin, and Kasumi aren't typical combatants. Despite their high military training (except maybe Goto) these characters were recruited for their non-combat skills.

Shepard should've spent a chunk of ME2 getting this squad of highly different individuals to work together. Think the X men danger room. Team building, skill building, and personal loyalty quests should've been combined to make each character an exemplary combatant and team player. A renegade Shepard would want nothing but professionalism between his operatives. Cold, focused, and ready for anything. A paragon Shepard would want something more akin to a big happy family that genuinely cared for each other, while remaining capable and cunning.

I think that's what he means by "forge".

[Lumikki]

100k wrote...

By "forge", I believe he means train and discipline. Yes, you have a squad of professionals. But Shepard never gets them all together for a training run to allow each of them to stop working as individuals, and start working as a squad.

How was ME1 any different?