243 réponses à ce sujet

[SkullandBonesmember]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Here's the thing. Comparing ME 1 and ME 2's plot really doesn't work because both have major, huge issues. Bringing Heavy Rain into this discussion doesn't work either because it has a BIG HUGE MASSIVE PROBLEM. If you want story over gameplay then either ME game doesn't really work, and that is why its subjective. ME 2 failed as an RPG doesn't make sense because RPG has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with how the story is presented. ME 2 failed as a story would work but we already have two threads going full steam, this just seemed like a ploy for comments than a needed criticism.

I played ME 1 11 times, then played ME 2 4 times. I wasn't sure how I felt about ME 2, but it was going back to ME 1 where it just seemed like the game fell apart in how the storyline was presented. ME 2 the characters were more developed, the plot was fully defined and your character had constant interaction with the enemy. ME 1 felt like you were running on errands in your investigation hoping to find something of use, which it wasn't until after you did all the missions did you find out why you went and got LIara, why you went and got the Cipher. In ME 2 the missions are settled around investigating the Collectors and it is presented in a more coherent manner.

I don't know how else to approach this discussion because I have played way, WAY too many games.

I actually don't disagree with you that Heavy Rain had problems. And ME1 also certainly did. But the potential for story driven games are huge. It can be done right, especially today.

[jasonontko]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

JThompson6577 wrote...

jasonontko wrote...


Yes absolutly, any and all criticism must be supressed otherwise the game might be improved or might be improved in a way I disagree.  So we must ridicule all contrary opinion without positing any opinion of our own.

And every single one of these criticisms is valid and requires their very own threads even if there's already fifteen threads of people saying the exact same thing.

Oh ok, so we should ressurect a thread even when doing so gives us the exatct same forum.  Weak argument my man. Weak.

There are two threads up right now about the exact same topic though.  And that is not coutning the non-spoiler forum.

 You know I wnat back to the main forum page to see if your right and I cant find any forum on page rune discussing the game like this thread is.  Please give me forum titles.

[JThompson6577]

jasonontko wrote...

Oh ok, so we should ressurect a thread even when doing so gives us the exatct same forum.  Weak argument my man. Weak.

From Pages 1-3, posted in the last three hours:

"Sorry fanboys, personally I think ME2 failed as an RPG"
"So in retrospect, did ME 2 fail?"
"Should the main plot worlds in ME2 be criticized?"


That's three right off the top, I'm sure if I hit the general discussion page I'd find more.  If I check the boards more than once a day I'll see several threads of ME 2 Grievences bounce around the first page.  You're never resurrecting an old thread if you post on one.  

Sooner or later it stops looking like criticism and starts looking like beating a dead horse.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


Damn, I'll try this one last time BD.

The plot(which branches out to character interaction), was even, if not engulfed, the combat in ME1. The combat in ME2 was more difficult which calls for the player to utilize "tactics". Using tactics makes combat longer. So be it. But despite the combat being longer, the character interaction and dialogue was not increased.

I'm waiting for the part where you define character interaction, which you once again have failed to do.

And hell, most people argue that the ME2 plot fails on its own compared to ME1, that they chose to focus on combat. Yours sounds more like because you had a more difficult time learning tactics, the story must be longer to compensate. Turn the difficulty down if it's that bad. Or try playing Dragon Age: Origins. I assure you, you will spend more time killing darkspawn than you ever will talking to anyone. Yet DA:O is still accepted as an RPG.

[jasonontko]

JThompson6577 wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

Oh ok, so we should ressurect a thread even when doing so gives us the exatct same forum.  Weak argument my man. Weak.

From Pages 1-3, posted in the last three hours:

"Sorry fanboys, personally I think ME2 failed as an RPG"
"So in retrospect, did ME 2 fail?"
"Should the main plot worlds in ME2 be criticized?"


That's three right off the top, I'm sure if I hit the general discussion page I'd find more.  If I check the boards more than once a day I'll see several threads of ME 2 Grievences bounce around the first page.  You're never resurrecting an old thread if you post on one.  

Sooner or later it stops looking like criticism and starts looking like beating a dead horse.

 Last three hours? I never go past 10 mins otherwise thread is dead.  Those people talking three hours ago have left. 

[SkullandBonesmember]

JThompson6577 wrote...

From Pages 1-3, posted in the last three hours:

"Sorry fanboys, personally I think ME2 failed as an RPG"
"So in retrospect, did ME 2 fail?"
"Should the main plot worlds in ME2 be criticized?"


That's three right off the top, I'm sure if I hit the general discussion page I'd find more.  If I check the boards more than once a day I'll see several threads of ME 2 Grievences bounce around the first page.  You're never resurrecting an old thread if you post on one.  

Sooner or later it stops looking like criticism and starts looking like beating a dead horse.

I read the retrospect and that was talking in general. No loot, planet scanning, etc.
My concerns when it comes to ME2 are primarily plot/character/realism related.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 mars 2010 - 03:28 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

jasonontko wrote...

IMO ME2 would have worked better had it preceeded ME1. 

I dont know how the ME1 storyline fell appart, it seemed well contained IMO.  There was major plot advancements with each major missions.  The side quests I agree were tangential to the story like MOST loyalty missions were tangential in ME2.  Either your running errands for 5th fleet or your running errands for crew I dont see the difference. 

Outside of those on the Citadel, most side quests in ME1 were basically 'Get mission report. Land on planet in Mako. Kill generic villain.' Or 'Find random space ship. Explore three rooms. Leave.'

ME2 'loyalty missions' are definitely contrived (that we can put them under a category is evidence of this). But I find the details were at least fleshed out. Helping Thane is not helping Legion is not helping Samara, so to speak, and they're all tied to their history. Plus, some of them break out of the usual run and gun for some interesting gameplay.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 mars 2010 - 03:30 .

[jasonontko]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


Damn, I'll try this one last time BD.

The plot(which branches out to character interaction), was even, if not engulfed, the combat in ME1. The combat in ME2 was more difficult which calls for the player to utilize "tactics". Using tactics makes combat longer. So be it. But despite the combat being longer, the character interaction and dialogue was not increased.

I'm waiting for the part where you define character interaction, which you once again have failed to do.

And hell, most people argue that the ME2 plot fails on its own compared to ME1, that they chose to focus on combat. Yours sounds more like because you had a more difficult time learning tactics, the story must be longer to compensate. Turn the difficulty down if it's that bad. Or try playing Dragon Age: Origins. I assure you, you will spend more time killing darkspawn than you ever will talking to anyone. Yet DA:O is still accepted as an RPG.

 You make a good point.  DAO id definately an RPG and you do spend alot of time killing darkspwn.  However, you get major plot advancments with each mission. 

You also have more varried combat but I suppose that just the nature of fantsy.

[FataliTensei]

While I agree with the title of this thread, the OP really could have had some better points before posting

[Onyx Jaguar]

jasonontko wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Here's the thing. Comparing ME 1 and ME 2's plot really doesn't work because both have major, huge issues. Bringing Heavy Rain into this discussion doesn't work either because it has a BIG HUGE MASSIVE PROBLEM. If you want story over gameplay then either ME game doesn't really work, and that is why its subjective. ME 2 failed as an RPG doesn't make sense because RPG has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with how the story is presented. ME 2 failed as a story would work but we already have two threads going full steam, this just seemed like a ploy for comments than a needed criticism.

I played ME 1 11 times, then played ME 2 4 times. I wasn't sure how I felt about ME 2, but it was going back to ME 1 where it just seemed like the game fell apart in how the storyline was presented. ME 2 the characters were more developed, the plot was fully defined and your character had constant interaction with the enemy. ME 1 felt like you were running on errands in your investigation hoping to find something of use, which it wasn't until after you did all the missions did you find out why you went and got LIara, why you went and got the Cipher. In ME 2 the missions are settled around investigating the Collectors and it is presented in a more coherent manner.

I don't know how else to approach this discussion because I have played way, WAY too many games.

IMO ME2 would have worked better had it preceeded ME1. 

I dont know how the ME1 storyline fell appart, it seemed well contained IMO.  There was major plot advancements with each major missions.  The side quests I agree were tangential to the story like MOST loyalty missions were tangential in ME2.  Either your runbning errands for 5th fleet or your running errands for crew I dont see the difference. 

Basically I'm only comparing the main plot missions of each game.

The loyatly and recruitment missions for the most part are opitional, but you need to do sidquests in order to activate main story missions.

The reason I say ME 1 doesn't work that well is because you start out on Eden Prime.  Something happens, oh no someone said Saren, IT MUST BE HIM, even though your character only has evidence of someone who claims to have heard Nihlus call Saren, Saren.  

You go to the Citadel and present evidence that you don't have.  Oh no you must find evidence.  Since they have your mission report the hearing was just plot filler to introduce you to Saren. 

Next you hunt around the Citadel doing optional side quests in order to find the location of someone with evidence.  The game ends if Tali dies, even though you should be able to get the data from her dead body, just a minor gripe there.

You after finding the evidence are made a Spectre to track him down. 

From here is where I find the difference between the two games.  in ME 1 you have three leads.

One:  Liara is a prothean expert, relation to Benezia.  May have useful knowledge 
*This reminds me of Okeer in ME 2, but Liara becomes relevent to the plot, although you could pick her up first or last it doesn't really matter, she just tells you where you specifically need to go

Noveria:  Saren's lieutenant has been spotted there.  This one makes a bit more sense as they might end with information regarding Saren.  Ultimately you get the knowledge of what relay to use, or relay codes (something like that).

Feros:  Can't recal exactly the priority of going there was.  Ultimately you get the knowledge of the Protheans, this is problematic in regards to the story because Liara should suffice in telling you what you need to know, or this should suffice in telling you what you need to know.  But in the story you need both of them.

Virmire:  Main story mission, presented out of the blue as a side mission to an extent.  You need to investigate a distress call by STG as they were also investigating Saren.  Ends up you find his base of operations, you find out about the ultimate enemy, get the rest of the information needed from the beacon and ultimately you destroy and send Saren on the run. 

Its a nonlinear approach to the story but depending on the order you take it, to me it just seems like you are running around stumbilng for information which it should but two of the missions that are required seemed like you could axe one for the other.

I almost always go Liara/Feros/Noveria/Virmire, but one timeI chose to get Liara last and the plot just felt kind of strange.  

ME 2 past the first couple of parts.  You go an investigate and abandoned Colony, find information about who is abducting the colonists (for certain anyway).  You then do some side missions, new mission pops up sends you into a confrontation with main enemy.  Do some sidequests until next mission pops up.  Next you investigate their Ship which will lead to more information about them and what is needed to get through the relay.  Next you have the option of taking the main story mission or doing side missions.  The main story mission (IFF) gives you what you need to get through the relay.  Next you have to do a misison to initiate the "Joker" mission, and finally you go through the relay to stop what was going on.

They both have narrative missteps.  I prefer ME 2's focus over ME 1, but neither are ideal.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

jasonontko wrote...

 You make a good point.  DAO id definately an RPG and you do spend alot of time killing darkspwn.  However, you get major plot advancments with each mission. 

You also have more varried combat but I suppose that just the nature of fantsy.

Don't get me wrong. ME2 definitely is not as story heavy. But when I see people mention DA:O I think it gets a free pass because of the 'sword and sorcery' scenario. =p

But fighting the Arch-Demon was definitely epic.

[Masticetobbacco]

jasonontko wrote...

being the hero and slaying the evil dragon? yea pffft as if that hasnt been done over 9000 times before

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Return it, and buy something else. We will all miss you.

I dont understand why you either must love a game completely or if you find fault with you must return it.  I like ME2 I just want it to be better.  What is with this reductionism?

Exactly. Not everything is black and white.

Well obviously if someone is referring to a game as a "fail" then they didn't really like it to much now did they?

[jasonontko]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

IMO ME2 would have worked better had it preceeded ME1. 

I dont know how the ME1 storyline fell appart, it seemed well contained IMO.  There was major plot advancements with each major missions.  The side quests I agree were tangential to the story like MOST loyalty missions were tangential in ME2.  Either your running errands for 5th fleet or your running errands for crew I dont see the difference. 

Outside of those on the Citadel, most side quests in ME1 were basically 'Get mission report. Land on planet in Mako. Kill generic villain.' Or 'Find random space ship. Explore three rooms. Leave.'

ME2 'loyalty missions' are definitely contrived (that we can put them under a category is evidence of this). But I find the details were at least fleshed out. Helping Thane is not helping Legion is not helping Samara, so to speak, and they're all tied to their history. Plus, some of them break out of the usual run and gun for some interesting gameplay.

OK I grant you that the mission game play between ME2 loyalty mssions was more varied than side missions in ME1 and that is a step in the right direction.  Still think that plot advancment was roughly equal between the two.  You still learn as much about the universe comparing each side mssion, although ME1 has an leg up there just for the fact that in came first.  So you can argue that the ME2 side mssions did a better job than ME1 side mssions. 

[JThompson6577]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

I read the retrospect and that was talking in general. No loot, planet scanning, etc.
My concerns when it comes to ME2 are primarily plot/character/realism related.

I've seen a lot of plot complaints and a lot of them boil down to, "I don't think the plot moved forward because of A B or C."

Mass Effect 1, regardless of it being part of a planned triology, had to be self-contained.  They couldn't exactly put forward a game with a brand-new intellectual property that was just set up for games two and three cause there's always the chance that it wouldn't sell. 

There was no way to be sure the game would be successful enough to warrent a sequel so they set up a sequel but they also made sure that if the game flopped that at least they told a complete story.

ME 2 is different because it's the second act of a three act play.  Think about the second act of most three act stories.  You don't exactly solve all that much and many times the heroes are actually worse off from where they began.  Still, upon seeing the resolution you can go back and see where the threads are planted.

ME2 had to set up ME 3, but they also had to deal with the fact that every single play through is going to advance in ways they may not expect.  It's not like a D and D campaign where you and I may start a pre-written campaign and end up anywhere depending on how we play.  They have to do their best to keep us in line while at the same time allowing for personal playing style to change the story.

If it was the Mass Effect trilogy of novels or films they might be able to avoid some of the pitfalls the game had to endure.  Still I think the plot was successfully relayed, Mass Effect 1 was an adventure, Mass Effect 2 was army building in a way and I imagine Mass Effect 3 is the final conflict because they keep saying that Shepard's story will be complete in the third game.

[SkullandBonesmember]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I'm waiting for the part where you define character interaction, which you once again have failed to do.

And hell, most people argue that the ME2 plot fails on its own compared to ME1, that they chose to focus on combat. Yours sounds more like because you had a more difficult time learning tactics, the story must be longer to compensate. Turn the difficulty down if it's that bad. Or try playing Dragon Age: Origins. I assure you, you will spend more time killing darkspawn than you ever will talking to anyone. Yet DA:O is still accepted as an RPG.

I stick with Normal for ME1 and the easiest for ME2. It has nothing to do with "it's too tough for me". ME1 appealed to me because it wasn't really a shooter and that's what pissed for the shooter fans. I eased into it comfortably, therefore I could enjoy the story. It's like that with any game I play. Even Bioware acknowledged that the easiest setting is for those who like story above all else. What little there was.

With the technology available to us today, there's a lot more we can do. Like I said, the potential for games like Heavy Rain and even Mass Effect are staggering. I don't want a 4 minute convo. I want my character to grow through relationships, romantic or otherwise, not through headshots. And 12 or so 4 minute convos on the Normandy is not building relationships and doing much to further the plot. And if you're gonna go for the "read a book" cop out-



3:07-3:26.

[SkullandBonesmember]

JThompson6577 wrote...

I've seen a lot of plot complaints and a lot of them boil down to, "I don't think the plot moved forward because of A B or C."

Mass Effect 1, regardless of it being part of a planned triology, had to be self-contained.  They couldn't exactly put forward a game with a brand-new intellectual property that was just set up for games two and three cause there's always the chance that it wouldn't sell. 

There was no way to be sure the game would be successful enough to warrent a sequel so they set up a sequel but they also made sure that if the game flopped that at least they told a complete story.

ME 2 is different because it's the second act of a three act play.  Think about the second act of most three act stories.  You don't exactly solve all that much and many times the heroes are actually worse off from where they began.  Still, upon seeing the resolution you can go back and see where the threads are planted.

ME2 had to set up ME 3, but they also had to deal with the fact that every single play through is going to advance in ways they may not expect.  It's not like a D and D campaign where you and I may start a pre-written campaign and end up anywhere depending on how we play.  They have to do their best to keep us in line while at the same time allowing for personal playing style to change the story.

If it was the Mass Effect trilogy of novels or films they might be able to avoid some of the pitfalls the game had to endure.  Still I think the plot was successfully relayed, Mass Effect 1 was an adventure, Mass Effect 2 was army building in a way and I imagine Mass Effect 3 is the final conflict because they keep saying that Shepard's story will be complete in the third game.

That doesn't mean ME2 had to suffer the way it did when it comes to character interaction and realism.

[SkullandBonesmember]

scyphozoa wrote...

really? michael and rebekah is what upset you?

+1 lol

Among many other things, yes.

So sorry but not everybody likes 'SPLOSHUNS being put first. Maybe you do, but often with the RPG crowd, that's not very well recieved.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Well obviously if someone is referring to a game as a "fail" then they didn't really like it to much now did they?

As. An. RPG. Understood?

[jasonontko]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Here's the thing. Comparing ME 1 and ME 2's plot really doesn't work because both have major, huge issues. Bringing Heavy Rain into this discussion doesn't work either because it has a BIG HUGE MASSIVE PROBLEM. If you want story over gameplay then either ME game doesn't really work, and that is why its subjective. ME 2 failed as an RPG doesn't make sense because RPG has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with how the story is presented. ME 2 failed as a story would work but we already have two threads going full steam, this just seemed like a ploy for comments than a needed criticism.

I played ME 1 11 times, then played ME 2 4 times. I wasn't sure how I felt about ME 2, but it was going back to ME 1 where it just seemed like the game fell apart in how the storyline was presented. ME 2 the characters were more developed, the plot was fully defined and your character had constant interaction with the enemy. ME 1 felt like you were running on errands in your investigation hoping to find something of use, which it wasn't until after you did all the missions did you find out why you went and got LIara, why you went and got the Cipher. In ME 2 the missions are settled around investigating the Collectors and it is presented in a more coherent manner.

I don't know how else to approach this discussion because I have played way, WAY too many games.

IMO ME2 would have worked better had it preceeded ME1. 

I dont know how the ME1 storyline fell appart, it seemed well contained IMO.  There was major plot advancements with each major missions.  The side quests I agree were tangential to the story like MOST loyalty missions were tangential in ME2.  Either your runbning errands for 5th fleet or your running errands for crew I dont see the difference. 

Basically I'm only comparing the main plot missions of each game.

The loyatly and recruitment missions for the most part are opitional, but you need to do sidquests in order to activate main story missions.

The reason I say ME 1 doesn't work that well is because you start out on Eden Prime.  Something happens, oh no someone said Saren, IT MUST BE HIM, even though your character only has evidence of someone who claims to have heard Nihlus call Saren, Saren.  

You go to the Citadel and present evidence that you don't have.  Oh no you must find evidence.  Since they have your mission report the hearing was just plot filler to introduce you to Saren. 

Next you hunt around the Citadel doing optional side quests in order to find the location of someone with evidence.  The game ends if Tali dies, even though you should be able to get the data from her dead body, just a minor gripe there.

You after finding the evidence are made a Spectre to track him down. 

From here is where I find the difference between the two games.  in ME 1 you have three leads.

One:  Liara is a prothean expert, relation to Benezia.  May have useful knowledge 
*This reminds me of Okeer in ME 2, but Liara becomes relevent to the plot, although you could pick her up first or last it doesn't really matter, she just tells you where you specifically need to go

Noveria:  Saren's lieutenant has been spotted there.  This one makes a bit more sense as they might end with information regarding Saren.  Ultimately you get the knowledge of what relay to use, or relay codes (something like that).

Feros:  Can't recal exactly the priority of going there was.  Ultimately you get the knowledge of the Protheans, this is problematic in regards to the story because Liara should suffice in telling you what you need to know, or this should suffice in telling you what you need to know.  But in the story you need both of them.

Virmire:  Main story mission, presented out of the blue as a side mission to an extent.  You need to investigate a distress call by STG as they were also investigating Saren.  Ends up you find his base of operations, you find out about the ultimate enemy, get the rest of the information needed from the beacon and ultimately you destroy and send Saren on the run. 

Its a nonlinear approach to the story but depending on the order you take it, to me it just seems like you are running around stumbilng for information which it should but two of the missions that are required seemed like you could axe one for the other.

I almost always go Liara/Feros/Noveria/Virmire, but one timeI chose to get Liara last and the plot just felt kind of strange.  

ME 2 past the first couple of parts.  You go an investigate and abandoned Colony, find information about who is abducting the colonists (for certain anyway).  You then do some side missions, new mission pops up sends you into a confrontation with main enemy.  Do some sidequests until next mission pops up.  Next you investigate their Ship which will lead to more information about them and what is needed to get through the relay.  Next you have the option of taking the main story mission or doing side missions.  The main story mission (IFF) gives you what you need to get through the relay.  Next you have to do a misison to initiate the "Joker" mission, and finally you go through the relay to stop what was going on.

They both have narrative missteps.  I prefer ME 2's focus over ME 1, but neither are ideal.

I cant argue with that.  You make good points.  All stories can better, of course how they can better is subjective.

Modifié par jasonontko, 21 mars 2010 - 03:59 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

scyphozoa wrote...

why do you think i care about explosions? what makes you think i am not the rpg crowd? lots of assumptions all over just 1 lol

If you're in the RPG crowd, I'd bet money you're of the club that likes loot, if Michael and Rebeckah didn't bother you.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
With the technology available to us today, there's a lot more we can do. Like I said, the potential for games like Heavy Rain and even Mass Effect are staggering. I don't want a 4 minute convo. I want my character to grow through relationships, romantic or otherwise, not through headshots. And 12 or so 4 minute convos on the Normandy is not building relationships and doing much to further the plot.

Vague comments don't make for good arguments.  Give examples. What characters in your opinion failed to develop? Why? What you are suggesting is a contradiction.  "I want 12 minute character conversations." Sorry, but we've had this since kotor. And we had it through Jade Empire. And now we've had it for Mass Effect and it's gotten old. Very old. What you suggest has been done for the last seven years at least. ME2 gave us the same great conversations, combined with new, realistic motions to go with it.

Again, how are your character interactions worse in ME2? I recall spending quite a bit of time learning about the Genophage from Mordin while learning about him as a person. This is new and refreshing. In ME, a character either talked about himself or about his culture. There was not very much of both. In ME, I could only interact with my squad members. Everyone said the same old crap. In ME2, my squad is fleshed out and my crew is actually worth my time!

And I'll stilll be wanting that definition of character interaction, if you'd be so kind.

And if you're gonna go for the "read a book" cop out-



3:07-3:26.

Don't feed me this line. I spent a great deal of my life playing Morrowind. You could go hours without combat just reading through books and character conversations. There's nothing wrong with reading in a video game.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 mars 2010 - 04:04 .