10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...

But seriously, character interaction is also excellent in a Bioware game, and it often ties directly into the plot.  But as I said before, it blew up in ME 2.  Yes, the characters are interesting, and i would have liekd to get to know some of them better.  Problem is it wasn't done well enough. The emotions feel so artificial, constructed for the sole purpose of advancing the plot:

Artificial?
They may not serve much purpose to the plot (in fact the only thing that made many of their sidequests 'plot-related' was their 'loyalty') but I can't really agree that they felt artificial. Some weren't as deep as the rest, but there were plenty of poignent and awesome moments. This post sums it up best. My personal favorite is Garrus' loyalty mission. Just the zoom in on his face, the conflict in his expression, it was just gorgeous.

Bioware is known for making some incredibly strong and memorable characters. I've felt like I've experienced some of the best in ME2. This post pretty much summed up my feelings regarding this.

Exactly.

They get to shine in their loyalty quests (mostly).  Then when it's over they turn back into a pumpkin.  Barring a conversation or two or to fling themselves at you for a romance.  How often do they get to comment on a mission that doesn't direclty concern them? 

iakus wrote...

A few conversations and one quest and we're now best buddies with the squadmates?   Minds totally clear, they are unquestoningly loyal,  The potential  LIs are throwing themselves at you.  Bioware has done better than that in the past.

I agree that "loyal" was a bit too strong of a word. For some characters, mainly ones achieved in the later part of the game, it did indeed feel a bit too forced to use that term. But instead I viewed a character being "loyal" to you as them having faith in your abilities, and having faith in the mission.

This made sense to me. If you just recruited them as a merc and didn't care about them as a person, nor help them with relatively personal issues, they'd have a greater inkling of doubt - and that can make all the difference between success and failure.

{/quote}

I agree that helping out your squadmates and learning about them makes sense to boost confidence and earn trust.  What doesn't amke sense is that it's such a binary equation. Especially in a game that's supposedly an rpg.  (Excuse me "rpg/shooter hybrid")  Gaining loyalty should be a far more gradual process, with several opportunitiees to accelertate, slow it down, or copletely blow it.  As it is, it's "solve my family crisis and I'm yours"

Pocketgb wrote...

In regards to the LI's, they've always been forced in the series. They all lead to the same conclusion at the same pace, and that pace always felt largely rushed. Liara's my favorite example in this: two conversations in and she's already wondering why she feels "so close to you" (granted this can be understandable based on the mind melding, but it certainly doesn't help the case).

I felt that LI's were handled better in ME2 not just because of the amount of choices, rather that there feels like there's a bit more development involved for (a few of) them. Miranda has been studying you and helping you for a large amount of time, so coming upon such a connection is more plausible. The best examples are Garrus and Tali - and this isn't because I'm a fanboy for both of them (xP) rather that there's much more history between you and them.

Can't coment on Liara.  I always went for Ashley in ME 1, and I never felt it was particularly rushed (of course, it was always my assumption that the entire game took place over the course of several months to a year)  There was banter, flirting, learning about her suspicion of aliens (never thought she was racist, just suspicious and a bit ignorant) hearing about her family.  Could have been better.  Could have been a ot worse too.   In ME 2, I have to start fending off advances as soon as I do te loyalty missions.

Yeah Garrus and Tali make te most sense, given they already knew you and have traveled extensively with you.

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...

Your old contacts from ME 1, with only a couple of exceptions either don't care that you're alive, or think you're a traitor for working for Cerberus.  How'd that happen?  How's that at all realistic.  The hero of the galaxy showing up alive and well in the Presidium should cause a MAJOR stir.  Especially if you get your Spectre status back.

The minor npcs sure seem to care you're back  though  How did all these people get my email address?

Once again:
"PLOT HOLES...
PLOT HOLES EVERYWHERE"

At least a few of the e-mails are actually really good reads, Han Olar's being my favorite (poor guy...) The one from the escaped convict is surprisingly unnerving as well.

Yes.  Plot Hole.  Big one too.

Good reading aside, however.  How did they get the address?  Or is Bioware taking the cheap way out in saying "look at how many of your choices we recorded"?

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...


It seems that with the exception of Miranda and Jacob, no other squadmate is aware that you have picked anyone else up for the suicide mission.  In a "build a squad" game, there needs to be intersquad dialogue.  If Bioware didn't have the time or resouorces to do that, they should have gone in another direction.  The lack of it is really immerson breaking.  We don't necessarilly need "dragon Age" levels of involvement (though that would be really nice)  but c'mon!  There's twelve people here, talk!  Share war stories!  Argue!, Hit on each other, even!

Agree completely. Given possible circumstances, though, I'm not displeased. Check out Cachx's post at the top of this page.

Afraid I'm gonna have to be displeased.  Given what the story is supposed to by about, they left out what is probably the single most important ingredient.  If the game was supposed to be about hunting down the Collectors, or finding ways to stop the Reapers, or bringing peace to the Terminus Systems, fine gotta spend the resources on other things.  But building a squad and gaining its loyalty screams "We need character development"

Modifié par iakus, 19 juin 2010 - 06:16 .

[smudboy]

Lusitanum wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I just have to chime in here:
After playing Alpha Protocol, I got the Mass Effect 2 experience I was looking for. The replay value/story variation is through the roof.

And the bug count is through the roof too. And the unfinished feel of the whole game. And the painful gameplay. And pretty much every single thing that was wrong with ME1 that they decided to adapt poorly in their game.

That's not to say that ME2 is perfect in any way, but... Alpha Protocol? Seriously? I'll take the worst of ME1 and ME2 over such an unfinished and clunky game.

Seriously.  Maybe you could be more specific?  The story and plot, the choices you make, characters, storytelling, these are all wonderful.  It feels like a choose your own adventure story.  Every single side quest relates, and adds, to the main plot.  (They also improve your experiences/perks with other missions/characters.)  Every character relates to the main plot.  The feeling of freedom of empowerment is incredible.

I only got a clunky feel when I get swarmed.  I can say that, however, of any game.  The fact I get a crouch option is standard relieving.

[InvaderErl]

Jarlravn wrote...

Alpha Protocol is a good game, with a captivating story and interesting character interaction, and your choices actually matter. The action is pretty good too, in my opinion, if you can get over the fact that it isn't a shooter, but an RPG. I haven't found any more bugs than what I normally do in a Bioware game.

The action is good?

No, no it isn't.

http://thatguywithth...protocol-review

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 06:21 .

[spacehamsterZH]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
So, essentially you're saying the main story in ME1 WAS superior, and story IS important

I've always said both of these things. If you haven't picked up on this, you're just not paying attention because you're too busy waiting for a chance to say "sploshuns" or call me a shooter fan.

but character interaction isn't?

What? I don't know how you're getting this out of my post. Care to explain?

[Jarlravn]

InvaderErl wrote...

The action is good?

No, no it isn't.

http://thatguywithth...protocol-review

As I said, it was my opinion that the action was good. That you disagree is also an opinion, not a fact... Especially since you didn't even play through the first hour, if what you said was true.

[InvaderErl]

Jarlravn wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

The action is good?

No, no it isn't.

http://thatguywithth...protocol-review

As I said, it was my opinion that the action was good. That you disagree is also an opinion, not a fact... Especially since you didn't even play through the first hour, if what you said was true.

I went through a series of fights and was already shaking my head, being an RPG is one thing - even Mass Effect 1 had better gunplay than this... mess. I would have proceeded further had the hacking minigame not completely bugged out, stopping me from going any further.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 06:32 .

[Iakus]

smudboy wrote...

I just have to chime in here:
After playing Alpha Protocol, I got the Mass Effect 2 experience I was looking for. The replay value/story variation is through the roof.

QFT.  The graphics aren't as slick, but it does a much better job fusing rpg mechanics and shooter mechanics.  It even has inventory and weapon mods!.  Oh, the horror

[cachx]

InvaderErl wrote...

Wow, just hearing people praise Alpha Protocol and say they want ME2 to be more like it - it really puts some of these arguments into perspective.

I couldn't get through the first hour to experience said story, the game was so horrendously designed, so immediately and clearly going to be a headache inducing fest I didn't want to be gnashing my teeth every step of the way and decided I'd be better off not subjecting myself to the experience. 

I tend to agree, while I did finish it once and had moderate fun with it, the gameplay was so broken and it was technically so poor (and by that I mean bugs, I don't really mind the Dreamcast-esque graphics) that I don't think i'll ever replay it. This game suffers for trying to be too much at once and not succeding in every separate aspect.

Props for watching reviews at tgwtg by the way

[Iakus]

[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...


1) Location. Taking Shepard back to the Citadel, now completely trashed from Sovereigns attack, has far more of an impact on the player than the Collector base. Sure, going through the Omega 4 relay with the odds of survival supposedly being next to nil sounds good in theory, but what you find is just another familiar looking "Collector tech" level, and it turns out getting people killed is harder than surviving. The Citadel in defensive mode with everything on fire and Geth running around everywhere after the hours you've spent in the same location, on the other hand - that has you going "holy sh*t" every 30 seconds.

[/quote]

Yes, it's an excellent strytelling piece.  The Council, so confident through out the game that all they're dealing with is a rogue Spectre and a few geth, have been driven from their secure Citadel (haha)  and Sovereign is now on the very edge of bringing about Armageddon on the galaxy.

In ME 2, the greater challenge isn't to get through it with all your people alive, but to selectively kill off just the squaddies you want to die. 


[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...

2) Sovereign is actually there. Sure, he's just part of the background scenery, but it works. It really drives home the terrifying size of the Reapers if you don't just see him in cutscenes. Yes, single moving tentacle in the background can make that kind of a difference in terms of story believability.
[/quote]

I believe the word you're looking for is "immersion" 

But yeah, it shows the seer scope of your real enemy, the fact that there's thousands of others just like it waiting fro the relay to open, and drives home that you're walking along the outer hull of the Citadel  Okay, that's what it did for me.

[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...

3) Saren vs the Reaper Baby: No Contest. When you finally go toe to toe with Saren, this guy's been taunting and belittling you everytime you ran into him (and in better ways than "this hurts you", too), he's to blame for at least one of your teammates dying, and he's just about to hand over the Citadel to the giant space squid who called you a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" and said something about his buddies' numbers darkening the skies of every world. Gameplay-wise it's not a particularly good fight, you just spam powers and run around the room for a bit until he croaks, but in terms of story, this is a confrontation that's been built up to for 20-30 hours and actually feels that way, whereas the final confrontation in ME2 is a completely ridiculous giant robot preceded by a "wait, they did... what?" reveal. Granted, it's disappointing to find out Saren's just another victim of Reaper indoctrination (which is a lame plot device anyway), which completely negates the dialogue scene on Virmire where he seems like he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing, but it still works better than a ridiculous giant robot that basically comes out of nowhere because its connection to the main plot is so contrived it makes you want to scream.

[/quote}

Slight disagreement there.  Saren had not been totally indoctrinated.  He admits to you a couple of times that he is unsure how indoctrinated he is, but still retains some free will.  Otherwise he would have been useless to Sovereign. You also have the option of "redeeming" him by convincing him that Sovereign can still be stopped (kinda cool how this big-time Spectre for the Council's great fall was not pride or hubris, but despair of the Reapers)

I did like how the fight with cyber-Saren reflected the fight with Sovereign outside.  Very Star Wars.  Like I said, I can forgive mediocre gameplay for a good story. 

Terminator Kong:  No.  Just...no...

[quote]spacehamsterZH wrote...

So basically, while the idea to have the gameplay and the story more tightly intervoven and expand the endgame into a longer mission that requires several decisions the effect of which depend on what you've done earlier in the game is great, it doesn't work because there's no emotional impact. Whatever endgame ME3 has needs to have the elements of the Suicide Mission that did work - length (I'd prefer if it was longer, actually), several decisions along the way, connection to the rest of the game that impact gameplay - but it also very badly needs a more compelling villain with whom you establish a relationship over the course of the the game and a location for the endgame that drives home what's at stake, rather than some random alien space station.[/quote]

This is exactly what I mean when I say ME 2 was a wasted opportunity.

We don't agree on much, but it's times like these I think there's hope for ya, Spacehamster

[Iakus]

InvaderErl wrote...

Wow, just hearing people praise Alpha Protocol and say they want ME2 to be more like it - it really puts some of these arguments into perspective.

I couldn't get through the first hour to experience said story, the game was so horrendously designed, so immediately and clearly going to be a headache inducing fest I didn't want to be gnashing my teeth every step of the way and decided I'd be better off not subjecting myself to the experience. 

I admit, the controls take some getting used to.  I spent quite some time in the tutorials learning the minigames and timing movements.  But once I got the hang of it, the game really took off for me.  I must have gotten lucky with the bugs cause aside from the mouse being occassionally twitchy i haven't experienced any.

It's not the best handling game out there.   I may not wear out the disk to this game, but I'll be playing it a lot more then ME 2 I can tell that right now.

bad story +good gameplay=boring game I'll play once
good story +mediocre gameplay=game I'l always come back to
good story+good gameply= I'll wear out the disks playing over and over.

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

I tend to agree, while I did finish it once and had moderate fun with it, the gameplay was so broken and it was technically so poor (and by that I mean bugs, I don't really mind the Dreamcast-esque graphics) that I don't think i'll ever replay it. This game suffers for trying to be too much at once and not succeding in every separate aspect.

Freaky.  This is pretty much what I think of ME 2.

[tonnactus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...


You'd think the Suicide Mission would have the ME1 endgame beat. Post-Ilos, ME1 is basically "run up corridor, shoot all Geth, argue with Saren, boss fight." The only plot element here is the dialogue sequence before the confrontation with Saren, the rest is exactly the simplistic, linear gameplay that ME2 is always accused of. Yet the ending is more satisfying, and I think it's because of what builds up to it.

At least the citadel endfight offers an alternative route.Adept could handle krogans easier then rocket turrets.

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...

Exactly.

They get to shine in their loyalty quests (mostly).  Then when it's over they turn back into a pumpkin.  Barring a conversation or two or to fling themselves at you for a romance.  How often do they get to comment on a mission that doesn't direclty concern them?

Depends on the character.

Thane has about two more dialog spots after you get his 'loyalty', same goes for Samara. Miranda and Jacob don't appear to have as many comments for when you're done with their quests mainly because they've told you their concerns/feelings about the mission way before hand. Garrus had very few spots (maybe it was because I was a dude), and it's true that Tali doesn't bring up too many concerns for the mission. Grunt doesn't say too much but it ain't too bad considering his personality.

Haven't played through it in awhile so memory isn't serving too well, mind you.

iakus wrote...

I agree that helping out your squadmates and learning about them makes sense to boost confidence and earn trust.  What doesn't amke sense is that it's such a binary equation. Especially in a game that's supposedly an rpg.  (Excuse me "rpg/shooter hybrid")  Gaining loyalty should be a far more gradual process, with several opportunitiees to accelertate, slow it down, or copletely blow it.  As it is, it's "solve my family crisis and I'm yours"

Hence why I felt that "loyalty" was far too strong of a word. What it attempts to convey - i.e. you earning a bit of trust and faith from your crew - is what I appreciate

Pocketgb wrote...

Can't coment on Liara.  I always went for Ashley in ME 1, and I never felt it was particularly rushed (of course, it was always my assumption that the entire game took place over the course of several months to a year)...

That can change a lot. Always felt to me that the game took course over a month or so.

iakus wrote...

Yes.  Plot Hole.  Big one too.

When I said "everywhere", I meant EVERYWHERE!

iakus wrote...

Freaky.  This is pretty much what I think
of ME 2.

This is why Bioware can't win.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 19 juin 2010 - 07:47 .

[smudboy]

iakus wrote...

cachx wrote...

I tend to agree, while I did finish it once and had moderate fun with it, the gameplay was so broken and it was technically so poor (and by that I mean bugs, I don't really mind the Dreamcast-esque graphics) that I don't think i'll ever replay it. This game suffers for trying to be too much at once and not succeding in every separate aspect.

Freaky.  This is pretty much what I think of ME 2.

It was interesting for me.  After playing AP, and then coming back to play Overlord, it felt (and here's the magic word) streamlined.  I couldn't crouch.  There was no need to line up a shot, aim, hide, change ammo.  Just run to cover.  Pop out.  Shoot.

There were two characters for dialog, and an autistic kid screaming through static. Shepard was still a brick.  It felt almost empty.  I guess the atmosphere and level desisgn were properly set.

The Frogger in Lavaland was a wee bit ridiculous, when a shuttle would've been just fine.

[InvaderErl]

This really reminds me of the disbelief I felt when I saw people defending Hour of Victory as a good game.

[InvaderErl]

double post.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 08:02 .

[spacehamsterZH]

iakus wrote...
Slight disagreement there.  Saren had not been totally indoctrinated.  He admits to you a couple of times that he is unsure how indoctrinated he is, but still retains some free will.  Otherwise he would have been useless to Sovereign. You also have the option of "redeeming" him by convincing him that Sovereign can still be stopped (kinda cool how this big-time Spectre for the Council's great fall was not pride or hubris, but despair of the Reapers)

It plays out okay for my tastes if it ends with Saren shooting himself, I guess, but I still think the whole business about him being partially indoctrinated because Sovereign needs him to retain some free will is a contrived excuse thrown in via dialogue exposition. It's not a huge deal, and you're right, it's important to point out that he's not just indoctrinated so at least it's more complicated than that, but I would've preferred him to just be convinced he's right.

[Darth Drago]

cachx, lets look at the main discussion here as a whole…

cachx wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...
The worst part is that most of these lines that they say are practically exactly the same ones used over and over regardless of who you take. Its like the writers just didn’t give a crap to go that extra mile to do anything out of the norm.

Every squadmate will have a couple of quips per mission. I know where you are coming from, as you want more "team bonding". However that is very difficult if not impossible due to time/budget/technical constraints (wich most gamers ignore to get moar moar moar! of whatever they like best).
As I said before, the only way to get that is to 100% railroad everything, forego choices and consequences and do a Final Fantasy-esque game. I would rather have ME2 faults and all, thank you.

-Time constraints? It wouldn’t take an experienced writer no more than a few days to a week to write the lines for each squad mate to use before main production even began.
-Budget constraint? How so? Everyone is still getting paid to write, voice acting and facial dialog animation already.
-Technical constraint? Again how? If they already say a line whats the difference of adding actual original lines in place of the same generic ones? They already are doing the dialog animation so there really isn’t any technical issues to deal with.
Like its been mentioned already in Dragon Age and a bunch of OLDER games your companions will have actual conversations with each other. Having a few original lines and a bunch of generic reused lines per loyalty mission instead of all original dialog is nothing but laziness as I see it.

cachx wrote...

Cute how people think that the writers have some kind of final say on what happens or not or other details. And later, magic leprechauns put together a game made of dreams and good intentions. Overnight. Videogame production does not work that way. As for the rest , allow me to quote my earlier post.

cachx wrote...

Please note that I'm not opposed to it, but there are limits on what can be achievable (pretty good suggestion thread here).
You do get in-party moments, but they are few and far between. I agree on that.

Also to consider. Dragon Age has no voiced protagonists, ME has two. DAO also relies a little bit more on text.The Kotor games also can cut corners thanks to 'robospeak' and 'alienspeak' (just garbled sounds that repeat over and over). ME2 is already bigger than those, and I imagine ME3 will be even bigger (it has to piggy back on all the
outcomes of ME1 and 2, after all).

You can add to that time constraints (only a few companies can afford multiple delays, like Blizzard or Valve), budget (how many lines can Sheen record before asking for more $$?) or simple space (remeber the stink the game got at launch for being in 2 discs on xbox?)

-Where in all that did I say or imply that writers were in charge or had final say in anything? Everything I listed above would have been done before the actual voice actors did their jobs except any animation for their characters speaking. Its something called pre-production. This is the stage ME3 is very likely to be at right now.

Most of your counter points are based on the view that what I listed would be done while the game is in full production and when all the voice actors are all scheduled to do their jobs or that someone would jump up and say “Lets add some dialog changes, call the writers back in!”. Again everything except the possible animation for the character in question to say the lines would have been done long before main production began.

The voice actors would still be saying the same amount of lines in these loyalty missions, just different lines for each one instead of the generic reused ones. So the little asking for more $$ bit means absolutely nothing. As does disc space since space is already being used for the lines that are said already. You would have been replacing one line of dialog with another. Not to mention that most of whats filling up that space is likely all the video cut scenes the game has.

Every thing I listed is also very easy to do and has nothing to do with time, budget or technical constraints. It just laziness on the production leaders and writers to not even bother with trying to do them.

There was also nothing even mentioned about adding more dialog to Sheppard. Its between the squad mates that go with you on these loyalty missions (the one that you choose to bring) that use a lot of the exact same dialog lines and only about them.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 19 juin 2010 - 10:27 .

[Darth Drago]

SithLordExarKun wrote...
Why do you keep repeating the same thing for 4 months in a row? Every "critisicm" you make revolves around the same thing said time and again. Not that i am trying to attack you but i am just wondering what is your motivation.

Maybe instead of jumping down my throat at almost every post I make you should actually read at least a little of them like in this case the first line. I was responding to Smikkieboy’s posting. Someone who has a lot of similar issues with ME2 by the way. Yea what a shocker right? More people have issues with ME2 with each few days that pass. Whether it be a single little thing to a lot of things.

But I guess I cant even reply to any posting without the usual flak from the same people who have nothing better to do than to try and put down as many people as they can with their usual garbage comments.

Darth Drago wrote...
Great list Smikkieboy. from: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1472797/244#2914005

Modifié par Darth Drago, 19 juin 2010 - 10:44 .

[smudboy]

Darth Drago wrote...
-Time constraints? It wouldn’t take an experienced writer no more than a few days to a week to write the lines for each squad mate to use before main production even began.
-Budget constraint? How so? Everyone is still getting paid to write, voice acting and facial dialog animation already.
-Technical constraint? Again how? If they already say a line whats the difference of adding actual original lines in place of the same generic ones? They already are doing the dialog animation so there really isn’t any technical issues to deal with.
Like its been mentioned already in Dragon Age and a bunch of OLDER games your companions will have actual conversations with each other. Having a few original lines and a bunch of generic reused lines per loyalty mission instead of all original dialog is nothing but laziness as I see it.

Just an aside here.  Since BioWare has "made their bed, and must now sleep in it." If they provide DLC (Like the Overload DLC) or any content, that doesn't involve one of these characters in some way, saying or doing something, then they're shot themselves in the foot.  They must work with the universe, characters and narrative they themselves created.  (Especially, when they say the theme is loyalty, or when one explores places that are intimiately important to certain characters yet they have no say and are simply "excess baggage" because a game mechanic involves having 2 other squad members.)

[cachx]

-Where in all that did I say or imply that writers were in charge or had
final say in anything?

Pretty much whenever you refer to them as "lazy". They were probably never asked to write banter in the first place! (becauseeee... time/budget/space). 

Everything I listed above would have been done
before the actual voice actors did their jobs except any animation for
their characters speaking. Its something called pre-production.

The limits were probably set by that time, too. There's no telling on what was left on the cutting floor or the dialogue that was never voiced (there is evidence of unused dialogue files in the game). All because ooof... oh you get it by now .
Also, I excuse my earlier statement, because you not only have to pay
mr. Sheen, you also have to pay the guys recording the audio, the programmer that loads it into the game, set proper triggers to fire that audio and handle the logic behind said audio, the artist that handles the animation (and even if this was reused, you need to set the character on stage, making it move, adjust the camera, etc.).

The voice actors would still be saying the same amount of lines
in these loyalty missions, just different lines for each one instead of
the generic reused ones.

So you want banter at the expense of having characters talk during missions? Considering most negative feedback of Overlord is no new character lines during the mission, we are pushing Bioware in a "no win" situation again. How generic is generic, anyway?

Every
thing I listed is also very easy to do

Says you. You're totally missing the scope, size and effort of what you're asking. That was my main reason for replying to your original message. Most people completly undemine the effort of what goes into making a game with ignorant statments like "that's easy".

There
was also nothing even mentioned about adding more dialog to Sheppard.

I only brought Shep's voice because of the comparisons with DAO and Kotor. The fact that ME games have 2 fully voiced protagonists is relevant to that comparison.

[Darth Drago]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Anyway, ME2's biggest weakness to me has always been that the story falls flat on its face in its conclusion. Now that I've just put down the controller (yes, controller, PC elitists, feel free to stop reading here) on ME1 and I've been thinking about just why the ending to ME1 feels so vastly superior, here are some ideas.

You'd think the Suicide Mission would have the ME1 endgame beat. Post-Ilos, ME1 is basically "run up corridor, shoot all Geth, argue with Saren, boss fight." The only plot element here is the dialogue sequence before the confrontation with Saren, the rest is exactly the simplistic, linear gameplay that ME2 is always accused of. Yet the ending is more satisfying, and I think it's because of what builds up to it.

1) Location. Taking Shepard back to the Citadel, now completely trashed from Sovereigns attack, has far more of an impact on the player than the Collector base. Sure, going through the Omega 4 relay with the odds of survival supposedly being next to nil sounds good in theory, but what you find is just another familiar looking "Collector tech" level, and it turns out getting people killed is harder than surviving. The Citadel in defensive mode with everything on fire and Geth running around everywhere after the hours you've spent in the same location, on the other hand - that has you going "holy sh*t" every 30 seconds.

-How true. I wanted to actually look around more on the Presidium to hunt the Geth down and to see if I could save anyone. Dragon Age Origins did the same thing with a few of its locations that you got to know suddenly later in the game being attacked and destroyed by the Darkspawn. It’s a great tactic to do and it works when you get to know a location and the people there and suddenly to see it under attacked or destroyed.

The trip through the Omega 4 Relay and to do that so called suicide mission should have been a truly epic event. What did we get to see? A few glimpses of a lot of ships that went before you over who knows how many years. Each with possible tech that you could salvage and maybe use to fight the Reapers themselves. Who knows some of them could go back to the Prothians or even before that. That is a potential idea for a nice sized expansion pack that we wont see either since I doubt the Bioware team even considered it.

The suicide mission itself and how everyone survives was at best in a word, lame. If its supposed to be as deadly as it sounds then why let everyone down by having it so easy for everyone to survive just by doing the missions that they are given to you (during the game) and choosing the people to do their jobs that they are there to do in the actual final battle run. Why wasn’t there a Virmire like moment where you had to choose to save someone or group or even something actually tied in to the loyalty mission by having a loyal person sacrifice themselves to save someone on the team?

If its supposed to be such a suicide mission then there should have been some deaths involved. When ME2 is somewhat compared to The Dirty Dozen or The Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven all of which had at least half of the heroes die in them. It is a bit of a let down that everyone can live through the game so easily.

spacehamsterZH wrote...
2) Sovereign is actually there. Sure, he's just part of the background scenery, but it works. It really drives home the terrifying size of the Reapers if you don't just see him in cutscenes. Yes, single moving tentacle in the background can make that kind of a difference in terms of story believability.

-I actually sat there the first time and watched those tentacles for a while and looked at the Citadel itself. After killing everything of course. It was one of my favorite parts of the game. It’s the climatic moment that really put you in scope of things to come. “That’s just one Reaper? How the hell are we supposed to take on a fleet of thousands or more of these things when the alliance/Citadel fleet here barely handed just one?”

spacehamsterZH wrote...
3) Saren vs the Reaper Baby: No Contest. When you finally go toe to toe with Saren, this guy's been taunting and belittling you everytime you ran into him (and in better ways than "this hurts you", too), he's to blame for at least one of your teammates dying, and he's just about to hand over the Citadel to the giant space squid who called you a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" and said something about his buddies' numbers darkening the skies of every world. Gameplay-wise it's not a particularly good fight, you just spam powers and run around the room for a bit until he croaks, but in terms of story, this is a confrontation that's been built up to for 20-30 hours and actually feels that way, whereas the final confrontation in ME2 is a completely ridiculous giant robot preceded by a "wait, they did... what?" reveal. Granted, it's disappointing to find out Saren's just another victim of Reaper indoctrination (which is a lame plot device anyway), which completely negates the dialogue scene on Virmire where he seems like he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing, but it still works better than a ridiculous giant robot that basically comes out of nowhere because its connection to the main plot is so contrived it makes you want to scream.

-Again totally agree. Saren vs. Reaper Baby or even that annoying Harbinger and Saren will win every time. He was a great villain. He was devious and misguided by his own desires to try to save the galaxy that makes him so great. At least you can have a dialog with him (and even Sovereign) to in a sense know him more and his motives.
What did we get with Harbinger? A headache at least with me. I wanted to turn off the sound every time he did hid “taking control” bit. Every line he said got old by the end of the first battle with him. Talk about a wasted potential. We wont even go into how he was even able to do his control bit let alone communicate (telepathically?) to you from way out in dark space.

I don’t think he was fully indoctrinated since Sovereign would need to have someone that had free thought to act on his own to do the tasks it needed done. Saren was partially indoctrinated and he knew it from the beginning otherwise he wouldn’t have been trying to find a way to defeat it (the Thorian) and even up to the end if you choose the right dialog he finally beats what Sovereign did to him. Again that’s part of what made him such a great villain in ME1, for all practical reasoning and for all he’s done he was trying to save us or at least as many of us as he could from the Reapers.

spacehamsterZH wrote...
So basically, while the idea to have the gameplay and the story more tightly intervoven and expand the endgame into a longer mission that requires several decisions the effect of which depend on what you've done earlier in the game is great, it doesn't work because there's no emotional impact. Whatever endgame ME3 has needs to have the elements of the Suicide Mission that did work - length (I'd prefer if it was longer, actually), several decisions along the way, connection to the rest of the game that impact gameplay - but it also very badly needs a more compelling villain with whom you establish a relationship over the course of the the game and a location for the endgame that drives home what's at stake, rather than some random alien space station.

-That’s what really worries me, how ME3 will end. We went from a great ending in ME2 to a whatever feeling in ME2. The only elements I want to see from that final battle in ME2 is how the group splits up but expanded a lot better. As for length it had better be twice as long, it is the finale of the series so I wouldn’t expect anything less than outstanding. Hopefully since humans seem to be the Reapers new favorite, I would expect Earth to be targeted for the final battle.

As for the main villain I would expect it to be Harbinger, unless he’s got someone over him that’s in charge. I don’t think ME3 will not have any sub bad guy of sorts since it is the final chapter and it really should be about gathering your alliance or fleets or whatever it is, sort of like how Dragon Age Origins did it maybe.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 20 juin 2010 - 03:27 .

[bjdbwea]

Time and budget constraints may be an explanation, but they are no excuse. Certainly not one that the paying customers should so readily accept. Besides, why would that be suddenly a problem now? If it was for ME 1, at least it didn't show. A proper distribution of resources was possible then, so why not now?

Furthermore, if you have time and budget issues, why create so many companions in the first place? Why at the same time sideline so many established characters? Why create a new story when it would have been more efficient to continue the existing story? Why throw away levels that could've been used again (Normandy, Citadel)?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juin 2010 - 03:31 .

[ShepardWrex]

smudboy wrote...

iakus wrote...

cachx wrote...

I tend to agree, while I did finish it once and had moderate fun with it, the gameplay was so broken and it was technically so poor (and by that I mean bugs, I don't really mind the Dreamcast-esque graphics) that I don't think i'll ever replay it. This game suffers for trying to be too much at once and not succeding in every separate aspect.

Freaky.  This is pretty much what I think of ME 2.

It was interesting for me.  After playing AP, and then coming back to play Overlord, it felt (and here's the magic word) streamlined.  I couldn't crouch.  There was no need to line up a shot, aim, hide, change ammo.  Just run to cover.  Pop out.  Shoot.

There were two characters for dialog, and an autistic kid screaming through static. Shepard was still a brick.  It felt almost empty.  I guess the atmosphere and level desisgn were properly set.

The Frogger in Lavaland was a wee bit ridiculous, when a shuttle would've been just fine.

Alpha protocol is hella better than me1 or me2.  but not as good as GoW1 or 2

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Time and budget constraints may be an explanation, but they are no excuse. Certainly not one that the paying customers should so readily accept. Besides, why would that be suddenly a problem now? If it was for ME 1, at least it didn't show...

Poor graphics optimization, boring explorable worlds, copy-pasted side mission areas. People like to express their concern over ME2 not being as 'immersive' as its predecessor while ME1 was just as likely to accomplish this.

Not to mention there are these instances: "Quick! Open the station's arms! Maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!", "Not without an airlift!", "I'll kill you!", "ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!!!", etc.

bjdbwea wrote...

Furthermore, if you have time and budget issues, why create so many companions in the first place? Why at the same time sideline so many established characters? Why create a new story when it would have been more efficient to continue the existing story? Why throw away levels that could've been used again (Normandy, Citadel)?

The emphasis for all of that was put elsewhere: different combat, multiple hubs, different method of story progression, etc.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 20 juin 2010 - 04:31 .