to me, Shepherd was more of a stand in character. He is me. I was more interested in the development of the crew threw their loyalty missions. To me that's what the story is about, the crew of the Normandy, not its captain.
(spoilers) Opinion: Mass Effect 2 has some of the weakest writing around (spoilers)
- Thread starter northeast rower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally, I see nothing wrong with it either. But in the ME universe, Shepard's the first of his kind to undergo something like the Lazarus project. So it makes sense that people would be fascinated by his coming back from the dead. And they're not, which is immersion breaking to me.Bento Box said:
Science fiction has long explored themes of what it means to be human. Look at PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Hell, look at Frankenstein. There's long been a fascination with what constitutes humanity. There's also been interest in what happens after death. So for those big themes to just get abandoned by the wayside in ME2's story...it seemed like a suspension of disbelief I just couldn't buy into.
On a personal note, I'm agnostic/atheist. That doesn't mean these themes hold no interest to me. Far from it. And to just write off religion in this setting as saying it plays a smaller role, well it ignores characters like Ashley, who's faith was a big part of her characterization. It ignores the geth "heretics," a term that relies on some sort of religious context to fully understand. It ignores codex entries that say the salarians have become interested in Buddhist teachings, or other entries that explain what the asari and turians believe, etc.
I'm not saying the game should've presumed to give us an answer as to what Shepard experienced while dead. That could've been heavy handed and may have conflicted with players' beliefs. But give him the chance to experience doubt and wonder. Ignoring it completely just seems...hollow. If that makes sense at all.
Well they have some bad moments in there you can't deny that, but there are hell of alot more good ones.
The bigger issue is the schizophrenic tone of voice, they ofcourse recorded it with the intention of a high impact on the conversation either way it goes, but they don't mix well so one moment hes Batman and the next hes a sparkly vampire, and the counter party doesn't react to your tone either so it just ends up in a really strange uncanny valley mix.
The bigger issue is the schizophrenic tone of voice, they ofcourse recorded it with the intention of a high impact on the conversation either way it goes, but they don't mix well so one moment hes Batman and the next hes a sparkly vampire, and the counter party doesn't react to your tone either so it just ends up in a really strange uncanny valley mix.
The Codex argument was brought up in reference to the OP's comment on how kinetic barriers shouldn't stop gravitational attacks, which is explained on the Codex. The Codex has no entries on individual characters and is never used as a crutch.Xaio30 said:
You seriously haven't played many games, if you think ME2 has the weakest writing around. I know that with the 3rd part incoming, it's the current trend to find every possible fault there is, but claiming this game of all has the weakest writing is just plain dumb.
Mass effect 2 has some of the best writing videogames have to offer, but the problem is that it is all dependent on how much effort the player wants to put in to developing those characters. For instance if you don't actually take time to know say Thane yes he will appear as the stereotype of the assassin with a heart of gold, but if you dig deeper then you will find a much more developed character. Thane is dying, he knows his time is limited and it's because of that, that he is trying to change his ways, trying to make amends with his son, Thane working with Shepard on a mission he'll probably die on shows a lot about his character he knows he's going to die and that's why he's helping you because he wants his death to mean something. Sure this isn't the most original concept around but Bioware pulls it off with enough skill and emotion that you legitimately care about thane (or at least I did)
That's the greatest thing about Mass Effect 2, it is a work of interactive fiction, unlike most games where your actions have little baring on the plot, in Mass Effect everything you do alters the plot, even the tiniest mistake can lead to someone dying, and if they do die (and you did all the loyalty missions) then you will feel the weight of their death because in the end they died because of a decision you made, you made a decision and it was wrong and because of that people died, this simple concept has so much weight because it impacts how the next game will play and through that you generally care about your squad, because you know if you mess up some one will die. And that is why the writing of Mass Effect is miles above most games, because it actually uses the inherent interactivity of games as a tool.
Also saying Mass Effect's plot is a worse version of Halo's is the most ridiculous thing ever said in the history of ever, Halo has terrible writing. Also I don't seem to remember the time in Mass Effect where I fought Space Catholics and Head Crab knock offs.
That's the greatest thing about Mass Effect 2, it is a work of interactive fiction, unlike most games where your actions have little baring on the plot, in Mass Effect everything you do alters the plot, even the tiniest mistake can lead to someone dying, and if they do die (and you did all the loyalty missions) then you will feel the weight of their death because in the end they died because of a decision you made, you made a decision and it was wrong and because of that people died, this simple concept has so much weight because it impacts how the next game will play and through that you generally care about your squad, because you know if you mess up some one will die. And that is why the writing of Mass Effect is miles above most games, because it actually uses the inherent interactivity of games as a tool.
Also saying Mass Effect's plot is a worse version of Halo's is the most ridiculous thing ever said in the history of ever, Halo has terrible writing. Also I don't seem to remember the time in Mass Effect where I fought Space Catholics and Head Crab knock offs.
I agree Mass Effect 2 has weak writing (or at least way weaker than its predecessor) but criticizing the game for its characters in particular seems strange to me. Though some of the criticisms you voiced are valid, for me, any problems with the characterizations pale in comparison to the mess that is the main plot itself. While I have a handful of gripes with the plot of the first game, they are minimal in nature to my problems with ME2. I think this is in no small part due to the change in lead writer; it seems Mac Walters has a completely different idea on how things work than Drew Karpyshyn.
I'm not going to list every single gripe I have with ME2's story, since they're too numerous or fundamental to list in a single post. One basic thing, however, is the depiction of the Reapers. I feel like they've been working hard to strip away all the credibility that had been built around the Reapers in the first game and in the novels. Whether it be Harbinger spouting his infamous gloats or something as stupendously dumb as the human Reaper, I just can't take these things seriously anymore. They were degraded from a genuinely threatening, civilization-ending force to ordinary cartoon villains. Then there's the Arrival DLC, which is a whole new level of dumb in itself. There's probably more plot holes in that DLC alone than the two ME games combined.
In contrast to this, I feel the characters in ME2 were rather well-developed. Yes, most of them were stereotypes, but at least they had some interesting stories and traits. Most of the time, I felt genuinely engaged when I was playing each character's missions and didn't have even nearly as many gripes with them than I had with the missions or scenes having to do with the overarching plot. It really shows their focus was on the characters and building up your team, but sadly this was at the expense of the overall plot.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the ME series and the universe. I want the stories to be well-crafted and enjoyable, which makes some of the problems with the narrative all the more painful for me. For those saying that people shouldn't complain because the ME series still has some of the best writing in games, I say the writing should be consistently good, not just good "most of the time." I can ignore a game with consistently substandard writing, but in a game whose writing is otherwise of good quality, the problems shine through all the more.
I'm not going to list every single gripe I have with ME2's story, since they're too numerous or fundamental to list in a single post. One basic thing, however, is the depiction of the Reapers. I feel like they've been working hard to strip away all the credibility that had been built around the Reapers in the first game and in the novels. Whether it be Harbinger spouting his infamous gloats or something as stupendously dumb as the human Reaper, I just can't take these things seriously anymore. They were degraded from a genuinely threatening, civilization-ending force to ordinary cartoon villains. Then there's the Arrival DLC, which is a whole new level of dumb in itself. There's probably more plot holes in that DLC alone than the two ME games combined.
In contrast to this, I feel the characters in ME2 were rather well-developed. Yes, most of them were stereotypes, but at least they had some interesting stories and traits. Most of the time, I felt genuinely engaged when I was playing each character's missions and didn't have even nearly as many gripes with them than I had with the missions or scenes having to do with the overarching plot. It really shows their focus was on the characters and building up your team, but sadly this was at the expense of the overall plot.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the ME series and the universe. I want the stories to be well-crafted and enjoyable, which makes some of the problems with the narrative all the more painful for me. For those saying that people shouldn't complain because the ME series still has some of the best writing in games, I say the writing should be consistently good, not just good "most of the time." I can ignore a game with consistently substandard writing, but in a game whose writing is otherwise of good quality, the problems shine through all the more.
How exactly is it explained in the codex? This is what the codex says on kinetic barriers:The Random One said:
Nowhere in there was it explained how they stop biotic attacks. Indeed, in the first game, they do not, yet the codex entries for both games are identical.
Honestly, Mass Effect 2 simply is not a good game. Bioware let the sales and popularity of the 1st drop their story quality, and they tried to fix the gameplay way too hard, and ended up going backwards.
Anyone who complained about the 1st inventory has obviously never played a true RPG where the menu looks more daunting any enemy.
Why not just cut the number of weapons and weapon mods in half? No, that's too complex. Let's dumb it down more for the 13yos and simply remove your choices altogether.
Hate the vehicle sections? Fine, let's replace them with something good. What's that? Jimmy's only got 5 more days to live and wants us to include his idea of a planet probe? How can we say no.
Ugh. Mass Effect 2 had the ability to be an absolutely incredible game. But Bioware, to me, seemed to half-ass it just a little bit too much. The game really needed another 6 months of development and to have a couple of betas released where we could jump onto some of the stupid bullshit in it.
Anyone who complained about the 1st inventory has obviously never played a true RPG where the menu looks more daunting any enemy.
Why not just cut the number of weapons and weapon mods in half? No, that's too complex. Let's dumb it down more for the 13yos and simply remove your choices altogether.
Hate the vehicle sections? Fine, let's replace them with something good. What's that? Jimmy's only got 5 more days to live and wants us to include his idea of a planet probe? How can we say no.
Ugh. Mass Effect 2 had the ability to be an absolutely incredible game. But Bioware, to me, seemed to half-ass it just a little bit too much. The game really needed another 6 months of development and to have a couple of betas released where we could jump onto some of the stupid bullshit in it.
The staccato version:
Tropes are not bad. Execution is everything. Mass Effect 2's main plot was not the strongest. Characters were fine. Their development was better. BioWare's pretty good. Obsidian/Black Isle is better. I'm still laughing at the mention of James Joyce and Homer.
Tropes are not bad. Execution is everything. Mass Effect 2's main plot was not the strongest. Characters were fine. Their development was better. BioWare's pretty good. Obsidian/Black Isle is better. I'm still laughing at the mention of James Joyce and Homer.
Was that the point I was making? No. It wasn't. I was saying that it IS possible to make a 30+ hour piece with good writing. I'm not saying that we should hold all video games to that standard, I'm saying that it is possible for a game to be that good.BloatedGuppy said:
Want a video-game example? Fine. Fallout 3. Red Dead Redemption. Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Dead Space. LA Noire. Assassin's Creed 2.
I could find as much faults in those games as you have found in ME2, what you seem to not be understanding is how revolutionary Mass Effect 2 is, because as I have previously stated it does something no other game to date has done as effectively, it uses the fact that it is a video game as a tool to tell its story, the fact that nearly every person who plays the game has a different story than the next speaks volumes about this. Mass Effect 2 is amazing because you actually feel the weight of your decisions, at the end of Fallout 3 I easily sacrificed myself because I knew there were no consequences, if there was a sequel I knew my sacrifice wouldn't matter so I easily layed down my life, because I saw no reason not to, my decisions didn't have any weight because I knew inevitably it would all end the same so it was easy always choosing the good option.
In Mass Effect 2 however I actually felt the weight of my decisions I knew if one of the characters doesn't make it to Mass Effect 3 than it would be my fault. This is why Mass Effect 2 succeeds at being one of the best pieces of Interactive fiction because my actions mattered and have large implications on the story, in Fallout 3 my sacrifice didn't make any got dang sense especially sense oh I don't know MY COMPANION WAS IMMUNE TO RADIATION, and it was all undone in the broken steel DLC. In Mass Effect everything is more gray sure there is a morality system but it isn't Black and white (most of the time) choosing renegade usually just meant being more aggressive not necessarily evil, which shows how great the writing is in Mass Effect 2, it did something most games could never do it gave you hard tough choices with no right answers. (BTW I love Fallout 3 I played that game for soooooo many hours just comparing the two in terms of decision making)
In Mass Effect 2 however I actually felt the weight of my decisions I knew if one of the characters doesn't make it to Mass Effect 3 than it would be my fault. This is why Mass Effect 2 succeeds at being one of the best pieces of Interactive fiction because my actions mattered and have large implications on the story, in Fallout 3 my sacrifice didn't make any got dang sense especially sense oh I don't know MY COMPANION WAS IMMUNE TO RADIATION, and it was all undone in the broken steel DLC. In Mass Effect everything is more gray sure there is a morality system but it isn't Black and white (most of the time) choosing renegade usually just meant being more aggressive not necessarily evil, which shows how great the writing is in Mass Effect 2, it did something most games could never do it gave you hard tough choices with no right answers. (BTW I love Fallout 3 I played that game for soooooo many hours just comparing the two in terms of decision making)
I know personal taste is personal taste, but Fallout 3?
Mass Effect 2 at least gave a half-hearted attempt to hide the rails, Fallout 3 left them sitting out. They are almost completely incapable of making a sympathetic character. The plot regularly insults you (Dad's suicide, Fawkes won't go into the radiation, Mr. Handy can give you purified water etc.) and Little fucking Lamplight...
And Mass Effect's rails were cromulent in an action shooter sense (well, except everybody getting on that shuttle). Fallout 3 was handing out idiot balls like they were candy.
Mass Effect 2 at least gave a half-hearted attempt to hide the rails, Fallout 3 left them sitting out. They are almost completely incapable of making a sympathetic character. The plot regularly insults you (Dad's suicide, Fawkes won't go into the radiation, Mr. Handy can give you purified water etc.) and Little fucking Lamplight...
And Mass Effect's rails were cromulent in an action shooter sense (well, except everybody getting on that shuttle). Fallout 3 was handing out idiot balls like they were candy.
I'd say that many of the characters are among the best-written in games. A few really, really aren't and the most interesting ones tend to be the ones with more alien codes of ethics (I thought Samara proved to be a very interesting character). In this sense though, they're sort of more interesting for what they tell you about the setting than as characters themselves I suppose.
My only qualm is that the ME games have a tendency to add precisely two layers of depth to all characters. They're both usually good and interesting levels mind you - I don't think this is a failure to characterize them properly. However, it does get a bit predictable when you meet someone and you immediately know that you will soon discover that one of their major character traits stands in juxtaposition to the others.
Tough guy? He'll have a soft side. Perfect girl? Her perfection will make her a pariah. Good guy loyal to the core? He's willing to go overboard to see that justice is done.
They're all interesting characters with development and a good level of depth (except maybe Jaycob...), but it does admittedly get a bit predictable in what ways their depth will be developed.
Also, this is a lot of complaining for someone who clearly didn't read the Codex. Electronic shields and biotics are discussed.
And really? You're going to complain about asymmetry between cutscenes/in-game narration of abilities and actual gameplay? I hope you never intend on playing any games ever.
I guess in the end, it's not so much that your complaints are invalid (well, most of them) as it is that there are virtually no games that do a better job of these things. It's like you're arguing that the game is bad because it isn't the best game ever, fixing every longstanding problem of the medium.
My only qualm is that the ME games have a tendency to add precisely two layers of depth to all characters. They're both usually good and interesting levels mind you - I don't think this is a failure to characterize them properly. However, it does get a bit predictable when you meet someone and you immediately know that you will soon discover that one of their major character traits stands in juxtaposition to the others.
Tough guy? He'll have a soft side. Perfect girl? Her perfection will make her a pariah. Good guy loyal to the core? He's willing to go overboard to see that justice is done.
They're all interesting characters with development and a good level of depth (except maybe Jaycob...), but it does admittedly get a bit predictable in what ways their depth will be developed.
Also, this is a lot of complaining for someone who clearly didn't read the Codex. Electronic shields and biotics are discussed.
And really? You're going to complain about asymmetry between cutscenes/in-game narration of abilities and actual gameplay? I hope you never intend on playing any games ever.
I guess in the end, it's not so much that your complaints are invalid (well, most of them) as it is that there are virtually no games that do a better job of these things. It's like you're arguing that the game is bad because it isn't the best game ever, fixing every longstanding problem of the medium.
I think after Baldur's gate 2 all of Bioware's games have meh writing since they use so many god damn cliches that were established in the Baldur's gate series(the Bioware Formula(TM)). Bioware are overrated. They're good, but not great.
The only studio left that can write great stories and characters are Obsidian, and even they are a bt inconsistent)
Ah..... RIP Black Isle, Troika
The only studio left that can write great stories and characters are Obsidian, and even they are a bt inconsistent)
Ah..... RIP Black Isle, Troika