426 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Igor]

OP... you.. are... insane...

[savionen]

To be fair I bet ME2's plot would have been a lot more relevant if ME3's plot and writers were the originals.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Stornskar wrote...

Are we really comparing ME1 and ME3? BW had no idea how successful ME1 would be, yet it was beloved by many and its sequels were sold based on how much everyone loved the original; ME3 has nearly killed the franchise and cause a firestorm of anger such that they actually released free DLC to explain the endings better.

For realz.

[txgoldrush]

ld1449 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Drew K treated most of his characters like info dumps.....especially Tali.

Seriously, he is kinda overrated.

Say what you wan tabout Walters, but his team treated their characters as human, not as info dumps.

Which was rather easy to do considering that most, if not all of the universe was already explained in the last two games. And the one time he did need to give us info (Catalyst) there was none at all, not even half a paragraph worth. All n all I think I prefer Drew's style over Walter's Speculation for everyone.

but now its fixed....the original ending is now meaningless.

[Herr Igor]

savionen wrote...

To be fair I bet ME2's plot would have been a lot more relevant if ME3's plot and writers were the originals.

No doubt. The problem of ME3 has a name. Mac Walters.

[LinksOcarina]

txgoldrush wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

the reason Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series is the writing was focused on the best part of the series; the characters.

Seriously? You think a game that doesn't have an actual plot and largely revolves around the daddy issues of Shepard's goon squad makes a better game than a game with an actual story and plot?

Yep.

Because I actually gave a damn about the characters. In Mass Effect 1 only three out of the six squadmates had a personality; Ashley, Wrex, and arguably Liara.

In Mass Effect 2, save for Zaeed and Kasumi because of the nature of the DLC (although they were good too in retrospect)  can you not say that all 10 squadmates had personalities that were not only interesting, but dynamic enough to be engaged in their plights.

The main story was largely absent in Mass Effect 2, but the bookends of that said story are still threadbare as they were in Mass Effect 1. So really, if you were to look at the plots of both games, there is no difference at all because the main plot is roughly the same length. The side stuff is what matters. Mass Effect 3 is different because the main plot finally takes precedence here. Is that good or bad? Well, up until the finale it seemed to work for most people so I guess it is a good thing.

Point is, the game does have an actual plot and purpose. You choose to ignore it because it suits your argument. 

Mass Effect 3 is the ONLY game it the series that manages to combine BOTH strong plot prgression WITH character development.

ME1 had only plot progression, ME2 had only character development.

Nevermind that ME2 only develops their characters in a bubble when its their time, they aren't developed in the plot. ME3 develops their characters in the plot, especially the squad.

So in a way ME3's character development is even better than ME2's.

It can be argued yes.

The big issue though is Mass Effect 2 was able to juggle character development well. It was in a vacumn and kind of timed, but characters acted in character outside of their specific missions. The writing and pacing of the characters was very strong in 2, versus 1. 

However, 3 is even stronger than 2 in that regard.

There was no vaccuum in ME3 unlike ME2.

DA2 did character development better than ME2 as well.

I agree on dragon age 2, in fact its probably their best game in terms of character development and interaction, because its the only game thus far to have a fluid system that allows it to happen (friendship/rivalry)

I'm just saying the reason why people love 2 so much is the characters and their development, and the continued development in 3 made them even more likable and epic. Issues aside that is hard to deny. 

[txgoldrush]

Herr Igor wrote...

OP... you.. are... insane...

KOTOR's writing wasn't that great.....

[ld1449]

txgoldrush wrote...


However, 3 is even stronger than 2 in that regard.

There was no vaccuum in ME3 unlike ME2.

DA2 did character development better than ME2 as well.

What character development?

Fenris was a dick to mages at the start, he's a dick to mages at the end at the end.

Anders was a biggot against templars at the start, And at the end he just upgraded to mass murder.

The only one who showed any development whatsoever is Aveline Varis and MAYBE Isabella and Merril, though Merril is really more open to perspective.

[KeraWildmane]

While I agree that the writing was pretty good at best, it was still better than ME3's. ME2 has the best writing IMO.

[savionen]

It's also pretty easy to rip on older games. Some games do just not live up to time, at all. ME1's combat is pretty weak, but for when it was made it was pretty decent.

[txgoldrush]

LinksOcarina wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

the reason Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series is the writing was focused on the best part of the series; the characters.

Seriously? You think a game that doesn't have an actual plot and largely revolves around the daddy issues of Shepard's goon squad makes a better game than a game with an actual story and plot?

Yep.

Because I actually gave a damn about the characters. In Mass Effect 1 only three out of the six squadmates had a personality; Ashley, Wrex, and arguably Liara.

In Mass Effect 2, save for Zaeed and Kasumi because of the nature of the DLC (although they were good too in retrospect)  can you not say that all 10 squadmates had personalities that were not only interesting, but dynamic enough to be engaged in their plights.

The main story was largely absent in Mass Effect 2, but the bookends of that said story are still threadbare as they were in Mass Effect 1. So really, if you were to look at the plots of both games, there is no difference at all because the main plot is roughly the same length. The side stuff is what matters. Mass Effect 3 is different because the main plot finally takes precedence here. Is that good or bad? Well, up until the finale it seemed to work for most people so I guess it is a good thing.

Point is, the game does have an actual plot and purpose. You choose to ignore it because it suits your argument. 

Mass Effect 3 is the ONLY game it the series that manages to combine BOTH strong plot prgression WITH character development.

ME1 had only plot progression, ME2 had only character development.

Nevermind that ME2 only develops their characters in a bubble when its their time, they aren't developed in the plot. ME3 develops their characters in the plot, especially the squad.

So in a way ME3's character development is even better than ME2's.

It can be argued yes.

The big issue though is Mass Effect 2 was able to juggle character development well. It was in a vacumn and kind of timed, but characters acted in character outside of their specific missions. The writing and pacing of the characters was very strong in 2, versus 1. 

However, 3 is even stronger than 2 in that regard.

There was no vaccuum in ME3 unlike ME2.

DA2 did character development better than ME2 as well.

I agree on dragon age 2, in fact its probably their best game in terms of character development and interaction, because its the only game thus far to have a fluid system that allows it to happen (friendship/rivalry)

I'm just saying the reason why people love 2 so much is the characters and their development, and the continued development in 3 made them even more likable and epic. Issues aside that is hard to deny. 

I like ME2 better than ME1 as well, but I can't deny the flaws.

But th eway ME3 does it is simply better....I admit that ME2 was the game where Bioware stopped treating everyone but their main two party members as talking codex entries, but the flaws of the character relation the plot still remained.

DA2 had great character/plot intergration, hell Isabela, the optional party member, was huge.

[Binary_Helix 1]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm sorry, i'm calling bull**** on this one. The space magic was strong in Mass Effect 1. REALLY strong if you add up all the clues and how the plot devices worked, from using beacons to leave visions on people, to having an Asari transfer a cipher from a PLANT MONSTER onto you through a mind meld, and so forth...

thats not space magic? 

ME is a sci-fi game not Rainbow Six.

[Jvolikas]

ME1's plotholes could be overlooked, whereas ME3's plotholes required FREE DLC to explain...

[txgoldrush]

ld1449 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


However, 3 is even stronger than 2 in that regard.

There was no vaccuum in ME3 unlike ME2.

DA2 did character development better than ME2 as well.

What character development?

Fenris was a dick to mages at the start, he's a dick to mages at the end at the end.

Anders was a biggot against templars at the start, And at the end he just upgraded to mass murder.

The only one who showed any development whatsoever is Aveline Varis and MAYBE Isabella and Merril, though Merril is really more open to perspective.

Wrong....

Fenris realizes that his rage has overcome him and realizes this. That was his character development arc.

Nevermind the fact that each character develops differently as a rival than as a friend.

[Nragedreaper]

The thing about ME1 that made it great was the info dumps. It was the first time you actually entered the ME Universe and that was what was so cool about ME1. Learning about the asari and the quarians, not to mention Garrus lecturing Tali on the Geth. It wasn't great writing, but it was the sense of wonder at learning something new. Think of it like learning to write in kindergarten, your letters looked totally different. Looking back you'll realize your letters looked like crap. As you practiced you got better. Some thing with ME, in one they were giving you the tools to understand the universe, in ME2 they gave you deeper detail of the conflicts within that universe, and ME3 was the culmination of what they learned. I don't blame the writing as much as it just appeared to be rushed. I don't like the ending choices, but I wonder if the ending would have been different if they had more time.

[Seboist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Herr Igor wrote...

OP... you.. are... insane...

No, he's right. ME1 really wasn't that great.

ME3 made me realize that the potential I thought existed in ME1 and it's lore never existed and that the franchise was never meant to be anything other than a kiddy power trip for the player with tacked on "romances". Well, that and that I was more in love with my headcanon than the series' story.

[LinksOcarina]

ld1449 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


Drew K treated most of his characters like info dumps.....especially Tali.

Seriously, he is kinda overrated.

Say what you wan tabout Walters, but his team treated their characters as human, not as info dumps.

Which was rather easy to do considering that most, if not all of the universe was already explained in the last two games. And the one time he did need to give us info (Catalyst) there was none at all, not even half a paragraph worth. All n all I think I prefer Drew's style over Walter's Speculation for everyone.

Mac Walters is a stronger writer than Drew K, because Drew K followed the proto-typical style that most game writers tend to fall into: Explain everything, show nothing. 

I agree that Mass Effect 1 needed people to be codexes and the like, it was the opening game. But you notice by 3 a lot of that was gone, so there was no need to talk to people about things unless if it was something relevant to the plot. Walters gave the characters a lot more depth and a lot more presence in the peripheral writings of the game: banter was unique in sections, characters actually moved around on the ship and spoke to other characters in different sections. You overheard conversations and didn't have to interact with them to be interesting or engaging.

Plus, we had subtle things, like posture, cut-scene writing, how characters were portrayed when not speaking, and so forth. That stuff is critical when using visuals as a way of expression. This is something the writers didn't do in Mass Effect 1. Everything was static and the writing was more to the point in terms of explaination. 2 and 3 punctuated the writing through visual interpetation and camera changes, different angles, slight gestures of the eyes or body.

One of my favorite examples is in Mass Effect 2 during Garrus' loyalty mission, when Sidonis says he is dead inside and see's the face of his entire team looking at him while he sleeps, we get a cut to Garrus right in his eyes as he flinches for a moment during that line by Sidonis. That says it all about Garrus at that moment, that he sees it too, but for different reasons, and that he and Sidonis are alike in a twisted way. That is something writing cannot do but visuals can, and that shows how both writing and visual treatment of characters changes how we percieve them. 

No disrespect to Drew K, but his stuff was very plain in terms of delivery; it explains stuff and we get life stories, some character moments in a two-person scene, but nothing dynamic. Mac Walters, gave us dynamism, which catapulted Mass Effect to a new level. 

[LinksOcarina]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm sorry, i'm calling bull**** on this one. The space magic was strong in Mass Effect 1. REALLY strong if you add up all the clues and how the plot devices worked, from using beacons to leave visions on people, to having an Asari transfer a cipher from a PLANT MONSTER onto you through a mind meld, and so forth...

thats not space magic? 

ME is a sci-fi game not Rainbow Six.

And you have no argument anymore. Thank you for trying but you can leave now. 

[SuperVulcan]

 Judging by some of the responses that I read, I'm guessing many people here have not played the first Mass Effect in some time.

[The Heretic of Time]

LinksOcarina wrote...

In Mass Effect 2, save for Zaeed and Kasumi because of the nature of the DLC (although they were good too in retrospect)  can you not say that all 10 squadmates had personalities that were not only interesting, but dynamic enough to be engaged in their plights.

Right, you didn't find ME2 to be kind of a one-trick-pony with almost every single character (except for a few) having daddy issues? How is that interesting or dynamic at all?

LinksOcarina wrote...

So really, if you were to look at the plots of both games, there is no difference at all because the main plot is roughly the same length.

Really? ME2 has only 3 missions revolving round the main plot. ONLY THREE FLIPPING MISSIONS!

In ME1, every mission revolved around the main plot (except for the side-quests).

LinksOcarina wrote...

The side stuff is what matters. Mass Effect 3 is different because the main plot finally takes precedence here. Is that good or bad? Well, up until the finale it seemed to work for most people so I guess it is a good thing.

It would be a good thing if the plot didn't totally suck.

LinksOcarina wrote...

Point is, the game does have an actual plot and purpose. You choose to ignore it because it suits your argument. 

Plot? Maybe. Purpose? Well, if ME2's plot had any purpose or significance, than please enlighten me. ME2 didn't move the main plot of the series forward one bit.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:40 .

[Seboist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Well, that and that I was more in love with my headcanon than the series' story.

Yeah, I remember all your TIM-romance posts, lol.

Mhm, my femshep was squeaking like an un-oiled hinge in my headcanon thanks to TIM.

[Mathias]

So it's come to this? We bashing Mass Effect 1 now?

Mass Effect 1 had good writing and was way better than Mass Effect 3's, don't friggin yourselves

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:43 .