Aller au contenu

Photo

“Streamlined” gameplay just doesn’t cut it. (Spoilers abound.)


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
366 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Rilke21

Rilke21
  • Members
  • 222 messages
Mass Effect 2 deserves quite a bit of the acclaim it’s getting. So why did playing it feel like a big BioWare boot to the teeth?

Fans of the original probably noticed right away that the second Mass Effect is a streamlined version of the first. Think Deus Ex 2: an unbroken system of levelling, character development and inventory management was “fixed” by eliminating it completely. (Granted, the inventory in the first Mass Effect was a little clunky, but it still got the job done.)

Killing enemies no longer provides experience. Neither does exploring the world, searching out codex entries, picking obscure dialogue options, finding rare items, interacting with your squad, or any of the other little details that sets an RPG apart from a shooter. For the most part, these details have been streamlined into the abyss. Where they’ve survived, there’s no longer an incentive to find them.

In the original Mass Effect, your character gets to choose from a list of 13 abilities. (This isn’t much compared to the 78 spells that mages can pick from in Dragon Age, but it’s not a bad selection.) Any of these powers can be unleashed on your enemies at any time, though once you’ve used a power you have to wait for it to recharge before you can use it again. In Mass Effect 2, you get to pick from 4 abilities. (Make that two if you’re playing as a soldier, since choosing your ammo hardly counts as a skill.) Using any of these powers makes the rest unusable until all of them recharge. Since only one or two of these powers is of any use in the first place, the chances are good that you’ll max out one skill and then spam it for the entire game. In effect, where the first game lets you use 13 powers in combat, the second lets you use 1. (I’d make a snarky comment about this exciting new development in tactical complexity, but I think you get the picture.)

The inventory is a pretty essential part of any RPG, and not just because it’s fun to hit the I-key and play dress-up with your characters. The reason inventories are important is because loot management sets RPGs apart from their mindless shooter brethren.  In Mass Effect 2 you’ll occasionally find new items (maybe five or six, but only if you blow 10 bucks on the DLC.) But because there’s no inventory there’s virtually no way to distinguish which gun does more damage, or which armor offers more protection. The only noticeable differences between the weapons in Mass Effect 2 are clip size and accuracy, but since each gun is about as effective as the other guns, you might as well just keep one for the entire game.

Mass Effect’s inventory went down the garburator, and half of the depth and fun of an RPG went with it. Most of you remember Diablo 2, a fairly simple game that was infinitely replayable because of the sheer depth of its item system. (Certain nerds have devoted the last 10 years of their lives to finding the next cool Diablo item. I in no way condone this behaviour, but it does say a lot about the importance of a decent item system.) My point is that much of the replayability of an RPG comes from finding new items, customizing your character with them, and enjoying how much of a badass you can become. When you take items and experience out of an RPG, you take away the incentive to develop your character. You take away half the incentive to play the game at all.

What makes up the other half of a great RPG? You guessed it...the story! And here is where Mass Effect 2 really fails to shine. Do you remember in Alien 3 when the survivors from the last movie are killed off in the first 20 seconds? It’s a plot device that writers fall back on when they’re either very strapped for time, or they just aren’t sure how to continue their last story.

The first Mass Effect introduced a brilliant new Sci-Fi universe that rivals Star Wars in its scope and creativity. In contrast, Mass Effect 2 starts off by blowing up the Normandy, killing or scattering the crew, and then magically bringing Shepard back from the dead. The rest of the story is pretty simple: Shepard rebuilds the crew, gains their loyalty (?), and then blows up a base. Game over, man. (We’re told a number of times that the crew is on a suicide mission. Unfortunately repeating “suicide mission” over and over  doesn’t make this story any more compelling.) Mass Effect 2 gleans what little narrative magic it has from riding on the coattails of its predecessor. Nothing new is added, and a lot is taken away. (To be fair, there’s one big exception here: the surprising development with the Geth is a very nice touch! If only the game’s ending made a shred of sense...)

Mass Effect 2 promised to incorporate the decisions you made in the first game into the story of the second. And it does. (In the form of trite little emails that Shepard receives from the forgettable NPCs of Mass Effect 1.) Remember Samesh Batia? Well you’ll be reminded. Or how about that Asari who got stuck in the Thorian? Yeah, you’ll get to do a pointless little quest for her, and then she’ll even flirt with you! Unfortunately, because there’s no reward for slogging through the dull side-quest dialogues, only true perfectionists will bother with the side-quests at all. The beauty of any good story is in the details. But when the details are thrown in as filler, and the story is nowhere to be found, they just detract from the whole experience.

Mass Effect 2 is not much of an RPG. So why does it deserve the praise that people have been throwing at it? The answer is that the game looks like a movie. (If you ignore the side quests and the left-half of the dialogue wheel, it even plays like a movie.) But the cinematic quality of the second game is nothing new to the Mass Effect series. And when you combine bare-bones plot with uninspired side-quests and depth-free combat, Mass Effect 2 just plays like a gutted version of the original. Lip service has been paid to what made the original Mass Effect great (the voice acting is mostly excellent and the combat is still good for the occasional adrenaline rush), but much of the substance of the origional has been removed. We’re left with a decent third-person shooter that is by no means a bad game. It’s just not what I expected from BioWare.

It’s probably apparent that I’m not a 16-year-old with an Xbox. I understand that mass (console) appeal makes money, and in principle there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m part of the old cabal of Bioware supporters, and I’ll probably buy Mass Effect 3 (even if they resurrect Sovereign as a renegade Hanar and have Shepard kick its butt in a boxing match.) BioWare is still at the top of my list of game developers. (After all, it’s nigh impossible to resent the company that released Dragon Age two months ago.)

That said, I’m writing this to remind BioWare of what makes a game great, and of what Mass Effect 2 is sadly lacking. For the real fans out there, maybe we’ll have better luck next time.

Modifié par Rilke21, 02 février 2010 - 07:35 .


#2
rabidrabbit2727

rabidrabbit2727
  • Members
  • 20 messages
Well said.

#3
izmirtheastarach

izmirtheastarach
  • Members
  • 5 298 messages
Since RPGs have long since been a genre that has been kept apart from the mainstream, I fully understand what Bioware is trying to do.



Really, this is an argument that has been fought on the boards and elsewhere, about the definition of an RPG. Bioware has taken a more fundamental approach, and it's one I agree with. It's also being dictated by new technology, and by the cost of production.



As long as I am able to play a character that I have created, and guide him through a living breathing world making decisions that affect it, then it feels like an RPG to me.



In the end though, I could care less about what kind of game this is. You say you want to remind Bioware of what makes a game great. What makes a game great is story. That's it. As long as the story is there, and is great, the game is too. Doesn't matter if it's an RPG, and FPS, or anything else. It's still a great game



If you feel that the story is not great, that is your opinion. But it's an opinion that is vastly outnumbered. Bioware has produced some of the best stories in all of gaming, and ME2 is right up there with them.

#4
Lost Cipher

Lost Cipher
  • Members
  • 363 messages
The combat was superior in ME2 IMO. Simply put they went far in correcting framerate issues.

#5
KalosCast

KalosCast
  • Members
  • 1 704 messages
It's the middle game of a trilogy. Every trilogy, excluding the original Star Wars, suffers in the storytelling of the second one, since it has no clearly defined beginning and end. I love how "loot" is what makes RPG's not mindless. **** strategy in party composition, forget levelling, forget choosing skills... NOPE! Being up to your eyeballs in vendor trash is the only thing that makes an RPG deep.

Also, I don't know about anybody else, but there wasn't a single skill that was useful in every situation for me at all. Go back to playing WoW if you want your vendor trash and stupid dress-up games. I'll go ahead and play a game that has gameplay.

Modifié par KalosCast, 02 février 2010 - 07:55 .


#6
kardox12

kardox12
  • Members
  • 16 messages
I did not like the changes they made to the inventory and experience gains at first. But then I understood that it was probably for the best. Because this game is not about roleplaying (ME1 was not that much of an RPG either). It is about the story first.



You've said it yourself that the game is very streamlined (and I agree with you on that) so there is no real option besides being a "bad cop of the galaxy" or a "good cop of the galaxy". Either way you you will save the galaxy and it is determined. So why attach unnecessary redundant RPG elements to a linear story. They would serve no purpose here at all. It is not an RPG.



The problem though is that the story is a bit weak in ME2. It consists of what? About four or five missions. And the final battle just doesn't feel so.



In the ME1 the final battle was indeed epic. You got the feeling that it was a battle of titans when the human fleet joined the battle against the geth and the sovereign in the space. When it was over it felt like a victory for the galaxy.



In ME2 my Shepard destroyed this new Terminator-reaper which was supposed to be the doom of the galaxy, the end of all the organic life SOLO (because my party's AI was dumb enough to shoot anything else but the collectors) by hiding behind a box. No super-duper ultramodern galactic beams from the eyes of this terminator could destry this freaking box. As result it died. My shepard shot him to death with his M97X rifle. Pathetic I tell you...



Why look for some super new technologies when a guy with a sniper rifle can kill any monster by hiding behind a box.

#7
izmirtheastarach

izmirtheastarach
  • Members
  • 5 298 messages

kardox12 wrote...

The problem though is that the story is a bit weak in ME2. It consists of what? About four or five missions. And the final battle just doesn't feel so.


Huh. I was pretty sure that I played close to 25 missions. I guess I must be wrong, though.

#8
kardox12

kardox12
  • Members
  • 16 messages

KalosCast wrote...

Also, I don't know about anybody else, but there wasn't a single skill that was useful in every situation for me at all. Go back to playing WoW if you want your vendor trash and stupid dress-up games. I'll go ahead and play a game that has gameplay.


No more than one skill is needed for most of the classes. Because there is only one skill that is clearly superior to the rest in all the situations and they all share the same cool down. For soldiers it is Adrenaline rush, for infiltrators it is Stealth. I am not sure why you would want to use other skills on these classes (except to have more pain while killing mobs).

#9
ZennExile

ZennExile
  • Members
  • 1 195 messages
I really hope they decide to "Improve" the previous experiences rather than just putting large chunks of the game on the cutting room floor in an effort to streamline things.



If they want to make sure that even 3 year old can finish the game without understanding any aspect of it then they should just offer a Comic Book choose your path mode that lets less than adept players just select dialogue and watch an extended movie of the experience.

#10
kardox12

kardox12
  • Members
  • 16 messages

izmirtheastarach wrote...

kardox12 wrote...

The problem though is that the story is a bit weak in ME2. It consists of what? About four or five missions. And the final battle just doesn't feel so.


Huh. I was pretty sure that I played close to 25 missions. I guess I must be wrong, though.


I was talking about the main story arc. There are more missions in general. But if you put them aside the main story quests have very little development.

#11
asaiasai

asaiasai
  • Members
  • 1 391 messages
I will not argue with you because you raised some excellent points in your post. I played DAO 9 times and felt attached to each and every character every time. I did not get that kind of connection in ME2 but over all as it compares to games that are out on the market it is still a diamond in a field of turds. I always thought that in a RPG the most important aspect to consider is the immersive quality of the game, and yes it is in the details, the little things. Limiting the player choices in, armor, clothing, weapons, romance options, is not a good way to personalize the experience which is critical to immersing the player into the world. I never felt rushed to do anything, i never agonized over a decision i made, the economics were weak and could use some serious expansion in ME3, it would be nice to personalize my character more. The ship could use a bit more life in it, crew interactions could be expanded on.



I am like you to a degree while new to the Bioware fan club, with my purchase of DAO. That being said it is because of DAO that i bought ME and ME2 and while ME lacked the polish of DAO i know its an age thing, i was still satisfyied with all 3 purchases, including the expansions for DAO. The problem for Bioware as i see it is they have to walk a fine line, they have to keep it simple enough to appeal to the mass market and still provide enough detail to appeal to gamers like you and i.



That is a tough job, that i think can only be really handled by making the game flexible. How to do that i think would be to have settings in the front end so that the shooter fans can gloss over all the details i would like to immerse myself in. The day to day running of the ship, the inventory managment, the customization options, money managment, relationship managment, ship upgrades, and each one of those items if maintained propperly would give a bonus. In a shooter setting the player would just get the bonuses and not have to bother with it. In the other setting in order to be successful the player would have to manage (some or all depending on your settings) those things to get the bonuses and the better managed the bigger the bonus.



All in all though i liked the game i have no real complaint other than i just could not connect to my character like i was able to do in DAO. I would still reccomend this game to anyone who asked about it, because as i said it is still better then most of the crap on the shelves it sits next too.



Asai

#12
NeonMeat

NeonMeat
  • Members
  • 57 messages
I have some quite serious issues with ME2, but actually none of them relate to the 'streamlining'. Mass Effect was not exactly what i would call a hardcore RPG to start with, the inventory system was very basic, and upgrades were simply a case of leveling up and waiting for the next version of your chosen weapon to drop. The Mass Effect series are in my opinion shooter/rpg hybrid games, that does not make them lesser games than 'true' RPG's, it's just what they are. The first game was highly enjoyable, and ME2 was actually still a decent enough game, but it is definitely lacking when compared to the first installment.



In my opinion the RP element of ME2 is inferior to the first, but this comes down to what i think were poor choices in the writing, over ambition in the number of squad mates leading to highly watered down storytelling, and perhaps worst of all a very bland and badly realized main mission.



From what i have read around the net, they plan to release a very large amount of DLC for ME2, which will hopefully be a good thing to get us away from the weaker elements of the main game. As it stands the game feels rushed, too segmented in nature, and generally not as epic/memorable as the first.

#13
Massadonious1

Massadonious1
  • Members
  • 2 792 messages
"Real" fans.



How incredibly insulting.




#14
KalosCast

KalosCast
  • Members
  • 1 704 messages

kardox12 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Also, I don't know about anybody else, but there wasn't a single skill that was useful in every situation for me at all. Go back to playing WoW if you want your vendor trash and stupid dress-up games. I'll go ahead and play a game that has gameplay.


No more than one skill is needed for most of the classes. Because there is only one skill that is clearly superior to the rest in all the situations and they all share the same cool down. For soldiers it is Adrenaline rush, for infiltrators it is Stealth. I am not sure why you would want to use other skills on these classes (except to have more pain while killing mobs).


Sounds like boring classes then. Infilitrator has a number of different skills that are useful in different situations, Engineer does the same thing, essentially having one different skill for every type of situation.

#15
ShadowAldrius

ShadowAldrius
  • Members
  • 133 messages

kardox12 wrote...

I was talking about the main story arc. There are more missions in general. But if you put them aside the main story quests have very little development.


The main story arch is putting together your squad.

The first game was about gathering information on Saren to find out how to beat him and where he was headed.

The second is about gathering weapons and allies to battle the Collectors and rescue humanity.

If you really think about it, Feros, Artemis Tao and Noveria have like nothing to do with the main plotline... other than their endings where you get the information you need.

#16
Chained_Creator

Chained_Creator
  • Members
  • 833 messages

Massadonious1 wrote...

"Real" fans.

How incredibly insulting.

I've bought BioWare games since the original KOTOR.

What, do I have to go out and buy Neverwinter Nights, as well?

What do I have to do to get this mythical "real fans" qualification?

--
Alternatively:

Daddy! I want to grow up to be a real fan one day! 

Modifié par Chained_Creator, 02 février 2010 - 08:20 .


#17
Rilke21

Rilke21
  • Members
  • 222 messages
Thanks for your reply, izmir. I agree that if a game has a great story, it won't matter at all what genre it fits into. (Half-Life 2 is easily in my top 5.) I also agree that my opinion is likely in the minority. But from the perspective of a writer, I feel confident in pointing out a rush-job when I see one.

There are a number of great moments in Mass Effect 2, but they are tempered by a number of really bad moments. (For example, did anyone understand why test-tube baby Grunt was supposed to be more Krogan than any other Krogan? And what exactly was going on with Jacob's father? And Liara? All I can do is shake my head and sigh about Liara. These are moments that either made no sense at all, or seemed to make sense because the dialogue went by so quickly.)

I also agree with Kalos that it's very difficult to write the middle part of a trilogy. But with a universe as rich as Mass Effect to work with, someone had to have had a better idea than just blowing up the crew.

And yes, in some ways the combat in Mass Effect 2 is better than the original. But I think people are mostly saying that because there's more combat, and you don't have to wait in any elevators before hopping into it. Anyone who remembers how exciting the Vermire mission was in Mass Effect wouldn't think of knocking the combat in that game. Pacing, on the other hand, was a problem.

Modifié par Rilke21, 02 février 2010 - 08:49 .


#18
Seraph666

Seraph666
  • Members
  • 29 messages

KalosCast wrote...

It's the middle game of a trilogy. Every trilogy, excluding the original Star Wars, suffers in the storytelling of the second one, since it has no clearly defined beginning and end.


That's just BS. By that same logic the first game should've had no defined ending, yet it did. There's no reason this game couldn't deliver a well done full fledged story within the trilogy with the introduction of the Collectors leading all the way through to their destruction. The problem is that the game just doesn't deliver that story very well, it focuses too much on the sub-stories and the over-arcing story. There's barely any story elements about the Collectors that doesn't instantly hook itself on to the larger story. If they had just seperated the two abit more and shifted the balance away from the character stories this game could've easily stood on it's own legs with a great main-story.

#19
Hawk-Firestorm

Hawk-Firestorm
  • Members
  • 7 messages
Why does it feel like it has been booted in the teeth well that's easy.

IT HAS.

It's quickly apparent that the game went out unfinished in many areas.

Missing dialog, missing vehicals a shocking lack of content compared to ME1, very limited character choice and skill growth, abysmal choice of customisation.

And a very limited selection of Weps armour etc for the player to choose from.

Combat well that hasn't improved IMHO either most of the time you feel like your squad is useless, and might as well not be there, and more often than not it isn't it's getting killed off somewhere else because they got lost or hung up on objects that's when you don't have to restart because you got hung up on a wall or have to restart the entire mission because of corrupt save games.

A sequel should move a product on and raise the bar, ME2 hasn't in any shape or form over ME1 it's a quantum leap backwards.

'Exploration' = Drag a mouse cursor over a spinning ball for resources WOW.  VERY EXCITING. (NOT)

There's so many possibilities open to you and the player and none were explored like being able to do more with your ship or even combat with it and the space side, ground warfare with vehicals, player built bases for weps or supplies or research etc.

Lots of side game that has a hell of alot more depth than click on this dot and connect it to another one with the same pic.

It's a sad sad thing that Publishers seem to get far too many fingers in the developement of games and end up stuffing things up instead of sticking to publishing, which I suspect has been a factor here as with many other titles.

Bioware you can and should be doing better than this, and While ME2 is a good game it should have taken ME1 to the next level not below it.

More crafting and quality less marketing please.

Modifié par Hawk-Firestorm, 02 février 2010 - 08:30 .


#20
Frotality

Frotality
  • Members
  • 1 057 messages
over ambitious goal and overzealous streamlining are the main faults of the game. you make very reasonable and understandable points, hopefully something bioware will pick up on.

i thin they just went too far in trying to attract new fans, and alienated the old in the process, throwing in blasto references and minor ME1 sidequest references to try and compensate.

Something Bioware should know (probably already does) :

your moving on to the end of a trilogy. if someone is not a fan yet, they wont be a considerable consumer base for the 3rd regardless of any attempts to make it "a great entry point to the series". ME2 got alot of praise, and you certainly got some new fans, but now you have to please them all with the third. sure ME3 can be fun for shooter and rpg fans alike, but dont go and make it as linear as the 2nd in hopes of getting all those foul-mouthed CODMW 8yr olds to play it. your demographic is adults after all, we can handle meanigful choices of equipment and depth of story. ME1 had the depth we liked, and ME2 had the tense combat it lacked, our desires for the 3rd should be obvious with that considered.

#21
ShadowAldrius

ShadowAldrius
  • Members
  • 133 messages

(For example, did anyone understand why test-tube baby Grunt was supposed to be more Krogan than any other Krogan? And what exactly was going on with Jacob's father? And Liara? All I can do is shake my head and sigh about Liara. These are moments that either made no sense at all, or seemed to make sense because the dialogue went by so quickly.)




Grunt was genetically engineered to be the biggest toughest Krogan, by distilling his blood with the genetic material of ancient Krogan warlords? Jacob's dad crash landed on an abandoned planet, became captain and abused his power? Liara had to go into debt with the Shadow Broker in order to rescue Shepard's body, and now she wants revenge on him? I'll give you the last one because the dialogue there is hard to miss.



I also agree with Kalos that it's very difficult to write the middle part of a trilogy. But with a universe as rich as Mass Effect to work with, someone had to have had a better idea than just blowing up the crew.




What more did you want or expect? We're battling the Reapers. The Reapers only way in is through their leftover indoctrinated servants. If they had just had another reaper hanging around that would have made the first game feel incredibly cheap.



But I will agree Horizon, the Collector Ship and the Derelict Reaper all feel rather half-finished as far as the plot goes. The first and last one especially.

#22
nteger

nteger
  • Members
  • 126 messages
I don't think we should keep dwelling on whether or not ME is an RPG or a shooter. I consider it a unique formula. We shouldn't ask for features simply because they belong in an RPG. Rather, we should ask if they would make this particular game more fun. I definitely think more weapon and armor choices are needed. Not because they define an RPG, but because having more options and more loot make a game like this more fun.

#23
Rilke21

Rilke21
  • Members
  • 222 messages
Apologies to Massadonius and Chained...I probably should have chosen my words more carefully. It's not my intention to insult, but I do feel that a "real" (or perhaps an old-school?) fan will take issue with the dumbing-down of what BioWare has perfected over a decade or two: the RPG elements that added so much to games like KOTOR, Baldur's gate, NWN...the list goes on. I slipped in the “real fan” barb because, in all honesty, I'm a little offended that a company that has never slipped from its founding principles "sold out" by streamlining something as brilliant as Mass Effect. To be clear, I’d probably consider myself a fan of Mass Effect 2 (I did just spend the last 33 hours of my life playing through every bit of content that it has.) I’m just a little upset with the new direction BioWare is taking, and I wanted to let them know that the old fans (which are no more real than the new fans) will probably agree with me.

#24
I SuPreMacY 32I

I SuPreMacY 32I
  • Members
  • 80 messages
Mass Effect 2 was a great game. Some things it did really well were:



1) The import of your first character is just awesome. Something that gamers will hopefully be spoiled with in alot of sequels in the future.

2) The improved combat. Fighting is much more exciting and enjoyable in ME2 as compared to ME1. It's quicker paced, the powers are cooler, and as a whole it's an upgrade.

3) Setting up Mass effect 3. All the choices and relationships we're developing here make me excited to explore the follow up.

4) Looks better



Something's that ME2 did poorly.

1) Unoriginal main story arc that felt more like a recruiting mission than a story. invariably the game ends up being, "Land on planet, kill 30 minutes worth of bad guys, get new character that you will probably not use and don't, in fact, even need for the suicide mission. Rinse and repeat"

2) The "watering down" of role playing elements. unable to equip gear on your allies, lack of inventory, upgrades immiedetly applied instead of you manually upgrading the gun your using for specific battles.

3) Some characters lacked the depth that we've come to expect from mass effect characters.

4) General inabilitiy to role play.



In the RPG universe I am very much a fan of 'doing my own thing'. Making my own character, and, at times, completely ignoring the main quest and whatever else is going on in the game. For a person like me, games like Oblivion are really where RPG gaming is at, if only for the fact that if i so choose i can run around picking daisies, or i can play the entire game as a martial arts hand to hand fighter, etc etc. Bioware RPG's tend to be very different, sacrificing this sense of freedom for instead a superbly written story. I'm not saying either is better, I'm just saying they're different approaches to the genre. I miss getting side quests from real characters, I miss having things to do other than pick up the next random person that will hang out in the engineering level.



But essentially Mass Effect 2 was a great game, I had fun while playing it, I'm going to play through it several times, and i'm going to buy the 3rd game. It just feels like instead of improving what Mass effect 1 did so well, the decided to just take out everything that wasn't perfect. Sure, the mako missions and driving around on unexplored planets were sometimes not that great. But that doesn't mean we don't want them all together. Or just because the inventory was clunky and needed some work doesn't mean they should pull it out all together.

My problem with mass effect 2 is that rather than fix and improve things from the first game they just decided to drop it. "You're guns all looked the same and were just different colors? fixed, now you have 2 completly unique guns in that class that you can't even tell which one is better!".



In conclusion, I know that everyone likes different things, but RPG's need to have stats. You need to be able to look at a weapon and see it's better, or that the armor will protect you more from this kind of attack than the other. You need to have a personal experience that allows you to actually insert part of yourself into the character, and thus "role play". Mass effect 2 philospy instead is Improve the shooting because shooters sell, strip away everything else other than the story", and this philospy sadly falls flat.

#25
KalosCast

KalosCast
  • Members
  • 1 704 messages
To the Liara comment. The reason that her personality seems to derailed is because it's supposed to. If you call her out in the right way in your conversation (may have to be a romantic interest with her too), the "real" Liara shines through for a moment before she regains her composure.