10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
I would argue that it's great that they told us these things through the companions instead of just a codex entry. The codex is great for additional information, but to hear it from a character adds a lot of atmosphere. Of course you don't have to introduce the players to the basics in a second part of a trilogy, so naturally Tali for example is able to talk about other things.

It's great when the character in question can't be reduced to a codex entry, otherwise they are just filler. Wrex and Thane are both wonderful examples of learning about a culture through a character. With Wrex, we get insights into how Krogan culture works as well as getting to see his history with the Krogan Rebellions, killing his father, etc. In other words, Wrex is more than just an encyclopedia; he's a person. But Bioware forgot this with both Tali and Liara. The only fact we actually learn about Tali is that she's the daught of the head of the Admiralty Board which is easily ommitted. This doesn't translate into anything meaningful at all in Mass Effect because she doesn't build on it. All our conversation topics involve: "Tell me about Quarian Culture" or "Tell me about the Admiralty Board". Never "tell me about yourself".  

I see what you mean about the characters and their opinions. But I don't really agree. No opinions or emotions? What about Liara insisting (twice) that you save the Rachni queen? What about the famous locker scene, where the LI comforts Shepard? Perfect example of how to integrate companions into the main story. Whereas the companions - and their romances - in ME 2 exist in their own universe and have no connection whatsoever to the main story.

Because in Mass Effect they have absolutely no inflection. At almost no point in the entire game do we hear Liara, Kaidan, Garrus, etc. go through something so deep or emotional that it affects their being. Liara insists that you save the Rachni Queen in the same monotone voice that she tells you about Asari Culture. In fact, the entire scene with Benezia was a wasted opportunity, in my opinion. Here are some great Bioware examples among others of character voices having inflections/emotions.

Kotor: On the Leviathan where your character has the option to egg Carth on and kill Saul Karath. Bastila, who up until this point has kept her composure struggling with the Jedi Code, essentially loses it and begs Carth "No, not like this." To which Carth responds, "Do you know what this man put me through?" This how you properly integrate characters into a story.

Jade Empire: Wild Flower at pretty much every point in the game. Here is what is supposed to be a sweet and innocent child, trying to act like a sweet and innocent child. Unfortunately, she has two demons possessing her. Wild Flower makes it pretty clear that she is ultimately trying to be a kid. When pressed about how she manages to live like this, she actually breaks down into tears in one of the most touching scenes in the game. She has more than one tone of voice, which I can't say for Mass Effect's cast 90% of the time.

Planescape Torment: Hell, there was no voice-acting and Drakkon gave a more emotional performance than the Mass Effect 1 cast. Here's a great example of how to integrate a character and culture. We're given so many opportunities to learn about the history of the Githzerai, eventually discovering how Drakkon has lost faith in his code and himself which is reflected in his blade as it becomes distorted during conversation.

The point is that in all these examples, the characters develop and change. Mass Effect 2's cast, whatever we might say about their involvement in the plot, does develop. They have goals, desires, fears which we come to know through their loyalty missions. No one in Mass Effect has a catharsis of any kind, perhaps save Wrex. No "skeletons in the closet" so that we might understand how they think. They're mostly static characters.

I do agree that Mordin was by far the best written companion in ME 2. In fact, he's the only one where I think the writing was up to BioWare's standards of quality and quantity, and up to the standards of ME 1. And his loyalty quest had the depth I was missing in most of the rest of the game.

Really? The absolute only one comparable to other Bioware games? What precisely did you see in Liara, Tali, and Garrus that you couldn't find in any of the Mass Effect 2 cast? Be honest with me here. I personally thought they were some of Bioware's deepest and most emotional characters.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 09:00 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

That's strange, because all the characters in ME 1 feel unique to me.  Kaiden is calm and thoughtful, keeps a cool head under pressure.  Ashley has a fiery temper and suspicious of others' motives.  Tali is young and idealistic while Wrex is older and more pragmatic (not to mention casual about inflicting violence).  Garrus has a strong sense of justice combined with a sense of frustration at red tape.  Liara is scholarly and a bit naive and nerdy (though her scene with Benezia is absolutely heartbreaking)

And I did enjoy the characters. Like I said, I feel like Bioware put the wrong bunch together. Inflection does loads for making a character feel real. Looking at something like Kotor, Bastilla feels very different from HK47 and also from Mission, who whiny as she is does a better job of seeming young, in my opinion. Where in the case of Tali, her entire 'performance' could be reduced to a codex entry.

The squaddies in ME 2 are generally well done, but only within the confines of their own missions.  Outside of it, they might as well be robots.

But I think this is more a result of the lack of "squad interaction". I understand what elevator conversations were intended for, but maybe probability was just against me. They very rarely happened unless I went up and down purposely, so I didn't see much more in this than Mass Effect 2.

I don't judge the game just as a video game.  I also judge it as a sequel.  Like I said, more is expected of sequels
I'd probably be a lot more forgiving of this game if it didn't "star" Commander Shepard.  As it is, I expected it to be a continuation of the stroy, not a brand new adventure with all contact with the previous game artificially cut off.  Thus my comparisson to "Matrix Reloaded"

A few plot holes aside, I enjoyed it. It's certainly not Bioware's most developed plot, but I did like certain elements; finding out what the Reapers use organics for (even if I found fighting the boss itself to be rather dumb). But like I said, Empire Strikes Back through and through; half the movie is watching Han Solo and Princess Leia fly around was similarly pointless from a plot-perspective.

The characters and thier backstories are pretty good, generally speaking.  The problem is they're all way over the top, competency-wise.  "Not just a leader, a genetically engineered dynasty in the making!  Not just a krogan warrior, a tank bred superkrogan distilled from the bloodlines of the greatest krogans EVAR!   I think this is why I like Jacob (no i haven't played a femshep and tried the romance, which I understand is pretty bad)  Compared to the others, he's "just a guy" 

I personally found Jacob rather bland. Probably because I thought hewas going to be the "Trask Ulgo" or "Jenkins" of Mass Effect 2; I thought he was going to die in the first five minutes so imagine the surprise when he became a full party member.

"Finding the best of the best" is fine.  But they took it way over the top, to "Oh come ON!" extremes.  They even dress like supereroes!

See, I felt 100% opposite of this. Having played Kotor, I never gave my squad members armor; I always kept them in their original outfits, largely because I thought that's how the characters were designed. They always looked awkward in the protagonist's armor. I can see some (such as Samara) being extreme, but overall I liked that they had a single, uniform appearance. It's like how I thought Ashley should have stayed in her pink/white armor in Mass Effect 1, but had to make her wear some very ugly pieces.

The loyalty missions were fine.  Great even, as far as they go.  but these are the only times the characters really come to life.  And the third member of the party contributes nothing but extra firepower in the battles.  Outside the loyalty missions, they're little more than dols.  Or action figures, I guess. 

Like I said, the rare elevator conversation aside, the Mass Effect 1 party didn't come to life for me outside of conversation (or at all even). But then, we're all spoiled by Dragon Age which has extensive party interaction so even Mass Effect 1 pales by comparison.

By biggest gripe is that Mass Effect's conversation system never evolved; it's just like Kotor, or Jade Empire, or even Dragon Age where you stand in one spot and the character stands in the other spot and you "talk". But they don't have mannerisms, habits, etc to really bring them out.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 09:21 .

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Because in Mass Effect they have absolutely no inflection. At almost no point in the entire game do we hear Liara, Kaidan, Garrus, etc. go through something so deep or emotional that it affects their being. Liara insists that you save the Rachni Queen in the same monotone voice that she tells you about Asari Culture. In fact, the entire scene with Benezia was a wasted opportunity, in my opinion. Here are some great Bioware examples among others of character voices having inflections/emotions.

I think the scene with Benezia was very well done, and the following discussion with Liara was decent at least. With hindsight, you can always do better. But I don't know why you would suggest that it wasn't meaningful.

I don't know when you last played ME 1, but her voice is definitely not the same during that scene.

Il Divo wrote...

Really? The absolute only one comparable to other Bioware games? What precisely did you see in Liara, Tali, and Garrus that you couldn't find in any of the Mass Effect 2 cast? Be honest with me here. I personally thought they were some of Bioware's deepest and most emotional characters.

As I said before, the characters in ME 1 were integrated into the story, they felt like a real part of the game world that was presented to me. They even play a central part in the story at one point or another. They had opinions, and they cared about the opinions of Shepard. Everyone took part in meetings where the status of the mission was discussed. Whereas every companion in ME 2 exists in their own universe without any connection to the rest of the game. They are all interchangeable. Some of the loyalty quests are fine, but that's short stories, nothing coherent. If you care about this TV series format, you probably like it. I prefer the way of BG 2, KotoR, JE, and in fact ME 1.

Most characters in ME 2 were very obviously designed to be "totally cool". Just look at them flying like super heroes, or "owning" three heavy mechs with one single charge. Again I think this was an unfortunate change to get and keep the attention of shooter fans. Apparently some people found the characters in ME 1 boring, because they aren't constantly saying or doing all these awesome things. Whereas I found it refreshing that they were more or less "normal" people with a "normal" history within the game world. It was believable. The whole presentation in ME 1 was believable, like a possible future. ME 2 threw all that away and went for the same old "sci-fi action with cool characters and huge explosions" that we've seen so often already.

The romances in ME 2 remain very shallow in comparison to other BioWare games including ME 1, and short too. But if you don't romance a character, they have even less to say. Calibrating has to be really time consuming, I guess.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 09:50 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
And I did enjoy the characters. Like I said, I feel like Bioware put the wrong bunch together. Inflection does loads for making a character feel real. Looking at something like Kotor, Bastilla feels very different from HK47 and also from Mission, who whiny as she is does a better job of seeming young, in my opinion. Where in the case of Tali, her entire 'performance' could be reduced to a codex entry.

Tali was probably the least developed of the ME 1 squad.  Which makes me wonder why she got such a large (and, frankly, scary) following.  But I felt that all of them still felt different from each other.  Why else would I romance Ashely every time instead of Liara if they were all "Sten"  And no, I have no intention of ever romancing Sten 

But I think this is more a result of the lack of "squad interaction". I understand what elevator conversations were intended for, but maybe probability was just against me. They very rarely happened unless I went up and down purposely, so I didn't see much more in this than Mass Effect 2.

It likely is a result of lack of interaction.  But while ME 1 might not have had enough, ME 2 has virtually none.  You can't even talk to them outside of combat to get a one-line description like in ME 1.  They're just...there...  I find that totally unacceptable in a game that's supposed to be about "the squad"

A few plot holes aside, I enjoyed it. It's certainly not Bioware's most developed plot, but I did like certain elements; finding out what the Reapers use organics for (even if I found fighting the boss itself to be rather dumb). But like I said, Empire Strikes Back through and through; half the movie is watching Han Solo and Princess Leia fly around was similarly pointless from a plot-perspective.

Except Han and Leia were being chased by te Empire.  The vilains of the series.  And they were being chased by Vader specifically, the "face" of the villains.  ME 2, there is no face, just Harbringer's voice.  The villains weren't the Collectors so much as an assorted bunch of random mercs. 

If the story is about the struggle bwetween the Rebellion and the Empire, it's not really pointless to show the Empire pursuing Rebel leaders.  Now if half the movie was about Han and Leia gunning down random bounty hunters...

See, I felt 100% opposite of this. Having played Kotor, I never gave my squad members armor; I always kept them in their original outfits, largely because I thought that's how the characters were designed. They always looked awkward in the protagonist's armor. I can see some (such as Samara) being extreme, but overall I liked that they had a single, uniform appearance. It's like how I thought Ashley should have stayed in her pink/white armor in Mass Effect 1, but had to make her wear some very ugly pieces.

To be fair, most of the armor in ME 1 was ugly.  But at least it was armor.  Almost all the outfits in ME 2 are just plain inapproropriate for combat.  And that's not including the over-the-top "uberness" of the characters themselves.

Like I said, the rare elevator conversation aside, the Mass Effect 1 party didn't come to life for me outside of conversation (or at all even). But then, we're all spoiled by Dragon Age which has extensive party interaction so even Mass Effect 1 pales by comparison.

By biggest gripe is that Mass Effect's conversation system never evolved; it's just like Kotor, or Jade Empire, or even Dragon Age where you stand in one spot and the character stands in the other spot and you "talk". But they don't have mannerisms, habits, etc to really bring them out.  

Dragon Age does leave ME 1 in the dust.  But ME 2 was supposed to be more squad focused than ME 1.  Therefore, ME 2 should have been closer to what Dragon Age had in party interaction, not have even less than ME 1 had.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

I don't know when you last played ME 1, but her voice is definitely not the same during that scene.

5 days ago. Still didn't feel any emotion out of her.

As I said before, the characters in ME 1 were integrated into the story, they felt like a real part of the game world that was presented to me. They even play a central part in the story at one point or another. They had opinions, and they cared about the opinions of Shepard. Everyone took part in meetings where the status of the mission was discussed. Whereas every companion in ME 2 exists in their own universe without any connection to the rest of the game. They are all interchangeable. Some of the loyalty quests are fine, but that's short stories, nothing coherent. If you care about this TV series format, you probably like it. I prefer the way of BG 2, JE, KotoR, and in fact ME 1. 

So Mass Effect's characters ultimately weren't interchangeable? Save Liara, I don't see how any of these characters are 100% critical to drive the story in the way that Bastilla was. They all serve fairly minor roles. Tali couldn't have given me her evidence and disappeared and nothing would hav changed. Which also makes me wonder what Spectre undertakes missions with a fully staffed Alliance crew anyway? They usually work in small groups.

Most characters in ME 2 are very obviously designed to be "totally cool". Just look at them flying like super heroes, or "owning" three heavy mechs with one single charge. Again I think this was an unfortunate change to get and keep the attention of shooter fans. Apparently some people found the characters in ME 1 boring, because they aren't constantly saying or doing all these awesome things. Whereas I found it refreshing that they were more or less "normal" people with a "normal" history within the game world. It was believable. The whole presentation in ME 1 was believable, like a possible future. ME 2 threw all that away and went for the same old "sci-fi action with cool characters and huge explosions" that we've seen so often already.

 Mass Effect is essentially pseudo-Star Wars. There is very little "possible" about it including giant talking plants, mind-controlling spaceships, and light speed. Not to mention sound in space. I enjoyed reading the codex but the sci-fi voice, background music, and scientific terms used still do not make Mass Effect possible.

As for your "totally cool" argument, there were far fewer over the top elements in Kotor, Planescape Torment, or even Dragon Age. Yet I had absolutely no problem enjoying those characters because they felt like actual people with actual drives. Planescape doesn't even have voice-acting which should say something. Mass Effect's characters feel like walking encyclopedias. I'm given no opportunity to really explore who they are, save Wrex. Everyone else is without emotion, for the most part. Liara and Tali could be omitted and I wouldn't have missed any significant character development. Compare this to any loyalty mission.

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 10:01 .

[Whatever42]

bjdbwea wrote...
The romances in ME 2 remain very shallow in comparison to other BioWare games including ME 1, and short too. But if you don't romance a character, they have even less to say. Calibrating has to be really time consuming, I guess.

In ME1, the romance with Liara was pretty shallow. She was hot for you immediately and you can brush her off half-way through the game and if you don't have something on with Ashley or Kaiden, she still shows up at the end.

Ashely and Kaiden had a pretty deep dialogue tree, I admit, and you could shape their opinions, which was interesting.

But in ME2, the depth of the romance with the LIs come in the loyalty missions, not simply in the dialogue trees. I've never romanced the guys but for females, Tali is the deepest, obviously. Her relationship continues from ME1 and she hero worships you, which lots of guys like. But even though her dialogue tree is not nearly as deep as lets say Ashley, her loyalty mission more than makes up for that. There is a lot of deep, tender interaction with Tali throughout that mission.

With all the ME2 LIs, the loyalty missions are an opporunity to really connect with the characters that simply doesn't happen in ME1. Some are undoubtedly better than others but the depth is there. I never really felt that depth in ME1.

Yes, you kill Liara's mom but for some reason, that never really had an emotional impact on me. Liara never showed a lot of emotion and bounced back faster than a Solarian.

This all comes down to taste and opinion, of course. No one convinces anyone of anything on the Internet. As long as people realize that everything doesn't suck just because it wasn't to their taste.

[uberdowzen]

I haven't been here in ages but it just popped up in the recent forum threads so I came to have a look. My main thought...

...why is this still going?!?!?! After 306 pages has no one realised that you can't persuade anyone else that they're wrong and that Bioware is not going to read through this book length tome?

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

As for your "totally cool" argument, there were far fewer over the top elements in Kotor, Planescape Torment, or even Dragon Age. Yet I had absolutely no problem enjoying those characters because they felt like actual people with actual drives. Planescape doesn't even have voice-acting which should say something. Mass Effect's characters feel like walking encyclopedias. I'm given no opportunity to really explore who they are, save Wrex. Everyone else is without emotion, for the most part. Liara and Tali could be omitted and I wouldn't have missed any significant character development. Compare this to any loyalty mission.

You keep saying they don't have emotions, but I see that they do. But I accept your opinion, like it is my opinion that some loyalty missions were fine, but are no replacement for the complete lack of character development and interaction during the rest of the game.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 juillet 2010 - 10:26 .

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

I haven't been here in ages but it just popped up in the recent forum threads so I came to have a look. My main thought...

...why is this still going?!?!?! After 306 pages has no one realised that you can't persuade anyone else that they're wrong and that Bioware is not going to read through this book length tome?

Because there is no other recourse to expressing our disappointment in ME  2, and our hopes that Bioware will not make the same mistakes in ME 3. 

Foolish hope?  Perhaps.  But it's all we (or at least I) have.  Some people here have made some very cogent arguements defining problems in ME 2.  Some have made very intelligent counterarguements to them (you were one of them, as i recall)  If  Bioware doesn't have someone at least checking up on these posts every once in a while, they're doing themselves a disservice..

[MassEffect762]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I haven't been here in ages but it just popped up in the recent forum threads so I came to have a look. My main thought...

...why is this still going?!?!?! After 306 pages has no one realised that you can't persuade anyone else that they're wrong and that Bioware is not going to read through this book length tome?

Because there is no other recourse to expressing our disappointment in ME  2, and our hopes that Bioware will not make the same mistakes in ME 3. 

Foolish hope?  Perhaps.  But it's all we (or at least I) have.  Some people here have made some very cogent arguements defining problems in ME 2.  Some have made very intelligent counterarguements to them (you were one of them, as i recall)  If  Bioware doesn't have someone at least checking up on these posts every once in a while, they're doing themselves a disservice..

Sounds like uberdownzen just wants to whine/troll about the threads existance. It's here to stay.
It's not about you, ignore it if it bothers you.

Bioware does read this stuff, they'd be crazy not to.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


In ME1, the romance with Liara was pretty shallow. She was hot for you immediately.

She made the first step.There is nothing wrong with it and it doesnt make the romance shallow..And tali became an awfull fangirl of shepardt.On all logs on haestrom shepardt this and shepardt that. I would call this a sick obsession.

[finnithe]

Redundant discussions are the lifeblood of forums everywhere.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
You keep saying they don't have emotions, but I see that they do. But I accept your opinion, like it is my opinion that some loyalty missions were fine, but are no replacement for the complete lack of character development and interaction during the rest of the game.

And that's fine. We're discussing the game. Hence I'm interested in some of your examples. You say that the Mass Effect 2 cast has a "complete lack of character development". Yet you also find the Mass Effect  cast to be "Bioware worthy" because they are realistic. Differences of opinion are fine. What I want are examples. Who in Mass Effect 2 does not undergo some form of character development (Zaeed aside)? Who is left a completely static character? How do you feel that Tali and Kaidan "develop" throughout Mass Effect? It's a discussion. We must back up our opinions. If you'd like, I'll provide a brief summary on every squad member and tell you why I think they developed more than any character in Mass Effect.

I haven't purposely offended you. I asked above politely for some examples. Youtube links even would be fine. Or if you're simply bored, then say so and we can stop.

[finnithe]

In any case it would probably make more sense if every party member had their own set of casual outfits and battle outfits. Miranda, Samara and Jack could be wearing a variant of Asari Commando Armor, all of which could have been customized to have fit their character. Miranda's armor could have been Cerberus produced and branded, while Jack's could have been decorated with tatoos or something (it doesn't really fit Jack's personality to be wearing combat armor though, does it?). Samara could just be wearing a reskinned Asari Commando Armor. Jacob's armor should be like a male version of Miranda's armor (both of them being focused on enhancing biotic ability).



It might make sense for Zaeed and Grunt to be always wearing their armor though, since it fits their personality and background to be always wearing armor.



I hope ME3 adds more armor customization for both Shepard and the party members though. The armor components idea was great, but it wasn't taken far enough, and Shepard only has three sets of customizable armor.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
Tali was probably the least developed of the ME 1 squad.  Which makes me wonder why she got such a large (and, frankly, scary) following.  But I felt that all of them still felt different from each other.  Why else would I romance Ashely every time instead of Liara if they were all "Sten"  And no, I have no intention of ever romancing Sten   

Damn, I was about to ask you for your help in writing a Sten fanfiction.

It likely is a result of lack of interaction.  But while ME 1 might not have had enough, ME 2 has virtually none.  You can't even talk to them outside of combat to get a one-line description like in ME 1.  They're just...there...  I find that totally unacceptable in a game that's supposed to be about "the squad"

Very true. A complaint I agree with. I do however think that a time issue is involved. I once saw someone describe how Mass Effect 2 revolves around recruiting a squad for "one big mission". The vibe I got was that your team hasn't been together all that long in comparison to Mass Effect. It doesn't really excuse it, but I think that was the intended vibe. In general the game could have benefitted from some Dragon Age style conversations.

Except Han and Leia were being chased by te Empire.  The vilains of the series.  And they were being chased by Vader specifically, the "face" of the villains.  ME 2, there is no face, just Harbringer's voice.  The villains weren't the Collectors so much as an assorted bunch of random mercs. 

But the point is that if you take a step back and consider Episode V without immediately going "wow", we do realize that many parts of the movie could've just been cut-out much like in Mass Effect 2. In retrospect, we are just watching Han and Leia fly around for much of the movie. The purpose of Mass Effect 2 seemed intended to develop the characters and universe a bit more. And then towards the end they decided "And this is how it's important to fighting the Reapers".

To be fair, most of the armor in ME 1 was ugly.  But at least it was armor.  Almost all the outfits in ME 2 are just plain inapproropriate for combat.  And that's not including the over-the-top "uberness" of the characters themselves.

Agreed. Unfortunately suspension of disbelief (at least for me) does take into account aesthetics just as much as realism. Even if Ashley appears more realistic while wearing armor, the terrible design/color still makes me cry out "WTF?". I would like to see a single designed outfit for each party member that is also appropriate for combat. At least for Mass Effect 3.

Dragon Age does leave ME 1 in the dust.  But ME 2 was supposed to be more squad focused than ME 1.  Therefore, ME 2 should have been closer to what Dragon Age had in party interaction, not have even less than ME 1 had.

Well, it was more squad-focused in the sense that we got to see our team-mates developed to a better degree. It's just unfortunate we never saw much conflict beyond Jack vs. Miranda.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2010 - 12:30 .

[Iakus]

finnithe wrote...

In any case it would probably make more sense if every party member had their own set of casual outfits and battle outfits. Miranda, Samara and Jack could be wearing a variant of Asari Commando Armor, all of which could have been customized to have fit their character. Miranda's armor could have been Cerberus produced and branded, while Jack's could have been decorated with tatoos or something (it doesn't really fit Jack's personality to be wearing combat armor though, does it?). Samara could just be wearing a reskinned Asari Commando Armor. Jacob's armor should be like a male version of Miranda's armor (both of them being focused on enhancing biotic ability).

It might make sense for Zaeed and Grunt to be always wearing their armor though, since it fits their personality and background to be always wearing armor.

I hope ME3 adds more armor customization for both Shepard and the party members though. The armor components idea was great, but it wasn't taken far enough, and Shepard only has three sets of customizable armor.

I could get behind the "casual vs combat outfits"   If the squadmates have a "thing" for superero outfits, I'd let them wear it on their own time 

And I totally agree with (more) armor custiomization for for Shep and party in ME 3. 

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Very true. A complaint I agree with. I do however think that a time issue is involved. I once saw someone describe how Mass Effect 2 revolves around recruiting a squad for "one big mission". The vibe I got was that your team hasn't been together all that long in comparison to Mass Effect. It doesn't really excuse it, but I think that was the intended vibe. In general the game could have benefitted from some Dragon Age style conversations.

The immsersion-breaker for me is that if these squad members are going to function at their peak in a "Suicide Mission" the have to get to know each other.  They have to know how the others think, react.  What their strengths and weaknesses are.  And we don't even get a training montage!

But the point is that if you take a step back and consider Episode V without immediately going "wow", we do realize that many parts of the movie could've just been cut-out much like in Mass Effect 2. In retrospect, we are just watching Han and Leia fly around for much of the movie. The purpose of Mass Effect 2 seemed intended to develop the characters and universe a bit more. And then towards the end they decided "And this is how it's important to fighting the Reapers".

Well, I do think the Reaper connection was pretty much tacked-on.  i agree with that.
But it could have done with more squadmates developing relationships, be it friendsips  or enemies.  HEck, love intersts among the squad might have added a whole new dimension to tings, rather than have everyone fling temselves at Shep.

Agreed. Unfortunately suspension of disbelief (at least for me) does take into account aesthetics just as much as realism. Even if Ashley appears more realistic while wearing armor, the terrible design/color still makes me cry out "WTF?". I would like to see a single designed outfit for each party member that is also appropriate for combat. At least for Mass Effect 3.

To me, even Ashley in that ugly Phoenix armor holds my suspension better than Jack going into combat shirtless, or Jacob in a spandex bodysuit.  Bad armor trumps no armor any day of the week.  I actually caved in and bought the Alternate Appearence pack (the only ME DLC I've spent money on) just so Jack could at least have a vest and Garrus coud have fixed armor.  Wonder if it's all part of a scheme to move DLC...?

Well, it was more squad-focused in the sense that we got to see our team-mates developed to a better degree. It's just unfortunate we never saw much conflict beyond Jack vs. Miranda.

I would have liked to see them interact period.  Conflicts, friendships,  loyalty missions, main missions.  You can only develop them so much when Shepard is the entirety of their universe.

Modifié par iakus, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:08 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

...I would call this a sick obsession.

Which is what Liara essentially developed pretty much the second time you speak to her: "Why do I feel so close to you..?" Tali's began later. It all depends on what one consider's less creepy.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:29 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
And how many of these people who complained were true RPG fans? This was par for the course for Baldur's Gate, NWN and pretty much any D&D-based RPG. Same with many fantasy RPGs that weren't. Too many players who want everything to be easy, want instant gratification and don't want to have the limits and restrictions that an RPG should put on you because of all the action games that don't have it.

I am a true RPG fan. I've played Baldur's Gate 1+2. I've beaten Deus Ex twice. I beat Planescape Torment. I've beaten Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 17 times,  and Jade Empire 8 times. I've clocked hundreds of hours in the Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and less so with Oblivion. I beat Knights of the Old Republic 2 twice and even wrote a philosophy paper on Kreia, the protagonist's mentor. I currently have 4 pen and paper campaigns running at the moment with detailed back stories for two of them. I've beaten Mass Effect 5 times and Mass Effect 2 twice. I consider Mass Effect 2 to be just as much an RPG and a much better video game than Mass Effect.

Sort through your own fan-base and tell me how many are 'true RPG' fans.

And I've had similar experiences, though mine go back before Baldur's Gate to the CRPGs of the late 80's. But you seem to be generalising here... what I'd like to know is whether you actually thought that completely removing the mini-games away from being determined by class and stats and essentially just making them minigames that could appear in any non-RPG game was a good idea? Because the only people I remember accepting this and complaining about having to take a Rogue around in DAO were not old-school RPG fans.

I would agree if the emphasis was anywhere on role-play. Even on RP servers most people don't follow this as a rule. Role-playing in WoW amounts to nothing more than

a) take a quest or don't take it.
enter an area or don't enter it.

That's really it. There's absolutely no way to develop my character's persona through any dialogue.

Actually I'm referring to players creating their own roleplaying. Y'know... through teamspeak or typing it into the console. WoW may not provide direct roleplaying, but it does have the tools to let you do it yourself.

But I'm still not seeing what statistical stuff is used for if it can't even foster role-play. If I'm a Mage, then I would like people to respond to me as if I'm a mage, etc. This is of much higher priority for role-playing than increasing the number of statistics just so we have "numbers to play with". I can do that in a Calculus Course. I would like my gameplay to have some relevance to who I am. I completely forget about the fact that I'm a Vanguard out of combat in both games. You're telling me numbers are more important than immersion in our world?  

I'm not saying it's more important. But nor am I saying that it's not important either. Some people who play RPGs actually like all the number stuff too, y'know. Not all of us simply like the roleplaying stuff and that's all and could just do without these numbers like you seem comfortable with. When I'm playing P&P RPGs I love the building of my character, the rules and restrictions and the teamwork going on between different classes just as much as I love the roleplaying of the character itself. This isn't a blank and white see-saw where you can only have immersion or only have statistics here. DAO did both extremely well, IMO. And I felt ME1 did a decent job while ME2 simply failed at the stats part by removing so much and basically turning the game into a Shooter with Roleplaying rather than an RPG/Shooter hybrid like the first game.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
The immsersion-breaker for me is that if these squad members are going to function at their peak in a "Suicide Mission" the have to get to know each other.  They have to know how the others think, react.  What their strengths and weaknesses are.  And we don't even get a training montage!

I laughed at loud at the training montage. I would honestly love to see that set to a Team America theme.

I certainly can understand the desire to see interaction though. But ultimately, how necessary is it? At least, in a training form. We didn't need to see Wrex, Tali, etc. "practice" in the locker room to understand that they are formulating tactics, etc. If I brought Tali and Wrex with me to Ilos, would you say (for example) that it's immersion-breaking because we didn't see them practice? "Getting to know each other" I can understand a bit more. These are people who will be watching my back, I need to know what they can do, etc.

Well, I do think the Reaper connection was pretty much tacked-on.  i agree with that.
But it could have done with more squadmates developing relationships, be it friendsips  or enemies.  HEck, love intersts among the squad might have added a whole new dimension to tings, rather than have everyone fling temselves at Shep.

Ah, but that's my only point here with the Episode V comparison; alot of it really is just filler. We could cut out Han and Leia/Luke's training just as we can cut out Shepard recruiting/"loyalizing" (not a real word, I know) his team. We have an extremely thin story in both cases, but it's possible. Cloud city really was thrown together at the last second, much like our Reaper revelation, although at least we knew the entire game we were going beyond Omega IV.

I do think that party member romances would have made the characters more interesting, although this could just be wanting fan service on my part.

To me, even Ashley in that ugly Phoenix armor holds my suspension better than Jack going into combat shirtless, or Jacob in a spandex bodysuit.  Bad armor trumps no armor any day of the week.  I actually caved in and bought the Alternate Appearence pack (the only ME DLC I've spent money on) just so Jack could at least have a vest and Garrus coud have fixed armor.  Wonder if it's all part of a scheme to move DLC...?

Eh, I'd say it's just a matter of opinion. Ironically, the alternate appearance pack/weapons packs are the only ones I've refused to buy as they seem more suited to Grand Theft Auto or Saint's Row.

I would have liked to see them interact period.  Conflicts, friendships,  loyalty missions, main missions.  You can only develop them so much when Shepard is the entirety of their universe.

I'd say you can still develop them enough, hence my point that elevator conversations didn't really do it. On my most recent play through, I only heard 2 of these, between Kaidan and Wrex. Not enough to really make my squad feel more "developed". Between both games, I felt I understood far more about my party speaking to them directly than through intermediates unfortunately. Now had Mass Effect used Dragon Age's system so that these conversations could occur anywhere at any time, then I would agree with you about development.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
And I've had similar experiences, though mine go back before Baldur's Gate to the CRPGs of the late 80's. But you seem to be generalising here... what I'd like to know is whether you actually thought that completely removing the mini-games away from being determined by class and stats and essentially just making them minigames that could appear in any non-RPG game was a good idea? Because the only people I remember accepting this and complaining about having to take a Rogue around in DAO were not old-school RPG fans.

I loved bringing the rogue around in Dragon Age because it felt like "the specialist". You know, not the hard-hitting fighter or wizard with explosions, but the guy who had any sort of skill you could want. Rogues were awesome if you planned out their actions (traps, stealth, backstabs, positioning, etc) and they filled this niche well. However, I personally thought the Engineer was a bastardized rogue. The idea of the "specialist" died because all my skills were reduced to basic combat powers. The rogue class lost all its finesse and enjoyment in planning.

Mass Effect's problem was that it tried to do far too much with too little. If they wanted to effectively employ the
 Engineer, it should have been designed more like the "space rogue" if you catch my meaning. Part of my hatred of the Engineer also stems from the fact that they were used to open locks, which led to more wasted time making omnigel. I liked the Dragon Age inventory so I always made sure to bring a rogue everywhere. Inability to take control over squad-mates didn't help either.

Actually I'm referring to players creating their own roleplaying. Y'know... through teamspeak or typing it into the console. WoW may not provide direct roleplaying, but it does have the tools to let you do it yourself.

Problem with that is that it becomes far too easy to break the suspension of disbelief. It becomes difficult to roleplay my Tauren Shaman (as much as I love him) when people are yelling "CHUCK NORRIS ROCKZORZ!" in Barrens chat. Believe me, I've tried.

I'm not saying it's more important. But nor am I saying that it's not important either. Some people who play RPGs actually like all the number stuff too, y'know. Not all of us simply like the roleplaying stuff and that's all and could just do without these numbers like you seem comfortable with. When I'm playing P&P RPGs I love the building of my character, the rules and restrictions and the teamwork going on between different classes just as much as I love the roleplaying of the character itself. This isn't a blank and white see-saw where you can only have immersion or only have statistics here. DAO did both extremely well, IMO. And I felt ME1 did a decent job while ME2 simply failed at the stats part by removing so much and basically turning the game into a Shooter with Roleplaying rather than an RPG/Shooter hybrid like the first game.

Don't mistake my meaning, I *loved* the numbers. Dragon Age, despite its incredible flaws, was my favorite Bioware system because it offered my Arcane Warrior/Mage/Blood Mage so many different ways to kill my enemies. But my point is that it needs to go somewhere. I can turn playing my Mage in combat into role-playing my Mage in dialogue. Numbers and role-playing need to have a symbiotic relationship which Mass Effect 1 lacked. Everything I do in combat for Mass Effect did absolutely nothing for the enjoyment of role-playing Commander Shepard.

I for example never saw Mass Effect as an RPG/shooter hybrid, despite the advertisements. The skill system was, for lack of a better word, too stupid for my tastes. It tried to hide the stupidity by saying "Look, guys! 12 ranks per skill!" but that didn't change that 3/4 of each skill tree was useless. RPG's are based around progression, but it should be meaningful progression at all times, if possible. Mass Effect 1 didn't do this. Neither did Mass Effect 2. Like I said, I give Mass Effect 2 more credit because it doesn't pretend the system is more than it really is much like the inventory.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2010 - 02:49 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
I certainly can understand the desire to see interaction though. But ultimately, how necessary is it? At least, in a training form. We didn't need to see Wrex, Tali, etc. "practice" in the locker room to understand that they are formulating tactics, etc. If I brought Tali and Wrex with me to Ilos, would you say (for example) that it's immersion-breaking because we didn't see them practice? "Getting to know each other" I can understand a bit more. These are people who will be watching my back, I need to know what they can do, etc.

I used training montage as a bit of humor, since films that involve a bunch of misfits coming together for a big mision always have one:  the thieves practicing their robbery, the teeam training for the Big Game, the soldiers training as a unit.   While it would be cool if we could see Tali and Wrex (and others) practicing together.  Wile an "Eye of the Tiger" music video isn't really needed, some sort of interaction that shows the squad coming together as a unit was really needed and sorely missed.  Two personality clashes solved via paragon/renegade dialogue simply isn't enough.


From a game perspective:  interaction is not very important. It doesn't add much in the way of content, just cutscenes and/or dialogue

From an story perspective, I think it's very important.  It adds depth to the characters.  Makes the game more about the squad.  If the game is about building a team, we should see some teambuilding.

Ah, but that's my only point here with the Episode V comparison; alot of it really is just filler. We could cut out Han and Leia/Luke's training just as we can cut out Shepard recruiting/"loyalizing" (not a real word, I know) his team. We have an extremely thin story in both cases, but it's possible. Cloud city really was thrown together at the last second, much like our Reaper revelation, although at least we knew the entire game we were going beyond Omega IV.

Small difference here.  Han and Leia were constantly being menaced Imperial forces. The "Reapers" if you will.  Or their minions.  This maintains the connection with the main story, the struggle to free the galaxy from the Empire.  In ME 2, the "Empire" is almost entirely absent.  Only three missions have "Stormtroopers" in them at all.  I'd say Han and Leia's role would be more "filler" if they spent the entire movie in various Wretched Hives of Scum and Villainy recruiting  freelancers to join the Rebel Alliance.  Or if Luke froze to death on Hoth and was revived and put to work by Jabba.

We're really stretching tihs analogy, aren't we?

I do think that party member romances would have made the characters more interesting, although this could just be wanting fan service on my part. 

What,  Tali/Garrus fanfic?

Eh, I'd say it's just a matter of opinion. Ironically, the alternate appearance pack/weapons packs are the only ones I've refused to buy as they seem more suited to Grand Theft Auto or Saint's Row.

I haven't bought any other DLC for ME2 (no sense throwing good money after bad) but in my last playthrough I finally caved on Alternate Apprearance, the outfits are that bad to me.  Even the DLC outfits aren't very good.  But for two bucks, I figured I could hold my nose and buy it.  I

I'd say you can still develop them enough, hence my point that elevator conversations didn't really do it. On my most recent play through, I only heard 2 of these, between Kaidan and Wrex. Not enough to really make my squad feel more "developed". Between both games, I felt I understood far more about my party speaking to them directly than through intermediates unfortunately. Now had Mass Effect used Dragon Age's system so that these conversations could occur anywhere at any time, then I would agree with you about development.

It is true that ME 1 predates Dragon Age by a couple of years.  ME 2, however does not.  Also, ME 1 had much less focus on the squad. Talking to them "in the field" would only get you a single line about the situation.  But ME 2 doesn't even have this. 

Using ME2's system, we wouldn't have Ashely commenting on how the stairs in teh Council chambers would make a good defensive position in an attack, or Wrex noticing sniper perches there as well.  Kaiden wouldn't have given us our first clue that the "Relay Monument" in the Presidium is more than it seems (he senses a low hum coming from it)  We wouldn't have Tali and Wrex talking about the fate of the krogan after the Rebellions.  Nor would we have gotten what I think is one of the funniest single lines in ME 1:  Ashley on Virmire "Nothing like a nice realxing walk on the beach, blasting bad guys with my boom stick!"

People often say that ME 1 was "plot focused" and ME 2 is "character focused"  I say ME 1 focused on the plot way better than ME 2 focused on the characters.  And it didn't focus much on the plot either.

Finally , you must have terrible luck with the elevators, as I find myself regularly rotating characters I travel through the Citadel with for different combinations on elevator rides.

[Terror_K]

@Il Divo: so what it basically comes down to is that you're of the belief that BioWare made the right move in making the game shallow and simple in order to make things work, as opposed to myself (and most of the others who post in this topic and feel ME2 was dumbed down) who thought that the ME1 system could have been tweaked to make it work.



I don't think anybody denies that the ME1 system(s) were flawed and could have done with a little work, but that's no reason to just strip and gut half the stuff and essentially make the game more of a shooter because it's the easy way out. That's not fixing the issues, that's just ignoring them by no longer making them a factor. And that's why many feel ME2 is a shallower and lesser game for it. ME1 may not have succeeded but at least it tried. ME2 didn't even try, and went for the easiest answers and shallow mechanics that don't fail because they don't have enough attributes to fail.



You give Mass Effect 2 more credit for this... I (and many others here) give it less. Oversimplification is not the answer, and just results in a shallow game. I don't care if it does work better on a technical level... so does Doom or Quake. That doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become Doom or Quake just because the systems work better. Especially when the answers to the problems aren't that complicated. Heck, BioWare were on the right track with some things, except that they took them too far.

[SithLordExarKun]

uberdowzen wrote...

I haven't been here in ages but it just popped up in the recent forum threads so I came to have a look. My main thought...

...why is this still going?!?!?! After 306 pages has no one realised that you can't persuade anyone else that they're wrong and that Bioware is not going to read through this book length tome?

Its simple, they have nothing to do IRL and spend nearly all their time bashing this game.