They may have been introduced but the characters were still developed. New characters can be developed by having them fleshed out and made believable. You got to see what motivated Mordin, Samara, Jack, Grunt, etc through the story of the game. In Mass Effect 1, all you got was "hi my name is this and I'm now coming with you". And people are getting nostalgia mixed up with actual in game attachments. The bonding between the crew was superficial. If you play the game and neglect to have conversations outside the main story with any character then there is no bonding with any of them. They're just people who sit in your ship. You don't do any missions where they really just come out and talk about where they're coming from or anything like that. They're just there.Nozybidaj wrote...
I think you are misunderstanding "character development" The only people in the game with characer development were, as I said Tali, Garrus, and Wrex. The rest was all character introduction. But yes, I agree the entire premise of the game was buildig a team. But didn't I already have a team? Oh, but since we are building a team we have to get rid of the old team, so that we can build a new team. /sigh
And they don't have the same kind of time for character development in a 40 hour game that a 2 hour movie does? You also try and draw a false choice "ME1 style shallow characters with heavy story, or half ass both". Why not go heavy with character development? They could have completely chosen to do that. Instead they decided to spend the entire second chapter introducing us to brand new characters. Everything that was set up in the first game, Shepard's crew, Shepard's relationships, Shepard's motivations, it was all cast aside in the first 10 minutes of the game so they could, introduce more characters.
In the end the game felt more like grocery shoppping or joining a Pokeman league than getting ready to fight the reapers. All the setup, all the motivations. all the emotional attachments that were created through a wonderfully written and produced first installment were cast aside to create a backdrop of a story against which to have us go shoot stuff. The game in a lot of ways felt like a very generic shooter. Not something I've come to expect from Bioware.
In ME2, like I said before, they do it one better and make the characters matter. You may feel like they just tossed out all your efforts in ME1 out the window, but really the game would have still had the same feel of that middle chapter set up. Shepard would have his established crew from the get go, they could have some character development and then they go off and get ready to fight the Reapers, and they either start the fight and ME3 is a long fight or they get to the threshold and we get a cliff hanger. Given the choice between the two I like that they started over fresh to actually build a team that has more between them all than just banter. When you get out of ME2 you actually get the feeling that you and your team just ran a gauntlet and now they actually have a reason to talk about "the good old days".
Lastly, the game is not 40 hours of pure story telling. If you break it down to the core dialogue of each characters missions and scenes or whatever its a lot less. Can't compare a game to a movie apples to apples because the planning for either one are very different. To sum it up, there were very little emotional attachments set up in the narrative of Mass Effect 1. Outside of the romance subplots you could argue there was absolutely none. The over all story was well written yea, but so was each characters mission in ME2. ME1 had a great set up, for a finale. A middle game seems pointless unless they create a good enough excuse. And in my opinion they did.
Retour en haut
