10273 réponses à ce sujet

[shootist70]

bjdbwea wrote...

I would like if Shepard woke up in ME 3 and learned that everything from ME 2 was just a bad dream. He'd still have his old crew, ship and status, and everyone would have a good laugh at the ridiculous "explanation" for the Reaper and Collector motives that Shepard came up with in that silly dream. "Like straight out of a terribly written video game", they would say.

The reboot needs a reboot? I can agree - something about ME2 feels totally unsatisfactory - the dramatic tension has fizzled out. The build up, the rise to the crescendo, has flatlined. After giving it a bit more thought I figured out why. Surprised I didn't see it sooner.

Bioware seem to have messed up the 3 act structure they were supposedly using. Sure we've got Shephard's resolve to 'go sort this crap out' at the end of act 1 (ME1), and that's all fine and dandy so far. Act 2 (ME2) should have  involved a collapse of the plan and a hard slog back to recovery, which isn't meant to come until the end of the act. At that point Shephard should have been saying 'ok, I'm still going to go sort this crap out, but now I know I need to do it differently'.

The massive screw up occurs because the setback and reversal happens to the antagonist, not the protagonist. Ok, Shep loses the Normandy and his life, which sounds like as big a setback as you can get, but he's recovered from it as soon as the dust has settled on the opening cut-scenes. Not only that but he's now better off than ever, apparently with implants and an uber new ship. And this is all right at the start of the act. It's the poor old Reapers who are left thinking 'hang on, the writers have %**$ed something up here' as it's them that have to find a new way to open the back door into the galaxy, and have given up even on that by the end of ME2.

'So who cares?' You're thinking. Well, these conventions aren't just for the sake of it or for conformity. They're recognised ways of continually piling on dramatic tension. Now that can be damned addictive to a consumer, especially if the build up is so effective that the final resolution seems potentially explosive. The result is a viewer/player who just can't turn away. That's pretty essential if you've split your acts over a trilogy and you want your player to feel that buying the next installment is just about essential to them.

ME2 borks this as far as the series goes because the build-up has now effectively hit a plateau. We're back to exactly the same place as we were at the end of ME1 without having really learned anything new about the overall plot. There's no character transformation and no new direction as a result of real setback and hard lessons leant.  All we're left with now is a linear road-to-resolution for ME3, which is possibly going to force Bioware into some contrived and cheesy set-pieces to give the finale some impact.

Bioware seem to have taken the tension build-up from the end of ME1 and deflated it with basic bad plot management. I'm having a hard time believing that they'd do this unintentionally, not with tens of millions sunk into the project. There must be some reason for it.

Modifié par shootist70, 21 août 2010 - 01:02 .

[MassEffect762]

shootist70 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

I would like if Shepard woke up in ME 3 and learned that everything from ME 2 was just a bad dream. He'd still have his old crew, ship and status, and everyone would have a good laugh at the ridiculous "explanation" for the Reaper and Collector motives that Shepard came up with in that silly dream. "Like straight out of a terribly written video game", they would say.

The reboot needs a reboot? I can agree - something about ME2 feels totally unsatisfactory - the dramatic tension has fizzled out. The build up, the rise to the crescendo, has flatlined. After giving it a bit more thought I figured out why. Surprised I didn't see it sooner.

Bioware seem to have messed up the 3 act structure they were supposedly using. Sure we've got Shephard's resolve to 'go sort this crap out' at the end of act 1 (ME1), and that's all fine and dandy so far. Act 2 (ME2) should have  involved a collapse of the plan and a hard slog back to recovery, which isn't meant to come until the end of the act. At that point Shephard should have been saying 'ok, I'm still going to go sort this crap out, but now I know I need to do it differently'.

The massive screw up occurs because the setback and reversal happens to the antagonist, not the protagonist. Ok, Shep loses the Normandy and his life, which sounds like as big a setback as you can get, but he's recovered from it as soon as the dust has settled on the opening cut-scenes. Not only that but he's now better off than ever, apparently with implants and an uber new ship. And this is all right at the start of the act. It's the poor old Reapers who are left thinking 'hang on, the writers have %**$ed something up here' as it's them that have to find a new way to open the back door into the galaxy, and have given up even on that by the end of ME2.

'So who cares?' You're thinking. Well, these conventions aren't just for the sake of it or for conformity. They're recognised ways of continually piling on dramatic tension. Now that can be damned addictive to a consumer, especially if the build up is so effective that the final resolution seems potentially explosive. The result is a viewer/player who just can't turn away. That's pretty essential if you've split your acts over a trilogy and you want your player to feel that buying the next installment is just about essential to them.

ME2 borks this as far as the series goes because the build-up has now effectively hit a plateau. We're back to exactly the same place as we were at the end of ME1 without having really learned anything new about the overall plot. There's no character transformation and no new direction as a result of real setback and hard lessons leant.  All we're left with now is a linear road-to-resolution for ME3, which is possibly going to force Bioware into some contrived and cheesy set-pieces to give the finale some impact.

Bioware seem to have taken the tension build-up from the end of ME1 and deflated it with basic bad plot management. I'm having a hard time believing that they'd do this unintentionally, not with tens of millions sunk into the project. There must be some reason for it.

hehehe. Nice read, SO much now hangs on ME3. Should be interesting to see the pace they push with ME3s plot and how long it will run.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]
It's been my philosophy for a long time that rpgs are not about the graphics.  Otherwise gems like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment would have fallen by the wayside long ago.  More than a text box would have been nice, but hey, it beats an email [/quote]

And it's a great philosophy. I follow it as well, except when the game tells me it's introducing an innovative cinematic style. Then all arguments of graphics/cut-scenes being unimportant go right out the window. Baldur's Gate/Planescape can get away with this because they were limited technologically and don't make the same claims Mass Effect does. In this case, a paragraph of text hardly seems fitting, simply lazy especially in comparison to the long epic cut scenes we receive on Virmire or any main quest mission. It's a sign of just how little effort really was really put in developing Mass Effect's side quests that this was the final result. In this instance, I don't really consider a paragraph of text any better than an e-mail. [/quote]

Was the cinematic style a selling point for Bioware?  I just recall science fiction rpg and trilogy of imported saves.  

Anyway, something more than a paragraph would be nice.  But I can do without a scene of Shepard at a terminal, playing with an omnitool, or standing over a body.  At least there were only a few scenes of text, there were dozens of emails

 I also consider the new backgrounds of ME 2 to be an unnecessary improvement, if that makes any sense.  I mean, Mordin's recruitment mission, I couldn't tell you how detailed or unique the walls were.  Just that there were disturbingly few forks in the road.  The most interesting detail that entire run to the clinic was the sick batarian.  That I remember.  Just like I really didn't notice or care that all the labs or warehouses in ME 1 look the same. 

[quote]
In any other game I would consider them side missions.  And pretty good ones for the most part.  However, they are classified as main missions in the journal.  It's a pity that they have no real effect on the game though.  Just the "don't kill me" flag in the Suicide mission.  No changed attitude, little extra dialogue, etc.[/quote]

Which is the issue I'm having. Sure, the game calls them 'missions'. But in context, would you call Wrex's family armor a 'mission'? It fulfills the same function in the sense that it determines whether a character lives or dies, yet that is considered an assignment and none of the loyalty missions are really 'essential'. I'm even thinking if perhaps they should be placed in their own category, much like how Elder Scrolls games follow the main quest, faction quest, miscellaneous quest structure. [/quote]

I'd say Wrex's armor quest is more of a loyalty mission than the loyalty missions in ME2.  Doing that quest directly affects Wrex's behavior at a given point of the main storyline.  Wrex's Armor very much blurs the line between main quest/side quest. 

[Pocketgb]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
However, the collectors in essence were described word for word...

Yeah, when was this? I haven't read the ME books so I don't know if or when it was announced in those.

Pocketgb wrote...
Seriously, at best ME2 left the specifics of how human genetic material can create consciousness for a giant construct in the form of a human skeleton for ME3. That still means it sucks in ME2, its just ME3 has to take up the responsibility of something ME2 should have done. 

According to whom? It's not unusual to have the viewer connect the dots themselves in the beginning and middle act.

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
Yeah. originality sometimes becomes a rare treat, but thats no excuse for shoddy work. Neither is it the fact that its the second act, and they supposedly are never as good as the first and final acts.

You'll never beat nostalgia.

iakus wrote...
Was the cinematic style a selling point for Bioware?  I just recall science fiction rpg and trilogy of imported saves.  

Yeesh I sure hope so, because the 'cinematic presentation' is why they nearly gutted the role-playing part of it being an "RPG".

Modifié par Pocketgb, 21 août 2010 - 03:35 .

[Iakus]

shootist70 wrote...

The reboot needs a reboot? I can agree - something about ME2 feels totally unsatisfactory - the dramatic tension has fizzled out. The build up, the rise to the crescendo, has flatlined. After giving it a bit more thought I figured out why. Surprised I didn't see it sooner.

Bioware seem to have messed up the 3 act structure they were supposedly using. Sure we've got Shephard's resolve to 'go sort this crap out' at the end of act 1 (ME1), and that's all fine and dandy so far. Act 2 (ME2) should have  involved a collapse of the plan and a hard slog back to recovery, which isn't meant to come until the end of the act. At that point Shephard should have been saying 'ok, I'm still going to go sort this crap out, but now I know I need to do it differently'.

The massive screw up occurs because the setback and reversal happens to the antagonist, not the protagonist. Ok, Shep loses the Normandy and his life, which sounds like as big a setback as you can get, but he's recovered from it as soon as the dust has settled on the opening cut-scenes. Not only that but he's now better off than ever, apparently with implants and an uber new ship. And this is all right at the start of the act. It's the poor old Reapers who are left thinking 'hang on, the writers have %**$ed something up here' as it's them that have to find a new way to open the back door into the galaxy, and have given up even on that by the end of ME2.

'So who cares?' You're thinking. Well, these conventions aren't just for the sake of it or for conformity. They're recognised ways of continually piling on dramatic tension. Now that can be damned addictive to a consumer, especially if the build up is so effective that the final resolution seems potentially explosive. The result is a viewer/player who just can't turn away. That's pretty essential if you've split your acts over a trilogy and you want your player to feel that buying the next installment is just about essential to them.

ME2 borks this as far as the series goes because the build-up has now effectively hit a plateau. We're back to exactly the same place as we were at the end of ME1 without having really learned anything new about the overall plot. There's no character transformation and no new direction as a result of real setback and hard lessons leant.  All we're left with now is a linear road-to-resolution for ME3, which is possibly going to force Bioware into some contrived and cheesy set-pieces to give the finale some impact.

Bioware seem to have taken the tension build-up from the end of ME1 and deflated it with basic bad plot management. I'm having a hard time believing that they'd do this unintentionally, not with tens of millions sunk into the project. There must be some reason for it.

   ME 2=ME Too

I've posted before that a better opening than the death would have been Shep spending two years searching for old Prothean opr preProthean relics, weapons that might be of use against the reapers, even evidence that Reapers existed.  And failing.  Crew leaves, gets recalled,  or dies, the Normandy gets run down and shot up.  The Citadel and Alliance stop taking Shep seriously (Sovereign's dead and teh Keepers are harmless.  The galaxy is safe!)  Basically, Shep's spent all the political capital he had and it came to nothing.  Then comes TIM with a Faustian deal...

...Then at the end of the story, Shep realizes that the base was a decoy, and the Collectorsare building the Citadel 2.0 somewhere else!  Game ends with an almost-finished Citadel copy being built by a Collector work crew.  Meanwhile, in dark space, scores of Reapers begin to awaken...

[CatatonicMan]

MassEffect762 wrote...

hehehe. Nice read, SO much now hangs on ME3. Should be interesting to see the pace they push with ME3s plot and how long it will run.

At this point, ME3 will need to push the plot into orbit in a rocket assisted fashion. Nothing less will satisfy.

[Iakus]

CatatonicMan wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...

hehehe. Nice read, SO much now hangs on ME3. Should be interesting to see the pace they push with ME3s plot and how long it will run.

At this point, ME3 will need to push the plot into orbit in a rocket assisted fashion. Nothing less will satisfy.

Yes, the story will need enough awesome for two games.

Interpret that as you willl

[Fhaileas]

Great post shootist70! I could not agree more. Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”

Modifié par Fhaileas, 21 août 2010 - 04:03 .

[Epic777]

Fhaileas wrote...

Great post shootist70! I could not agree more. Usually whenever a game or film comes out, a lot of reviewers will put forward the same thought in a sort of mass critical redundancy (not that they read each other, necessarily, just that many people write up the same obvious idea). With ME2 the critical meme was “the story might not seem so epic on its own, but as the second act in a larger trilogy it’s great.”

What utter drivel! It’s a horrible second act. The second act is when the problem introduced in the first act gets worse and worse until it looks like all is lost for our heroes at the second act’s conclusion. The proper second act to follow ME1 would be Reapers taking over half the galaxy, exterminating a few of the races you met in the first game, the council being hopelessly lost in their own petty squabbles and trying to save their own races, etc., and things looking their worst right at the end of game. Maybe you have to blow up the Citadel as the Reapers start taking it over, or something like that. And half your crew dies. Roll credits!

I would like to play that kind of game, where you fought a losing fight the whole time, where you won battles but lost the war. You can still do a traditional three-act structure within my nightmare vision of the second game, but the overall story could be about you losing everything you were counting on to save you. (But you pull something together in the third game.) That would be an interesting story! But of course, they couldn’t do a crazy thing like that.

Instead, you get a second act in name only. This isn’t Act 2, this is Episode 2: More of The Same. (Plot-wise, not mechanics-wise.) After defeating the fairly overwhelming threat in ME1, you defeat a rather underwhelming threat in ME2, and now it’s humans 2, reapers (and allies) 0. The game ends with you winning, and you get a little cinematic saying “oh, they’re on their way.” So what? Act 2 is supposed to make you worried , you should have some creeping unease going on as you see the societies of your allies falling apart and Reaper influence starting to screw everything up. ME2 only contains the lightest suggestions of these kinds of things. You’re steamrolling the other side.

So yeah, I don’t think people should ever call ME2 a second act, or pretend that the trilogy has been plotted as a whole unit. Bioware’s PR people do, but nobody should listen to them.

ME3 might prove me wrong on this, but I very much doubt it. In fact, after hearing about how they’re planning to “bring some fun and lightness back into it,” I am kind of morbidly curious about what the hell they are doing. (http://www.oxm.co.uk...le.php?id=19778). The next installment will have “a lot more darkness but also a lot more humor”? Haha. What a brilliant narrative direction: “a whole lot more of everything.”

Until the BW says other wise there is no reason not to believe otherwise.
I disagree with your version of me2, it is too dramatic, for your version of me3 how would you avoid a deus ex machina ending? What would be the point in a me3 if all the questions were answered in the previous two games?

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

And I think this is a great example of how two people can have the same experiences and come to wildly different conclusions. Except for Kahoku's death, the missions were relatively straight forward. It didn't matter that these people feed humans to thresher maws, because the quest itself felt so bland and lifeless. This did not feel like a terrible black ops organization run wild. It takes more than a journal entry and a few lines of dialogue for me to feel emotion. I think this is the exact problem with using the same reused textures repeatedly. The experience becomes diluted eventually. The fact that all I received upon finding Kahoku's body was a paragraph of text is a perfect example of this.

Actually the squaddies would comment on the death too, albeit not actually in a cutscene, which was still more than you got with ME2's N7 missions that involved a silent Shepard going around to find text-boxes and datapads for the most part. Sure, there was the odd cutscene, but Shepard and his/her team were completely silent during them. Overall ME2's N7 missions were terribly lacking in polish and presentation, far much more so than ME1's UNC missions, which I actually think people are a but unfair with considering most planets had their own unique textures and skyboxes and sometimes hazards of differing levels. The way some people talk it was as if each planet had the same textures with the same skyboxes and the same hills and gullies. A lesser company would have done that, so I think we were actually lucky that BioWare went to the effort to at least make each world somewhat unique, if only visually.

[benf2004]

Epic777 wrote...

Until the BW says other wise there is no reason not to believe otherwise.
I disagree with your version of me2, it is too dramatic, for your version of me3 how would you avoid a deus ex machina ending? What would be the point in a me3 if all the questions were answered in the previous two games?

Oh no! Drama in a story-driven RPG? The horror!

But seriously, I think what Fhaileas described would have been significantly better than what was released.

Also, allow me to answer your question with a question: what is the point of ME2 if it does not advance the plot at all?
End of ME1: The Reapers' plan has been foiled, but they're still coming. Now it's up to Shepard to find a way to stop them once and for all.
End of ME2: The Reapers' plan has been foiled, but they're still coming. Now it's up to Shepard to find a way to stop them once and for all.
Sure does seem familiar...

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Was the cinematic style a selling point for Bioware?  I just recall science fiction rpg and trilogy of imported saves.  

 http://pc.ign.com/ar...0/910387p1.html

This pretty much hits home why the side quests are so terrible in general between the series, assuming we ignore loyalty missions. It's why I find the paragraph of text over Kahoku's body so lacking in depth. It's the same reason why I find the Chantry boards in Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2's emails idiotic. These games were made with the intention of focusing on voice-acting, cut-scenes, and dialogue. Instead, we're getting paragraphs of text. If Mass Effect was designed in the manner of Planescape or BG, then I would agree with you. However, this is not the case. It was intended to make use of this style.

That said, Bioware hasn't really done good side quests since Jade Empire. The ones we've received lately are short, bland, and uninspiring in comparison.

Anyway, something more than a paragraph would be nice.  But I can do without a scene of Shepard at a terminal, playing with an omnitool, or standing over a body.  At least there were only a few scenes of text, there were dozens of emails

I'm confused. You found the paragraph of text to be satisfactory to convey depth, but dozens of emails somehow are not? I thought your point in the last post was that you don't need high powered graphics, spoken dialogue,etc, in order to have depth driven home? In this case, shouldn't we regard emails as being satisfactory? 

 I also consider the new backgrounds of ME 2 to be an unnecessary improvement, if that makes any sense.  I mean, Mordin's recruitment mission, I couldn't tell you how detailed or unique the walls were.  Just that there were disturbingly few forks in the road.  The most interesting detail that entire run to the clinic was the sick batarian.  That I remember.  Just like I really didn't notice or care that all the labs or warehouses in ME 1 look the same. 

And I felt differently at this point. Sure, the architecture isn't usually the first thing on my mind. But once I've run past it 10 or more times across a dozen different parents, all quests become the sames. The walls don't need to be extremely detailed or unique, but rehashing the same exact four walled room doesn't help build atmosphere. I didn't feel like I was infiltrating a top secret military organization (Cerberus) to obtain revenge for Kahoku simply because a paragraph of text told me I was doing so. I need something more by way of intellectual, emotional, or any other value if it is to be considered 'deep'. 

I'd say Wrex's armor quest is more of a loyalty mission than the loyalty missions in ME2.  Doing that quest directly affects Wrex's behavior at a given point of the main storyline.  Wrex's Armor very much blurs the line between main quest/side quest. 

Wrex's loyalty mission basically lowers the number of points needed in charm/intimidate in order to convince Wrex to back down, if I recall. If it were truly a 'loyalty' marker, it might have done a bit more than change two lines of dialogue in the Wrex encounter. Regardless, I think it's more accurate to describe the loyalty missions as "focus missions" than anything else. My point was should these be considered main quest or side quest.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2010 - 07:32 .

[Solaris Paradox]

If going through fifteen unique-yet-linear environments is somehow moreannoying to you than going through the same three tiny, three-room buildings fifteen times each, I suggest you re-evaluate your taste in entertainment.

EDIT: @#$%ing typo.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 21 août 2010 - 07:21 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Actually the squaddies would comment on the death too, albeit not actually in a cutscene, which was still more than you got with ME2's N7 missions that involved a silent Shepard going around to find text-boxes and datapads for the most part. Sure, there was the odd cutscene, but Shepard and his/her team were completely silent during them. Overall ME2's N7 missions were terribly lacking in polish and presentation, far much more so than ME1's UNC missions, which I actually think people are a but unfair with considering most planets had their own unique textures and skyboxes and sometimes hazards of differing levels. The way some people talk it was as if each planet had the same textures with the same skyboxes and the same hills and gullies. A lesser company would have done that, so I think we were actually lucky that BioWare went to the effort to at least make each world somewhat unique, if only visually.

Garrus: "Shepard, it's Admiral Kahoku. He's dead".

That was the extent of it. And how am I being unfair to Mass Effect's UNC missions? Did planets even have their own unique textures? If so, I didn't notice. They certainly felt generic. They certainly looked generic. They certainly didn't fill any special function, at least not that I could see. I never had to spend enough time outside the Mako for hazards to matter.

In fact, if Bioware really did go through the effort you are describing, then I would have preferred that they had spent that time to create more interesting side quests than the ones we received. I find the same Turian Insignias, rare elements, or whatever that I do on any other planet. I receive the same generic mako landing sequence every time I reach a planet. I make the same beeline for the mercenary base or whatever when I land. I take out the same generic room of enemies. Sure, Mass Effect 2's side quests (loyalty missions aside) suck pretty hard too. Sequences look like this: land, kill stuff, journal entry. But I still don't see what other people do when they talk about Mass Effect's side quests.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2010 - 07:30 .

[Il Divo]

Fhaileas wrote...

Any species (be that biological or artificial) should be considered insane and retarded (by a broad set of standards) the moment it attempts to make a mech-like avatar creation for itself all while harvesting a biological material from random biological specimens from around the galaxy.

First and foremost, it is extremely inefficient, expensive and not very secretive. After all you will be kidnapping and killing a lot of specimens, traveling around the galaxy in easily recognizable ship, attacking foreign points of interest, all while possessing perfect cloning technology (able to create and raise a perfect Krogan within a week), ample time, good base of operation and limitless resources. Why?

Terror? You were doing just fine so far, Sovereign truly delivered some terror and “his” “little” operation caused tons of damage and destabilization on a Galactic scale... all while blaming it on Geth.

War? You want to wage war on biological species? Nuke their planets, introduce viral agents into the population... tactics like that are just fine if your intention is to actually wipe them out.

Control? You have the power of indoctrination and a species of Collectors that you can “remotely control” with little to no margin of error.

I honestly cannot see the point to any of their actions apart from that of creating a second rate story line for a sequel which is a considerable disappointment considering the potential that the original Mass Effect had... and still does. This isn’t Star Wars without the actual Star Wars license, where the bad guys are evil for the sake of being evil and providing the villain for the story. This is art, after all Bioware have flogged this line over and over before, stating that they see their games as art and it is how they approach their design. Well I suppose drawings on a popcorn cup sold at McDonalds could be considered as an art by a 3 years old (if they were the target audience).

Of course one could present a counter argument by stating that “we are not supposed to understand how the Reapers think, reason and operate”. Unfortunately it is a flawed argument. Let me assure you that if a dog chases a cat out of the window from the 8th floor and falls to its death while doing so, there is no greater purpose or thinking process in here... just stupidity. One can design a powerful, secretive yet difficult to understand species without falling back on retarded ideas riddled with plot holes (just read Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War).

The Reapers have devolved from intergalactic terror (in ME1) to a bad game play and plot excuse (in ME2)... and one has to wonder who is it that we have to thank for it. Considering that the same writer was responsible for both story lines, it makes me wonder if we will get the Reaper plush toy with a CE of ME3 just to prove my point. Reapers are like Borg, when Borg was first introduced in The Next Generation, they were The Galactic Terror, one ship taking out entire fleets, destroying worlds... then they grew in numbers and devolved to a nuisance in The Voyager... now, no one takes them seriously... unless of course the story calls for it.

If Sovereign was the standard by which one could measure The Reaper then Harbinger must be the defunct, blue screening version of its species.

Uhh, great? I'm not certain I understand what my post had to do with your response here. I pointed out that downloading humans onto computers is just as easy for the human mind to understand as organic-machine hybrids. Neither idea strikes me as incredibly complicated.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 août 2010 - 07:31 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Garrus: "Shepard, it's Admiral Kahoku. He's dead".

That was the extent of it.

Still more than any of the N7 missions got from squaddies. Beyond a few small cases of some saying some generic phrases that didn't directly reference anything. My personal favourite was the group of mercs who communicated urgently to each other via written, passed around datapads rather than... y'know... yelling orders vocally or anything like that. "Oh my God! Shepard' here! Quick, write down some notes and run them around from merc to merc! No, wait... belay that order. I'll put it in writing rather than tell you."

And how am I being unfair to Mass Effect's UNC missions? Did planets even have their own unique textures? If so, I didn't notice. They certainly felt generic. They certainly looked generic. They certainly didn't fill any special function, at least not that I could see. I never had to spend enough time outside the Mako for hazards to matter.

What, so you didn't notice that there were ice planets, desert planets, rock planets, dust planets, volacanic planets, grass planets, salt-flat planets, etc? You didn't notice some had massive moons or nearby planets in the sky, or rings, or debris burning up in the atmosphere, or floating pollen, or a flurry of snow, or dust-storms, or
lightning, etc?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally found them all very atmospheric and loved the big, open emptiness of them. It made the universe feel big and empty. ME2's N7 equivalents made the universe feel small and overpopulated. There just wasn't the sense of scale there at all any more that the UNC missions provided. Hell... even Noveria once you left Port Hanshan or Feros once you were in The Mako felt epic in scale. Same with Therum, but then that was almost like the middleground with the styings of a UNC world but larger in scale and more unique, albeit rather linear (though we must remember that there was a cut hub area in it initially).

That's kind of why exploration was completely lost in ME2. In the original game it actually felt like you were exploring, while ME2 was more like just going places hundreds of people had already been, and on top of it all felt small and cramped. That doesn't mean places like Illium and Omega weren't fantastic, but when everywhere feels populated and "special" it loses that sense of exploration and scale entirely.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

nope, not a bit disappointing (played the game to get the results I want)... zorah the quarian is a permanent crew member now. mass effect 2 = great. all survived.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 21 août 2010 - 08:05 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Il Divo wrote...

And how am I being unfair to Mass Effect's UNC missions? Did planets even have their own unique textures? If so, I didn't notice. They certainly felt generic. They certainly looked generic. They certainly didn't fill any special function, at least not that I could see. I never had to spend enough time outside the Mako for hazards to matter.

They did have unique textures, and views of space--sometimes quite stunning. Some had their own weather conditions, and the mountain formations varried from world to world--some rounder or flatter, others steeper or pointier, and this did affect how much difficulty one had in manuevering the Mako along the straightest route to one's destination. Really, if the missions and the buildings they took place in had been more interesting, the planets could have been tolerable. And although a lot of missions didn't have dialogue, quite a few did.

Unfortunately, the Four-Room Warehouse (as well as its little brother, the Four-Room Laboratory, and its lesser-known cousin, the Mine With Tunnels) were so blatantly recycled that it was painful to play through them after a while, and moonbuggying over mountains by itself can only enthrall for so long. It didn't help that the Mako's handling could have been better.

[bjdbwea]

Very good posts, shootist70 and Fhaileas.

And that's also my biggest complaint with ME 2: The very bad story and presentation thereof. They can keep all that dumbed down gameplay for all I care, if only at least the story gets back on a proper track.

But the video gaming industry never had many really good writers in the first place. And BioWare now needs writer(s) who can recover the story from the bad position they've maneuvered it in. I do think they'd need someone else to assist for that, Mr. Karpyshyn should probably be the lead writer (and not only by name) again, if we assume that the story in ME 1 was mostly the result of his work.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 août 2010 - 10:51 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

bjdbwea wrote...

Very good posts, shootist70 and Fhaileas.

And that's also my biggest complaint with ME 2: The very bad story and presentation thereof. They can keep all that dumbed down gameplay for all I care, if only at least the story gets back on a proper track.

But the video gaming industry never had many really good writers in the first place. And BioWare now needs writer(s) who can recover the story from the bad position they've maneuvered it in. I do think they'd need someone else to assist for that, Mr. Karpyshyn should probably be the lead writer (and not only by name) again, if we assume that the story in ME 1 was mostly the result of his work.

Im not one to believe Drew Karpyshyn riding back on a white stallion to save the day is going to make much of a difference.

Personally Im resigned to hoping that ME2 was so barren when it came to good ideas and storytelling because they are saving most of the big stuff for ME3.

Like you, I could possibly survive if the gameplay didnt change much (Id still dislike the game for it immensely though), but its getting story back to the top spot in ME3 that I want to see. I want to see a return to a "lets not ****** our pants if we put the gamer in a position where combat isnt necessary for a prolonged period of time" kind of attitude. I much preferred that to treating the player like a ****** and assuming if they arent spoonfed combat every fifteen minutes theyll loose interest.

Basically though, I dont tend to blame individual writers for any of the games failings or think that returning some past names might make a huge difference, because I dont know these people or what they were really involved in. Im just hoping that, as a team, Bioware has at least saved the best writing for last, and are going to make sure in ME3 it takes centre stage (rather than shooter combat doing so a second time running). I have to feel that way because honestly, after ME2, I think this "trilogy" needs it.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 21 août 2010 - 11:14 .

[Kriztaen]

shootist70 wrote...

Not only that but he's now better off than ever, apparently with implants and an uber new ship.

I agree on having an uber new ship and implants....but better than ever? My Sentinel would like to disagree, honestly compared to ME1 my Sentinel felt like he had taken about 20 steps backwards. My Engineer felt about the same just with better guns and a Drone so...my Engineer is better than before but..... *angry face over his poor Sentinel*

I miss being able to lift someone into the air then toss them across the room to slam into a wall and if they somehow survive to make their own gun blow up in their face. Oh and not having to worry about doing all that without needing to take down their defenses. I always felt the whole "can't use 8/10 powers before removing protections" thing just plain freaking annoying.

[Solaris Paradox]

Plotholes my arse. The only real weakness in the main plot of Mass Effect 2 is how utterly convenient the Derelict Reaper was. It's somehow okay to make a galaxy-terror fleet of starships that routinely grows and obliterates galactic society for the reason of "WE ARE TOO HIGH MIGHTY AND COMPLICATED FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND, SHEPARD," but make them take actions that cause one to puzzle and suddenly it's a plothole. Bah. And it's fine if they're harvesting, but if they're actually HARVESTING, that's no good. There are more plotholes in this disappointment thread than there are in the game itself. >_>



And trying to compare Sovereign to Harbinger is like trying to compare a street cop to a 911 operator. You're comparing a Reaper that personally flew in and blew stuff up to a Reaper who's sitting somewhere out in dark-space broadcasting thoughts and orders over some wireless connection to a pack of thralls, and then trying to say that Harbinger is somehow inferior. Why, exactly?



Now here's something that bugs me. People seem to think that the Collectors possess "perfect cloning technology" with which to clone millions of humans based on some krogan who got some cloning tech off of the Collectors and produced exactly ONE successful clone plus a bunch of failures that didn't come out the way he wanted them to. And where this "limitless resources" bull comes from, I have no idea. I suppose when they need palladium they just visit one of the nearby black holes or ask a supernova for a cup of sugar, because there are oh-so-many resources to be found in the galactic core.



Let me ask you: if you know that there's a quick, dirty route to getting what you want, are reasonably confident you can avoid a lot of trouble and are equally confidant you can deal with what trouble you can't avoid, why would you instead opt to choose the costly method that takes ten times as long? Because you might get a boo-boo? Because you just care oh-so-much about your mindless slaves? Or maybe you're just afraid you'll feel the gunshot wound out in dark-space when someone scores a lucky shot on whichever Collector you're currently Assuming Direct Control over.

[Solaris Paradox]

Kriztaen wrote...

I miss being able to lift someone into the air then toss them across the room to slam into a wall and if they somehow survive to make their own gun blow up in their face. Oh and not having to worry about doing all that without needing to take down their defenses. I always felt the whole "can't use 8/10 powers before removing protections" thing just plain freaking annoying.

Yeah, that was annoying. That said, my Soldier did in fact feel "better than ever."

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Pocketgb wrote...

Yeah, when was this? I haven't read the ME books so I don't know if or when it was announced in those.

Talk to vigil about the years leading up to the prothean extinction. The only difference between the slaves he talks about there and the collectors are appearances. What the reapers do with them is the same. Point being, saying "my god, the protheans didnt vanish (stupid, stupid, stupid - why?) theyre just tools for the reapers now" is unnecessary. Yup Sheppy, we already knew that, since we spoke to Vigil ourselves. (Guess this is Bioware catering to the "Im too thick and lazy to play the first chapter" crowd again).

But of course, since the writers cant even remember what world Shepard spoke to sovereign on (No legion, thats virmire, not Ilos), Im not suprised they would forget that certain fans were already well aware of the reapers using organics as their tools, so learning of the collectors isnt some huge shock.

Pocketgb wrote...

According to whom? It's not unusual to have the viewer connect the dots themselves in the beginning and middle act.

According to players who have a desire to see something take care of its own plot elements. There is a difference between creating links to a following chapter (geth and quarian potential war for example) and just plain leaving things unfinished.

Pocketgb wrote...
You'll never beat nostalgia.

Sure you will. Baldurs Gate II beat my desire for a feeling of nostalgia for BG 1 and its great worldmap and main city to death under the sheer weight of its awesomeness. Yeah, I might have missed the beautiful connectedness of Baldurs Gate compared to the shoddy patch up of Amns districts, and yes I may have missed wandering around maps in the wilderness built specifically for player wanderings, but that desire for nostalgia was crushed under the weight of such an amazing plot and wonderful lifelike characters.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 21 août 2010 - 11:34 .

[bjdbwea]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Im not one to believe Drew Karpyshyn riding back on a white stallion to save the day is going to make much of a difference.

Yeah, I'm also not having any illusions about that. A proper writer would of course be the first thing they need if there's to be any hope of delivering a proper finale to this series.

But other things are required too:

BioWare/EA need to give their development team the time they need this time. Because even the best writer can't deliver a fantastic story in no time. But more importantly, the programmers and animators need to have the time to implement the story. Otherwise, you end up with a story being told through repetitive meetings between Shepard and TIM in a bland office, with no other NPC playing any role, and with text boxes instead of dialogue when it comes to weaving in old NPCs and distributing side quests. (To name only two obvious examples of cut corners due to time constraints.)

BioWare/EA need to give their writers the artistic freedom they require. No more "this is too complex", or "cut down on dialogue, players want to get to the shooting", or "forget coherence, we need a more flashy cutscene", or "that's not approved, we don't want the media to attack us again", or "market research shows that casual gamers prefer conveniently palatable, independent and unconnected episodes", or whatever else the writers, as I have no doubt, were told. Give them freedom.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 août 2010 - 11:57 .