158 réponses à ce sujet

[Hadeedak]

Please tell that to Assassin's Creed before I attempt to go back in time to kill their latest BORING BORING uberhero protagonist.

 

*cough* Opinions, man.

[AlanC9]

Wouldn't go that far.  I'd simply say it appeals to a very narrow set of playstyles.  If it does happen to appeal to someone, then that person simply got lucky.  Everyone else was "doing it wrong" as far as Bioware was concerned.

What do you mean by "playstyle" here? When I talk about playstyles I'm talking about stuff like whether you metagame, whether you seek out spoilers before playing, how you design your character, etc. But none of that seems relevant here, so I figure you mean something else.

[Iakus]

What do you mean by "playstyle" here? When I talk about playstyles I'm talking about stuff like whether you metagame, whether you seek out spoilers before playing, how you design your character, etc. But none of that seems relevant here, so I figure you mean something else.

 

"Playstyle" may not be the right term.  I'm referring to the type of Shepard you roleplay, the kind of story you are trying to tell.

[AlanC9]

And let's be honest, it's hard for vidja games to convey the same things as books or movies. Every storytelling medium has strengths and weaknesses.

Agreed. One of the things I've always thought games can do better than other media is to put you personally into a situation. It's one thing to watch or read Bridge of the River Kwai, but it would be another to actually be Colonel Nicholson. The Dark Energy plot would have come close to this, come to think of it.

[AlanC9]

"Playstyle" may not be the right term.  I'm referring to the type of Shepard you roleplay, the kind of story you are trying to tell.

Gotcha. I don't know if there's a better word for that. I don't do it myself; I play a particular character, and the story is just whatever happens to him. Would not trying to tell any particular kind of story be a playstyle in itself, or is it the absence of a playstyle?

[Iakus]

Gotcha. I don't know if there's a better word for that. I don't do it myself; I play a particular character, and the story is just whatever happens to him. Would not trying to tell any particular kind of story be a playstyle in itself, or is it the absence of a playstyle?

 

Maybe.  But it seems to be a strange style for an rpg.  

[AlanC9]

Maybe.  But it seems to be a strange style for an rpg.

Playing your character is a strange style?

[Iakus]

It just sounds so...reactive...

[Hadeedak]

I usually try to figure out a personality and a few dominant character traits and react to events accordingly, when I'm playing in someone else's sandbox.

 

I'll usually happen across a personality and series of choices that matches 'best' in my head with Bioware games.

 

But gaming feels pretty reactive to me. You're going to be limited by other peoples' decisions, no matter how many choices they try to give you. If you try to fight the narrative, you're going to have to work harder to keep things flowing, as opposed to choosing a character-accurate reaction and moving on.

 

When I want to write my own narrative... Well, that's when I open up LibreOffice (cause I'm a hipster), crank up the music, and get to writing!

[Farangbaa]

"Playstyle" may not be the right term.  I'm referring to the type of Shepard you roleplay, the kind of story you are trying to tell.

 

The bolded.

 

You're not telling a story, BioWare is.

 

I'm glad we can finally wrap up this discussion.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Come on man, don't go around saying stuff like that. I'd rather this place not get back to its worst points.

Fair enough, that was a bit harsh. I stand by that statement, though.

You're wrong. On everything. I love Mass Effect (why else would I even be here? to annoy you?), and I don't like shooting things. I haven't played a shooter in years.. except ME2. That game tricked me into thinking it was an RPG.

Then why are you shooting that tube? --> inside joke for fans of MrBTongue . In all seriousness though, no worries. You love Mass Effect. I understand. But then, later, you say this:

Am I really the only one here who just witnesses the endings?

I don't have any particular feelings about them, they're just part of the story, for me. If I had felt they were really, really bad though, I would never have replayed the trilogy. That doesn't mean I like them, or that they appeal to me in some way.

So the endings evoke no emotion in you, positive or negative? I can't say I understand that "witnessing" thing. When I "witnessed" the ending the first time, it was soul-crushingly bad. It was beyond redemption. I gather you do not share that sentiment, which is exactly what makes me wonder - did you even care about what went on before, as you claim? This is something I cannot fathom. And again, it's not just about the endings, it's about the whole "ME3". It's completely different in tone (more on that below) from the first and second game, it's written in the way that contradicts them often, it's rough around the edges... Which may have been forgivable, if not for the ending. Maybe. I don't know. You know, I'm almost glad things have gone the way they have, because if the endings were acceptable... that could lead me to accepting "ME3", a poorly written, dumbed down game unworthy of it's predecessors, as a genuine third installment of the Mass Effect trilogy, and overlooking its numerous faults. That would have been a shame.

When you were a little kid, did you play board games? And was there this one guy that always came up with their own rules to 'make the game better'?

You're that guy.

Not sure whether you refer to rules of storytelling, or rules that govern the Mass Effect universe, or another set of rules. I'm not coming up with my own rules on anything. There were rules, - or maybe a better way to say this is to use the word "tone" - to Mass Effect. That tone has been kept in place for the first two games. Then it was BioWare who somehow came up with a different tone, different story incompatible with what came before and oftentimes, different characters who do not remotely resemble themselves in previous games (the quarians and the geth, for example!)

Oh and about that:

I'm not claiming anywhere that it add's weight, nor that it's profound or symbolic. Nowhere. You're assuming I put any kind of meaning to Shepard's death. I do not. It's just a part of the story I have been replaying for the last couple of years.
.

That's right, you didn't. A lot of other people did, I was referring to a previous post of mine on page 3.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

The bolded.

You're not telling a story, BioWare is.

I'm glad we can finally wrap up this discussion.

Of course he is. Within the framework of the game, the choices the player makes are telling the story. And if you do not understand that, then that is exactly what I meant before when I said you were playing Mass Effect wrong. How's that wrapping up working for you?

[Farangbaa]

Then why are you shooting that tube? --> inside joke for fans of MrBTongue . In all seriousness though, no worries. You love Mass Effect. I understand. But then, later, you say this:

 

I never shoot the tube

 

So the endings evoke no emotion in you, positive or negative? I can't say I understand that "witnessing" thing. When I "witnessed" the ending the first time, it was soul-crushingly bad. It was beyond redemption. I gather you do not share that sentiment, which is exactly what makes me wonder - did you even care about what went on before, as you claim? This is something I cannot fathom. And again, it's not just about the endings, it's about the whole "ME3". It's completely different in tone (more on that below) from the first and second game, it's written in the way that contradicts them often, it's rough around the edges... Which may have been forgivable, if not for the ending. Maybe. I don't know. You know, I'm almost glad things have gone the way they have, because if the endings were acceptable... that could lead me to accepting "ME3", a poorly written, dumbed down game unworthy of it's predecessors, as a genuine third installment of the Mass Effect trilogy, and overlooking its numerous faults. That would have been a shame.

 

I felt like this going from ME1 to ME2. I have no idea why people think ME2 is the best of the series, it's the worst in my book.

[Farangbaa]

Of course he is. Within the framework of the game, the choices the player makes are telling the story. And if you do not understand that, then that is exactly what I meant before when I said you were playing Mass Effect wrong. How's that wrapping up working for you?

 

No, you two are wrong. You're playing a character within the confines of the story.

 

And that wrapping up was a joke. Discussions never cease on the internet. And even if they do, that's just a lull until a new thread is made like a week later discussing the exact same things.

[Hadeedak]

I know damn well I cared about what went before, since...Well, I'm still playing the game and enjoying it, booting up different Shepards with different stories, getting feels in certain places, laughs in others, and poking around.

 

And I still like the endings. I don't think they're great. But I appreciate what they were trying to do, and honestly, they work for me after the extended cut. It feels like a decent place to end Shepard's story... More or less.

 

Fer instance, I have a pretty good idea what my favorite Destroy Shep did afterwards, as well as what happened with the Shepalyst for my canon. And some ideas about the synthesis-verse. But the series had to end eventually. I like the interesting ideas and options at the end, and I like deciding which choice works best for the personality I've hammered out over the past 4 games. I also was surprised to like how dang open-ended it is (right now. They may have to change that for ME4. Knock on wood that they'll just alternate-universe it....).

 

I also like 3. I feel it did a pretty good job dealing with some rough baggage from ME1 and ME2, and I think they all fit together all right. Though there is a bit of mood whiplash between all 3 games. I also think 2 may be the weak member of the trilogy because of how disjointed it is. But I like 2 a great deal, soooooo...

 

 

And I'm not a bad fan or a luddite. I just have a different opinion, and may be more of a 'glass is half-full' person.

[Obadiah]

@Hadeedak
Agreed.
*Pets dog icon on the head*

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

I never shoot the tube

 

 

I felt like this going from ME1 to ME2. I have no idea why people think ME2 is the best of the series, it's the worst in my book.

 

The suicide mission and the buildup to it. Having my team and crew come out alive of the trip through Omega 4 Relay was probably the most satisfying thing I've ever experienced in a video game. Of course, I see the idiocy of Shepard being resurrected, and the railroading of working with Cerberus, but I don't really mind those things or I am able to forgive the game for them, since the rest feels so brilliant.

 

And the characters of course. Conversations with Legion are truly epic writing. So are conversations with Mordin.

 

No, you two are wrong. You're playing a character within the confines of the story.

 

(...)

 

When I play Mass Effect, I define the story through my actions within the framework of what is possible. For example, during the Rachni Queen decision in ME1 I always opt to kill the Queen first, and then allow Liara to convince me to let the Queen live. This is the way I role-play. That's what I mean by telling the story within the framework of what is possible. And for me, what is possible both in ME1 and ME2, works. In "ME3" it largely doesn't. That is chiefly because from the very beginning of the game the entire tone is defined as a hopeless, almost unwinnable "we will go down fighting" malarkey. With occasional glimmers of hope in some dialogues which seem to have been written by a different person for a different game with a different tone.

 

(...)

 

I also like 3. I feel it did a pretty good job dealing with some rough baggage from ME1 and ME2, and I think they all fit together all right. Though there is a bit of mood whiplash between all 3 games. I also think 2 may be the weak member of the trilogy because of how disjointed it is. But I like 2 a great deal, soooooo...

 

 

If you thought ME2 was disjointed, then how is "ME3" better? It's a game that doesn't know what it is. The mood whiplash is constant.

 

Unless by disjointed you meant it is disconnected from ME1. It is certainly different, but I wouldn't call it disjointed. That's part of that ME2 magic, it somehow manages to pull off being a very different game from its prequel, but capturing the spirit of it all the same.

[Farangbaa]

The suicide mission and the buildup to it. Having my team and crew come out alive of the trip through Omega 4 Relay was probably the most satisfying thing I've ever experienced in a video game. Of course, I see the idiocy of Shepard being resurrected, and the railroading of working with Cerberus, but I don't really mind those things or I am able to forgive the game for them, since the rest feels so brilliant.

 

And the characters of course. Conversations with Legion are truly epic writing. So are conversations with Mordin.

 

Don't forget the proto human reaper. That thing by itself killed the game. Wholeheartedly agree with BW's decision not to end ME3 with a boss battle.

 

 

When I play Mass Effect, I define the story through my actions within the framework of what is possible. For example, during the Rachni Queen decision in ME1 I always opt to kill the Queen first, and then allow Liara to convince me to let the Queen live. This is the way I role-play. That's what I mean by telling the story within the framework of what is possible. And for me, what is possible both in ME1 and ME2, works. In "ME3" it largely doesn't. That is chiefly because from the very beginning of the game the entire tone is defined as a hopeless, almost unwinnable "we will go down fighting" malarkey. With occasional glimmers of hope in some dialogues which seem to have been written by a different person for a different game with a different tone.

 

The bolded: semantics. You're just repeating what I said with more words.

 

And the difference in tone from ME2 to ME3 is completely logical. The entire focused changed from 'the Reapers are coming' to 'the Reapers are here'. If it had felt the same as ME2 and ME1, that would've been wrong.

 

If you thought ME2 was disjointed, then how is "ME3" better? It's a game that doesn't know what it is. The mood whiplash is constant.

 

Unless by disjointed you meant it is disconnected from ME1. It is certainly different, but I wouldn't call it disjointed. That's part of that ME2 magic, it somehow manages to pull off being a very different game from its prequel, but capturing the spirit of it all the same.

 

See above.

[KaiserShep]

The suicide mission and the buildup to it. Having my team and crew come out alive of the trip through Omega 4 Relay was probably the most satisfying thing I've ever experienced in a video game. Of course, I see the idiocy of Shepard being resurrected, and the railroading of working with Cerberus, but I don't really mind those things or I am able to forgive the game for them, since the rest feels so brilliant.

 

Thing is, I actually felt immensely satisfied as well when I first played the game, and I suppose that would be what counts in the end. Trouble is, if I really like a game, I will play it multiple times, and multiple playthroughs, much like rewatching a movie, can make flaws more and more apparent until they start to weigh against the things I liked.

 

 

If you thought ME2 was disjointed, then how is "ME3" better? It's a game that doesn't know what it is. The mood whiplash is constant.

 

Unless by disjointed you meant it is disconnected from ME1. It is certainly different, but I wouldn't call it disjointed. That's part of that ME2 magic, it somehow manages to pull off being a very different game from its prequel, but capturing the spirit of it all the same.

 

I think what makes ME2 feel disjointed is that the game has a very episodic format, but these "episodes" can tend to feel very disconnected from the thin plotting. ME3 actually carries some of DA:O's format in that it's uniting everyone to fight the Reapers/Blight, but in ME2, when I think about the reasoning behind recruitment, it starts to feel more like padding to extend on its plot. I mean, this isn't Ocean's 11 in space. We're not recruiting Kasumi because we know that there's a vault in some high security vault in a space casino that she can crack. The hodgepodge of characters we're supposed to pick up all prove useful in their own way, but it seems like their usefulness is the product of pure dumb luck. The only characters that were determined to be useful from the start beyond the crew Shepard was automatically issued were Mordin and EDI. Garrus and Tali add bonuses in their addition of the Thanix cannon and cyclonic shielding, but anyone could've done that, but then we wouldn't have fan favorites back.

 

It's kind of strange how Thane, of all people, is the one that is required to extend the number of probes the Normandy is equipped with. And I would've thought Samara would contribute to some type of weaponry or biotic implant upgrade or something, not something to significantly alter the eezo core of the ship. Anyway, that's just some minor nitpicking on my part.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Don't forget the proto human reaper. That thing by itself killed the game. Wholeheartedly agree with BW's decision not to end ME3 with a boss battle.

 

 

 

The bolded: semantics. You're just repeating what I said with more words.

 

And the difference in tone from ME2 to ME3 is completely logical. The entire focused changed from 'the Reapers are coming' to 'the Reapers are here'. If it had felt the same as ME2 and ME1, that would've been wrong.

 

 

See above.

 

Yeah well, the human reaper was stupid, I'll give you that. But it's just anoter one of those faults I'm willing to let slide. I completetly understand why people thought the Human Reaper was lame, but I don't mind it that much.

 

As for the rest, you're mixing up difference in tone with difference in a plot situation. Had the tone of "ME3" been consistent with previous games, it wouldn't have been "The Reapers are here, we're fuc*ed", it would have been "The Reapers are here, let's kick their ass".

[KaiserShep]

As for the rest, you're mixing up difference in tone with difference in a plot situation. Had the tone of "ME3" been consistent with previous games, it wouldn't have been "The Reapers are here, we're fuc*ed", it would have been "The Reapers are here, let's kick their ass".

 

Both ME1 and 2 can be blamed for this setup, actually. Sovereign was only defeated because it apparently felt desperate enough to pull the strings on Saren's augmented corpse. Had it not done that, it would probably have completed its hijacking of the Citadel relay and let all its buddies through, and everyone would be dead. Sovereign was overpowered, and victory came through pure luck. And then we have ME2, showing us the reapers approaching the galaxy in ridiculous numbers, promising to be just as powerful as Sovereign was.

[Ryriena]

I tend to agree that the feel of ME2 seems to be of a movie a lot more than ME1. In fact, a film after I watching Today after tomorrow for a few times I noticed the flaws in climate science a lot more often. I still find it entertaining to watch. Yeah, I tend too agree I felt more like the whole plot was for building my team up. Plus fixing the issues that came with them more than the big bad threat. Yeah we had three main missions in Me1 but a lot of the side quest involved the Geth or husks. Not just Mercs which Me2 seems to fond of in the end as the big baddy instead of the collectors.. Then the baby reaper fight that was just awesome...... She said sarcastically. Why not put the Collector general as boss fight as the better option.

[KaiserShep]

I actually like the concept of fighting the proto-reaper, but making it look like a human skeleton was a huge design error, I felt. It should simply have looked like the other Sovereign-class reapers, just incomplete.

[Staff Cdr Alenko]

Both ME1 and 2 can be blamed for this setup, actually. Sovereign was only defeated because it apparently felt desperate enough to pull the strings on Saren's augmented corpse. Had it not done that, it would probably have completed its hijacking of the Citadel relay and let all its buddies through, and everyone would be dead. Sovereign was overpowered, and victory came through pure luck. And then we have ME2, showing us the reapers approaching the galaxy in ridiculous numbers, promising to be just as powerful as Sovereign was.

 

True, but this is all a matter of what you decide to do later. You can subvert the hell out all that. It's feasible to come up with in-universe explanations. Battle of the Citadel? The fleet did not know what it was up against and came in at knife-fight range (<-- Codex!). Sovereign was desperate, you said it yourself. If the Reapers are coming to the Galaxy the long way, they must be all desperate. If they could just do that every time and win, they wouldn't need the Citadel trap. "Our numbers will darken the sky of every world"? Sure, every single world (planet), maybe. Try to come up at, let's say, united human, batarian (oh yes!) and turian fleets at the same time, though! Reapers able to one-shot allied ships? Make their thanix cannons/lasers short range or slow-firing. Come on, it's not unreasonable! They've only ever come up against a single inhabited planet at a time, with the native fleet defending it, because their MO is locking up the Relay Network via the Citadel and then attacking planets one by one! No one in the galaxy does anything about the upcoming invasion during the course of the first two games? Or do they? After all, the salarians "always know more than they're letting on" (<--- again, Codex!). STG knew about the Leviathan of Dis. They have shadow operatives, for crying out loud! They could have been seeking out information about the Reapers ever since the batarians hauled that thing out of Jartar! Turians have smart generals. They could have been secretly arming their cruisers with huge thanix cannons in hidden bases somewhere, without anyone knowing, ever since thrash from Sovereign was picked up! Et cetera, et cetera.

 

I know there's a lot of supposition here. But it's thought-out supposition, based on the information we have on the Reapers from the first two games. And the funny thing is, there are hints of this type of thinking in "ME3" itself. The "Miracle of Palaven" battle springs immediately to mind.

 

My point is: This wasn't a lost cause. And it still isn't

 

EDIT:

 

I actually like the concept of fighting the proto-reaper, but making it look like a human skeleton was a huge design error, I felt. It should simply have looked like the other Sovereign-class reapers, just incomplete.

 

This, basically. I agree.

[Ryriena]

I liked it too but it was like, why Termatior 2.0 for the design bit?