413 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Do you understand that I said plot, not narrative?

 

I do.

 

Problem is though, it's the wrong focus. We all know 2 had a weaker plot overall, but it also simultaneously had the strongest narrative, which is a major strength throughout all three games because it is tied to the choice and consequences of the subsequent games. 

 

So the focus on the plot is by design, off focus on 2 to establish narrative payoff for 3. It's simple as that; the Reapers take a backseat tangentially, like they did for most of Mass Effect 1. So the gripes about the plot are kind of meaningless regarding the games actual design.

 

Of course, if were arguing the plot of the games overall is weak...thats because it is the weak link in the story-telling department. Even in the first Mass Effect its an albatross. But then again...im not sure why that is even an argument, it's kind of a "we know, don't care" kind of thing; a lot of people tend to handwave it because the narrative is very strong.

[Innocent Bystander]

Uniting the galaxy to fight the Reapers is the same as solving your squadmates' daddy issues?

It's worse. In ME2 entire galaxy didn't gave a crap about Reapers, so there was not much to do. So Shepard traveled around, doing stuff to pass the time.
In ME3 entire galaxy is getting its butt kicked really hard, yet Quarians have enough time and resources to start a pointless war with Geth, Salarians and Krogan are at each others throats and Cerberus, PROHUMAN organization, has nothing better to do than to try to undermine Alliance and their efforts to save humanity? Yeah, way worse.

Edit:Also what LinksOcarina said.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not as long as there are distinct characters to latch onto. Shepard, much like generic protagonists in books or movies (think Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, etc.) is mostly blank and an easy pair of pants to fill in.

Not nearly blank enough.

That's just classic hero's journey: absolute nobody ventures from the normal world to a more interesting one. Many of the most successful stories are told through this same outsider's perspective.

I'm talking about the player, not the character. I don't mind if the character is an outsider.

My concern is that the player can't engage with the story because the player is denied an in-story perspective.

[RoboticWater]

Not nearly blank enough.

in ME3 maybe but for the most part, Shepard remained within the bounds of a generic character. Like Luke (s)he's fairly competent but not exceptional, has opinions but nothing that the player probably wouldn't feel (e.g. I dislike the Reapers/The Empire), and apparently doesn't know much abouth things the player doesn't know about (e.g. what a Quarian Pilgrimage is).

 

Yes, that means you can't roleplay as a Reaper sympathysing Quarian culture expert, but it's open enough to let players get their bearings and epress themselves to a certain degree.

 

I'm talking about the player, not the character. I don't mind if the character is an outsider.

But the player is always going to be an outsider. This world doesn't exist, so BioWare need to accomodate for that.

 

My concern is that the player can't engage with the story because the player is denied an in-story perspective.

Then how do people engage with books where they don't have any choice at all? Answer: strong personalities. As long as they can identify with someone on screen in some meaningful way, they can form their own perspective and express it to whatever extent they can.

[dreamgazer]

In ME3 entire galaxy is getting its butt kicked really hard, yet Quarians have enough time and resources to start a pointless war with Geth,

Explained in game.
 

Salarians and Krogan are at each others throats

Indeed. And?
 

and Cerberus, PROHUMAN organization, has nothing better to do than to try to undermine Alliance and their efforts to save humanity?

Did you miss the whole indoctrination/Reaper tech angle?
 

Yeah, way worse.

Than this?
 

In ME2 entire galaxy didn't gave a crap about Reapers, so there was not much to do. So Shepard traveled around, doing stuff to pass the time.

Especially when you consider a killed-and-resurrected CyborgShep decides to play Captain Cerberus Space Therapist to "pass the time" after a pointless two-year jump into "Ah yes, Reapers..." territory? Not a damn chance.

[Killroy]

Yes.
The scales are different, but the concepts are the same. In ME3, you're trying to save a race and in ME2 you're saving an individual; however, the emotional stakes are the same. For most players the reasons why they're helping Mordin and curing the Genophage or helping Tali and resolving the Geth conflict are the same. They care about the individuals involved.

Why are scale and impact irrelevant? You don't even need all of your companions in ME2 to complete the "suicide mission." It's jank filler to compensate for the plot being paper thin.

I do.
Problem is though, it's the wrong focus. We all know 2 had a weaker plot overall, but it also simultaneously had the strongest narrative

I could not disagree more and I think you're being willfully obtuse to defend a dumb game that you like. ME2 is a lot of fun, but it's a dumb game.

It's worse. In ME2 entire galaxy didn't gave a crap about Reapers, so there was not much to do. So Shepard traveled around, doing stuff to pass the time.

You realize that the ME2 team chose to make that happen, right? It wasn't a thing that they had to write around.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes, that means you can't roleplay as a Reaper sympathysing Quarian culture expert, but it's open enough to let players get their bearings and epress themselves to a certain degree.

The problem is that the player doesn't know what that degree is.

I hated that I couldn't agree with TIM about Control. Or apparently about anything in ME2.

But the player is always going to be an outsider. This world doesn't exist, so BioWare need to accomodate for that.

Not if he roleplaying a character he isn't. The character lives in the world, so the player needs to be able to see the world that well.

Then how do people engage with books where they don't have any choice at all?

Completely differently. The reader doesn't make any decisions about in-book events.

Books and games are wildly different things. One tells a static story. The other offers a dynamic world.

Answer: strong personalities. As long as they can identify with someone on screen in some meaningful way, they can form their own perspective and express it to whatever extent they can.

Was there a character in ME with which I could identify?

Mordin, maybe. TIM.

That's about it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, I'd say Mass Effect 2 but a lot of people in this thread think that it didn't turn out good.  It had a 94 metacritic score though, so it can't be that bad.

 

 

As a stand-alone game, ME2 isn't bad. It's as the mid-point in a supposed trilogy that it falls apart. It's when you evaluate it in the context of the whole- how well it picks up from ME1, how far it carries the plot to ME3- that it falls apart.

 

Of course, the first was rather marginal (which is to say ME2 only did a few things badly with ME1 because it barely did anything at all with ME1), and the later wasn't obvious for most people until ME3 and the aftermath passions cooled down.

[RoboticWater]

Why are scale and impact irrelevant? You don't even need all of your companions in ME2 to complete the "suicide mission." It's jank filler to compensate for the plot being paper thin.

They're not irrelevant, but they don't automatically make anything good or bad.

Mass Effect 2 is necessary because it establishes the emotional stakes for ME3. It's irrelevant whether or not you like the idea of the the Suicide Mission, because the point of ME2 is to expose the player the intricacies of Mass Effect's sub conflicts and get them connected emotionally.
Was ME2's plot fantastic? No, but it's not to blame for ME3's shortcomings. ME2 completed its goal within the series, ME3 didn't.
 

The problem is that the player doesn't know what that degree is.

I hated that I couldn't agree with TIM about Control. Or apparently about anything in ME2.

I don't really understand, you could choose to agree with TIM, you just had to kill him regardless because he was threatening you.

And I disagree with your assement. They player always knows the extent of their options when they're given a choice; it's all on the wheel. That may mean that they're working within certain parameters of a character (much like how one controls Geralt in the Witcher), but the options are quite clear.

 

I agree that ME3 went too far with the railroading, but done well and consistently, mostly static narratives are perfectly valid in games

Not if he roleplaying a character he isn't. The character lives in the world, so the player needs to be able to see the world that well.
Completely differently. The reader doesn't make any decisions about in-book events.

Books and games are wildly different things. One tells a static story. The other offers a dynamic world.

Offers, but doesn't necessarily need to provide. Stories in games can be as static or dynamic as they want and still be good in the same way that poetry doesn't invalidate prose. It's just a difference in structure.

You're free to dislike more static stories in video games but you can't make an objective statement that "static game stories are bad."

Was there a character in ME with which I could identify?

Mordin, maybe. TIM.

That's about it.

OK, good. Those were the characters that kept you attached to the narrative.

Considering how much you dislike semi-static narratives, I think it's a testamet to how well developed those characters were that they kept you invested in the trilogy.

[Killroy]

They're not irrelevant, but they don't automatically make anything good or bad.

I never said they did. I said they make things different.

Mass Effect 2 is necessary because it establishes the emotional stakes for ME3.

I disagree. It didn't have to be a pointless sidequest to get us emotionally invested. And I don't agree that ME2 made me more emotionally invested than ME1.

[RoboticWater]

I never said they did. I said they make things different.


I disagree. It didn't have to be a pointless sidequest to get us emotionally invested. And I don't agree that ME2 made me more emotionally invested than ME1.

Then I'm sorry that ME2 wasn't your cup of tea, but most people found that ME2 got them more emotionally invested in the franchise because of the smaller scope.

 

You have the right to dislike ME2, but the game did objectively provide something to the franchise. It went into greater detail about the Genophage and it introduced a new perspective on the Geth/Quarian conflict. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, the near exclusive focus on characters, their personal experiences, and only their immediate environments helped put a face on conflicts that were more obscure in the first game.

[Killroy]

Then I'm sorry that ME2 wasn't your cup of tea, but most people found that ME2 got them more emotionally invested in the franchise because of

Do you want to finish that sentence?
 

You have the right to dislike ME2, but the game did objectively provide something to the franchise. It went into greater detail about the Genophage and it introduced a new perspective on the Geth/Quarian conflict. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, the near exclusive focus on characters, their personal experiences, and only their immediate environments helped put a face on conflicts that were more obscure in the first game.

I don't dislike ME2. I just recognize that it's nearly nonexistent plot is a waste of time and most of the game's story content has nothing to do with what ME1 set forth or what ME3 continued. ME2 is a sidequest. A fun sidequest, but a sidequest all the same.

[RoboticWater]

Do you want to finish that sentence?
 

I don't dislike ME2. I just recognize that it's nearly nonexistent plot is a waste of time and most of the game's story content has nothing to do with what ME1 set forth or what ME3 continued. ME2 is a sidequest. A fun sidequest, but a sidequest all the same.

Sorry, in the middle of class. only have so much attention: Because of the smaller scope.

 

OK fine, if we're just going to debate terminology: ME2 is a sidequest, but that's fine. Just like Empire Strike Back is a sidequest. The game expanded upon ME1's obscure side plots and carried them into ME3.

[Killroy]

Empire is in no way a sidequest. You're trying to bend reality to suit your asinine argument.

[goishen]

I still say that ME2, like The Empire Strikes Back, are not side or filler content.  Both are necessary for the full development of the hero.  Both are character driven pieces.  Luke has to win in SW, get his hand chopped off in the second and have have everything go to **** and choose between the lesser of two evils --  One that Darth Vader is his father, two his ultimate hatred of Darth Vader -- to come back and kick ass in the third.  Just like in ME1 Shepard has to win, in ME2 you could very easily have some squadmates die, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils -- One going along with Cerberus plans -- The other isn't, to come back and die for humanity as a whole and save us all.

 

I don't really see much of a difference there, except for the endings.  You can say all you want to about character driven literature, movies, TV all you want to.  You can say it's boring all you want to.  Just don't tell me that it has no plot.

 

EDIT :  This doesn't mean a lot of Voiceovers, either.  All that this means is that it's an internal struggle with each character (sometimes with each others' characters as in the Case of True Detective s1).  I mean, hell, if you really wanted to boil that down, you'd be done with the story in like 10 minutes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't really understand, you could choose to agree with TIM, you just had to kill him regardless because he was threatening you.

At the end, sure. But earlier in the game, Shepard was required to distrust and even oppose TIM.

And I disagree with your assement. They player always knows the extent of their options when they're given a choice; it's all on the wheel.

The wheel may as well have been labelled A, B, and C for all the information the options provided. The wheel was obfuscatory at best.

That may mean that they're working within certain parameters of a character (much like how one controls Geralt in the Witcher), but the options are quite clear.

They were not clear.

I agree that ME3 went too far with the railroading, but done well and consistently, mostly static narratives are perfectly valid in games
Offers, but doesn't necessarily need to provide. Stories in games can be as static or dynamic as they want and still be good in the same way that poetry doesn't invalidate prose. It's just a difference in structure.

You're free to dislike more static stories in video games but you can't make an objective statement that "static game stories are bad."

Static game stories are bad for roleplaying.

I don't even concede that roleplaying games are games. Final Fantasy and MGS can get away with static stories because the players don't expect to roleplay. But in a roleplaying game, a static story is ruinous.

OK, good. Those were the characters that kept you attached to the narrative.

Considering how much you dislike semi-static narratives, I think it's a testamet to how well developed those characters were that they kept you invested in the trilogy.

They didn't, though. I abandoned ME after ME2 (when it was clear the devs had no interest in making a game I wanted to play). I only just tried ME3 last month to see why people hated the endings so much.

My conclusion, incidentally, was that the endings were fine (good, even), but the rest of the game was awful.

[FKA_Servo]

I still say that ME2, like The Empire Strikes Back, are not side or filler content.  Both are necessary for the full development of the hero.  Both are character driven pieces.  Luke has to win in SW, get his hand chopped off in the second and have have everything go to **** and choose between the lesser of two evils --  One that Darth Vader is his father, two his ultimate hatred of Darth Vader -- to come back and kick ass in the third.  Just like in ME1 Shepard has to win, in ME2 you could very easily have some squadmates die, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils -- One going along with Cerberus plans -- The other isn't, to come back and die for humanity as a whole and save us all.

 

I don't really see much of a difference there, except for the endings.  You can say all you want to about character driven literature, movies, TV all you want to.  You can say it's boring all you want to.  Just don't tell me that it has no plot.

 

EDIT :  This doesn't mean a lot of Voiceovers, either.  All that this means is that it's an internal struggle with each character (sometimes with each others' characters as in the Case of True Detective s1).  I mean, hell, if you really wanted to boil that down, you'd be done with the story in like 10 minutes.

 

If you take away everything in ME2 that has nothing at all to do with whatever the main storyline is, you probably could be done in 10 minutes. The character stuff was the strongest part of it, but there were so many characters (too many characters) that their development was uneven and it was supremely awkward having them all around. None of them were really optional. The sidequests are good - great for fleshing out the setting, but didn't have much of anything to do with the main storyline of the trilogy (which again, at this point, had already jumped the shark).

 

And there isn't any choice in ME2 - I can go along with Cerberus, or I can stop at ME1 and go play a different game. In retrospect, maybe not such a bad idea, considering the way the whole series ended. Honestly, the direction they went made for one gigantic missed opportunity.

[kalikilic]

ME2 does nothing to progress the plot people can basically play ME1 and ME3 without playing ME2 and there wouldn't much of a difference had they imported Shepard from ME2 into ME3. Nothing is achieved by stopping the collectors and Shepard is in the same position as he/she was at the end of ME1 with the galaxy unprepeard for the reapers.

LOL

 

this is just like that other thread you were in. making claims about how other people's theories are wrong yet providing not even an ounce of conjecture to back it up? 

 

do you think people are gonna take you seriously? lmao

 

disprove what i have said with your evidence, or dont bother to reply and waste thread space please.

[Killroy]

I still say that ME2, like The Empire Strikes Back, are not side or filler content.  Both are necessary for the full development of the hero.  Both are character driven pieces.  Luke has to win in SW, get his hand chopped off in the second and have have everything go to **** and choose between the lesser of two evils --  One that Darth Vader is his father, two his ultimate hatred of Darth Vader -- to come back and kick ass in the third.

The hell are you talking about? Luke didn't have to make a choice between two evils. It's not like he chose to join Vader over Palpatine, he just went back to the Rebels. The choice was clearly between good and evil. Vader wanted Luke to join him in the Dark Side and the Rebels wanted him to help them fight tyranny and bring freedom back to the galaxy.

Just like in ME1 Shepard has to win, in ME2 you could very easily have some squadmates die, you have to choose between the lesser of two evils -- One going along with Cerberus plans -- The other isn't, to come back and die for humanity as a whole and save us all.

You have no choice in ME2. You either join Cerberus or you don't play the game. The game had to be designed around forcing us to join Cerberus for it to make a lick of sense. And even if you did have the choice to join Cerberus or not it wouldn't be a choice between two evils.
 

I don't really see much of a difference there, except for the endings.  You can say all you want to about character driven literature, movies, TV all you want to.  You can say it's boring all you want to.  Just don't tell me that it has no plot.

ME2 has a plot. It's just a pointless, half-assed one. The characters were a crutch and I really didn't even care about many of them in ME2.

[Vapaa]

OK fine, if we're just going to debate terminology: ME2 is a sidequest, but that's fine. Just like Empire Strike Back is a sidequest. The game expanded upon ME1's obscure side plots and carried them into ME3.

What ? the original trilogy was about the war between the rebels and the empire; in the first film the rebels strike meaningful blows against the empire, in the second the empire use their might to cripple the rebellion and in the last film the rebellion destroy the empire. The overarching plot is followed in the three films.

ME is about the war againbst the reapers, in the first game the game the threat is discovered, in the second game...the hero mill about and then in the third game settles the resolution, in this case the overaching plot is not adressed by the second entry.

[Drone223]

LOL

 

this is just like that other thread you were in. making claims about how other people's theories are wrong yet providing not even an ounce of conjecture to back it up? 

 

do you think people are gonna take you seriously? lmao

 

disprove what i have said with your evidence, or dont bother to reply and waste thread space please.

Did you even read my post? ME2 does nothing to progress the overall plot development stopping the collectors did nothing to prepare the galaxy for the reapers. Shepard is still in the same position as he/she was at the end of ME1 unprepared for the reaper's arrival.

[JeffZero]

So I've really enjoyed the part where Dean was funny, but some of this rampant anti-ME2ism is a bit odd here.

[Andrew Lucas]

Halo 4

That's the Halo with the best campaign and characters. Luv it.

[LinksOcarina]

I could not disagree more and I think you're being willfully obtuse to defend a dumb game that you like. ME2 is a lot of fun, but it's a dumb game.
 

 

See, you also presume your opinion on the subject matters to me.

 

I am not being willfully obtuse, I am stating how it is in the end. Disagree all you want regarding it, it's perfectly fine. 

[Youknow]

So I've really enjoyed the part where Dean was funny, but some of this rampant anti-ME2ism is a bit odd here.

Agreed. Really, it wasn't that bad. I honestly thought it was a much better experience than ME3. 

 

But while we're on the subject of discussing what the plot should have been more like, what would people think about ME2 being more like ME3's plot and reworking ME3's plot to be a sort of falling action?