[quote]whywhywhywhy wrote...
That depends on what your considering the main narrative to be. The only thing I can agree that does what you claim are the loyalty missions, everything else fits. [/quote]
Shepard hunting Saren to stop the Reapers, that comprises the events of the main narrative.
However, I'm curious why you think Loyalty Missions disrupt the main narrative, when they fuel character development and indicate significant plot points for ME3, but hunting down Geth in Argus Rho supports narrative flow?
[quote]
They were searching for proof of the reapers, searching for Saren and exploring his ties to Benzia, searching for the conduit, the mu relay and he's a spectre. That's off the top of my head being both a Spectre and alliance soldier Shepard's being tasked with discovering what Saren was up to doesn't absolve him of all his other duties.
Especially given the fact no one believed in the reapers, I doubt all his other responsibilities and needs(funds and such) disappears. [/quote]
Your bolded contradicts the underlined. You just stated what the main narrative was about in the first sentence, so I'm not certain why you're attempting to argue this. The only side quests in the game that can be potentially argued to further the narrative are Wrex's family armor and Garrus' . The point of Mass Effect is that Shepard believes the Reapers exist, as per his vision. The Council doesn't send him into space saying "You are obligated to do x, y, and z while following Saren". In becoming a Spectre, Shepard's duty to the Council has effectively overtaken any required responsibilities as an Alliance Soldier
All that does is provide a justification for your side quests, which doesn't make them any more relevant to the narrative. It's the exact reason why TES games have absolutely no narrative flow. Exploration/side quests/doing what you want takes such a high priority that the main quest is fragmented at best. Sure, you can justify it to yourself by saying "Oh, this is why my character thinks he needs to do this", but it will never fuel the narrative as a result. As I said, the "relevant" side quests are few and far between.
[quote]
I do think it's a major flaw but that's just me. However the arguing of "prior to its existence there has never been any breaks in the narrative" I'm not seeing that anywhere in Gatt's argument. I do think the differences in affects of the breaks escapes you. [/quote]
Let's refer back to his statement
Quote:
"It's called Narrative flow,
it gets completely disrupted when you interrupt it to go watch some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot. Doubt me? Go watch The Two Towers, and just as Helm's Deep starts, stop the movie and go watch Liar Liar, then come back. Tell me, do you still have the same emotions the director intended you to have? Nope. You've interrupted the flow and lost your audience's attention. "
So the flow is disrupted by watching some random guy that has nothing to do with the plot? Alright, I'll give him that. Now I can only imagine what taking a break from the plot to go resource gathering, do a side mission, or turning off the console for an extended period of time will do. Where is the narrative flow there? Because as far as I can tell, while engaging in all these things, I don't have the same emotions which the director intended.
My point is not that engaging in multiplayer will not disrupt narrative flow, but that there have been so many different methods of achieving this already, that it cannot be effectively argued that multiplayer will significantly hurt narrative flow, particularly when the feature is optional.
[quote]
If that was exploration's sole purpose developers could have found a simplier less time and resource intensive way to implement it. What your saying is true for planet scanning but for exploration depends on implementation. [/quote]
That has always been the main purpose of any kind of exploration element in an RPG. Exploration typically doesn't further narratives. See TES games or even Dragon Age: Origins for an explanation as to why. What exploration do you see happening which requires less time and resources?
[quote]
Going by what your saying then all combat is grinding and thus excessive so why is BW adding a whole segment of redundant excessive grinding ? [/quote]
Grinding, is by definition, excessive. Combat is not, by definition, grinding. Grinding is excessive combat, designed solely with the intention to level up your character. Ex: Shepard fighting his way through Virmire is more acceptable for the narrative than Shepard riding around in the Mako on some random planet. The former is in support of the narrative. Consider any "gun fight" you might find in an action movie, such as Neo/Trinity attacking the lobby in the Matrix. The scene being depicted must feel "real enough" that we can believe what we are seeing, so we need fight sequences on Virmire because we expect heavy resistance while attempting to infiltrate the base.
Now, I can see an argument regarding excessive combat. Narrative breaks are not the only thing which can disrupt "the flow" of a story and one prime example being the (lengthy) combat dungeons in Dragon Age: Origins, which are probably the most lengthy featured in any Bioware game, to the point where they can be said to disrupt the events of the story. But I don't think either ME1 or 2 has broken that boundary with regards to their main stories.
[quote]
During that time do you switch to another player ? When you quest, grind and such ? [/quote]
Nope, and yet you're still experiencing a break in the narrative. That is why it's called a "narrative break", which disrupts (what Gatt calls) Narrative Flow. Your narrative cannot have a flow to it if you are constantly interrupting it. An element either continues the narrative or breaks it, not both.
If you want a fun example of what you're suggesting, imagine that while watching The Two Towers you kept getting up to go to the bathroom every five minutes. Does the fact that haven't switched to another player mean that you haven't disrupted the narrative's flow? Not at all.
[quote]
What is your focus on during this two scenarios ? With one your picking up where you left off, with the other your running through the ME world as someone who isn't the protagonist. If ME3 is the end of Shepard's story then he is Main narrative. [/quote]
You pick up exactly where you left off in both scenarios. You're still not providing an argument to suggest that in the first case it's acceptable, but in the second case you've committed some fatal flaw. There cannot be narrative flow when the player is not engaging in the narrative. After engaging in multiplayer, you can still pick up ME3's story exactly where you left off. Significant plot points do not happen while Shepard is off-screen.
[quote]
t's not even the fact that MP is being added to a SP experience at this point.
By incorporating MP into the SP campaign you have by defnition "forced" a game mode onto the player. If the MP module was completely seperate neither Gatt nor I would have an agrument n regards to this. [/quote]
But you've already assumed that the MP is necessary, which Bioware has already stated multiple times that it is not. Is that the case? Well, that's what we have to see. However, an option for MP to affect SP does not mean MP must affect SP.
[quote]
You haven't said anything that supports this. ME quests aren't designed in the typical grinding manner so what your saying makes no sense. [/quote]
You're missing my point. Narrative breaks are disruptions in the narrative, the main storyline which the title is exploring. Multiplayer does not do this any worse than turning off your console, or running off to collect minerals or kill Cerberus enemies. None of those have any relation to the main storyline, and as such they are all disruptions of the narrative, without any kind of overarching significance.
It doesn't matter how much you might like ME quests. They're about as relevant to stopping Saren and the Reapers as Bethesda's random questlines are to stopping Alduin in Skyrim.
[quote]
Try it with two movies you haven't seen, if that doesn't help you understand I don't know what will. If they are designing MP to give War assets I get the funny feeling War assets are not going to be readily available. That alone "encourages" a player to play MP. And if player's feelings vary toward the negative then that Narrative break has a much greater effect then pausing the game, side missions or taking a break. [/quote]
Better comparison: try it with two books you haven't read. There's a good chance that you're not going to be finishing them in one sitting. At least, not with the ease you can finish a movie, which is the important factor. Gatt's argument does not take this into account, hence the weakness of his analogy. I can finish a movie in one sitting, and in The Two Towers case it's one of the longer movies. That is substantially more difficult with either a game or a novel.
[quote]
You just didn't know what the Main narrative for ME is. I've told you what it is already. It's not about hunting/stopping Reapers, well, not JUST about hunting/stopping the Reapers. [/quote]
That's exactly what it is about. Eden Prime? Discover Saren/Reaper threat. Virmire? Stop/hunt the Reapers. Ilos? Stop/hunt the Reapers. Notice that the one consistent element here is that all the mandatory elements of the storyline (and hence the main plot) consist of "Stop/hunt the Reapers" in some fashion. Shepard's background as an alliance soldier merely provides context for the events of the story, but the "call to action" consists of his efforts to find/stop Saren. The main narrative doesn't change because Bioware provided UNSC missions to distract the player for a few hours.
[quote]
That depends on the role the player is playing. When did this become about side quests ? It's a moot point that doesn't support your stance at best.
[/quote]
Not at all. It depends on the fact that, by being side quests, they offer diversions, distractions, whatever you want to call them. Stopping mercs in random clusters of the galaxy has nothing to do with the progression of the main storyline. It's not referenced, doesn't fuel any major plot point, and doesn't lead to any meaningful development of a character, all of which I consider leading to the narrative. As I said, an element either supports the narrative or breaks it. Side quests are rarely about character development, plot development, etc. You could argue that the good ones are, but those are practically non-existent in Mass Effect 1 (and most Bioware games).
Modifié par Il Divo, 04 décembre 2011 - 09:32 .
Retour en haut
whether you think the single player experience suffered because of the multiplayer. I think articles like this are pretty pointless, this one certainly didn't possess any great insight. I'm prepared to give the ME3 team the benefit of the doubt because ME2 was done really well.
