524 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Thermal clips are hardly relevant to the main story. It may be a gameplay change, but it took about 2 lines (and Zaeed's cutscene with Vido) to retcon it, not half the game.

If I were Mac Walters, this thermal ammo business alone would make me cringe and not care at all about the continuity between the two games. ME2 is a stand alone 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. Why should I care about the relevance of its plot to Mass Effect, a story driven RPG with 3rd person combat gameplay elements?

The point is: You shouldn't care about the thermal clips, and thus you shouldn't have mentioned it as some plot-breaking element.

The same goes for trying to define what Mass Effect 1 and 2 are afterward. How does its genre have anything to do with the quality or continuity of the story? Again, you're making it seem like the writing dramatically affected the gameplay or the gameplay dramatically affected the writing, neither of which is possible when separate teams work on those aspects.

You can define Mass Effect 1 and 2 as shooters with RPG elements or RPGs with shooter elements, but you can't redefine only one of them because of its plot.

Unless you've resigned yourself to this kind of thinking:

Ecael wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Also, as ME1 had very shooter-like combat, why would you not take some of the things that make those games great and put it into ME? I don't think any percieved change of focus in ME2 came from them putting headshots in the game.

Because people are using this kind of logic in defining a genre:

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 hardly show noticeable blood spatter and gore compared to other games.
Statement 2: Most shooter games show much more killing and gore as a well-known "shooter element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not shooters.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 use guns.
Statement 2: Most RPGs use swords, magic and other melee weapons as a well-known "RPG element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs.

Statement 1: Mass Effect 1 and 2 require DLC downloads to "complete" the game
Statement 2: Most games ever released do not require DLC as a well-known "game element"
Conclusion: Therefore, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not games.

Statement: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are not RPGs, shooters or games.

Conclusion: Mass Effect 1 and 2 are

Modifié par Ecael, 27 mai 2010 - 03:10 .

[Omicrone]

Why's this joke of a thread still going? I thought we had ME1 to ME2 comparison in the other forums, no? Or Mr Critic smubdoy still thinks his opinion is the holy bible?

[Ecael]

smudboy wrote...

Ecael wrote...
And you don't get that host of other tropes from the original game? Like I said, the same writers worked on ME2 as well, and much of the same team:

http://www.mobygames...-effect/credits
http://www.mobygames...ffect-2/credits

At the beginning of ME1, Jenkins dies permanently right after you're told how to use Medi-gel, and then you find Nihlus' corpse sitting next to a pack of Medi-gel. Cutscene weakness to the max?

If you continue looking through the TVTropes website (and I have), there are just as many tropes used in the original Mass Effect as there was in Mass Effect 2. I still don't understand why you're only criticizing one of the games at this point.

Because the writing in ME1 was actually good.  Where the flaws in ME1 and the tropes present weren't so bad, ME2's tropes and flaws hurt my brain.  Tropes by themselves are (usually) neither good nor bad, but the sheer number of compounding flaws makes it, yet again, ridiculous.  If you didn't see the wonderous farce that was ME2, then congratulations.

If you didn't see all the "wonderous farces" that people seem to dismiss from ME1 because of either nostalgia or the lack of long-term memory, then congratulations.

They have the same amount of tropes. ME2's tropes hurt your brain because you've spent so much time nitpicking a single game for anything that remotely resembles a plot hole.

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/MassEffect

Read this entire page and tell me only one of these games has tropes or clichés in it. Both ME1 and ME2 are loaded with them, which is to be expected unless you really don't like suspension of disbelief.

And it's not like they've been somehow enthralled by the Unreal Engine when they've been using it for both games, or somehow dominated by EA publisher executives instead of Microsoft publisher executives.

You keep coming up with reasons to explain why both Mass Effect games can be terrible, but not Mass Effect 2. The point is, this is THE Mass Effect 2 story, and no amount of criticism can change it (and I doubt any of it will change the writers' opinions for Mass Effect 3). Christina Norman already announced they're keeping the same exact team for Mass Effect 3 at the GDC, so you seem to be setting yourself up for disappointment.

I'm quite sure I only did a series of videos on ME2's plot.

I'm not here to change BioWare's opinion of itself, or yours.  I'm here to exercise my brain and have a cathartic release from stupid.  In this event, it involves laughing mostly at you and people who share your opinions.  But you'll only see the arguments and points I make, and subsequent videos

You can laugh all you want while BioWare laughs and ignores this thread, because you're still pointing out flaws inherent in both games and trying to apply it to only one.

I've been saying all along to be optimistic because Mass Effect 1 and 2 are good games. You and everyone who shares your opinion seems to carry around some impending sense of doom. So what happens when ME3 is released?

ME3 is good - Proves me right, proves the pessimists wrong
ME3 is bad - Proves me wrong and we all lose

Note how there is no way to win at that point by being critical without sharing any new ideas. So why not praise the good things about ME1 and ME2 and ask them to keep those parts instead of pointing out all the bad ones and campaigning viciously against them?

Then again, with your standards, I don't see how you would manage to enjoy any BioWare RPG or video game in general (including Dragon Age, which was published by EA).

What standards?  Logic?  Reason?  For things to make sense?  For a sequel to actually be a sequel?  For an overarching plot to be an overarching plot?  For a space opera to simply be a simple tale, and not some convoluted mess of characters that have little to no relevance?  What, you think I want to feel this way over a piece of **** plot?

Since you spend a lot of time on a BioWare fan forum bashing BioWare and its fans, yes, you're purposefully trying to feel this way when you can just walk away or simply enjoy the game for what it is.

You say you're laughing, but it seems like you're just overthinking and working too hard trying to convince BioWare and its fans that they're incapable of writing a good story. I don't see where the laughing part comes in, really.

At least I can retain a decent sense of humor here and contribute more than just criticism.

Modifié par Ecael, 27 mai 2010 - 03:24 .

[smudboy]

Ecael wrote...
If you didn't see all the "wonderous farces" that people seem to dismiss from ME1 because of either nostalgia or the lack of long-term memory, then congratulations.

I'm sure there are.  I'm sure many stories have many holes and problems in them.  But you know what?  I'm not interested in that story at this point.

They have the same amount of tropes. ME2's tropes hurt your brain because you've spent so much time nitpicking a single game for anything that remotely resembles a plot hole.

No, they hurt my brain, because they hurt my brain.  Why would I spend more time on something, and then hurt my brain?  Sorry, I'm not that stupid or masochistic.  I played ME2.  I went "wtf".  And then I played it again.  And again.  And the feeling was the same.  And I made some videos, and now you're trying to defend plot holes.

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/MassEffect

Read this entire page and tell me only one of these games has tropes or clichés in it. Both ME1 and ME2 are loaded with them, which is to be expected unless you really don't like suspension of disbelief.

No, you.

You can laugh all you want while BioWare laughs and ignores this thread, because you're still pointing out flaws inherent in both games and trying to apply it to only one.

As I wrote before, I don't care what 1) BioWare thinks about me, 2) You.  Good for both parties.  I hope they do well.

I've been saying all along to be optimistic because Mass Effect 1 and 2 are good games. You and everyone who shares your opinion seems to carry around some impending sense of doom. So what happens when ME3 is released?

I don't really care about the game, per se.  I care about the plot.  And ME2's plot was garbage.

ME3 is good - Proves me right, proves the pessimists wrong
ME3 is bad - Proves me wrong and we all lose

Again, not even thinking along these lines.

Note how there is no way to win at that point by being critical without sharing any new ideas. So why not praise the good things about ME1 and ME2 and ask them to keep those parts instead of pointing out all the bad ones and campaigning viciously against them?

My argument is not indended to win.  I just pointed out some flaws.  You don't see them as flaws.  However, now you're accusing ME1 having the same flaws as ME2.  That is dumb.  Which is why I'm stopping here.

You obviously love ME2 to little bits and pieces.  More power to you.  You're not clarifying any of my points, my analysis, or anything.  You're just rambling on about how ME2 is great, and how ME1 somehow equals ME2.

Since you spend a lot of time on a BioWare fan forum bashing BioWare and its fans, yes, you're purposefully trying to feel this way when you can just walk away or simply enjoy the game for what it is.

I'm not interested in the game.  Plot.

You say you're laughing, but it seems like you're just overthinking and working too hard trying to convince BioWare and its fans that they're incapable of writing a good story. I don't see where the laughing part comes in, really.

No, I'm really laughing. I know you can't hear it.  But take my word for it.

For the last time: I don't give 2 ****s what you or BioWare think.

At least I can retain a decent sense of humor here and contribute more than just criticism.

Luckily my sense of humor is perverse and I can make videos.  Or something.

[Ecael]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Ecael wrote...
If you didn't see all the "wonderous farces" that people seem to dismiss from ME1 because of either nostalgia or the lack of long-term memory, then congratulations.[/quote]
I'm sure there are.  I'm sure many stories have many holes and problems in them.  But you know what?  I'm not interested in that story at this point.[/quote]
Yet you're still quite interested with this story to make a documentary about it.

[quote]No, they hurt my brain, because they hurt my brain.  Why would I spend more time on something, and then hurt my brain?  Sorry, I'm not that stupid or masochistic.  I played ME2.  I went "wtf".  And then I played it again.  And again.  And the feeling was the same.  And I made some videos, and now you're trying to defend plot holes.[/quote]
Which plot holes am I defending, specifically? The last few hours mentioned gameplay changes, not plot holes.

And you're still here trying to convince me of something that is entirely wrong in my mind and in BioWare's minds - that ME2 was drastically different in writing, gameplay or flaws from its predecessor. You must be masochistic.

[quote][quote]http://tvtropes.org/...Main/MassEffect

Read this entire page and tell me only one of these games has tropes or clichés in it. Both ME1 and ME2 are loaded with them, which is to be expected unless you really don't like suspension of disbelief.[/quote]
No, you.[/quote]
And now you've just proved my point that you're completely ignoring any trope or flaw inherent in ME1 despite your intention of doing so with ME2.

[quote]As I wrote before, I don't care what 1) BioWare thinks about me, 2) You.  Good for both parties.  I hope they do well.

I don't really care about the game, per se.  I care about the plot.  And ME2's plot was garbage.[/quote]
So you care about ME2's plot because it had nothing to do with the game or game before it, but you now you say don't care about the game?

[quote]Again, not even thinking along these lines.[/quote]
Well, you're certainly not optimistic about all this, are you?

[quote]My argument is not indended to win.  I just pointed out some flaws.  You don't see them as flaws.  However, now you're accusing ME1 having the same flaws as ME2.  That is dumb.  Which is why I'm stopping here.[/quote]
I'm not accusing ME1 or ME2 of anything. I've already said over and over that I think both games are great and their stories are enjoyable. I am, however, pointing out that you're complaining about both games at the same time.

[quote]You obviously love ME2 to little bits and pieces.  More power to you.  You're not clarifying any of my points, my analysis, or anything.  You're just rambling on about how ME2 is great, and how ME1 somehow equals ME2.[/quote]
Have any evidence to prove that ME1 and ME2 aren't both great? BioWare, EA, other game developers and 97% of critics seem to disagree with you.

I guess your opinion is the only one that matters, even if it's made invalid.

[quote]I'm not interested in the game.  Plot.[/quote]
Then read a book.

[quote]No, I'm really laughing. I know you can't hear it.  But take my word for it.

For the last time: I don't give 2 ****s what you or BioWare think.[/quote]
Laughing while using expletives? That's funny... I think.

[quote]Luckily my sense of humor is perverse and I can make videos.  Or something.[/quote]
I think there's enough people who posted here that your attempt at humor in those videos are mediocre, at best.

[MikeFL25]

I just read through the first post of the topic, didn't read anything else so please excuse me if I am interrupting a debate or something.

Anyway, to the topic creator/original poster, I had many good laughs at watching your videos (done with #2, gonna watch the rest after I post this.)

While I do not agree that Mass Effect 2 had the "worst plot ever", I can definitely agree that ME1 had a much stronger, better plot and ME2 was disappointing to me. I still love ME2 and I thought the gameplay was perfected (maybe get rid of thermal clips for ME3, though?). I did enjoy recruiting people and I liked the idea of a "suicide mission", but I do wish that a stronger plot was presented, and that the issues each party member had were deeper and more....important...than just "my dad sux wahh" or "my daughter is mean". In fact, I thought Garrus had the best sub-story just because it totally fits his character. I could understand Jack's struggle, and MAYBE even Grunt. But everything else just seemed tacked on and unimportant to the main story from ME1.

Anyway, I am rambling on now. Don't mistake me for a "hater" because despite my disappointments with the story in ME2, I still love the game and the franchise. I'm just trying to be a little less negative to the TC/OP than some of the other people here. If nothing else, the videos give me a good laugh because there is some truth there.

Modifié par MikeFL25, 27 mai 2010 - 03:47 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
If I were Mac Walters, this thermal ammo business alone would make me cringe and not care at all about the continuity between the two games. ME2 is a stand alone 3rd person shooter with RPG elements. Why should I care about the relevance of its plot to Mass Effect, a story driven RPG with 3rd person combat gameplay elements?

The point is: You shouldn't care about the thermal clips, and thus you shouldn't have mentioned it as some plot-breaking element.

Technically you are right, and, think what, I do disconnect my higher neural functions every time I see Shepard reloading or Miranda's navel aboard the Collector station. But that's a little immersion-breaking. And with my immersion broken I start to see all the purely plot-related deficiencies. Also, I state once again, this discontinuity in the gameplay and art of ME2 was affecting the writers' work during development. Sort of it broke Mac Walters's immersion as a creator.

I also state once again, the plot of ME2 is not that bad, as it could be, and I can come up with a solution to many a plot hole. But definitely ME2's plot is worse than ME1's plot, for the reasons above.

And the most ironically sad thing is that it was all a sacrifice for nothing. Because, in my very personal and not mattering opinion, ME2 utterly sucks as a shooter. It has no hand grenades, enemy snipers, flaslight/night-vision action, jump and crouch (with accuracy bonus) moves. Instead of all that it has MAGIC (and no amount of work at Mac Walters's part will persuade me there is no such thing in Mass Effect universe)!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 27 mai 2010 - 03:53 .

[Siansonea]

Too...much...text...can't...keep...up...



I can't believe how contentious this thread is. Smudboy has expressed his opinion about the quality of the writing. We can either agree with his conclusions, or come to other conclusions, but all this effort to get him to 'see the light' is wasted. Obviously these opinions were not arrived at without due consideration. For my part, I see merit in a lot of them.



I think some people out there just want to defend Mass Effect because they feel some sort of 'loyalty' to it. I think that's odd. It's a game, it doesn't deserve your loyalty per se. You already paid your dollars to BioWare, and honestly I think that's enough for them. You show your loyalty by buying the game and DLC. Bashing those who dare to critique the game does nothing but show that you're hypersensitive to criticism. Just because someone criticizes a game you love doesn't mean you're stupid for liking the game or something. It's not all about you, you know.



If BioWare wishes to improve their products, they will listen to the lucid complainers more than the sycophants who are going to buy the game regardless of how little effort the company puts forth. And BioWare isn't handing out any gold stars for defending their honor. So what IS the point of all this huffing and puffing?



Ultimately this whole argument is over whose opinion is 'right', and that question cannot be answered. Your opinion is the only one that matters to you, and mine is the only one that matters to me. Where there is overlap, hey, great, high-five. Where there is a disconnect: Live and let live.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Technically you are right, and, think what, I do disconnect my higher neural functions every time I see Shepard reloading or Miranda's navel aboard the Collector station. But that's a little immersion breaking. And with my immersion broken I start to see all the purely plot-related deficiencies. Also, I state once again, this discontinuity in the gameplay and art of ME2 was affecting the writers' work during development. Sort of it brok Mac Walters's immersion as a creator.

That's assuming that they write the story of the game after the art, gameplay and level design are finished. On the contrary - they write the main plot first and the other teams have to follow their lead.

Overheating weapons in general break the futuristic immersion (or whatever people define as 'immersion' these days) anyway.

I also state once again, the plot of ME2 is not that bad, as it could be, and I can come up with a solution to many a plot hole. But definitely ME2's plot is worse than ME1's plot, for the reasons above.

It's more helpful to post the solution and the problem than just the problem, then.

And the most ironically sad thing is that it was all a sacrifice for nothing. Because, in my very personal and not mattering opinion, ME2 utterly sucks as a shooter. It has no hand grenades, enemy snipers, flaslight/night-vision action, jump and crouch (with accuracy bonus) moves. Instead of all that it has MAGIC (and no amount of work at Mac Walters part will persuade me there is no such thing in Mass Effect universe)!

Mass Effect 2 also sucks as a sports game. Of course it does, because it's not an actual sports game.

Whether it may be a bad story or not, the genre is the same, and people are still using the same logic as I posted above ("It doesn't have THIS? Well, it can't be this genre then...").

[Ecael]

Siansonea II wrote...

Too...much...text...can't...keep...up...

If BioWare wishes to improve their products, they will listen to the lucid complainers more than the sycophants who are going to buy the game regardless of how little effort the company puts forth. And BioWare isn't handing out any gold stars for defending their honor. So what IS the point of all this huffing and puffing?

Except recent changes to the game are suggesting that they're listening to the people who are able to enjoy the game, but provide ideas and changes in the process - NOT the complainers.

For example: There's a lot of complaining about planet-scanning. A very small amount of people like planet-scanning but think it could be faster. What does BioWare do?

1. Release a patch to make planet-scanning much faster
2. Announce that they're keeping planet-scanning in ME3

Who do you think they're listening to at this point?

If you can't criticize and praise ME1 and ME2 at the same time, then BioWare has no need to listen. There's no such thing as 'lucid complaining'.

Modifié par Ecael, 27 mai 2010 - 04:07 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Technically you are right, and, think what, I do disconnect my higher neural functions every time I see Shepard reloading or Miranda's navel aboard the Collector station. But that's a little immersion breaking. And with my immersion broken I start to see all the purely plot-related deficiencies. Also, I state once again, this discontinuity in the gameplay and art of ME2 was affecting the writers' work during development. Sort of it brok Mac Walters's immersion as a creator.

That's assuming that they write the story of the game after the art, gameplay and level design are finished. On the contrary - they write the main plot first and the other teams have to follow their lead.

That was the case with Mass Effect Genuine.

With Mass Effect Secondary writers were secondary. Gameplay designers were calling all the shots. I can't prove it, but I am dead sure of it.

Ecael wrote...
Overheating weapons in general break the futuristic immersion (or whatever people define as 'immersion' these days) anyway.

Since thermal ammo is obviously not a writers' fault, I am not going to discuss it further in this thread.

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
I also state once again, the plot of ME2 is not that bad, as it could be, and I can come up with a solution to many a plot hole. But definitely ME2's plot is worse than ME1's plot, for the reasons above.

It's more helpful to post the solution and the problem than just the problem, then.

How Shepard survived the crash

Wilson and the Lazarus station mayhem.

Why Shepard has no big problem with Cerberus.

Not everyone's buying it, but it works well for me. That said, the plot of ME2 is worse than that of ME1 for the reason stated above.

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
And the most ironically sad thing is that it was all a sacrifice for nothing. Because, in my very personal and not mattering opinion, ME2 utterly sucks as a shooter. It has no hand grenades, enemy snipers, flaslight/night-vision action, jump and crouch (with accuracy bonus) moves. Instead of all that it has MAGIC (and no amount of work at Mac Walters part will persuade me there is no such thing in Mass Effect universe)!

Mass Effect 2 also sucks as a sports game. Of course it does, because it's not an actual sports game.

The plot deficiencies were supposed to be collateral damage, a necessary evil, to make ME2 more playable by bringing in more shooter-style elements, and to attract the shooter crowd. I played ME1 through more than a dozen times (and still may return to it, to drive the Mako someday). I've played ME2 through 4 times, and the last one was a boring chore. And the shooter crowd now plays Bad Company, and has already forgotten about Mass Effect. The sacrifice of the lore (that directly affected the story-telling elements) was in vain.

Ecael wrote...
Whether it may be a bad story or not, the genre is the same, and people are still using the same logic as I posted above ("It doesn't have THIS? Well, it can't be this genre then...").

And you seem to be saying: "Writers of ME2 are the same that wrote ME1, so ME2 plot just can't be worse than ME1 plot, simply because no matter what."

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 27 mai 2010 - 05:07 .

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Technically you are right, and, think what, I do disconnect my higher neural functions every time I see Shepard reloading or Miranda's navel aboard the Collector station. But that's a little immersion breaking. And with my immersion broken I start to see all the purely plot-related deficiencies. Also, I state once again, this discontinuity in the gameplay and art of ME2 was affecting the writers' work during development. Sort of it brok Mac Walters's immersion as a creator.

That's assuming that they write the story of the game after the art, gameplay and level design are finished. On the contrary - they write the main plot first and the other teams have to follow their lead.

That was the case with Mass Effect Genuine.

With Mass Effect Secondary writers were secondary. Gameplay designers were calling all the shots. I can't prove it, but I am dead sure of it.

It would be more difficult to prove, because - like I mentioned - they had twice as many writers on Mass Effect 2, including the original team. I doubt they'd do that and then say that the gameplay designers had full control.

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
I also state once again, the plot of ME2 is not that bad, as it could be, and I can come up with a solution to many a plot hole. But definitely ME2's plot is worse than ME1's plot, for the reasons above.

It's more helpful to post the solution and the problem than just the problem, then.

How Shepard survived the crash

Wilson and the Lazarus station mayhem.

Why Shepard has no big problem with Cerberus.

Not everyone's buying it, but it works well for me. That said, the plot of ME2 is worse than that of ME1 for the reason stated above.

I applaud your efforts then. I remember you gave me a link to your "Choices" thread to describe how it will affect ME3, and that was a good read as well.

Also, I do think Cerberus may still have connections with the Alliance, too. That may be what Kasumi's DLC was setting up all along.

The plot deficiencies were supposed to be collateral damage, a necessary evil, to make ME2 more playable by bringing in more shooter-style elements, and to attract the shooter crowd. I played ME1 through more than a dozen times (and still may return to it, to drive the Mako someday). I've played ME2 through 4 times, and the last one was a boring chore. And the shooter crowd now plays Bad Company, and has already forgotten about Mass Effect. The sacrifice of the lore (that directly affected the story-telling elements) was in vain.

How did they attract the shooter crowd, though? If they truly wanted to attract the shooter crowd, they'd include multiplayer deathmatch with an online match-making system. That is what defines a popular FPS/TPS these days, ones that sell ten million copies (5 times as much as any BioWare game will ever sell).

BioWare's purpose is not to get shooter fans interested in another shooter. It is to get shooter fans interested in their RPGs. This has been the case since they released the first Mass Effect, which is an RPG that does not involve turn-based combat or auto-attack -- it involves lots of shooting.

The Old Republic's success weighs heavily on how many people they can draw from the WoW/MMORPG crowd and from other genres.

And you seem to be saying: "Writers of ME2 are the same that wrote ME1, so ME2 plot just can't be worse than ME1 plot, simply because no matter what."

Unless you think smudboy's assertions are correct (in that some of the writers were heavily drinking), I don't see why saying "ME1's plot can't be any better than ME2's plot" is unjustified (it is the reverse of what you stated, though).

ME1 and ME2 may be standalone games, but they are very much connected in that one introduces the galaxy and the other expands upon that galaxy's stories. That's why I suggest that people judge Mass Effect as the sum of its parts. Most people here are unwilling to do that because it means bashing or praising both games.

Modifié par Ecael, 27 mai 2010 - 05:28 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

For example: There's a lot of complaining about planet-scanning. A very small amount of people like planet-scanning but think it could be faster. What does BioWare do?

1. Release a patch to make planet-scanning much faster
2. Announce that they're keeping planet-scanning in ME3

Yeah, it's a hell of a deal now. Especially in this thread. Especially after you said, that writers lead the way.

Dou you seriously think that a writer can come up with an idea, of sending a probe down to the core of a gas giant to extact platinum from there and return it to the orbit, and it takes several such operations to upgrade half a dozen side arms?

And thank you very much, BioWare! Mass Effect 2 is the absolutely first game ever I've cheated on resources!

[InvaderErl]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

For example: There's a lot of complaining about planet-scanning. A very small amount of people like planet-scanning but think it could be faster. What does BioWare do?

1. Release a patch to make planet-scanning much faster
2. Announce that they're keeping planet-scanning in ME3

Yeah, it's a hell of a deal now. Especially in this thread. Especially after you said, that writers lead the way.

Dou you seriously think that a writer can come up with an idea, of sending a probe down to the core of a gas giant to extact platinum from there and return it to the orbit, and it takes several such operations to upgrade half a dozen side arms?

And thank you very much, BioWare! Mass Effect 2 is the absolutely first game ever I've cheated on resources!

Are you being serious?

Wow. I mean every time this thread has gotten as dumb as I think it could, it gets DUMBER.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 27 mai 2010 - 05:34 .

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

For example: There's a lot of complaining about planet-scanning. A very small amount of people like planet-scanning but think it could be faster. What does BioWare do?

1. Release a patch to make planet-scanning much faster
2. Announce that they're keeping planet-scanning in ME3

Yeah, it's a hell of a deal now. Especially in this thread. Especially after you said, that writers lead the way.

Dou you seriously think that a writer can come up with an idea, of sending a probe down to the core of a gas giant to extact platinum from there and return it to the orbit, and it takes several such operations to upgrade half a dozen side arms?

And thank you very much, BioWare! Mass Effect 2 is the absolutely first game ever I've cheated on resources!

Why would the writers interfere with that? That was Casey Hudson and Christina Norman's decision, the writers just wrote the descriptions for the planets - like they always have, since ME1.

They just expanded upon this from the first game:
http://masseffect.wi...luable_Minerals

It still doesn't make any more sense than planet-scanning, if you consider Shepard is in a race against time to stop Saren and the Alliance wants you to survey planets (maybe they really are connected to Cerberus!).

Like I said, they'll listen to the so-called "sycophants" much more often than anyone else. Planet-scanning will return in ME3, and they don't care whether you decide to cheat or not.

As for me? I don't care about what happens to planet-scanning either way, but I just play the game using only resources I get from missions and import bonuses. Insanity on ME1/ME2 get very easy after you beat the game just once.

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Images wrote...
Much anger I sense in you my young padawan.

I wouldn't worry about it Images, Smudboy and myself have butted heads on this topic quite an few times by now. We simply see it from different angles. Agreement to dis-agree in the end, I don't mind. Different experinces with things breed different perspectives all together. Smudboy probably does alot of story-writing or book reading or something of that nature, an experince I lack. I don't read as often as I used to, but some have been horribly written and surprised they were published, others were excellent.

However I have my own unqiue experinces as well which give me an entirely different outlook on things. I totally agreed with him that ME2 story/plot was not the best written thing since shakespeare, it's not something bioware should put on the wall of excellence, however my point of view with others is simply saying "It's not as bad as it could have been.", It's simply opitmistic and pessemitic type views clashing. I don't feel any loyality to ME2, I felt it was good, perhaps not the best, but definitely not the worst. I am indifferent from it.

My other viewpoint is that becuase of the link that ME2 presents, in any story there is some loose threads that are to be answered in ME3, they are not to be answered in ME2. What type of reaper info is on the datapad, what happens with TIM, Collector base etc. In my opinon, anyone who thinks ME2 is really an stand-alone game is joking with themselves. It was sold as such, but not written as such.

It is the equivlant of being at the balrog after gandalf gets pulled over the edge, our lovely heroes make the escape and slamming the book shut and being like "ok, that's the end, all you know is that an bunch of orcs are soon to be swarming the hills they are standing on by nightfall."

So in retro-spec - and I believe it was you earlier.... Your balrog analogy was right on the money actually. . I just used slightly different comparisons at the time.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

ME1 and ME2 may be standalone games, but they are very much connected in that one introduces the galaxy and the other expands upon that galaxy's stories. That's why I suggest that people judge Mass Effect as the sum of its parts. Most people here are unwilling to do that because it means bashing or praising both games.

OK, before following your suggestion, I'll reiterate once more: the plot of Mass Effect 2 is not that bad. And the plot of Mass Effect 2 is the single part of it that keeps me devoted to this franchise.

Now, following your suggestion, I judge both games as the sum of their parts: Mass Effect - best game ever. Mass Effect Two - not even close to the first dozen.

That's my opinion, of course, there's no need to spread it around.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

ME1 and ME2 may be standalone games, but they are very much connected in that one introduces the galaxy and the other expands upon that galaxy's stories. That's why I suggest that people judge Mass Effect as the sum of its parts. Most people here are unwilling to do that because it means bashing or praising both games.

OK, before following your suggestion, I'll reiterate once more: the plot of Mass Effect 2 is not that bad. And the plot of Mass Effect 2 is the single part of it that keeps me devoted to this franchise.

Now, following your suggestion, I judge both games as the sum of their parts: Mass Effect - best game ever. Mass Effect Two - not even close to the first dozen.

That's my opinion, of course, there's no need to spread it around.

My opinion: ME1/ME2 - best gaming trilogy ever once ME3 is released, especially in the RPG department.

Dragon Age 2 will intentionally have no continuity from the previous game, and Square Enix has been unable to make three straight Final Fantasies recently that people agree upon as "great" (and they scrap the story for every successive Final Fantasy they release).

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

They just expanded upon this from the first game:
http://masseffect.wi...luable_Minerals

It still doesn't make any more sense than planet-scanning, if you consider Shepard is in a race against time to stop Saren and the Alliance wants you to survey planets (maybe they really are connected to Cerberus!).

FACEPALM.

UNC: Valuable Minerals was a side quest with a perfect writing behind it:
There is a division within the Alliance called "Geological Survey". They pay bonuses to anyone who cares to mark with a beacon any mineral deposit they come across in the Attican Traverse. So that the miners could go there sometime and dig a shaft and extract the resource for the Alliance.

You had absolutely no need to bother with the minerals to progress. Just as you could let the preaching Hanar quarrel with the C-Sec officer until Saren would kill them both right on that spot. Even XP and cash gained from that were quite modest. And in any case Commander Shepard did not mine anything himself in Mass Effect.

I'd expect anyone with your experience in worst possible playthroughs to understand the difference.

Why did BioWare decide to bring resource gathering into Mass Effect 2 is an absolute mystery to me.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

They just expanded upon this from the first game:
http://masseffect.wi...luable_Minerals

It still doesn't make any more sense than planet-scanning, if you consider Shepard is in a race against time to stop Saren and the Alliance wants you to survey planets (maybe they really are connected to Cerberus!).

FACEPALM.

UNC: Valuable Minerals was a side quest with a perfect writing behind it:
There is a division within the Alliance called "Geological Survey". They pay bonuses to anyone who cares to mark with a beacon any mineral deposit they come across in the Attican Traverse. So that the miners could go there sometime and dig a shaft and extract the resource for the Alliance.

You had absolutely no need to bother with the minerals to progress. Just as you could let the preaching Hanar quarrel with the C-Sec officer until Saren would kill them both right on that spot. Even XP and cash gained from that were quite modest. And in any case Commander Shepard did not mine anything himself in Mass Effect.

I'd expect anyone with your experience in worst possible playthroughs to understand the difference.

Why did BioWare decide to bring resource gathering into Mass Effect 2 is an absolute mystery to me.

As I just said, you don't even need to bother with minerals in Mass Effect 2 to beat Insanity either. It's an optional timesink. They brought it into the game to extend the gameplay time further since they took the whole linear Mako driving/shooting/'sploding part out.

However, unlike the Mako, you don't need to spend half of the main missions scanning for minerals before you can start shooting and 'sploding on foot.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...
However, unlike the Mako, you don't need to spend half of the main missions scanning for minerals before you can start shooting and 'sploding on foot.

???
Since when was it required to go after the minerals at all? You could go straigh to the main bunker and get on with the 'sposions.

As for the time sink, I say Quasar is better.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...
However, unlike the Mako, you don't need to spend half of the main missions scanning for minerals before you can start shooting and 'sploding on foot.

???
Since when was it required to go after the minerals at all? You could go straigh to the main bunker and get on with the 'sposions.

As for the time sink, I say Quasar is better.

Main missions - Therum, Feros, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos.

You have to spend a good amount of time driving the Mako (and often 'sploding stuff) in order to complete the game. At some point, I realized it was faster just to drive through all the enemies (unless there was a gate in the way) and rely on mission completed XP to level up quickly.

I think the Hammerhead would be a decent timesink if there were worlds populated with things to explore (Shifty-Looking Cows don't count, sadly).

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...
However, unlike the Mako, you don't need to spend half of the main missions scanning for minerals before you can start shooting and 'sploding on foot.

???
Since when was it required to go after the minerals at all? You could go straigh to the main bunker and get on with the 'sposions.

As for the time sink, I say Quasar is better.

Main missions - Therum, Feros, Noveria, Virmire, Ilos.

You have to spend a good amount of time driving the Mako (and often 'sploding stuff) in order to complete the game. At some point, I realized it was faster just to drive through all the enemies (unless there was a gate in the way) and rely on mission completed XP to level up quickly.

I think the Hammerhead would be a decent timesink if there were worlds populated with things to explore (Shifty-Looking Cows don't count, sadly).

And this Hammerhead is just another example of a huge plot black hole. But not because of the writers' fault, but because of its design (Turbines in space, really? Non-rotational turret firing rockets from the upper side of a flying vehicle, really?), tech specifications (Engine freezes, really?), and gameplay parameters (Lives "just a sec" under fire, really? Stirs by the mouse, really?)

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And this Hammerhead is just another example of a huge plot black hole. But not because of the writers' fault, but because of its design (Turbines in space, really? Non-rotational turret firing rockets from the upper side of a flying vehicle, really?), tech specifications (Engine freezes, really?), and gameplay parameters (Lives "just a sec" under fire, really? Stirs by the mouse, really?)

Gunship for ME3?

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

And this Hammerhead is just another example of a huge plot black hole. But not because of the writers' fault, but because of its design (Turbines in space, really? Non-rotational turret firing rockets from the upper side of a flying vehicle, really?), tech specifications (Engine freezes, really?), and gameplay parameters (Lives "just a sec" under fire, really? Stirs by the mouse, really?)

Gunship for ME3?

Space fighter.