302 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

But there are different kinds of RPGs. Technically GTA is an RPG.

Are we talking about epic, Bioware-style RPGs? KOTOR and DA:O and ME?

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...
Mass Effect Launch Trailer
Care to count all the gunshots, "shooter elements" and explosions in that one?

Putting explosions into a commercial, even thou it's supposed to be of an RPG game is a sound move. Nobody hates explosions.

You still haven't pointed out any place in Mass Effect 1 that wasn't a shooting gallery.

Citadel. There were several firefights (only three of them compulsory), yes. All but one of them involved less then 4 baddies and lasted like 10 seconds (maybe 30 seconds on Insanity).

Also, in Mass Effect One the were no respawning enemies. Even in the Thorian lair. Even in the Hot labs at Peak 15 there were several waves of rachni, but they were limited. In "2" there are places where enemies respawn endlessly until you meet some requirement, like during the Colossus fight at Haestrom.

But this is going off-topic. The topic is:

The fact and/or the way the main plot missions are forced on the player in ME2 is lame, especially since the game is supposed to be largely non-linear.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 juin 2010 - 04:40 .

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
But there are different kinds of RPGs. Technically GTA is an RPG.

Are we talking about epic, Bioware-style RPGs? KOTOR and DA:O and ME?

I'm actually asking in the broadest of terms. What does a game need to have in it that makes you think it's an RPG? What made a Bioware-style game an RPG?

[Christmas Ape]

Yeah, it's gonna be long. Ape's gotta sleep sometimes. Deal.
[quote]slimgrin wrote...
No, you reducing every argument to a matter of personal taste is.
Nothing in the game is done well or poorly, its all a matter of personal preference.
I've provided enough sport. Clearly this thread falls under the 'ME2 is flawless' category.[/quote]If all you've got to contribute is creating a viewpoint for me you can personally disagree with and the occasional snipe to help polarize this discussion further, is there any chance you could...you know...go away?

[quote]LaurenIsSoMosh wrote...
But I'm not merely uttering it. It has been explained that they're mistakes, and it has been explained why
they're mistakes. You're fully entitled to disagree, but to say that I haven't backed up my end of the debate with logic is entirely untrue.[/quote]I take it you mean with
[quote]After the test run, players are given two options: continue preparing with unwanted consequences, or go in unprepared with other unwanted consequences. Whichever option chosen results in unwanted consequences.
Players are not physically forced through the relay, but giving players a choice that black and white is a lose/lose. It might as well be forcing, because either option chosen is probable to end in frustration.
[/quote]? It's devoid of logic. "I didn't automatically get the best ending!" is not an objective fault in a game once you cease to be ten years old.
[quote]Again, no. I'm not suggesting the developers give the players warning or that the player resort to websites or journals. I'm suggesting the developers avoid locking the door and forcing the player to go through
the window.[/quote]You want a GTA sandbox so you can fly around in your space ship shopping for pants. That's great. Kudos to you. But ME2 isn't a sandbox, it's a cinematic action-RPG. ME1 wanted to be, they just put so little emphasis on the narrative in actual gameplay that it felt like a sandbox. Maybe that's where you're getting confused?
[quote]You're focusing too much on the end. The suicide mission is a moot pointif the player can't even get that far.[/quote]Which has nothing to do with design - since once the suicide mission is available you can complete it - and everything to do with player skill. Not something they have to account for.
[quote]See, in game design, this cryptoterminology, this ghost that probably doesn't exist outside my imagination, Horizon is what's known as a difficulty spike.[/quote]Okay, first? *snk* Okay. Sure. Have you tried setting it to Casual?
[quote]On higher difficulties, if you are not prepared for that spike, you're screwed. By forcing the player into it, the
developers risk breaking the game for the player[/quote]So...it should have been easier? Still not an objective fault. Thousands of people have beaten it on Insanity, laboring under this "mistake" of design that sometimes a game gets harder without asking you if that's okay.
[quote]It's the core tenet of game creation. Don't take control away from the player or else you end up with a movie.
Does that really need explanation or detail to justify and separate it from opinion?[/quote]So the only good games ever made are complete sandboxes, as all other games will at some point take control away from the player in the interests of pushing the story forward (Why can't I do this part on foot? Why can't I betray him? WHY IS THIS NOT THE SIMS?) All game design should be about completely divorcing the narrative from gameplay, rendering any attempt at story an optional element?
That is pure weapons grade bull****.
[quote]slimgrin wrote...
Bingo. At least, not enough of them matter. Sure, I can ****** Jack off, but that doesn't affect how the story plays out. One more conversation to smooth things over and she's ready to sacrifice her life once again. I can have it either way.[/quote]As opposed to the "absolutely none of these matter" that were the ME1 choices? A few different lines of dialog, who's sad in the briefing room, and maybe you won't have to engage half the boss fight. That's all the impact you get to have on the ME1 story, besides traipsing around the galaxy at your whim and making the word "story" an utter farce.
[quote]phatpat63 wrote...
Word. Taking control from the player and constructing choices for them that are ambiguous or unclear that they even are choices to facilitate the plot of the game is just bad design. The way squadmate death and survival in the final mission can seem completely arbitrary is another perfect example.[/quote]I'm sorry two major characters saying to your face "make sure your team is ready for this" didn't imply that you should...you know...make sure they're ready because it might have an impact on the plot. They don't pay Martin Sheen to record lines for his health. Try paying attention and, when it comes to the final mission, choose the best for the task as opposed to a favorite.
[quote]Mass 1 was far superior in that respect.[/quote]*snk* again.
[quote]When you were confronted with a choice that would have serious consequences you always knew you were making a choice and had some idea of what the consequences might be, and you had to make it with all that haning over your head.[/quote]The entirety of ME2 is making those choices. I guess they stretched them out too far to make it obvious.
[quote]It was one of those things that made the game so much more impactful.[/quote]Along with nostalgia.
[quote]AdamNW wrote...
Actually, it's the next sidequest you would have done/hubworld you would have visited.[/quote]Yes. I didn't have any left to do. I wanted to go to the Relay. I had to take the shuttle.
[quote]Nightwriter wrote...
Now compare this to Shepard's first discussion with TIM. I do not feel as though I am placed in a situation where joining TIM is the only way out or the only thing I can do. And indeed when Shepard says, "If this is true I would consider helping you" I want to go, "Wtf?!" I feel like that decision is being made for me.[/quote]And in the first game those bastards made you save Eden Prime, too, instead of just bugging out and doing your own thing. You are presented with one of the half-dozen human beings who also believes in the Reaper threat, and the only one who can offer you the resources to do anything about it. "Nah, loan me a shuttle so I can hook up with the Alliance and go back to hunting geth" is both conceptually stupid and avoiding the entire game. It's called buy-in. Vital to suspension of disbelief. "Don't find reasons you wouldn't play, find reasons you would", as the player advice goes in P&P RPGs.

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 28 juin 2010 - 04:34 .

[Nightwriter]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
But there are different kinds of RPGs. Technically GTA is an RPG.

Are we talking about epic, Bioware-style RPGs? KOTOR and DA:O and ME?

I'm actually asking in the broadest of terms. What does a game need to have in it that makes you think it's an RPG? What made a Bioware-style game an RPG?

In that case that's quite hard to define. The setting of the RPG has so much to do with what I mind or don't mind, like or don't like, what is or isn't okay.

Generally, though, with Bioware I need interesting characters and an emotion-involved story. If I have choices I need to feel like they matter. And I need to feel connected to my character. That's very important. I need to know I'm not just watching the story or the PC - I'm participating.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Christmas Ape wrote...
It's devoid of logic. "I didn't automatically get the best ending!" is not an objective fault in a game once you cease to be ten years old.

Even when I was 10 on the Amiga it wasn't a fault... that's what save/load and "new game" is for...
It seems most people had outcomes in ME2 on their first play through that, while not being "perfect", were infact "not too bad" and at least left you with the sense that your ending was at least partly - "individual" to you. That's by design.

[Nightwriter]

Hey wait! There's something I wrote in there. Self-interest now compels me to reply...

Christmas Ape wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Now compare this to Shepard's first discussion with TIM. I do not feel as though I am placed in a situation where joining TIM is the only way out or the only thing I can do. And indeed when Shepard says, "If this is true I would consider helping you" I want to go, "Wtf?!" I feel like that decision is being made for me.

And in the first game those bastards made you save Eden Prime, too, instead of just bugging out and doing your own thing. You are presented with one of the half-dozen human beings who also believes in the Reaper threat, and the only one who can offer you the resources to do anything about it. "Nah, loan me a shuttle so I can hook up with the Alliance and go back to hunting geth" is both conceptually stupid and avoiding the entire game. It's called buy-in. Vital to suspension of disbelief. "Don't find reasons you wouldn't play, find reasons you would", as the player advice goes in P&P RPGs.

Not so!

Eden Prime was completely different. Implementation.

On Eden Prime it’s the beginning of the game, the stage is just being set, my character isn’t defined yet, and most importantly I’m not doing something I don’t want to do or something I don’t feel is necessary.

Also, I am delivered into a situation where the threat is directly illustrated all around me and shows how what I’m doing is necessary. There are bad guys everywhere.

When I am talking to TIM, they throw this situation at me all the sudden and then while I’m still blinking tell me that because of this situation working with Cerberus is THE ONLY WAY. But as much as Cerberus supporters argue that this is true, it’s never illustrated satisfactorily in the game.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 28 juin 2010 - 05:15 .

[Christmas Ape]

When I am talking to TIM, they throw this situation at me all the sudden and then while I’m still blinking tell me that because of this situation working with Cerberus is THE ONLY WAY. But as much as Cerberus supporters argue that this is true, it’s never illustrated satisfactorily in the game.

Well, you're presented with a few facts:
- The Council is publicly completely denying your information about Reapers.
- As the new Council race, the Alliance is politically compelled to keep you from running around yelling about Reapers, and thus give you a do-nothing robot hunt to keep you out in BFE.
- While on this hunt, you died.
- Cerberus fixed you.
- Cerberus believes you.
- Cerberus has a lead on the next Reaper plan - or at the least, a massive f***ing threat to humanity.
Who else are you going to go to? You're one dead Specter on a Cerberus base somewhere. Two of your old crew members have already signed on because they were told you'd be leading the mission. Are you going to shoot your way out, steal a shuttle, and go back to hunting robots because the Alliance doesn't have the political will or clout to let you pursue the actual threat? Or maybe shoot your way out, steal a shuttle, and go fight the Reapers alone with absolutely zero resources or certain allies?
I don't feel the game is required to give you an "out" in this circumstance any more than DA should have let you knife Duncan in his sleep on the road to Ostagar and go wandering the land of your own accord until everyone dies. Buy-in.

EDIT: But, I'm willing to consider it. You spin it for me. tIM makes his case for sending you to Freedom's Progress. You tell him to eat a bowl of dicks, somehow get off the base, and are now plotting a course in a stolen Cerberus shuttle. Tens of thousands of human colonists have disappeared. You have no actual ship - certainly not an armed one - no crew, and no allies. You have no dossiers to recruit, no money, one pistol and some N7 armor. You tell me what the game should be like from there while not requiring you to buy the alternate-cover "Give tIM The Finger" edition with a completely different story structure.

Modifié par Christmas Ape, 28 juin 2010 - 05:33 .

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
In that case that's quite hard to define. The setting of the RPG has so much to do with what I mind or don't mind, like or don't like, what is or isn't okay.

Generally, though, with Bioware I need interesting characters and an emotion-involved story. If I have choices I need to feel like they matter. And I need to feel connected to my character. That's very important. I need to know I'm not just watching the story or the PC - I'm participating.

Any game regardless of its genre can have interesting characters, an emotion-involved story, and a character you can connect with. I'm not saying all games are like that, but it's not limited to the RPG genre.

Choices, however, are probably on most people's lists for what makes an RPG. The first Mass Effect game promises choices that matter, but it turns out those choices are greatly dependent on playing the next game in the series to see the follow through. What you see in the first game is essentially one story on rails: Commander Shepard, Alliance Marine given Spectre status to thwart Saren's plans. You must go to four planets, even if they're in any order, you must recruit five out of the six squadmates offered you, and there's really only one method to solve the game. You might be able to mold your character's personality slightly, but the choices never alter the gameplay. The choices don't matter within the story itself.

Most games that are given the tag of RPG are limited in their abilities to be so. As you indicated, a lot of what will make an RPG for someone is going to be subjective. My perfect RPG would be one where your choices actually alter the environment, the characters, and your ability to solve missions within the game I'm playing. In this respect, neither Mass Effect game fits the bill.

But really, it's easy to say where a game fails. It's not as easy to demonstrate why it fails and what then makes it right. ME2 forces you into certain missions while you're in the middle of doing something else. I agree that it's annoying. But what game doesn't do the same in some way? It's certainly not ME1, KOTOR, or DA:O. Something else must make those RPGs in a way that ME2 fails. But again, interesting characters, emotion-involved story, and a character you can connect with are not the sole domain of RPGs.

Now, ME1, KOTOR, and DA:O can be considered better games than ME2 for reasons beyond being an RPG. If people want their criticism to be constructive, they have to demonstrate what those reasons are that are not subjective. Or nitpicking. And actually demonstrative, that's kind of the key to being constructive about it.

And no, I'm not trying to focus all this rant at Nightwriter or anyone in particular. It's pretty much a general rant about criticism itself.

Modifié par Pacifien, 28 juin 2010 - 03:24 .

[SSV Enterprise]

My 2 cents: While an RPG should give you flexibility for the order in which you explore the game universe and do missions/quests, I don't view the Redcliffe/Illusive Man situations as going too far against that. It's akin to life, really: you're free to do as you wish within boundaries for the most part, but sometimes you get into situations you can't get out of until they are resolved. As others have said, it adds a sense of urgency and realism to the story. Would you preferred the Illusive Man to have said "Oh, we know when a colony is going to be attacked soon/we have found a derelict Collector ship which may power up and escape at any moment, but you can take your sweet time getting there" or Bann Teagan to have said "Yeah, at nightfall there will be an undead attack that will likely wipe out the village, but feel free to leave and come back whenever you wish! I'm sure we'll still be here." I sure wouldn't.

And I must strongly disagree with the notion that ME1 missions are somehow less linear and have more freedom than the ME2 missions. Virmire and Therum were as linear as any ME2 mission, and once you got in the Mako on Noveria, so was that as well.  Feros was also linear, aside from the tunnels business which didn't amount to much.  ME2 was actually less linear than ME1 in the sense that it had more hub worlds with stuff to do.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 28 juin 2010 - 06:50 .

[Cain_Novaburn]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
My 2 cents: While an RPG should give you flexibility for the order in which you explore the game universe and do missions/quests, I don't view the Redcliffe/Illusive Man situations as going too far against that. It's akin to life, really: you're free to do as you wish within boundaries for the most part, but sometimes you get into situations you can't get out of until they are resolved. As others have said, it adds a sense of urgency and realism to the story.

Big Ditto to this.

As to FO3, it was widely faulted on that account especially versus Oblivion. For whatever reason, it didn't bother me as much. Maybe because the base game was just somewhere to start, and modding allowed you to make it whatever you liked?

The big problem here is the difference between RPGs and the fact that you can have completly different styles to them, thus wide ranging opinions. Some people loved Oblivion because of its free reign and modding, while I personally got bored with it because I felt it lacked a compelling story. Also, the fact that the world was in danger and I could run around and waste my time doing whatever I felt like and it wouldn't effect anything. Don't get me wrong, the game was a lot of fun and the mods were killer but it didn't feel real to me and thus I didn't get the kind of immersion that I got with ME1 and 2.

One that note I would like to say that I've played enough RPGs to know when the big "no turning back" part is about to take place so I get all my s*** done before hand. Also, as SSV Enterprise said in the quote above it adds realism to the game because real life doesn't give you the opportunity to always be ready. Hell it doesn't even give you save points. This kind of realism, although annoying if you haven't done everything, only makes me love it more. Not to mention Bioware allows you to play after the final mission so you can play all the side quests and DLC that you missed before which really makes complaining about a force mission a moot point.  

RPGs are about playing your character and making choices. It is true that both ME1 and 2 are more linear than other RPGs we are used to and I would like to see a wider range of choices and options for the players. However, the reason I love ME1 and 2 is because of the story and how it plays out. With Mass Effect, I feel drawn in and totally immersed in the story. For me, it doesn't matter how much or how many choices I had, if it all feels real in the end because to me thats what RPGs are all about.
 

Nordic Einar wrote...
Did nobody play Star Control 2? You could actually be doomed to lose well before you were even close to done. Still one of the most fondly remembered games I've ever heard of.
I *loved* that freaking game. That game was SO unforgiving.

Played the original, and loved it. Still got the 5 1/4s lying around somewhere.

Modifié par Cain_Novaburn, 28 juin 2010 - 07:56 .

[janeym27]

Came on to reply, saw all the lovely replies already. ^^ This.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...
Mass Effect Launch Trailer
Care to count all the gunshots, "shooter elements" and explosions in that one?

Putting explosions into a commercial, even thou it's supposed to be of an RPG game is a sound move. Nobody hates explosions.

Well, except for the people who think BioWare has somehow gone mad for including explosions in the sequel.

Citadel. There were several firefights (only three of them compulsory), yes. All but one of them involved less then 4 baddies and lasted like 10 seconds (maybe 30 seconds on Insanity).

Citadel Presidium
Elevator near Conduit (Race Against Time: Final Battle)
Citadel Tower (Race Against Time: Final Battle)

Citadel Wards
Med Clinic (Garrus Recruit)
Wards Access (Tali Recruit)
Chora's Den (Citadel: Expose Saren)
Lower Markets (Citadel: Scan the Keepers, Citadel: Rita's Sister)

Noveria
Noveria, Synthetic Insights (Noveria: Lorik Qui'in)
Noveria Dock (Noveria: Smuggling)
Noveria Garage (Noveria: Leave Port Hanshan)

Feros
Feros Colony (Feros: The Thorian)
Feros Underground (All Feros side quests)

I'm pretty sure that the Saren battle in the Presidium Tower took more than 30 seconds.

Also, in Mass Effect One the were no respawning enemies. Even in the Thorian lair. Even in the Hot labs at Peak 15 there were several waves of rachni, but they were limited. In "2" there are places where enemies respawn endlessly until you meet some requirement, like during the Colossus fight at Haestrom.

A lot of the seemingly infinite spawns do stop after a while (Miranda's loyalty, Tali's recruitment, Tali's loyalty).

The same occurs for a few spawns in Mass Effect 1:
-The geth destroyers before the geth dropship at the Citadel
-The geth shock troopers at the dropship
-The charging Geth Juggernaut before the turrets/Presidium Tower
-The Rachni at UNC: Listening Post Alpha (no XP from kills)
-Pinnacle Station (...)

But this is going off-topic. The topic is:

The fact and/or the way the main plot missions are forced on the player in ME2 is lame, especially since the game is supposed to be largely non-linear.

The game is largely non-linear. The only missions that are forced are Horizon and the Disabled Collector Vessel.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I still think this argument is absolute nonsense.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...
Mass Effect Launch Trailer
Care to count all the gunshots, "shooter elements" and explosions in that one?

Putting explosions into a commercial, even thou it's supposed to be of an RPG game is a sound move. Nobody hates explosions.

Well, except for the people who think BioWare has somehow gone mad for including explosions in the sequel.

People don't think BioWare has gone mad for including explosions in the sequel.
People do think that BioWare has gone mad for making explosions more important then plot integrity in the sequel.

That said, explosions used to be better in ME than in "2", because they looked like short flash&fireball HE blasts. Now they look like igniting barrel of gasoline mushrooms. I think "Where the YMIR has its exhaust pipe" is a good title for a thread.

Ecael wrote...

Citadel. There were several firefights (only three of them compulsory), yes. All but one of them involved less then 4 baddies and lasted like 10 seconds (maybe 30 seconds on Insanity).

I'm pretty sure that the Saren battle in the Presidium Tower took more than 30 seconds.

Techically, it was another location.

My point is you could play the game for hours without firing a shot: search for Keepers, chase the Gambling AI. Such stuff. I'm fairly sure, that the number of sidequests on the Citadel alone in ME1 was about the same as that in all hubs of ME2 combined.

But you can play ME2 for hours without firing a shot too: mining minigame forever!

Ecael wrote...

Also, in Mass Effect One the were no respawning enemies. Even in the Thorian lair. Even in the Hot labs at Peak 15 there were several waves of rachni, but they were limited. In "2" there are places where enemies respawn endlessly until you meet some requirement, like during the Colossus fight at Haestrom.

A lot of the seemingly infinite spawns do stop after a while (Miranda's loyalty, Tali's recruitment, Tali's loyalty).

Never seen the end of the respawn during the Colossus fight. It took me a while once to bring it down (Reegar died) and a pair Geth Troopers still respawned continuosly near the Collossus. Until I killed it and the respawning stopped... But I take your word for it. What about the N7: Abandoned Mine mission?

Most of the UNC missions contained interactive dialogue. N7 missions contain only "logs" and only some of those voiced.

Mind you, in ME1 you had to kill enemies as that was the primary source of XP, necessary to level up. It made the bloodbath outcome of every quest somewhat favorable, leading some people to complain that BioWare favors the Renegades. But it's a classic RPG thing, so you can't blame BioWare for that. Still, they listened to Paragon whiners and made the quest completion the to be the only source of XP. And even converted the 1-2 baddies firefights into cutscenes triggered by Renegade interrupts or dialogue options. But it seems to be a punishment for the Renegades since it clearly deprives them of yet another chance to prove their enormous shooter skills of which ME2 requires sooooo much moar to play...

Anyway, changing of the XP system could be a great step forward. I would allow to make half the missions combat-free or combat-avoidable. But no, we have to experiance all the content, of  which explosions and fluent shooter gameplay is the best part. So Samara&Thane "loyalties" account for less than 10% of the main missions, and we are not given such obvious options as: advise the Quarians to blow up the Alarei without boarding it, bomb the Teltin facility from orbit, talk Harkin into cooperation from the very start (I was initially led to think that the Citadel Wards were like New York City, not like Baghdad, but in the end Bailey turned out not only a crooked cop, but an incompetent crooked cop) and so on. Exracting Jack peacfully and Garrus stealthily from their respective "recruitment sites" could have also been made a possibility.

And, If you ever need an advice on a next great accomplishment to achieve (in case you run out of them), here will be one: calculate the proportion between the total number of the killeable baddies and the Shepard's dialogue lines in both games. I think it will be a valid numerical measure to assess the RPG-shooter relation.

Ecael wrote...

But this is going off-topic. The topic is:

The fact and/or the way the main plot missions are forced on the player in ME2 is lame, especially since the game is supposed to be largely non-linear.

The game is largely non-linear. The only missions that are forced are Horizon and the Disabled Collector Vessel.

Also having to complete all four recruitment missions before going to Horizon. See Ecael's "Unlock the Galaxy" thread.

Also the Reaper IFF test. Even though you tell me I am not forced to go to Omega-4. The sole fact that such a major decision about testing a seemingly hazardous technology is withdrawn from the player in a story that is all about decisions and non-linearity, confirms the OP's point that the player is lead by the nose in ME2. Even before the largest and most self-evident plothole onslaught I've ever seen in contemporary media has begun (all team on the shuttle, Collector Cruiser coming anywhere out of nowhere, Joker's mission, Collectors not blowing up the Normandy after taking the crew), I knew that the final stage is forced on me. But instead of presenting it as a major force beyond Shepard's control, like in ME1 Council's decision to ground the Normandy, it assumes the form of converting the "Yes/No" dialogue wheel into "Yes/Yes" dialogue wheel.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 juin 2010 - 03:05 .

[smudboy]

I've yet to see a game that is non-linear. Unless the term means something else. Even if the plot had completely alternate, branching paths, it's still linear.

[Asheer_Khan]

Christmas Ape wrote...

When I am talking to TIM, they throw this situation at me all the sudden and then while I’m still blinking tell me that because of this situation working with Cerberus is THE ONLY WAY. But as much as Cerberus supporters argue that this is true, it’s never illustrated satisfactorily in the game.

Well, you're presented with a few facts:
- The Council is publicly completely denying your information about Reapers.
- As the new Council race, the Alliance is politically compelled to keep you from running around yelling about Reapers, and thus give you a do-nothing robot hunt to keep you out in BFE.
- While on this hunt, you died.
- Cerberus fixed you.
- Cerberus believes you.
- Cerberus has a lead on the next Reaper plan - or at the least, a massive f***ing threat to humanity.
Who else are you going to go to? You're one dead Specter on a Cerberus base somewhere. Two of your old crew members have already signed on because they were told you'd be leading the mission. Are you going to shoot your way out, steal a shuttle, and go back to hunting robots because the Alliance doesn't have the political will or clout to let you pursue the actual threat? Or maybe shoot your way out, steal a shuttle, and go fight the Reapers alone with absolutely zero resources or certain allies?
I don't feel the game is required to give you an "out" in this circumstance any more than DA should have let you knife Duncan in his sleep on the road to Ostagar and go wandering the land of your own accord until everyone dies. Buy-in.

EDIT: But, I'm willing to consider it. You spin it for me. tIM makes his case for sending you to Freedom's Progress. You tell him to eat a bowl of dicks, somehow get off the base, and are now plotting a course in a stolen Cerberus shuttle. Tens of thousands of human colonists have disappeared. You have no actual ship - certainly not an armed one - no crew, and no allies. You have no dossiers to recruit, no money, one pistol and some N7 armor. You tell me what the game should be like from there while not requiring you to buy the alternate-cover "Give tIM The Finger" edition with a completely different story structure.

Actually i got the fellings after my end of ME 1 (saved Council and Anderson as Council member) that ME 2 were planned as further extension of the Alliance/Council preparation for the Reapers... but then Drew Karpysyn who was lead writer for ME 1 was replaced by Mac Walters and what was set up in ME 1 was throw out of the window in favor to absolute unjustifed ascension of Cerberus and complete DEGENERATION of Alliance and the Council role "Because that was my vision" - according to direct interview of mr Walters.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I just to wanted to say that I completely agree with Ecael's "epic" post a few pages back.



*leaves*

[PARAGON87]

smudboy wrote...

I've yet to see a game that is non-linear. Unless the term means something else. Even if the plot had completely alternate, branching paths, it's still linear.

Very true.  Through Mass Effect 1 & 2 and DA:O you were given multiple paths to play out your game, they all ended up in the same place in the end.

[DA:O SPOILERS AHEAD]

WIth this Redcliffe thing, I think that the title of this thread is misleading.  Because, although you are called to Redcliffe during the game, you aren't forced to go back there until you gather all the forces to the Landsmeet, and again after Denerim is held siege.

Maybe "Don't Horizon Me, Man" or "Don't Collector Ship Me, Man" is a better title for this thread, because you are forced to do those missions no matter what you are doing in ME2.  In DA:O you pretty much are set on a quest and not really forced to drop anything and do a mission.

[inversevideo]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I just to wanted to say that I completely agree with Ecael's "epic" post a few pages back.

*leaves*

Ditto.

Will try to keep my 2cents short.
OP - What you call 'Redcliffing' seems to be more RPG like , rather than less.

The universe actually has stuff going on that does not revolve around you, leaving you to react to what is going on.
A disabled Collector ship is located, a colony goes 'dark'. You have to respond. About the only thing that could be more RPG like, is if you had the option to ignore, and you lost the opportunity, and had to deal with the repercussions; i.e it came back to bite you in the arse, that you did not take advantage of events when they presented themselves, just like in 'real life'.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Very well put, InverseVideo.

[Lt Davo]

essarr71 wrote...

I dunno. First time I got the IFF mission and looked at the galaxy map, saw one mission vs exploration/completion of dozens of planets just sitting - and knowing which would further the plot - i knew to steer clear.

Yeah. You play a few games, and you learn that if you want to do everything there is to do in one playthrough, always pick side missions over story missions. Don't go on the mission that advances the central story until that's the only option you have left. Even if every character keeps telling you how urgent it is that you advance the central story.

In ME2, that strategy can leave you underprepared for the Collector Ship, and it causes you to lose sweet Kelly and the rest of the crew, but that's not so bad. Like the others have said, the bad guys don't wait for the hero to get ready, so it's fitting that there are consequences to mining planets and gambling on varren fights while your crew is captured.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

People don't think BioWare has gone mad for including explosions in the sequel.
People do think that BioWare has gone mad for making explosions more important then plot integrity in the sequel.

Except there isn't any actual proof that BioWare prioritized explosions over plot other than people's subjective opinions. That's like saying "the music in Mass Effect 1 was great, but the amount of content suffered because of it!" Two separate teams worked on animation and writing.

If anything, BioWare put more emphasis on writing and plot integrity because they doubled the number of writers, added two more editors and set up a QA Story Team for the purpose of making sure each mission/cutscene is sensible for the plot:

Writers: Mac Walters, Drew Karpyshyn, Malcolm Azania, Chris Hepler, Brian Kindregan, Lukas Kristjanson, Christopher L'Etoile, Jay Turner, Jay Watamaniuk, Patrick Weekes

Editors: Cookie Everman, Dan Lazin, Karin Weekes

Team Lead QA Story: Arone Le Bray

QA Story Team: John Epler, Frank Gordon, Carlo Lynch, Tom Trachimowich, Stanley Woo

Techically, it was another location.

My point is you could play the game for hours without firing a shot: search for Keepers, chase the Gambling AI. Such stuff. I'm fairly sure, that the number of sidequests on the Citadel alone in ME1 was about the same as that in all hubs of ME2 combined.

But you can play ME2 for hours without firing a shot too: mining minigame forever!

It wasn't another location. There's a reason they designed the Citadel Tower that way - because it was going to become the last battlefield for Shepard.

You could also play the Pyjak mini-game all day if you wanted to or do any of the hub world quests (which don't involve combat, because you can't even enter combat in hub worlds). Or you could chase the Observer for Liara's side mission and get drunk at any of the bars in the Citadel, Omega or Illium.

List of side missions in Mass Effect 1 where combat is completely disabled or unnecessary:
1. Citadel: Asari Consort
2. Citadel: Homecoming
3. Citadel: Presidium Prophet
4. Citadel: Reporter's Request
5. Citadel: Rita's Sister
6. Citadel: Scan the Keepers
7. Citadel: Schells the Gambler
8. Citadel: Signal Tracking
9. Citadel: The Fan
10. Citadel: Xeltan's Complaint
11. Citadel: Family Matter
12. Citadel: Planting a Bug
13. Citadel: Snap Inspection
14. Citadel: The Fourth Estate
15. Citadel: Our Own Worst Enemy
16. Citadel: Negotiator's Request
17. Noveria: Espionage
18. Noveria: Smuggling

List of side missions in Mass Effect 2 where combat is completely disabled or unnecessary:
1. Normandy: FBA Couplings
2. Normandy: Serrice Ice Brandy
3. Normandy: Special Ingredients
4. Omega: Batarian Bartender
5. Omega: Packages for Ish
6. Omega: Struggling Quarian
7. Omega: The Patriarch
8. Citadel: Crime in Progress
9. Citadel: False Positives
10. Citadel: Krogan Sushi
11. Citadel: The Council
12. Illium: Conrad Verner
13. Illium: Gianna Parasini
14. Illium: Indentured Service
15. Illium: Medical Scans
16. Illium: The Justicar: Stolen Goods Found
17. Illium: Blue Rose of Illium
18. Illium: Liara: Systems Hacking
19. Illium: Liara: The Observer
20. Tuchanka: Killing Pyjaks

Never seen the end of the respawn during the Colossus fight. It took me a while once to bring it down (Reegar died) and a pair Geth Troopers still respawned continuosly near the Collossus. Until I killed it and the respawning stopped... But I take your word for it. What about the N7: Abandoned Mine mission?

Take the path on the far right to the Colossus (to the battlements overlooking the Colossus) and the spawn stops almost immediately. Then you can shoot the Colossus without any worry of other geth. The Abandoned Mine mission does slow down to a point where the credit safe near the end can be bypassed.

Most of the UNC missions contained interactive dialogue. N7 missions contain only "logs" and only some of those voiced.

I thought the major complaint was that squadmates weren't voiced for side missions and DLC. And in Mass Effect 1, you'd be hard-pressed to find squadmate dialogue during those side missions.

Mind you, in ME1 you had to kill enemies as that was the primary source of XP, necessary to level up. It made the bloodbath outcome of every quest somewhat favorable, leading some people to complain that BioWare favors the Renegades. But it's a classic RPG thing, so you can't blame BioWare for that. Still, they listened to Paragon whiners and made the quest completion the to be the only source of XP. And even converted the 1-2 baddies firefights into cutscenes triggered by Renegade interrupts or dialogue options. But it seems to be a punishment for the Renegades since it clearly deprives them of yet another chance to prove their enormous shooter skills of which ME2 requires sooooo much moar to play...

You could level up a character in Mass Effect 2 to maximum level very easily simply by playing on Casual and running past most of the shooting galleries. In Mass Effect 1, the option isn't there because progression is tied solely to the number of 'splosions and shooting galleries.

Anyway, changing of the XP system could be a great step forward. I would allow to make half the missions combat-free or combat-avoidable. But no, we have to experiance all the content, of  which explosions and fluent shooter gameplay is the best part. So Samara&Thane "loyalties" account for less than 10% of the main missions,

Go.

and we are not given such obvious options as: advise the Quarians to blow up the Alarei without boarding it, bomb the Teltin facility from orbit, talk Harkin into cooperation from the very start (I was initially led to think that the Citadel Wards were like New York City, not like Baghdad, but in the end Bailey turned out not only a crooked cop, but an incompetent crooked cop) and so on. Exracting Jack peacfully and Garrus stealthily from their respective "recruitment sites" could have also been made a possibility.

We should have been able to use the Normandy to blow everything up for every single mission.

Of course, since it's all about choices to you:

And, If you ever need an advice on a next great accomplishment to achieve (in case you run out of them), here will be one: calculate the proportion between the total number of the killeable baddies and the Shepard's dialogue lines in both games. I think it will be a valid numerical measure to assess the RPG-shooter relation.

Make a complete dialogue guide for Mass Effect 1 first, then I might try. Of course, since people here would rather spew biased, subjective nonsense than actually put any effort to what they say, I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

Also having to complete all four recruitment missions before going to Horizon. See Ecael's "Unlock the Galaxy" thread.

And you have to complete four different main missions before going to Ilos. What's the problem here?

As said before in my Unlock the Galaxy thread, the squadmates are voiced in missions where they couldn't normally be. This suggests that the only reason why it was designed that way was because Mass Effect 2 was split into two discs on the XBox 360. If you want to blame the console gamers for this, then that's fine with me.

Also the Reaper IFF test. Even though you tell me I am not forced to go to Omega-4. The sole fact that such a major decision about testing a seemingly hazardous technology is withdrawn from the player in a story that is all about decisions and non-linearity, confirms the OP's point that the players is lead by the nose in ME2. Even before the largest and most self-evident plothole onslaught I've ever seen in contemporary media has begun (all team on the shuttle, Collector Cruiser coming anywhere out of nowhere, Joker's mission, Collectors not blowing up the Normandy after taking the crew), I knew that the final stage is forced on me. But instead of presenting it as a major force beyond Shepard's control, like in ME1 Council's decision to ground the Normandy, it assumes the form of converting the "Yes/No" dialogue wheel into "Yes/Yes" dialogue wheel.

Except you can't progress anywhere until you've escaped from the Citadel, in which you can continue to do side missions before heading to Ilos. The same is true for after the Normandy invasion, except there are actual consequences for not entering the Omega-4 Relay as quickly as possible - and it still doesn't affect the survival of your squadmates.

You're complaining that the ending is forced upon you. You could just stop playing right before Ilos or before the Omega-4 Relay - that counts as a Yes/No dialogue wheel, right?

Modifié par Ecael, 28 juin 2010 - 03:34 .

[Zulu_DFA]

inversevideo wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I just to wanted to say that I completely agree with Ecael's "epic" post a few pages back.

*leaves*

Ditto.

Will try to keep my 2cents short.
OP - What you call 'Redcliffing' seems to be more RPG like , rather than less.

The universe actually has stuff going on that does not revolve around you, leaving you to react to what is going on.
A disabled Collector ship is located, a colony goes 'dark'. You have to respond. About the only thing that could be more RPG like, is if you had the option to ignore, and you lost the opportunity, and had to deal with the repercussions; i.e it came back to bite you in the arse, that you did not take advantage of events when they presented themselves, just like in 'real life'.

I wonder what bad repercussions in "the stuff going on in the universe" could incur from "EDI, you freaking wait till I freaking tell you to bring the Reaper IFF online! I am the freaking captain of this ship and your commanding officer, you be crew or equippment regardless!" dialogue option?

I wonder will there be any bad repercussions in  "the stuff going on in the universe", if I decide to play all the DLC before going to Korlus, which apparently somehow butterfly effects TIM's strategic genius to lure Ashley and the Collectors to Horizon.

The problem is, without a proper timeframe, which would have more to deal with how much you travel around the Galaxy instead of specific missions counter, any attempt to redcliffe the sence of urgency into the game was bound to bring about more time paradoxes (and emphasize the already existing ones). Thus, ME1 system was better. Every player could decide for himself on the "real" degree of urgency of the "Race against time" mission, with or without bringing into consideration any metagame knowledge.

It would be much better if the "consequences" (such as loss of the crew, squadmates, final battle) had something to do with choices made during the missions and maybe mission completion order, instead of the obviously artificial and nonsensical mission counter. And the mining minigame.

[Christmas Ape]

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Actually i got the fellings after my end of ME 1 (saved Council and Anderson as Council member) that ME 2 were planned as further extension of the Alliance/Council preparation for the Reapers... but then Drew Karpysyn who was lead writer for ME 1 was replaced by Mac Walters and what was set up in ME 1 was throw out of the window in favor to absolute unjustifed ascension of Cerberus and complete DEGENERATION of Alliance and the Council role "Because that was my vision" - according to direct interview of mr Walters.

Hey, neat.
Subjective and irrelevant, but neat. Thank you for the background on the Cerberus angle of ME2. What that has to do with the internal consistency of the opening act of ME2 is just sailing over my head at blue-shift speeds, though.