1814 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

DominusVita wrote...

ME1s writing has its problems. The characters lacked development and the plot was pretty contrived. It also had some pacing issues

That's fair, I'd meant relative to the series in general. It's no Shakespeare or Game of Thrones. I enjoyed the original game the same way I did for Secret of Mana - Great atmosphere, interesting flavor of combat, etc, even if the main story itself didn't feel like it was breaking new ground. A fresh take on old ideas, perhaps?

ME3 is the only game in the series to have a drive of a plot, and character development.

I'm not sure what to say to that without a bit more elaboration XD

Characters develop through the actions of the plot, not just the actions of the player.

[txgoldrush]

J. Reezy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

ME3 is the only game in the series to have a drive of a plot, and character development.

Pfft...

Stop it five.

ME1 was all plot with very little character development, ME2 was all character development with very little plot.

No, no, no. That's not how the series worked. They all have plot. Whether that plot tied in with the overarching plot of "Stop the Reapers" was one issue. Mass Effect 2's issue. The absence of overarching plot relevancy is not a diminishment or absence of plot.

But it is...ME2 put way more focus on character development at the expense of the plot, that's what its problem was. The only defense of this is that the characters are the story.

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

And no, a dueteragonist can only oppose the protagonist for so long, otherwise, he is by definition an antagonist.

Okay, how long is too long? Are we going off of feels here?

They can definitely be foils, but they cannot in the end oppose the protagonist. This is why Kreia is not the dueteragonist of KOTOR II even though she acts like one for most of the game. Same with Jowy Atrides in Suikoden II. They are defined as main antagonists because in the end, they oppose the protagonist.

Well in the end of my play throughs TIM ends up shooting himself because he realizes he was wrong and that is the only way he can oppose the Reapers. So at the very end he was against the Reapers. Does that count as being not against Shepard our plucky protagonost in the end? Hell even if you do shoot him, he dies saying all he wanted to do was protect Earth, isn't that what Shepard wanted to do as well?

Also what is your definition of a deuteragonist? Where did you get it? In my case I typed it into Google and got a bunch of wiki articles and english forums that say you can have a deuteragonist as an antagonist. I couldn't find any official sources, my dictionary just says some stuff about Greeks wearing masks, which is far from helpful.

[txgoldrush]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And no, a dueteragonist can only oppose the protagonist for so long, otherwise, he is by definition an antagonist.

Okay, how long is too long? Are we going off of feels here?

They can definitely be foils, but they cannot in the end oppose the protagonist. This is why Kreia is not the dueteragonist of KOTOR II even though she acts like one for most of the game. Same with Jowy Atrides in Suikoden II. They are defined as main antagonists because in the end, they oppose the protagonist.

Well in the end of my play throughs TIM ends up shooting himself because he realizes he was wrong and that is the only way he can oppose the Reapers. So at the very end he was against the Reapers. Does that count as being not against Shepard our plucky protagonost in the end? Hell even if you do shoot him, he dies saying all he wanted to do was protect Earth, isn't that what Shepard wanted to do as well?

Also what is your definition of a deuteragonist? Where did you get it? In my case I typed it into Google and got a bunch of wiki articles and english forums that say you can have a deuteragonist as an antagonist. I couldn't find any official sources, my dictionary just says some stuff about Greeks wearing masks, which is far from helpful.

Not really because he fails in his goals in the end and really, he is defeated intellectually. Him suiciding is really an admittance that he lost.

I can make a case for Loghain in DAO however because he joins the players party if you spare him, replacing Alistair. You can then say he is the deuteragonist because he fulfills that traditional role even though he was a supporting antagonist for so long. His story is not over after his defeat if you choose it.

And really, in practice, an antagonist is not viewed as a deuteragonist even though much of them time, he drives the story  This role goes to the protagonist's side kick or love interest in practice. And be careful, a deuteragonist or antagonist can drive the story more so than the protagonist and be focus characters.

So for example, you would call Sephiroth an antagonist and Tifa the deuteragonist even though Sephiroth foils Cloud and drives the story more than Tifa, but in practice, Tifa is considered the deuteragonist.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:46 .

[CronoDragoon]

CrutchCricket wrote...
Well gee glad some fans are so important. I guess I'm just not special enough to be so considered.

I'm glad we're making some sort of progress. You are correct: you are not special. That doesn't mean you weren't considered. It just means you were considered about as much as any other fan.

What's done is done and I guess we know how Bioware does things. But to see other fans condoning this kind of double standard bull****... I guess Bioware learnt plenty after all. They learned what they could get away with.

I'll condone it all I like, because I enjoyed the screen time that the majority of ME2 characters received in ME3. There's no real reason to arbitrarily insert irrelevant characters into the main story of ME3, especially when they're less popular than other characters (who I believe are already more relevant, with which you disagree and are clearly not looking to change your mind) who are available to fill those roles.

CrutchCricket wrote...
Tali isn't unique, she's an example of what all (or most quarians) go through during this arc. Unless you're implying the peace will be colored by quarian passive-aggressiveness.

Well, yeah. That's exactly what I think. I don't see evidence otherwise. And it remains to be challenged that Tali is the most prominent character (character, not nameless mass of NPCs) to have her preconceptions challenged in this sense.

Well if Jacob isn't well liked that'd be fine... until you consider that ME2 characters that are just as well liked still got far less. In essence I suppose that means fan desire is valid... when it's in line with Bioware's plans. Not that I
should be surprised, given the BSN these days.

Which ME2 characters were just as well liked as ME1 characters?

Right, so your logic is that everyone that distrust/objects to Cerberus is "tied in" to the Cerberus plot? Great. That's just about everyone else.

Not really. The first thing Tali does on board the Normandy in ME2 is question Shepard being with Cerberus, but that's not the focus of her plot relevance. Contrast this with the VS, whose interactions with Shepard ALWAYS center around Cerberus, and the climax of their characterarc is during a Cerberus coup. Anderson is tied to Cerberus, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's his purpose to contrast with Cerberus,though that's clearly his purpose in the final confrontation.

Care to elaborate?

You...want me to elaborate on how Liara was relevant to the Reaper plot in ME1?

Liara may have been thrust in the path of the main plot, but the circumstances in which it was done argue against squad status, not for.

The entire reason for her becoming the Broker was to help Shepard find a way to stop the Reapers. I'm shocked that anyone's surprised that exactly this happened in ME3.

The point here is simple: Story can dictate characters and characters can also dictate story. And
in a story where events are written, sometimes against plausibility just to boost characters and get them closer to the main plot, other characters having fewer connections is no excuse for their sidelining.

Sure it is. The question is whether or not there's a reason to NOT sideline them despite having fewer connections to the plot. Your claim that fan desire is a valid reason actually works against you in this sense since the ME1 cast is more popular.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 janvier 2014 - 07:49 .

[Mangalores]

txgoldrush wrote...
...

ME1s writing has its problems. The characters lacked development and the plot was pretty contrived. It also had some pacing issues. ME2's plot is the worst in the series and had to have DLC to lead into ME3.

And really, Saren didn't even need the Conduit, he could have used other methods to take control of the Citadel without raising suspicion.

ME3 is the only game in the series to have a drive of a plot, and character development.

While I agree with ME2 and ME1 has its problems, though is the best working story arc of all three in your pacing department (e.g. both ME2 and ME3 have major rush jobs close to the end where suddenly everything gets changed to allow for the finale and artificial interupts mid game) I don't really see where ME3 is driven and has substantial (above ME2 which was superficial and irrelevant) character development? And I'm speaking in relative terms to the franchise not in comparison of the Department, Godfather or the like.

[spirosz]

Liara is the second most important character in the game because she cannot die for favouritism. Second most important character in the game is Shepard's clone because they are one in the same. Cold hard facts.

[AlanC9]

spirosz wrote...

Liara is the second most important character in the game because she cannot die for favouritism. Second most important character in the game is Shepard's clone because they are one in the same. Cold hard facts.

So "favouritism" kept Liara out of the ME2 SM?

[dreamgazer]

AlanC9 wrote...

So "favouritism" kept Liara out of the ME2 SM?

Joking aside, I've heard that theory before: that they kept Liara from being a squad member in ME2 because the SM might kill her.

[spirosz]

AlanC9 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Liara is the second most important character in the game because she cannot die for favouritism. Second most important character in the game is Shepard's clone because they are one in the same. Cold hard facts.

So "favouritism" kept Liara out of the ME2 SM?

Of course. 

[spirosz]

We can't kill someone who adds nothing to ME3.

[dreamgazer]

J. Reezy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So "favouritism" kept Liara out of the ME2 SM?

Joking aside, I've heard that theory before: that they kept Liara from being a squad member in ME2 because the SM might kill her.

Shouldn't have had an SM in the first place. /hindsightswag

See, I think something like the SM's confidence-or-death party mechanic would've been great for the trilogy's finale. It was simply a terrible idea for the middle entry, with a conclusion that was forced to deal with all those former-crew absences (which it did, with mixed results). 

[David7204]

If it led to mixed results and was very heavily praised for it's role in the current game, it clearly wasn't a terrible idea at, was it?

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

If it led to mixed results and was very heavily praised for it's role in the current game, it clearly wasn't a terrible idea at, was it?

It clearly led to mixed (def: containing a mixture of both favorable and negative elements) results as the next game dealt with the repercussions, so yes, it was. 

[David7204]

Could you explain to me exactly how something leading to 'mixed' (Not terrible. 'Mixed') results and, again, being heavily praised for it's role in the current game means something is a terrible idea?

Modifié par David7204, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:00 .

[AlanC9]

Making the middle game better at the final game's expense isn't a great strategy. You're better off with the final game being better, all other factors being equal.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:10 .

[David7204]

The same could be said of every choice that imports.

And really, that's just not true. If something offered a drastic improvement to the middle entry of a series at the expanse of a small loss in the final installment, I would probably do it in a heartbeat.

Modifié par David7204, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:11 .

[AlanC9]

Sure. But the SM involves many such choices and hits at one of Bio's particular strengths, which is companion interaction. The design would be less hurtful for a developer which believes in letting players get less content with bad saves, but that's not how Bio rolls.

I was assuming the utility loss and gain between the two games to be approximately equal, yes. We can't evaluate how well the alternate ME2 would have worked without knowing something about it. Obviously ME2 without the SM would have been an utterly different design, and I don't have any principled way to judge how good it might have been

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:20 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

The same could be said of every choice that imports.

And really, that's just not true. If something offered a drastic improvement to the middle entry of a series at the expanse of a small loss in the final installment, I would probably do it in a heartbeat.

Now you're just saying that to be different. Why would you want to detract from the climax (heavily, not a small loss) for the sake of the rising action?

That's not very narratively aware David. 

You're such a hipster.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Could you explain to me exactly how something leading to 'mixed' (Not terrible. 'Mixed') results means something is a terrible idea?

Variables. Think about the story they could have told without juggling those death variables, David.

Some of the ways BioWare dealt with them were tolerable, and some weren't.  None of them were great; hence, "mixed".  But all of that could have been avoided by leaving the SM dynamic for the last game. Hence why it was a terrible idea for the middle part of a trilogy: because the third game is forced to tiptoe around a bunch of unnecessary character absences in telling its story. 

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Could you explain to me exactly how something leading to 'mixed' (Not terrible. 'Mixed') results and, again, being heavily praised for it's role in the current game means something is a terrible idea?

It's mixed because the people who praised it also stated that it should've been in the final game also

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So "favouritism" kept Liara out of the ME2 SM?

Joking aside, I've heard that theory before: that they kept Liara from being a squad member in ME2 because the SM might kill her.

They did also give her a staring role in that DLC when all was said and done.

dreamgazer wrote...
See, I think something like the SM's confidence-or-death party mechanic would've been great for the trilogy's
finale. It was simply a terrible idea for the middle entry, with a conclusion that was forced to deal with all those former-crew absences (which it did, with mixed results). 

There's a premature climax joke here somewhere...

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:44 .

[Seboist]

AlanC9 wrote...


Sure. But the SM involves many such choices and hits at one of Bio's particular strengths, which is companion interaction. The design would be less hurtful for a developer which believes in letting players get less content with bad saves, but that's not how Bio rolls.

I was assuming the utility loss and gain between the two games to be approximately equal, yes. We can't evaluate how well the alternate ME2 would have worked without knowing something about it. Obviously ME2 without the SM would have been an utterly different design, and I don't have any principled way to judge how good it might have been

I wouldn't use ME2 as an example for BW's strength in companion interaction. Most of the squadmates don't even acknowledge each other's existence and for a story focused on building a specialized squad, there's quite an absence of any scenes involving getting this diverse group of soldiers with varying beliefs and specialities to work together as a cohesive unit. It's pretty much the western equivalent of Final Fantasy 12.

Even DA2 is a way better example of BW companion interaction. Not only do companions talk to each other but it also had some neat dialogue options where you can ask a companion for his input on something.

And this is without getting into how poorly written the collector plot and SM were to begin with..

Modifié par Seboist, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:47 .