10273 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

That's a much better idea of a story that you wrote there. But the problem is not that killing the protagonist was a bad idea. It's not the best idea, but it can provide interesting topics. You just have to follow up on it. But - nothing. Shepard doesn't really care, no one else cares, it's barely ever mentioned again. Terrible!

If for whatever reason you aren't going to follow up on it, then don't kill the protagonist in the first place. And right there above this post someone on the internet who doesn't even get paid for it wrote a better introduction to ME 2 in a few minutes. I wonder what the writers at BioWare think about that?

Or did they really think it was necessary to write this bad plot device just to be able to reset the gameplay mechanics? You know, it would have been better to just do it. No need to sacrifice proper writing for it.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 août 2010 - 11:02 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's a much better idea of a story that you wrote there. But the problem is not that killing the protagonist was a bad idea. It's not the best idea, but it can provide interesting topics. You just have to follow up on it. But - nothing. Shepard doesn't really care, no on else cares, it's barely ever mentioned again. Terrible!

Thats right.Maybee they had to look at other,better examples,like babylon 5.

[Iakus]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's a much better idea of a story that you wrote there. But the problem is not that killing the protagonist was a bad idea. It's not the best idea, but it can provide interesting topics. You just have to follow up on it. But - nothing. Shepard doesn't really care, no on else cares, it's barely ever mentioned again. Terrible!

If for whatever reason you aren't going to follow up on it, then don't kill the protagonist in the first place. And right there above this post someone on the internet who doesn't even get paid for it wrote a better introduction to ME 2 in a few minutes. I wonder what the writers at BioWare think about that?

Or did they really think it was necessary to write this bad plot device just to be able to reset the gameplay mechanics? You know, it would have been better to just do it. No need to sacrifice proper writing for it.

That's part of it too.  Death, whatever era you live in, is a Big Deal.  Sure nowadays we can revive people whose heart has stopped for a short time.  In the future modern medicine will no doubt go further but...

Exposure to vacuum
Suffocation
impact with planet (with or without atmosphere is little more than semantics at this point)
being dead for two years

...is just plain overkill (haha)

And no one makes a big deal out of it besides the price tag. 

Nothing on how it is physically possible to bring Shep back, Not just the body but with all memories intact.   Yeah yeah two years and billions of credits.  That just resources.  What about process?  Prothean gizmos?   Modified asari or salarian techniques?  Krogan stem cells?  Cerberus experiment gone right for once?  Dare I suggest...Reaper tech?

But really, we all know it was done with a "Phased Linear Oscillation Transducer" 

Nothing on what kind of mental/psychological strain that must be.  I mean, geez, Shep prolly needs a "focus mission" too!  Questions like "Am I still me?"  "Why do I get a second chance?"  "Am I sure Cerberus didn't put a chip in my head?"  Even "I wonder if I can get a book deal out of this"

Nothing on the metaphysical/spiritual/religious aspects of it.  Your Shep may or may not be religious.  But some of the crew is.   Mordin and Thane spring immediately to mind.  And let's face it, it would make total sense for someone to ask Shep "Did you see a light?"  Even if Shep dodged the question (with or without input from the player), it's a natural question to ask. 

We may be delving into topics too deep for a video game.  Particuarly one with a strong action/adventure slant to it.  But if you're gonna use death as part of the narrative, you better be willing to run with it. 

[Darth Drago]

Kappa Neko wrote...
I was so disappointed with Zaeed. No recruiting. He's just standing there on Omega at the entrance. His loyal mission takes about 20 minutes or something. His personality is awful....I'm so glad I got this guy for free. Wouldn't pay a cent for him! Never bothered getting Kasumi.

Kasumi is exactly the same way, no recruiting mission. You pick her up just like Zaeed but with a little more flair on her part.

At least with Dragon Age Origins with Shale you had to go get her and only after finishing a quest as well. But it certainly isn’t worth paying 1200 Microsoft Points or $15 for if you didn’t get it for free.

Both Zaeed and Kasumi are pretty good squad mates but I just wish BioWare took the time to bother making them to par with the rest of the squad in regards to recruiting missions, loyalty missions and dialog.

Zaeed I’ll give credit for having a nasty renegade route for his loyalty mission and for even being able to leave him behind to die. His lack of any actual dialog wheel options (used by everyone else you talk to) is an issue though even if he has some interesting things to say.

Kasumi was interesting with the way her loyalty mission begins but you are never given a real paragon/renegade choice to go on this one. Sorry but telling her how to resolve the “memories” does not count or come close to anything. Just like Zaeed she has no dialog wheel for talking and just spouts out bits of random dialog. Her room on the Normandy is missing an EDI interface thing that really makes it seem half thought out on in design when you consider the other observation room has one. The adding of a bar just didn’t make any sense as well since we are supposed to be on a mission to save the galaxy not get drunk with dumb EDI dialog to boot.

[bjdbwea]

iakus wrote...

Nothing on what kind of mental/psychological strain that must be. I mean, geez, Shep prolly needs a "focus mission" too! Questions like "Am I still me?" "Why do I get a second chance?" "Am I sure Cerberus didn't put a chip in my head?" Even "I wonder if I can get a book deal out of this"

Nothing on the metaphysical/spiritual/religious aspects of it. Your Shep may or may not be religious.  But some of the crew is. Mordin and Thane spring immediately to mind. And let's face it, it would make total sense for someone to ask Shep "Did you see a light?" Even if Shep dodged the question (with or without input from the player), it's a natural question to ask.

We may be delving into topics too deep for a video game. Particuarly one with a strong action/adventure slant to it.  But if you're gonna use death as part of the narrative, you better be willing to run with it. 

This, absolutely. Exactly what I meant. There are very obvious questions that would arise, and not even the toughest soldier would just shrug them off. Not only would it have provided the perfect opportunity for the writers to put some much needed depth into the game, it would also have allowed us to give some much needed character to our Shepard.

But no one cares. Shepard is like throughout most of the game anyway, the companions only care about their own problems, the old LIs we can't even talk to properly, Chakwas comes close but doesn't ask any meaningful question after all, a journal where Shepard might write something down doesn't exist. That leaves Kelly, who does care about Shepard, but an actual discussion doesn't really take place either.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 24 août 2010 - 11:19 .

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

That's a much better idea of a story that you wrote there. But the problem is not that killing the protagonist was a bad idea. It's not the best idea, but it can provide interesting topics. You just have to follow up on it. But - nothing. Shepard doesn't really care, no on else cares, it's barely ever mentioned again. Terrible!

Thats right.Maybee they had to look at other,better examples,like babylon 5.

"You're not embracing life, you're fleeing death!  So you're caught in-between.  Unable to go forward or backward.  Your friends need what you can be when you're no longer afraid.  When you know who you are and why you are and what you want...  It's easy to find something worth dying for.  Do you have anything worth living for?"

Lorien.   Babylon 5 "Whatever Happened to Mr Garibaldi?"

That's how you handle the death of a protagonist.

Personal missions too.  Coincidence?

But then "Unable to go forward or backward" is kinda ME 2 in a nutshell, isn't it?

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Deus Ex got the blend. It just didn't get the gameplay, imo. Mass Effect however doesn't quite get the blend or the gameplay (which is very clunky). The inventory really is the worst offender in this regard for multiple reasons, such as pacing. Fps/tps genres are generally fast-paced (contrary to the rpg genre). On the other hand, Mass Effect's inventory does not please me as an rpg fan (since it's only an omni-gel machine imo) and it ruins the game's pacing for me as a tps fan. It doesn't please in either respect, so I don't see its purpose.

I still think Deus Ex got both personally. And I still think ME1 got the blend about right too, but just not the gameplay. ME2 didn't get either right, even if the core gameplay was... well, I can't really say "better" but I suppose "less flawed" would fit, if you get my meaning? Even in the gameplay itself while I admit that the change from stat-based shooter mechanics to purely aim-based ones was a step in the right direction I can't say the same for other changes and some of it was a case of taking the right idea too far. The combat is more functional, yes, but I also find it more generic and plain, and that it doesn't take full advantage of the mechanics and the tools at its disposal.

Again, I fully believe that while ME2's gameplay has less issues from a technical standpoint, this is because everything was so overly simplified and it's basically a case of less being broken because there's less there to be broken. And in my mind that's not an improvement for Mass Effect. In a sense ME2 became more functional by tipping the balance away from the things that gummed up the works, and that was the RPG side of things, and by tipping that balance away it got further away from that perfect blend. That's why I feel ME1 had the blend better and closer, and it was merely the execution that let it down.

There's also the issue of why a highly advanced super soldier is looting weak pistols off mercenaries?  

Funny... now that Deus Ex has come into the topic I have to call people on this. I mean, did people complain about J.C. Denton being inadequate in the early levels and not being able to do everything well? Almost all complaints about Shepard and his early-level based inadequacies and what he does could be applied there as well. I mean, Mass Effect is not the first RPG to put you in control of an apparent badass and stick you at level 1 and make you do seemingly trivial things given the character, but it's definitely the first one I've seen people whine about and use as an excuse to knock the mechanics. And remember, we still need to have progression somehow, or there's no growth at all.

Also, as a side note, I'd be all for looting a so-called "weak" pistol of a merc if I could get my hands on an old ME1 style one that didn't need those damn thermal clips.

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...


"You're not embracing life, you're fleeing death!  So you're caught in-between.  Unable to go forward or backward.  Your friends need what you can be when you're no longer afraid.  When you know who you are and why you are and what you want...  It's easy to find something worth dying for.  Do you have anything worth living for?"

Lorien.   Babylon 5 "Whatever Happened to Mr Garibaldi?"

That's how you handle the death of a protagonist.

Right.And all that in a 45 minutes episode in comparison to this "character drive game"(guess shepardt isnt a important character) with
a lenght of 40 ours.
Even something cliche,like the light/tunnel and talking with jenkins would be better then absolutly nothing.At least this could be something to laugh about.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...
 Almost all complaints about Shepard and his early-level based inadequacies and what he does could be applied there as well.

Nether understood the complaints anyway.Unlike in the rpgs off the past,the enemies leveled with shepardt,so there werent enemies far more powerfull that could only be engaged after reaching a certain level.

Those people should play on casual if they want that shepardts is an untouchable killing machine.

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

iakus wrote...


"You're not embracing life, you're fleeing death!  So you're caught in-between.  Unable to go forward or backward.  Your friends need what you can be when you're no longer afraid.  When you know who you are and why you are and what you want...  It's easy to find something worth dying for.  Do you have anything worth living for?"

Lorien.   Babylon 5 "Whatever Happened to Mr Garibaldi?"

That's how you handle the death of a protagonist.

Right.And all that in a 45 minutes episode in comparison to this "character drive game"(guess shepardt isnt a important character) with
a lenght of 40 ours.
Even something cliche,like the light/tunnel and talking with jenkins would be better then absolutly nothing.At least this could be something to laugh about.

Eh, my vote would be Saren.  Maybe his (no longer indoctinated) ghost.  Maybe just Shepard's impressions of what he might have been like before Sovereign got its hooks in him. 

[Terror_K]

I just found this article, which I thought was interesting. I'll quote the part directly which I think has a lot of truth to it... sadly, and relates to ME2 and the direction it took:-

The article above wrote...

Waning Influence?

In some ways, the 4th edition of D&D mirrors the development of
RPGs. Today's games are stepping away from their traditional roots, and
Wizards of the Coast did the same with the D&D's 4th edition.
"D&D of today seems influenced by MMOs and video games," Brathwaite
says. "Interestingly enough, the role of influenced and influence has
shifted."


Evans points out that today's video game RPGs are moving away from
D&D because of changing tastes and structural differences. "Back
when gaming was more of a closet hobby, developers made games primarily
based on what they loved to play. So RPGs of that time were turn-based
and tactical, just like D&D," Evans says. "Fast forward 20 years...
D&D is still turn-based and tactical, but almost all modern RPGs are
moving farther away from these roots."


Evans says the changes are happening because of two reasons: "It's what
the majority of gamers want," noting that RPG players make up a small
fraction of the market for video games -- World of Warcraft not
withstanding. "And while some players (myself included) see 'RPG' as a
badge of honor, many other gamers seem to think RPG is a dirty word.
This is, of course, contradictory, since more and more games have been
subtly including RPG elements, such as how you upgrade your weapons in
Ratchet & Clank and God of War. However, these games take care to not
brand themselves as RPGs, in order to avoid alienating non-RPG gamers.
In order for the RPG market to survive and prosper, this perception
needs to shift." He notes this as the reason for such things as the
disappearance of the inventory system in Mass Effect 2 and Alpha
Protocol's Dialogue Stance System.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 août 2010 - 05:08 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

How ever, the point of poster was that Shepard looting has become more reasonable in ME2. In ME1 Shepard looted all, even stuff what had zero use for Shepard. In ME2 Shepard loots, ammos, money and new advancements. Those are reasonable looting.

Not from merc groups.(and look first which post i answered). Cerberus not only money,but also advanced tech.
Some equivalent to spectre gear would make sense that shepardt get from cerberus.Not some crappy damage upgrade
from eclipse for smgs or temptest(funny,quarian ground troops had better weapons then shepardt).

So, what you want is no looting at all?

Because that is what you are complaining.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I just found this article, which I thought was interesting. I'll quote the part directly which I think has a lot of truth to it... sadly, and relates to ME2 and the direction it took:-

The observation was correct, the RPG in games is shifting.

How ever, the reasons why it's doing it, is incorrect. The difference is between thinking, that traditional RPG is only way to roleplay. That's not true. Games are moving away from traditional RPG, because todays computer technology can do alot better than just turn based dice rolling. Computer technology is starting to reach the cap where it's more closer to interactive movie than some board game. So the question is should we stay same forever, just for RPG's history sake or seek new more modern ways to roleplay in games.

History

In early age children often roleplayed, like playing robbers and cops in garden. How ever, weather wasn't allways good for playing, so we needed ability play it in inside houses. That's how board games was born. They provided rules how to play, so that possible arguments, what can be done and can't, could be solved. When computer age started, computers where very simple and had very low graphics capacity. How ever, they where good enough to run simulation of board games. So, that's how RPG was born. Now days computers can simulate npcs alot better, they aren't anymore just simple numbers. They have movements, voices and simulated enviroment. So, next logical step is virtual roleplaying.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 août 2010 - 07:08 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I just found this article, which I thought was interesting. I'll quote the part directly which I think has a lot of truth to it... sadly, and relates to ME2 and the direction it took:-

The observation was correct, the RPG in games is shifting.

How ever, the reasons why it's doing it, is incorrect. The difference is between thinking, that traditional RPG is only way to roleplay. That's not true. Games are moving away from traditional RPG, because todays computer technology can do alot better than just turn based dice rolling. Computer technology is starting to reach the cap where it's more closer to interactive movie than some board game. So the question is should we stay same forever, just for RPG's history sake or seek new more modern ways to roleplay in games.

That would all be very well if cRPGs were finding better, more efficient ways to give us the same things, but they're not. They're just either doing everything for us without input from the player or they're cutting out the options or any semblance of depth entirely.

That's why I can never accept the term "streamlining" when people speak of what ME2 did, because I don't think the definition fits. Streamlining is giving us the same things in a more efficient, user-friendly manner. ME2 didn't do this at all much, which is why I think the term "dumbing down" fits better, even if it does sound a little insulting. If the shoe fits, and all that... if somebody can come up with a better term then I'll be happy to use it, but "streamlining" just doesn't fit the bill. ME2 was simplified for the masses for the very reasons pointed out in the article: RPGs are scary for today's modern gamer, because gaming isn't the niche nerd hobby it once was.

[Lumikki]

Sorry Terror_K, but I just disagree with you. You are too stuck your own idea what roleplaying is. You think traditional RPG is only way to roleplay, when it's not. Traditional RPG was just one tool for roleplaying. You may not like where current roleplaying is going in games, but let me say this clear. It's unavoidable and there is nothing what you can do about it. You just can't stop progress to happen.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
That's why I can never accept the term "streamlining" when people speak of what ME2 did, because I don't think the definition fits. Streamlining is giving us the same things in a more efficient, user-friendly manner.

The inventory was completely basic and the progression was bloated with filler. The only thing we missed out on was more button presses.

Bear in mind that you're advocating that ME2 is 'dumbed-down' from ME1, the original of which wasn't terribly in-depth in the first place.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 août 2010 - 08:36 .

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 was simplified for the masses for the very reasons pointed out in the article: RPGs are scary for today's modern gamer, because gaming isn't the niche nerd hobby it once was.

Yet still Fallout 3 sold very well. Okay, it's not the turn-based Fallout of old anymore, but it still calls itself an RPG, offers an inventory and a lot of abilities and talents. DA apparently sold better than ME 2. What does that say? The market for proper RPGs is still there, even in this increasingly superficial society.

But I think that it's not just a case of "the market wants it". I rather think that the companies and the media are actively shaping what the mainstream wants. First, by not providing alternatives in the first place. Thereby, what they say people want, is the only thing people can buy anyway, "proving" them right. Second, by constantly telling them "you need this, this is cool, this is the way to go." They do this not because they actually believe that, but because the resulting games are cheaper and quicker to produce.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 25 août 2010 - 10:00 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...
Yet still Fallout 3 sold very well...

Well yeah, it's a sandbox game set in a post-apocalyptic setting. I'd say a 'non-traditional' setting if it weren't for the fact that everyone's going post-apocalytpic these days.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...


Yet still Fallout 3 sold very well. Okay, it's not the turn-based Fallout of old anymore, but it still calls itself an RPG, offers an inventory and a lot of abilities and talents.

Right:Fallout 3 even have such "annoying" things like the need to repair weapons and armor.I just imagine how most shooter players would react if they had to do such things in their games...
Wouldnt be so wrong if Mass Effect had such things too.That would be the ideal purpose for omni gel.

Modifié par tonnactus, 25 août 2010 - 10:07 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Pocketgb wrote...

Bear in mind that you're advocating that ME2 is 'dumbed-down' from ME1, the original of which wasn't terribly in-depth in the first place.

Yes, thats exactly the point. Nobody but nobody advocates ME1 as the shining beacon of RPG complexity. A massive chunk of the game was TPS. There is no avoiding it. However, do you not see the point in that if ME1 was already a "streamlined" RPG/Shooter experience, we have every right to be upset when Bioware taks that already thin and precarious formula and turns it into an out an out shooter with only the most pathetic RPG lip service?

I got a clunky, flawed RPG experience with ME1 that had a huge dose of TPS injected in, but it still left me feeling the same way I felt playing any other Bioware RPG. Obviously I was left with enough RPG so that I could tolerate the injection of TPS.

ME2 didnt even come close. I felt and still feels like Im playing a generic Gears of War ripoff, where the shooting is the most important facet of the entire game.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 25 août 2010 - 10:16 .

[shootist70]

Terror_K wrote...

I
That would all be very well if cRPGs were finding better, more efficient ways to give us the same things, but they're not. They're just either doing everything for us without input from the player or they're cutting out the options or any semblance of depth entirely.

That's why I can never accept the term "streamlining" when people speak of what ME2 did, because I don't think the definition fits. Streamlining is giving us the same things in a more efficient, user-friendly manner. ME2 didn't do this at all much, which is why I think the term "dumbing down" fits better, even if it does sound a little insulting. If the shoe fits, and all that... if somebody can come up with a better term then I'll be happy to use it, but "streamlining" just doesn't fit the bill. ME2 was simplified for the masses for the very reasons pointed out in the article: RPGs are scary for today's modern gamer, because gaming isn't the niche nerd hobby it once was.

Bioware are smartening up gameplaying in general and RPG's in particular, let me explain. RPG's were never mainstream gaming even before this alleged 'dumbing down' took place. That's because they were choked with detail, not depth. Now, when creative genres are dumbed down it's when they're having any meaningful subtext stripped from them to focus on pure entertainment value. RPG's never had that sort of depth, they just had pure entertainment value that was sadly bogged down with detail. Asserting 'dumbed down' in this context is like asserting that only an intellectual can be a car mechanic. 

Dumbing down is when corporate thinking in creative industries constantly feeds us the derivative - rehashing whatever's popular at the time. By that logic if Bioware were dumbing us down then they'd be rehashing shooters, racing games etc etc. What the're actually doing with products like the DA and ME series is adding deeper elements to big titles. What they're also doing is taking a big chance on the niche lame duck of the RPG genre and giving it universal appeal to an audience that is generally fed little but shallower gameplay. They're being very different, not derivative.

The only way Bioware can succeed at that is by keying in on universal appeal, and that very much means focusing on what most people would associate with character driven fictive gameplay, and that means smartening up the RPG genre. Universal appeal is not 'dumbing down for the masses' when the genre was never that smart in the first place. Hell, as far as earlier RPG's and all that detail are concerned we're not talking the equivalent of deep literary fiction here. The detail was nothing but baggage. Taking RPG's and applying accepted, universal fictive techniques, and making them more apparent than game mechanics, is actually smartening them up in a big way.

Modifié par shootist70, 25 août 2010 - 10:37 .

[E-MailA.K.A.Mr.Fox]

i miss a lot of the mechanics of the original, while the gameplay was solid in 2, it left me feeling empty compared to 1, i hope they bring back some of the stuff that made 1 stand on its own for 3. but who am i kidding, thats not going to happen.

[JedTed]

iakus wrote...

Nothing on the metaphysical/spiritual/religious aspects of it.  Your Shep may or may not be religious.  But some of the crew is.   Mordin and Thane spring immediately to mind.  And let's face it, it would make total sense for someone to ask Shep "Did you see a light?"  Even if Shep dodged the question (with or without input from the player), it's a natural question to ask.

This i'm actually kinda surprised about.  They've already delved into matters of "faith" with Ashley in ME1, she tells you that she believes in God and you have the option to say you do too, so why no mention of God here?  Shepard did, as they say, meet his/her maker.

Maybe Bioware is afraid of injecting too much religion into the story(ala Assassin's Creed).

[E-MailA.K.A.Mr.Fox]

me 2 even lacked a stupid jelly and his faith.

[Kosmiker]

I'm very very dissapointed with the drinks in this game, they taste awfully, except maybe for the cocktail mix you can make at Kasumi's bedroom.