570 réponses à ce sujet

[TheTrooper1138]

Relshar wrote...

ME1 storyline felt personal with Saren and his Geth army. ME2, well the storyline was not as personal, yeh it tried to get you in the same place as ME1 with the attack on Horrizon and then the kidnapping of your crew members. But the Collectors had no front man like the Geth did in ME1.

For me ME2 was just like a doom shoot them up with some dialouge in it. No real story to get you involved in. The game pushed you all the way and railed you into doing certain missions at specific points. For me thats not a RPG. Side missions were lacking also way to few to make you feel like your actualy doing something to make a difference. In ME2 I can see EA's infulence with BioWare for me Mass Effect 1 was far better storyline and gameplay.

This. I like ME2, but I miss a lot of things they scrapped after ME1! Most of all the RPG elements and feeling!
Also I have to say, I find myself agreeing with the OP... might be one reason, ME2 felt kinda unsatisfying in the end...

Modifié par TheTrooper1138, 15 mars 2010 - 12:44 .

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

=O That's all? Then you missed quite a lot. Those  JRPG-focused-players....

EDIT: Oh, and your last post was hilarious: ever read something like Song of Ice and Fire? That quite obliterates your opinion, hum.

That's okay.  I find most of your opinions childish.  If you can find comedy in mine, that is a good thing.

I've yet to read that.  What do you mean?  Feel free to explain how my opinion (which?) is obliterated.

Oh, and to say "that's all" to P:T?  Ah, tragedy.  It is the pinnacle of gaming.  (Obviously I'm not going to give you a list.)

Modifié par smudboy, 15 mars 2010 - 12:46 .

[JMA22TB]

smudboy wrote...

Akrylik wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Akrylik wrote...
urg, what i meant by chekhov's gun would be, for example, the haelstrom sun/dark energy thing. Plays little to no important role in ME2 but the same can't necisarily be said for ME3.
and in my invisible ground analogy, the invisible ground references said "plot holes", we aren't sure if they have significance (provide foundation) or are simply unimportant (just air).

That is not an example of Chekhov's gun.  That is called foreshadowing.  Unless they don't use it, then it's called bad writing.

If they're significant, they either have to be explained, or labeled a mystery.  If they're irrelevant, then that's bad writing.  Then again I'm trying to describe the term "plot hole" to you in another air.  That should be more than enough to tell you "something is wrong with this."

elaborate the "other air" of plot hole you are trying to imply, plot holes are supposed to be illogical, but they would have to be resolved in the plotline with no oppurtunities for redeeming explanation. ME3 is that potential oppurtunity, so no need to jump to conclusions.

I am not saying Dark Energy is a plot hole.  I'm saying your idea of invisible ground is, and we're merely giving it a more colorful definition.  (I can guess it's foreshadowing.  That's obvious.)

Even in a trilogy, the first or second story can stand solid by itself, and make sense.  Without plot holes.  A writer, (a good writer), should not have to apologize to his lack of writing in one book, and try to tie things up, because a next one is coming out.  Same with continuity from one to the other: anyone should be able to pick up any book and have it all make sense.  Especially if all these things are being planned out, which we know they're not.  What if ME was a quadrilogy?  Would we suddenly forgive every poorly written, unexplained scene in ME2 and ME3, simply because you think it will be ALL explained in 4?  That's ridiculous.  What does it take for someone to realize that ME2's story is crap, and an obvious afterthought where level design took precedence over writing?

From the looks of things, a la Christina Norman, ME3 is just going to be another ME2.

If the story was crap, no one would care. There wouldn't be any emotional attachment to the story and people would, by and large, be much more disappointed than satisfied. Clearly, plenty of people do care and are looking forward to ME3 which says enough by itself. There are hordes of people itching for more DLC. Anything BioWare says about future content is gobbled up immediately. ME2 upped the ante, gameplay wise, and the story was a different one than maybe some expected but still viable when the main enemy is operating a distance and uses agents to carry out the dirty work, saving their immense power as the last resort.

[Xaijin]

The ironic thing is they had the PERFECT ending... they just showed it at the beginning.

Think about it. Instead of destroying everything at the beginning, you could have crippled the Normandy, and still woken up in a Cerberus base where they essentially tried to turn you into a cyber-slave; you recruit your super awesome team with the help and not help of Cerberus, you complete your mission and then the last collector ship overload/suicides the new Normandy and Shepard is literally blown into space, crew/EDI status unknown.

The perfect "middle dark ending" that you could get from a trilogy.

Also, they need to seriously talk with marketing about story revelation.

Honestly the people who are going to buy the end are almost unilaterally going to know the mythos, stop pandering to the people who don't.

The Reaper situation hasn't changed, but the crew and balance of power in the galaxy sure has, and for the Geth and Rachni, things sure have changed.

Modifié par Xaijin, 15 mars 2010 - 12:51 .

[Knoll Argonar]

Simple, boy.

smudboy wrote...

I am not saying Dark Energy is a plot hole.  I'm saying your idea of invisible ground is, and we're merely giving it a more colorful definition.  (I can guess it's foreshadowing.  That's obvious.)

Even in a trilogy, the first or second story can stand solid by itself, and make sense.  Without plot holes.  A writer, (a good writer), should not have to apologize to his lack of writing in one book, and try to tie things up, because a next one is coming out.  Same with continuity from one to the other: anyone should be able to pick up any book and have it all make sense.  Especially if all these things are being planned out, which we know they're not.  What if ME was a quadrilogy?  Would we suddenly forgive every poorly written, unexplained scene in ME2 and ME3, simply because you think it will be ALL explained in 4?  That's ridiculous.  What does it take for someone to realize that ME2's story is crap, and an obvious afterthought where level design took precedence over writing?

From the looks of things, a la Christina Norman, ME3 is just going to be another ME2.

You crearly didn't read Song of Ice and Fire, for example. Go read it and we'll talk later.

And please, you missed the point. Videogames are different to Books and Movies. Games like the fable series (thought their story is quite lol), the Metroid series, Bioshock (the first one), shows more than simple cut-scene shoot cut-scene.

[glacier1701]

JMA22TB wrote...
...snip....

If the story was crap, no one would care. There wouldn't be any emotional attachment to the story and people would, by and large, be much more disappointed than satisfied. Clearly, plenty of people do care and are looking forward to ME3 which says enough by itself. There are hordes of people itching for more DLC. Anything BioWare says about future content is gobbled up immediately. ME2 upped the ante, gameplay wise, and the story was a different one than maybe some expected but still viable when the main enemy is operating a distance and uses agents to carry out the dirty work, saving their immense power as the last resort.

Yes but they seem to have been doing this for 2,000 years. Yet no matter what, we know that it wont be 2000 years before the Reapers arrive inside the galaxy. If the time they take to get here is maybe a couple of years then why didnt they head on in 2000 years ago? And using their power is NOT a last resort it was the FIRST thing they did every cycle for at least 37million plus years. Really you can completely ignore ME1 and you have NOT missed a thing. If you can do that then even with all the little things introduced you cannot say that the plot has been advanced.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

It set the stage for alot of things in me3, although most of it depends on your decisions. most of it is less than obvious plot advancements. Rather than deciding for us Bioware is letting us pick whether the quarians will be in an all out war with the geth, or if cerberus will have a reaper under their control. In the grand scheme we were more setting things into motion on our own, on a large scale and on a personal scale. Obviously we weren't going to destroy the reapers in this game, but we did find out where they came from and how they're born. We understand about the reapers more now than we did before.

[JMA22TB]

I really don't understand why people think the Reaper situation hasn't changed. You learn more about them in ME2, but a realistic amount. They keep information about themselves close to the vest, just like anyone interested in surviving or waging a war against an entire spacefaring civilization would.



It's like people expect a powerpoint presentation about the weaknesses of the Reapers and any main story mission to only deal directly with them. They use agents to fight for them. They've had millions of years and have harvested thousands of entire species. They're not stupid or the first civilization they harvested would have stopped them.

[Knoll Argonar]

JMA22TB wrote...

I really don't understand why people think the Reaper situation hasn't changed. You learn more about them in ME2, but a realistic amount. They keep information about themselves close to the vest, just like anyone interested in surviving or waging a war against an entire spacefaring civilization would.

It's like people expect a powerpoint presentation about the weaknesses of the Reapers and any main story mission to only deal directly with them. They use agents to fight for them. They've had millions of years and have harvested thousands of entire species. They're not stupid or the first civilization they harvested would have stopped them.

Bah! who cares? we need a ruthless badass renegade bad guy to talk to as the main enemy, and we have to know everything because that's how cool stories are made! =)

[Commander_David]

the game has always been about stopping the reapers.



First 2 games are there agents.



now we got to deal with Harbinger.

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Brilliant, boy.

smudboy wrote...

I am not saying Dark Energy is a plot hole.  I'm saying your idea of invisible ground is, and we're merely giving it a more colorful definition.  (I can guess it's foreshadowing.  That's obvious.)

Even in a trilogy, the first or second story can stand solid by itself, and make sense.  Without plot holes.  A writer, (a good writer), should not have to apologize to his lack of writing in one book, and try to tie things up, because a next one is coming out.  Same with continuity from one to the other: anyone should be able to pick up any book and have it all make sense.  Especially if all these things are being planned out, which we know they're not.  What if ME was a quadrilogy?  Would we suddenly forgive every poorly written, unexplained scene in ME2 and ME3, simply because you think it will be ALL explained in 4?  That's ridiculous.  What does it take for someone to realize that ME2's story is crap, and an obvious afterthought where level design took precedence over writing?

From the looks of things, a la Christina Norman, ME3 is just going to be another ME2.

You crearly didn't read Song of Ice and Fire, for example. Go read it and we'll talk later.

And please, you missed the point. Videogames are different to Books and Movies. Games like the fable series (thought their story is quite lol), the Metroid series, Bioshock (the first one), shows more than simple cut-scene shoot cut-scene.

I believe I already mentioned I haven't.  Look, if you are incapable of explaining yourself, then don't bother.

Video games follow the same storytelling elements and story writing qualities that radio, television, movies, and any other media follows.  In all, there are good stories, bad stories, and good and bad ways of telling such stories.

This is obvious.  I'm sure you know this.

[glacier1701]

JMA22TB wrote...

I really don't understand why people think the Reaper situation hasn't changed. You learn more about them in ME2, but a realistic amount. They keep information about themselves close to the vest, just like anyone interested in surviving or waging a war against an entire spacefaring civilization would.

It's like people expect a powerpoint presentation about the weaknesses of the Reapers and any main story mission to only deal directly with them. They use agents to fight for them. They've had millions of years and have harvested thousands of entire species. They're not stupid or the first civilization they harvested would have stopped them.

The Reapers have shown some incredible stupidty. 2000 years and all that they can come up with (until we see the Collectors) is to get the races of the galaxy to fight each other? In fact what we know in ME2 is that they NEED organics to reproduce yet they seem to be going out of their way to get wars going which can result in genocide? And again for 2000 years? Does not seem smart to me when the obvious answer is to simply just to head on in when things dont go as planned right at the beginning. Remember that at that time NO-ONE knows who or what they are. And if the first realisation that something is wrong when this fleet pops up at the Citadel with the Collectors in tow how much resistance can there be?

[JeanLuc761]

Commander_David wrote...

the game has always been about stopping the reapers.

First 2 games are there agents.

now we got to deal with Harbinger.

We all know this, there's just a difference of opinion on how Bioware is handling it.

If done properly, Mass Effect 3 could be the greatest gaming experience ever made.
If not...well let's just say it'll be disappointing at the very least.

[JMA22TB]

glacier1701 wrote...

JMA22TB wrote...
...snip....

If the story was crap, no one would care. There wouldn't be any emotional attachment to the story and people would, by and large, be much more disappointed than satisfied. Clearly, plenty of people do care and are looking forward to ME3 which says enough by itself. There are hordes of people itching for more DLC. Anything BioWare says about future content is gobbled up immediately. ME2 upped the ante, gameplay wise, and the story was a different one than maybe some expected but still viable when the main enemy is operating a distance and uses agents to carry out the dirty work, saving their immense power as the last resort.

Yes but they seem to have been doing this for 2,000 years. Yet no matter what, we know that it wont be 2000 years before the Reapers arrive inside the galaxy. If the time they take to get here is maybe a couple of years then why didnt they head on in 2000 years ago? And using their power is NOT a last resort it was the FIRST thing they did every cycle for at least 37million plus years. Really you can completely ignore ME1 and you have NOT missed a thing. If you can do that then even with all the little things introduced you cannot say that the plot has been advanced.

If you ignored ME, then you ignore the fact that Shepard stopped Sovereign from activating the Citadel relay and bringing in the next invasion. There'd be no setting for the next part of the story everyone would be wiped out.

By the end of ME2, you know more about the Reapers than you did before. Not conclusive and practical methods to destroy them, but you know what they are, how they reproduce and that they're capable of rewriting and enslaving organic life, and that they used that against the previous civilization.

That alone is progression on the Reaper front, not to mention the vastly larger rest of the story. ME2 moved things forward, just not in the predictable and trite way of leaving you feeling completely ready for them in the next part of the story.

[JeanLuc761]

glacier1701 wrote...
The Reapers have shown some incredible stupidty. 2000 years and all that they can come up with (until we see the Collectors) is to get the races of the galaxy to fight each other? In fact what we know in ME2 is that they NEED organics to reproduce yet they seem to be going out of their way to get wars going which can result in genocide? And again for 2000 years? Does not seem smart to me when the obvious answer is to simply just to head on in when things dont go as planned right at the beginning. Remember that at that time NO-ONE knows who or what they are. And if the first realisation that something is wrong when this fleet pops up at the Citadel with the Collectors in tow how much resistance can there be?

I can actually think of a good reason for promoting genocide from the Reaper's POV. 

They're arrogant, but they aren't stupid; they know that an advanced enough civilization with enough resources could pose something of a threat to them.  By forcing (directly or indirectly) these species to fight each other, the Reapers ensure that the civilizations of the galaxy don't have the fighting strength or the foresight to retaliate.

You can see this exact phenomena occuring between the Quarians and the Geth.  If Bioware handles that well, then it could very well help or hurt you in the final battle.

Modifié par JeanLuc761, 15 mars 2010 - 01:18 .

[smudboy]

JMA22TB wrote...

If the story was crap, no one would care. There wouldn't be any emotional attachment to the story and people would, by and large, be much more disappointed than satisfied. Clearly, plenty of people do care and are looking forward to ME3 which says enough by itself. There are hordes of people itching for more DLC. Anything BioWare says about future content is gobbled up immediately. ME2 upped the ante, gameplay wise, and the story was a different one than maybe some expected but still viable when the main enemy is operating a distance and uses agents to carry out the dirty work, saving their immense power as the last resort.

There are fans of media for a number of reasons.  Media Property X is simply not that important to those people who don't care about it.

What emotional attachment to the main plot in ME2 are you referring to?  Apologies, as I am not arguing the story in general, merely the main plot.  The side missions are quite wonderful.  They're just in the wrong game.

Whether the enemy is having a proxy war or is directly involved is irrelevant.  It is the clarity and coherencey of how that story is told.  Especially if there is continuity (sequels.) I still believe that because BioWare wanted to improve game play.  They first did that (e.g. clips), then tried to form a story around it (i.e. Geth codex exaplanation entry) to explain the change.  Story has become an afterthought, instead of the focus. (Like the intro and ending of ME2.) 

This, and a few other things, is what is keeping ME2 from being great.

[Yeled]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

Yeled wrote...
I kept waiting to care about what was happening to Shepard or her squadmates.  Furthermore, I've found the dlc to be lacking

I know you said it was your personal opinion but I really do have to ask; You really, at no point in the game, cared about what Shepard and your squadmates were going through?  Not even on the loyalty quests? 

If so, color me stunned

Oh, to be fair, some of the loyalty quests taken as individual vignettes were well done.  I'm not saying there is nothing compelling about the game.  Tali's was particularly striking, I thought.  Especially some of what she says about the plight of the Quarians and their homeworld (the fact that its an allegory of the Jewish diaspora, or at least shares an awful lot in common with it, is of particular interest).  Also, I liked when Miranda leaves Cerberus at the end.

I'm not saying that I was completely disinterested.  But I was never passionate about anything.  Never immersed the way I've been in previous bioware games.  Not totally engrossed in the character and the people and world around her.  I never achieved that level of immersion where I'm totally into it.

Modifié par Yeled, 15 mars 2010 - 01:23 .

[Knoll Argonar]

smudboy wrote...

I believe I already mentioned I haven't.  Look, if you are incapable of explaining yourself, then don't bother.

Video games follow the same storytelling elements and story writing qualities that radio, television, movies, and any other media follows.  In all, there are good stories, bad stories, and good and bad ways of telling such stories.

This is obvious.  I'm sure you know this.

It's as simple as telling you that SoI&F is one of the best fantasy series and yet, pick up one book and it's full of those "unexplained plot holes" you hate so much. But no one even dares to say they are poorly written, because they aren't.

Oh, well, not bothering more saying something you won't read.

[JeanLuc761]

Yeled wrote...
Oh, to be fair, some of the loyalty quests taken as individual vignettes were well done.  I'm not saying there is nothing compelling about the game.  Tali's was particularly striking, I thought.  Especially some of what she says about the plight of the Quarians and their homeworld (the fact that its an allegory of the Jewish diaspora, or at least shares an awful lot in common with it, is of particular interest).  Also, I liked when Miranda leaves Cerberus at the end.

I'm not saying that I was completely disinterested.  But I was never passionate about anything.  Never immersed the way I've been in previous bioware games.  Not totally engrossed in the character and the people and world around her.  I never achieved that level of immersion where I'm totally into it.

Ah, fair enough.  The way you worded it originally had me really confused

As far as how I feel, Mass Effect 2 is easily on my top 3 games of all time.  The reasoning behind that is due almost completely to how the characters were presented and the emotional connection I built with them.  While their missions may not have related to the main plot in any significant manner (yet), I treated ME2 on a much more personal scale than I did the first game.  I think that was Bioware's main ambition for the game and I feel they succeeded, though some here will disagree with me on whether or not that was the right choice.

That's my opinion though and I respect yours as well; thanks for clarifying.

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I believe I already mentioned I haven't.  Look, if you are incapable of explaining yourself, then don't bother.

Video games follow the same storytelling elements and story writing qualities that radio, television, movies, and any other media follows.  In all, there are good stories, bad stories, and good and bad ways of telling such stories.

This is obvious.  I'm sure you know this.

It's as simple as telling you that SoI&F is one of the best fantasy series and yet, pick up one book and it's full of those "unexplained plot holes" you hate so much. But no one even dares to say they are poorly written, because they aren't.

Oh, well, not bothering more saying something you won't read.

I'm not going to jump on a book because 1) you say so, 2) you think plot holes are good.  That's like saying stabbing yourself in the leg is good. If there's a point to your rambling, then please state it.  You seem to have primary knowledge.  We're anxiously awaiting your great point that completely obliterates mine, (whatever that was.)

Plot holes = poor writing.  There's nothing wrong with having stories that have unanswered questions or unclear storytelling (although I'd argue the latter.)  It's when you've got a plot that involves the destruction of the universe by super-intelligent-million year old alien machines we can't interact with, and having them do clearly stupid things/things that don't make sense, by proxy or otherwise.  The writer has to be DAMNED careful he's planning this thing out, or credibility on "super-intelligent-million-year old-doomsday-logic-machines" became farcical.  ME2 is not proof of this.

[Yeled]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

I would agree their DLC is lacking.  I think most players would.  The patches and DLC for ME1 was not adequate IMO.  I am assuming you are a girl gamer.  RPG's in particular seem to be a very attractive venue with girl gamers in regards to immersive stories, romance sublots and less on the mechanics of actual combat.  This catering to males will slowly shift more neutral over time IMO.  At least with RPG's anyway.  May take longer for shooters if ever, depends on the culture.  Realisticly Bioware is probably one of the few places you personally can go to for your style of game I would guess.  BTW if your not a girl gamer then no offense.

I'm actually male but I agree the style I like is one that more girl gamers enjoy.  Though I think a lot of male gamers like it too.  And no offense taken.  Heck, some people might view it as a compliment.

My worry is that BioWare was one of the few places I could go for the style of game I like, but that they are shifting away from that.  I don't begrudge them their drive to sell as many games as possible, but I wonder if they can't accomplish that within the context of being the best storytellers in the business (which they still are...I just don't think they are quite as far ahead of the curve as they were).  Did ME2 sell so well because they streamlined combat, focused a bit more on the shooter style, and moved away from a narrative that carries over chapters of the trilogy?  Or would it have sold as well even without those changes because ME1 was so very, very good (IGN rated it the best game on the Xbox 360 just before ME2 was released).  There's really no way to know.

[Knoll Argonar]

Sorry, should have quoted the word hole even more. """""plot hole"""""

[JMA22TB]

smudboy wrote...

JMA22TB wrote...

If the story was crap, no one would care. There wouldn't be any emotional attachment to the story and people would, by and large, be much more disappointed than satisfied. Clearly, plenty of people do care and are looking forward to ME3 which says enough by itself. There are hordes of people itching for more DLC. Anything BioWare says about future content is gobbled up immediately. ME2 upped the ante, gameplay wise, and the story was a different one than maybe some expected but still viable when the main enemy is operating a distance and uses agents to carry out the dirty work, saving their immense power as the last resort.

There are fans of media for a number of reasons.  Media Property X is simply not that important to those people who don't care about it.

What emotional attachment to the main plot in ME2 are you referring to?  Apologies, as I am not arguing the story in general, merely the main plot.  The side missions are quite wonderful.  They're just in the wrong game.

Whether the enemy is having a proxy war or is directly involved is irrelevant.  It is the clarity and coherencey of how that story is told.  Especially if there is continuity (sequels.) I still believe that because BioWare wanted to improve game play.  They first did that (e.g. clips), then tried to form a story around it (i.e. Geth codex exaplanation entry) to explain the change.  Story has become an afterthought, instead of the focus. (Like the intro and ending of ME2.) 

This, and a few other things, is what is keeping ME2 from being great.

The plot is based around taking down an enemy associated with the Reapers, the big ultimate antagonist, who is abducting thousands of humans and getting away with it. Combating the Reapers is the ultimate goal, but the immediate threat to humanity is the more pressing issue between that and researching whatever leads about them may be out there. In fact, as it turns out, it's a synergy of both, since we learn about the Reapers as we combat the collectors.

It's coherent and it moves the story forward intelligently when you are talking about a foe that, again, is not pounding its chest like a jackass in plain sight waiting for you to beat its ass. The Reapers are operating through its agents, and you have to deal with the agents to learn about their leaders.

[JeanLuc761]

JMA22TB wrote...
The plot is based around taking down an enemy associated with the Reapers, the big ultimate antagonist, who is abducting thousands of humans and getting away with it. Combating the Reapers is the ultimate goal, but the immediate threat to humanity is the more pressing issue between that and researching whatever leads about them may be out there. In fact, as it turns out, it's a synergy of both, since we learn about the Reapers as we combat the collectors.

It's coherent and it moves the story forward intelligently when you are talking about a foe that, again, is not pounding its chest like a jackass in plain sight waiting for you to beat its ass. The Reapers are operating through its agents, and you have to deal with the agents to learn about their leaders.

You make some good points; it's nice to see an enemy that doesn't flaunt itself at every--ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL..........turn.  Okay so maybe Harbinger has a bit of an over-inflated ego but they still rely on organics.

My only real problem with the Collectors is that they virtually came out of nowhere yet everyone seems to know about them (though granted, there was no reason to know about them in ME1). 

Then I got to thinking...the Collectors would only show up now because it was humanity that defeated a Reaper.  The Reapers are intrigued by this show of strength and begin abducting hundreds of thousands of human colonists in order to find out what makes them so special and absorb their essence.

It sounds a bit funky at the outset but it makes sense when you connect the dots.