6494 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Why does she not wait longer? Because she is on a suicide mission and could be killed on it.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

But that is my point right there. Essentially, it's all relative. That's why we both recognized fault in Shepard's death, but it possessed different levels of "importance" to each of us. I wasn't disregarding the notion that subjectivity is involved. My point was merely that the poem you linked doesn't really capture it. You don't consider Shepard's death a "minor problem" akin to the nail, rather it's on the level of the kingdom problem.However,  the poem almost seems to imply that we should turn minor problems into major catastrophes, which I consider a little melodramatic.

My point was that some people do see these lost nails as ultimately losing battles.  And others are blowing them off as nothing more than "lost nails", and so dismiss any arguement that it's something more as irrelevant.

[Iakus]

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Lady Olivia wrote...

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

Some people (me) finds cohesion and consistency vitally important.  Particularly for a series.  ME1 may not have had the most original story or the hardest science, but I knew my goals. I had clues to follow, and I could blow off the Council in ways I could never act like around TIM 

I have played ME1 more times since ME2 came out than I've played ME2.  Heck i'm planning on another playthrough once I finish my current F:NV game.

But their is a constant point to everything your doing in ME2....Getting ready for the suicide mission. Every thing you do, including theloyaltu mission, is about preparing for the mission directly or indirectly. It's like the thing you do first to be able to move forward in the story in ME1 on Feros and Noveria except some are optional.

That point is really really hard to find sometimes.  The enemies you face have absolutely nothing to do with the Collectors or Reapers.  Heck they've probably never even heard of the Reapers.  They're just mooks with the bad luck of being between Shepard and whatever goal has currently piqued his interest.  No different than any side mission.  

At the end of each mission, you are no closer towards understanding the Collectors or their motives.  You have not gained any new equipment, save whatever you've managed to scrounge.  All you've given is one squadmate the warm feeling of a job well done (however it got done, as that's irrelevant towards actually gaining the loyalty)

Upgrading the Normandy, imo does far more to "prepare" for the SM than the personal missions.  Unfortunately they only have three steps
a) talk to squadmate
mine appropriate mineral
c) hit "research"

[Iakus]

Lady Olivia wrote...

@iakus

"To each their own" is a terribly boring conclusion to any discussion, but also very valid. We can only talk about our own experiences. When I played ME, I couldn't relax my "analytic muscle" for a second. Sure, there was a sense of epic, of important, of intriguing, but the weight of WTF in almost every single cutscene was overwhelming. In contrast, when I played ME2, the analytic muscle only flexed a couple of times, and weakly. Now after the fact, I do agree with most of your complaints, as I said elsewhere and on multiple occasions, but *while* I was playing, I was blissfully unaware of all those issues.

Very few works of fiction could stand up to the kind of analysis you apply to ME2. Could ME? I suspect not. But you'll never apply it to ME with the same passion and intensity because you simply liked it better, end of story. Which is just as well, as long as you're willing to admit it. For my part, I do admit it. I could write an essay about all the things that don't add up in ME if I wasn't so lazy. But in the end, I simply liked ME2 better and there's no argument that can change that.

Which makes these talks a waste of time. The best kind.

"To each their own" is a valid statement.  "I'm satisfied so STFU" is not.

 I did compare ME1 to ME2 myself.  After my first ME2 playthrough I wondered if the hollow feeling I was left with was a result of rose-tinted glasses, if I was setting myself up for disappointment.  So I started a fresh ME1 game, played it through, immediately imported it to ME2 and played it straight through. Yes, ME2 sets off my "WTF meter" way more than ME1 did. I wanted to love ME2.  Sincerely.  There was so much potential to it.  Bioware had never failed me before.  But while I can like certain parts of it, and the gameplay is okay,  I cannot love it, no matter how much I want to.  The story is such a mess.

And given how much I read, I think I'm pretty easy to please:lol:

[Killjoy Cutter]

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

[100k]

Agreed. It's a wonderful game. But -- in the story department -- it was poorly done. NO, it is not the worst sequel in history. But compared to Bioware's other works, it just doesn't stack up.

Now, in regards to re-writing the story or re-imagining the plot, I have this to say: I am an excellent writer. In writing classes, college courses, research projects, etc etc, I almost always get high marks. I learned long ago that a good paper needs things -- proper grammar, smooth transitions between points, etc etc. I know that if I just sit down and write whatever I want without using punctuation (like on a forum), however entertaining my text is, its still not good text.

Think of storytelling as like writing a paper. You can write a funny and cool paper, but without grammar checks, you'll still get a low score. Your friends may think that its a great paper, but your teacher, who actually has to look past the message in your writing, has to give it the overall grade.

So who is the teacher in this case for ME? People who are willing to be more than casual when it comes to their entertainment. People who can('t) enjoy a Michael Bay movie for being a turn-off-your-brain-film, but/and can recognize that the "grammar" of the film just isn't good enough. People who can('t) enjoy Gears of War, while recognizing great game play as separate from a narrative perspective.

For better or worse, we critique things. It may seem like pointless complaining to you...until many of your internal gripes-- or at least annoyances with the game are fixed in the final installment.

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Why does she not wait longer? Because she is on a suicide mission and could be killed on it.

That was, in part, my point. 

[Sgt Stryker]

100k wrote...

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

As long as people continue to hold on to this "herp-a-derp, it's just a video game" mentality, video games will remain "just" video games.

[Sajuro]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

Jack: She was kind of locked up and didn't know where Teltin was
Tali: The Trial came up shortly after she joined you
Thane: He just heard about Lolyat becoming an assassin
Garrus: He was too busy fighting for his life to chase Sidonis
Samara: She was tracking Morinth when you found her.
Legion: He was doing the robot.
Kasumi: She needed help with her mission (since hock would know who she was probably and blasting out after she got the graybox, her personal suicide mission
Zaeed: Same with him.
Grunt: He only got out of the tank after you rescued him.
Jacob: He really doesn't care, but Miranda just forwarded him that email.
Miranda: She found out that Oriana is in danger
Mordin: Same as Miranda but replace with Maleaon

[Sajuro]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

100k wrote...

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

As long as people continue to hold on to this "herp-a-derp, it's just a video game" mentality, video games will remain "just" video games.

and that is a problem, why?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sajuro wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

Jack: She was kind of locked up and didn't know where Teltin was
Tali: The Trial came up shortly after she joined you
Thane: He just heard about Lolyat becoming an assassin
Garrus: He was too busy fighting for his life to chase Sidonis
Samara: She was tracking Morinth when you found her.
Legion: He was doing the robot.
Kasumi: She needed help with her mission (since hock would know who she was probably and blasting out after she got the graybox, her personal suicide mission
Zaeed: Same with him.
Grunt: He only got out of the tank after you rescued him.
Jacob: He really doesn't care, but Miranda just forwarded him that email.
Miranda: She found out that Oriana is in danger
Mordin: Same as Miranda but replace with Maleaon

And 12 for 12, it all just happens to come up right when they've joined up with Shep...

[The Interloper]

100k wrote...

For better or worse, we critique things. It may seem like pointless complaining to you...until many of your internal gripes-- or at least annoyances with the game are fixed in the final installment.

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

It's one thing to give constructive critisism. It's another poke fun. And it's still another to declare that it's impossible to enjoy ME2's story by all objective criteria. And it's yet another thing to do what Smudboy does and use dirty argumentive tactics and double standards to make ME2 look as awful as possible and peddle that as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as delivered by your humble prophet, [insert forum username here].

I completely agree with the shoot for the moon, land on the stars thing. But you also have to keep in mind that you aren't actually going to get to the moon, not so soon. A fair number of people seem to have forgotten that. I refer you to smudboy complaining that they should "just pay Meer and Hale double. It's that simple."

And while perhaps ME2 did land a little shorter than we had hoped, it's one thing to write down the lessons we learned and hope to do better next time. It's another to wallow in bashing for bashings sake, to refuse to accept the good parts for the bad parts. To let the desire for perfect plot continuity overshadow things like interesting characters, settings, and stories. And to say that anyone who doesn't follow suit must be a mindless yes man and have no right to hold their opinions.

You say critiquing is important. I agree completely. The problem is that much (not all, thankfully) of the stuff happening here has crossed the line into plain whining. And let's not forget smudboy, who started this. 

I for one find the distinction important.

Modifié par The Interloper, 24 septembre 2011 - 05:13 .

[100k]

Sajuro wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

100k wrote...

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

As long as people continue to hold on to this "herp-a-derp, it's just a video game" mentality, video games will remain "just" video games.

and that is a problem, why?

Because the "its a video game" excuse instantly negates the validity-- indeed the entire value-- of any story, even the good ones that devs like Bioware are famous for. You might as well skip every cutscene, every conversation, every interaction every time you play. You might as well scoff at the voice actors, and artists, and animators who put so much work into a game.

I have the MP of COD and BF3 for that style of play. Not for a SP title.

[The Interloper]

double post

Modifié par The Interloper, 24 septembre 2011 - 05:13 .

[Sajuro]

100k wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

100k wrote...

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

As long as people continue to hold on to this "herp-a-derp, it's just a video game" mentality, video games will remain "just" video games.

and that is a problem, why?

Because the "its a video game" excuse instantly negates the validity-- indeed the entire value-- of any story, even the good ones that devs like Bioware are famous for. You might as well skip every cutscene, every conversation, every interaction every time you play. You might as well scoff at the voice actors, and artists, and animators who put so much work into a game.

I have the MP of COD and BF3 for that style of play. Not for a SP title.

That's where I think you are wrong, I was moved by Mass Effect 2 (true story) but I never saw it as art and I am turned off by people who say that video games are "art" sure they are a form of creative and artistic expression, and I love the stories of video games but no matter what they will be just video games and they are beautiful in that way.
Inception was great, but it was just a movie
The Song of Ice and Fire is a fantastic series, but it is a series of books/ tv show on HBO
I absolutely love Mad Men, but it is just a TV show.
I don't want people to make games to be "Art" I want people who make games that are thrilling, immersive, and that I will come back to over and over again instead of sending a message or preaching or being ground breaking in a ground that no one will ever walk but them and a few other games (looking at you heavy rain).
Such games just seem pretentious to me like the pieces of modern art which consist of an american flag in a toilet or something like that.

[Sajuro]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

Jack: She was kind of locked up and didn't know where Teltin was
Tali: The Trial came up shortly after she joined you
Thane: He just heard about Lolyat becoming an assassin
Garrus: He was too busy fighting for his life to chase Sidonis
Samara: She was tracking Morinth when you found her.
Legion: He was doing the robot.
Kasumi: She needed help with her mission (since hock would know who she was probably and blasting out after she got the graybox, her personal suicide mission
Zaeed: Same with him.
Grunt: He only got out of the tank after you rescued him.
Jacob: He really doesn't care, but Miranda just forwarded him that email.
Miranda: She found out that Oriana is in danger
Mordin: Same as Miranda but replace with Maleaon

And 12 for 12, it all just happens to come up right when they've joined up with Shep...

Well for most of them it couldn't have come up any sooner (or tali wouldn't have joined us) and for Samara, Kasumi, and Zaeed they joined Shepard because it did come up

[wizardryforever]

100k wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

100k wrote...

Dude, it's a video game! It's not supposed to be a great work of fiction or --

That just doesn't work here. Almost all big title developers are actively and vocally trying to make games that are cinematic and have a blockbuster feel to it. R* has it down to a fine science. So does Bioware -- hell, they've been doing it longer. So we'll critique them at the level that they're trying to achieve.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

As long as people continue to hold on to this "herp-a-derp, it's just a video game" mentality, video games will remain "just" video games.

and that is a problem, why?

Because the "its a video game" excuse instantly negates the validity-- indeed the entire value-- of any story, even the good ones that devs like Bioware are famous for. You might as well skip every cutscene, every conversation, every interaction every time you play. You might as well scoff at the voice actors, and artists, and animators who put so much work into a game.

I have the MP of COD and BF3 for that style of play. Not for a SP title.

I don't think it is really an excuse as much as it is a reality check.  The reason why video games don't have the same quality of stories as books and movies is because a) it's interactive, you have to balance the gameplay with the story and vice versa, and c) the story of games is generally considered secondary to whether or not the game is fun.  Sure, some games are fun because of their story, but many more are fun in spite of their story, which may be incoherent, cliche, or barely there at all.

Video game stories aren't as good as movies or books that have the same amount of money poured into them.  This is just a fact of life.  There's a correlation with story quality and medium as well, but what people need to realize (and this is where your viewpoint comes in) is that correlation does not imply causation.

[100k]

The Interloper wrote...

It's one thing to give constructive critisism. It's another poke fun. And it's still another to declare that it's impossible to enjoy ME2's story by all objective criteria. And it's yet another thing to do what Smudboy does and use dirty argumentive tactics and double standards to make ME2 look as awful as possible and peddle that as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as delivered by your humble prophet, [insert forum username here].

But that's not what I -- indeed most of the people arguing *against* ME2's plot are saying. Remember what I said -- it is incredibly possible to LOVE ME2's story. But, like a good, grammatically correct, well written paper, that doesn't make it good. 

I like the story in the God of War games. I am not afraid to admit that the story in the games went from good (like ME1) to less than good (ME2).

I completely agree with the shoot for the moon, land on the stars thing. But you also have to keep in mind that you aren't actually going to get to the moon, not so soon. A fair number of people seem to have forgotten that. I refer you to smudboy complaining that they should "just pay Meer and Hale double. It's that simple."

We've "reached" the moon already in my honest opinion. There are several games that have reached the standards of excellence -- akin to great works of literature or cinema -- in my opinion. Bioware helped create some of them.

And while perhaps ME2 did land a little shorter than we had hoped, it's one thing to write down the lessons we learned and hope to do better next time. It's another to wallow in bashing for bashings sake, to refuse to accept the good parts for the bad parts. To let the desire for perfect plot continuity overshadow things like interesting characters, settings, and stories. And to say that anyone who doesn't follow suit must be a mindless yes man and have no right to hold their opinions.

I partially agreed with you, up until this point. Smudboy says that the characters, settings, and stories of ME are good. I say that. Several people in the thread have said that. We fully accept the good parts. But the good parts of every story are comprised by the story. It's the engine that explains everything. If the story is poor-- even mediocre, but the game play, characters, and settings are excellent, then you have two strong contrasts that critics will notice.

You say critiquing is important. I agree completely. The problem is that much (not all, thankfully) of the stuff happening here has crossed the line into plain whining. And let's not forget smudboy, who started this. 

I for one find the distinction important.

Agreed. But we shouldn't fault him for voicing his opinion. It's not his fault that this thread exists now, nor the two older threads focusing on the same issue with his name in the title to attract forumites. It's us. 

[100k]

wizardryforever wrote...
I don't think it is really an excuse as much as it is a reality check.  The reason why video games don't have the same quality of stories as books and movies is because a) it's interactive, you have to balance the gameplay with the story and vice versa, and c) the story of games is generally considered secondary to whether or not the game is fun.  Sure, some games are fun because of their story, but many more are fun in spite of their story, which may be incoherent, cliche, or barely there at all.

While I respect this opinion, you'll find that it no longer holds much weight. Just last year video games officially became labled as an "art form" in the US, effectively protecting most of them from the scrutiny of retards like Jack Thompson.

Video game stories aren't as good as movies or books that have the same amount of money poured into them.  This is just a fact of life.  There's a correlation with story quality and medium as well, but what people need to realize (and this is where your viewpoint comes in) is that correlation does not imply causation.

The fact of life is that it doesnt take money to create a great story. At all. Fact.

But if money is some indication of the value of effort put into a story, then you're wrong again. It takes anywhere between 1 million and 200 million dollars to create big budget games today. Most book authors can't dream of that kind of money. Many big named film directors work with around the same level of cash for their productions. So yeah... 

Modifié par 100k, 24 septembre 2011 - 05:41 .

[wizardryforever]

100k wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I don't think it is really an excuse as much as it is a reality check.  The reason why video games don't have the same quality of stories as books and movies is because a) it's interactive, you have to balance the gameplay with the story and vice versa, and c) the story of games is generally considered secondary to whether or not the game is fun.  Sure, some games are fun because of their story, but many more are fun in spite of their story, which may be incoherent, cliche, or barely there at all.

While I respect this opinion, you'll find that it no longer holds much weight. Just last year video games officially became labled as an "art form" in the US, effectively protecting most of them from the scrutiny of retards like Jack Thompson.

Video game stories aren't as good as movies or books that have the same amount of money poured into them.  This is just a fact of life.  There's a correlation with story quality and medium as well, but what people need to realize (and this is where your viewpoint comes in) is that correlation does not imply causation.

The fact of life is that it doesnt take money to create a great story. At all. Fact.

But if money is some indication of the value of effort put into a story, then you're wrong again. It takes anywhere between 1 million and 200 million dollars to create big budget games today. Most authors can't dream of that kind of money. Many big named film directors work with around the same level of cash for their productions. So yeah... 

No of course not, it was poorly worded on my part. 

Let me reiterate.  The focus of a game is on the gameplay.  The top priority of the game is to be fun, not to tell an award winning story.  And since it is interactive, that severely limits what the developers can do with the story.  For instance, if the developers took almost all choice out of the story (like JRPGs), then it would always play out the same way, and that's bad (you may as well watch the inevitable movie).  On the other hand, if you make the game have choices at every little turn in the story, then it is exceedingly difficult to portray the consequences of those actions realistically.  It's part of the medium.  The interactivity element and the limitations of the medium put serious dampers on story quality as a whole.  It is pretty rare for a developer to even try to overcome that hurdle, let alone succeed.

Thus the correlation between video game stories and poor quality.  They aren't poor quality because of the lack of effort (though that could play a part, depending on the game).  They are usually poorer quality because of the limitations of it being a game, with the player as a participant, not a passive observer.  Not that video game stories are above criticism because they're video games, it's just that these are realities that one must recognize.

God, it's late.  I'm going to bed.

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Lady Olivia wrote...

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

Some people (me) finds cohesion and consistency vitally important.  Particularly for a series.  ME1 may not have had the most original story or the hardest science, but I knew my goals. I had clues to follow, and I could blow off the Council in ways I could never act like around TIM 

I have played ME1 more times since ME2 came out than I've played ME2.  Heck i'm planning on another playthrough once I finish my current F:NV game.

But their is a constant point to everything your doing in ME2....Getting ready for the suicide mission. Every thing you do, including theloyaltu mission, is about preparing for the mission directly or indirectly. It's like the thing you do first to be able to move forward in the story in ME1 on Feros and Noveria except some are optional.

That point is really really hard to find sometimes.  The enemies you face have absolutely nothing to do with the Collectors or Reapers.  Heck they've probably never even heard of the Reapers.  They're just mooks with the bad luck of being between Shepard and whatever goal has currently piqued his interest.  No different than any side mission.  

At the end of each mission, you are no closer towards understanding the Collectors or their motives.  You have not gained any new equipment, save whatever you've managed to scrounge.  All you've given is one squadmate the warm feeling of a job well done (however it got done, as that's irrelevant towards actually gaining the loyalty)

Upgrading the Normandy, imo does far more to "prepare" for the SM than the personal missions.  Unfortunately they only have three steps
a) talk to squadmate
mine appropriate mineral
c) hit "research"

1. Who you face during this does not matter. They're in your way and get taken down. So what if  they never heard  about the reapers, they still are in you way. It still does not devert from the fact your doing the mission to get ready for the suicide mission.
2. The mission is never to understand the collectors, and even then you learn everything that's to know about them on the collector ship mission. It's to get ready for a suicide mission. And that Squad mate loyaty is to help with the final mission. Any Commader knows that getting the trust of your troops is one of the key way to win a battle
3.You do remember the sr-2 is a research ship as well? And it's no help to youin the base where your fighting the collectors. Just getting your ship ready is not the only way to prepare for a mission.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

That was kinda my point. 

What stretches things somewhat is that all 12 of the squadies have something left undone in their lives that could distract them so much it gets them killed...

It's more about getting the trust of the group so they work together better more than getting the person less distracted to be able to do their job. Remember, an unloyal Miranda can get the group through the first and second door without getting herself or anyone killed. It 's about the group working together. It varied from person to person whether what is destracting them or unloyal get them or other people killed over it....outside of biotics that is.

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 septembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[100k]

wizardryforever wrote...
...*a lot about the limitations of a non linear medium*

It is pretty rare for a developer to even try to overcome that hurdle, let alone succeed.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. YES, a game has to be fun before good story. But (and I'm just repeating myself here) the best developers out there have easily (and fairly simply) done this time and time and time and time again. Its so easy that I'll do it right here, right now.

You make a premise: RPG epic set in the future space age.
You make a storyline-- as subtle or fantastic as you want it to be: In pursuit of a rogue Spectre, Commander Shepard discovers an ancient evil that threatens all of the galaxy. In the story, incredible and fantastic events like X, Y, and Z happen. 
You design the game around that story: X,Y, and Z happen? Well, lets start building the levels.

Its easy. Hell, its better than film, because games have limitless potential.

Thus the correlation between video game stories and poor quality.  They aren't poor quality because of the lack of effort (though that could play a part, depending on the game).  They are usually poorer quality because of the limitations of it being a game, with the player as a participant, not a passive observer.  Not that video game stories are above criticism because they're video games, it's just that these are realities that one must recognize.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: what you can learn about a character, setting, universe, story, etc in 2 hours of film should pale in comparison to what you can learn about a character, setting, universe, story, etc in [i]30 hours of game play. R* does this. Bioware does this. So do a few other great dev teams.

[Chromie]

So who is smudboy?

[Shepard the Leper]

Arkitekt wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
And what if the player does not like doing preparatory work?

Because from whatever i can make up from the plot it's the goal to prepare for a suicde mission.

By you're logic i can also say.

"What if the player don't want a crazy, swaring ***** onboard" or "What if the player doesn't want to play therapist for the majority of the game.

He has all of those choices. Some have consequences. Such is the sign of a good game ;D.

I don't know which version of ME2 you've played, but with mine I'm always FORCED to recruit Mordin, Jack, Garrus, Grunt, Legion and two other squadmates to launch the SM. That's seven out of eight (recruitable) squadmates (without DLC characters).

Those who don't care about their squadmates don't care about the irrelevant consequences.

Those are signs of a poorly designed game (story / plot wise).

Arkitekt wrote...

If the game tells me to prepare for a suicde mission of unknown proportions, but between the reveal and the actual mission gives us twelve badasses to deal it, with occasianly 20 minute long mission of shooting to progress the plot, then i would't call it an opinion.

Of course you should, since all the "objective" reasoning you could apply against it is your own subjective prejudices against the format. You are convinced that the main plot should be given more attention than the rest of the plots, but again, there is no single "objective" reason for this, apart from some imagined arbitrary rules that someone took out of their ass.

For all I know stopping the Reaper is the main plot in the ME series. There is no progression at all in ME2, technically ME2 is a complete waste of time (fun though . Shepard has learned nothing and done nothing regarding the Reapers. Everything Shepard has done in ME3 makes no sense at all. ME2 doesn't have a plot, it's a collection of sub-plots which have no connection to eachother. Those who haven't played ME2 have missed NOTHING of the main-plot.

ME2 is a great game, but it has a poor plot (if any). It's like watching James Bond ignore the folks who want to take over / destroy Earth and goes out to help someone with his/her garden, takes on baseball training and goes fishing.