Everyone hates it because well, umm ..... it's shit, just as we said. Most RPG players agree that F3 is utter garbage in that area. When you think of story, dialog, or any other thing except great open world sandbox, you do not think Bethesda.northeast rower said:
(spoilers) Opinion: Mass Effect 2 has some of the weakest writing around (spoilers)
- Thread starter northeast rower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"We don't like it because it's shit". Thanks for explaining.Imbechile said:
I do think of Bethesda. Try and see a different developer make a scene as interesting as Tranquility Lane or a character as well-written as Arcade Gannon.
EDIT: DAMMIT. I keep on forgetting that New Vegas was Obsidian. Still, look at President Eden, James, Charon, and Harold.
Well, I thought you too were being calm and rational at first, and then I read your post.Thespian said:
I'll admit, I had it wrong when I said that it was filled with cliches since they're so hard to avoid. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any attempt to avoid them.
Shepard doesn't change. We can all admit that that's a bad thing. Miranda DOES change, but her change doesn't make sense, and after that one scene she's back to the same person. There's a difference between consistency in character and outright schizophrenic development.
Thane I criticized not because he's underdeveloped, but because his development is so cliched (which we can't avoid, but stuff like this is overused). Good characters stand on their own without their past being referenced or their occupation. This is known as the Star Wars Test: describe a character without referencing their profession, costume, history, or relationships. If you can pick out specific qualities, that's a good thing.
That was a cute little bit at the end, though. Points for effort.
Facepalm.jpg
Seeing how you basically choose every line and even a back story for Shepard, saying that he/she has no progression is as close to having a wrong opinion as you can get. The reason why he/she has no consistency is because of you. You don't want your person coming out bipolar? Choose the bottom or the speech choices, don't ever switch them up.
I guess for the rest I just disagree with you. It's a videogame story. Mass Effect is one of the best ones you're gonna get. Hell, I didn't even particularly like the game, but I know when people are reaching pretty far out to complain about something.
Yes, the characters are pretty one dimensional, but that's because they are suppose to be. The broad stereotype that each one of them fills is suppose to be the basic thing that you're "attracted" too. If you tried making complex characters, the game would need much more writing.
Seeing how you basically choose every line and even a back story for Shepard, saying that he/she has no progression is as close to having a wrong opinion as you can get. The reason why he/she has no consistency is because of you. You don't want your person coming out bipolar? Choose the bottom or the speech choices, don't ever switch them up.
I guess for the rest I just disagree with you. It's a videogame story. Mass Effect is one of the best ones you're gonna get. Hell, I didn't even particularly like the game, but I know when people are reaching pretty far out to complain about something.
Yes, the characters are pretty one dimensional, but that's because they are suppose to be. The broad stereotype that each one of them fills is suppose to be the basic thing that you're "attracted" too. If you tried making complex characters, the game would need much more writing.
Efficient, doomed/fatalistic, philosophical, introspective, regretful, skilled, quiet, withdrawn. I can't say I really see the point of this.northeast rower said:
AFAIK Arcade is an Obsidian creation.northeast rower said:
I'm not exactly sure what a scene means in reference to Tranquility Lane.
I don't think you mean exciting (pacing, tension or consequences). It doesn't evoke particularly strong emotion. Not really distinctive visually in anyway besides being in black and white. Running around as a masked slasher is somewhat amusing, and breaking up the marriage may be as well. Not sure it's really funny though.
So I guess you mean the decision to either kill the residents of the vault or leave them in the sim?
I don't know if it's all THAT bad, apart from Miranda who frankly I wouldn't even consider defending as she completely confirms the first impression of blandness and shallowness of a hairspray commercial and the dullest morning soap operas, but I certainly appreciate a little critical contestation of Bioware's writing standard. They get basically 100% praise for what is generally just solid given the premises.
I EDITED THIS ALL AWAY
Because I thought it got deleted anyway and now it is irrevent and TLDR because of the following post. You guys don't have a "delete" button for these things do ya?
Because I thought it got deleted anyway and now it is irrevent and TLDR because of the following post. You guys don't have a "delete" button for these things do ya?
This useless website keeps eating my posts.
This is my first post, I was just passing by when I saw the topic. I agree with OP completely. ME2 has bad writing. It's more than an opinion; it does things that are bad practice.
Being a video game isn't an excuse for bad writing. When it comes to games, simplicity is a good practice for solid writing; a series of simple events connected by logical steps, with plenty of good player participation, connected to interesting ideas? That will ALWAYS be better than a complex and/or convoluted plot with numerous events that are held together by suspension of disbelief. And that's ME2. Plot is invented moment by moment and sustained by info that TIM pulls out of his backside.
Characters are shallow. The thing is, go ahead and have shallow characters if that's your thing, but the game seems to put up a front of complexity and depth to the characters that is quickly dispelled as the game goes along.
Shepard has no personality or consistency. I realize that's a risk of the way his character is designed, but for some reason I don't remember it being as bad in ME1. Plus, let's not forget that nothing really... HAPPENS in ME2. At the end you're basically EXACTLY where you were at the end of ME1. BioWare has already shown they don't care what you did in ME1, so any choices you made in 2 were irrelevant. Shepard's death, aside from being an excuse for 2 lost years, meant NOTHING overall and was a wasted plot detail, so that doesn't matter either. The Reapers are... huh, still way out in space outside the galaxy with no way in (no way that has been invented by the writers in the nick of time, I mean).
Defending this game's terrible plot is a waste of time. It's a fun shooter that needs more gameplay depth, that's all. Story is a wash. ME1's story wasn't even that brilliant but the immersion and world details were quite immersive and gave it charm that 2 can't come close to.
I only came here to watch zero punctuation, the one with the funny man who talks about video games
This is my first post, I was just passing by when I saw the topic. I agree with OP completely. ME2 has bad writing. It's more than an opinion; it does things that are bad practice.
Being a video game isn't an excuse for bad writing. When it comes to games, simplicity is a good practice for solid writing; a series of simple events connected by logical steps, with plenty of good player participation, connected to interesting ideas? That will ALWAYS be better than a complex and/or convoluted plot with numerous events that are held together by suspension of disbelief. And that's ME2. Plot is invented moment by moment and sustained by info that TIM pulls out of his backside.
Characters are shallow. The thing is, go ahead and have shallow characters if that's your thing, but the game seems to put up a front of complexity and depth to the characters that is quickly dispelled as the game goes along.
Shepard has no personality or consistency. I realize that's a risk of the way his character is designed, but for some reason I don't remember it being as bad in ME1. Plus, let's not forget that nothing really... HAPPENS in ME2. At the end you're basically EXACTLY where you were at the end of ME1. BioWare has already shown they don't care what you did in ME1, so any choices you made in 2 were irrelevant. Shepard's death, aside from being an excuse for 2 lost years, meant NOTHING overall and was a wasted plot detail, so that doesn't matter either. The Reapers are... huh, still way out in space outside the galaxy with no way in (no way that has been invented by the writers in the nick of time, I mean).
Defending this game's terrible plot is a waste of time. It's a fun shooter that needs more gameplay depth, that's all. Story is a wash. ME1's story wasn't even that brilliant but the immersion and world details were quite immersive and gave it charm that 2 can't come close to.
I only came here to watch zero punctuation, the one with the funny man who talks about video games
Holy Mother of God, someone call the fire department!
I disagree, I consider ME2 to be pretty well off in the writing department, but I can see where you are coming from.
GET OVER IT EVERYONE!!!
Oh and by the way, Fallout 3 is awesome.
I disagree, I consider ME2 to be pretty well off in the writing department, but I can see where you are coming from.
GET OVER IT EVERYONE!!!
Oh and by the way, Fallout 3 is awesome.
I disagree, but there's little I can say in regards to writing that will change your mind. I will say, however, that you are completely ignoring game design in your critique of the game's design. It's weird, I know, but it's happening.
You're saying the writing sucks because the characters are super powerful, and nothing should be able to stop them because of it, and there should be no hindrance to their abilities. That game would suck. I'm not one of those "challenge above all else" gamers (they actually annoy the crap out of me), but some challenge is necessary in a game. Those things you find kind of weird are put in there for the sake of genuine challenge and complexity in the gameplay; if the characters were all super powerful, it would really suck.
Yes, there's a disconnect between story and gameplay here. But that's natural. It's necessary, even. It's the same reason prequels have new weapons and enemies, the same reason FPS characters do hand-to-hand combat in cutscenes, and for that matter, the same reason they emote in cutscenes when they usually don't during gameplay; games and stories do not mix easily. These differences are inevitable, and simply do not make for bad writing.
You're saying the writing sucks because the characters are super powerful, and nothing should be able to stop them because of it, and there should be no hindrance to their abilities. That game would suck. I'm not one of those "challenge above all else" gamers (they actually annoy the crap out of me), but some challenge is necessary in a game. Those things you find kind of weird are put in there for the sake of genuine challenge and complexity in the gameplay; if the characters were all super powerful, it would really suck.
Yes, there's a disconnect between story and gameplay here. But that's natural. It's necessary, even. It's the same reason prequels have new weapons and enemies, the same reason FPS characters do hand-to-hand combat in cutscenes, and for that matter, the same reason they emote in cutscenes when they usually don't during gameplay; games and stories do not mix easily. These differences are inevitable, and simply do not make for bad writing.
Well personally meeting Caesar for the first time in New Vegas was much more interesting and insightful than going to some simulation filled with more black and white (no pun intended) morality.northeast rower said:
Arcade Gannon was written by J. E. Sawyer, lead designer/project director of Fallout: New Vegas, developed by Obsidian Entertainment.
This is one of my biggest problems with the direction the ME story has been heading. Back in the days of the first ME game, the Reapers were genuinely threatening. Now, they come across as bumbling fools who can't do anything right; despite having a massive advantage over the galactic community, all they can come up with are contrived and ineffectual plans which are easily thwarted by a single human. With Shepard having stopped the Reapers so many times, their gloats of superiority can't be taken seriously anymore.itchcrotch said:
I also dislike the idea of humans apparently being a some kind of galactic "master race", rightfully superior to all the others all the way down to their genetics. The first game tried to emphasize the importance of all races working together and then ME2 gives us this nonsense about human genetic diversity compared to other species and Harbinger dismissing every other species unsuitable for their plans. With ME3's premise it's even more ridiculous. If I was, say a turian or an asari, I sure as hell couldn't be convinced to go and fight for someone else's homeworld when there's a galaxy-wide apocalypse going on. Obviously, the idea of "taking back Earth" was crammed in the game in order to appeal to people emotionally, even though it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense; wouldn't you rather try and find a common solution to get rid of the Reapers altogether or go and save a single planet? Unless they pull a "Halo 3" on us and introduce a deus ex machina ancient artifact on Earth.
I think a fundamental problem in ME2 and onwards is how they rely on the player being so excited and engaged they won't notice plot holes or nonsensical developments. Whereas ME1 created a fluid an organic plot where you learn things as you progress and the status quo changes based on developments that occur over the course of the plot, ME2 builds the whole narrative around a single concept, "build up your team and then go on a suicide mission". Based on the marketing so far, I can see something similar happening with ME3 - "go recruit civilizations, take back Earth".