152 réponses à ce sujet

[Pro_Consul]

darkstarr_drgga wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

That is by no means a new dynamic. It's been done numerous times by more than one game developer. And it's been BW's bread and butter since Baldur's Gate.

So, what you are saying is that Mass Effect 2 is no more dynamic than Baldur's Gate?  Mass Effect is an evolution of that sort of gameplay. We've seen the games grow deeper and more involved from the Baldur's Gate series, through Neverwinter, onto Knights of the Old Republic, and so on. Point is, Mass Effect becomes more dynamic in the sense it opens game play up and makes you more accountable for your actions. One choice on a branch leads to another choice, so on and so forth until giving two people completely different gameplay experiences. As much as I love Baldur's Gate, it definitely wasn't dynamic. It was straight forward and no where near the complexity of todays games, as well it should be.

You said before it was new. That was all I was correcting. There is nothing new about it. It is just an incremental process of complexification starting back with Baldur's Gate and continuing, one hopes, with ME3. Just like you laid it out just now: not new, merely incremental. Not revolutionary; evolutionary. That's all I was saying there.

darkstarr_drgga wrote...

Did you pay attention to the dialogue? Name a convo between Jacob and Shepard. It is stated how difficult it was to bring Shepard back and the amount of resource Cerberus spent to make it happen. This is not a process thats going to be duplicated.

You're kidding, right? You honestly think TIM is not going to make sure it used on him when he kicks it? Not a chance. And the expense is probably more due to the fact that they were researching the technologies and processes involved as they went along. The first of a new technology is ALWAYS by far the most expensive sample. But if something can be done once, and it's worth doing at all, it WILL be done again, and get cheaper with every iteration. That's how technological progress works. Cerberus has now at least partially conquered death. All that remains is refining the process to make it cheaper, faster and smoother.

darkstarr_drgga wrote...

This is a Sci-Fi game... perhaps my expectations are lower than yours. Yet, to this day I don't think I have every played a game where the story and plot points flowed flawlessly. On a project like this I would imagine with so many peoples ideas, its hard to reconcile them into one cohesive piece. I'm sure a lot of the disjointedness comes from the creation process. In that case, you want cohesive? Go read some Asimov, Herbert, or any host of the Sci-Fi greats. Work written with a singular vision.

No need. I can just go back to just about any of the titles you mentioned above, the previous works of BioWare. ME1 was MUCH more cohesive on all fronts than ME2. And KoTOR was perhaps the tightest, best flowing story ever told in a video game. My expectations were set by BW's previous works, and by that standard ME2 fell short.

darkstarr_drgga wrote...

However, there must be some redeeming quality here though, some kind of investment on your part. Something that brings you to this board to make posts such as the one you posted. I guess when it comes down to it, I understand the limitations. I can appreciate the fact that each Bioware game evolves. I think Shepard dying and coming back is an extremely minor detail, especially when your main antagonist is a race of sentient beings that have lived millions upon millions of years.

There is all kinds of redeeming quality. I am not condemning the entire game just because of one poorly chosen and poorly executed plot device. And I like the franchise enough to air my criticism in the one place most likely to reach the eyes of those who are currently making the next installment, in the hopes that they will do better next time, i.e. here. As you say, I would not even bother posting here if I didn't like the game. I've been hooked on BW titles since the aforementioned Baldur's Gate, and the ME franchise is, so far, no exception. But I might go so far as to say that ME2 is the weakest BW release I have played so far in terms of plot cohesion and internal consistency. But kickass gameplay also goes a long way with me, so I can forgive a LOT in terms of story if the gameplay is fun. It just won't stop me from expressing my opinions about it anyway, forgiven or not.

Modifié par Pro_Consul, 12 octobre 2011 - 07:09 .

[darkstarr_drgga]

Pro_Consul wrote...
You said before it was new. That was all I was correcting. There is nothing new about it. It is just an incremental process of complexification starting back with Baldur's Gate and continuing, one hopes, with ME3. Just like you laid it out just now: not new, merely incremental. Not revolutionary; evolutionary. That's all I was saying there.

I'm speaking more in terms of the choice/consequence thing being new. That has been done but in a rudimentary form. Overall plot points could carry over, going back as far as Baldurs Gate, but that was mainly limited to Character importation. Baldur's Gate was revoltionary, no doubt. At the time it was released however, what was there that had come before it? That's why it was revolutionary. It was one of the first of its kind.

For me, when I speak of the dynamic aspect, it comes in when your choices effect the world around you. Such as either killing or saving the Rachni Queen and having that choice impact you two games later. I'm not going to say the process is perfect, but I like where things are heading. That's why I can understand the Shepard death thing. The did it because they could, but also because of what it does for the story. If you got into the first game, and really enjoyed it, then seeing Shepard spaced had to do to you. I think the opening scene of ME 2 tells you a lot about Shepards character and what you can expect from the story thats to come. I'm not saying its perfect. Personally, I would have handled it differently. Still, I can understand it and appreciate it.

Pro_Consul wrote...
You're kidding, right? You honestly think TIM is not going to make sure
it used on him when he kicks it? Not a chance. And the expense is
probably more due to the fact that they were researching the
technologies and processes involved as they went along. The first of a
new technology is ALWAYS by far the most expensive sample. But if
something can be done once, and it's worth doing at all, it WILL be done
again, and get cheaper with every iteration. That's how technological
progress works. Cerberus has now at least partially conquered death. All
that remains is refining the process to make it cheaper, faster and
smoother.

Of course he will. That doesn't mean every one and their mother is going to be brought back though. Look, I understand your gripe there. It is cheesy. I used to watch Alias, and it seemed no one ever stayed dead on that show. What happens is when some one first dies, you get the dramatic effect you want, but if that person comes back you lose that effect with subsequent deaths. If this were a book or a movie, I would be far more critical. Also, I was never arguing it was a good decision, my original post was only speaking to Shepards death being more a gimmick or a way to bring attention to the game. I remember it being discussed before hand, it was almost a marketing ploy. Question is, would it be more believable if Shepard had been brought back to life by the Collectors? Would it not have been so cheesy that way?

Pro_Consul wrote...

No need. I can just go back to just about any of the titles you
mentioned above, the previous works of BioWare. ME1 was MUCH more
cohesive on all fronts than ME2. And KoTOR was perhaps the tightest,
best flowing story ever told in a video game. My expectations were set
by BW's previous works, and by that standard ME2 fell short.
 

Not everything is going to be done perfectly. KoTOR, that was a Star Wars entity. That story was likely developed outside of Bioware because it is cannon within the Star Wars universe. George Lucas isn't about to let some two bit writers go mucking around in his works without some oversight and a lot of guidence. I think that's why you had such a great cohesive story there.

I thought Badlur's Gate storyline was good, it was dependant on Forgotten Realms lore, but compared to today it was very simple. The envelope has to keep getting pushed. I think thats what Bioware wanted to do here. They wanted to try to create their own franchise as opposed to having to rely on Star Wars or Dungeons and Dragons. Like I said previously, the writing limitations definitely show themselves. They have a hard time keeping once voice when it comes to chracter and that sort of creates a disjointedness. Overall, though I think they are on the right track when it comes to story. They are still leaps and bounds ahead of other companies.

Pro_Consul wrote...

There is all kinds of redeeming quality. I am not condemning the entire
game just because of one poorly chosen and poorly executed plot device.
And I like the franchise enough to air my criticism in the one place
most likely to reach the eyes of those who are currently making the next
installment, in the hopes that they will do better next time, i.e.
here. As you say, I would not even bother posting here if I didn't like
the game. I've been hooked on BW titles since the aforementioned
Baldur's Gate, and the ME franchise is, so far, no exception. But
I might go so far as to say that ME2 is the weakest BW release I have
played so far in terms of plot cohesion and internal consistency. But
kickass gameplay also goes a long way with me, so I can forgive a LOT in
terms of story if the gameplay is fun. It just won't stop me from
expressing my opinions about it anyway, forgiven or not. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie].

Weakest? No, I believe that dubious distinction belongs to that heap of crap they call Dragon Age 2. Ugh! They really botched that one. What makes it even worse, they don't care what the fans think about it, the guys in charge think that was revolutionary and brilliant. Sure, if you like seeing the same limited, but retouched areas over and over. Now, if you want to disect and complain about story, I'm with you on that one.

I guess that's why I appreciate ME, they have tried to stay true to how they view the universe. We aren't going to agree with every choice, and they will make some missteps, but as long as those missteps don't take too much from the game and it remains enjoyable, then its all good. I am typically VERY critical of things. I have to be. I could sit here and give you a laundry list of problems and things that I don't like about ME, but overall I like the story. I like the intent and the vision. I can overlook some of those minor areas where they made poor choices.

[Pro_Consul]

darkstarr_drgga wrote...

KoTOR, that was a Star Wars entity. That story was likely developed outside of Bioware because it is cannon within the Star Wars universe. George Lucas isn't about to let some two bit writers go mucking around in his works without some oversight and a lot of guidence. I think that's why you had such a great cohesive story there.

No. You may be surprised to learn that George Lucas has pretty much zero to do with developing any of the SW content outside of the "official" stuff that comes direct from LucasFilm Ltd (as opposed to LucasArts). The basic rule for writers who want to publish SW-based works is and always has been: respect all previous works as if they were canon. Beyond that they are pretty much completely unfettered. Again it is mainly Drew Karpyshyn we have to thank for that story. He definitely has no problem writing good, tight SW fiction, as witnessed by his highly successful SW novels which began to follow shortly after KoTOR.

darkstarr_drgga wrote...

Weakest? No, I believe that dubious distinction belongs to that heap of crap they call Dragon Age 2. Ugh!

Fair point. I overlooked that one and stand corrected. I'll have to amend and say "second weakest after DA2". My bad.