303 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaleist]

txgoldrush wrote...

Shaleist wrote...

I must have been sick on the day people discovered that plot importance is the key to making a character interaction rewarding. It isn't. Characters importance to a given plot is part of making the plot good. 2 totally different things sometimes. Examples wreav and paddock wiks are good characters ploteise. Mordin and wrex are good plotwise and interaction wise.

wreav and padok wiks are aslo good characters interaction wise.

They behave in an independent way from their partners *a good thing* but  relatively limited in interaction time.

[PMC65]

txgoldrush wrote...

PMC65 wrote...

I liked ME1, ME2 and ME3 squads. What made the game lose its replay value for me was the ending and bits of the actual storyline. There was also the lack of exploration in the game. Somehow the universe shrunk for me. Characters were the least of my problems and adding in a missing "fav" would not have fixed those things.

The universe is supposed to shrink, its called Reaper invasions.

Bioware sucks at exploration, they always have. Why put in something one sucks at just to have it.

Given that the world did shrink in ME3 your expectation was met, although I fail to understand how the "reaper invasion" equals universe shrinking. I would have thought it would have expanded the universe. Oh, well.

As to your second line, that is your personal opinion and so I have no real response. If you do not like their "exploration" so be it ... I would have liked to have seen more worlds myself. Loved landing on planets in ME1 but I know that some people found it boring. Different strokes.

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...

Fans overrate character interaction. Character interaction is meaningless if you can't develop them properly (Tali in ME1 being a talking codex entry), or you cannot involve in the plot. They fail the "why are you important?" test.

"Why are you important" can be many factors that don't relate directly to the main plot. Small little arcs can be important to making the universe feel more alive or fleshing out certain aspects that otherwise can't be shown through the plot (since games have limitations), or more importantly, be important for the individual's Shepard, so having that character interaction can be vital for Shepard to grow, even if it's small in your eyes.

Not everything has to be plot-related to equal meaningful growth.

Modifié par spirosz, 21 février 2013 - 03:31 .

[txgoldrush]

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Fans overrate character interaction. Character interaction is meaningless if you can't develop them properly (Tali in ME1 being a talking codex entry), or you cannot involve in the plot. They fail the "why are you important?" test.

"Why are you important" can be many factors that don't relate directly to the main plot. Small little arcs can be important to making the universe feel more alive or fleshing out certain aspects that otherwise can't be shown through the plot (since games have limitations), or more importantly, be important for the individual's Shepard, so having that character interaction can be vital for Shepard to grow, even if it's small in your eyes.

Not everything has to be plot-related to equal meaningful growth.

You didn't see the "or" in my statement.

Character interaction is meaningless if you can't develop the character properly OR you cannot involve them in the plot.

Sorry but Bioware's problem was that they use character interaction only as an establishment, not character development. They only really told not shown...this was finally fixed in ME2, DA2, and ME3 where while you can interact with the characters, you SEE them struggle, you SEE them develop instead of just tell you about it and all you do is wrap up their business with a short quest.

Also fans put too much stock talking to characters on the ship or camp and not enough stock on character interactions during missions, where the development happens far better.

[Conquerthecity]

 No, the character assassinations ruin the replay value for me. But admittedly, I consider character stagnation to be a form of assassination, and some of them were pretty stagnant and thus uninteresting. Garrus, for example, didn't really seem to develop that much. Maybe a little more if you romanced him, but it's been so long since I played a Garrusmance that I can't remember. 

[Nightwriter]

Fans do not overrate character interaction. To any extent. At all. It is literally the thing BioWare is the best at. Their plots are decent and their gameplay/combat varies pretty widely, but their characters and their character interaction is almost always solid. It's pretty hard to overstress the importance of BioWare's greatest strength. Dialogue -- that thing that only happens between characters -- is what defines their games and all the best aspects of them: PC customization, romance, friendships.

But don't become confused; it isn't character interaction that is desired. It is quality character interaction. We are not overrating the importance of that because it cannot be overrated. You can't hold up Tali's quarian Codex act as an example of what we are looking for, or use it as an argument for why we ask for it too much. It's like using ME1's crappy gameplay as an argument for why gameplay is overrated. Go into the gameplay forum, tell the ME3 gameplay fans that, and observe the reaction.

As for story relevance: They practically reinvented Liara just to keep her center stage. Garrus and Tali are on the team while others who probably had more story reason to be there remain absent. The fact of the matter is that BioWare does not seem to choose characters based on plot relevance. They seem to choose characters based on popularity, and then find a way to make them plot relevant. I for one think it would have been much easier to work Miranda into the ME3 Cerberus arc than to turn a shy inexperienced archaeologist into a cutthroat espionage expert, but hey -- if anyone is fair game, and the story can be warped to fit anyone in, why is it beyond the realm of reason to want an ME2 character?

I don't understand why anyone would want meaningless content for their favorite character. For me, any desire to see more of a character involves a desire for that character to be worked into the story. I doubt that many people want to see their faves just floating there, disconnected. I have never seen BioWare handle characters so carelessly as they did in ME2, but that really doesn't mean it had to be that way in ME3, or that the ME2 lot had nothing to work with story-wise.

[spirosz]

txgoldrush wrote...
Also fans put too much stock talking to characters on the ship or camp and not enough stock on character interactions during missions, where the development happens far better.

Again, subjective.  Missions full of shooting Cerberus, leaves little time for banter or "character" development, unless there are implications of one character, a Human for example, who was never willing to sacrifice or save an Alien, now ends up risking their life because they've come to terms with the whole "everyone is equal" in a sense - that would be deveolpment in the right way, for a certain aspect of one's development, yet that might not work for every case.  

Certain types of development are far more appropriate during scenes while in a camp, or on a ship, or somewhere more personal, but I understand what you're trying to establish, I just don't see it working, unless Bioware wants to make it so certain characters have to be forced on certain missions.  

Modifié par spirosz, 21 février 2013 - 01:48 .

[Steelcan]

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Also fans put too much stock talking to characters on the ship or camp and not enough stock on character interactions during missions, where the development happens far better.

Again, subjective.  Missions full of shooting Cerberus, leaves little time for banter or "character" development, unless there are implications of one character, a Human for example, who was never willing to sacrifice or save an Alien, now ends up risking their life because they've come to terms with the whole "everyone is equal" in a sense - that would be deveolpment in the right way, for a certain aspect of one's development, yet that might not work for every case.  

Certain types of development are far more appropriate during scenes while in a camp, or on a ship, or somewhere more personal, but I understand what you're trying to establish, I just don't see it working, unless Bioware wants to make it so certain characters have to be forced on certain missions.  

. Like what happened in ME3?  

[spirosz]

Steelcan wrote...
Like what happened in ME3?  

Like Thessia?  I find that makes sense to bring Liara, but I don't find Shepard's reaction after the mission far to the player.

[Steelcan]

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Like what happened in ME3?  

Like Thessia?  I find that makes sense to bring Liara, but I don't find Shepard's reaction after the mission far to the player.

. It makes sense for Liara to want to go.  But it makes little sense to actually bring her.  But my biggest complaint is EDI on Cronos.

[spirosz]

Nightwriter wrote...

The fact of the matter is that BioWare does not seem to choose characters based on plot relevance. They seem to choose characters based on popularity, and then find a way to make them plot relevant.

I would argue it's more what happens between the protagonist and characters, unless that's what you meant?

Dialogue -- that thing that only happens between characters -- is what defines their games and all the best aspects of them: PC customization, romance, friendships.

And great point about popularity, they did it with Tali and I bet they wrote characters different for sequals based on popularity, which might not of been a great thing for the character itself.

Modifié par spirosz, 21 février 2013 - 02:03 .

[spirosz]

Steelcan wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Like what happened in ME3?  

Like Thessia?  I find that makes sense to bring Liara, but I don't find Shepard's reaction after the mission far to the player.

. It makes sense for Liara to want to go.  But it makes little sense to actually bring her.  But my biggest complaint is EDI on Cronos.

Ah, true.  I didn't mind, but did that mission "develop" EDI's character?  Not exactly, ha. I found her development was best while on the shore time moments on the Citadel, where she's interacting with Humans outside of the Normandy.

Modifié par spirosz, 21 février 2013 - 02:02 .

[Steelcan]

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Like what happened in ME3?  

Like Thessia?  I find that makes sense to bring Liara, but I don't find Shepard's reaction after the mission far to the player.

. It makes sense for Liara to want to go.  But it makes little sense to actually bring her.  But my biggest complaint is EDI on Cronos.

Ah, true.  I didn't mind, but did that mission "develop" EDI's character?  Not exactly, ha. I found her development was best while on the shore time moments on the Citadel, where she's interacting with Humans outside of the Normandy.

. My favorite conversation with her is the one where she asks about the nature of synthetic life and its purpose.  I think that one was well done.  All the other mandatory characters have at least some reason to be on their mission, Liara has the loosest of reasons, and her learning about the asari was priceless, Tali had some reason to be there (her admiralty position being ignored), EDI, she opens a door........

[Nightwriter]

What about the happenings between the protagonist and the characters?

[spirosz]

My quoting got messed up - I meant this part

Dialogue -- that thing that only happens between characters

I found that Bioware focuses more on the dialogue between the main character and characters, compared to his or her squad actually interacting with each other

[Bob Garbage]

lack of squadmates, difficulty and streamlined ending all make the SP hard to replay.

[Wompoo]

I found that characters that were around around from ME 1 had weight, they had history and their personalities grew. ME 2 however was like stamp collecting, I had no empathy for any of them... accept for Mordan, but Mordan was a very well written and a strong character in an odd way (the others could hardly be called that). Jack could of been as strong as Mordans character, but was more like a ham actor, over acting. I really feel that less is more with trilogies, when it comes to companions (more story more bonding more growth and development).

[Nightwriter]

spirosz wrote...

My quoting got messed up - I meant this part

Dialogue -- that thing that only happens between characters

I found that Bioware focuses more on the dialogue between the main character and characters, compared to his or her squad actually interacting with each other

Oh. Then yeah, I count the protagonist as a character, and the bulk of the dialogue usually happens between the PC and NPCs.

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Like what happened in ME3?

Like Thessia? I find that makes sense to bring Liara, but I don't find Shepard's reaction after the mission far to the player.

. It makes sense for Liara to want to go. But it makes little sense to actually bring her. But my biggest complaint is EDI on Cronos.

Ah, true. I didn't mind, but did that mission "develop" EDI's character? Not exactly, ha. I found her development was best while on the shore time moments on the Citadel, where she's interacting with Humans outside of the Normandy.

. My favorite conversation with her is the one where she asks about the nature of synthetic life and its purpose. I think that one was well done. All the other mandatory characters have at least some reason to be on their mission, Liara has the loosest of reasons, and her learning about the asari was priceless, Tali had some reason to be there (her admiralty position being ignored), EDI, she opens a door........

The conversation on the purpose of synthetic life was very well done. Depending on your responses, she might come out the other end incessantly selfless, or she might only be on our side in the name of self-preservation. Or, she might be more balanced. My favorite combination of options there is to pick the bottom option first, top option second. There's no sense in hiding from our origins, but that doesn't mean we're captive to them.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it felt like the squadmate dialogue was more frequent, and more likely to involve them talking to each other and not just to Shepard, compared to ME2. ME2 may have had more variety, but sometimes each squadmate only had a few unique lines per mission, at least if it wasn't his/her loyalty mission.

For example, on Jack's loyalty mission, I don't recall hearing anything from a second, non-Jack squadmate other than a couple generic "this place is horrible" comments and something about the facility going rogue. Even when I brought Miranda or Jacob, there didn't seem to be any extra arguments about Cerberus.

[tonnactus]

Neria Rose wrote...

Warning, my opinion follows: I loved KoTOR and despised KoTOR 2. Every time Bao-dur opened his mouth I wanted to punch him in the throat to get him to shut up. Kreia, Hanharr, and Visas Marr all bored me to tears.

Kreia is a better character then anything Bioware came up with in their history. The whole game didnt have the boring simplistic black/white moral all Bioware games are plagued with.

[archangel1996]

Nah, the 5 minute with Jack or Samara or Grunt or Thane or Kasumi were more then enough, ho knows them anyway?
I enjoyed the moments with Morinth too
I liked also that my Shep and Liara forgot the Shadow Broker, quite funny how atthe Glyph scene the only two things to say to Liara were Screw you or i need friends like you

Modifié par archangel1996, 24 février 2013 - 01:38 .

[BrookerT]

tonnactus wrote...

Neria Rose wrote...

Warning, my opinion follows: I loved KoTOR and despised KoTOR 2. Every time Bao-dur opened his mouth I wanted to punch him in the throat to get him to shut up. Kreia, Hanharr, and Visas Marr all bored me to tears.

Kreia is a better character then anything Bioware came up with in their history. The whole game didnt have the boring simplistic black/white moral all Bioware games are plagued with.

Bioware Games haven't been black and white since KOTOR, seriously.

Dragon Age Origins wasn't black and white
Mass Effect 1+2 were not balck and white
Dragon Age 2 was as grey as humanly possible
It's not even possible to argue that Mass Effect 3 is balck and white

Did you even play the games?

[Neria Rose]

tonnactus wrote...

Neria Rose wrote...

Warning, my opinion follows: I loved KoTOR and despised KoTOR 2. Every time Bao-dur opened his mouth I wanted to punch him in the throat to get him to shut up. Kreia, Hanharr, and Visas Marr all bored me to tears.

Kreia is a better character then anything Bioware came up with in their history. The whole game didnt have the boring simplistic black/white moral all Bioware games are plagued with.

I've heard plenty of people praise Kreia, but I continue to not see the appeal. It may just be that KoTOR 2 was too disorganized for me to enjoy the characters (although that doesn't change Bao-dur's annoying voice), but.. yeah.. not for me.

[Yate]

oh look this thread again