178 réponses à ce sujet

[Terwox_]

@ the OP. Why don't you just do the IFF mission then jump to the ending right away after getting the IFF mission. Last person I saw do this lost everyone, even shepard died.

[Gill Kaiser]

I, for the most part, agree with your scores. However, I think Legion needs to get slightly more in the story section, because of what he represents - that the Geth are not the antagonists we thought they were. He also provides a lot of insight into the way Reapers think. I think at least +0.75.



I also think that Mordin deserves much better. He should get a +1 for the usefullness section, because without him we couldn't upgrade the ship at all.

[RattleSnake08]

This is like asking .. what is the point of the missions

[Giantmoth]

You raise a valid point, HOWEVER...



Shepard didn't know WHAT they would find past the Omega 4 relay. He prepared for his mission in every possible way. The characters do fill out a neat role. That Thane or Moridin does not serve any purpose on the mission itself besides shooting stuff, is beyond the point. What if they had required someone to crawl through ventilation ducts, to assassinate the Collector General? Then Thane would have been the perfect man for the job.



The point is, nobody knew what they were going into, so he needed a small army of extremly capable induviduals, able and willing to get the job done.

[DarthRic]

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...

Personally I found the characters to be quite enjoyable to the fullest. Giving both Samara and Thane 0 for their stories is quite a sham in my opinion. Did you even speak with them?

Samara's quest was indeed quite good, the biotic battle part was pretty epic

[DarthRic]

NeonMeat wrote...
and doubled the length and detail of their personal missions.

erm in mass effect 1 some people didnt even have personal missions, and if they did it was just "go here, kill some enemies, retrieve item, done" where as in ME2 you had diversity of missions, such as samara's whee it was mostly talking, and garrus where there was fighting and then a well voiced ending, or miranda's where you have the fighting with some conversations and moral choices at the end when you choose whether or not to stop Miranda shooting that guy and then she has an emotional reunion with her sister.  In mass effect 1, as far as I know Kaiden and Ashley didn't even have a personal quest, huge improvement if you ask me

Modifié par DarthRic, 02 février 2010 - 03:53 .

[smudboy]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

I, for the most part, agree with your scores. However, I think Legion needs to get slightly more in the story section, because of what he represents - that the Geth are not the antagonists we thought they were. He also provides a lot of insight into the way Reapers think. I think at least +0.75.

I also think that Mordin deserves much better. He should get a +1 for the usefullness section, because without him we couldn't upgrade the ship at all.

Yes, I agree with you.  Legion does provide unique info on the Reapers.  I've changed the score.

Mordin is already +1.

[OLDSCHOOLPOSER]

WOW! Some of you really over analyze the game way to much. I think the reasons for so many characters is diverse game play nothing more.

[smudboy]

Giantmoth wrote...

Shepard didn't know WHAT they would find past the Omega 4 relay. He prepared for his mission in every possible way. The characters do fill out a neat role. That Thane or Moridin does not serve any purpose on the mission itself besides shooting stuff, is beyond the point. What if they had required someone to crawl through ventilation ducts, to assassinate the Collector General? Then Thane would have been the perfect man for the job.

The point is, nobody knew what they were going into, so he needed a small army of extremly capable induviduals, able and willing to get the job done.

And what exactly is this "neat role" each character fills?  "Excess baggage" comes to mind.

If TIM and Shepard didn't know what they would find, why would they start building a team?  Their main task was to "attack the Collectors."  I assume that either means: kill a Collector leader in/at their homeworld, somehow, or blow up their base/homeworld/something, somehow.  The recruitment of Mordin was essential, and this is how all introductions to recruitment should've been (i.e. Miranda arguing for/against, Jacob putting his two cents in, arguing about why/what might happen.)  Not just after the fact because TIM said so "hey you've got an impressive record.  You'd be a great addition to the team...for you to do...something..." So everyone, save Mordin, is reduced to being a grunt.  (i.e. ship upgrades do not necessitate having someone join your team.)

This is the problem with your statement: get what job done?  What exactly are they going to do?  When they do get past the Omega 4 relay, we find out: a task that only requires a handful of people, not 12.  And though a poor idea, that's fine: provided the people you actually recruited did something/helped those with the actual goals.  Which we did not see or were told of.  The unchosen few did absolutely nothing, and some couldn't even do anything without killing someone regardless of loyalty (Thane, Grunt, Zaeed, and Mordin.)

Though potentially contrived, it would've made sense to have exercises: a series of multi-squad drills done in stages, or main plot missions which would feel similar to a finalized attack on the Collectors, that would build up the loyalty of characters with Shepard and everyone else.  (i.e. Assign a fire team, a scout team, a zapper, see how everyone behaves, etc.)  Have them hit bases that make Paragon Shepard question Cerberus even more (Alliance, Turian, etc.) to acquire resources and potential allies.  Because in this story, we're Cerberus -- our ends justify our means -- and we need to save the galaxy at any cost.  With stories like The Dirty Dozen, The Guns of Navarone, and even the Seven Samurai, we don't exactly know what to expect, but we've got a hell of a clear idea what everyone's goal is, and what their opposing force is.  For ME2, a successful ending involves the 3 ship upgrades, the 4 plot roles and those characters loyalty missions finished.

And unlike The Dirty Dozen, each of these characters are likable and not evil/having major issues that affect the mission in any way (maybe Zaeed, but he's paid to be there (though still useless.)) The only team arguments are between Jack and Miranda (which is superfluous), and Tali and Legion (pointless, because regardless, we'll still get a tech expert.)

[KalliChan07]

Direwolf029 wrote...

ashmiranda3waymm wrote...

Personally I found the characters to be quite enjoyable to the fullest. Giving both Samara and Thane 0 for their stories is quite a sham in my opinion. Did you even speak with them?

I loved the Thane quest. Made me feel like a cop.

I felt like a cop as well!  I totally thought "ZOMGAH DIEHARD!" when I was in the room with the flashy lights

Eh I dunno, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.  I didn't like Thane at first until I got over blushing at his rewind memories and listened to him.  I couldn't stand Jack.. I mean.. let her die on my paragon and didn't even care.  After I gave her a chance, she's not bad at all either.

The characters won't shine, unless you give them a chance to be completely honest.  It's very easy to over look characters in this game with how many there are. 

Modifié par KalliChan07, 04 février 2010 - 04:26 .

[KalliChan07]

Not to mention, they're giving you a huge team to take down a massive Reaper army in Mass Effect 3. Really the major point of ME2 was to get the most bada*ss team you could get for the impending war.

[xMister Vx]

What is the point of descriptions? Of the Codex? Of the universe, the novels, the backstory? Why not make it a corridor shooter. Hell, most dialogue options are unnecessary. After all, you just need to point and shoot. House of the Dead seems like the best game ever made then.



I genuinely do not think the characters' value can be quantified. As far as I'm concerned, more is always better, and even if you don't like a character, someone else will. Useless characters do not exist. "Excess baggage" is fluff that you don't consider worth paying attention to, but that is precious to someone else.

[RampantBeaver]

This is the most retarded list ever. It serves no purpose. Its scoring system is imbecilic and bias to your experiences.

Modifié par RampantBeaver, 04 février 2010 - 04:40 .

[Daveastation]

Shady314 wrote...

To be fair Mordin supplies you with nearly every upgrade to the Team's equipment you can get. From a realistic standpoint he's essential unless you want to go in with less than state of the art weaponry and protection.

Yup.  Mordin is essential for any and every upgrade, why else was he the first squadmate suggested by TIM to recruit?

Zaeed is the least valuable character, then Thane.  Even though I really liked Thane.

Modifié par Daveastation, 04 février 2010 - 05:23 .

[smudboy]

KalliChan07 wrote...

Not to mention, they're giving you a huge team to take down a massive Reaper army in Mass Effect 3. Really the major point of ME2 was to get the most bada*ss team you could get for the impending war.

So the major point of ME2 is so we can get characters from it?  That will supposedly be in ME3?  So the writer(s) created a brand new crew inside an existing universe for some future situations not told in this story, so we can see them in another story?  Excuse me sir, but what realm of effective storytelling are you in to make this statement?

xMister Vx wrote...

What is the point of descriptions? Of
the Codex? Of the universe, the novels, the backstory? Why not make it
a corridor shooter. Hell, most dialogue options are unnecessary. After
all, you just need to point and shoot. House of the Dead seems like the
best game ever made then.

I genuinely do not think the
characters' value can be quantified. As far as I'm concerned, more is
always better, and even if you don't like a character, someone else
will. Useless characters do not exist. "Excess baggage" is fluff that
you don't consider worth paying attention to, but that is precious to
someone else.

I'm asking what the point of all these characters are to the main story/plot.  Your examples mean nothing.

You can easily quantify the value of things relevant to the main plot/story.  It's not hard.  We do it all the time with life, and stories are no different.  In fact, it's easier in a story.  The majority of this game is one giant series of side-stories, completely unrelated to the main plot/story.  You're essentially arguing to me that The Phantom Menace is a better movie than the original Star Wars because it has more likable characters in it.  I'm quite sure this it not what you believe.

I do not say the characters are bad.  I said they are useless.  They have no purpose or are replaceable/can be combined for the plot.  The main plot and story are what matters: and this game is lacking that.

RampantBeaver wrote...

This is the most retarded list ever. It serves no purpose. Its scoring system is imbecilic and bias to your experiences.

How?  I thought it was quite well thought out and quantitative.  Feel free to blow holes in it.  Obviously there are some values that need adjustment.  I accept diverging opinions, due to my poor memory (where I changed the score of Legion accordingly for his continuity regarding the Reapers.)  One big issue is every character's side story has nothing to do with the plot, but you must evaluate them to that plot, in relation to the suicide mission, based on: story continuity, ship upgrades, and their role in the suicide mission.  Unfortunately, continuity is as close as we can get to having a character being relative to this bizarre main quest-story.  Continutiy explains what happened in ME1, MEG, Cerberus, etc., and hopefully relates to the Collectors.  (For example, I might just go and add some points to Grunt's story score, since I just remembered he's based on Collector technology.  That goes to show you just how much of an impact that aspect of Grunt actually does have on the main plot: next to nothing.)

[Capone666]

If your going to recruit 11 operatives all of them should have some usage in the finale of the game. Or through out. Legion was advertised incredibly unfairly, at no point in the game was he ever represented as an enemy. He was with you from the first moment his scope was shown.

Seems like a case of too many writers wanted their own cool characters to have a place in this epic saga, without integrating them effectively. Thane and grunt for instance have nothing to do with anything. pity.

[xMister Vx]

smudboy wrote...

You're essentially arguing to me that The Phantom Menace is a better movie than the original Star Wars because it has more likable characters in it.  I'm quite sure this it not what you believe.

I do not say the characters are bad.  I said they are useless.  They have no purpose or are replaceable/can be combined for the plot.  The main plot and story are what matters: and this game is lacking that.

Well, besides disagreeing that Phantom Menace has more likeable characters... My approach is quite different. I don't care about the main plot as much as I care about characters. In a book or a film, this would be different for me, but this is an interactive medium. The plot is always a straight line or a zigzag towards the final boss/objective, and frankly I don't think it's the point. Never been for me. The best of RPGs (video games) shine in atmosphere and locations, not in the advancement of their plot (people have been quoting Planescape as an exception though, and I have no experience with jRPGs so I'll limit this to western-style).

Coming form this completely different view point, I'm sure you can see that I do not understand the idea that a character can be useless.

[Xenon147]

OP, you are a literary genius. I tip my hat to you. I found all of the recruitment and loyalty missions to be fun, engaging, and interesting by themselves, but with characters like Thane, you are right, he and his story don't really fit into the ME2 core framework. If we are lucky, Bioware might focus on expanding and connecting these "useless" characters through DLC that solidifies their presence and purpose for the future in ME3. While that may be the perfect way to go for a strong, compelling story... it may be too much to hope for....

Also I like how you identified all the cliche's and tropes lol.

[maxulic]

Given that Mordin gives access to the lab area which means the research terminal, I would almost consider it as a ship improvement...

[Xenon147]

xMister Vx wrote...

smudboy wrote...

You're essentially arguing to me that The Phantom Menace is a better movie than the original Star Wars because it has more likable characters in it.  I'm quite sure this it not what you believe.

I do not say the characters are bad.  I said they are useless.  They have no purpose or are replaceable/can be combined for the plot.  The main plot and story are what matters: and this game is lacking that.

Well, besides disagreeing that Phantom Menace has more likeable characters... My approach is quite different. I don't care about the main plot as much as I care about characters. In a book or a film, this would be different for me, but this is an interactive medium. The plot is always a straight line or a zigzag towards the final boss/objective, and frankly I don't think it's the point. Never been for me. The best of RPGs (video games) shine in atmosphere and locations, not in the advancement of their plot (people have been quoting Planescape as an exception though, and I have no experience with jRPGs so I'll limit this to western-style).

Coming form this completely different view point, I'm sure you can see that I do not understand the idea that a character can be useless.

I think the reason games tend to have weaker plots than movies and focus on atmosphere and/or characters, gameplay and such is because game designers are more focused on trying to make the game fun than trying to tell the perfect story. Combine that with the fact that we the consumers dictate what content sells best by gobbling it up at the store... we the consumers who, for the most part only care about the fun factor when it comes to games... we encourage (unintentionally) developers to make games that come in silver pills, engineered to suit us building cheaper thrills. As the gaming crowd grows, devs do their best to make things more accessible (meaning simplify and water down) in an effort to please the majority. 

It's probably the same reason music since the renaissance has gone from sophisticated and artsy to cheap and trendy. We only have ourselves to blame for not demanding higher standards. 

[Skilled Seeker]

I completely disagree with OP. To me all the characters made sense and had rich backstories. Compare the 11 we have now to the 6 in ME1. Are you telling me the crew in ME1 were a lot richer and more personal? Cause to me it feels like the quantity of crew members has gone up but the quality has NOT taken a hit. And choice is good.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 04 février 2010 - 07:22 .

[Kwonnern]

Variety, Options and Content.

The more content the better! More choices are always good.

More stories, missions and points of view.

All the characters have quality and you can really feel some attachment, especially when you are losing one of them, Bioware did very well on this point.

Modifié par Kwonnern, 04 février 2010 - 07:26 .

[smudboy]

xMister Vx wrote...

Well, besides disagreeing that Phantom Menace has more likeable characters... My approach is quite different. I don't care about the main plot as much as I care about characters. In a book or a film, this would be different for me, but this is an interactive medium. The plot is always a straight line or a zigzag towards the final boss/objective, and frankly I don't think it's the point. Never been for me. The best of RPGs (video games) shine in atmosphere and locations, not in the advancement of their plot (people have been quoting Planescape as an exception though, and I have no experience with jRPGs so I'll limit this to western-style).

Coming form this completely different view point, I'm sure you can see that I do not understand the idea that a character can be useless.

That's fine. That would be a character driven narrative/plot.  However, ME2 is not one.  If it were, Shepard would be a distinct person.  Shepard's designed to be relateable man/woman, with no inner-dialog: to be positive, neutral or negative, to everything, via player input.  Even that is merely a response to what's going on around him/her, not he/she instigating, creating or pushing the plot along.  The only major thing he/she can do are player actions: argue with TIM, travel to point B, choose to upgrade the ship, choose who to use in the suicide mission, and choose whether to save/destroy the Collector base.  That's really it.

The plot, in such games as these, doesn't have to be a straight line, though I'd argue it would make for more effective storytelling.  There can be forks in the road, but all roads come to the goal (Hero's Journey: The Ultimate Boon.)  Possible exception could be the Wing Commander series.  Anyway, the point of any story is to tell the story: to see the struggles, trials and conflicts the main character goes through.  Shepard.  Now you're saying the story is irrelevant, it's about the other characters.  Now the problem with that, is in ME2, the recruitable characters have nothing to do with the main story, including Tali.  They're just along for the ride.  "Hey Shepard, can we go do X?" Each and every character is useless, save Mordin, because Mordin acts once as an actual plot device.  Their recruitment and personal issues/loyalty missions have nothing to do with the main story.  Pre-suicide mission, if they did have use, we are not told how they did, or shown as such.

The whole point of ME2 is to attack the Collectors, somehow.  Shepard doesn't know how he will, and TIM is just making prudent suggestions on who to take with him.  For a plot, a rather weak one, that's fine: but it turns out the majority of these recruits are useless when we get to the end run.  In ME1, it was no big deal.  But ME2 is clear: assemble a team to do X.  But what kind of team?

Drama is created when we actually care about what is happening to a character.  Who cares that Thane has a son?  Or Grunt's got issues?  Or Jack, or anyone else?  We just want that loyalty rating, because the game says so.  As Aria says, "everyone needs more."  So off goes the player, Catching Them All, making them Loyal, because we don't know what to expect.  Imagine if Thane lost his son to the Collectors (and was useful), or Samara witnessed firsthand their injustices, or we get to recruit the ME1 survivor because they survived the Collector attack on Freedom's Progress: this would be obvious, and we'd care greatly for them as a character, because their motivations to the main plot is clear.

What we get instead, if we can possibly tie in all these characters to the goal, is a "fill the role" option.  Where we find an underdeveloped, mostly pointless, replaceable team.  BioWare wanted us to choose different selections for the end game to see who might die all at once, instead of having the game be about building up to that point.  Imagine, building your team up as a team, to fight in this climax of an unknown battle.  That would make sense.  But going across the galaxy, doing fetch/violent side quests because your 11 characters, (who are largely uninvolved and unmotived), have other personal issues, unrelated to the main plot?  It makes everyone completely replaceable, regardless of how attractive their side stories are.

I think someone in another post made the analogy of ME2's story like shopping for 5 hours for groceries to make a 30 minute meal.  I would say, to add, but only using 1/12th of the ingredients you bought.

[tertium organum]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

I completely disagree with OP. To me all the characters made sense and had rich backstories. Compare the 11 we have now to the 6 in ME1. Are you telling me the crew in ME1 were a lot richer and more personal? Cause to me it feels like the quantity of crew members has gone up but the quality has NOT taken a hit. And choice is good.

This is not hat he's arguing. He's not saying the crew stories are bad, only that they do not impact the main story - they don't really tie into it. Thane's skill and expertise is really not used the best way along with others so why did we have so many?  I agree with the OP. I also think the back stories are fantastic and the characters themselves fascinating but it does not amount to much in the end. Bioware  has yet to find the proper balance between main story and side quests. The opposite problem was in the first game - irrelevant and meaningless side quests that didn't feed into the excllent main story. And now, excellent side stories that have a minimal impact on a shallow storyline. In fact, the main story quest suffers because of the numerous back stories.All could have been rectified if they made the entire suicide mission just as it started - assinging each crew to a different part. Perhaps, Garrus and Thane are able to take up assasination posts ( one of them so you can have one in your party). Perhaps, Thane has to go in quietly somewhere.  Or Garrus.  The tech specialis thing was fine - have another more difficult scenario near the end.  Same thing with the biotic barrier. They had the right idea with the initial part of the suicide mission so why they settle for a generic boss battle is maddening.

[xMister Vx]

Xenon147 wrote...

It's probably the same reason music since the renaissance has gone from sophisticated and artsy to cheap and trendy. We only have ourselves to blame for not demanding higher standards. 

From a historical perspective, the renaissance music was just as cheap and trendy at the time as the dreadful pop that fills your ears every day now. It's subjective. It changes, yes, but saying that it's "cheap" is basically resorting to the age-old argument that everything was better before our time, and we should not fall into that trap. I love classical music too, by the way.

About what you said earlier: yes and no. They are obviously simplified, it is a requirement of the medium. For more complicated stories, you always have books. Reading Hyperion/Endymion, the Chronicles of Amber, the Dark Tower... I don't want to play through it. I enjoy it from the spectator's point of view, but a game based on that simply would not work as well as ME. The medium compels writers to cut corners and simplify (in this case it is also done to allow more choices). Those that do so with style (like BioWare) stand out among their peers.
Mind you, some visual novels are basically a wall of text with complex and branching storylines, but I'm not an expert in them - and we're discussing western-style games anyway.