10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

uberdowzen wrote...

smudboy wrote...

It's been suggested I post here, so I am:

(1 of 6) ME2: A Plot Analysis

Could someone summarise the main points? I haven't got the time or the bandwidth to watch them.

We're talking about it his thread in the spoilers forum

[SithLordExarKun]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Obviously not, its too hard for him to shoot his enemies on easy(by his own words) hence why he complains so much about the combat.

No. I've played veteran on ME1 and still was fine with it. I've played normal on Fallout 3 and was fine with it but the story still blows. Yeah, the difficulty of the combat pisses me off, but I could look the other way if the story and character interaction was balanced in ratio which it's not.

There were ALOT of shooting moments in ME1 as well, the character interaction in both games in my opinion were lacking, with every personal interaction aboard the normandy and no where else unlike biowares previous games.

ME2 just happened to focus alot more on the combat, it didn't lack out in character interaction in my personal opinion but i would agree that the focus on the main story is a little too short and should at least had been substantially longer.

These are just some of the flaws i dislike in ME2 and hoping that everything(combat,interaction,story,RPG elements) will be much further improved on and balanced in the final game.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Why so hostile? I don't have the best broadband plan in the world so I suck?

Heh, post made me laugh.

No, but I've said I'd go out of my way to dig through this thread to quote the quotes I've ALREADY posted that support how plenty say there isn't enough combat and/or too much character interaction and plot in ME1, yet you say you don't have time to read text even though you're consistently active in participating on Bioware's message board.

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Why so hostile? I don't have the best broadband plan in the world so I suck?

Heh, post made me laugh.

No, but I've said I'd go out of my way to dig through this thread to quote the quotes I've ALREADY posted that support how plenty say there isn't enough combat and/or too much character interaction and plot in ME1, yet you say you don't have time to read text even though you're consistently active in participating on Bioware's message board.

Its a video not text

[SkullandBonesmember]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Its a video not text

Very good. My point was even if his connection was great he'd still probably decline.

[cachx]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Said it before but let's reiterate it yet again. Every year shooter fans get dozens of games that cater to their tastes that they can "have fun with". Overall there are countless games that focus on combat at the expense of plot. Story driven fans have barely any. ME1 is released. Perfect combat that doesn't take away from story and character interaction. The shooters whined and bi***** about cutscenes that dragged and the combat was "broke". It's not enough that you guys have countless of games that cater to your tastes. Despite there being genres in every other form of media, all that do very well in their respective categories since there's room for all demographics, shooter fans can't stand when there's a game with guns that focus on story.

I can play the reiterate thing as well, as I've said many times: videogames are the union of several disciplines, combat and story are just 2 parts of it. What's so wrong about wanting both of them keep improving?

What you're basically saying that if someone enjoys shooters should go play GreyGenericShooter45X and leave "your" RPGs alone,  that somehow to enjoy the story of a game you must suffer through boring gameplay, because trying to have fun while playing is going to hurt storytelling. That is dumb

Also the dillusion exists that the "shooter fans" are going to come flocking here and Bioware is going to forget about story and characters. Guess what, those hardcore shooter fans would not touch ME1 or ME2 with a 10 foot pole (they're probably busy playing CS or MW2 or whatever is the shooter of the month). I like to believe that a good bunch of the people here (and the people who bought ME1 & 2) are reasonable gamers who only want to play a great game that has a great story.

If you feel that ME2 took too much of a hit in the story department (and somehow you reasoned that it's the gameplay's fault), well that's too bad. I enjoyed them both just fine.

[SkullandBonesmember]

cachx wrote...

I can play the reiterate thing as well, as I've said many times: videogames are the union of several disciplines, combat and story are just 2 parts of it. What's so wrong about wanting both of them keep improving?

What you're basically saying that if someone enjoys shooters should go play GreyGenericShooter45X and leave "your" RPGs alone,  that somehow to enjoy the story of a game you must suffer through boring gameplay, because trying to have fun while playing is going to hurt storytelling. That is dumb

Also the dillusion exists that the "shooter fans" are going to come flocking here and Bioware is going to forget about story and characters. Guess what, those hardcore shooter fans would not touch ME1 or ME2 with a 10 foot pole (they're probably busy playing CS or MW2 or whatever is the shooter of the month). I like to believe that a good bunch of the people here (and the people who bought ME1 & 2) are reasonable gamers who only want to play a great game that has a great story.

If you feel that ME2 took too much of a hit in the story department (and somehow you reasoned that it's the gameplay's fault), well that's too bad. I enjoyed them both just fine.

*sighs*
In response to the highlighted part, Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy would like a word with you, and both are critically acclaimed.
There's nothing wrong with combat at all. Even in a game that's from a developer that has a legacy in epic story telling and characters. But when a developer like Bioware has the reputation they do, and the combat overshadows the story that's supposed to be "deep" something went very, very wrong.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Heh, post made me laugh.

No, but I've said I'd go out of my way to dig through this thread to quote the quotes I've ALREADY posted that support how plenty say there isn't enough combat and/or too much character interaction and plot in ME1, yet you say you don't have time to read text even though you're consistently active in participating on Bioware's message board.

I post quite a bit, but I'm not constantly using it. I just have it open in the background while I do other things online and/or play games. I never really spend more than 15 minutes at a time on here.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Very good. My point was even if his connection was great he'd still probably decline.

Yeah, probably. I'm not going to spend an hour I could spend doing something constructive watching a video which in all likelihood is just going to make me angry.

[cachx]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
In response to the highlighted part, Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy would like a word with you, and both are critically acclaimed.

They're both great experiments in gaming and storytelling (made by the same guy, by the way, it's not like they are going to mass produce them). Both of them are nowhere near perfect, we can drive the Normandy right through some of the plotholes of both.

Also, ME2 is one of the best rated and universally acclaimed titles of all time. Is that going to make the ranting and the whining stop? somehow I doubt it.

*sighs

[finnithe]

About the 3rd part, isn't it implied that TIM used his Alliance connections to get those turrets on Horizon? And he got the ex-squaddie assigned to the planet so that Shepard would go to the planet out of self-interest? I'm also pretty sure that the SR-2 would not be able to take Collector Ship at that point, since it was heavily damaged w/o the upgrades in the final mission.



Also why in the hell would TIM tell someone else about the Derelict Reaper?!? Would he really want to give up the tech inside that thing? He had probably salvaged it by the time Shepard got there or his disregard at its destruction is a plot hole.

[Onyx Jaguar]

finnithe wrote...

About the 3rd part, isn't it implied that TIM used his Alliance connections to get those turrets on Horizon? And he got the ex-squaddie assigned to the planet so that Shepard would go to the planet out of self-interest? I'm also pretty sure that the SR-2 would not be able to take Collector Ship at that point, since it was heavily damaged w/o the upgrades in the final mission.

Also why in the hell would TIM tell someone else about the Derelict Reaper?!? Would he really want to give up the tech inside that thing? He had probably salvaged it by the time Shepard got there or his disregard at its destruction is a plot hole.

The bolded part should be fairly obvious I would think, as it was heavily implied.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

*sighs*
In response to the highlighted part, Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy would like a word with you, and both are critically acclaimed.
There's nothing wrong with combat at all. Even in a game that's from a developer that has a legacy in epic story telling and characters. But when a developer like Bioware has the reputation they do, and the combat overshadows the story that's supposed to be "deep" something went very, very wrong.

But ME1 wasn't anything like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy either. And Mass Effect was never trying to be any of these, it was aiming to be a third-person shooter RPG hybrid.

You talk about ME1 having a much deeper story than ME2 but ME2's plot, though less epic, is a more emotionally involving plot. Look at it this way, the suicide mission isn't the main focus of the story, it's more a reason for Shepherd to build the team. The game is more about your companions and how they're affected by the mission while at the same time moving the plot forward some what and building on the lore. Also many of the continuing plot arcs are continued in ME2 and are obviously drawing towards some epic conclusions in ME3.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

smudboy wrote...

It's been suggested I post here, so I am:

(1 of 6) ME2: A Plot Analysis

Could someone summarise the main points? I haven't got the time or the bandwidth to watch them.

Wow, that would be tough to do, as it's pretty comprehensive.  All told, it's around an hour of pointing out the problems with ME2's plot and story.  Here is an extremely barebones list of what was talked about; I highly recommend viewing them yourself if you get the chance.  It makes a lot of sense and is pretty funny too::

How little is made of Shepard's death and ressurection .

There's a strong supporting cast, but have nothing to do with the plot, they have little real motivation to join up

We learn almost nothing about the Collectors 

We have no real insight into Harbringer's motives, especially his obsession with Shepard.

Loyalty is really more of a gameplay mechanic than an actual theme in the game. 

Plot holes, specifically Horizon, Collector Ship, Reaper IFF mission, Collector Attack,
 
Suicide Mission, illogical aspects of it.  Why  can't  biotics reinforce each other, The Collector's master plan makes no sense, etc.

It wraps up with five points that could have made it a much better game:

1) have Shepard do something that makes him special, not enough charactarzation or humanity in ME 2

2)  Advance the story.  The whole game we know nothing how we'll go about defeating the Collectors, therefore. why did we need to gather all these squadmates?  A plan would have given us reason to recruit these individuals.

3) Loyalty should be more meaningful  More personality conflicts.  Squadmates should have something to say about your choices rather than blindly following along.

4) "For the love of James Cameron, no Baby Arnold!"   lol, I still laugh when I hear that.

5) No Cerberus railroading.  Shouldn't have retconned people to be idiotic and uncaring, just make it clear Cerberus is the only group doing something:

"When the hero of the galaxy comes back from the dead, that should mean something to everyone who knew them and what they did.  For several reasons.  Not just get discounts at stores"

Again, this is really really basic.  There's much more to the analysis.  These are just the points that stuck out for me

[Onyx Jaguar]

Shepard represents Humanity, I don't see the big deal in making them special. They are the player character, your actions decide what they do.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

But ME1 wasn't anything like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy either. And Mass Effect was never trying to be any of these, it was aiming to be a third-person shooter RPG hybrid.

You talk about ME1 having a much deeper story than ME2 but ME2's plot, though less epic, is a more emotionally involving plot. Look at it this way, the suicide mission isn't the main focus of the story, it's more a reason for Shepherd to build the team. The game is more about your companions and how they're affected by the mission while at the same time moving the plot forward some what and building on the lore. Also many of the continuing plot arcs are continued in ME2 and are obviously drawing towards some epic conclusions in ME3.

Never said or implied anything of the sort. I was replying to the following snip-

cachx wrote...

videogames are the union of several disciplines, combat and story are just 2 parts of it. What's so wrong about wanting both of them keep improving?

The emphasis on the new combat mechanics hurt the few emotional parts of ME2.

[Onyx Jaguar]

How?

[Darth Drago]

uberdowzen wrote...

smudboy wrote...

It's been suggested I post here, so I am:

(1 of 6) ME2: A Plot Analysis

Could someone summarise the main points? I haven't got the time or the bandwidth to watch them.

-didn’t see a link given to his post in the Spoilers Forum. Hope that helps and whats said in the thread. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2693197/1#2693197

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

*sighs*
In response to the highlighted part, Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy would like a word with you, and both are critically acclaimed.
There's nothing wrong with combat at all. Even in a game that's from a developer that has a legacy in epic story telling and characters. But when a developer like Bioware has the reputation they do, and the combat overshadows the story that's supposed to be "deep" something went very, very wrong.

But ME1 wasn't anything like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy either. And Mass Effect was never trying to be any of these, it was aiming to be a third-person shooter RPG hybrid.

You talk about ME1 having a much deeper story than ME2 but ME2's plot, though less epic, is a more emotionally involving plot. Look at it this way, the suicide mission isn't the main focus of the story, it's more a reason for Shepherd to build the team. The game is more about your companions and how they're affected by the mission while at the same time moving the plot forward some what and building on the lore. Also many of the continuing plot arcs are continued in ME2 and are obviously drawing towards some epic conclusions in ME3.

But Shepard isn't building a team.  TIM is, Shepard's just the captain of the team.  And the loyalty missions don't factor into the main plot at all.  In fact, they practically occur in a vacuum, save Mordin, Tali and Legion's, which might have some carryover into ME 3 (maybe an email or something )  I don't really see any evidence of how the mission itself affects them.  For several we don't even know why they're joining up.

[Onyx Jaguar]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

*sighs*
In response to the highlighted part, Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy would like a word with you, and both are critically acclaimed.
There's nothing wrong with combat at all. Even in a game that's from a developer that has a legacy in epic story telling and characters. But when a developer like Bioware has the reputation they do, and the combat overshadows the story that's supposed to be "deep" something went very, very wrong.

But ME1 wasn't anything like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy either. And Mass Effect was never trying to be any of these, it was aiming to be a third-person shooter RPG hybrid.

You talk about ME1 having a much deeper story than ME2 but ME2's plot, though less epic, is a more emotionally involving plot. Look at it this way, the suicide mission isn't the main focus of the story, it's more a reason for Shepherd to build the team. The game is more about your companions and how they're affected by the mission while at the same time moving the plot forward some what and building on the lore. Also many of the continuing plot arcs are continued in ME2 and are obviously drawing towards some epic conclusions in ME3.

But Shepard isn't building a team.  TIM is, Shepard's just the captain of the team.  And the loyalty missions don't factor into the main plot at all.  In fact, they practically occur in a vacuum, save Mordin, Tali and Legion's, which might have some carryover into ME 3 (maybe an email or something )  I don't really see any evidence of how the mission itself affects them.  For several we don't even know why they're joining up.

The loyalty missions are sidequests, they aren't suppose to pass off as part of the main plot.

In regards to why the characters join, or why they would join, really the recruitment of Thane and Samara are the ones that make no sense.

[Iakus]

Darth Drago wrote...

-didn’t see a link given to his post in the Spoilers Forum. Hope that helps and whats said in the thread. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2693197/1#2693197

Yeah, I'm staying out of there.  Noothing but a lot of insults and challenges of "which game has a worse plot"

This place is way more civilized.

[Iakus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The loyalty missions are sidequests, they aren't suppose to pass off as part of the main plot.

In regards to why the characters join, or why they would join, really the recruitment of Thane and Samara are the ones that make no sense.

Some peple here would argue differently about sidequests

Samara, Thane, Jack, at the very least.  I assume Grunt just follows you around to fight stuff.  He makes it pretty clear te Collectors mean nothing to him.  Zaed and Kasumi are getting paid to go on a suicide mission(!)  Legion probably has a reason, though his motives for following Shepard aren't totally clear.

[finnithe]

There's a few other flaws with the analysis. Unlike ME1, there is no cackling overlord who rambles on about his plans to destroy everything you know and love, which I'm thinking too many of you are taking issue with.

1. The beauty of the collectors is the threat they represent is exemplified by the end boss. As Protheans twisted beyond recognition, they represent the danger presented by the creation of a Human Reaper. It is my opinion that the Reapers plan in creating the Human reaper was not to open the gateway for the rest of them, but to begin the creation of many more Human Reapers, who would together serve as the new vanguard.

2. Shepard is a symbol. Tell me, do we know of anyone as important as Shepard in the humanity's short history in the galactic community? No, and the point of recruiting Shepard was being able to recruit all these specialists in the first place.

3. The Collectors obviously want Shepard. This creates a plot hole however, as the Collectors obviously want Shepard in Mass Effect: Redemption. However, they destroyed the Normandy despite this. It's very weird that they would risk completely killing Shepard while right after showing interest in capturing him to use in the creation of the Human Reapers (Harbinger even hints that this is his plan in his many quotes, even in the video where he says "We are your genetic destiny". He is quite literally stating that it is the humans' destiny to become the next generation of Reapers, as they are the only genetically compatible race in the galaxy at the time).'

4. The stuff about selecting team leaders and how your team doesn't really react any differently. Don't you think it'd be sort of revealing if immediately after choosing Grunt as your second Fire Team Leader, the game scolded you and slapped you on the wrist? I would even go as far to guess that the party members do not themselves know how dangerous the mission is (I don't any of them have faced a mission as tough as going into an unknown part of the galaxy filled with Reaper-spawn). Also, Jacob complaining at being assigned to help protect Garrus was all the way in the beginning of the game. He's probably grown a lot more since then. Shepard is a good role model after all.

I should add that a significant theme in ME2, as well as ME1, is self-determination. You have the chance to advance humanity significantly at the end, though you do so at the risk of making yourself vulnerable against the Reapers. Legion talks at length about this, as he says this was the one reason his group of Geth rejected Sovereign's offers to the Geth. I sometimes think I am playing a completely different game than you guys, but that's the best part of fiction isn't it? The part where you come up with your own theories about the themes and concepts presented? Not everything should be beaten into your skull like it was with Sovereign's speech on Virmire.

Modifié par finnithe, 23 mai 2010 - 04:36 .

[uberdowzen]

@iakus, Thank you.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Never said or implied anything of the sort. I was replying to the following snip-

cachx wrote...

videogames are the union of several disciplines, combat and story are just 2 parts of it. What's so wrong about wanting both of them keep improving?

The emphasis on the new combat mechanics hurt the few emotional parts of ME2.

You said earlier that games like Mass Effect 1 and Heavy Rain were the future of gaming.