162 réponses à ce sujet

[CSunkyst]

It sounds like you didn't like the artivle because he didn't heap praise on Mass Effect, and in fact used it as a "bad" example. And he's right. Mass Effect 2 is good, but it's not perfect, there ISN'T a strong central story, it IS a collection of side quests, and they DID drop the ball on Shepard's character.

And I can deal with having a weak central story, but they REALLY dropped the ball with Shepard. Can any of you tell me what Commander Shepard's character arc is? And I don't just mean "He has to stop da reapers" I mean how does he develop as a character (and NO, "he gains xp and levels up occasionally" doesn't count) how does he grow. how do the events of the game shape him? Oddly they don't do ANYTHING with Shep as a character.

The big shame there is that there was SO MUCH POTENTIAL to do interesting things with Shep. The Lazarus project alone was BEGGING for little moments where Shep is struggling with wether or not he's still "him" or if he's a clone, dealing with the fact that he lost everything, struggling with the concept that he was DEAD for two years (after all, Shep is potentially a religious man)... the Lazarus project was a characterization playground and it's shocking the writers only utilized it as a cheap means of reseting your character's stats to zero. It was a huge wasted opportunity.

So yeah, it was a good article.

[RPGamer13]

What a load of crock, he doesn't even explain why the games he mentioned had good stories, not really, it needed more details.

And characters don't have to be humanized for one to feel any kind of emotion for them.

And if he wanted to give examples of games that elicit one to produce tears, where was the mention of Lost Odyssey? Or Final Fantasy VII?

nelly21 wrote...

I honestly believe that there is a reason Jensen's monotone voice contrasts so vividly against the rest of the cast. He is the fusion of man and machine, the poster child for transhumanism. Perhaps, if Eidos would have brought in better voice actors, that point would have been more obvious.

I don't even know who half the voice actors are, even though apparently some of the main characters had voices in Assassin's Creed II.

[Biotic Sage]

CSunkyst wrote...

It sounds like you didn't like the artivle because he didn't heap praise on Mass Effect, and in fact used it as a "bad" example. And he's right. Mass Effect 2 is good, but it's not perfect, there ISN'T a strong central story, it IS a collection of side quests, and they DID drop the ball on Shepard's character.

Well if you read my OP and still came to this conclusion, I either did not make myself clear enough or you failed to comprehend my assertion.  I didn't even argue whether or not ME2 was "good" or "bad," I argued the author's misuse of the words "plot," "narrative," and "story."  He seems to apply his own definitions to them, not the ones that are accepted in literary theory.

It is a cold hard fact that both Mass Effect games, and also Gears of War / Deus Ex, have narratives/stories.  Whether or not they are good narratives/stories is not something I even want to go into in this thread, but others are welcome to.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:37 .

[Il Divo]

Biotic Sage wrote...

CSunkyst wrote...

It sounds like you didn't like the artivle because he didn't heap praise on Mass Effect, and in fact used it as a "bad" example. And he's right. Mass Effect 2 is good, but it's not perfect, there ISN'T a strong central story, it IS a collection of side quests, and they DID drop the ball on Shepard's character.

Well if you read my OP and still came to this conclusion, I either did not make myself clear enough or you failed to comprehend my assertion.  I didn't even argue whether or not ME2 was "good" or "bad," I argued the author's misuse of the words "plot," "narrative," and "story."  He seems to apply his own definitions to them, not the ones that are accepted in literary theory.

Agreed. He should, before anything else, outline how he intends to use those terms.

[Gatt9]

Well, this will probably give a few people heart attacks...

I agree that author of that article has no idea what he's talking about.

Games today setup a narrative, and implement narrative techniques, and an overall plot. But the story is what the player contributes to the experience.

Lets take a look at a "Great story", given the environment here, we'll use Tolkein.

The book goes to great lengths to explain to you each person's inner monologue, tells you how to perceive the world it's describing ("The shadows loomed heavily", "The forest went quiet with dread"), it describes to you how the fights occur.

Mass Effect 2 OTOH, the inner monologue is the thoughts that go through your head, you perceive the world in your way with the help of visual cues to direct you to some conclusion, the fights occur the way you experience them through your own choices/actions.

YOU are the story, they just set the stage. Yes, sometimes the stage is set better than others. Bioshock, System Shock 2, Half-Life, they're exemplary examples of a perfectly setup framework that creates a rich world.

But ME2 does a better job of permitting you to direct the story, even if it's world is less detailed and fuzzy. It's no less a story than any other, and much more a story than most.

(Don't misconstrue this as backtracking, and I'm putting this here just in case one of my "Friends" decides to try and quote me in a month again. ME2's got a story and lets it be told well, but the writing is still pretty bad due to contradictions, inconsistencies, plot holes, and failure to offer consequence)

[Biotic Sage]

Il Divo wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

CSunkyst wrote...

It sounds like you didn't like the artivle because he didn't heap praise on Mass Effect, and in fact used it as a "bad" example. And he's right. Mass Effect 2 is good, but it's not perfect, there ISN'T a strong central story, it IS a collection of side quests, and they DID drop the ball on Shepard's character.

Well if you read my OP and still came to this conclusion, I either did not make myself clear enough or you failed to comprehend my assertion.  I didn't even argue whether or not ME2 was "good" or "bad," I argued the author's misuse of the words "plot," "narrative," and "story."  He seems to apply his own definitions to them, not the ones that are accepted in literary theory.

Agreed. He should, before anything else, outline how he intends to use those terms.

Or just use them correctly

[Xarathox]

RocketManSR2 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

RocketManSR2 wrote...

I repeat, ME2 is the middle of one, long story arc. You cannot judge ME2 until 3 is released and the arc is complete.

Yes you can.

I posted without thinking. You cannot judge ME2 completely until 3 is released. I will say that imo, ME2 did lose focus on the main story. BioWare kind of left themselves in a tough spot after 1. The bad guy fleet is coming, but it would be years before they arrived. BioWare decided on the die/resurrect 2-year time skip. Some liked it, some didn't, as with anything else. As another poster said, there were some very good moments in ME2, but it was on a smaller scale.

The die/ressurect 2 year time skip would've worked better if it had been implemented at the end of ME1, not the start of ME2. That was a horrible oversight, as the effect was immensely cheapened.

[Zu Long]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

Again, transition is not necessary to establish depth. There are plenty of examples in literature, film and even videogames. 

In ME 2, the player has direct control over character transition. I can prevent Garrus from killing Sidonis (thereby making him move past his lust for vengeance) or not. Does Garrus have no depth?

True, the character doesn't have to evolve for a story to be good. They can just end up where they started. Although, that usually says something as well and it usually has consquences for the character.

And I do think Garrus is an example of what ME2 could have done better. 

I agree that ME2 did have characters and decent character stories. However, the Garrus story for me was a better example of what they could have done better. Garrus is bent on revenge the whole time. At the end, he either gets it and moves on like it never happened. Or he misses it, accepts it, and moves on like it never happens. 

For me, it was not incredibly satisfying. Some stories were a little better. As I said, the Miranda one was ok because of the relationship with her sister. And the romances developed the LIs somewhat. But DA2, imo, did it better. It had more depth, more development, more relationships, more consquences. 

ME2 would have been better with twice the character development and interaction and half the characters. This isn't a revolutionary opinion, I know. It's been said often on these forums and Bioware has fewer characters in ME3.

And again, we never really see Shepard as a character at all, outside of a couple moments in both games. I know this is intentional and I'm fine with it. But as a character in a story, he/she is practically non-existant.

One of my favorite things about ME2 though is that the Player has a say in which way each of the characters develops. Does Jack accept her role as the killer they wanted her to be, or does she reject it? Does Garrus give into vengence or turn back towards justice? 

Each of the characters is changed for better or for worse by their encounter with Shepard, the player avatar. That's really an incredible feat by the BIoware writing team. Now, it might have been nice to see more of those changes in the dialogue for THIS game, but I take comfort in the fact that game 2 was merely the crossroads for most of them. We still have another game for the outcomes.

I also think the DLCs show Bioware moving in the right direction, character development wise. The conversations with Liara and Hackett are my favorite parts of LotSB and Arrival, mostly because they allow Shepard a greater chance at expression and character development.

[MasterShepardN7]

The real problem is that you read IGN. I used to be sort of meh about them and was indifferent, but half the time they're either ignorantly biased and fail to look at many details/aspects of games and the other half is pretty much more media based ie tv shows, movies, etc. You can't spell ignorant without ign XD ha ha ha! That and this isn't really ME3 related. It just talks about some dude's opinion on ME2.

[Biotic Sage]

MasterShepardN7 wrote...

The real problem is that you read IGN. I used to be sort of meh about them and was indifferent, but half the time they're either ignorantly biased and fail to look at many details/aspects of games and the other half is pretty much more media based ie tv shows, movies, etc. You can't spell ignorant without ign XD ha ha ha! That and this isn't really ME3 related. It just talks about some dude's opinion on ME2.

Haha you could have a point here.

I think it is ME3 related by extension though.  Obviously the story arc is continuing with ME3, and it is sharing the same narrative style as ME2.

[Il Divo]

CSunkyst wrote...

It sounds like you didn't like the artivle because he didn't heap praise on Mass Effect, and in fact used it as a "bad" example. And he's right. Mass Effect 2 is good, but it's not perfect, there ISN'T a strong central story, it IS a collection of side quests, and they DID drop the ball on Shepard's character.

So yeah, it was a good article.

It's less about him ripping on ME2 and more about being incapable of understanding his logic/reasoning.

For example, with Halo 2 he claims that most players didn't understand or care about what was happening on screen. First play through, I could have told you who the Prophet of Truth was and why we were looking to stop the Delta Halo. Likewise with Human Revolution. His argument for why Deus Ex (and the other listed games) is bad partially rely upon me not fully comprehending the events unfolding on screen. And as another user points out, he's using story/plot in a very unusual manner.

I also found some of his examples nonsensical. Ex: Calling out the final boss in HR, while defending Bioshock's climax.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:51 .

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

CSunkyst wrote...

It sounds like you didn't like the artivle because he didn't heap praise on Mass Effect, and in fact used it as a "bad" example. And he's right. Mass Effect 2 is good, but it's not perfect, there ISN'T a strong central story, it IS a collection of side quests, and they DID drop the ball on Shepard's character.

So yeah, it was a good article.

It's less about him ripping on ME2 and more about being incapable of understanding his logic/reasoning.

For example, with Halo 2 he claims that most players didn't understand or care about what was happening on screen. First play through, I could have told you who the Prophet of Truth was and why we were looking to stop the Delta Halo. Likewise with Human Revolution. His argument for why Deus Ex (and the other listed games) is bad partially rely upon me not fully comprehending the events unfolding on screen. And as another user points out, he's using story/plot in a very unusual manner.

I also found some of his examples nonsensical. Ex: Calling out the final boss in HR, while defending Bioshock's climax.

To be honest,  to this day,  I still can't tell you what the plot of Halo 2 was.  It was too fragmented with very little reasoning for bouncing you around without giving you any context in the alien race or hierchy.  It was probably because I had no reason to care,  I wanted to see the Master Chief's story,  not some random alien.

But it wasn't because it was a shooter,  it was because the story didn't connect well with Halo.  I was really into the Half-Life stories,  and FEAR,  Bioshock,  System Shock,  GoW.  It was just because the story didn't connect well with me in Halo 2.

Modifié par Gatt9, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Morroian]

Biotic Sage wrote...

I was focusing more on the author confusing definitions of plot, narrative, and story.  It seems like the author doesn't really know the definitions of each, as he claims that ME2 does not even have a story.  Of course it has a story.  Whether it's good or not is a different matter.

He doesn't actually say it doesn't have a story. I agree the article isn't written that well and he should define his terms better, he says DEHR doesn't have a story, it obviously does he just thinks its poor. As for confusing his definitions well he doesn't actually define them. The way he uses narrative and plot in context seems correct to me and I agree with him about what constitutes a good story.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Fair enough. I definitely agree that his examples were silly and he was confused. I just don't really disagree with his main point of what makes stories great. 

This. 

CSunkyst wrote...

The big shame there is that there was SO MUCH POTENTIAL to do interesting things with Shep. The Lazarus project alone was BEGGING for little moments where Shep is struggling with wether or not he's still "him" or if he's a clone, dealing with the fact that he lost everything, struggling with the concept that he was DEAD for two years (after all, Shep is potentially a religious man)... the Lazarus project was a characterization playground and it's shocking the writers only utilized it as a cheap means of reseting your character's stats to zero. It was a huge wasted opportunity. 

That would have been a fantastic way to go in ME2, DEHR drops the ball in a similar manner with Adam being saved by being augmented, they touch on it early in the game but soon drop it.

Modifié par Morroian, 07 septembre 2011 - 04:03 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

To be honest,  to this day,  I still can't tell you what the plot of Halo 2 was.  It was too fragmented with very little reasoning for bouncing you around without giving you any context in the alien race or hierchy.  It was probably because I had no reason to care,  I wanted to see the Master Chief's story,  not some random alien.

That's fair. I personally was very invested in the storyline. But I also read all the preceding novels too, which delves more into the Covenant Hierarchy (especially Halo: First Strike). The biggest issue with Halo 2's plotline was that they didn't appropriately explain how or why the Prophet of Regret bum-rushed Earth.

But it wasn't because it was a shooter,  it was because the story didn't connect well with Halo.  I was really into the Half-Life stories,  and FEAR,  Bioshock,  System Shock,  GoW.  It was just because the story didn't connect well with me in Halo 2.

Agreed. All those games do demonstrate great use of storylines, imo.The problem with his point is that he's not really offering a consistent "test" which I can apply to all these things and say 'game X has a great plot' or 'game y has a bad story'. Essentially, he's claiming that Portal/Bioshock/whatever was good, but Halo/Mass Effect/whatever is bad based only off his experience. At least, that's how I read it.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 04:04 .

[Il Divo]

Morroian wrote...

That would have been a fantastic way to go in ME2, DEHR drops the ball in a similar manner with Adam being saved by being augmented, they touch on it early in the game but soon drop it.

It's not just touched on early in the game. With ME2, Shepard's resurrection was largely forgotten, but Jensen's background is frequently brought up, in both the main narrative as well as side quests. One of the best moments was during the persuasion check with William Taggart, where you're finally able to explain why Jensen broke the mirror in his apartment, which was apparently the first time he ever viewed himself augmented. Jensen's voice may be very unchanging (which I approve of), but his character is very well developed by the game's end, significantly more than either Chell (from Portal) or the PC from Bioshock.  All imo, as usual.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 04:18 .

[Bluko]

 I'm not sure what exactly the author is trying to get at, but...

What I believe they were actually intending to critique was the lack of character development in video game protagonists, which has certainly remained true since the days of Pac Man. In ME2 we see plenty of character development with squadmates, but with Shepard not so much.

In a game such as Mass Effect this is somewhat understandable and tolerable as trying to emulate the various supposed feelings players may have with their particular Shepard would be difficult. It's unfortunate, but for the most part the reason why Shepard shows little emotional change is because the underlying reason for each player's decisions are going to be very different. I dunno about you, but I'd rather not have Bioware put any more food in my mouth for me then they already do with Shepard (there's more then a few lines that make me head-desk). I think it is better that they focus on the character development of the side characters cause we only guide them so their character development isn't really an issue.

Shepard is an imperfect avatar and it'll be quite some time before we see a game that is truly responsive enough to make a character however we wish from a personality standpoint.

As for other more liner story games, yes there is indeed a lack of character development with protagonists. In those cases it is not acceptable. I'd say Red Dead, Assassin's Creed, GTA are probably some of the better games when it comes to having protagonists that actually change and develop over the course of the story.


ME2 does not have an issue with character development, because it's actually quite good and better then ME1. The problem with ME2 is the plot is really shakey and there isn't much rythme or reason for the things you do though. I mean dealing with the Quarians on Tali's Loyalty Mission was great, but what exactly does it have to do with stopping the Collectors? Or even the Reapers for that matter? Well not a lot unfortunately. See that's my problem with ME2.

Did we really need Garrus with us in ME2? We could have just as easily have had Darrus (Garrus' emotionally confused little brother vigilante) in his place and ME2's story would not have really changed. And there's the problem.


ME1 had a good story, because you had clear reasons for going to places that you do. You pick up Garrus, Tali, Wrex, and Liara because they have some involvement in trying to stop Saren. In ME2 the only reason you do anything is because T.I.M. thinks you should, which is basically Bioware hiding behind a veil suggesting we undertake these missions cause they'll be cool. There was only one character really that was even mandatory for ME2 and that was Mordin. Everyone else was kind of optional, which really ends up hurting the story as in the grand scheme of things the characters end up as little more then fancy show lights.

[AdmiralCheez]

^Great summary, Bluko.

[Biotic Sage]

Bluko wrote...

 I'm not sure what exactly the author is trying to get at, but...

What I believe they were actually intending to critique was the lack of character development in video game protagonists, which has certainly remained true since the days of Pac Man. In ME2 we see plenty of character development with squadmates, but with Shepard not so much.

ME2 does not have an issue with character development, because it's actually quite good and better then ME1. The problem with ME2 is the plot is really shakey and there isn't much rythme or reason for the things you do though. I mean dealing with the Quarians on Tali's Loyalty Mission was great, but what exactly does it have to do with stopping the Collectors? Or even the Reapers for that matter? Well not a lot unfortunately. See that's my problem with ME2.

I agree.  ME1 was much tighter from a storyline perspective.  The critique about dynamic protagonists does seem to be the IGN author's intent, but shouldn't journalists have an understanding of the diction they use in their articles?  We shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of confused muck to get to author intent.  I just wish the "journalists" at IGN would stop giving a bad name to video game journalism.

[The Spamming Troll]

bluko,

your too good at getting the point.

[RocketManSR2]

I also agree with your summary, Bluko. My inner fanboy wants to punch you in the face, but I tossed him in a closet and locked the door.  Anyway, I think being TIM's little b**** was what BioWare intended. I hated taking orders from him and having Miranda remind me I wasn't in charge. It felt good to be rid of the Collectors and tell Joker to lose TIM's channel. The Normandy was my ship again. The VS had better step aside in ME3.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:35 .

[marshalleck]

One word for this article: tripe.

The end.

[LadyJaneGrey]

*Refuses to argue about unclear definitions and narrative quality of cited titles.*  :innocent:

"What we need—what we all crave—are stories that tap into real humanity,
stories that drive their ever-developing characters toward climaxes that
challenge them as people, providing a resolution that means something.
If we ever hope to see the quality of narrative in games improve, it's
time to stop pretending that Deus Ex: Human Revolution and others like
it fulfill these duties. It's time for games to drop the plots and start
telling stories."

Did the author manage to avoid a large portion of series books, adventure movies, and procedural television shows?  Few readers/viewers look to Nancy Drew, Indiana Jones, and Jack McCoy for deep character growth; sometimes adventure and simply spending time with likable characters are enough for people.  Should all these genres be chucked because they do not tell what the author deems a "story"? 

Sure, I usually prefer books/movies/games/whatever with a strong emphasis on character growth, but sometimes fun is enough.  There's room for both.

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:28 .

[Zu Long]

Bluko wrote...

 I mean dealing with the Quarians on Tali's Loyalty Mission was great, but what exactly does it have to do with stopping the Collectors? Or even the Reapers for that matter? Well not a lot unfortunately. See that's my problem with ME2.

One caveat with an otherwise pretty good post- Dealing with the Quarian-Geth problem could very well be CRITICAL when it comes to beating the reapers. Shepard even says so outright in game I believe.

[clopin]

 I gotta give this guy props for mentioning Enslaved. I beat it this weekend and it might have some of the best characters and one of the best stories in the industry. Definitely one of the most underrated games this generation. IGN gave it an 8 <_<

Ignore IGN, that writer was confusing "Doesn't have a story," with "I didn't enjoy the story." By his definition Little Red Riding Hood, or The Butter Battle Book aren't real stories because the character didn't change by the end. Red Riding Hood was still the same, and the two Who's in the Butter Battle Book were still building new weapons; yet those are two of the greatest stories ever told. The writer of the article is moronic, his opinion is not fact, even though he treats it as such.

EDIT: This guy is a moron. By definition a story is a series of events: http://dictionary.re...om/browse/story

Modifié par clopin, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:35 .