9 réponses à ce sujet

[Roxlimn]

 I am going to voice here my discontent over how the main plot of ME 2 was weak, ill paced, and relatively wacky.  Terminator end-boss?  Really Bioware?  It's just not a good thing, and I think that this can be pointed out as flawed in any number of ways comparative to narrative norms.

So far, so good.  I'm sure, dear reader, that you've heard this all before.  Nothing new.  Just another complaint thread.

Here is where I'm going to go off the beaten path.

I DON'T think that ME2 should have had a major plot at all, and worse, the fact that most of your squaddies in ME2 are essentially expendable is just a really bad move.  Why?

ME2's narrative strength draws from its nature in that it is that it is a montage of character driven shorts.  It is about the characters you meet, not the journey you're taking.  Through Mordin's story we are treated to a side of salarian thought and culture that we didn't see before, and his character, in itself is an interesting story of classic moral quandary.  It is quite powerful.

Through Thane we are treated to Ilium life and times, Citadel snapshots, and he himself is an interesting fellow with a life story and little moral ambiguities and quirks.  He represented something at once really alien, but vaguely noble.  I liked how his story played out.

My point here is that the power of ME2 is in that it portrays the ME2 Universe and a plethora of characters in ways that is subtle and nuanced and makes us care for one or more of the character we meet.  And then they die.  Fighting against a Terminator.

Ouch.

ME1's characters are not as nuanced and as interesting because most of the exposition for them was not in-depth and mostly driven by dry boring conversation in stilted, badly blocked scenes.  When Mordin indignantly defends his stance on the Krogan Virus project in front of the dead female krogan, we FEEL the fire in his spirit, and we can see how strongly he feels about it.  He's angry that you're accusing him of being a monster - because sometimes, he thinks that you might be right.  Even by his standards, he's skirting dangerous moral boundaries, and that makes him defensive.

Very strong stuff there.

In contrast, the most interesting character in ME1 was Wrex, and most of that story is played out by talking to him.  Ick.

I think Bioware's mistake in creating ME2 like it is is that they half-assed it.  They're creating a character-driven, patch-workmontage-snapshot of a game, but then they're still putting in a bare thread of a ridiculous plot and then they kill various characters at the end randomly for cheap thrills.  Such a loss!

Instead of this, I would have liked it better if ME2 had NO denouement of a boss battle/mission at the end.  Keep it episodic.  Have a bunch of characters you're recruiting for a mission, then cut it there for ME3.  Maybe include a few missions that explore pairs of characters or whatever, or expands or develops a larger plot a little.  Build the suspense, flesh out the universe a bit more.

THEN, with a universe and a cast of character fully fleshed out, bring out the bang with ME3.  Without having to reintroduce a cast of characters, and with no need to detail them, ME3 could have focused almost entirely on plot and story, and it would have been much more powerful because each time we dealt with someone, somewhere, we would have this wealth of backstory we played through in ME2!

I really hope they bring back and develop most of the characters in ME2 into ME3.

[RighteousRage]

What about the time in ME 1 where Ashley or Kaidan died fighting easily defeated enemies, and then you fought a geth hopper at the end?

[Bartlebyfinch]

I agree with you on the character stories being the best part of ME2.  They were, imo, a big improvement over the ones from ME1.  I also share your dislike of the "terminator" - a really stupid ending to a pretty good transition storyline.  

Your idea about just throwing out the suicide mission altogether (I assume that by removing the denouement, you mean only the conclusion rather than the whole core story) is an interesting one as well.  I'm thinking now about how the game might have been played out instead, and I can see some problems with it.  Unless you throw out the central storyline with the Collectors altogether, you are left with narrative problems.  There's only one more game left, and that one needs to deal with the actual Reaper invasion.  If the game makers didn't wrap up the Collector situation in this game, they never would have had time to.  And I simply don't think that most people would be able to handle it if they just never resolved the Collector situation at all.

Here's MY concern with how they did things:  Since any member of your squad could have died during the final battle, does this mean that they are ALL going to be relegated to Kaiden/Ashley roles in ME3?

If Bioware wants to keep game continuity, they are going to either going to have to dump all of the crew or write all of them into the game as if they might have survived.  That's a LOT of extra stuff to account for in ME3.  I just hope that, in order to keep track of all of the survivors and give them real roles in the game, Bioware doesn't take up so much disc space that we are left with a short and unfulfilling conclusion to the series. 


BTW, if I can ignore these possible future complications, I LOVED the mechanic of gaining loyalty, and assigning orders during the suicide mission.  I think that it is a decision that might come back to bite TPTB in the ass a couple of years down the road... but I did enjoy it.

Modifié par Bartlebyfinch, 25 février 2010 - 04:13 .

[vigna]

There had to be something to bring your companions to your side. Some reason for you to gather them and a reason for them to go with you (loyalty).

[dreman9999]

Roxlimn wrote...

 I am going to voice here my discontent over how the main plot of ME 2 was weak, ill paced, and relatively wacky.  Terminator end-boss?  Really Bioware?  It's just not a good thing, and I think that this can be pointed out as flawed in any number of ways comparative to narrative norms.

So far, so good.  I'm sure, dear reader, that you've heard this all before.  Nothing new.  Just another complaint thread.

Here is where I'm going to go off the beaten path.

I DON'T think that ME2 should have had a major plot at all, and worse, the fact that most of your squaddies in ME2 are essentially expendable is just a really bad move.  Why?

ME2's narrative strength draws from its nature in that it is that it is a montage of character driven shorts.  It is about the characters you meet, not the journey you're taking.  Through Mordin's story we are treated to a side of salarian thought and culture that we didn't see before, and his character, in itself is an interesting story of classic moral quandary.  It is quite powerful.
  
       The fact that they can die strenghtens the  character driven story. It effects your actions if you knew someone you liked could die and makes it more personnal.  If they died you who feel lose for the character.

Through Thane we are treated to Ilium life and times, Citadel snapshots, and he himself is an interesting fellow with a life story and little moral ambiguities and quirks.  He represented something at once really alien, but vaguely noble.  I liked how his story played out.

My point here is that the power of ME2 is in that it portrays the ME2 Universe and a plethora of characters in ways that is subtle and nuanced and makes us care for one or more of the character we meet.  And then they die.  Fighting against a Terminator.

Ouch.
       
    You points is very counter productive. To simplify it with them dieing to the cliche last boss dosen't take way from their character. In fact, the last boss did not kill them, your mistakes and the collecters did. Which adds to the character.Your issue is with the last boss not the story.

ME1's characters are not as nuanced and as interesting because most of the exposition for them was not in-depth and mostly driven by dry boring conversation in stilted, badly blocked scenes.  When Mordin indignantly defends his stance on the Krogan Virus project in front of the dead female krogan, we FEEL the fire in his spirit, and we can see how strongly he feels about it.  He's angry that you're accusing him of being a monster - because sometimes, he thinks that you might be right.  Even by his standards, he's skirting dangerous moral boundaries, and that makes him defensive.

Very strong stuff there.

In contrast, the most interesting character in ME1 was Wrex, and most of that story is played out by talking to him.  Ick.

I think Bioware's mistake in creating ME2 like it is is that they half-assed it.  They're creating a character-driven, patch-workmontage-snapshot of a game, but then they're still putting in a bare thread of a ridiculous plot and then they kill various characters at the end randomly for cheap thrills.  Such a loss!

Instead of this, I would have liked it better if ME2 had NO denouement of a boss battle/mission at the end.  Keep it episodic.  Have a bunch of characters you're recruiting for a mission, then cut it there for ME3.  Maybe include a few missions that explore pairs of characters or whatever, or expands or develops a larger plot a little.  Build the suspense, flesh out the universe a bit more.

THEN, with a universe and a cast of character fully fleshed out, bring out the bang with ME3.  Without having to reintroduce a cast of characters, and with no need to detail them, ME3 could have focused almost entirely on plot and story, and it would have been much more powerful because each time we dealt with someone, somewhere, we would have this wealth of backstory we played through in ME2!

I really hope they bring back and develop most of the characters in ME2 into ME3.

    If bioware did what you stated then their would be so many people hating this game. People don't like games with drastic cliff hanger endings. Look at Halo 2, it 's the most hate halo game. Why? Because it end at a time the player felt that if could keep going. That's what your suggesting. The plots fine. The only thing the story need is one more collecter fight  to make them more villinious. Out side of that everthing is fine. From what I read, your problem is with the last boss. Everyone hated the last boss because it was anticlimatic. It was not fighting it  that was bad but how it look like.Saying the the character should not die in a character driven story is counter productive. The first rule in doing character driven stories is not to do what you sugesested, It's"no matter how much you like a character, if they have to die to enrich the plot....They die" . BioWare did a fine job with the character which you pointed out. But say that they should not die because it takes away from their charater is flat out wrong.

[Mr Chr15topher]

To be fair, ME1 ended in a boss, and that was an excellent game. But I do agree with your opinion on a classic, giant and "powerful" terminator style boss. I also agree that the universe needed a lot more story and culture added, rather than going to a planet for a one/ two mission stop then leaving, as there was nothing else to do. Personnaly, the reason I loved ME 1 was because it was so big, with hundreds of side missions, choices and customisable weapons and armour.



You may not agree with me, but I also miss the elevators on the citadel, as I learnt lots about my team from listening to them talking. Whereas on ME2, the only way to learn about a character's past is by doing their loyalty mission and going through hours of talking.

[lost lupus]

i love the fact that they can die as ive only ever lost 2 (which were due to loyalty)

tali after they had been through so much over both games but is at odd's with shepard over bringing along a geth
fights the horde's of enemys helping her through the tunnel system aand then as everything seem's fine bang shot in the head one of only two charaters with shepard from the start to lose some so important so soon

jacks death leading the second assult team during the "biotic walk" was very memorable blaming shep for allowing her to reconnect with people giving her something to fight for only for her to take a few "medigel proof " round's to the chest and leave having to leave her behind

worrying about leaving most of my people to hold off the cellectors when going to face the big bad tough choice knowing i'd already had team members die thinking did i make the right choice

and then i............... if faced the reapinator....................
i dont understand it at all a giant "human" reaper why bioware why??

after the sottan thing is down ............ is garrous alive shold i have left him with the others"
the fact that you can loose them is awesome the reapinator................ guess they ran out of ideas
i would have hoped for some sort of sleeper cell army with the collector's altering thier brains to be complete indocunated but with zero side effects ........... hence why so many.... perfecting the process took awhile.......

also could have added an option where you dont know i your crew had been altered (and have no way of knowing) paragon trust them bring them with us renegade gun them down be on the safe side.......middle of the road leave them contained of course that mean's if you blow the station they die also gives more tangible reason for keeping the station....... a key to defeating indocrnation (and cerebus possibly getting control of it)

Modifié par lost lupus, 25 février 2010 - 04:52 .

[Roxlimn]

 Bartlebyfinch:

Your idea about just throwing out the suicide mission altogether (I assume that by removing the denouement, you mean only the conclusion rather than the whole core story) is an interesting one as well.  I'm thinking now about how the game might have been played out instead, and I can see some problems with it.  Unless you throw out the central storyline with the Collectors altogether, you are left with narrative problems.  There's only one more game left, and that one needs to deal with the actual Reaper invasion.  If the game makers didn't wrap up the Collector situation in this game, they never would have had time to.  And I simply don't think that most people would be able to handle it if they just never resolved the Collector situation at all.

To the contrary.  Nearly all the Collector missions develop Reaper or Illusive Man or even Legion character elements.  The Collectors themselves are very weak characters individually and as a group, which is why the final installment of the Collector mission was such a weak way to end the overall plot - no compelling overall baddie, you see.

Relegating them to the front act of Mass Effect 3 would give the first part of that game a massive boost in terms of player engagement and incentive.  "We don't want to end up like the Collectors," only ends when you end the Reaper threat, permanently or for the forseeable future - and that's how ME3 will end, so putting that there at the start of that game instead of at the end of ME2 is LESS of a cliffhanger than what they did.

Bringing down the Terminator and claiming or destroying the Collector base doesn't FEEL conclusive - it feels like a side mission.

vigna:

There had to be something to bring your companions to your side. Some reason for you to gather them and a reason for them to go with you (loyalty).

That's the thing.  Putting up a "dossier" thing and handing out locations feel very much like "You meet in a tavern."  It's easy, but it's forced.  Legion's recruitment is powerful, partially because you didn't realize you were going to actually get him.  To a lesser extent, Grunt's recruitment was the same way.  Having characters you meet within the course of another plot element makes it feel more organic and flows better.

I mean, what was it that brought Boromir to Frodo's side?  Self-interest.  He wanted in on the Fellowship so that he could follow the Ring for his own purposes.  He wasn't very loyal, but we got him in, right?

There is a point in Mordin's mission where Bioware lampshades their own contrived plot points with Shepard saying, "Just once, I'd like to ask a guy something and not have to do something in return," or something to that effect.  It feels weird and unnatural because the story element that introduces this is forced and contrived in many games, ME2 being only slightly less guilty of this.

Thane's recruitment FEELS right because you chase after HIM based on his credentials, and then, he joins you for his own reasons - fairly straightforward, but nothing sinister or overly suspicious, and thus somewhat shallow.

I think that a nice change to the story would be someone seeking YOU to join you, with some half-believable reason.  Maybe he'll even perform you a service - provide a tech you ask for or eliminate an enemy you specify.  But then you have to ask yourself, "Why is he REALLY doing this?"

Shepard doesn't need a reason to have people join him.  He's Shepard.  EVERYONE wants him on their side.

dreman9999:

The fact that they can die strenghtens the  character driven story. It effects your actions if you knew someone you liked could die and makes it more personnal.  If they died you who feel lose for the character.

No.  The fact that Mordin can die on the Suicide Mission does not make his character any more interesting than it already is.  In fact, the generic manner of his death was something of an anticlimax.  It's a cheap way to get a rise out of the player.

You don't need to kill off half the cast of a show or story to establish deadly risk.  One or two will do.

   You points is very counter productive. To simplify it with them dieing to the cliche last boss dosen't take way from their character. In fact, the last boss did not kill them, your mistakes and the collecters did. Which adds to the character.Your issue is with the last boss not the story.

You don't get the point.  The point is that, NOW at the end of ME2, when we have all these interesting characters, what does Bioware decide to do with them?

Kill them off.

Really?  It's such a waste.  You could at least do something more interesting with each death rather than a short 15 second death animation.

  If bioware did what you stated then their would be so many people hating this game. People don't like games with drastic cliff hanger endings. Look at Halo 2, it 's the most hate halo game. Why? Because it end at a time the player felt that if could keep going. That's what your suggesting. The plots fine. The only thing the story need is one more collecter fight  to make them more villinious. Out side of that everthing is fine. From what I read, your problem is with the last boss. Everyone hated the last boss because it was anticlimatic. It was not fighting it  that was bad but how it look like.Saying the the character should not die in a character driven story is counter productive. The first rule in doing character driven stories is not to do what you sugesested, It's"no matter how much you like a character, if they have to die to enrich the plot....They die" . BioWare did a fine job with the character which you pointed out. But say that they should not die because it takes away from their charater is flat out wrong.

You're not getting what I'm saying.  I'm NOT saying to end it on a cliffhanger.  I'm saying to make it episodic.  Rather than a montage of character stories loosely tied together with a manhandled ending, how about a bunch of better done character story montages with only a small bit of overall plot development?  No cliffhanger, just a bunch of adventures that are loosely related at the moment.  You can even sneak in all manner of Easter Eggs and foreshadowings and really obscure hints.

[Lvl20DM]

I think the narrative structure of ME 2 was meant to cause the least amount of problems for ME 3 while simultaneously exploring the universe and the reaper threat more thoroughly than the first game. You do a good job of highlighting the strengths of this games narrative: it's in the characters.



I'm currently assuming that all or most of these characters will be relegated to non-squad roles in the next game. I really don't have a problem with that. I suspect that the next game might be structured more like ME 1, where squad-mates are slightly less prevalent and are picked up as Shep completes the final mission. They could be as deeply developed as the ME 2 group, and if they have less of them Bioware can focus more on the main plot.

[CajunRexShepard]

It's beginning to look like the devs have us right where they want us... because truly, nobody that doesn't already work on the ME3 project knows how it is going to play out, but come what may, I'm foreseeing a HUGE game just to tie in the main storyline points, nevermind all the character driven and side quests from the first two games, which I for one AM hoping also get fleshed out along the way, so long as the player does the legwork. As far as returning characters, I foresee a situation (for those who saved everyone) where they would end up having to choose who gets to go along and who does not, and some would leave on their own accord to pursue other interests while still helping (wrex would be the obvious choice here, but almost everyone *could* come up with something)... and a short crew for those who alienated or killed off the majority of their squad. Choices will present more of an impact in the endgame and enrich the story, not complicate it. I have great hopes, and great fears, for this game, and I'd imagine that is precisely what BW intended by doing things the way they have thus far.



Aside from random minor plot holes and game issues, I've not been disappointed with any of their products thus far, and I do not think they'll let me down this time. Time will tell.