555 réponses à ce sujet

[squee913]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

I think the biggest problem is that the story is dispoable, we learn only one minor thing about the Reapers (they melt people to reproduce), and the plot simply isn't necessary. The reapers are coming! Well, they were coming at the end of ME1 too. It introduces a bunch of characters who might form the backbone of ME3 (if they live), but it would have been nice to have a real story behind it.

What you just said here is further proof that ME 2 characters will be a big part of ME 3. Nothing was learnt about the main plot of Mass effect in 2, except that the reapers are coming, they were doing that at the end on ME 1 like you said. So i'm pretty sure that the POINT of 2 was to introduce many characters that would be a big part of 3. If the characters are just reduced to mere cameos, Mass effect 2 had no point at all in the series.

This is what I’m talking about. Because you spent the second game learning about your team and the galaxy they live in mass 3 could be awesome.
Possible example:
In mass 3 Thane only has a few weeks to live when the final battle comes. Kolyat (I think that’s how you spell it) comes to the ship to spend the last few weeks with him. Thane drags his dying body to one last battle and as you watch, has to sacrifice him self in some way. Kolyat talks to him over the radio and thane tells him good buy before he commits his last heroic act.
 
If you never played mass 2, it would be touching but thats it. Now think that you played mass 2. Helped Thane reunite with his son. Went through hell with him in the collector base etc etc. It would be one of the most powerful moments in video game history! I think this is what bioware wanted to do with mass 2. They didn’t want to advance the plot. They wanted to make sure that when they did advance the plot, you really cared about it.

Modifié par squee913, 12 juillet 2010 - 09:43 .

[adam_grif]

squee913 wrote...

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

I think the biggest problem is that the story is dispoable, we learn only one minor thing about the Reapers (they melt people to reproduce), and the plot simply isn't necessary. The reapers are coming! Well, they were coming at the end of ME1 too. It introduces a bunch of characters who might form the backbone of ME3 (if they live), but it would have been nice to have a real story behind it.

What you just said here is further proof that ME 2 characters will be a big part of ME 3. Nothing was learnt about the main plot of Mass effect in 2, except that the reapers are coming, they were doing that at the end on ME 1 like you said. So i'm pretty sure that the POINT of 2 was to introduce many characters that would be a big part of 3. If the characters are just reduced to mere cameos, Mass effect 2 had no point at all in the series.

This is what I’m talking about. Because you spent the second game learning about your team and the galaxy they live in mass 3 could be awesome.
Possible example:
In mass 3 Thane only has a few weeks to live when the final battle comes. Kolyat (I think that’s how you spell it) comes to the ship to spend the last few weeks with him. Thane drags his dying body to one last battle and as you watch, has to sacrifice him self in some way. Kolyat talks to him over the radio and thane tells him good buy before he commits his last heroic act.
 
If you never played mass 2, it would be touching but thats it. Now think that you played mass 2. Helped Thane reunite with his son. Went through hell with him in the collector base etc etc. It would be one of the most powerful moments in video game history! I think this is what bioware wanted to do with mass 2. They didn’t want to advance the plot. They wanted to make sure that when they did advance the plot, you really cared about it.

Not really seeing the part where you couldn't have done that while also having a great story.

[Gibb_Garrus]

squee913 wrote...

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

I think the biggest problem is that the story is dispoable, we learn only one minor thing about the Reapers (they melt people to reproduce), and the plot simply isn't necessary. The reapers are coming! Well, they were coming at the end of ME1 too. It introduces a bunch of characters who might form the backbone of ME3 (if they live), but it would have been nice to have a real story behind it.

What you just said here is further proof that ME 2 characters will be a big part of ME 3. Nothing was learnt about the main plot of Mass effect in 2, except that the reapers are coming, they were doing that at the end on ME 1 like you said. So i'm pretty sure that the POINT of 2 was to introduce many characters that would be a big part of 3. If the characters are just reduced to mere cameos, Mass effect 2 had no point at all in the series.

This is what I’m talking about. Because you spent the second game learning about your team and the galaxy they live in mass 3 could be awesome.
Possible example:
In mass 3 Thane only has a few weeks to live when the final battle comes. Kolyat (I think that’s how you spell it) comes to the ship to spend the last few weeks with him. Thane drags his dying body to one last battle and as you watch, has to sacrifice him self in some way. Kolyat talks to him over the radio and thane tells him good buy before he commits his last heroic act.
 
If you never played mass 2, it would be touching but thats it. Now think that you played mass 2. Helped Thane reunite with his son. Went through hell with him in the collector base etc etc. It would be one of the most powerful moments in video game history! I think this is what bioware wanted to do with mass 2. They didn’t want to advance the plot. They wanted to make sure that when they did advance the plot, you really cared about it.

Although i really, really want this type of thing to happen, it probably wont. With the possibility of Thane dieing in 2 makes it so that he or any other squadmate will have no significant effect on the ending of 3, seeing as they are a variables. This leads me to believe that ME 1 characters will be the main ones in ME 3. I desperately hope i'm wrong though, as the me 2 characters were amazing, while IMO the me 1 characters were very average.

But then if they take that route ME 2 will be an absolutely pointless part of the series. So i'm pretty confused when it comes to this.

[squee913]

It did have a great story, just not a story that dealt with the over reaching plot that much. If you spent more time on the plot you would have to spend less time on developing the people. Spend more time developing the people, you spend less time developing the plot. That’s just the limitations of telling a story. If you know a way of telling the character’s stories with that much detail and developing the plot with the same level of detail at the same time with in the limitations of a game (time, money, voice work etc)you are a bloody genius!

[squee913]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

squee913 wrote...

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

I think the biggest problem is that the story is dispoable, we learn only one minor thing about the Reapers (they melt people to reproduce), and the plot simply isn't necessary. The reapers are coming! Well, they were coming at the end of ME1 too. It introduces a bunch of characters who might form the backbone of ME3 (if they live), but it would have been nice to have a real story behind it.

What you just said here is further proof that ME 2 characters will be a big part of ME 3. Nothing was learnt about the main plot of Mass effect in 2, except that the reapers are coming, they were doing that at the end on ME 1 like you said. So i'm pretty sure that the POINT of 2 was to introduce many characters that would be a big part of 3. If the characters are just reduced to mere cameos, Mass effect 2 had no point at all in the series.

This is what I’m talking about. Because you spent the second game learning about your team and the galaxy they live in mass 3 could be awesome.
Possible example:
In mass 3 Thane only has a few weeks to live when the final battle comes. Kolyat (I think that’s how you spell it) comes to the ship to spend the last few weeks with him. Thane drags his dying body to one last battle and as you watch, has to sacrifice him self in some way. Kolyat talks to him over the radio and thane tells him good buy before he commits his last heroic act.
 
If you never played mass 2, it would be touching but thats it. Now think that you played mass 2. Helped Thane reunite with his son. Went through hell with him in the collector base etc etc. It would be one of the most powerful moments in video game history! I think this is what bioware wanted to do with mass 2. They didn’t want to advance the plot. They wanted to make sure that when they did advance the plot, you really cared about it.

Although i really, really want this type of thing to happen, it probably wont. With the possibility of Thane dieing in 2 makes it so that he or any other squadmate will have no significant effect on the ending of 3, seeing as they are a variables. This leads me to believe that ME 1 characters will be the main ones in ME 3. I desperately hope i'm wrong though, as the me 2 characters were amazing, while IMO the me 1 characters were very average.

But then if they take that route ME 2 will be an absolutely pointless part of the series. So i'm pretty confused when it comes to this.

The cool part about that scenario is that you could replace Thane with almost any of the characters and thier history. change a couple of things and BAMO! same impact. You could make it have a serious impact like what thane did save an entire planet from the reapers. If he died or you never played 2 the planet is destroyed. You could still beat the reapers, but the cost would be much higher. I really hope they do things like that in mass 3

[squee913]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

So, basically, the OP says "why do you complain, when there are also these great things".
Great things made the game sell, doh. No need to reiterate why anyone even cares about being here at all. And, as always, things can get improved. Not stripped away, but improved.
ME2 just blew all my fuses with a stream of action. Even though it was just as marketed, there is no suspense or buildup. Just a finite stream of sequences, loading screens and black screens before loading screens.

....  I would love to respond, but I am not sure I understood any of that...

[smudboy]

theelementslayer wrote...

smudboy wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...
I think its more "Id rather have the people and not need them, or at least have someone there even if it is the wrong people, then have no one there when the reapers come" kind of approach. And I think TIM knows more then he lets on, just he always seems right. WIth the collectors, with Horizon, the derilict repear ect.

Yes, but what exactly would that do?  The cake analogy is simple, but it still shows the futility of what one's doing is pointless.  We've no idea what these individual soldier's role will be in stopping the bad guys.  They're simply there, or not?  It is senseless.  More intel is required before an actual plan can be constructed.  At that point, you can then acquire said characters, and give them specific roles to enact a plan, as opposed to having them sit around while the intel comes available.  Cart before the horse.

I understand what your saying but personally Id rather have the soldiers waiting for the intel, even if they aren't needed, then have the intel there and having to scramble at the last second to pull them all together. TIM chose well, as was said in an above post, and tried to cover all of the bases. This was the problem, IMO, with the council. They sat around waiting for the intel. Sometimes its neccessary to make a choice, to move, even if its a wrong move. And in this case I believe it is

-polite

I've no issues with aquiring resources, like people, before we know their use, 1) but they're essentially cannon fodder the entire game.  Some are useful at the unknown end, 2) they have no plot or reason to even be there, aside from TIM saying so (and only in the direct case of Mordin, everyone else is a dossier.  What plan is TIM enacting here?  Is he just randomly choosing people?  If it's just to get resources, he could've just hired a few Zaeeds.)
TIM did not choose well, nor did her choose poorly.  He simply chose, and as luck would have it, some are useful.
Your idea that "making a choice to move even if it's wrong" does not apply here (nor can we evaluate if it's right.)  That is taking action on a desired goal, through a plan of somesort.  TIM does do this with the main plot points.  He does not do this in acquiring a team.  For example, if he said "we're going to need a biotic for x", then I'd go "oh, thank you fearless leader for your masterful plan", and go and get whomever.  Even the notion that TIM has a plan, or a guide, or we understand what his reasonig is in getting these people would do it (that plan never coming to fruition is another issue), but we don't even get that.  This is the equivalent of your boss asking you to do random, meaningless jobs, whose end result is nothing, and whose role becomes randomly apparent, and utility in that is applied illogically.  If we don't know their reason or motivation in ME2 for fighting and eliminating an enemy in ME2, are we eventually going to be given that, or a plan, just because of ME3?

[smudboy]

phordicus wrote...

maybe i should replay ME2. apparently there's a plot or something?  i must've skipped that mission.

Pictures, narrative, and plot analysis, or it didn't happen.

[Zulu_DFA]

squee913 wrote...

NewMessageN00b wrote...

So, basically, the OP says "why do you complain, when there are also these great things".
Great things made the game sell, doh. No need to reiterate why anyone even cares about being here at all. And, as always, things can get improved. Not stripped away, but improved.
ME2 just blew all my fuses with a stream of action. Even though it was just as marketed, there is no suspense or buildup. Just a finite stream of sequences, loading screens and black screens before loading screens.

....  I would love to respond, but I am not sure I understood any of that...

Summary: ME2 is an arcade game.

[Christmas Ape]

As tIM is clearly a forthright and reliable man, given to exposition and never once keeping Shepard in the dark, if they don't hold your hand and spoon-feed you every answer it didn't happen! Randomness, not "I don't answer to you, Shepard" or "second-guessing my efforts won't stop the Reapers". Just wave your hands in a vague dismissal and your beliefs are magically fact!

[glacier1701]

Christmas Ape wrote...

As tIM is clearly a forthright and reliable man, given to exposition and never once keeping Shepard in the dark, if they don't hold your hand and spoon-feed you every answer it didn't happen! Randomness, not "I don't answer to you, Shepard" or "second-guessing my efforts won't stop the Reapers". Just wave your hands in a vague dismissal and your beliefs are magically fact!

TIM CLEARLY is a liar and that is clear pretty much as soon as you talk to Liara. And his lying started from in the first TIM/Shepard interview. So how can you trust TIM to have told you the facts when you know he will LIE to get you to do things?

[Christmas Ape]

glacier1701 wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

As tIM is clearly a forthright and reliable man, given to exposition and never once keeping Shepard in the dark, if they don't hold your hand and spoon-feed you every answer it didn't happen! Randomness, not "I don't answer to you, Shepard" or "second-guessing my efforts won't stop the Reapers". Just wave your hands in a vague dismissal and your beliefs are magically fact!

TIM CLEARLY is a liar and that is clear pretty much as soon as you talk to Liara. And his lying started from in the first TIM/Shepard interview. So how can you trust TIM to have told you the facts when you know he will LIE to get you to do things?

That is, in fact, partly my argument.
The other part being he knowingly sends you into a trap.
I can't imagine how some people legitimately think he'd give them all his reasons for the specialists he selects.
The answer of course being they don't, but it's a good excuse to make up something to **** about, I guess.

[Pacifien]

The Illusive Man reliable? Don't think so, but I would say he's maybe more predictable. Simply assume any information coming from his is solely about furthering his own goals. That information could be laced with lies, obmission of critical points, or the complete truth. For all his talk about the advancement of humanity, the humans who actually work for him have never been more than tools at his disposal.

[Christmas Ape]

Pacifien wrote...

The Illusive Man reliable? Don't think so, but I would say he's maybe more predictable. Simply assume any information coming from his is solely about furthering his own goals. That information could be laced with lies, obmission of critical points, or the complete truth. For all his talk about the advancement of humanity, the humans who actually work for him have never been more than tools at his disposal.

Humanity, not individual humans. We're all tools for the advancement of the species. To his credit, he's never been shy about that fact, even if he doesn't advertise it. Calculated risks, occasional sacrifices; he's playing the game for all the marbles. You can afford to lose a pot or two if only the last hand matters.

[tvih]

Why anyone would hate the plot I'll never know. Maybe it was better in the first (the first in turn being worse in gameplay aspects), but there's nothing wrong with the plot in the second in my books. The story combined with the characters still is by far the best thing about the game, just like with the "original". And definitely trumps most of the so-called plots/stories in most modern games.



Most of my "woes" about both games are gameplay-related and I'd guess in many cases have a basis on the game being for consoles too.

[glacier1701]

tvih wrote...

Why anyone would hate the plot I'll never know. Maybe it was better in the first (the first in turn being worse in gameplay aspects), but there's nothing wrong with the plot in the second in my books. The story combined with the characters still is by far the best thing about the game, just like with the "original". And definitely trumps most of the so-called plots/stories in most modern games.

Most of my "woes" about both games are gameplay-related and I'd guess in many cases have a basis on the game being for consoles too.

While there were problems with gameplay in ME1 it still wasnt that bad and the overall 'plot' helped it. ME2 had MUCH improved gameplay and. The issue is that this came at the expense of a 'plot'. Indeed BW has said that for a majority of the development of ME2 a NO RPG rule was enforced and since 'plot' falls into that area a lot it suffered. This is not to say that what we got is bad compared to what other games pass of as a plot it is NOT what BW is supposed to be famous for. Indeed it bothers me that BW feels it delivered a great game that advanced SHEPARD's story when ME2 was not about Shepard.

[Iakus]

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
While I would have preferred a more gradual slide into darkness and isolation, I admit, ME 2 had a nice premise, but...[/quote]Which I feel would have involved a lot of go-nowhere missions to talk to people who can't help you, occupying the first ~hour of the game with primarily frustration. Not the best intro, but maybe they'd have found a way to make it work.

[/quote]

Indeed.  People already complain about how long the intro was for ME 2.  But this way, the change would be less jarring than
"I thought I was dead"
"You were"

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

Freedom's Progress, efforts to recruit Okeer, bringing Grunt on board (to a degree he is Collector technology), the Collector Cruiser, the Derelict Reaper, everything you acquire from the Collector Base. That they're hard to investigate doesn't change that intel is gathered.
Consider that the Collectors have been around for ~50,000 years, far longer than the present galactic civilization. It's fair to assume that within the first few centuries of settlement of the Terminus Systems, perhaps as early as the first 'rebirth' of Omega, the Collectors began making contact and purchasing samples in pursuit of the Reaper Agenda. And that's all anyone has known about them for a couple thousand years. The rachni were better understood than the Collectors. All contact with the Collectors, up until the suicide mission, has been on their schedule and direction. That's their 'narrative right', dwelling beyond the impassable Omega 4 relay; to only be part of galactic events when they choose to be. But now every time they show up, Shepard's there, sometimes because they wanted it that way.

[/quote]

And I find all this to be a big weakness in the story.  We're recruiting a squad to fight...something, somewhere.  WEere going to do something to someone becasue they're doing something for some reason.  how are you supposed to plan for that?  In TIM's case it's pull a dozen names out of a hat and hope they're the right specialists yo need.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

As to EDI, she's inside the Collector Cruiser firewalls for an eternity (to an AI), and it's fair to assume she's downloading as much data as possible. She tracks the navigational origin of the ship, deciphers their experimentation on the colonists and themselves, unravels the flaw in the distress signal...she's an AI. She works fast. That's what they do. Her entire job is information management for the Lazarus Cell, primarily in terms of security. Additionally, the point of similarity she identifies is unique to the Protheans, so it's hardly a thorough scientific inquiry in time-lapse. That's Mordin's job later when he tells you how they're debased.
[/quote]

Darn good thing she's compatable with every known computer language out there, huh?


[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
Here's the thing: for all the parodies over in the other thread, this isn't CSI: Terminus Systems. Shepard's not an investigator, she's the Tactical Response Unit. The data-mining, clue-sifting, records-hacking part of the investigation is handled off-camera by Cerberus operatives, and tIM gives you 90% of what they've discovered when you first discuss the Collectors with him: "Not much." It's not really Shepard's job to go picking through databases for Collector previous appearances; it's her job to show up and kick them in the teeth when they appear again.

Separd's not an investigator.  Might be a good idea to recruit a couple, wouldn't it?  Actually, Mordin was a good start for that.  The point is, Shepard's flying blind here.  And thus, the player is.  you're supposed to go around recruiting mercs, assassins, vigilantes, but for what reason?  What purpose?  "Cause TIM says so" just doesn't cut it.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...


[quote]Why? Because the characters don't change or interact. Force Zaed to acknowledge he's on a team now and has to put the needs of the group above his own? What does that accomplish? Help Garrus kill Sidonis, or convince him to let im live? Does he act any differently? If you bring Jack along, does she egg him on to shoot? Does Samara comment that this against some Code of hers? (answer to both: no) Do the characters, in fact, show much personality at all outside their own individual storyarcs? Wen you get down to it, the squadmates are less a team forged by Shepard to do battle against the Collectors than pieces on a chessboard for Shepard (or maybe TIM) to move around.[/quote]Well, there's the logistics of it; the game is already quite large, with a lot of decision points and a dozen squadmembers. To even give every squadmate a comment on every other loyalty mission would be a huge amount of VA work to record, let alone the cascading responses from the primary squadmate, Shepard's full range of responses, the characters who may respond differently depending on if you've done their loyalty mission or not; it's a mind-boggling amount of potential animations to make and lines to record. It would be nice, but it would be six more months in production, a third disc, and another $20 on the sticker.
Additionally, just because Dragon Age happened to do teammates quite well does not make it the singular standard by which NPC interaction should be judged. Shepard is cast as the kind of leader people naturally defer to unless they feel quite strongly about something, while the unvoiced up-for-interpretation Warden is mostly defined by interaction with the other characters. It's a different style of troupe-based gameplay.
To a final point: Some might well have survived the suicide mission and (based on everything I've heard about ME3 starting on the heels of ME2) will return in the next chapter. Perhaps we should reserve judgment on the full length of their character arc until it's, well, complete.
For a video game, they're (by and large) a fairly compelling series of decisions. On par with the rachni queen, and better than the ME1 'loyalty missions'.

[/quote]

Yes, Dragon Age did a fantastic job with group interaction.  But you know what?  without it, it still would have been a solid game.  'The squad" wasn't the main point of the game.  ME 2, however, the squad pretty much is the game.  As such, more than  the standard treatment is needed.  If "recruit a squad and earn their loyalty" is te order of the day, you can't have standard npcs with interesting stories to tell.  You need demonstrations of loyalty, or lack of it.  You need to see the squad get along, have personality conflicts, befriend eac other.  In short, interact.  A tird disk, more time, more money.  If it had delivered the goods, I'd call that time and money well spent.  I may never have come here and started complaining

And I'm really curious to see how they're going to integrate a squad of which any of the members can be dead into a game in any meaningful way.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]I came out of this game wondering what happened exactly. Did anything I do here matter, or will it all be swept away like my ME 1 choices?[/quote]Did you feel certain you'd changed the entire scope of the second game during the last bit of ME1? There's still a Council, it just changes who's running it (and thus how likely war with the turians will be). The Alliance is still around, Anderson's still the only person who takes your bad dreams at face value. A certain baseline experience is necessary for a mass-market game.

[/quote]

Change the scope?  the scpe changed from how ME 1 ended without my involvement at all!
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...


[quote]I have a squad, but a squad that doesn't interact.[/quote]Bar a couple elevator conversations, the argument on Virmire, the flirting in the Wards, and whoever else you bring telling Liara to focus on the real problems instead of chatting with Vigil, neither did the ME1 squad. There are enough talkboxes with responses in ME2 to equal that much conversation, and at least this time three of your squadmates who have no reason to just get along don't spend the entire game in the same room without ever communicating.

[/quote]

But ME 1 wasn't about the squad.  ME 2 was

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]I've got a ship, but one TIM has wired with bugs, so who's to say he doesn't have explosives here too? Who'll put me back together then? Terra Firma? Aria? Blood Pack?[/quote]Why would they bring you back just to kill you? tIM's a pragmatist before he's petty; even a rogue Shepard with a stolen ship
a) has done the impossible
completed the stated goals of Project Lazarus
c) opposes the Reapers
d) is of benefit to humanity
Even off his leash you're more valuable to his ideals alive than dead.

[/quote]

It's my personal theory that TIM intended to use all of your squad up in the SM. All his rotten eggs in one basket.

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]Oh and we still have no effective way of fighting against actual Reapers. Unless we're willing to fling 1-2 fleets per Reaper at them.[/quote]Guess we've got something to do in ME3, then. Good.

[/quote]

THing was, the end of ME 1 kinda impled that's what ME 2 was for

[Jonathan Shepard]

Shandepared wrote...
I don't like the story because it does not expand upon what was set up in the first game. It doesn't do anything to change the nature of the problem faced by the protagonists. It lacks a good villain and the two twists that are used are both meaningless at best and just dumb at worst.
-snip-
What would have been a nice twist is learning where the Reapers came from, how many there are, and how much time we have left until they get here.

This is exactly my problem with the second game as well. It's not a bad plot... it's that the plot is completely unrelated to what the first game left off with. It feels more like a side-story, not a sequel. That's where the plot fails. It has no successor to Saren (Harbinger could have been so much more, like Sovereign was, and the Collector Leader would've made a great villain... had he actually ever met Shepard.). 

[Christmas Ape]

[quote]iakus wrote...
Indeed. People already complain about how long the intro was for ME 2.  But this way, the change would be less jarring than
"I thought I was dead"
"You were"[/quote]I remain convinced that the change between ME1 and ME2 is intended to be jarring.
[quote]iakus wrote...
And I find all this to be a big weakness in the story.  We're recruiting a squad to fight...something, somewhere. WEere going to do something to someone becasue they're doing something for some reason.[/quote]We're going to uncover the identity of whoever is kidnapping human colonists - assumedly on behalf of the Reapers - and put a stop to it. I don't really need a copy of their long-term goals to know that their motives aren't good.
[quote]how are you supposed to plan for that?  In TIM's case it's pull a dozen names out of a hat and hope they're the right specialists yo need.[/quote]For values of "pull a dozen names out of a hat" that are "relying on the extensive resources and information gathering capacities of Cerberus, acquire the names and locations of nine of the best specialists covering technical experts, powerful biotics, master infiltrators, and hardened combat soldiers who might be available and receptive to Shepard, as well as a krogan scientist who's had recent contact wth the Collectors". Were you just not paying attention in the beginning?
[quote]Darn good thing she's compatable with every known computer language out there, huh?[/quote]Darn good thing she's partially built with Reaper technology such as might be found in a Collector ship, huh?
[quote]Shepard's not an investigator.  Might be a good idea to recruit a couple, wouldn't it?[/quote]Why? Cerberus has already recruited dozens if not hundreds, stationed at comfy terminals on space stations with priority FTL extranet access, sifting through any data that seems remotely related. Like, say, turian distress signals.
[quote]Actually, Mordin was a good start for that.[/quote]Mordin is a scientist. He needs samples to work with. He needs to be in the field, to have access to Collector technology - specifically Seeker Swarms, which is the reason you recruited him.
[quote]The point is, Shepard's flying blind here.  And thus, the player is.[/quote]Everybody is. The Collectors have been mysteries for thousands of years. You've discovered more about them than anyone in the current history of Citadel Space.
[quote]you're supposed to go around recruiting mercs, assassins, vigilantes, but for what reason?  What purpose?  "Cause TIM says so" just doesn't cut it.[/quote]To back up Shepard in her ongoing battle against the Reaper extinction agenda. Again; were you not listening?
[quote]Yes, Dragon Age did a fantastic job with group interaction.  But you know what?  without it, it still would have been a solid game.[/quote]Well, that's a point of opinion.
[quote]'The squad" wasn't the main point of the game.  ME 2, however, the squad pretty much is the game.  As such, more than  the standard treatment is needed.  If "recruit a squad and earn their loyalty" is te order of the day, you can't have standard npcs with interesting stories to tell.[/quote]The team is, however, the only real tool available to a player to actually define their Warden. The voiced Shepard is given specific character by the forks chosen by the player, while the Warden relies on squad interaction. Additionally, it wasn't. "Recruit a squad and be certain they're prepared to give their all in a suicide mission" was in fact the order of the day. That they called it "loyalty" has unfortunately confused the issue.
[quote]You need demonstrations of loyalty, or lack of it.  You need to see the squad get along, have personality conflicts, befriend eac other. In short, interact.[/quote]Well, they wrote in two direct personal conflicts, Jacob can kind of turn into a jealous racist tool if you leave him for Garrus, and there are frequent talkbox conversations or scripted remarks on missions. Everything else is just cutscenes. I appreciate the inclusion of gameplay - no more MGS4s!
[quote]A tird disk, more time, more money.  If it had delivered the goods, I'd call that time and money well spent.  I may never have come here and started complaining[/quote]How many copies are you willing to buy to make it profitable?
[quote]And I'm really curious to see how they're going to integrate a squad of which any of the members can be dead into a game in any meaningful way.[/quote]You and me both. I'm just coming from a more receptive place at the moment.
[quote]Change the scope?  the scpe changed from how ME 1 ended without my involvement at all![/quote]The Reapers reminded you of your scope. Small. Organic. Temporary. You were the one who wanted to play with entities beyond your comprehension, Shepard.
[quote]But ME 1 wasn't about the squad.  ME 2 was.[/quote]And they gave you more direct interaction with Shepard, which is the kind that makes it a dialog instead of a movie.
[quote]It's my personal theory that TIM intended to use all of your squad up in the SM. All his rotten eggs in one basket.[/quote]I disagree. Nobody builds a six billion credit missile.
[quote]Thing was, the end of ME 1 kinda impled that's what ME 2 was for[/quote]And then the Reapers sent their errand boys to remind you that you have no idea what you're dealing with. What a tweest! Shepard's not calling all the shots in this war. It's a war.

[angj57]

People just complain because it is different. The same people who rant about Mass Effect 1 being superior to Mass Effect 2 probably said the same things when Baldur's Gate 2 came out, if they were even old enough back then. They probably would have ranted about how The Empire Strikes Back ruined Star Wars had there been internet forums back then.

I loved Mass Effect 1. I loved Mass Effect 2 more. I didn't notice any substantial decline in story telling. Are there things about the universe that I'd like to have explained? Yes, but I have faith that they will be explained by the end of the series.

For those who hate the emhasis on recruitment: this is setting up the scene for Mass Effect 3. Your team is built now, and ME3 will probably not have a lot of this at all. I thought this was an interesting aspect of the game, because your job was esentially to get the best people on your team even though none of them would ordinarily work for Cerberus.

I like ME2 more than ME1 partly because I thought the story was more interesting. Not necessarily the Collector arc, although I did think it was a good story. What I liked was having to deal with working for Cerberus. The first game introduced an awesome universe, but it ended up being a fairly standard story about the good guys coming together to defeat the bad guys. Had they continued in tone and had everyone united against the Reapers, it would have been pretty boring.

ME2 introduced a different tone and some moral ambiguities. Working for a ruthless organization and being "dumped" by the good guys was an interesting twist and made for far better role playing possibilities. The moral implications of your choices were suddenly not so obvious and light side/dark side. It was a really creative, powerful turn or events that people tend to overlook.

Modifié par angj57, 12 juillet 2010 - 08:00 .

[smudboy]

angj57 wrote...

People just complain because it is different. The same people who rant about Mass Effect 1 being superior to Mass Effect 2 probably said the same things when Baldur's Gate 2 came out, if they were even old enough back then. They probably would have ranted about how The Empire Strikes Back ruined Star Wars had there been internet forums back then.

I loved Mass Effect 1. I loved Mass Effect 2 more. I didn't notice any substantial decline in story telling. Are there things about the universe that I'd like to have explained? Yes, but I have faith that they will be explained by the end of the series.

For those who hate the emhasis on recruitment: this is setting up the scene for Mass Effect 3. Your team is built now, and ME3 will probably not have a lot of this at all. I thought this was an interesting aspect of the game, because your job was esentially to get the best people on your team even though none of them would ordinarily work for Cerberus.

I like ME2 more than ME1 partly because I thought the story was more interesting. Not necessarily the Collector arc, although I did think it was a good story. What I liked was having to deal with working for Cerberus. The first game introduced an awesome universe, but it ended up being a fairly standard story about the good guys coming together to defeat the bad guys. Had they continued in tone and had everyone united against the Reapers, it would have been pretty boring.

ME2 introduced a different tone and some moral ambiguities. Working for a ruthless organization and being "dumped" by the good guys was an interesting twist and made for far better role playing possibilities. The moral implications of your choices were suddenly not so obvious and light side/dark side. It was a really creative, powerful turn or events that people tend to overlook.

I'm quite sure I have things to say, not just because something is different (isn't everything?  What is this, grade school thinking?), or that I feel something else is better.  I am making observations, then trying to rationalize those observations as a coherent understanding of causation.  This is because these observations cause us to question the believability of the universe we are presented.

I loved Mass Effect 1.  I loved Mass Effect 2.  ME2 has substantial plot issues that perhaps the layman can overlook.  But when every major plot point does not make sense to me, has at least one plot hole, and raises a handful of questions, the veil is broken.  There is no great calling, no understanding of thought, with just things coming and going, with random people doing the same.

[tvih]

glacier1701 wrote...

While there were problems with gameplay in ME1 it still wasnt that bad and the overall 'plot' helped it. ME2 had MUCH improved gameplay and. The issue is that this came at the expense of a 'plot'. Indeed BW has said that for a majority of the development of ME2 a NO RPG rule was enforced and since 'plot' falls into that area a lot it suffered. This is not to say that what we got is bad compared to what other games pass of as a plot it is NOT what BW is supposed to be famous for. Indeed it bothers me that BW feels it delivered a great game that advanced SHEPARD's story when ME2 was not about Shepard.

While I could sort of agree that aside from team building it would be technically possible to just skip the second story-wise as far as the "endgame" goal - defeating the actual Reapers - goes, I also feel that it works as a nice build-up for the third. Of course it seems disappointing now for some, but chances are it pays off in the third. The stage is set, so to speak. Only downside is that ME3 is still a few years away at least.

And at least for me ME2 is overall the superior game of the two. For example if I think about replaying, I'd much rather replay ME2, simply because of some aspects of ME1 gameplay (like, combat being a pain in the beginning in my opinion with weapons taking years to settle and feeling more like shotguns as far as accuracy goes, and also item management, annoying driving around endless mountain ranges with the Mako on planets, etc etc).

[IoCaster]

Another ME2 plot thread? Oh well, it's doubtful that anything will get resolved here, but I'm game.


[quote]iakus wrote...
Indeed. People already complain about how long the intro was for ME 2.  But this way, the change would be less jarring than
"I thought I was dead"
"You were"
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
I remain convinced that the change between ME1 and ME2 is intended to be jarring.[/quote][/quote]

It's hard to argue with that. After all it's not everyday that the protagonist gets killed and miraculously resurrected in the first fifteen minutes of a video game.

[quote]iakus wrote...
And I find all this to be a big weakness in the story.  We're recruiting a squad to fight...something, somewhere. WEere going to do something to someone becasue they're doing something for some reason.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
We're going to uncover the identity of whoever is kidnapping human colonists - assumedly on behalf of the Reapers - and put a stop to it. I don't really need a copy of their long-term goals to know that their motives aren't good.[/quote][/quote]

I really like the seamless flow of this awesome plot. For two years some unknown entity is abducting humans from their colonies in the Terminus Systems without leaving any trace or evidence of their identity. Cerberus resurrects Shepard and TIM gives him the assignment to solve this vexing mystery. How awesomely contrived providential that he discovers not only who is responsible, but manages to find a surviving witness, omni-tool data, video recordings and seeker swarm samples. Old TIM sure is getting some bang for his Lazarus bucks isn't he?


[quote]iakus wrote...
how are you supposed to plan for that?  In TIM's case it's pull a dozen names out of a hat and hope they're the right specialists yo need.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
For values of "pull a dozen names out of a hat" that are "relying on the extensive resources and information gathering capacities of Cerberus, acquire the names and locations of nine of the best specialists covering technical experts, powerful biotics, master infiltrators, and hardened combat soldiers who might be available and receptive to Shepard, as well as a krogan scientist who's had recent contact wth the Collectors". Were you just not paying attention in the beginning?[/quote][/quote]

I don't know about iakus, but I was paying attention. I was also rolling my eyes and giggling uncontrollably too. Mordin is the only one I can think of that provides a necessary service. Let's see, you can leave Grunt stewing in his test tube without affecting anything. You have to recruit Jack, but who in their right mind would want that psycho on their team? Especially on a mission of such grand scale and importance. Garrus is nothing but a Turian military veteran and former C-Sec officer. What exactly does he bring to the table that you couldn't get from another merc like Zaeed? I guess we can mark him down to fan service for lovesick FemSheps.

After Horizon we get Thane, Samara and Tali. Tali gives us what exactly? A tech to unlock a door? Is she supposed to be the best of the best in the galaxy or was she simply more fan service? This time for lovesick Talimancers. Thane doesn't even have an assigned task on the suicide mission. Maybe more fan service for those alien loving FemSheps? Are we detecting a pattern here yet? Samara can successfully do the biotic bubble but so can Jack. If you're not particular about keeping everyone on your squad alive on the suicide mission you can even get Miranda or Jacob to stand in for either of them. Heck you can throw caution to the wind and only recruit two out of the three if you'd like. If you grab the DLC twins you can skip all three of the best and most elite badasses in the galaxy. Yeah, I'm still laughing about this sh!t whenever I give it a thought.


[quote]iakus wrote...
Darn good thing she's compatable with every known computer language out there, huh?
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
Darn good thing she's partially built with Reaper technology such as might be found in a Collector ship, huh?
[/quote][/quote]

Oh yes, no doubt. Cerberus and TIM thought of everything, even before they knew for certain that the Collectors were abducting colonists and that they were agents of the Reapers. What a convenient coincidence. *rolleyes*

[quote]iakus wrote...
Shepard's not an investigator.  Might be a good idea to recruit a couple, wouldn't it?
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
Why? Cerberus has already recruited dozens if not hundreds, stationed at comfy terminals on space stations with priority FTL extranet access, sifting through any data that seems remotely related. Like, say, turian distress signals.[/quote][/quote]

Considering the fact that Shepard was the investigator that got the goods on the Collector scheme, a case can be made that he's more than adequate and lucky to boot. But he's too busy recruiting and running errands for his team of elite badasses. Oh well, I guess we're stuck with those hundreds of crack detectives that spent two years trying to figure out who was abducting colonists.

[quote]iakus wrote...
Actually, Mordin was a good start for that.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
Mordin is a scientist. He needs samples to work with. He needs to be in the field, to have access to Collector technology - specifically Seeker Swarms, which is the reason you recruited him.[/quote][/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]iakus wrote...
The point is, Shepard's flying blind here.  And thus, the player is.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
Everybody is. The Collectors have been mysteries for thousands of years. You've discovered more about them than anyone in the current history of Citadel Space.[/quote][/quote]

The problem is that Shepard (the player) is getting spoon fed just a tidbit of information at any given time in the game. TIM knew about the Derelict Reaper before he knowingly sent Shepard into the Collector Ship ambush. I understand why they did it but it's a constant stream of plot contrivance that gets grating as the game progresses. At this point in the game I was constantly having to stop playing for extended periods because it was getting so damn ridiculous.

[quote]iakus wrote...
you're supposed to go around recruiting mercs, assassins, vigilantes, but for what reason?  What purpose?  "Cause TIM says so" just doesn't cut it.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
To back up Shepard in her ongoing battle against the Reaper extinction agenda. Again; were you not listening?[/quote][/quote]

Well that's the whole premise but it was never adequately made clear until he gets to the Collector Base. So as Shepard recruits Grunt, Jack, Thane, Garrus, etc,.. There's no clear indication of why you need a 'pure' Krogan you can leave marinating in his tank. Why you need a psycho human biotic or an assassin you really don't have to recruit or an ex C-Sec officer and so on. That's the point here. In their effort to not reveal the details of the suicide mission too early the devs didn't provide enough buildup of information to justify why you needed to recruit these specific individuals. It only becomes evident after you crash land on the Collector Base. So I'm left doing recruitment and loyalty missions for 90% of the game before I find out how any of it is relevant to the actual mission.

The end result is that they're nothing but cannon fodder to throw at the enemy during the assault on the Collector Base. You can literally get all but two of the squad killed if you choose to do it. That's a legitimate gameplay choice that BioWare included in the suicide mission. That makes it obvious that none of these characters will have an essential role to fill in ME3. So we recruit the best of the best and stop the Collectors, but end the game knowing that the Reapers are still coming and that none of these 'elite' badasses will make the cut for ME3. Sheesh, what's the friggin point of all this?

-snip-

[quote]iakus wrote...
And I'm really curious to see how they're going to integrate a squad of which any of the members can be dead into a game in any meaningful way.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
You and me both. I'm just coming from a more receptive place at the moment.[/quote][/quote]

Unless they're willing to spend the time, energy, resources and money to account for all of the possible combination of dead and/or surviving characters it won't happen. Will they do it? I tend to doubt it but anything is possible.

[quote]iakus wrote...
Change the scope?  the scpe changed from how ME 1 ended without my involvement at all!
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
The Reapers reminded you of your scope. Small. Organic. Temporary. You were the one who wanted to play with entities beyond your comprehension, Shepard.[/quote][/quote]

"I know you feel this!"
Oooh, scary! Mommy make it stop.

-snip-

[quote]iakus wrote...
It's my personal theory that TIM intended to use all of your squad up in the SM. All his rotten eggs in one basket.
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
I disagree. Nobody builds a six billion credit missile.[/quote][/quote]

I'm sure that Shepard is meant to survive but I'm not so certain about the 'elite' badasses. It's not like they have an essential part to play in ME3 or anything.

[quote]iakus wrote...
Thing was, the end of ME 1 kinda impled that's what ME 2 was for
[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...
And then the Reapers sent their errand boys to remind you that you have no idea what you're dealing with. What a tweest! Shepard's not calling all the shots in this war. It's a war.
[/quote][/quote]

Or perhaps BioWare decided to replace the Normandy, force Shepard to work for Cerberus and saddle him with a gang of expendable losers to nursemaid before taking them on a suicide mission. Just saying.

Modifié par IoCaster, 12 juillet 2010 - 10:42 .

[theelementslayer]

iakus wrote...
It's my personal theory that TIM intended to use all of your squad up in the SM. All his rotten eggs in one basket.

Christmas Ape wrote...
I disagree. Nobody builds a six billion credit missile.

I'm sure that Shepard is meant to survive but I'm not so certain about the 'elite' badasses. It's not like they have an essential part to play in ME3 or anything.

The way they set it up I think that they were meant to survive, or at least some were, why else would they make your choices effect the outcome when they could have just cutscened it, much easier in the way of a programmers eyes. This squad is meant to be for the reapers, and the collectors were just the first step. The opening and closing cutscenes both really reinforce this I believe. Miranda at the very beginning saying that the reapers are still out there and if they lose shepard humanity just might follow, they arent worried about the collectors as much as they are the reapers. Sure the collectors are abducting colonies but 10 000out of a few trillion-I think thats the population of humanity by now-really isnt too much. Especially on the fringes of the terminus.

And at the end when shepard is walking through her ship and her crew is looking at her/saluting her/doing whatever it is to acknoledge her it seems they know they are in for the rest of it.

Also bioware let us have control over the ship at the end, after the suicide mission with the whole crew that survived, if they were in it only for the suicide mission wouldnt some leave right after. No they will follow shepard because she gained their trust and they know they have to win it.

iakus wrote...
Thing was, the end of ME 1 kinda impled that's what ME 2 was for

Christmas Ape wrote...
And then the Reapers sent their errand boys to remind you that you have no idea what you're dealing with. What a tweest! Shepard's not calling all the shots in this war. It's a war.

Or perhaps BioWare decided to replace the Normandy, force Shepard to work for Cerberus and saddle him with a gang of expendable losers to nursemaid before taking them on a suicide mission. Just saying.

Nah I think this was very well done. At the end of the first you were the top of the food chain, just killed a reaper. This got the reapers attention so they decided to put shepard in her place and try to kill the threat before it got out of control. They did kill her and the alliance left her for dead while TIM, knowing what would happen if she died, brought her back. And now becasue of that she owes TIM and no shes not the biggest thing in the galaxy, I thought the darker second part conveyed it beautifully on how small you actually were in the grand scheme of the war, even this little begining of it