216 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Soverign 666 wrote...

What finale where you playing? Mass Effect 2's sucide mission was incredible IMO. Yea I get people dont like the human reaper personally i dont have a problem with it.

I was playing the finale where i got to shoot some faceless bugs, then some more of faceless bugs, and then SUDDENLY, BABY REAPER.

Not sure which part of that was supposed to be incredible, but in my case it both fell and felt really short. Helpless giggling at the terminator ripoff didn't help.

[Aimi]

tmp7704 wrote...

It's a disjoint similar to what ME does with its pretended urgency, imo. Eventually the bluff gets called in both cases.

If it feels worse for ME2, it's probably because while ME manages to distract the player with pretty impressive finale where you get to face enemies that got solid build up through the entire experience, ME2 instead only has to offer some ridiculous looking deus ex machina. Or deus ex goo for that matter.

YMMV. I always felt that ME1's finale was terrible: atrocious voice acting, not great music, an extremely annoying final boss, no clear connection between choices and actions, and some of the facepalmworthy lines in the game. It got to the point, a few weeks ago during my final ME1->2 import run, where I had to mute the game for most of the Battle of the Citadel because it just sounded bad. And that manufactured drama there at the end with Shepard...ack.

And I thought ME2's finale was impressive for much the same reasons: good voice acting, superlative music, and lines that were decidedly not facepalmworthy. Sure, the choice-action connection wasn't particularly clear in ME2, either, and sure, the final boss was at best mediocre, but still.

[tmp7704]

daqs wrote...

I always felt that ME1's finale was terrible: atrocious voice acting, not great music, an extremely annoying final boss, no clear connection between choices and actions, and some of the facepalmworthy lines in the game. It got to the point, a few weeks ago during my final ME1->2 import run, where I had to mute the game for most of the Battle of the Citadel because it just sounded bad. And that manufactured drama there at the end with Shepard...ack.

And I thought ME2's finale was impressive for much the same reasons: good voice acting, superlative music, and lines that were decidedly not facepalmworthy. Sure, the choice-action connection wasn't particularly clear in ME2, either, and sure, the final boss was at best mediocre, but still.

I find it rather odd you'd have such different views on the aspecits which don't actually change between both games -- the voice actors are the same, the author of the music is the same, and even the specific things that made you cringe like "the manufactured drama at the end" were also copied in the ME2 sequence. The writing similarly didn't strike me as that different quality-wise. The only moment of writing i actually remember was the 'put together your own dramatic speech' sequence, and that was also copy of ME event. Ah well.

[Saints_]

There were a few noticeable errors that someone like me would pick up on, I pick up on the littlest of things. There were a few big mistakes, or writing errors as well. The thermal clip thing at the beginning, things of that nature etc.

Overall it was a good game, and written well. That being said, whoever went over the final version needs to care more when doing so.

[tobynator89]

tmp7704 wrote...

daqs wrote...

I always felt that ME1's finale was terrible: atrocious voice acting, not great music, an extremely annoying final boss, no clear connection between choices and actions, and some of the facepalmworthy lines in the game. It got to the point, a few weeks ago during my final ME1->2 import run, where I had to mute the game for most of the Battle of the Citadel because it just sounded bad. And that manufactured drama there at the end with Shepard...ack.

And I thought ME2's finale was impressive for much the same reasons: good voice acting, superlative music, and lines that were decidedly not facepalmworthy. Sure, the choice-action connection wasn't particularly clear in ME2, either, and sure, the final boss was at best mediocre, but still.

I find it rather odd you'd have such different views on the aspecits which don't actually change between both games -- the voice actors are the same, the author of the music is the same, and even the specific things that made you cringe like "the manufactured drama at the end" were also copied in the ME2 sequence. The writing similarly didn't strike me as that different quality-wise. The only moment of writing i actually remember was the 'put together your own dramatic speech' sequence, and that was also copy of ME event. Ah well.

the suicide mission actually bear a much closer resemblance to virmire than the citadell mission in setup and narrative. you have a mission to blow something up, learn some disturbing facts along the way, make some important choices regarding crewmates which feature prominently as part of the mission.

Citadell mission was a pretty weak one way line with minmal crew showcasing (which definitly is one of the greatest strenghts of the ME series). Bioware also learned a lot about pacing and editing between the two games.

[tmp7704]

tobynator89 wrote...

Citadell mission was a pretty weak one way line with minmal crew showcasing (which definitly is one of the greatest strenghts of the ME series). Bioware also learned a lot about pacing and editing between the two games.

Yes, the focus of the finale was logically enough on the antagonist(s) rather than crew. This is imo a good thing, since companions are a strength yes, but only one of many. Focus on them too much, and the overall balance of the product suffers. I can only hope BioWare took note of that after ME2 and ME3 is better in this regard.

I'd also have to disagree with that part about learning about pacing etc -- as it's ME2 that to me suffers much stronger from these issues.

[Aimi]

tmp7704 wrote...

I find it rather odd you'd have such different views on the aspecits which don't actually change between both games -- the voice actors are the same, the author of the music is the same, and even the specific things that made you cringe like "the manufactured drama at the end" were also copied in the ME2 sequence. The writing similarly didn't strike me as that different quality-wise. The only moment of writing i actually remember was the 'put together your own dramatic speech' sequence, and that was also copy of ME event. Ah well.

Most of the people were the same, of course, but the quality was dramatically different. This, surely, is hardly controversial; they simply got better at making games over the course of the intervening years. For instance, a fairly common thread, even in criticisms of the later games, is that the actual lines have gotten better (critics would say that this is at the expense of a coherent plot, but whatever).

But, like I said, YMMV.

[tmp7704]

daqs wrote...

Most of the people were the same, of course, but the quality was dramatically different. This, surely, is hardly controversial; they simply got better at making games over the course of the intervening years.

Hmm i'd argue that the voicework quality is hardly different, as the actors involved already knew their stuff more than enough when the first game was made. Regarding 'quality of lines', i can't help but feel that it's in general getting worse over time if anything, as there seems to be increasing focus put on individual "CSI one-liners" rather than on whether overall flow of the dialogue makes any actual sense (DA2 was downright painful in this regard) But like you indeed said, it's all VM.

[Alithinos]

Plinkett wrote...

Do you think the Mass Effect 2 dialogue was bad, because after playing the Mass Effect 3 demo I'd say even predator had great dialogue!

Story writing was very good,maybe excellent in ME2.
ME2 managed to capture your interest from the very first moments,it built up mystery so you wanted to know who are the collectors,is the Illusive Man good or bad ? What happened to Shepard while he was dead?
And it managed to portray believeable personalities.
It competes against some of the best stories that are told through another medium,the over-rated cinema.

[Wolverfrog]

If it hadn't been for the suicide mission I'd be very happy with ME2 as a game which introduces this vast variety of characters and gives us hours to explore their pasts and learn all about them, and form bonds with them to earn their trust and your command. Then in ME3 you'd have this ensemble of team members to fight against the Reapers with, so it could focus more on plot and less on character, with maybe one or two new characters to keep it fresh.

But Bioware had to put in the possibility for squadmates to die, which means most of the ME2 cast has been relegated in ME3; I feel like this makes the second game feel a little like a waste of time.

[Terror_K]

Actually, to me, the worst bits of writing in ME2 were actually whenever it tried to railroad things or trivialise them or give a weak explanation, particularly when it came to things from ME1 and when it came to Cerberus. There were so many times where something would come up that seemed stupid and I'd be going, "Wait, what?! But..." and the writing would give a terribly weak explanation that didn't make much sense almost as a quick spackle job and then move on, trying to avoid it and put it behind it, like it knew such things would be questioned but it wanted to avoid dealing with them. Things like Jacob's explanation for why things are the same whether The Council were killed or not, how Cerberus can be super Godlike with unlimited resources and better at everything than every other race and faction out there while remaining hidden despite plastering their logos on everything they own, how moronic The Council is with more Reapers denials despite the end of ME1, the "logic" behind Thermal clips, etc. are all examples of where the writing was clumsy in this manner and could have done with more work.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 février 2012 - 09:03 .

[wulf3n]

The writing was good, but the story was bad.

[Halo Quea]

Wolverfrog wrote...

If it hadn't been for the suicide mission I'd be very happy with ME2 as a game which introduces this vast variety of characters and gives us hours to explore their pasts and learn all about them, and form bonds with them to earn their trust and your command. Then in ME3 you'd have this ensemble of team members to fight against the Reapers with, so it could focus more on plot and less on character, with maybe one or two new characters to keep it fresh.

But Bioware had to put in the possibility for squadmates to die, which means most of the ME2 cast has been relegated in ME3; I feel like this makes the second game feel a little like a waste of time.

What especially makes that bad is that EVEN though you got  100% loyalty from your squad,  you're not rewarded for bringing all of them through the O4R suicide mission.  It's not like Bioware says, "To the players who got their squadmates through, we're going to allow them to choose some of them for  your permanent squaddies in ME3"

Instead we have new crew mates forced on us, and the squaddies that we spent the MAJORITY of ME2 recruiting and earning loyalty from are now regualted to cameos.   In other words, it doesn't matter whether they lived or died.

But it isn't just that ME2 really didn't have any consequences for ME3,  it's that Shepard's story  didn't advance during the last outing.  THIS is why I felt a little embarrassed for Shepard when The Committee asks him what should they do to stop the Reapers.  He doesn't have anything useful to tell them because he didn't learn ANYTHING about the Reapers in ME2.  

And it's very plain and obvious why Shepard's story didn't advance.  Bioware's writers committed a cardinal sin in terms of plot mechanics by needlessly KILLING  the protagonist in the first few minutes of the game.  Then placing him in a coma for 2 years, waking him just in time to avoid being murdered by his OWN DOCTOR (this will NEVER make sense),  and then finally have him focus ALL of his time playing Dr.Phil with his crew instead of pursing new leads on the Reapers.

Blowing up Pragia, finding Jacob's long lost dad?  These would have been great as side quests, but the truth is that these loyalty quests were REALLY what ME2 was all about.  Not the Collectors and most definitely not the Reapers.  The villains are treated almost as an after thought, and by the time we get to the baby T-800...........lol

So isn't so much that ME2's writing was bad, it's just the way that Bioware is disregarding it's the story and it's characters that makes it feel like a worthless experience in advancing the main story of Shepard and Reapers.

[Cody211282]

Halo Quea wrote...

Wolverfrog wrote...

If it hadn't been for the suicide mission I'd be very happy with ME2 as a game which introduces this vast variety of characters and gives us hours to explore their pasts and learn all about them, and form bonds with them to earn their trust and your command. Then in ME3 you'd have this ensemble of team members to fight against the Reapers with, so it could focus more on plot and less on character, with maybe one or two new characters to keep it fresh.

But Bioware had to put in the possibility for squadmates to die, which means most of the ME2 cast has been relegated in ME3; I feel like this makes the second game feel a little like a waste of time.

What especially makes that bad is that EVEN though you got  100% loyalty from your squad,  you're not rewarded for bringing all of them through the O4R suicide mission.  It's not like Bioware says, "To the players who got their squadmates through, we're going to allow them to choose some of them for  your permanent squaddies in ME3"

Instead we have new crew mates forced on us, and the squaddies that we spent the MAJORITY of ME2 recruiting and earning loyalty from are now regualted to cameos.   In other words, it doesn't matter whether they lived or died.

But it isn't just that ME2 really didn't have any consequences for ME3,  it's that Shepard's story  didn't advance during the last outing.  THIS is why I felt a little embarrassed for Shepard when The Committee asks him what should they do to stop the Reapers.  He doesn't have anything useful to tell them because he didn't learn ANYTHING about the Reapers in ME2.  

And it's very plain and obvious why Shepard's story didn't advance.  Bioware's writers committed a cardinal sin in terms of plot mechanics by needlessly KILLING  the protagonist in the first few minutes of the game.  Then placing him in a coma for 2 years, waking him just in time to avoid being murdered by his OWN DOCTOR (this will NEVER make sense),  and then finally have him focus ALL of his time playing Dr.Phil with his crew instead of pursing new leads on the Reapers.

Blowing up Pragia, finding Jacob's long lost dad?  These would have been great as side quests, but the truth is that these loyalty quests were REALLY what ME2 was all about.  Not the Collectors and most definitely not the Reapers.  The villains are treated almost as an after thought, and by the time we get to the baby T-800...........lol

So isn't so much that ME2's writing was bad, it's just the way that Bioware is disregarding it's the story and it's characters that makes it feel like a worthless experience in advancing the main story of Shepard and Reapers.

If you were here right now I would friken hug you.

This is almost every problem I have had with ME2s plot  but have never been able to put to words nearly as well as you just did.

[finc.loki]

ME1 had a great main story.
It had the elements of a main antagonist and discovery of the whole threat.
You were chasing this bad guy, you got to work to become a coveted Spectre, learn the ancient secret about the Reapers and them wiping out all advanced life. It was great.

ME2, was in regards to main story, extremely disappointing, in fact the main story became a side-quest and the side-quest of fetching squaddies for a 40 min anti-climactic ending to ME2 was the main story.
What makes it even more pointless and anti-climactic is that all that effort getting those squaddies and now they are just cameos in the last game.

I had 50 hours of game time in ME2, don't get me wrong the game was fun, excellent combat and such, but as I said it really left me wanting for a good story.
Out of those 50 hours I spent about 4-5 on fighting the "supposedly deadly suicide mission main story", IE you meet the collectors 4 times and each of it revolves around "assuming control", "this hurts you Shepard", " I have an inferiority complex Shepard and you kill me with ease but I am but a voice in this USELESS collector body". Need I go on?

THAT is what is the problem with ME2 in regards to story. If you actually think about it they could have just gone (story wise and logic) from ME1 to the Arrival DLC, then directly to ME3.

I think ME2 and ME3 (most likely) will suffer from the "we need to attract as many players as possible so, the less of a good story and more action is needed, so as not to scare off NEW MONEY" syndrome.

The ultimate ME game would undoubtedly be ME1 story and setting with ME3 combat and powers, THAT would be the best combo.

I know all of this sound really pessimistic and bad, but I can say this I am STILL VERY exited to play ME3.
Any ME game is usually 10 times better than any other game out there, I truly enjoy them, but as obviously stated, they have suffered in story telling.
I know nothing about the leaks so I could be pleasantly surprised, but it's best not to expect too much.

I have to say basically all Bioware games has gone from serious, deep RPG and story telling to more of a casual gaming experience, this magically happened when EA bought them.

[RVallant]

I didn't mind ME2's story, but it was severely hampered by the loyalty missions not being spread out among main plot stories. There needed to be a few more main missions between the collector ship and the reaper imo or prior to that. So that the game doesn't feel disjointed when you hold off the reaper level just to solve everyone's daddy issues.

[Nordicus]

The squad member dynamic is more different between games than I remember, now that I'm replaying ME1 after a long time.

Kaidan and Ashley are with you since they're Alliance troops and saw the Geth attack with you on Eden Prime.

Tali, Garrus and Wrex come with you because they simply *want* to, and Shepard allows this because they might prove useful

Liara is in fact the only member you're forced to search and recruit. Not only that, her purpose is clear: She's the daughter of Beneziah and an expert on Protheans. ME2 has a few people like Thane that I don't really know why they're recruited. Thane is supposed to be an assassin, right? Not a part of an assault team

[tobynator89]

Nordicus wrote...

The squad member dynamic is more different between games than I remember, now that I'm replaying ME1 after a long time.

Kaidan and Ashley are with you since they're Alliance troops and saw the Geth attack with you on Eden Prime.

Tali, Garrus and Wrex come with you because they simply *want* to, and Shepard allows this because they might prove useful

Liara is in fact the only member you're forced to search and recruit. Not only that, her purpose is clear: She's the daughter of Beneziah and an expert on Protheans. ME2 has a few people like Thane that I don't really know why they're recruited. Thane is supposed to be an assassin, right? Not a part of an assault team

sabotage team more than assault really. Assault would be if the objective was to take and hold the base, which it clearly wasn't. The ME2 team is recruited due to the need for sheer variety in face of the largely unknown threat that is the collectors.

[fresh101]

Not bad, but it certainly not as good as ME writing was, but then again, soundtrack in ME was good, but not nearly enough like it was in ME2, so it's kinda balanced

[AkiKishi]

Nordicus wrote...

The squad member dynamic is more different between games than I remember, now that I'm replaying ME1 after a long time.

Kaidan and Ashley are with you since they're Alliance troops and saw the Geth attack with you on Eden Prime.

Tali, Garrus and Wrex come with you because they simply *want* to, and Shepard allows this because they might prove useful

Liara is in fact the only member you're forced to search and recruit. Not only that, her purpose is clear: She's the daughter of Beneziah and an expert on Protheans. ME2 has a few people like Thane that I don't really know why they're recruited. Thane is supposed to be an assassin, right? Not a part of an assault team

ME 1 is a more traditional Bioware almost to the point of being formulaic (now if you like the formula that is in no way a bad thing).

Linear start -check
(4) things that need to be done in no specific order - check
linear end -check
Obi Wan character that dies -check
Companions that you just happen to come across - check
Antagonist who makes your life miserable - check.

ME 2 broke that formula but unlike DA2 which got panned harshly ME2 had the quality to shrug most of it off. In ME2 you are sent off to assemble a team, but most of them are optional.You don't really need them to complete the mission. Mordin is the only one that you could probably not do without. It's fair enough to say that was because you did not know what you would be facing. But more use of the individuals would have been better rather than scripted events based on flags.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 février 2012 - 12:08 .

[Getorex]

fresh101 wrote...

Not bad, but it certainly not as good as ME writing was, but then again, soundtrack in ME was good, but not nearly enough like it was in ME2, so it's kinda balanced

I liked the soundtrack of ME1 well enough EXCEPT that they clearly hadn't considered selling the ST because virtually all the music were mere snippets.  1 minute, 1.5 minutes, 2 minutes being longish...that is not proper length for a soundtrack.  They improved on that a great deal with the ME2 ST with the bits being more polished and combined various compatible short soundbites into full(er) pieces. 

[Candidate 88766]

Writing in ME2 was vastly superior to writing in ME1.
Character stories were vastly superior in ME2.
The main story was superior in ME1.

[Getorex]

Soverign 666 wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

daqs wrote...

It may be true that a suicide mission in which everybody walks away cheapens the whole thing. That's kind of opinion-based.

It's a disjoint similar to what ME does with its pretended urgency, imo. Eventually the bluff gets called in both cases.

If it feels worse for ME2, it's probably because while ME manages to distract the player with pretty impressive finale where you get to face enemies that got solid build up through the entire experience, ME2 instead only has to offer some ridiculous looking deus ex machina. Or deus ex goo for that matter.

What finale where you playing? Mass Effect 2's sucide mission was incredible IMO. Yea I get people dont like the human reaper personally i dont have a problem with it.

I don't know.  If I met the guy under other circumstances (the human reaper) I might actually like him.  Hoist a few beers, tell a few off-color jokes, pick up chicks.  I have no personal issue with the guy myself. 

This sort of critique comes up a lot.  I cut some slack because IT'S A VIDEO GAME.  I would like to know some of the background to its creation, like did the writers have this idea and just fire off ME without necessarily planning/thinking that it would take off and need sequels?  Sure, ME1 ended with potential sequel written all over the screen (all the dormant reapers outside the galaxy) but still. 

I loved the story of ME1.  I liked how it played out, how it was revealed, the revelation on the fate of the Protheans and how all the "Prothean" artefacts that everyone was jazzed about were not, in fact, Prothean at all.  For me, it always ends up going back to "Babylon 5" and how it was done.  Babs 5 was story-boarded out completely (for the main story plot points) before filming ever began.  The writer/director always knew exactly where the story was and where it was going and when.  It didn't have the ability to be extended beyond the 5 seasons it ran because it was written from day one for 5 seasons.  Period.  Beginning, middle, end all mapped out.  I think about that and then look at ME and suspect it wasn't all mapped out like that.  That there was a great idea for a story that then became ME1 and from there, woosh, it took off so now hey had to say, "OK, NOW what?"  A whole series of, "OK, how about this? Or what about this?  Or maybe this happens and then that."  And they quickly settled on the most technically reasonable options available - because it was NOT all written out as a novel with the clear plot line with a clear beginning, middle, and end so they had to do that in a rather ad hoc basis.  That and the fact that there is turnover in game companies so you don't have the same people involved (top to bottom) with every iteration.  I cut them slack as a result and am OK with the game series so far.  I see technical advances in the game from 1 to 2 and now 3.  They have shuffled up things a bit, revamped others, and are trying still newer things.  Expected.  Not likely to be 100% right or come out precisely as they envisioned.  A good plan falls apart upon initial engagement with the enemy, so to speak. 

I immersed myself in the gameplay and story so I was IN it rather than constantly outside it critiquing every point.  Sure, I would spot weaknesses here and there but that was usually not in the midst of doing it, coming up after putting the keyboard/mouse down for a bit and thinking over what was going on and about to happen...later.  This isn't the same thing as writing novels or movies.  It has constraints and difficulties that simply do not exist in those media.  They are not dropping the ball here, merely stumbling now and again as is inevitable.

[SeminoleFarms]

Plinkett wrote...

Do you think the Mass Effect 2 dialogue was bad, because after playing the Mass Effect 3 demo I'd say even predator had great dialogue!

Yes, the dialogue in both ME1 and ME2 was about what I'd expect from a junior high school kid penning his first novella. Games ... at least thus far ... are not notable for their artful employment of the language, to be quite kind!

I consider a good game to be one where I don't actually throw up a little at the dialogue, and where at least the protagonist has competent voice acting. I think all the major voice acting with the exception of Tali (those forced Eastern bloc accents grow tedious) were tolerable.

Don't even get me started on Skyrim, where the male Nords sound Gaelic and the female Nords sound Russian...

The dialogue and story, however, are strictly amateur. I didn't detect much improvement in the ME3 demo, however "Come to the next checkpoint, the elevator is broken!" isn't a large sampling...

Modifié par SeminoleFarms, 21 février 2012 - 05:41 .