32 réponses à ce sujet

[casedawgz]

Mac Walters has an article up on GI online about replaying ME1 and things to consider when you make your choices.

http://gameinformer....s-effect-2.aspx

"If you’re followed and harassed and otherwise irritated by a well meaning though slightly unbalanced sycophant…you guessed it: choose your reaction carefully. Sometimes the people who love us most, hurt us the most deeply."

CONRAAAD?

[JudgeQwerty]

Thanks for the link! Now I know not to romance Wrex...

[Octorox]

PilotJoe wrote...

ME2 is actually remarkably similar to SW Episode 1, there is NO STORY. Stuff Happens, people do things, some of it related, but not really, lalalala the end.

There is no characterization, no emotional investment, no compelling narrative.

Absolutely wrong, if the ME2 story has one major problem it's that it's ALL characterization. The characters are much more compelling than in ME1 but the main story seems like an afterthought, the characters and their individual story threads being the focus.

You can see it by just looking at a returning character: Tali. In ME1 she was just a walking encyclopedia of Quarian history. In ME2 she's a character that you invest in and feel for.

Modifié par Octorox, 25 février 2010 - 06:48 .

[FKA_Servo]

Took you all month to verbalize that piercing insight, did it?

Where was this thread before, page 80?

[Octorox]

PilotJoe wrote...

Octorox wrote...

PilotJoe wrote...

ME2 is actually remarkably similar to SW Episode 1, there is NO STORY. Stuff Happens, people do things, some of it related, but not really, lalalala the end.

There is no characterization, no emotional investment, no compelling narrative.

Absolutely wrong, if the ME2 story has one major problem it's that it's ALL characterization. The characters are much more compelling than in ME1 but the main story seems like an afterthought, the characters and their individual story threads being the focus.

You're absolutely right, my good sir/ma'am.  I meant emotional investment or characterization of why you are pursuing the villain, what it all means, etc.

Yeah I definitely agree there, but I dont like the Ep1 comparison. Ep1 had a bunch of wooden, uninteresting characters that it was hard to give a damn about. ME2 had characters you cared deeply about, even if the main story arc was a bit convoluted and mismanaged

[WInd and Rain]

Octorox wrote...

PilotJoe wrote...

ME2 is actually remarkably similar to SW Episode 1, there is NO STORY. Stuff Happens, people do things, some of it related, but not really, lalalala the end.

There is no characterization, no emotional investment, no compelling narrative.

Absolutely wrong, if the ME2 story has one major problem it's that it's ALL characterization. The characters are much more compelling than in ME1 but the main story seems like an afterthought, the characters and their individual story threads being the focus.

You can see it by just looking at a returning character: Tali. In ME1 she was just a walking encyclopedia of Quarian history. In ME2 she's a character that you invest in and feel for.

I have to agree with Joe, although I also appreciate Octorox's standpoint as well. For my part, in ME1 I had very little desire to speak with any other ally other than the ones I chose as my "mission squad". Not sure why, just the way it was. I think maybe it was due in part to the Achievement (360) of playing through the entire game with only certain squadmates. I just didn't care all that much about any other ally except those I chose to roll with.

In ME2, it was completely different. I spoke with EVERYONE, all the time, every chance I got, even the non-squad crew members. It was borderline harassment... even Mordin told me to "stop interrupting him". Without the need to go through the whole game with only certain squadmates (if you're going after gamerscore), it felt like one big family on that ship when I finally had everyone on board, talking to everyone and choosing who I wanted to watch my back based on each mission. ME2 felt a lot more immersive than ME1 in this regard.

I do agree with some other posters in other threads however that it would be "the next level" if I could see these people actually moving around the ship, appearing in different places. Maybe put the bathrooms to use for some incidental comedy/brevity.

[FKA_Servo]

PilotJoe wrote...

TommyServo wrote...

Took you all month to verbalize that piercing insight, did it?
Where was this thread before, page 80?

Aren't you sweet

It's a coping mechanism.

Dickery aside, I mostly agree with you.  I think a few of the characters, by the end of the game, are still pretty weak - considering how much time we spend on them (compared to the...4? main story missions after the opening sequence), they'd better figure prominently, and interestingly, into ME3.  The climax was alright though - especially if you intentionally make a few "wrong" decisions for the sake of dramatic action and storyline (is it really that satisfying to go through it with no sacrifices?).

Oh well - middle chapter, and all that. 

[Console Cowboy]

PilotJoe wrote...

ME2
...
no characterization, no emotional investment, no compelling narrative.

i want what he's having.

[WInd and Rain]

[/quote]

Then you'll want to have ME Revelation and ME Ascension, both great books by Drew Karpyshyn, the lead writer for the first game.  I should warn you however, that it will make it hard to go back to the story of ME2, since it is amateurish by comparison.

[/quote]

Looking forward to this Summer when the third book hits the shelves. Loved the first 2, and enjoy the references to them in ME2.

[hex23]

The story was done before "ME2" even started....hell the trilogy arc was done before "ME1" was so I don't get the "OMG! that writer left and now it sucks!" angle.

[hex23]

PilotJoe wrote...

You're absolutely right, my good sir/ma'am.  I meant emotional investment or characterization of why you are pursuing the villain, what it all means, etc.

Huh? Why you're pursuing the villain? What it all means?

The reasons are spelled out in black and white several times through out the game. You're trying to save humanity from the Collectors. Also, you're trying to save the galaxy from the Reapers. Maybe you mean you'd like a central villain, like Saren. I dunno. Even then that's not always going to be a possibility considering we're fighting an H.P. Lovecraft style villain. They don't usually play nice with others.

[Mikeuicus]

Revelation was horrible. Full of typos, punctuation errors and amatuerish phrase repetition. I honestly don't know how it got published. I found myself wondering if the excellent writing in ME1 was a fluke, or a product of voice actors picking up the slack, or the other writer's catching such mistakes...but...

...Ascension was much better and did a good job introducing The Illusive Man...I knew I should fear him but everytime he was on the page I had to sit up because I found him that fascinating. I'm glad the events of the novel were referenced in ME2.

Modifié par Mikeuicus, 25 février 2010 - 07:32 .

[hex23]

PilotJoe wrote...

Then I will explain it to you.

The outline of the story is probably set in stone, yes.  That's easy.  What's hard is to find a way to tell that story, piece by piece in a way that is compelling, interesting and inter-related.  That is something novelists excell at.  What seems trivial is in fact consequential and necessary and everything neatly fits together in the end to make one complete tapestry.

So many things from ME2 seemed like throw-aways that never entered back into the story, and the whole thing was clumsy, and hackneyed. 

You have no way of knowing who did what though. For all we know this stuff was written before Drew left, so why complain about it? Basically you're saying you prefer the story of "ME1" to "ME2" which is fine but you're using the reason of "because a writer left" as if the two are related. They aren't necessarily.

[Octorox]

WInd and Rain wrote...

Octorox wrote...

PilotJoe wrote...

ME2 is actually remarkably similar to SW Episode 1, there is NO STORY. Stuff Happens, people do things, some of it related, but not really, lalalala the end.

There is no characterization, no emotional investment, no compelling narrative.

Absolutely wrong, if the ME2 story has one major problem it's that it's ALL characterization. The characters are much more compelling than in ME1 but the main story seems like an afterthought, the characters and their individual story threads being the focus.

You can see it by just looking at a returning character: Tali. In ME1 she was just a walking encyclopedia of Quarian history. In ME2 she's a character that you invest in and feel for.

I have to agree with Joe, although I also appreciate Octorox's standpoint as well. For my part, in ME1 I had very little desire to speak with any other ally other than the ones I chose as my "mission squad". Not sure why, just the way it was. I think maybe it was due in part to the Achievement (360) of playing through the entire game with only certain squadmates. I just didn't care all that much about any other ally except those I chose to roll with.

In ME2, it was completely different. I spoke with EVERYONE, all the time, every chance I got, even the non-squad crew members. It was borderline harassment... even Mordin told me to "stop interrupting him". Without the need to go through the whole game with only certain squadmates (if you're going after gamerscore), it felt like one big family on that ship when I finally had everyone on board, talking to everyone and choosing who I wanted to watch my back based on each mission. ME2 felt a lot more immersive than ME1 in this regard.

I do agree with some other posters in other threads however that it would be "the next level" if I could see these people actually moving around the ship, appearing in different places. Maybe put the bathrooms to use for some incidental comedy/brevity.

I'm not sure where we disagree here. I totally agree with you, and Joe on most accounts. 

[WInd and Rain]

hex23 wrote...

The story was done before "ME2" even started....hell the trilogy arc was done before "ME1" was so I don't get the "OMG! that writer left and now it sucks!" angle.

Let me help... I think it's important to first mention that Bioware has stated numerous times that although ME was destined for a trilogy, that entire story was, and is, only outlined, at best... and this is a good thing. You don't want to write yourself in a corner by having everything cemented down in the beginning without having any flexibility. They've got an outline, a loose structure for how the whole thing stitches together, but that's it. They develop using an iterative process.

I think there's a clear difference in the way ME1 feels versus ME2 aside from all of the obvious differences, and I think this is what people are talking about regarding the difference in writing. ME2's structure is very different, and to many people it feels more straightforward, less complex, maybe less engaging, more predictable. Gather your squad, max everything out, then hit the final suicide mission. It feels more like a "game" and less like an interactive novel or film.

In ME1 I think the story seemed less obvious. You could meet your next squadmate anywhere... Wrex was standing next to an elevator, while Liara had her own entire mission. You didn't know Garrus would follow you until the shootout in the doctor's office, not when you first meet him. This is all nuance in the writing. The "point of no return" (Illium) wasn't so obvious (it wasn't marketed as the suicide mission with all of the options to back out and keep building your team).

ME2 feels more like a game, it's structured like a game... it's "gamey", with clearly defined goals, obvious tasks... it's very "Getterdone"... and I adhere to this sentiment. I will admit that it does seem to lack the nuance of ME1. However, I don't mind it... I don't long for ME1 very much except for having extremely fond memories of playing ME1 and gaining the relationships I built there. I adore the story in ME2 despite acknowledging the differences in the two games.

Anyway, I think this is what people are driving at, and my loose change on the subject.

[Tamahome560]

hex23 wrote...

The story was done before "ME2" even started....hell the trilogy arc was done before "ME1" was so I don't get the "OMG! that writer left and now it sucks!" angle.

I think so too .. They've probably had general plot of the main story for the trilogy set out before ME1 hit the stores but it is very likely that many changes were made but the general idea stayed the same ... and Mass Effect trilogy is essentially one story divided into 3 chapters. There will always be arguments about which chapter is the best but in the end it's all three added togather that make the story ''good'' or ''bad''. ME2 delivered different chapter, different experiance and personally I've enjoyed it alot more than the first chapter ... It was a lot more personal a left me in suspense because so many questions were left unanswered  Thank god it didn't do it Dreamfall style .. 

[hex23]

I dunno. I prefer ME2's writing to ME1's. Some people say ME2 is predictable or "obvious", I say it seems that way because you actually have a plan in ME2.



ME1 you were sort of stumbling blindly around the galaxy. ME2 you know exactly what you need to do, pretty much from the first hour of the game. So obviously there should be an outline of what you need to accomplish. ME1 you were hunting one guy, a rogue Specter. So sure, you might pick up Garrus standing next to an elevator. Or Ashley because she's the only one left out of her squad.



In ME2 you can't just run around picking up random people. Would it be less obvious if you could? Definitely. But not realistic. You have a mission to do and actually know the stakes now.



I don't think it has anything to do with the writers per se. I think it's just the two games aren't paced or structured the same.