380 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

kraidy1117 wrote...
The ship was right in front of the base or did you think that big rock base was just a distraction?

The goal at that very point in time was to attack the Cruiser, not to land on the base.  One does not start planning a landing flight path when they're in the middle of combat, hmm?

[kraidy1117]

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Um you do know that in order to say anything, you should use all the dialog in the tree..... it's poseable for Shepard to ask her if a Biotic shield can work.

Even if there is a dialog option, the fact that someone else can come up with the idea proves that Shepard's "irrefutable, genius tactics", aren't needed.

No that means your Shepard is, not mine. My Shepard is a tactical genus because I was the one who came up with the ideas and stuff.

No, you're missing the point. The fact that OTHER people, aside from Shepard, can think up the SAME strategy, proves that Shepard's tactics, genius or whatnot, are replaceable.

They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

[kraidy1117]

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
The ship was right in front of the base or did you think that big rock base was just a distraction?

The goal at that very point in time was to attack the Cruiser, not to land on the base.  One does not start planning a landing flight path when they're in the middle of combat, hmm?

Yes because flying around the Galatic core with a ship trying to kill you is smart <_< anyone who was smart would want to take that ship down fast, flying around and invading in the galatic core is too dangerous, hell the only reason why Joker got rid of those orb things was because he went into a debris field and this was dangerous and it is poseable to have someone die.

[smudboy]

kraidy1117 wrote...
They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

You're failing to accept the facts.

That Shepard, and everyone else, save Mordin, are completely replaceable to the main plot of ME2.
That you've been unable to prove anything that you've stated, in this case, that Shepard is an "irreplaceable, tactical genius."
Just because there was a previous chapter means next to nothing to the plot of this story.  Just because Shepard was integral to the story in ME1 doesn't make them integral to ME2.  It's only Shepard's story because the plot demanded it.  Which is a clear sign of poor writing.

These are not complex things.  At least to me.

[kraidy1117]

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

You're failing to accept the facts.

That Shepard, and everyone else, save Mordin, are completely replaceable to the main plot of ME2.
That you've been unable to prove anything that you've stated, in this case, that Shepard is an "irreplaceable, tactical genius."
Just because there was a previous chapter means next to nothing to the plot of this story.  Just because Shepard was integral to the story in ME1 doesn't make them integral to ME2.  It's only Shepard's story because the plot demanded it.  Which is a clear sign of poor writing.

These are not complex things.  At least to me.

*facepalm* thats all I have to say to this, you don't understand the whole point of the ME trilogy, thats all there is too it.

[smudboy]

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
The ship was right in front of the base or did you think that big rock base was just a distraction?

The goal at that very point in time was to attack the Cruiser, not to land on the base.  One does not start planning a landing flight path when they're in the middle of combat, hmm?

Yes because flying around the Galatic core with a ship trying to kill you is smart <_< anyone who was smart would want to take that ship down fast, flying around and invading in the galatic core is too dangerous, hell the only reason why Joker got rid of those orb things was because he went into a debris field and this was dangerous and it is poseable to have someone die.

I don't know, is it?

The ace pilot was doing just fine shooting the ship with their current distance.  Your argument was "Seeing as they had to go that way, do you think Shepard has magic and can teleport him self into the base?"  Which sounds like you wanted to justify them crashlanding because Shepard doesn't have magic, over an explosion from a ship that you yourself conceeded Shepard didn't even know about?

Truly, a dizzying intellect.

[smudboy]

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

You're failing to accept the facts.

That Shepard, and everyone else, save Mordin, are completely replaceable to the main plot of ME2.
That you've been unable to prove anything that you've stated, in this case, that Shepard is an "irreplaceable, tactical genius."
Just because there was a previous chapter means next to nothing to the plot of this story.  Just because Shepard was integral to the story in ME1 doesn't make them integral to ME2.  It's only Shepard's story because the plot demanded it.  Which is a clear sign of poor writing.

These are not complex things.  At least to me.

*facepalm* thats all I have to say to this, you don't understand the whole point of the ME trilogy, thats all there is too it.

Please explain the whole point of the ME trilogy, and how that is relevant to this discussion on the revelance of characters on ME2's plot.

[kraidy1117]

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

You're failing to accept the facts.

That Shepard, and everyone else, save Mordin, are completely replaceable to the main plot of ME2.
That you've been unable to prove anything that you've stated, in this case, that Shepard is an "irreplaceable, tactical genius."
Just because there was a previous chapter means next to nothing to the plot of this story.  Just because Shepard was integral to the story in ME1 doesn't make them integral to ME2.  It's only Shepard's story because the plot demanded it.  Which is a clear sign of poor writing.

These are not complex things.  At least to me.

*facepalm* thats all I have to say to this, you don't understand the whole point of the ME trilogy, thats all there is too it.

Please explain the whole point of the ME trilogy, and how that is relevant to this discussion on the revelance of characters on ME2's plot.

I swear to god I should just have this automactic pop up when people ask this. "This is Shepards story, you are Shepard" if you can't grasp that then play a diffrent game that you can understand.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 10 avril 2010 - 06:07 .

[smudboy]

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

You're failing to accept the facts.

That Shepard, and everyone else, save Mordin, are completely replaceable to the main plot of ME2.
That you've been unable to prove anything that you've stated, in this case, that Shepard is an "irreplaceable, tactical genius."
Just because there was a previous chapter means next to nothing to the plot of this story.  Just because Shepard was integral to the story in ME1 doesn't make them integral to ME2.  It's only Shepard's story because the plot demanded it.  Which is a clear sign of poor writing.

These are not complex things.  At least to me.

*facepalm* thats all I have to say to this, you don't understand the whole point of the ME trilogy, thats all there is too it.

Please explain the whole point of the ME trilogy, and how that is relevant to this discussion on the revelance of characters on ME2's plot.

I swear to god I should just have this automactic pop up when people ask this. "This is Shepards story, you are Shepard" if you can grasp that then play a diffrent game that you can understand.

Again, you're going in circles.  "This is Shepard's story so they're integral, and they're integral because it's their story."  Prove it.  You can't explain what makes Shepard integral to the plot of ME2.  You repeating yourself, or repeating what Casey Hudson says, doesn't make a difference.

[Chuvvy]

Karstedt wrote...

Me too. But brace yourself for the flood of people calling you a whiner and h8er...

Good call,bro.

[wulf3n]

kraidy1117 wrote... If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

Wait... a JRPG and Fallout 3 are two completely different things!

Mass Effect is closer to a JRPG than it is to a traditional western RPG.
In a JRPG your playing a specific pre defined character just like mass effect.
in a western rpg your playing a character you've created from scratch.

and how was Fallout 3 not complex?

Modifié par wulf3n, 10 avril 2010 - 06:09 .

[kraidy1117]

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
They only think it if you don't come upo with it. Meh you just like to poke a things, the ME trilogy is Shepards story, it's been dubbed this by Bioware so many times it's not funny. If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

You're failing to accept the facts.

That Shepard, and everyone else, save Mordin, are completely replaceable to the main plot of ME2.
That you've been unable to prove anything that you've stated, in this case, that Shepard is an "irreplaceable, tactical genius."
Just because there was a previous chapter means next to nothing to the plot of this story.  Just because Shepard was integral to the story in ME1 doesn't make them integral to ME2.  It's only Shepard's story because the plot demanded it.  Which is a clear sign of poor writing.

These are not complex things.  At least to me.

*facepalm* thats all I have to say to this, you don't understand the whole point of the ME trilogy, thats all there is too it.

Please explain the whole point of the ME trilogy, and how that is relevant to this discussion on the revelance of characters on ME2's plot.

I swear to god I should just have this automactic pop up when people ask this. "This is Shepards story, you are Shepard" if you can grasp that then play a diffrent game that you can understand.

Again, you're going in circles.  "This is Shepard's story so they're integral, and they're integral because it's their story."  Prove it.  You can't explain what makes Shepard integral to the plot of ME2.  You repeating yourself, or repeating what Casey Hudson says, doesn't make a difference.

Well you just proved to me that you are an utter moron. The point that you can't even grasp that the trilogy is Shepards story. If you are not goint to listen to Bioware then you are not going to listen to me, as I said go play a JRPG or something because by the looks of it, this is too complex for you.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Just to throw in my point of view @ the op



RPG as a term is useless it can be applied to so many things.



As an RPG do I find ME 2 disappointing? No, I do not think like that.



Without having me write mountain of texts explaining what makes an RPG to me, just know that I do not think in such terms and that they are useless to me.



Thank you and goodnight.

[Indoctrination]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I still think ME2 is a better game, but I agree as an RPG it could use a few good ole' ME1 features.
But seriously, the armor and characters and are improved. What game have you been playing?

I don't know how you can argue that ME2's armour system is an improvement. ME1's system was a chore and just plain uncomfortable but at least it was meaningful. You can play all of ME2 without ever changing your armour and likely not notice the difference.

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

I disagree. The main plot points in Mass Effect 2 are finding out what the collectors are up to and stopping then stopping them. Miranda, Jack, and Mordin have pretty much no barring on this. You can play the entire game without using all 3 of them and not notice the difference plotwise. Why? Because they're all accessories. They're only relevent in things not related to the main plot, like their loyalty missions, and the like. In fact, Shepard could shoot all three of them in the face for no reason half way through the game and it wouldn't mean a thing to the main plot. They're dolls. The only one who might get a pass would be Mordin who has a few seconds of relevence like creating protection for the seeker swarms on Horizon.

I'd go into the example of how some Dragon Age characters are actually intimately attached to the main plot, but this isn't the DA:O forums, and I'm not going to start posting DA:O spoilers.

No there are not, only three DAO characters are importent to the main plot, and it's poseable to have her dead during the game. I like Leliana but she is not needed for the game. Only Alistair and Morrigan are needed, thats it. Oghren is importent for the side story with the Golems but not for the main story, Shale, Sten and Zev are not importent at all and just more party members.

You are wrong about Shale and Zevran not having any role in any of the main plot. Again, I'd tell you all about it, but I'm not going to post DA:O spoilers here. Also, I said some of the characters, not all of them. But heck, even Leliana has her moments within the plot.

[kraidy1117]

wulf3n wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote... If you don't think it's ZShep[ards story then you have missed the whole point and you should then play a JRPG or Fallout 3 where you don't have to worry about complex things.

Wait... a JRPG and Fallout 3 are two completely different things!

Mass Effect is closer to a JRPG than it is to a traditional western RPG.
In a JRPG your playing a specific pre defined character just like mass effect.
in a western rpg your playing a character you've created from scratch.

and how was Fallout 3 not complex?

ME is nothing like an JRPG. Majority of JRPG you do not have choices and you have to play a certain character with no choices. ME 1+2 you have to creat your face, you choose your class, and make choices that you would make. Just like other Bioware games, and what I mean by Fallout 3 not complex it has to do with the story. The story in FO3 is spoonfed to you and seeing as how Smudboy can't even grasp the point of the ME trilogy, it shows he needs a non complex story.

[kraidy1117]

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I still think ME2 is a better game, but I agree as an RPG it could use a few good ole' ME1 features.
But seriously, the armor and characters and are improved. What game have you been playing?

I don't know how you can argue that ME2's armour system is an improvement. ME1's system was a chore and just plain uncomfortable but at least it was meaningful. You can play all of ME2 without ever changing your armour and likely not notice the difference.

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

I disagree. The main plot points in Mass Effect 2 are finding out what the collectors are up to and stopping then stopping them. Miranda, Jack, and Mordin have pretty much no barring on this. You can play the entire game without using all 3 of them and not notice the difference plotwise. Why? Because they're all accessories. They're only relevent in things not related to the main plot, like their loyalty missions, and the like. In fact, Shepard could shoot all three of them in the face for no reason half way through the game and it wouldn't mean a thing to the main plot. They're dolls. The only one who might get a pass would be Mordin who has a few seconds of relevence like creating protection for the seeker swarms on Horizon.

I'd go into the example of how some Dragon Age characters are actually intimately attached to the main plot, but this isn't the DA:O forums, and I'm not going to start posting DA:O spoilers.

No there are not, only three DAO characters are importent to the main plot, and it's poseable to have her dead during the game. I like Leliana but she is not needed for the game. Only Alistair and Morrigan are needed, thats it. Oghren is importent for the side story with the Golems but not for the main story, Shale, Sten and Zev are not importent at all and just more party members.

You are wrong about Shale and Zevran not having any role in any of the main plot. Again, I'd tell you all about it, but I'm not going to post DA:O spoilers here. Also, I said some of the characters, not all of them. But heck, even Leliana has her moments within the plot.

Zev was only hired to do a job, ayou can kill him or let you join him, no matter what after that he is useless to the story. Shale has nothing to do with the story. Only three characters are connectede to the story, thats it.

[Indoctrination]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I still think ME2 is a better game, but I agree as an RPG it could use a few good ole' ME1 features.
But seriously, the armor and characters and are improved. What game have you been playing?

I don't know how you can argue that ME2's armour system is an improvement. ME1's system was a chore and just plain uncomfortable but at least it was meaningful. You can play all of ME2 without ever changing your armour and likely not notice the difference.

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

I disagree. The main plot points in Mass Effect 2 are finding out what the collectors are up to and stopping then stopping them. Miranda, Jack, and Mordin have pretty much no barring on this. You can play the entire game without using all 3 of them and not notice the difference plotwise. Why? Because they're all accessories. They're only relevent in things not related to the main plot, like their loyalty missions, and the like. In fact, Shepard could shoot all three of them in the face for no reason half way through the game and it wouldn't mean a thing to the main plot. They're dolls. The only one who might get a pass would be Mordin who has a few seconds of relevence like creating protection for the seeker swarms on Horizon.

I'd go into the example of how some Dragon Age characters are actually intimately attached to the main plot, but this isn't the DA:O forums, and I'm not going to start posting DA:O spoilers.

No there are not, only three DAO characters are importent to the main plot, and it's poseable to have her dead during the game. I like Leliana but she is not needed for the game. Only Alistair and Morrigan are needed, thats it. Oghren is importent for the side story with the Golems but not for the main story, Shale, Sten and Zev are not importent at all and just more party members.

You are wrong about Shale and Zevran not having any role in any of the main plot. Again, I'd tell you all about it, but I'm not going to post DA:O spoilers here. Also, I said some of the characters, not all of them. But heck, even Leliana has her moments within the plot.

Zev was only hired to do a job, ayou can kill him or let you join him, no matter what after that he is useless to the story. Shale has nothing to do with the story. Only three characters are connectede to the story, thats it.

No, you're wrong. Both characters have moments in the main plot. Please pay closer attention to the game. If you'd like to hear more about this feel free to ask on the appropriate Dragon Age forum, and I'll explain it to you if I see your topic there.

[smudboy]

kraidy1117 wrote...
Well you just proved to me that you are an utter moron. The point that you can't even grasp that the trilogy is Shepards story. If you are not goint to listen to Bioware then you are not going to listen to me, as I said go play a JRPG or something because by the looks of it, this is too complex for you.

How is the trilogy Shepard's story?  We're just proven that Shepard is completely replaceable in the ME2 plot, aside from the plot demanding it.  Which tells us "This is Shepard story because the writer said so."  That's not a very good reason.  Add to it that Shepard can die at the end of ME2, and your argument for ME3 not having Shepard being "it's not canon?"  Why can't it be canon if it's a viable option?  Why can't we have no Shepard in ME3, and yet it still be Shepard's story?  What if someone else takes up the mantle of hero?  Tali seemed to be doing that in ME2, using Shepard's ideas (mining laser.)  What if Shepard gets reduced to a squadmate, or a cameo?  What's wrong with any of that?  (Well there is a few things wrong, and equally as so with the plot of ME2 and Shepard's lack of an integral role in it.)

I can assure you, this is not too complex for me.  I am merely asking simple questions that you can't seem to answer.  That's okay.  I don't expect many people to unless they can think objectively within the confines of what necessitates the plot of ME2.

[wulf3n]

kraidy1117 wrote...
ME is nothing like an JRPG. Majority of JRPG you do not have choices and you have to play a certain character with no choices. ME 1+2 you have to creat your face, you choose your class, and make choices that you would make. Just like other Bioware games, and what I mean by Fallout 3 not complex it has to do with the story. The story in FO3 is spoonfed to you and seeing as how Smudboy can't even grasp the point of the ME trilogy, it shows he needs a non complex story.

But in a JRPG you are playing an already created character (story/personality wise) not yourself, or a character of your creation in that world.

Just like in Mass Effect. Shepard is not you, you have no real control over shepards future, you may be able to lead him/her down a few different paths, but like bioware have said "This is Shepards story" not ours, just like a JRPG.

also how is the story in FO3 spoon fed to you?

edit: If anything ME2 story is spoon fed to you, there's no exploration no discovery, TIM tells you everything you have to do, where you have to go etc. Hell the main story in FO3 is irrelevant you could play the whole game without even touching the main story and still have a great time.

Modifié par wulf3n, 10 avril 2010 - 06:22 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I still think ME2 is a better game, but I agree as an RPG it could use a few good ole' ME1 features.
But seriously, the armor and characters and are improved. What game have you been playing?

I don't know how you can argue that ME2's armour system is an improvement. ME1's system was a chore and just plain uncomfortable but at least it was meaningful. You can play all of ME2 without ever changing your armour and likely not notice the difference.

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

I disagree. The main plot points in Mass Effect 2 are finding out what the collectors are up to and stopping then stopping them. Miranda, Jack, and Mordin have pretty much no barring on this. You can play the entire game without using all 3 of them and not notice the difference plotwise. Why? Because they're all accessories. They're only relevent in things not related to the main plot, like their loyalty missions, and the like. In fact, Shepard could shoot all three of them in the face for no reason half way through the game and it wouldn't mean a thing to the main plot. They're dolls. The only one who might get a pass would be Mordin who has a few seconds of relevence like creating protection for the seeker swarms on Horizon.

I'd go into the example of how some Dragon Age characters are actually intimately attached to the main plot, but this isn't the DA:O forums, and I'm not going to start posting DA:O spoilers.

No there are not, only three DAO characters are importent to the main plot, and it's poseable to have her dead during the game. I like Leliana but she is not needed for the game. Only Alistair and Morrigan are needed, thats it. Oghren is importent for the side story with the Golems but not for the main story, Shale, Sten and Zev are not importent at all and just more party members.

You are wrong about Shale and Zevran not having any role in any of the main plot. Again, I'd tell you all about it, but I'm not going to post DA:O spoilers here. Also, I said some of the characters, not all of them. But heck, even Leliana has her moments within the plot.

Zev was only hired to do a job, ayou can kill him or let you join him, no matter what after that he is useless to the story. Shale has nothing to do with the story. Only three characters are connectede to the story, thats it.

No, you're wrong. Both characters have moments in the main plot. Please pay closer attention to the game. If you'd like to hear more about this feel free to ask on the appropriate Dragon Age forum, and I'll explain it to you if I see your topic there.

Sidequests you can kill off every single character in DA and it has no bearing on the main plot.

[Qwepir]

Combat in ME1 was clunky.

ME2 fixed that but now the story is clunky.

I hope ME3 can rectify both.

[Onyx Jaguar]

In Dragon Age only the Characters Morrigan, AListair and Loghain are central to the plot. All other characters are facilitators that don't have anything to do with what happens except for Zevran who tries to kill you.

[Indoctrination]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Indoctrination wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I still think ME2 is a better game, but I agree as an RPG it could use a few good ole' ME1 features.
But seriously, the armor and characters and are improved. What game have you been playing?

I don't know how you can argue that ME2's armour system is an improvement. ME1's system was a chore and just plain uncomfortable but at least it was meaningful. You can play all of ME2 without ever changing your armour and likely not notice the difference.

As for the characters, they have absolutely no relevence or connection to the main plot. Again, maybe I've just been spoiled by Dragon Age, but I just didn't like how ME2's characters are just accessories for Commander Shepard.

Mordin, Miri and jack want to have a talk with you. Those three are so connected to the main plot it's not even funny.

I disagree. The main plot points in Mass Effect 2 are finding out what the collectors are up to and stopping then stopping them. Miranda, Jack, and Mordin have pretty much no barring on this. You can play the entire game without using all 3 of them and not notice the difference plotwise. Why? Because they're all accessories. They're only relevent in things not related to the main plot, like their loyalty missions, and the like. In fact, Shepard could shoot all three of them in the face for no reason half way through the game and it wouldn't mean a thing to the main plot. They're dolls. The only one who might get a pass would be Mordin who has a few seconds of relevence like creating protection for the seeker swarms on Horizon.

I'd go into the example of how some Dragon Age characters are actually intimately attached to the main plot, but this isn't the DA:O forums, and I'm not going to start posting DA:O spoilers.

No there are not, only three DAO characters are importent to the main plot, and it's poseable to have her dead during the game. I like Leliana but she is not needed for the game. Only Alistair and Morrigan are needed, thats it. Oghren is importent for the side story with the Golems but not for the main story, Shale, Sten and Zev are not importent at all and just more party members.

You are wrong about Shale and Zevran not having any role in any of the main plot. Again, I'd tell you all about it, but I'm not going to post DA:O spoilers here. Also, I said some of the characters, not all of them. But heck, even Leliana has her moments within the plot.

Zev was only hired to do a job, ayou can kill him or let you join him, no matter what after that he is useless to the story. Shale has nothing to do with the story. Only three characters are connectede to the story, thats it.

No, you're wrong. Both characters have moments in the main plot. Please pay closer attention to the game. If you'd like to hear more about this feel free to ask on the appropriate Dragon Age forum, and I'll explain it to you if I see your topic there.

Sidequests you can kill off every single character in DA and it has no bearing on the main plot.

Like I told the other guy, feel free to make a topic on the free spoiler DA:O board and I'll give you examples to show that you are wrong.

[kraidy1117]

wulf3n wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
ME is nothing like an JRPG. Majority of JRPG you do not have choices and you have to play a certain character with no choices. ME 1+2 you have to creat your face, you choose your class, and make choices that you would make. Just like other Bioware games, and what I mean by Fallout 3 not complex it has to do with the story. The story in FO3 is spoonfed to you and seeing as how Smudboy can't even grasp the point of the ME trilogy, it shows he needs a non complex story.

But in a JRPG you are playing an already created character (story/personality wise) not yourself, or a character of your creation in that world.

Just like in Mass Effect. You aren't shepard, you have no real control over shepards future, you may be able to lead him/her down a few different paths, but like bioware have said "This is Shepards story" not ours, just like a JRPG.

also how is the story in FO3 spoon fed to you?

No, you have no control of your character in JRPG, you do in ME 1+2, so no they are not even close to a JRPG and since you pulled that, I can say the same thing that you are Revan in KOTOR. You can't use that. ME 1+2 are not anywhere close to JRPGs, I played alot of RPGs and JRPGs, and there is a huge diffrence.

As for FO3 plot, everything is told when you meet Doctore Li or your father in the wasteland, there is no surprises, nothing.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Cut due to Spoiler complaint

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 10 avril 2010 - 06:29 .