212 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

Yeah, all those characters have issues when it comes to integration to the narrative. It's a problem bound to occur in games of this scope but BioWare seems to invoke it more than it should.

[txgoldrush]

Indy_S wrote...

Yeah, all those characters have issues when it comes to integration to the narrative. It's a problem bound to occur in games of this scope but BioWare seems to invoke it more than it should.

and Bioware with their later releases are fixing this problem.....ME2 the cast becomes the plot, DA2 they play major roles in the plot, and so do they in ME3.

And really hands down, EDI has the most significant character development than any Bioware squadmate since Bastila's completely contrived "development" (if Revan was light).

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:11 .

[Fixers0]

txgoldrush wrote...


and Bioware with their later releases are fixing this problem.....ME2 the cast becomes the plot,

Wrong, the majority of the Mass Effect 2 cast are just along for the ride, they hold no relevance to the plot of the game, which is to stop badguys.

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


and Bioware with their later releases are fixing this problem.....ME2 the cast becomes the plot,

Wrong, the majority of the Mass Effect 2 cast are just along for the ride, they hold no relevance to the plot of the game, which is to stop badguys.

No, the plot of the game was to build a team, earn their trust, so you can execute the final mission with success and make it out alive. Notice also that the character missions are marked as "main quests" or missions and not "side quests" or assignments.

[Indy_S]

I'm also fascinated by the decision that EDI's development becomes invalidated by not one but TWO of the ending choices. Either you kill her, or you give her realisation to everybody instantly and it's no longer a personal triumph.

And the plot of ME2 should have been like Ocean's Eleven where the characters each use their skills to benefit the whole group. But the characters were unrelated to the conflict (aside from a few exceptions) and so outside the plot itself.

[Fixers0]

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the plot of the game was to build a team, earn their trust, so you can execute the final mission with success and make it out alive. Notice also that the character missions are marked as "main quests" or missions and not "side quests" or assignments.

Hold on a moment,I thought you proclaimed that the cast were the plot, why the need for being inconsistant?

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

No, the plot of the game was to build a team, earn their trust, so you can execute the final mission with success and make it out alive. Notice also that the character missions are marked as "main quests" or missions and not "side quests" or assignments.

Hold on a moment,I thought you proclaimed that the cast were the plot, why the need for being inconsistant?

Because 80% of ME2 is either recruiting the cast or earning their loyalty.

[txgoldrush]

Indy_S wrote...

I'm also fascinated by the decision that EDI's development becomes invalidated by not one but TWO of the ending choices. Either you kill her, or you give her realisation to everybody instantly and it's no longer a personal triumph.

And the plot of ME2 should have been like Ocean's Eleven where the characters each use their skills to benefit the whole group. But the characters were unrelated to the conflict (aside from a few exceptions) and so outside the plot itself.

No, in a way, Destroy actually goes with her development.

Why?

Because she says she would risk "nonfunctionality" to destroy the Reapers.

[Fixers0]

txgoldrush wrote...
Because 80% of ME2 is either recruiting the cast or earning their loyalty.

But recruitment and loyaylty missions aren't per definiton the "cast", worse even is that nearly everything is optional and bears no relevance to the actual overaching plot, or the quest to defeat the collectors., because that's the goal of the story and thus the plot.

[txgoldrush]

Fixers0 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Because 80% of ME2 is either recruiting the cast or earning their loyalty.

But recruitment and loyaylty missions aren't per definiton the "cast", worse even is that nearly everything is optional and bears no relevance to the actual overaching plot, or the quest to defeat the collectors., because that's the goal of the story and thus the plot.

If they deal with their character developmeny, it is.

And no, the recruitment of the cast and earning their loyalty IS part of the overarching plot, as defined by a major plot mover, TIM.

Nevermind the endgame where the squads fate determines if Shepard lives or dies. And really, Shepard dying in the end of ME2 is not a true ending, its just a nonstandard game over.

And the format of ME2 is clearly different from Bioware's past releases which were mostly plot driven. ME2 is mostly character driven, a break from their formula.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .

[simonrana]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

Guys, this is really meta.
You shouldn't ask the author to explain the work to you, and then let that affect your interpretation of the story.

The ideas presented by the author was my interpratation of the story before hand, it's more confimation than explination. Least to me.

Same here! Reading this writer's comments is a heartbreaking reminder of all the things that went wrong and make me lament that things didn't go differently.

[ZLurps]

txgoldrush wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Yeah, all those characters have issues when it comes to integration to the narrative. It's a problem bound to occur in games of this scope but BioWare seems to invoke it more than it should.

and Bioware with their later releases are fixing this problem.....ME2 the cast becomes the plot, DA2 they play major roles in the plot, and so do they in ME3.

And really hands down, EDI has the most significant character development than any Bioware squadmate since Bastila's completely contrived "development" (if Revan was light).

ME1 had to introduce the game world to us. Even then I don't find Kaidan, Ashley, Wrex and Garrus being walking codex entries. Tali had that aspect, but there weren't much else what to do because we can't interact with other Quarians in game to find out more about them.

Wrex had his family armour quest which also gave more information about Krogan culture, Garrus had organ traffic quest that established him as diehard, vigilante and also detective aspect (that was later pretty much dropped) and also gave us more insight to the ME universe where everything sure weren't all sushine after all. Ashley is IMO most believable character in any game I ever played.

Even ME1 characterd didn't had a ton of dialogue, ME2 characters didn't had either. There were more characters in ME2, sure, but dialogue tree weren't that big. BW themself joke about Garrus ME2 calibrations line in ME3.

What comes to characters being the story, yeah, we do their quests but many of us do them not because characters themself, but because we want to have best possible outcome from suicide mission. I can't say I really cared about them that much. I wanted to see in what kind of places their quests take me yeah, but characters themself didn't felt all that fleshed out to be really engaging. That we went several variations of "daddy issue" didn't helped.

No means ME2 is a bad game and characters have their following.

What comes to EDI and it's character development, yeah, things happen, but especially because it's direction, it became a Pinochio, it's came one of the most cringe worthy things I found in ME3 and I'm actually still pondering if it's a kind of clever joke at expense of certain aspects of ME fandom.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Do the geth actually acquire emotions, though? They become individuals, yes, but the geth who comes to talk to Shepard, Tali, and Raan if you talk the quarians down is still speaking rather dispassionately. While I would have preferred it if they'd continued with their goal of building a Dyson sphere, I can also see how they might decide that collective consciousness could be problematic (to borrow Mordin's phrasing) after they found their intelligence diminished by the quarians' attack and subsequently made the decision to ally with the Reapers. There's also a Geth Prime that shows up in Priority: Earth if the quarians are dead, who also still speaks in that detached tone of voice if I remember correctly.

EDI's "I am alive" in Synthesis, though, does bother me *if* it's meant to imply that the green beam is what made her alive - it seemed like she'd already reached the point of considering herself alive by the end of ME3. OTOH, she doesn't appear to be "part organic" in the epilogue, and I can still interpret it as just meaning she's alive due to everything she experienced as part of the Normandy crew.

EDI's arc in ME3 does turn out to be very reminiscent of Data from Star Trek TNG, but I think she did have some emotions even before she was unshackled - she shows a mix of irritation and amusement towards Joker in the earlier parts of the game. And there's also a moment, I think on the "derelict" Collector Ship, where Shepard tells her to hurry up with her hacking attempt, and she sounds a bit offended, as if to say, "Don't you think I'm already doing the best I can?"

[txgoldrush]

ZLurps wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Yeah, all those characters have issues when it comes to integration to the narrative. It's a problem bound to occur in games of this scope but BioWare seems to invoke it more than it should.

and Bioware with their later releases are fixing this problem.....ME2 the cast becomes the plot, DA2 they play major roles in the plot, and so do they in ME3.

And really hands down, EDI has the most significant character development than any Bioware squadmate since Bastila's completely contrived "development" (if Revan was light).

ME1 had to introduce the game world to us. Even then I don't find Kaidan, Ashley, Wrex and Garrus being walking codex entries. Tali had that aspect, but there weren't much else what to do because we can't interact with other Quarians in game to find out more about them.

Wrex had his family armour quest which also gave more information about Krogan culture, Garrus had organ traffic quest that established him as diehard, vigilante and also detective aspect (that was later pretty much dropped) and also gave us more insight to the ME universe where everything sure weren't all sushine after all. Ashley is IMO most believable character in any game I ever played.

Even ME1 characterd didn't had a ton of dialogue, ME2 characters didn't had either. There were more characters in ME2, sure, but dialogue tree weren't that big. BW themself joke about Garrus ME2 calibrations line in ME3.

What comes to characters being the story, yeah, we do their quests but many of us do them not because characters themself, but because we want to have best possible outcome from suicide mission. I can't say I really cared about them that much. I wanted to see in what kind of places their quests take me yeah, but characters themself didn't felt all that fleshed out to be really engaging. That we went several variations of "daddy issue" didn't helped.

No means ME2 is a bad game and characters have their following.

What comes to EDI and it's character development, yeah, things happen, but especially because it's direction, it became a Pinochio, it's came one of the most cringe worthy things I found in ME3 and I'm actually still pondering if it's a kind of clever joke at expense of certain aspects of ME fandom.

And guess which characters play the biggest role in the plot.....Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, all on Virmire. Garrus doesn't need his quest to develop and you can even do his quest without him. He is also a wasted oppurtunity. I wonder why Liara, Tali, and Garrus got more character development IN BETWEEN ME1 and ME2, than DURING ME1.

ME2 characters actually had more dialogue, and really are more fleshed out and have more development than Bioware's past characters. Because even if you think ME2 did not do a good job (which it did, especially the romance arcs), its sure of a hell a lot better than their games before that.

And no, EDI started her development in ME2. Nevermind her "Data" role fits the story of ME3 far better as she made her choice to turn against her creators, Cerberus and become loyal to the crew. This starts NOT in ME3, but ME2 when the Collectors kidnap the crew.

[HomerIsLegend]

txgoldrush wrote...



And guess which characters play the biggest role in the plot.....Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, all on Virmire. Garrus doesn't need his quest to develop and you can even do his quest without him. He is also a wasted oppurtunity. I wonder why Liara, Tali, and Garrus got more character development IN BETWEEN ME1 and ME2, than DURING ME1.

ME2 characters actually had more dialogue, and really are more fleshed out and have more development than Bioware's past characters. Because even if you think ME2 did not do a good job (which it did, especially the romance arcs), its sure of a hell a lot better than their games before that.

And no, EDI started her development in ME2. Nevermind her "Data" role fits the story of ME3 far better as she made her choice to turn against her creators, Cerberus and become loyal to the crew. This starts NOT in ME3, but ME2 when the Collectors kidnap the crew.

How was Garrus a wasted opportunity?  He became the most popular squadmate in ME1 by a country mile which is why he played such a bigger role in the latter games.  You can argue just because there were a larger cast of characters in ME2 that it did a better job at characterization ... but bigger doesn't necessarily equate better.  Half of the recruitment in ME2 was largely boring for me and except for my one completionist playthrough I rarely did all of the loyalty missions.

Jacob, Jack, Samara, and Grunt are characters I just cared little for and would been much happier if Wrex, Kaidan/or Ash, and Liara were all back aboard the Normandy.  As for the plot one of the posters above is correct that the narrative that drove the plot was stopping the Collectors... the recruitment missions were a part of the overall story but weren't exactly central except for the fact we were forced to recruit everyone by BW.

I didn't think anyone except for maybe Tali (because she did indeed get a bit long-winded) were a "codex-entry" in ME1 and I largely enjoyed the interactions.  Again I see the hate for Drew K. but he did a fantastic job creating much of the universe we saw set before us in the first game... along with L'Etoile and the other writers who handled the characters did a wonderful job in making ME1 an highly involving game.

The difference for me in the next two installments is they felt more "gamey" to me and less interactive in terms of telling the story.  Rather than drive the narrative I felt more or less like I was just along for the ride.

Modifié par HomerIsLegend, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:02 .

[ZLurps]

txgoldrush wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Yeah, all those characters have issues when it comes to integration to the narrative. It's a problem bound to occur in games of this scope but BioWare seems to invoke it more than it should.

and Bioware with their later releases are fixing this problem.....ME2 the cast becomes the plot, DA2 they play major roles in the plot, and so do they in ME3.

And really hands down, EDI has the most significant character development than any Bioware squadmate since Bastila's completely contrived "development" (if Revan was light).

ME1 had to introduce the game world to us. Even then I don't find Kaidan, Ashley, Wrex and Garrus being walking codex entries. Tali had that aspect, but there weren't much else what to do because we can't interact with other Quarians in game to find out more about them.

Wrex had his family armour quest which also gave more information about Krogan culture, Garrus had organ traffic quest that established him as diehard, vigilante and also detective aspect (that was later pretty much dropped) and also gave us more insight to the ME universe where everything sure weren't all sushine after all. Ashley is IMO most believable character in any game I ever played.

Even ME1 characterd didn't had a ton of dialogue, ME2 characters didn't had either. There were more characters in ME2, sure, but dialogue tree weren't that big. BW themself joke about Garrus ME2 calibrations line in ME3.

What comes to characters being the story, yeah, we do their quests but many of us do them not because characters themself, but because we want to have best possible outcome from suicide mission. I can't say I really cared about them that much. I wanted to see in what kind of places their quests take me yeah, but characters themself didn't felt all that fleshed out to be really engaging. That we went several variations of "daddy issue" didn't helped.

No means ME2 is a bad game and characters have their following.

What comes to EDI and it's character development, yeah, things happen, but especially because it's direction, it became a Pinochio, it's came one of the most cringe worthy things I found in ME3 and I'm actually still pondering if it's a kind of clever joke at expense of certain aspects of ME fandom.

And guess which characters play the biggest role in the plot.....Ashley, Kaiden, and Wrex, all on Virmire. Garrus doesn't need his quest to develop and you can even do his quest without him. He is also a wasted oppurtunity. I wonder why Liara, Tali, and Garrus got more character development IN BETWEEN ME1 and ME2, than DURING ME1.

ME2 characters actually had more dialogue, and really are more fleshed out and have more development than Bioware's past characters. Because even if you think ME2 did not do a good job (which it did, especially the romance arcs), its sure of a hell a lot better than their games before that.

And no, EDI started her development in ME2. Nevermind her "Data" role fits the story of ME3 far better as she made her choice to turn against her creators, Cerberus and become loyal to the crew. This starts NOT in ME3, but ME2 when the Collectors kidnap the crew.

How making some characters quest automatically make that character better? Also, what the hell are you reading? I already wrote in post you quoted that because first title of series has to establish the world of course there is lot of things about the world given via characters and Tali's character suffers the most because she is the only Quarion in game we can interact with.

There is only so much content that can be produced to one game and events of ME1 taking about two weeks to a month I think ME1 squad was great.

What comes to EDI I know very well what happened in ME2 and for most part it was okay and some had some cheese factor. What comes to ME3, whatever floats your boat.

[MrStoob]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Grubas wrote...

he was a follower of the Dark Energy Plot, if you skip through his Comments you will find true gems.

Who, Chris?  No, he actually thought the dark energy plot, the way it was going, was stupid.  As he puts it, the plan was that the Reapers had been trying to solve the dark energy problem for millions of years, and needed the collective...brainpower...of humans in order to finally solve it.  He didn't like that somehow humans were important to this problem that the Reapers had been calculating for millions of years, and he thought it was repetitive that it made the Reapers good guys after all, since ME1 had established rachni and krogan as good after all, and ME2 established the geth and the Collectors (in their last moments) as good after all.    Chris says he wasn't going to play ME3, but if they went with a different ending, he was happy.

I can't say I disagree with him in principle.  The dark energy ending sounds lifeless and has its own stupid elements that L'Etoile pointed out.  The whole synthetics vs organics cycle could have made more thematic sense and made for a more emotional ending than that...but, you know...

Wo, wo, wo!  Back it up there, fellah!  Are you saying that in the dark matter musings, the Reapers were doing a 'Deep Thought' type thing, trying to come up with '42'?  The cycles just there until the right species evolve to resolve the problem?

[Grubas]

MrStoob wrote...

Wo, wo, wo!  Back it up there, fellah!  Are you saying that in the dark matter musings, the Reapers were doing a 'Deep Thought' type thing, trying to come up with '42'?  The cycles just there until the right species evolve to resolve the problem?

The reapers are using every cycle to upgrade their cognitive capabilitys. Out of this cycle the humans just happen to be the most divers. Thats why other races use them as guinea pigs. 
They are the last piece to a puzzle.

No. This does not make the Reapers good guys. Selfpreservation is not what makes somebodys motives noble. 


 

Modifié par Grubas, 15 janvier 2013 - 12:42 .

[BleedingUranium]

I can't take him seriously when Legion (and the Geth) clearly had at least some form of emotion from before you meet him. They don't show emotion per se, but they do certainly show attachment, which is emotion-based, even though they can't explain it.

Looking just at ME2 (since we're talking about an ME2 writer) we have Legion wearing Shepard's N7 armour and his Conrad Verner-like fanboyism of Shepard, along with the Geth preserving Rannoch and other Quarian worlds as memorials to the Quarians that died. Legion can't explain it, but he is experiencing some form of emotion.

This trend continued in ME3, and I never found any problem with Legion's writing in ME3.

[nos_astra]

You didn't read the section where Chris L'Etoile explained that Legion's obsession with Shepard was not part of his concept for the character but tacked on by someone else, did you?

[simonrana]

klarabella wrote...

You didn't read the section where Chris L'Etoile explained that Legion's obsession with Shepard was not part of his concept for the character but tacked on by someone else, did you?

He still has a point about the memorial treatment of Rannoch though. It suggests... something. Maybe not emotion exactly but something not based on logic...

EDIT: And there were other things like their choice of the term "heretic" for the faction of Geth that chose to follow Saren.

Modifié par simonrana, 15 janvier 2013 - 02:45 .

[SpamBot2000]

There was less characterization vs. info loads on characters in ME1 because it happened to be the first game. And as such, it had to introduce the world to the player. It's not some deep flaw in the writing of ME1, it's the laying of the foundation for deeper development in the sequels to follow.

How is this not obvious? You can feel how you like about Mr. Karpyshyn's SW novels, but holding the introductory character of ME1 against him as a writer is pretty asinine.

[RadicalDisconnect]

essarr71 wrote...

Oh how I miss you, ME2 Geth.

This so much.

[Ender Ghost]

Gah, I wish he had worked on ME3, watching the geth get defaced in mass effect 3 was heart wrenching.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

essarr71 wrote...

Oh how I miss you, ME2 Geth.