|
FoolyCharged posted:The big problem with making a big split path choice like that is that it's a LOT of development money thrown into a gimmick that most people won't see as the average user will beat the game once, if that. I think the only games that have split the game like that that come to mind for me would be the withcher 2, and fate of atlantis. Alpha Protocol gets a side mention for reacting to lots of small scale choices, but the game was tiny to compensate for that. Fun stat: Most people don't even actually finish games. Recent Steam stats suggest that half or fewer people actually finished a selection of AAA story based games.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Man, that episode was getting deep. There's a lot to talk about with all the points you bring up, but I'll just say a couple things. The structure in this game of the Citadel always has irritated me. Very little of it feels organic in a way where the Citadel is obviously structured for the player rather than to emphasize it being another place. Sure, the Citadel of ME1 was a pain in the butt to get around, but it spoke to just how large it is and another level of immersion. ME3's Citadel feels very sterile, and as the hub area that's a poor trait to have. Like you said, it's very claustrophobic, and in terms of handing out sidequests with how crowded areas are, it can lead to the player feeling overwhelmed very easily. Later on when the Citadel gets more crowded with refugees, it feels more interesting as a player. You get a visual representation of how the Reapers are affecting the galaxy as a whole. Getting lots of sidequests feels justified with the story at that point, as the atmosphere of it feels more dire. I feel as though that the area was designed more with that in mind first and foremost. I do like the design of the Spectre office, as the black, tactical look of it makes it a little more memorable. It's also the only place on the Citadel where you can sort of slow down and relax in without NPCs in the background to make everything seem busy. In terms of how level geometry can say something, I find Doom to be the easiest example of it. There's a great video where John Romero plays a few rounds with an IGN guy, and he talks about the importance of level design in a video game. He talks about how E1M1 introduces a lot of things to the player, such as game mechanics like secret areas and the various enemy types, or just the overall feel of the game with the backgrounds and textures. How combat works in closed-in areas and larger, more expansive ones. Also, that glitch with Liara and the Turian is just the game doing its thing. I find that glitches like that occur more often the more save files you have, but that could just be my 360 being wonky.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:No Allers? True, you have the choice to not bring her along, but she is part of the game. As the game makes plenty of allusions to later on Liara is VERY bad at not giving herself away as the Shadow Broker. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if before this game The Illusive Man leaked her identity on the extranet but because this is a time of crisis no one is trying to dethrone her since she's still as competent as the previous Broker at the whole information gathering thing. Also I thiink if we want to show off the "good" aspects of this game we should keep Allers as far out of the picture as we can
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Aces High posted:Also I thiink if we want to show off the "good" aspects of this game we should keep Allers as far out of the picture as we can I concur on this statement. It's safe to say that I believe I could stand to go the rest of my life without having to see Allers' "photorealistic" face ever again. That thing is downright terrifying ; it's pure uncanny valley. Oh, and I wanted to say thanks for the good LP thus far, Lt. Danger! I've missed this series a lot, so getting to see it all again, under review like it is here, has been a very enjoyable experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
 Hey Traynor. Boy, the new gay romance options. I don't really have too much dislike towards either of them, but they aren't all that engaging as characters. Traynor I have a bit of a bigger issue with since I'm a lesbian myself and it's like, wow I don't much care for like a good third of her dialogue in the game. That isn't how ANYONE talks, regardless of orientation, but it comes off as something from some sterile "yes this is how gay people make small talk right?" conversation in a board meeting put in just to fill quotas. The Citadel DLC, for all the fun it was, doesn't help much in the "Samanta Traynor is socially awkward teehee" department either. (For the record I stuck with Liara in my Femshep playthroughs, so take that for what you will?) On the issue of space and how it's used, the comments you made on how cramped the Citadel feels ring pretty true, I think. Huerta Memorial just brings up memories of trying to bump my way through things to complete sidequests/check on the V.S./buy some things. Some other parts don't feel AS needlessly cramped, but I still think they lack the openness that 1 and even 2 had that emphasized just how large the Citadel is. There's a point later on that rectifies it somewhat but I have... other issues with that. The dream sequence still feels laughable to me. I get what they were trying to do there, I get why it's placed where it is and has what it has, but it's a lot of effort that I'd say is really trying to force the player to feel something instead of actually presenting it well enough for the player to feel the intent on their own. It's all the more jarring when contrasted with, well, a lot of moments in the series that have some impact on that level. Compare it to something like, oh, "Shepard! My friend!" back in ME2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
I like to think when my Shepherd told her to get off the Normandy he just blew her out the airlock. I like your narrative style; I can tell you take a great deal of interest in game design, and choosing to analyse the game instead of just doing a bog standard LP with shits and giggles is definitely the way to go with a triple A title that most people have played. I'm studying game design in university, and your citadel critique sounded a lot like one of my narrative theory lectures. Hell, it even has required reading with the auntie pixelante article. Keep up the good work, I'm hooked now. Also on the subject of the Citadel, early on James mentions "It’s…not right. It looks pretty. Calm and peaceful. But it’s not right." Could be intentional on Bioware's part that the Citadel feels out of sorts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Not nearly as iconic as the towns in WoW, I do feel Divinity's Reach from Guild Wars 2 needs a shout out. It is by far one of the largest cities in any RPG, not only that it feels more alive then most other cities you will find in an MMORPG. It is a large walled city that has multiple storeys with 6 different districts all inside a large circular wall. There are a ton of NPCs out and about, giving off there own unique audio cues. As well it actually feels like there are enough people living inside the city that it feels more real then most other RPG cities. Divinity's Reach stands as the best city in Guild Wars 2(although the steampunkness of the Black Citadel is awesome in its own right). Far better then Lions Arch which sort of acts as the games main hub. Although it doesn't help that Anet decided to wreck LA up, leaving it in a pretty terrible state as a hub city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Lieutenant, was it the Pillars of Eternity thread where the idea that RPGs don't need self-insert main characters came up, and that it would be just as cool and far more interesting if instead the player was the invisible hand guiding the PC group, watching there dramatic scenes play out and then making the critical decision for that scene? You, the player, didn't have an avatar but you still made all the interesting story decisions, so that all the main characters actually got some characterization and personality. Man. I remember you getting poo poo for that and for all the literary criticism ideas you bring to video games. I love them. I'll defend you in those threads when I find them. But, well. God help you delving into this game. Have you seen Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage about the endings to this game? (Spoilers for the 1% who don't know the ending.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5qPIcuMZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT_x64921ls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NNUImNL9Ok MartianAgitator fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:
It's interesting to get a POV from someone who actually is lesbian on Traynor. As a straight male, I always thought she was just kind of bland. I like Cortez much more as a character between the two of them because he actually has emotions and a character/story arc of him trying to move on from his deceased husband. Traynor just plays the whole "Oh, aren't I a silly little thing who's never seen real combat before!" character throughout the game and while she isn't exactly annoying, she isn't exactly anything to write home about either because her character never really develops beyond that. While she's quirky, that's about all there is to her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
MartianAgitator posted:Lieutenant, was it the Pillars of Eternity thread where the idea that RPGs don't need self-insert main characters came up, and that it would be just as cool and far more interesting if instead the player was the invisible hand guiding the PC group, watching there dramatic scenes play out and then making the critical decision for that scene? You, the player, didn't have an avatar but you still made all the interesting story decisions, so that all the main characters actually got some characterization and personality. Didn't Jennifer Hale say that that was how she voiced Shepard? She specifically voiced the different reactionary quotes so that they sounded more "realistic", as in if you really were a huge rear end in a top hat in real life you would actually sound like this spiteful person? To counter Mark Meer stated that his motivation WAS to sound as blank-slate as possible so that his Shepard would be viewed more as an avatar for the person playing the game? I mean, that's not exactly what you are going for but Hale was at least trying to be a little bit more personal, leading to a lot of people saying that switching between paragon and renegade choices frequently made her sound more manic-depressive. As for Traynor, you know I didn't mind her but that was mainly because much like Engineer Donnelly in ME2 I was just happy to hear a human with a non-North American accent for a change. As for personality and lines and poo poo, most of the enjoyment came from the Citadel DLC. Really I was mostly bummed out that Kelly wasn't returning 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Aces High posted:Didn't Jennifer Hale say that that was how she voiced Shepard? She specifically voiced the different reactionary quotes so that they sounded more "realistic", as in if you really were a huge rear end in a top hat in real life you would actually sound like this spiteful person? To counter Mark Meer stated that his motivation WAS to sound as blank-slate as possible so that his Shepard would be viewed more as an avatar for the person playing the game? Oh, wow, is that true? Male Shep's so-bland-it-makes-Saltines-seem-like-wedding-cake voice acting drives me up the loving wall. Seriously, every aspiring voice actor should listen to him so you know why making decisions about your character is absolutely necessary for any kind of drama. Every scene he's in he ruins by dodging meaningful inflection and completely deflating the scene - his voice strikes the weird uncanny valley almost as hard as the dirty, shiny Barbie doll character models that Bioware can't animate naturally. (Then you should listen to Vaan in FF12 to find out why you should NEVER DROP THE END OF YOUR LINES. So much bad voice acting in video games, goddamn.) MartianAgitator fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Mr. Soop posted:It's interesting to get a POV from someone who actually is lesbian on Traynor. As a straight male, I always thought she was just kind of bland. I like Cortez much more as a character between the two of them because he actually has emotions and a character/story arc of him trying to move on from his deceased husband. Traynor just plays the whole "Oh, aren't I a silly little thing who's never seen real combat before!" character throughout the game and while she isn't exactly annoying, she isn't exactly anything to write home about either because her character never really develops beyond that. While she's quirky, that's about all there is to her. Cortez more or less sticks to his job and acts like how someone with his background would, romance aside (though to be fair he's not alone in that department, Bioware awkward conversation romance is basically a trope at this point). He's nothing much to write home about compared to the game's other characters, but he's not especially jarring either. Lt. Danger brings up the point of Traynor's Whedonesque dialogue, and I think a point that think really stands out is the mention of the writing makes people sound like "snarky incoherent teenagers." I think that's the bigger problem I have with that third of all of her dialogue in the game, if it's not some forced pointing out of "THIS IS FEMSHEP LOVE INTEREST SHE WANTS TO RUB TACOS" it's that it makes Traynor sound like she's ~17 years old. The other two thirds were fine, what you'd expect for someone who while not experienced with frontline combat is trying to make the best of the situation (said situation being Commander Shepard and Friends' Crazy Galactic Party Bus). Bah, this is making me feel like I'm coming down on her a bit hard. I wouldn't say Traynor's a bad character or an offensive portrayal, just... disappointingly sub-par? MartianAgitator posted:Oh, wow, is that true? Male Shep's so-bland-it-makes-Saltines-seem-like-wedding-cake voice acting drives me up the loving wall. Seriously, every aspiring voice actor should listen to him so you know why making decisions about your character is absolutely necessary for any kind of drama. Every scene he's in he ruins by dodging all inflection and completely deflating the scene - his voice strikes the weird uncanny valley almost as hard as the dirty, shiny Barbie doll character models that Bioware can't animate naturally. Honestly I'd say Meer does his best performance of his Shepard in this game, he's given some leeway to really emote. Maleshep of ME3 is leagues better than he was in ME1. I'd still say Hale does a better job but Meer's performance has improved substantially.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Aces High posted:I mean, that's not exactly what you are going for but Hale was at least trying to be a little bit more personal, leading to a lot of people saying that switching between paragon and renegade choices frequently made her sound more manic-depressive. This is partly why I was disappointed that this was a MaleShep run. Bouncing back and forth between Renegade and Paragon may make FemShep sound unbalanced, but picking the occasional Renegade option in a mostly Paragon play-through when the target of her wrath has absolutely earned it is so much more goddamn satisfying. Femshep may sound like she should be on meds, but MaleShep sounds like he's on too many. I'm actually in the middle of a full three-game play-through as FemShep. Mostly Paragon for ME 1, with the occasional Renegade action when she's had it with the bullshit she's dealing with. Ashley was left to die (and good riddance) on Vermire. This was because I don't like the Space Racist more than any reflection on Kaidan, although it is fun to call him on his whiny bull-poo poo in ME 2. Rescue the Council, because without the Bosses there is no Mission. Udina gets the shaft because we like Space Dad more. No Romance, I was going to go with Liara but I rescued her last so I could see her "You're not real, you're in my head" dialogue and then I forgot to pursue it far enough before I hit the end game. This caused ME 2 to try and pair her up with Kaidan, but he's pretty easy to shoot down. It also made the tension between Shep and Liara in ME 2 seem less forced. Speaking of, ME 2 sees Shep struggling between Paragon and Renegade, as her Bosses have seemingly abandoned the Mission (and think she's nuts), and her old enemies are the only ones listening. Shep abandons the Alliance for the sake of the Mission, and starts indulging more and more into the Renegade options. Blowing up the Relay and committing mass Genocide is a wake-up call at the end, and Shep willingly goes with the Alliance when they arrest her. I haven't gotten around to ME 3 yet, but I was planning on having her try to reach back out to the Council from a Paragon perspective, but when they still can't pull their collective heads out of their asses it's time for full Renegade, because by this point she's so sick of the poo poo she's rescuing the galaxy just so she can burn it down herself. I also really like the Reaper indoctrination theory, whether Bioware intended it or not, and that also applies to the above.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Cortez more or less sticks to his job and acts like how someone with his background would, romance aside (though to be fair he's not alone in that department, Bioware awkward conversation romance is basically a trope at this point). He's nothing much to write home about compared to the game's other characters, but he's not especially jarring either. Lt. Danger brings up the point of Traynor's Whedonesque dialogue, and I think a point that think really stands out is the mention of the writing makes people sound like "snarky incoherent teenagers." I think that's the bigger problem I have with that third of all of her dialogue in the game, if it's not some forced pointing out of "THIS IS FEMSHEP LOVE INTEREST SHE WANTS TO RUB TACOS" it's that it makes Traynor sound like she's ~17 years old. The other two thirds were fine, what you'd expect for someone who while not experienced with frontline combat is trying to make the best of the situation (said situation being Commander Shepard and Friends' Crazy Galactic Party Bus). Nah, I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of her. You're right in that they went out of their way to make her dialogue sort of revolve around her sexuality rather than letting it just sort of play out more fluidly. She's just not very well written overall. And since you said you went with Liara for your romance pick, you made the better choice anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Yeah, you want actually offensive writing, look at Isabella from DA2. "She's bi, so that means she talks about sex constantly!" Compared to that Traynor isn't so bad, but I agree that a lot of her dialogue feels a little... I wouldn't say offensive, but hollow? She doesn't really actually flirt with a Female Shepard, she just constantly affirms that yes, she would totally be down for taking her revolution. On the one hand, I can appreciate it in the sense that I dislike the school of thought that says gay characters in media should never mention the fact that they're gay and that fact should only be revealed if you look closely at one frame of the background in episode 18, or if you go through their entire dialogue tree while picking very specific options while having a very specific character build - that just seems like they're almost ashamed of having a gay character in their game - but on the other hand, that line about attractive voices was literally just 'I'm the lesbian.' There are way better ways to write a gay character that's obviously gay. Not even in a subtle way, if she's flustered and kind of nervous about the whole thing, you could just have her ramble about her personal affairs a little when you go talk to her in the Normandy and ask her about herself, have her mention breaking up with her girlfriend or something, and you've established that she's gay in a way that also adds a little character, as opposed to 'I found that thing attractive because I am gay.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Yeah, you want actually offensive writing, look at Isabella from DA2. Eh, it's been awhile since I played DA2 but after finishing it I came away with the impression that Isabella was horribly emotionally scarred due to her past and the sex talk was just her way of hiding that. At first she seems like a pretty transparent male sex fantasy but from memory her backstory involves a shitton of abuse and generally not nice things (and that's just what she's willing to reveal) and her coarse attitude is a coping mechanism for that. Maybe I was just reading too much into it, or maybe you weren't reading enough eh? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Eh, it's been awhile since I played DA2 but after finishing it I came away with the impression that Isabella was horribly emotionally scarred due to her past and the sex talk was just her way of hiding that. At first she seems like a pretty transparent male sex fantasy but from memory her backstory involves a shitton of abuse and generally not nice things (and that's just what she's willing to reveal) and her coarse attitude is a coping mechanism for that. Like, you could write a gay character who was constantly talking about fashion and doing the handwave thing and had no real dialogue outside of that, and yeah, some guys actually do do that, and maybe he's doing it as a defense mechanism as a result of his alcoholic father or something, but he's still a stereotypical gay character with nothing to him outside of that, which is part of my problem with Isabella. She's a cool pirate and all, she should have something to her besides all of that, but I can't think of a single moment in the game - even during the backstory dump - where she was hitting a note that wasn't 'sex exists and I want to have some.' If it was just a sometimes thing, it'd be fine, very flirtatious characters can be fun if written the right way, but it's 100% 24/7, go hard and never stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Not to bar the tides of righteous anger, but one other thing sticks out of that video like a sore thumb for me: that dream sequence. We know Bioware aren't exactly subtle, but that thing wouldn't be out of place in a loving JRPG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
So what, her characterisation as a person trying to bury their past trauma beneath shallow physical distractions would be acceptible if she was heterosexual but because she's bisexual that's not okay? Like, the characterisation of 'all sex all the time until you actually talk to her and get her to stop lying and start talking about how she really feels' made sense to me from the perspective of her using all the sex talk to keep from forming deep emotional attachments that might hurt her again; she is deliberately trying to keep everyone uncomfortable and at arms length while at the same time is trying to hide from her own memories by drowning her senses in things like alcohol and sex. That also 'explains' (hurr) her bisexuality; she doesn't really care who she has sex with because for her it's not about having sex with someone it's about drowning out the memories. Just a tool she uses to try and forget her past. Sure it's not perfect but Isabella came across as one of the better developed characters in DA2 to me. I will admit though that you don't really get any of deeper motivations if you don't persue her as a romance goal and unlock all her dialogue options. There's plenty of room for improvement but as characters in video games go she had a lot more depth and underlying logic to her actions than the characters in most other games. e: Hell if you don't romance Isabella at least a little bit to get certain dialogue options I don't think she ever tells you the whole truth; Isabella lies almost constantly to the player about almost everything at first. Sometimes I feel like video gamers have become so inured to flat, sexist characterisation that we're starting to see them where they do not actually exist. Neruz fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Neruz posted:So what, her characterisation as a person trying to bury their past trauma beneath shallow physical distractions would be acceptible if she was heterosexual but because she's bisexual that's not okay? Neruz posted:Like, the characterisation of 'all sex all the time until you actually talk to her and get her to stop lying and start talking about how she really feels' made sense to me from the perspective of her using all the sex talk to keep from forming deep emotional attachments that might hurt her again; she is deliberately trying to keep everyone uncomfortable and at arms length while at the same time is trying to hide from her own memories by drowning her senses in things like alcohol and sex. That also 'explains' (hurr) her bisexuality; she doesn't really care who she has sex with because for her it's not about having sex with someone it's about drowning out the memories. Just a tool she uses to try and forget her past. And keep in mind you're talking about a character who at one point says 'I like big boats and I cannot lie.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Endorph posted:No, it'd be pretty dumb if she was straight, but since she's bi it took a jump from 'stupid' to 'actively offensive.' ... Why? Like, I'm not trying to be offensive or anything. I genuinely do not understand how her sexuality makes her characterisation any worse. If anything her sexuality is a logical result of her past experiences. Endorph posted:And again, like I said, sure, maybe that's well written characterization, whether or not a character is well written is kind of debatable, so I'm not going to argue with you on that - but you can at least see why someone would find the character stupid and mildly offensive, right? They made the decision to write a bi character who constantly talks about sex. I find that dumb and mildly offensive regardless of what reasons the character may have, because the character isn't a real person, the character is a work of fiction constructed by some random game writers who made the decisions on every part of the characterization. Their hands weren't tied. If they'd wanted to dial back the sex stuff, they easily could have. If they'd wanted to axe it entirely, they could have. I can, but I don't think that just because on the surface a character appears stupid and mildly offensive means that the writers did something wrong. Tons of people in reality appear stupid and offensive on the surface but are just projecting that facade to the people around them so I would expect to see more and more characters like that in video games as devs get better at doing interesting and complicated characters. Like, I dunno about you but I know a couple of people who deliberately steer conversations towards purile, mildly offensive subjects to avoid talking about the things that actually upset them. It's a pretty normal coping mechanism. Endorph posted:And keep in mind you're talking about a character who at one point says 'I like big boats and I cannot lie.' Honestly I'm torn between that line actually being in character for her and it being one of the Devs seeing an opportunity for a terrible joke and being unable to resist. Neruz fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Neruz posted:If anything her sexuality is a logical result of her past experiences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Endorph posted:The fact that you can bust out a line like that is what makes her characterization offensive to me. Like I'm not trying to do the morally outraged, I am on the high horse thing here, I think she's a mildly dumb character at best, but come on. Well we're getting into some seriously thorny ground here and I have no personal experience with this particular matter but I am given to understand that there are in fact people who seek out sex even with people they have no real physical attraction to purely for the blinding effect; they're only looking for sex because it feels good and temporarily makes them forget about their problems. While I will freely admit that there is a lot of room for improvement I think Isabella's characterisation is logically consistant and makes sense based on her character and is a sign that game devs are slowly taking steps in at least vaguely the right direction when it comes to characterisation. I feel like I'm getting the impression that you feel there are some aspects of human thought and behaviour that simply should never appear\be explored in video games, if so then I suggest we stop this discussion here because we're never going to reach any kind of agreement. If not then some clarification about why exactly Isabella's characterisation is objectively bad (not offensive or childish, you can have a character that is offensive but still a good character) would really help me because I'm having serious difficulty making some of these connections. Are you just conflating 'offends me = bad character' or is it more complex than that? e: Like I feel like I'm over here saying "Given her character, the personality she displays makes sense and is at least consistant is not particularly well written" and then you're saying "Well her character shouldn't be written like that in the first place!" Am I getting closer? Neruz fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Dude, my entire point is that I didn't think she was badly written, or rather I didn't really care whether or not she was well-written. Like, I just don't care - I think DA2 is a poorly written game all around, but I'm not going to get into that debate because that isn't my point. I said she was offensive, not that she was badly written - I said 'even if the characterization is good' about five times. And I don't think there are elements of human behavior that should never be explored in fiction, of course not, but I do think that when you are writing about a minority in society, one that faces persecution - even if you are a part of that group - you should consider carefully what you are writing and how it could read to other people, both those who belong to the group and those who don't. I feel like Dragon Age 2 pays a lot of lipservice to being progressive without actually being so, and so I don't think they considered these things as carefully as they could have, but there are plenty of people out there who disagree and think the game is a massive leap forward for gaming. Which, well, comes down to opinion. This all started just because I said I thought she was an offensive character, anyway, which, I mean, can't really be wrong? What offends people is going to change from person to person. I think they shouldn't have written the character that way, but I never said they should be prevented from writing characters that way in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Dude, my entire point is that I didn't think she was badly written, or rather I didn't really care whether or not she was well-written. Like, I just don't care - I think DA2 is a poorly written game all around, but I'm not going to get into that debate because that isn't my point. I said she was offensive, not that she was badly written - I said 'even if the characterization is good' about five times. Alright I think I see what you're getting at now; I guess it just never occured to me to see Isabela as a statement about bisexual people in real life, from my pov she's just a character in a piece of fiction  This seems like a good place to stop the conversation to me; it looks like we simply have a difference of opinion as to what makes a good character. Neruz fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Alright I think I see what you're getting at now; I guess it just never occurred to me to see Isabela as a statement about bisexual people in real life, from my pov she's just a character in a piece of fiction But yeah, fair enough. Sorry if I came off a little snippy to you, I didn't mean to imply anything about you as a person or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Well, I mean, it's not like fiction forms fully sprung from the ground. People sat down and wrote it, and presumably they thought about what they were writing at some point. You can't divorce fiction from real life, because writers bring their own biases and their own world view to every work of fiction they create, and it's people in real life that are consuming the fiction. True, but I feel I should point out that it is possible to write a story in which there is a character who is an african-american crazy ax murderer without making a statement that you believe all african-americans are crazy ax murderers (or whatever doing whatever, the concept is pretty much universal) so unless I see actual signs that the writer is trying to suggest that what they've written is a statement about reality I assume it isn't. Yes, writers do write characters in specific ways to make statements about how they view the world and how they think the world should be, but they don't always do that. Sometimes a character is just a character. I guess I'm just more optimistic about people's motivations than you are e: It probably doesn't help that extremely flawed characters with deep emotional trauma are usually more interesting to write than well adjusted 'normal' people are. Neruz fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Neruz posted:True, but I feel I should point out that it is possible to write a story in which there is a character who is an african-american crazy ax murderer without making a statement that you believe all african-americans are crazy ax murderers (or whatever doing whatever, the concept is pretty much universal) so unless I see actual signs that the writer is trying to suggest that what they've written is a statement about reality I assume it isn't. If there's like five black dudes out of a cast of twelve and one of them murders a dude with an ax, then sure, that doesn't really say anything. If the only black character that exists in the entire story is presented as a violent threat to the protagonist and to society at large, than it does kind of say something, even if the author didn't intend it to. That's the big difference maker to me. And Bioware went out of their way to go 'all the characters are ~hawkesexual~', meaning that their sexuality shifts based on the player's gender, so Isabella is the only real bi character in the game. And she's, well, what she is. That's why I have a problem with her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Well, if that's the only black character in your story, you have created a world in which all known african-americans are crazy ax murderers. How people take that is up to them, but you can see why that's a problem. I can, but I guess I see that as a problem with the people doing the reading, not with the writer. Or at least not entirely with the writer. E: Also, going back to the LP ( ) I always thought the reason that the office area only has that handful of offices is because it's specifically the chunk of the presidium that the humans all got stuffed in. Wasn't there a bunch of conversations back in ME1 about how the council basically stuffed all the humans in a corner of the presidium because they didn't like the humans. If you look around you can see a bunch of corridors and stuff going off into the distance that aren't real terrain and you can never go to and I had assumed that was meant to imply that you were only accessing the small part where the humans are rather than the entire presidium.
Neruz fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Not to bar the tides of righteous anger, but one other thing sticks out of that video like a sore thumb for me: that dream sequence. We know Bioware aren't exactly subtle, but that thing wouldn't be out of place in a loving JRPG. Oh, don't worry, we'll see plenty more of it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Also with regard to Liara being a terrible Shadow Broker, I suspect that in fact quite a few people know who the Shadow Broker is at present but by the time ME3 rolls around absolutely no-one wants to deal with the hell that would come down upon their heads if they hosed with one of Shepard's crewmembers. Especially since by all accounts she does the whole information brokering thing quite well; it's entirely probable that most of the major players in the galaxy just feel that things are acceptible with Liara as the Broker, at least for now. At the very least she's probably a better boss to work for than that Yahg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
You are right, Bioware's characters fall into whedon far too often. They're always bipolar in the quality of their writing, especially with their romances. But it's always been at its best when it explores the connections between its cast. A lot of people remember Garrus, Tali, Wrex and Mordin, not for their romances, but just because their writing is solid and sticks to their characterisation. On the other hand, That Dream Sequence. I'm really not a fan of it, and I can tell you why. It's the Kid. Yes, I know, the kid has significance in this game specifically, but to me, it's always seemed that the Virmire Non-Survivor would work better, especially in the dream sequences. It gives people who played the first games something to latch onto, and for those new to the games, it's really not a large piece of information to find out. Torchlighter fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jul 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
That goddamn child, I know what Bioware were trying to do with that child but holy poo poo I have literally never seen a clumsier and more annoying implimentation of symbolism than that drat child.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Not to bar the tides of righteous anger, but one other thing sticks out of that video like a sore thumb for me: that dream sequence. We know Bioware aren't exactly subtle, but that thing wouldn't be out of place in a loving JRPG. I haven't played the third game, but I think the problem with that scene is the developers assuming too much about your character. After two games most players probably had a pretty solid idea of what 'their' Shepard was like. Not all of them would care about some kid beyond 'well that sucks'. The kid's probably supposed to be a symbol of everyone on Earth, but I think it falls flat - there's no real emotional connection to Earth in Mass Effect games, since you're always off interacting with everything else in the galaxy. I think I recall someone suggesting that the kid should have been the deceased party member from Virmire - that might've been a more reasonable haunting, even if you hadn't played the series before. In that case Shepard would have direct responsibility for their fate and not just be a witness of it. e: silly me not reading new posts
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
Promontory posted:I haven't played the third game, but I think the problem with that scene is the developers assuming too much about your character. After two games most players probably had a pretty solid idea of what 'their' Shepard was like. Not all of them would care about some kid beyond 'well that sucks'. The kid's probably supposed to be a symbol of everyone on Earth, but I think it falls flat - there's no real emotional connection to Earth in Mass Effect games, since you're always off interacting with everything else in the galaxy. And that is why the dreams, the kid, and a number of other "emotional" scenes in this game fall flat: they depend on trying to coax a reaction from what the player "should" feel for (Earth, and child) without bothering to earn it. Before this, we never even saw Earth let alone did much with it and that kid was on-screen for a minute or two tops, yet we're supposed to be torn up about it despite all the other things that should weigh on Shepard that go mostly unmentioned, like being forced into genocide. It's just insultingly transparent emotional manipulation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Promontory posted:I haven't played the third game, but I think the problem with that scene is the developers assuming too much about your character. After two games most players probably had a pretty solid idea of what 'their' Shepard was like. Not all of them would care about some kid beyond 'well that sucks'. The kid's probably supposed to be a symbol of everyone on Earth, but I think it falls flat - there's no real emotional connection to Earth in Mass Effect games, since you're always off interacting with everything else in the galaxy. Yeah this is the problem. You can't spend two games establishing Shepard as either James T. Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard, and then have them freak out by some random kid dying. Neither would lose sleep over that. The whole thing just undermines the character in a really dumb way. If you're going to go with a super awesome space hero, then just run with it. Don't tell me 40 hours into the story, that they're actually really soft and vulnerable inside when it comes to kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Promontory posted:I haven't played the third game, but I think the problem with that scene is the developers assuming too much about your character. After two games most players probably had a pretty solid idea of what 'their' Shepard was like. Not all of them would care about some kid beyond 'well that sucks'. The kid's probably supposed to be a symbol of everyone on Earth, but I think it falls flat - there's no real emotional connection to Earth in Mass Effect games, since you're always off interacting with everything else in the galaxy. This is fairly spot-on. I remember after the third game came out, everyone would talk about who 'their' Shep was or what 'their' Shep would do, as though it was carved in stone from the very beginning. And while there was a lot of overlap (a given due to the nature of the game), everyone had their own vision of what he or she was like: my Shep stood up for the little guy, my Shep followed orders, right or wrong, my Shep was a staunch supporter of Earth, my Shep put her crew first and god forbid you get in her way. Call it confirmation bias, but most of the people I knew said that their Shep would regret the kid's death, but they'd mourn when they knew there'd be a tomorrow to mourn in. Assuming they remembered him at all. ME3 introduces a lot of new characters, most vital to the plot, but we're still supposed to agree with the writers that this one kid is more important than all of them combined. And it's one of those contrivences that just gets more and more aggravating as the game goes on. For what it's worth, I like to view the dream sequences as the early stages of PTSD rather than visions or indoctrination or anything like that. The idea that Shep's reaching their absolute limit, but is still determined to push on til death or beyond is far more compelling than what we actually get in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Kaboom Dragoon posted:For what it's worth, I like to view the dream sequences as the early stages of PTSD rather than visions or indoctrination or anything like that. The idea that Shep's reaching their absolute limit, but is still determined to push on til death or beyond is far more compelling than what we actually get in the end. And that makes the exclusion of the Virmire non-survivor (henceforth known as the VNS) even worse. If Shepard is suffering from delusions an hallucinations because of guilt or PTSD, then it makes even more sense to have your dead buddy as the focus. Not only that, but it allows Bioware to leverage the skills they have in interpersonal relationship writing. Seriously, with a little bit of effort, this moment could have so much more impact. And that's part of what makes ME3 kinda disappointing overall. I want to provide an example of what I'm talking about, so here's a Let's Play of Knights of the Old Republic 2, done by Scorchy. http://lparchive.org/Knights-of-the-Old-Republic-II/Update%208/ Search for the word amnesia, then read what Scorchy says about The Exile. Part of Bioware's problem is simple. They're trying to appeal to new players, so they're cutting backstory for Shepard. The problem is that this makes Shepard seem like an amnesiac. Instead of taking Shepard, a character that isn't a black slate, and writing him as such, they're writing him like he's a brand new character. But only in this instance. Everywhere else it's 'look at this thing from the second game! Hey look, it's Glyph! you remember Glyph?'
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
StoryTime posted:Good. gently caress them. I'm sorry but all three of those character are extremely cool. Mordin sang in Pirates of Penzance and Legion was a philosophical badass. Wrex, well, Wrex would tear you apart if you looked at him wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Torchlighter posted:And that makes the exclusion of the Virmire non-survivor (henceforth known as the VNS) even worse. If Shepard is suffering from delusions an hallucinations because of guilt or PTSD, then it makes even more sense to have your dead buddy as the focus. Not only that, but it allows Bioware to leverage the skills they have in interpersonal relationship writing. Seriously, with a little bit of effort, this moment could have so much more impact. But what if the player had no meaningful interaction with Ashley/Kaidan in ME1? Many people in this thread have said "LOL sent generic space racist/biotic Ken doll to their death" without any real attachment. New players would be even less attached to a character from two games ago. There's also a difference between sending a special forces operative on a suicide mission to save the world vs. seeing a small child blown up in Canada by space aliens. I fully agree with Kaboom Dragoon - this is the breaking point for Shepard's mental state. The kid is a minor blemish on Shepard's conscience but appears to be either the straw that broke the camel's back or a convenient stand-in for the numerous issues that could be causing PTSD. ME3 doesn't always do a great job of conveying the horrific scale of the civilian casualties caused by the Reapers, but I think this kid is the easiest way to represent the traumatic cost of total war on the human psyche. Perhaps Bioware could have added additional sequences for the numerous deceased companions you can rack up, but that would require a lot of additional work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 16:30
|
|
