10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

shootist70 wrote...

I don't think for one second they have an pretensions at hard Sci-fi. What they are, and what they're totally comfortable at being, is what's known as space opera.

I agree, and neither does that decrease my enjoyment of either game. They're both fun. That's more than enough for me, no matter their classification.

[Kai Hohiro]

Il Divo wrote...

You bring up a great point in your post, but I definitely want to comment on this. I view Kotor, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect as being the rough equivalent of the Halo Trilogy's history. I start with Kotor and not BG2 because this was the first 'fully 3D' Bioware game and I think a better starting point for this comparison.

If we view Kotor as the rough equivalent of Halo 1, it was very innovative and mind-blowing in many ways, leaving us wanting more.

Nice comparison. And again regarding the story:
Every Bioware RPG(except ME2) has actually followed the standard Hero's journey plot almost to the word. Kotor did that pretty much too, but I believe Kotor's variant to still be the best so far of Bioware's RPGs.
And that's my issue with ME1. You can actually compare the overall plots from ME1 directly with Kotor and this makes ME1 appear in an unfavourable light.

In ME2 Bioware actually for once went outside of their safe place and tried an entirely different plot. It's a story I haven't played before in a Bioware game and it actually brings something new to table.
And of course it makes it obvious that a lot of players arent comfortable with being removed from their safe zone.

Halo Quea wrote...
FINALLY!!  Some honesty!   And it took a shooter fan to point it out!

Bless you ArchDemon, we've had so little honesty here.   In fact if you've been paying attention to the last few pages and all of the amazingly open-ended definitions of role playing I guess one could come to the conclusion that anything could be declared an RPG.

Hell, let's declare Halo an RPG while we're at it!  

Hey if it makes you feel better call it whatever you like, call it a Tonka Funpark simulator if you must. In the end it doesn't really matter what genre a game is as long as it's fun.Bioware is free to make whatever kind of game they like. People somehow have the notion Bioware is only allowed to make a specific kind of RPG, which isn't true. Bioware has made some great action games in the past. In fact their first game was an action game, and it was brilliant.

Or call Jade Empire a beat em up if you wish, it still was a great game.

If anything else, ME1 was more of a random mish mash than ME2. ME1 clearly didn't know what kind of game it should be. It's pretty apparent they crammed too many things in trying to cater to a variety of people, and that resulted in a game without focus. Way too many unrefined aspects.
In ME2 they finally figured out what kind of game ME should be and where they need to set their priorities.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 11:53 .

[Il Divo]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Nice comparison. And again regarding the story:
Every Bioware RPG(except ME2) has actually followed the standard Hero's journey plot almost to the word. Kotor did that pretty much too, but I believe Kotor's variant to still be the best so far of Bioware's RPGs.
And that's my issue with ME1. You can actually compare the overall plots from ME1 directly with Kotor and this makes ME1 appear in an unfavourable light.

In ME2 Bioware actually for once went outside of their safe place and tried an entirely different plot. It's a story I haven't played before in a Bioware game and it actually brings something new to table.
And of course it makes it obvious that a lot of players arent comfortable with being removed from their safe zone.

Exactly. I'm not going to say that Mass Effect 2 is the greatest story I've seen from Bioware, but it certainly was new and took risks in many ways. That's my problem with Mass Effect because it's the standard Bioware story, but doesn't bring anything new to the table which I  would want to see all future Bioware games employ. Mass Effect 2 brought realistic character interactions and a previously unseen cinematic style from Bioware. In addition, the pacing fit the hybrid nature of the game far better. On the other hand, I played Mass Effect, enjoyed it, then went back to Kotor. Ironically, playing Mass Effect 2 has now reinvigorated my interest for Mass Effect 1 and the series as a whole which I'm happy about.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2010 - 12:02 .

[ArchDemonXIII]

Halo Quea wrote...

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

 So where some might call it a dumed down RPG, II think of it more as a smartened up shooter.

FINALLY!!  Some honesty!   And it took a shooter fan to point it out!

Bless you ArchDemon, we've had so little honesty here.   In fact if you've been paying attention to the last few pages and all of the amazingly open-ended definitions of role playing I guess one could come to the conclusion that anything could be declared an RPG.

Hell, let's declare Halo an RPG while we're at it! 

 Well before you go completely off the rails with what I said, I should point out That i do still consider ME 2 an RPG. Why? because you still get to imbue shephard with a sense of personality and dictate his/her actions. Being that some of the decisions you make have dire consequences in the game world (possibility of destroying the council in ME 1, the possible allegiance of rachni, quarians, krogan etc. in ME 2).

  In fact some of the games heralded as classic RPG's don't really deserve the name in my opinion. I haven't played most of the FF games, but from the ones I saw, there weren't really any grand decisions for you to make that had any real tangible effect on the game world.  Choosing who you bring with you to battle or what inventory you use doesn't make it an RPG, that's no different than choosing your gear in Modern Warfare 2. Customization doesn't make an RPG, because there's more ability to customize your character in any Smackdown Vs Raw game.

 A lot of  "RPG's" are really just tactical fantasy/sci fi sims with an emphasis on story that happen to allow you to be  a jerk to merchants.

 How about we call the ME series an ARPG (action role playing game). Shooter fans can like it because it gives them more to do than blast stuff, and RPG fans can like it because it brings more to combat than number-crunching. Purists of either genre can go **** themselves and play the large assortment of games they already have as alternatives.

[Iakus]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Just your opinion. I found ME1s entire story rather cliched, simplistic and overdone in every single bioware game. In ME2 they actually tried an entirely different plot for once, rather than the standard Hero's journey.
I prefered having a goal to accomplish, rather than stumbling across the galaxy and through lucky breaks and Deus Ex Machina events finding artifacts whereever I happen to go.
It's a plot more comparable to a dirty dozen and ocean's eleven and is actually something new in gaming which to my knowledge hasn't been done before. 
So yeah I'd prefer a new and engaging plot, rather than one that has been done to death.

Again your arguments hold no ground, because you think something that doesn't appeal to you automatically means "dumbed down for the mass market".

I'm neutral concerning shooters, and only mildly disappointed about inventory, skills, etc.  If the ME 2 story was good, I wouldn't care about that much.  If I could survive Jade Empire's skill system, I can tolerate almost anything

But now we're talkng about ME 2's story...

Bioware may have tried something new with ME 2, but in my opinion, it was a total mess.

I mean, what goal did Shepard have?  Gather a team to do...something...You don't even know what was on the other side of the relay until  the Collector Ship quest.  What are you recruiting for when you don't know what kind of team you'll need?

I understand that the Dirty Dozen and Ocean's Eleven was the inspiration for the game.  But an ensemble story like that requires character interaction, which ME 2 almost completely lacks (yes ME 1 wasn't great at it either, but ME 2 needed it and didn't get it)  Instead you get squad members stashed in different parts of the ship until they're needed.

Do we see Thane and Samara talking/sizing each other up?  Comparing philosophies?  Child-rearing advice?  Do we see Grunt and Zaed talking about guns and battles?  How much bickering do we see between Jack and Miranda, aside from the one personality conflict?  Shepard's supposed to be forging a team.  But we see notthing like that happening.  People who think inventory's been eliminated in ME 2 are wrong:  the squad is the inventory.  Or might as well be.  The only time they come to life is the loyalty missions.

Now don't get me wrong, the loyalty missions were nice.  Some of them were even great (personal favorites:  Tali's and Mordin's).  But once they were done, what then?  Do the characters change?  No, except they get a new costume and power.  They don't act any differently.  They also get the "do not kill" flag for the suicide mission. 

ME 2 is like a bunch of ingredients for a pizza.  You got the bread, the tomato sauce, cheese, all sorts of good toppings.  But nobody bothered to actually put it in the oven.  It doesn't come together and just remains a bunch of ingredients.

I'd rather have an old story told well than a new story done half...baked...

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I mean, what goal did Shepard have?  Gather a team to do...something...You don't even know what was on the other side of the relay until  the Collector Ship quest.  What are you recruiting for when you don't know what kind of team you'll need?

I'd rather have an old story told well than a new story done half...baked...

Don't feel like a verbal joust right now, so I'll limit myself.

As far as the team was concerned, I assumed it was designed to be capable of handling any sort of infantry assignment possible. You might ask, why would I need biotics? And you're right to do so. But even if I cannot provide you a direct answer in their usage during Mass Effect 2, we do know that by reputation biotics are respected/feared for their abilities and are largely desirable in any military operation. We do not know how they might help against the Collectors, but we do know their intrinsic value. This is emphasized even more by the fact that Jack/Samara are far beyond the abilities of your standard biotic. Even someone like Thane who is an assassin possesses a variety of skills that can be used in a military operation. This is the logic behind every party member.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2010 - 03:17 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
Don't feel like a verbal joust right now, so I'll limit myself.

As far as the team was concerned, I assumed it was designed to be capable of handling any sort of infantry assignment possible. You might ask, why would I need biotics? And you're right to do so. But even if I cannot provide you a direct answer in how their usage during Mass Effect 2, we do know that by reputation biotics are respected/feared for their abilities and are largely desirable in any military operation. We do not know how they might help against the Collectors, but we do know their intrinsic value. This is emphasized even more by the fact that Jack/Samara are far beyond the abilities of your standard biotic. Even someone like Thane who is an assassin possesses a variety of skills that can be used in a military operation. This is the logic behind every party member.

We do tend to end up with walls of text, don't we?

But biotics aren't the problem I have (although taking on a violently unstable criminal who really dislikes Cerberus is a bit of a problem)  It's the fact that you're creating a squad before you know what you're up against.  Infantry assignments may have been a totally inappropriate skillset.  Are you infiltrating a planet?  Sabotaging a ship?  A rescue mission?  A recon mission?  Are we up against a ship?  Many ships? A space station?  A planet?  An entire system?  A whole other Mass Relay system?  How many Collectors are we facing?  What kinds of defenses?  Any allies?  The list goes on.

If, somehow TIM or Shepard had some kind of knowledge ealy on what was beyond the Relay, this wouldn't be as big a deal.  But that would require some kind of connection between recruitment and the central story.  We can't have that now

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

We do tend to end up with walls of text, don't we?

'Tis our lot in life, I suppose. Shall we kill something to cheer ourselves up?

But biotics aren't the problem I have (although taking on a violently unstable criminal who really dislikes Cerberus is a bit of a problem)  It's the fact that you're creating a squad before you know what you're up against.  Infantry assignments may have been a totally inappropriate skillset.  Are you infiltrating a planet?  Sabotaging a ship?  A rescue mission?  A recon mission? 

Well, in the case of every example listed above (though not below), I think the 'prepare for anything' motto was the best we can do. I can see a biotic potentially serving (or not serving) a purpose in each of those scenarios depending on what you come up against. I picture it much like the foundations of a good dnd party. You want your fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard. In Mass Effect's case, we have our combat, tech, and biotic types. If we have any sort of infantry scenario, I don't see how biotics, tech, etc, are not potentially useful.

I do think we should have had a demolition specialist of some kind, however.

Are we up against a ship?  Many ships? A space station?  A planet?  An entire system?  A whole other Mass Relay system?  How many Collectors are we facing?  What kinds of defenses?  Any allies?  The list goes on.

But I think all this once more demonstrates why it was referred to as a suicide mission. We didn't fully know what we would come across. However, we do know we're after more than just the Collectors. The very reason why Shepard agrees to aid Cerberus is because of the Reaper connection. If we simply blow up the Collectors, how much progress have we even made? Hence, in some form or other, a ground operation has a high likelihood of being employed. I also don't think it's an unreasonable assertion to think that the Collectors have some type of base of operations (perhaps a planet, anything) from which they conduct their business. We do know they have to have some purpose if they are taking humans beyond Omega IV which Illusive Man remarks he wants to find out why. I personally find this enough to push the plan into motion.

If, somehow TIM or Shepard had some kind of knowledge ealy on what was beyond the Relay, this wouldn't be as big a deal.  But that would require some kind of connection between recruitment and the central story.  We can't have that now

No, we most certainly cannot. T'would be a crime against nature herself.

[Darth Drago]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

I mean, what goal did Shepard have?  Gather a team to do...something...You don't even know what was on the other side of the relay until  the Collector Ship quest.  What are you recruiting for when you don't know what kind of team you'll need?

I'd rather have an old story told well than a new story done half...baked...

Don't feel like a verbal joust right now, so I'll limit myself.

As far as the team was concerned, I assumed it was designed to be capable of handling any sort of infantry assignment possible. You might ask, why would I need biotics? And you're right to do so. But even if I cannot provide you a direct answer in how their usage during Mass Effect 2, we do know that by reputation biotics are respected/feared for their abilities and are largely desirable in any military operation. We do not know how they might help against the Collectors, but we do know their intrinsic value. This is emphasized even more by the fact that Jack/Samara are far beyond the abilities of your standard biotic. Even someone like Thane who is an assassin possesses a variety of skills that can be used in a military operation. This is the logic behind every party member.
 

He does have a point on the reason behind recruiting all of these people. All we really know at the beginning just before we get our first batch of recruiting dossiers is the Collectors are involved and TIM believe they are linked to the Reapers. Personally if I’m going to fight against anyone connected with Reapers I would like to have a few more ships at my disposal to use not a bunch of people shooting spitballs at them as Ashley put it in ME1.



***Minor Spoilers Below Warning. ***

As for everyone that we recruit just what did they actually bring to the game in their special fields?
-The Tech specialists (Tali, Legion and Kasumi) were used to open a single door or was it two doors?
-The Biotic specialists (Samara, Morinth and Jack) used their powers just once.

The rest did what?
-Miranda: gives out misleading suggestions on selecting people to use in the roles you can select them for. Has leadership ability but that’s it.
-Garrus: didn’t see him use a sniper rifle on anything and has leadership ability and that’s it.
-Jacob: nothing and I wouldn’t risk choosing him to lead.
-Thane: didn’t see him use a sniper rifle on anything.
-Grunt: a shooter, nothing real special about that really.
-Zaeed: a shooter, nothing real special about that really.
-Modin: is the only one used before the finale mission for his research but nothing else in the final battle.

There was a lot of unused potential wasted in there. For example, Thane and Garrus could have been used as snipers (something we know for a fact they excel at) to take out Collectors in a similar way I’ve seen in Half life 2: Episode 2 with Alyx shooting nasties covering you as you work your way through an area.

The shooters are really never seen “holding the line” you just get a little glimpse of that action. They really don’t make a difference to anything if they are even there or not when everyone is loyal. Even if Mordin is there.

The other group leader never really has a tough decision to make that even required leadership. Give me a reason or something that shows me their leadership skills that they are supposed to have in use.

[Fhaileas]

Did ME2 even set the stage for ME3 ? I don't see it. What in this game is a bridge for what's to come? Every single one of your team members can be written out. The Reapers are still coming and you still know next to nothing about them - they're using Protheans and they use species to build themselves. OK, so how are we going to fight them? What does that picture of Harbinger tell me?



At the end of ME1, I knew that we'd just stopped a huge threat, the citadel was a trap, and luckily, we were able to stall the Reapers. Now what? They were still coming! So we had to find out how we're going to stop them. Great setup - you discovered the trap but this only delayed the threat, not eliminateit. Now, you have to find out how you're going to defeat them. And this is not neccesarily going to be easy or cheerful - it could be just as dark as Bioware was implying Instead, we get ME2's 'story' in which nothing about the main threat really happens. It ends in the exact same fashion, except instead of anticipation, you're confused. What? So what exactly are we going to do?

The main plot of ME2 would have been a great expansion pack with your ME1 team - then you'd have an even better explanation for why they're all missing in ME2. They died or were seriously injured in this suicide mission against the Collectors. But alas, what's done is done. Hopefully, Bioware recognizes the big gaps they have to fill and release something in the interim that involves a lot more story.

[Revan312]

Darth Drago wrote...

There was a lot of unused potential wasted in there. For example, Thane and Garrus could have been used as snipers (something we know for a fact they excel at) to take out Collectors in a similar way I’ve seen in Half life 2: Episode 2 with Alyx shooting nasties covering you as you work your way through an area.

The shooters are really never seen “holding the line” you just get a little glimpse of that action. They really don’t make a difference to anything if they are even there or not when everyone is loyal. Even if Mordin is there.

The other group leader never really has a tough decision to make that even required leadership. Give me a reason or something that shows me their leadership skills that they are supposed to have in use.

But that's the entire problem with ME2.. The characters are given center stage for most of the game, each removed from one another and each only briefly, but still, given center stage, yet none of them gel with the overarching story in any real way. Why couldn't you just have about ten times that number of faceless cerberus drones? Only having 10 (12 with DLC) members makes the whole mission seem laughable. Why only 12 for such a mission? Is it because it's a stealth/infiltration mission that requires a small, elite group? Well then that doesn't make sense as to why you'd recruit Grunt, Zaeed, Samara or Jack.. No explanation makes sense anyway as you have no idea the force your up against before you make the jump..

Mass Effect 1 made sense as your on normal "go figure out what's going on here" missions from the Citadel, being your a specter. Then when you finally do figure out what's going on you go AWOL and it's understood at that point why you don't have a sizable army to attack Saren with. Even then, in the end, the whole galactic community present at the Citadel helps defeat Sovereign.

ME2? It never made sense why my elite team was so limited in number based on the severity of the situation, one of which you would assume the Alliance would take notice of as it's thousands of human colonists being abducted.. but apparently not. The whole structure of the game feels off kilter and none of the parts ever add up into anything that resembles a complete and tied in story.

The characters are removed from one another. The characters are removed, for the most part, from the story. The story is removed from the universe as it's been established and finally, even parts of the story don't match other parts of the same narrative, or at the very least, they don't have any contextual meaning.. Why did the collectors attack and kill Shepard and THEN start abducting colonists with the belief that humans were the cream of the crop regarding the current roster of races? If they so easily killed Shepard, arguably the only reason they thought humans were the strongest race, wouldn't that have changed their minds? Also, what was even the point of Shepard's death/rebirth besides dissolving the original team as a plot mechanic?

All of it was rushed and disjointed to the point that I felt like I was playing a series of character vignettes with a side story about zombie bugs. ME2 in fact felt like one huge set of DLC for ME1 as it really didn't move the story forward in ANY way besides now having the collector base, that is if you didn't destroy it, if you did, it really just moves from ME1 --> ME3.

In the end the plot was just a mess for ME2.. hopefully they can get their act together for ME3.

*edit*

Fhaileas wrote...
The main plot of ME2 would have been a great
expansion pack with your ME1 team - then you'd have an even better
explanation for why they're all missing in ME2. They died or were
seriously injured in this suicide mission against the Collectors. But
alas, what's done is done. Hopefully, Bioware recognizes the big gaps
they have to fill and release something in the interim that involves a
lot more story.

Oop, you beat me to the punch, lol [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Revan312, 14 août 2010 - 05:13 .

[Whatever42]

At the end of the Two Towers, there was no way in sight to defeat Sauron. At the end of the Empire Strikes back, there was no way in sight to defeat the Empire. At the end of the Subtle Knife, I'm not sure I even knew who the villain was.



Many series have little or vague foreshadowing of how the villain will be defeated.



I believe you're applying arbitrary standards to ME2 to somehow rationalize your subjective dislike for the game.

[Xeranx]

The one thing that I find disappointing about ME2 is that I'm told that I have to convice various people to join up with me on a suicide mission I have no idea about how I'm going to tackle.  I can't fail at recruiting individuals for a mission where the liklihood of coming back in one piece is extremely iffy.  In highschool I remember various members of our armed forces setting up booths to recruit candidates to join.  This was in a time of relative peace.  A lot of the people making the attempts at recruiting were charismatic.  They were funny and they seemed down to earth.  After all, you don't want a drill seargent with a gruff voice talking to a bunch of teenagers trying to get them to sign on to something they aren't even sure of.  The fact is they spoke to a very small number of people, but ultimately after all that effort I only remember one person signing on to join the army.  Again, this is during a time of relative peace.

Now with the collector threat the only thing we know is that large numbers of humans are disappearing from various colonies in the Terminus systems.  The information you get on the collectors from Miranda and Jacob when speaking to Veetor makes them (the Collectors) seem close to benign to begin with.  If the greater populace of the terminus systems knows or recognizes them as little more than traders then what is the point in signing up on a mission to stop them from culling mass quantities of people?  On Omega no one seems to be worried about them and the same attitude seems similar on Illium.  In my mind the only people likely to join are Tali and Garrus because of what they went through with you in Mass Effect.  

Also, calling to mind the discussion of Shepard being an icon, it would have been a lot better if upon meeting Shepard people actually wonder what they're getting when meeting him/her.  It would have been a great way to highlight Shepard's background (Akuze, Elysium, Torfan) and have Shepard work a little to cultivate a modicum of --intrigue(?)-- (I think that's the word I want to use) or instill a sense of worry so that someone like Samara or Thane (who may think it's really not their problem as the Asari or Drell aren't being targeted) would feel like it might be in their best interest to tag along.  That depending on your background your ability to convince others to join you would either be easier or more difficult.

[Whatever42]

Revan312 wrote...

Mass Effect 1 made sense as your on normal "go figure out what's going on here" missions from the Citadel, being your a specter. Then when you finally do figure out what's going on you go AWOL and it's understood at that point why you don't have a sizable army to attack Saren with. Even then, in the end, the whole galactic community present at the Citadel helps defeat Sovereign.

ME2? It never made sense why my elite team was so limited in number based on the severity of the situation, one of which you would assume the Alliance would take notice of as it's thousands of human colonists being abducted.. but apparently not. The whole structure of the game feels off kilter and none of the parts ever add up into anything that resembles a complete and tied in story.

The characters are removed from one another. The characters are removed, for the most part, from the story. The story is removed from the universe as it's been established and finally, even parts of the story don't match other parts of the same narrative, or at the very least, they don't have any contextual meaning.. Why did the collectors attack and kill Shepard and THEN start abducting colonists with the belief that humans were the cream of the crop regarding the current roster of races? If they so easily killed Shepard, arguably the only reason they thought humans were the strongest race, wouldn't that have changed their minds? Also, what was even the point of Shepard's death/rebirth besides dissolving the original team as a plot mechanic?

All of it was rushed and disjointed to the point that I felt like I was playing a series of character vignettes with a side story about zombie bugs. ME2 in fact felt like one huge set of DLC for ME1 as it really didn't move the story forward in ANY way besides now having the collector base, that is if you didn't destroy it, if you did, it really just moves from ME1 --> ME3.

In the end the plot was just a mess for ME2.. hopefully they can get their act together for ME3.

Collectors were studying humans for years. Mordin tells you right out that humans have the greatest genetic diversity of all the races. They started harvesting humans to build a new Reaper right after Sovereign was destroyed. Why they want Shepard so bad has many possible, very credible answers but probably won't be revealed until ME3. And yes, Shepard's death was 100% a device to reset the game. They made it very dramatic because it was a good scene.

The whole point of ME2 was a strike at the collectors. It wasn't an urgent mission, like find Saren before he opens the conduit, but a more liesurely, assemble your team and proceed when you feel you are completely ready. Considering that Saren was out to destroy the galaxy and Shepard firmly believed that, stopping to help the Alliance out of a 100 different jams, fetch Wrex's armor, and kill Garrus's nemesis was far more jarring.

I think ME1 and ME2 both did have pacing problems, yes, and I hope Bioware improves that. But the people appear to be trying to objectively rationalize their subjective opinions by reasoning that they are not fairly applying to both ME1 and ME2. Heck, the reasoning some people use would mean that half the fantasy and science fiction hits ever written were crap. That's fine if you think that, just apply such standards evenly.

[Revan312]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

At the end of the Two Towers, there was no way in sight to defeat Sauron. At the end of the Empire Strikes back, there was no way in sight to defeat the Empire. At the end of the Subtle Knife, I'm not sure I even knew who the villain was.

Many series have little or vague foreshadowing of how the villain will be defeated.

I believe you're applying arbitrary standards to ME2 to somehow rationalize your subjective dislike for the game.

Was this directed at me or Fhaileas?  Regardless, how is at an arbitrary standard that a sequal should move the plot along to at least some degree?  Two Towers suffered from the same thing ME2 did which was completely unecessary bloat with near no relevance to the plot arch. ESB did however move the story forward as Luke finds out that DV is his Father and gets his training, along with the empire's expansion continuing. It leaves on a cliffhanger that makes sense, it further darkened the atmosphere of the story in preperation for the resolution, many revelations took place etc etc.

ME2 has none of those, it's enemy that was only just introduced is erased from existance in the end and the plot moved all of no inches forward, it leaves off at almost the exact same point ME1 did.  I'm half expecting in ME3 for Shepard, dawning a tricorne,  to ride a horse around the Citadel yelling "The Reapers are coming, the Reapers are coming!!!"

[Whatever42]

Revan312 wrote...

Was this directed at me or Fhaileas?  Regardless, how is at an arbitrary standard that a sequal should move the plot along to at least some degree?  Two Towers suffered from the same thing ME2 did which was completely unecessary bloat with near no relevance to the plot arch. ESB did however move the story forward as Luke finds out that DV is his Father and gets his training, along with the empire's expansion continuing. It leaves on a cliffhanger that makes sense, it further darkened the atmosphere of the story in preperation for the resolution, many revelations took place etc etc.

ME2 has none of those, it's enemy that was only just introduced is erased from existance in the end and the plot moved all of no inches forward, it leaves off at almost the exact same point ME1 did.  I'm half expecting in ME3 for Shepard, dawning a tricorne,  to ride a horse around the Citadel yelling "The Reapers are coming, the Reapers are coming!!!"

It was directed at Fhaileas but I'll argue with you.  

ME2 did provide a great deal of information. In ESB, we had no idea what the impact of DV being Luke's father would have. And in ME2, we have no idea of the impact of what we learned there. What did we learn? We learned about reaper construction, that they are composed of organic material from "ascended" beings and that humans are the target for that ascension. We learned in ME1 that each reaper is a nation. I can think of a couple scenarios in that information right there that could lead to the destruction of the reapers.

There are many theories swirling around based on what we've learned in ME1 and ME2. Saying that ME2 doesn't advance the plot without understanding the payoff is unfair.

[Revan312]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

It was directed at Fhaileas but I'll argue with you.

ME2 did provide a great deal of information. In ESB, we had no idea what the impact of DV being Luke's father would have. And in ME2, we have no idea of the impact of what we learned there. What did we learn? We learned about reaper construction, that they are composed of organic material from "ascended" beings and that humans are the target for that ascension. We learned in ME1 that each reaper is a nation. I can think of a couple scenarios in that information right there that could lead to the destruction of the reapers.

There are many theories swirling around based on what we've learned in ME1 and ME2. Saying that ME2 doesn't advance the plot without understanding the payoff is unfair.

Hehe, debate is debate

But we can see and imagine the amazing impacts of a revelation the likes of DV being Lukes father. That has huge potential consequences and that was tucked into a 2 hour movie, not, a bit of info tucked into a 30+ hour game. And that info about Reaper construction, although nobody can argue against its relevance, yet, is my biggest complaint about the entire plot of ME2. That reveal felt so out of place and contrived I literally cringed when I saw the huge Reaper fetus. It would be akin to if Tolkien added ninjas into LOTR.

My English professor in college pounded a single line into my creative writing class at least 100 times during that semester, "No bad writing!" She told us don't add in twists simply for the sake of it being a twist, that's bad writing. The info about Reaper construction is just that, bad writing, it serves no purpose other than to have a twist. Reapers never needed that to make them intriguing. There was and still is enough mystery surrounding them that that plot device was completely unneeded. There could have been a million more plausible ways of explaining their origin than they're made of creature slushies.

Luke being DV's son is a twist with a meaning and a purpose that shapes the entire story, Reapers being made of blenderized meat bags is nothing more than a device to have that boss at the end of the game, at least I hold onto that belief until ME3 comes out. Maybe..MAYBE they'll use that as a device that is integral to the overall plot, but I reeaallyy doubt it...

Modifié par Revan312, 14 août 2010 - 06:12 .

[setroc1]

Well Mass Effect 2 is supposed to be the Empire Strikes Back of the series whether if it is a worthy sequel story wise (shepard's arc ) no one can really judge it since well this being a trilogy planned from the start and with such a heavy emphasis on the “effect” of the player's decisions on how the story plays out one can assume why ME 2 was what is was ,which is still great compared to the rest RPGs out there at least this is original . And remember ME 2 is pretty much as close as you can get to a reboot without resetting the whole series a thus by attracting a whole new audience to the game the reality is that a whole lot of new players (noobs) would be left in the dark and well clearly this sequel needed to be able to please us and at the same time engage new comers that won’t necessarily play ME 1 ever being that it wasn’t appealing to them before . I mean my biggest disappointment in Mass Effect 2 has to be that it has lost much of its traditional RPG elements y need more RPG elements built upon what they brought in with ME 2 you know bigger hub worlds , a more interactive take on weapon customization and a far as story wise I felt disappointed in ME 2’s suicide mission which although an awesome mission by itself in the end it felt kind of silly to think that pretty much every substantial mission/ quest in the game was a recruitment mission or a loyalty mission it certainly would have been nice that you could bring that huge 12 member team that you had formed for more than 3-4 missions because I invested a whole lot of time in getting ready for a relative short mission mainly due to the hype surrounding it the entire game. But still until ME 3 which has a hell of a lot to live up to I can’t really complain much since this is just the middle act of this trilogy and well at the very least in ME 2 delivered a bunch of surprising twists and turns which I loved so in relation to the more marginal sub- stories arcs and the new species etc.. so in a nutshell a hope ME 2 dlc & ME 3 can bring back that magic feeling I got at the end of ME1

[Ch40sFox]

What bothered me about the whole entirety of the Mass Effect series so far, is that they built so much intrigue with the first game, now mind, most hit games do that; set the bar. They left a good number of unanswered mysteries to keep me playing the game for over 4 years straight to comb the game for any little clues.



I will admit this though, the first time I picked up Mass Effect, I couldnt stand it, I put it down, for at least a good 4 months, then suddenly picked it back up, and never stopped playing. While I found the level up system in the first incredibly over complicated and almost bulky, it seriously grew on me, and I came to seriously love it. ME2 changed my entire attitude about the gameplay of the series, Global Cooldown ****** me off, more than anything else in this world. Going from powers having individual cooldown times, with actual secondary passive effects on them, to an incredibly dumbed down leveling system, with the ability to only use a single power within the span of 4 to 5 seconds, really made the game into a chore, rather than fun for me.



The Plot in my opinion, was one of the most unique I had seen in awhile, all of you can argue that to death, Im pretty sure, but itd been awhile since anything in space made by someone in the "west" actually felt right RPG wise. It had a driving purpose, it felt well paced, besides the side missions. Then ME2 came into play after so long waiting for it. At first, everything was amazing, but I realized that none of the characters interacted with each other, which I severely wished for after playing the first game. Maybe that was just my expectations of Bioware after playing both Kotor's, maybe it was something else.



But somewhere down the line, Bioware lost what makes them Bioware, and I have my own opinion, of what it was. Its trying to please everyone....



Its impossible to please everyone, and even taking a second to doubt yourself, is really what makes you screw up even worse in the first place. I feel, that for ME3, dont make the game the try to make it accessible to people who arent going to pick it up in the first place. No one picks up a game because they thought the controls were easy to get the hang of. Someone picks up a game, because a bunch of people they know, said it was an amazing experience, and then decided to see for themselves.



I pray that Bioware really tries to get their priorities down when planning ME3, and not try to throw in a twist, just for the sake of throwing in a twist. Good writing, doesnt need cheap plot devices to justify itself, it justifies itself.

[bjdbwea]

Ch40sFox wrote...

The Plot in my opinion, was one of the most unique I had seen in awhile, all of you can argue that to death, Im pretty sure, but itd been awhile since anything in space made by someone in the "west" actually felt right RPG wise. It had a driving purpose, it felt well paced, besides the side missions. Then ME2 came into play after so long waiting for it. At first, everything was amazing, but I realized that none of the characters interacted with each other, which I severely wished for after playing the first game. Maybe that was just my expectations of Bioware after playing both Kotor's, maybe it was something else.

Yeah. I mean, the characters were supposed to be the focus this time, right? Especially the companions? Sorry, but one hour of glory in a loyalty mission just doesn't cut it. You don't sacrifice a proper story for it. And if you make companions the focus, you better integrate them into the main story. If that means more work, and it certainly does, then of course you don't implement a full dozen of companions, but maybe half of it. And already it wouldn't have been that difficult to implement at least one conversation / confrontation between each group of companions, which would have been the absolute minimum if they already don't speak / interact during missions anymore.

The whole concept was wrong from the beginning, and the pacing in the story is wrong too. That's what surprised me perhaps most. It almost feels as if this was the game of a promising new studio, instead of the most renowned RPG and story telling experts. In almost any aspect except the technical issues, it feels as if ME 1 was the more refined successor.

[Lumikki]

There was nothing wrong in ME2 story consept. How it was executed was other matter, meaning story telling wasn't the best balanced. Too much about squad members, what cause main story feel little weak.

Yeah, those lonely super hero agaist one big enemy is so glorious story. Like the King tinked in DAO, before battle. If you want only that kind of simple stories, then fine. How ever, some of us can also enjoy more tactical story than this single hero story. Where you job is gather allies to war, agaist enemy armies, not to be superman agaist some super villain. My point, there is many good books with good stories, but different people likes different kind of stories.

I don't allways want my story to be so simple railroaded, like hunt down this big enemy person and kill it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 août 2010 - 10:52 .

[Kai Hohiro]

bjdbwea wrote...
The whole concept was wrong from the beginning, and the pacing in the story is wrong too. That's what surprised me perhaps most. It almost feels as if this was the game of a promising new studio, instead of the most renowned RPG and story telling experts. In almost any aspect except the technical issues, it feels as if ME 1 was the more refined successor.

And here's where you're wrong. Bioware is only a "story telling expert" when they are following the usual Hero's journey plot, because they have already done that plot in EVERY single of their games. So yeah they can churn out Hero's journey plots like no tomorrow, some are better (like Kotor) and some are worse (like ME1), but boiled down they're all still the same story.

ME2 was the Heist plot, which they have NEVER done before. Yes it is rough around some edges, but it is still an entirely different plot than what BW has done before. It actually takes balls to go try something new.

If you are so monotous and want to play the same goddamn story  over and over again, stick with Final Fantasy.

You cannot compare ME1s plot with ME2s they have entirely different foundations. 
I'm not saying ME2 was an absolutly perfect execution of the Heist plot, but then again neither was ME1 an outstanding version of the Hero's journey plot. And it definitly is not wrong for BW to try something different for once.

And yes the majority of ME2 is a buildup to The Heist, because that's how a heist plot works. And people around here don't understand what a different plot is, because you only know Hero's Journey plots(any previous BW and Bethesda game) and have never played anything else.
It's similar to people who have only played D&D (which is mainly hero's journey plots) play Shadowrun for the first time(which almost always consists of Heist plots) and are entirely lost and don't know what to do, because 90% of the story consists of gathering contacts, information and equipment, instead of just barging into a dungeon wielding your flaming longsword +3.

And if, like you constantly say, are a fan mainly of story and character interaction, I can't understand why you are a ME1 fanboy in the first place, because Kotor, Jade Empire and even Dragon Age did the Hero's journey plot far better than ME1.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 août 2010 - 11:21 .

[bjdbwea]

It's different, but it isn't better. There's a reason why most big movies follow some standards in structure, presentation and content of the story. BioWare didn't follow their own successful standards they'd refined over the years. And the result is worse for it.

And no, while I like JE, DA and especially KotoR a lot, I think the story in ME 1 is better. Of course also because the presentation (voiced player character plays an actual role in cutscenes) was on a whole new level.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 août 2010 - 11:32 .

[Kai Hohiro]

bjdbwea wrote...

It's different, but it isn't better. There's a reason why most big movies follow some standards in structure, presentation and content of the story. BioWare didn't follow their own successful standards they'd refined over the years. And the result is worse for it.

And no, while I like JE, DA and especially KotoR a lot, I think the story in ME 1 is better. Of course also because the presentation (voiced player character plays an actual role in cutscenes) was on a whole new level.

And there you go on with contradicting yourself again.
On one hand you keep saying ME2 was dumbed down for the mass market but then here you complain that ME2 didn't follow the standard mass market Hero's Journey plot(eventhough I'm starting to believe you don't actually know what that is). I'm not saying the Heist plot is better than the Hero's journey plot, but it's definitly not worse. You're basically arguing that BW should do nothing BUT the Hero's journey plot. That's just horribly monotone.

Also for the record a ton of "real hardcore" RPG players would be happy to explain to you that having a voiced over main character actually dumbs down the entire storytelling. Just go over to the Dragon Age2 forums, you will find enough people who complain about the PC in DA2 being voiced.
That just goes to show that there is no such thing as one unified Hardcore RPG standard. And it's fine to have different opinions and tastes, but you people denounce everything that is different as dumb or worse.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 14 août 2010 - 11:45 .

[bjdbwea]

Actually, I'm also one of those who think DA should maintain its differences. You constantly seem to be seeing contradictions where in fact there are none. As much as I love ME 1, the DA style has also its advantages, and I like it too. It's unfortunate that indeed BioWare/EA seem intent on dumbing down that series as well.

I do not think that giving the player character a voice is dumbing down though, it's just a different way. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Keep one way for the ME series, and the other for the DA series, I say. After all, BioWare promised DA would be for the fans of old.

Unfortunately, the mass market doesn't seem to appreciate having to read any text. Or at least BioWare/EA seem to think so, as actually DA sold very well.

Concerning the story in ME 1 or 2: You're right, the "heist plot" as you call it doesn't have to be worse per se. But the particular "heist plot" in ME 2 was badly thought out, has a lot of plot holes, lacks substance, depth and a few other necessary things, and the presentation is below the standard BioWare set themselves with ME 1. If you want details, I could present them once again, but actually it's all been outlined in this thread, probably several times.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 août 2010 - 12:30 .