154 réponses à ce sujet

[Chained_Creator]

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.

I disagree with you. The point of any meaningful media is the theme that specific media imparts. The story is only the vehicle thereof, not the actual end itself.

[Doug84]

Chained_Creator wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.

I disagree with you. The point of any meaningful media is the theme that specific media imparts. The story is only the vehicle thereof, not the actual end itself.

ODST 3 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.

Hm, I bought the game hoping to get hours of fun, drama, and intrigue out of it. That's what I got.

Agreed on both. Though I also got the second act in a sci-fi epic. With a good story. So I'm happy.

[ODST 3]

smudboy wrote...

I'm quite sure two of them aren't a resurrection and fighting a disembodied Terminator embryo being fed gray human paste.

Orange paste, champ. Get it right.

[Kujo00]

Yep Bioware rocks. I really like the improvments from ME1 to ME2 like no inventory.

I dont want to wear an armor because it stats are the best. I want my character to wear an armor that looks awesome no matther what stats it got.



ME2 moves in the right direction. RPGS like KOTOR/Diablo .... are outdated imo.



The only thing I miss in ME2 is the interaction with teammates outside Normandy. It should be like in Dragon Age. They should react about your actions.

[TheShady]

Kujo00 wrote...
ME2 moves in the right direction. RPGS like KOTOR/Diablo .... are outdated imo.
 

People will kill each other for a copy of Diablo 3.
MMORPGs are incredibly popular. 
DA:O was a success.

[Lord Nicholai]

smudboy wrote...

Shepard is a flat character and has 0 development.  There is no rising action, no tension, no immediacy. 

How do you want him to develop? He's on a mission to save the galaxy

The motives of the antagonist are unknown, as are their methods and intentions. 

We have seen two of their methods, but both have failed. As for their intentions, there is still another game to go. I'm pretty sure you would be moaning still if EVERYTHING was explained before the trilogy even finished.

[smudboy]

Chained_Creator wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.

I disagree with you. The point of any meaningful media is the theme that specific media imparts. The story is only the vehicle thereof, not the actual end itself.

Is not theme a broad idea, found in a literary quality?  We say media, but in your respect, you might mean medium.  The story is the point, the motivation, the reason one cares to do...anything.  It is the social value we ascribe to art, and how we let it impact us.

For example, I can argue the Carmack value of story: "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."

The reason why we play one game over another, is, I'd imagine, we like something about the characters, the setting, the plot, the situations, and what you can do in these situations (game play), no matter how poor or contrived the setting, plot, and theme might be.  The theme could be shooting a gun, or controlling a cute red Italian plumber as he jumps around a cartoon world.

If you want to play a game for that effect, the sensationalism, the simple game play, I say go for it.

I, however, tend to be more interested in things that have meaning.  Meaningful media.  Media with a story.

Samara: "But I am not a maiden, and sex without emotion simply doesn't interest me.  It will not be.  Accept it."

Modifié par smudboy, 15 février 2010 - 04:09 .

[Sphynx118]

Sorry to many holes in the writing for it to be perfect.

1.The council are written to be retarded without any logic behind it. (cams/instruments on normandy should prove reaper existence. Sovereigns corpse should prove existence, quarians explaining that geth dont have that advanced tech should prove existence etc etc the list is long)

2. They dropped the ball with Liara (Kelly/joker not asking about her but sure as hell asking about Ash/kaidan, People who romanced her get the exact same dialogue as people who didnt etc. None of your old squadmates like tali or garrus asks about you romancing them when you cheat)

3. Who payed willson to kill you and why? (minor but still a pretty lame oversight)

Modifié par Sphynx118, 15 février 2010 - 04:14 .

[Chief Savage Man]

smudboy wrote...

Chained_Creator wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.

I disagree with you. The point of any meaningful media is the theme that specific media imparts. The story is only the vehicle thereof, not the actual end itself.

Is not theme a broad idea, found in a literary quality?  We say media, but in your respect, you might mean medium.  The story is the point, the motivation, the reason one cares to do...anything.  It is the social value we ascribe to art, and how we let it impact us.

For example, I can argue the Carmack value of story: "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."

The reason why we play one game over another, is, I'd imagine, we like something about the characters, the setting, the plot, the situations, and what you can do in these situations (game play), no matter how poor or contrived the setting, plot, and theme might be.  The theme could be shooting a gun, or controlling a cute red Italian plumber as he jumps around a cartoon world.

If you want to play a game for that effect, the sensationalism, the simple game play, I say go for it.

I, however, tend to be more interested in things that have meaning.  Meaningful media.  Media with a story.

Samara: "But I am not a maiden, and sex without emotion simply doesn't interest me.  It will not be.  Accept it."

Mass Effect is an IDEAL.

[smudboy]

Lord Nicholai wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Shepard is a flat character and has 0 development.  There is no rising action, no tension, no immediacy. 

How do you want him to develop? He's on a mission to save the galaxy

The motives of the antagonist are unknown, as are their methods and intentions. 

We have seen two of their methods, but both have failed. As for their intentions, there is still another game to go. I'm pretty sure you would be moaning still if EVERYTHING was explained before the trilogy even finished.

I'd like Shepard to develop in any way, really.  Shouldn't being on a mission to save the galaxy, again, do something to someone?  If the protagnost doesn't show a hint of emotion or care for his conflict or cause, why should I?

I don't want or need everything explained, but it would help.  That doesn't stop the 3rd installment from being any less interesting.  In fact, the writers would have to give us even more interesting things.  This whole "3rd installment" argument or "its just a bridge" idea has no place here.  ME3 cannot be the apology to ME2.  A piece of art, whether a sequal/prequal,  part of a larger story, etc., must stand on its own merit.

[LoganMalone]

OP, well said and thank you for reminding us of the big picture. 

I'm passionate about what I do in life even in the sphere of entertainment via video games. We must always remember that if it wasn't for BioWare's efforts, the world of gaming would certainly be a less desirable medium of entertainment.  There aren't many game developers out there like BioWare who hear what their fans say and strive to make make each game better than the last. From BioWare's CEO's and founders all the way down to the office mail clerks, they all deserve our respect and appreciation. 

[Arcadionn]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Toastmaster_777 wrote...

Marilynn-22 wrote...

Bioware, this is how you make me feel. 

Same here!

Consensus reached.

[Valmy]

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Constructive criticism is fine...implying something blatantly false is not so great.  They obviously did try very hard.

I enjoyed the story...you didn't...and for some reason you decide the fact that you didn't like it means Bioware's writing department should be attacked personally.  I just do not get that attitude.

Modifié par Valmy, 15 février 2010 - 04:29 .

[Arcadionn]

Valmy wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Constructive criticism is fine...implying something blatantly false is not so great.  They obviously did try very hard.

I enjoyed the story...you didn't...and for some reason you decide the fact that you didn't like it means Bioware's writing department should be attacked personally.  I just do not get that attitude.

It's called : "the Douchebag approach".

Quite common today. People complain something is bad but cannot give supportive arguments behind their reasoning or suggestions on how they think x element could be improved..  Like saying Obama sucks just because you're republican.  No reasoning, just pure, blatant, idiocy.

Modifié par Arcadionn, 15 février 2010 - 04:34 .

[smudboy]

Luc0s wrote...

I got my list form my previous college. I studied audiovisual-media (now I study animation&visual-effects). With that 8 point list you can fill in pretty much any story, yes, even Jesus' story.

1) "You": Jesus the prophet.
2) "Need": Religion got f-ed up.
3) "Go": Jesus becomes the prophet.
4) "Search": Jesus' searches for followers.
5) "Find": Jesus is the son of god and finds out his death is part of the bigger plan.
6) "Take": Jesus gets crucified, but his sacrefice gives us a free pass to heaven.
7) "Return": Jesus returns from the death before he goes back to the heavens.
8) "Change": Now the majority of humanity worships Jesus as their lord and savior.

It's a pretty good list, but your 5-point list is good aswell.

But about the squad-members in ME2:

Just because they're replacable doesn't make them worthless, most of them fill an important role in the final mission and Shepard couldn't have done it without them. Besides, they're the 12 most notorious characters in the Milky Way, so if you want to replace them, then who should be in their respective place?

I bet most characters from Star Wars are replacable, but that doesn't make them bad characters or less important.

I happen to be a big Japanese anime fan and my favorite anime is One Piece. The basic structure of the story is pretty much the same as ME2. Protagonist Monkey D. Luffy is going to sail the most dangerious seas of the world, The Grand Line, to find Gold Roger's pirate treasure. In order to do so, Luffy needs a pirate crew to helm his pirate ship. During the entire story, Luffy meets new characters that join his pirate crew. All characters are unique and really stand out, BUT every single one of them could be replaced in theory.

Does this make the characters less significant? No, it doesn't, because they're the best in what they do. Every single one of them is interresting and really make One Piece more enjoyable to watch.

I think ME2 is the same as One Piece, and I think both have an interresting story with superb characters.

Haha, Jesus.  Sorry, but I find the list rather contrived, and more geared toward a quest-plot, as if a visual would associate development with a character (which it might.)  It doesn't apply to short stories, or various other creative storytelling by a number of people in film and writing.  Even the Dramatic Structure was used to describe ancient Greek dramas.  It does address how a story can be meaningful and emotional if such elements are explained (or shown) well, because it focuses on conflict, and a singular idea: a simple plot.  Although I can definitely understand your view point, if this is the structure for audio/visio media, trying to get a visual character to go to point B because of A, etc.

They are worthless, because 1) we don't know what role they'll have in the suicide mission.  7 Samurai, Dirty Dozen, Guns of Navarone this is not.  We're in an alien galaxy fighting an unknown. 2) they don't challenge the protagonist or help him (Mordin merely acts as a plot device, and his countermeasure is rendered useless at the suicide mission).  The 3 ship upgrades are plot devices at best, 3) Thane/Zaeed/Grunt cannot even fill a roll properly (because the writer said so) without someone dying, but if that's your story, more power to you, 4) Shepard can do it without most of them (just take Tali, Garrus/Miranda, get the three ship upgrades from Tali, Garrus and Jacob.), 5) They're all optional anyway.

None of the characters are bad.  They're all likable and interesting.  (Save Shepard.)  Unfortunately, they're all replaceable, optional or completely useless.  (I'm not going to argue how relevant/good/better one is over another in having them join game-play squad.)  And as such, save Mordin's plot device, they all have nothing to do with the main plot.  If they are irrelevant to it, if their motivations have no bearing on it, if their backstories do not involve them with the protagonist/antagonist/opposing force/main conflict, they are sugar candy.

[Sphynx118]

Arcadionn wrote...

Valmy wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Constructive criticism is fine...implying something blatantly false is not so great.  They obviously did try very hard.

I enjoyed the story...you didn't...and for some reason you decide the fact that you didn't like it means Bioware's writing department should be attacked personally.  I just do not get that attitude.

It's called : "the Douchebag approach".

Quite common today. People complain something is bad but cannot give supportive arguments behind their reasoning or suggestions on how they think x element could be improved..  Like saying Obama sucks just because you're republican.  No reasoning, just pure, blatant, idiocy.

It sure stinks of fanbois in here

[Arcadionn]

Sphynx118 wrote...

Arcadionn wrote...

Valmy wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Constructive criticism is fine...implying something blatantly false is not so great.  They obviously did try very hard.

I enjoyed the story...you didn't...and for some reason you decide the fact that you didn't like it means Bioware's writing department should be attacked personally.  I just do not get that attitude.

It's called : "the Douchebag approach".

Quite common today. People complain something is bad but cannot give supportive arguments behind their reasoning or suggestions on how they think x element could be improved..  Like saying Obama sucks just because you're republican.  No reasoning, just pure, blatant, idiocy.

It sure stinks of fanbois in here

Not quite; I mean: Most Bioware games are good, or great. I would not say they are perfect, nothing is really and there are negative points that I could say about ME2. I am merely implying that most naysayers about ME2 do so without justification. While most defenders of ME2, do so with pointing what they liked and what they did not like.

I can agree with negative points or suggestive/constructive criticism when backed with arguments, and hell, I have on some occasions on these forums. I just despise people saying "This sucks, they should get fired" or any other semblance of stupid troll-like behavior.

I am a fan, not a fanboy; and yes, there is a distinction.

[smudboy]

Valmy wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Constructive criticism is fine...implying something blatantly false is not so great.  They obviously did try very hard.

I enjoyed the story...you didn't...and for some reason you decide the fact that you didn't like it means Bioware's writing department should be attacked personally.  I just do not get that attitude.

I think I've done a good job explaining myself.  Although if you have questions, I'd be happy to explain more.

I enjoyed the story too.  I just know it wasn't that good.

BioWare can do better.  We know it can do better.  If story is so important, if Dr. Ray Muzyka wants something to be so "emotionally engaging", then the focus of this would be a great story, and great storytelling.  Everything else would be secondary.  If the story is not gold, not beautiful, not engaging, not personal, then every production, every dollar, all the time spent in polishing something with amazing music, sound, graphics, talking heads, voice, etc., is worthless.  Or, pure sensationalism: which is not what we expect from ME, and definitely not from BioWare.

[smudboy]

Luc0s wrote...

I don't think Shepard is a flat character. He is as rich as BioWare could make him with their dinamic dialogue system. Shepard is as rich or flat as you play him. If you play him as renegade as you can, he'll be an ruthless **** who doesn't give a **** and basically gives is ruthless additude all the credit for the fact that he survived situations where other people would have failed.
If you play him paragon, he'll be a caring protagonist who cares about his crew and everyone else. He will be an honorable soldier who doesn't sacrifice other people's lifes easily, he'll do his best to save everyone.

Honestly, the only way for BioWare to give Shepard more depth is to strip the custom-character option and go with one single canon Shepard for everyone. With all the different options (different history options, paragon&renegade options, male/female option, etc) it's impossible to really give Shepard any more depth than he already has.

A flat character: "a character who reveals only one, maybe two, personality traits in a story or novel, and the trait(s) do not change."

Via character choice, he can be either P/R.  He's flat.

He can also be a static character: "a character that remains primarily the same throughout a story or novel. Events in the story do not alter a static character’s outlook, personality, motivation, perception, habits, etc."

The background of Shepard has nothing to do with, well, anything really.  Except maybe bonuses to P/R at start?

I think you nailed it: if BioWare went iconic Shepard, they'd have the opportunity for him to actually develop, or at least have more time to focus on that.  They can even still keep the P/R system, since it's just an attitude to react to situations.

Paragon/Renegade Shepard in relation to his crewmates?  Where does he care or not-care?  Are we referring to the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack scenes?  Because if you choose the P/R option, the outcome is the same.  The only real difference is if you don't use the P/R choice, and instead choose a side.  Now that's some good conflict.

Modifié par smudboy, 15 février 2010 - 04:57 .

[Shadow Wolf783]

The paragon or renegade options are a representation of Sheppard's leadership his ability to get both of the conflicting members to put their personal feelings aside and focus on the mission, be it through lets all talk about the problem or cut this crap out and get you heads back on mission or I will kick your a** type of way. Because the last thing you want when you embark on a highly dangerous op is good conflict between your team. There is nothing stating that you solved the issue between the two characters, you just managed to defuse the situation so it would not effect the mission.



I liked the game but it was not perfect yet no game is. The one thing I find lacking for ME2 is where is the MAKKO I thought that was cool.

[TheShady]

Valmy wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Constructive criticism is fine...implying something blatantly false is not so great.  They obviously did try very hard.

I enjoyed the story...you didn't...and for some reason you decide the fact that you didn't like it means Bioware's writing department should be attacked personally.  I just do not get that attitude.

No one likes to repeat themselves. A lot of criticism has been raised, only for the criticisers to be slaughtered by... well... fanboys.

It's exhausting to be on these forums and not like something about the game.

[Knoll Argonar]

smudboy wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

I don't think Shepard is a flat character. He is as rich as BioWare could make him with their dinamic dialogue system. Shepard is as rich or flat as you play him. If you play him as renegade as you can, he'll be an ruthless **** who doesn't give a **** and basically gives is ruthless additude all the credit for the fact that he survived situations where other people would have failed.
If you play him paragon, he'll be a caring protagonist who cares about his crew and everyone else. He will be an honorable soldier who doesn't sacrifice other people's lifes easily, he'll do his best to save everyone.

Honestly, the only way for BioWare to give Shepard more depth is to strip the custom-character option and go with one single canon Shepard for everyone. With all the different options (different history options, paragon&renegade options, male/female option, etc) it's impossible to really give Shepard any more depth than he already has.

A flat character: "a character who reveals only one, maybe two, personality traits in a story or novel, and the trait(s) do not change."

Via character choice, he can be either P/R.  He's flat.

He can also be a static character: "a character that remains primarily the same throughout a story or novel. Events in the story do not alter a static character’s outlook, personality, motivation, perception, habits, etc."

The background of Shepard has nothing to do with, well, anything really.  Except maybe bonuses to P/R at start?

I think you nailed it: if BioWare went iconic Shepard, they'd have the opportunity for him to actually develop, or at least have more time to focus on that.  They can even still keep the P/R system, since it's just an attitude to react to situations.

Paragon/Renegade Shepard in relation to his crewmates?  Where does he care or not-care?  Are we referring to the Tali/Legion and Miranda/Jack scenes?  Because if you choose the P/R option, the outcome is the same.  The only real difference is if you don't use the P/R choice, and instead choose a side.  Now that's some good conflict.

Sorry, but I think that what you suggest is retarded.

YOU are Shepard, he's your avatar in Mass Effect. What you think, what you believe, what you choose is what Shepard will think, believe, choose. In other words, if you considered Shepard flat, then you are considering yourself as flat. I am not flat in Mass Effect.

I do changed my mind about Geth and quarian in ME2, and I also learn and cared a lot about the genophage problem, that though definitive and simple, and my opinion about Cerberus, the Citadel and the Alliance too. And I made decisions and took steps in a way or another. I have an opinion about those topics. And more importantly, Mass Effect lets you put that opinions in your avatar, Shepard, and that's what makes the game great.

You're flat? Okey, but don't say every Shepard is.

[Cornish_S]

SovereignT wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I, of course, disagree with OP.

The point of any meaningful media is story.  ME2's story?  Not so great.  For a game that's a sequel, one expects a certain level of quality, continuity, and especially logic.  ME2 didn't have to try that hard in the writing department to get it right.  I just wish it tried.

Yet you fail to provide proof or make any valid rebuke to how the games story is flawed...

It's an opinion...

Either way; Mass Effect 2 was 'okay'. Well made, but lacking in departments that Mass Effect 1 didn't lack in.