1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Turin_4]

I can't disagree on the heavy cruiser concept. I guess having another Normandy is nostalgia or something.

Cruisers are less maneuverable, slower, more visible, harder to supply, maintain, and crew, harder to conceal, harder to construct in secret, and even if we assume that the Collectors can completely defeat the Normandy 2's stealth tech, a cruiser would be completely visible to, y'know, everyone else, which has major drawbacks.



As for more Picard...guys. You realize this is supposed to be a shooter, right? At the very least in large part, right? These complaints are getting completely ridiculous, not that a bunch of them weren't pretty damn silly to start with.

[Iakus]

Moiaussi wrote...

 My 'where do they come from' comment is me asking why you assume that there are many, if any others that would meet your criteria.

I figure with a dozen or so spacefaring races and who knows how many planets, odds are there are others that TIM could choose.  The ones he picked were simply the most optimal in both talant and willingness to work for Shepard/Cerberus.

1) But that is the thing.. you don't know in advance, so you take a broad spectrum so you are less likely to be shut out completely.

My point is "broad" isn't all that broad in the game.  You have a couple of tech experts, a couple of really strong biotics, a geneticist, and a bunch of people with skills in killing things (including the other specialists)

2) You figure that between Tali, Morden, Garrus and Legion there is noone who knows how to plant explosives? Bet Zaheed and Jack have some training in that area too.

Perhaps one or more of them do (I could see Zaed with that kind of skill) but none are speciallists at it.  Maybe Zaed or Garrus would have been good enough to get the job done, but blow themselves/someone else up in the process.  The point is, TIM managed to assemble dossiers of specialists needed, not knowing what was coming, and didn't miss anything, again, not knowing what was coming.  There were no human survivors aside from the crew, no medics needed.  No demolitions expert needed.  It wasn't on a ship, no pilots needed (save Joker for the Normandy)

It might have worked, but I think it would have worked even  better if you came across them in pursuing other things, never actually engaging them but learning more about them each step, including their ties to the Reapers. ME2 felt too clean and too self contained...

I could go for this too.  I call the Collectors a huge wasted opportunity.  Anything that could have developed them more would have been welcome.

Heh, we will find that they each have a vulnerable exhaust port, and realize that if we can just fire a javelin torpedo down each and every one...

Shhh!  They'll hear you!  We already got the Terminator for the last game! No need to drag Star Wars into this too! 

You know.. if you know in advance that much about what you are reconning, is it still really recon?  As I have tried to explain, I don't see the selection as that strange. Ideally, Shepard should have recruited a full unit of other shepards (using the lazarus tech to make perfect clones), or been assigned an existing special forces or spectre unit. The whole 'build a new team from scratch' concept was problematic in a lot of ways. The broad talent base wasn't one of them though.

No cloning, please!  The Lazarus Project is silly enough as it is!

As to too much recon knowledge:  What knowledge?  I'm not advocating they get much  more information than the schematic they got from the Collector Ship:  a base amidst a cluster of black holes, no sign of a fleet, and maybe where the entrances are.  Perhaps a big hollowed-out cavern in the center that they can wonder about.  TIm can gather a team to break into this base, see what's going on, and maybe sabotage it. 

My preference is that the Collectors were not anywhere so obvious and that the plot be much better suited to a stealth frigate and small unit tactics. My point was really that the game would have been trivial if Shep had more naval firepower instead of a ship that wasn't really the best suited for the duties it ended up having to perform. In other words, the small unit tactics turned out to be for the most part neccessary only by virtue of the normandy's shortcomings rather than good writing.

I guess it should have been my first clue that the Collectors were gonna be shelved for most of the game was that the first thing TIM gave Shepard was a new stealth frigate whose stealth capabilities don't work on the Collectors..

You figure a heist plot makes more sense than a mystery plot for a second act? If they stole anything important, wouldn't it result in ME3 being anticlimatic? Rather than recon, learn more about what they are up against, build allies and gather enough information that they have at least a fighting chance in ME3? Or alternatively, be forced into a desperate fighting withdrawl that buys enough time to achieve a comeback and subsequent victory in ME3?

I think a mystery would have been better.  What you described would have been perfect:

Rather than recon, learn more about what they are up against, build allies and gather enough information that they have at least a fighting chance in ME3

After all, at the end of ME 1, Shepard vows to find a way to stop the Reapers.  That's what the second act should have been:  learning about the enemy.  The Collectors could have been the key to doing so.  Learning about the last days of the Protheans, the process that made them Collectors, the need for organic components for the Reapers. All this could have been gradually learned over the course fo the game.   Perhaps the base could have provided some clues about weaknesses in Reaper construction, records of other organizations studying the Reapers.  Groups the Reapers (through the Collectors)  have been keeping tabs on that they think could cause trouble (Cerberus, the True Geth, the krogan) including unknown alien races the Council has yet to meet.  All potential allies. 

 No definitive answers, but clues and possible leads that carry over into ME 3, where Shepard gathers the weapons and allies needed for the showdown.  Instead we don't know what information we got, whether we actually foiled anything important with the Reapers, and are still pretty much alone in opposing them.

[PGs324]

I just don't like the whole collector weapon choice. The new dlc weapons are probably stronger than the claymore and revnant. Bioware needs to patch it so you can get all three.

[Iakus]

Turin_4 wrote...


Cruisers are less maneuverable, slower, more visible, harder to supply, maintain, and crew, harder to conceal, harder to construct in secret, and even if we assume that the Collectors can completely defeat the Normandy 2's stealth tech, a cruiser would be completely visible to, y'know, everyone else, which has major drawbacks.

True, but it's not like the Normandy was being all that stealthy throughout ME 2 anyway.  Would it have been harder to create a top of the line stealth frigate(whose priomary, and most expensive, ability is useless against the enemy you're going up against), or a less advanced, but more heavily armed, cruiser? 

As for more Picard...guys. You realize this is supposed to be a shooter, right? At the very least in large part, right? These complaints are getting completely ridiculous, not that a bunch of them weren't pretty damn silly to start with.

an RPG/shooter hybrid.  From a company renowned for its rpgs.  I don't think it's silly at all to demand a story that's a worthy followup to the original ME, from the same company that created KOTOR and Dragon Age..  Story is not just a break between bouts of shooting, it's the motivation to be there shooting things to begin with.

[JMA22TB]

The most disappointing part of all of our media is that movies, TV shows, theatre, and video games like Mass Effect are so freaking close to being true works of art, but the money necessary to create the games comes with a price: that being the ignorant jackasses who think that relationships need to be hidden behind closed doors and the sexuality that they so impotently do not understand is somehow "inappropriate."



The relationships formed in ME games are truly transcendent parts of this game that, as we can see clearly with the character threads, invoke a huge emotional response in the players. There's a reason for that: we as people have drives and emotions that, like when you see a very well done movie, are inspiring, infuriating, and intoxicating. It's one of the most beautiful parts of being human!



But no, we have a gorilla in the room that inevitably waters down the plot of the game and these relationships that forces the content to be less real to us than even in the prior game. It's the big money from EA worried about their shareholders. It's also having to deal with a culture that says it's okay for women to dress suggestively and men to like that, but give them no knowledge at the age they are most interested in that beyond a truly ridiculous minimum of information to go about navigating that part of their lives. It's major religious practices that are at least a thousand years old that are just now being questioned still attempting to deny a very large amount of people their own thoughts and ideas, which is BS.



Is it any wonder that most of Western civilization is still based on the ideas of the Greeks and Romans, who were doing their thing, oh, two THOUSAND years ago? They were original and actually thought for themselves! It wasn't roses and bunny rabbits: they gave men the God-complex "control" over women that has lasted for nearly as long as the number above but at least they were original!



Mass Effect is truly original - you actually feel as though you are there in those games and it's easy to slip into the solipsism that Thane describes when you have the disc slip into the console.



It's just a shame that the moronic, boring, and outdated parts of our culture that are a huge stain on our nation's toilet paper get in the way and ruin what could be even more euphoric.



I love BioWare games and would love it even more if it were possible for them to be able to truly express themselves the way that I know for a fact the inspiring minds that created this game wish they could.

[Rhomer]

Spazmodian wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

The game is awesome. I doubt anyone truly disagrees otherwise they wouldn't be here.

ME1 is awesome.  ME2 is not.  The intent of this thread I believe is to highlight this point so that BW might return to what made ME1 awesome and not continue with what made ME2 not awesome.

I wholly agree they found good gameplay. They lacked in the story's plot and it made the story suffer. The characters had great individual stories but the overall lacked. There was no elaborating like ME1 had.

Modifié par Rhomer, 04 octobre 2010 - 04:50 .

[GuardianAngel470]

I felt the overall character development was lacking. Compared to KOTOR 1, which had nine characters, ME1 and 2 both have very little actual character development. 4-7 convos and that's it in ME1, much less in ME2. I especially disliked how the characters you are supposed to be closest to are the ones with the least dialog. Tali and Garrus get very little face time.



Other than that, my only other concern is the lack of looting and customization. I never felt that I advanced much in ME2. The upgrades never really made a difference. In ME1, the armor and weapon mods made a huge difference. With the right armor and the right mods you were practically a walking tank, which is a direct result of long searching.



If Bioware merged the upgrade system of ME1 with the class advancement of ME2, I would be happy camper. But I want to let it be known that I would rather wade through clunky menus and have excellent and deep character development than have them sacrifice time and money fixing something like menus instead of focusing on characters.

[Nightwriter]

DPSSOC wrote...

One disappointment I had with the game was it didn't give me the same sense of accomplishment. In ME1 you're given a goal and every main mission is a step toward that goal and it gives a real impression that you're doing something, that you're making progress. ME2 doesn't pull that off because the main missions are recruitment/loyalty missions none of which have any connection to the main goal. That's why I liked ME1 because the recruitment of you team was worked into the mission it didn't become the mission. You're looking for information and told to look for some guy and when you get to some guy he gives you the info and asks to join you.

I would have much preferred if, in pursuit of the Collectors you encounter the squadmates rather than finding the squadmates then pursuing the Collectors. Personal preference however and to each their own.

I think that's what happens when they reveal the end event at the very beginning of the game - which I'm opposed to.

In ME1 they never introduce an event that reveals the end of the game. For each new event they introduce, you don't know what will happen or where it will take the story. So the story is like a road unraveling in front of you.

ME2 was bleh in this regard.

[Moiaussi]

iakus wrote...

I figure with a dozen or so spacefaring races and who knows how many planets, odds are there are others that TIM could choose.  The ones he picked were simply the most optimal in both talant and willingness to work for Shepard/Cerberus.

Keep in mind that the criteria include saying 'o'tay' and accepting the command of a nigh complete stranger who is working for Cerberus. If they are that competent and that willing to sign up, why are they not already Cerberus agents? In which case, why does Shepard have to fly about to convince them? Alternatively, if they are not already with Cerberus, why are they not either working for other major powers or tied down running their own operations?

Think about it.

My point is "broad" isn't all that broad in the game.  You have a couple of tech experts, a couple of really strong biotics, a geneticist, and a bunch of people with skills in killing things (including the other specialists)

What major skills or skillsets are missing or are poorly represented?

Perhaps one or more of them do (I could see Zaed with that kind of skill) but none are speciallists at it.  Maybe Zaed or Garrus would have been good enough to get the job done, but blow themselves/someone else up in the process.  The point is, TIM managed to assemble dossiers of specialists needed, not knowing what was coming, and didn't miss anything, again, not knowing what was coming.  There were no human survivors aside from the crew, no medics needed.  No demolitions expert needed.  It wasn't on a ship, no pilots needed (save Joker for the Normandy)

On what basis do you figure a lack of explosives expertise? And what degree of expertise do you consider 'sufficient?' In ME1, Shepard regardless of specialty is able to disarm the Citadel AI's 'bomb'. At least once in ME2 there is an opportunity to set off some equipment or something to clear a path. Shepard with no particular training is able to blow the Collector's base, simply on scans and instruction from EDI.

Chakwas is available if a medical expert was needed, as is Mordin. Chakwas was needed for Garrus actually. In the field, Medi-gel covers most medical specialist duties, and Mordin covers anything more detailed. In LotSB and Firewalker, Shepard clearly has some aptitude for piloting small craft (reasonable assumption that the Kodiak  shuttle is not that much harder to fly than the Hammerhead or an Illium taxi in a high speed chase).

As to too much recon knowledge:  What knowledge?  I'm not advocating they get much  more information than the schematic they got from the Collector Ship:  a base amidst a cluster of black holes, no sign of a fleet, and maybe where the entrances are.  Perhaps a big hollowed-out cavern in the center that they can wonder about.  TIm can gather a team to break into this base, see what's going on, and maybe sabotage it. 

You were suggesting that they should have found a Collector omni tool on Horizon that told them enough about the Collector's base to tell them exactly what kind of team to bring. My counter was that if they knew what kind of team to bring, they would also almost certainly know enough not to need to send a team.

I guess it should have been my first clue that the Collectors were gonna be shelved for most of the game was that the first thing TIM gave Shepard was a new stealth frigate whose stealth capabilities don't work on the Collectors..

Hence my point about the heavy cruiser...

I think a mystery would have been better.  What you described would have been perfect:

Rather than recon, learn more about what they are up against, build allies and gather enough information that they have at least a fighting chance in ME3

After all, at the end of ME 1, Shepard vows to find a way to stop the Reapers.  That's what the second act should have been:  learning about the enemy.  The Collectors could have been the key to doing so.  Learning about the last days of the Protheans, the process that made them Collectors, the need for organic components for the Reapers. All this could have been gradually learned over the course fo the game.   Perhaps the base could have provided some clues about weaknesses in Reaper construction, records of other organizations studying the Reapers.  Groups the Reapers (through the Collectors)  have been keeping tabs on that they think could cause trouble (Cerberus, the True Geth, the krogan) including unknown alien races the Council has yet to meet.  All potential allies. 

 No definitive answers, but clues and possible leads that carry over into ME 3, where Shepard gathers the weapons and allies needed for the showdown.  Instead we don't know what information we got, whether we actually foiled anything important with the Reapers, and are still pretty much alone in opposing them.

All good thoughts. I guess that is what bothers me most about ME2, the feeling of stagnation. If the Normandy's upgrades were neccessary to give it a chance against the collector vessel rather than an easy victory, it probably would have felt a lot more meaningful too.

[Moiaussi]

Cruisers are less maneuverable, slower, more visible, harder to supply, maintain, and crew, harder to conceal, harder to construct in secret, and even if we assume that the Collectors can completely defeat the Normandy 2's stealth tech, a cruiser would be completely visible to, y'know, everyone else, which has major drawbacks.

As for more Picard...guys. You realize this is supposed to be a shooter, right? At the very least in large part, right? These complaints are getting completely ridiculous, not that a bunch of them weren't pretty damn silly to start with.

And yet, mercenaries operating under no flag other than their own travel all over the Terminus systems, presumably in armed vessels. One more would stand out... why? When did the Normandy's stealth ever actually matter? When was supply ever an issue, and why does a Normandy double the size of the original somehow have no space for a marine contingent? The SR-1 had room for 4. Despite no marine unit on board, the SR-2 has to toss the squad in areas like life support and the computer core? Pardon?

My main point regarding the cruiser though was that there was nothing in ME2 that needed Shepard rather than conventional forces. It was only Shepard by default because everyone else were written as relatively incompetent. Whether the reapers were a hoax or not, human colonies were still being taken out.

A shooter can still have diplomacy. For example, Tali's loyalty mission, or even Grunt's. Both involved plenty of shooting. Sometimes you need to shoot your way in just to talk to key people. Sometimes you need to eliminate key people to make your position clear (at least when those people are actively enemies). Sometimes you have to shoot others on behalf of people, either to free them up from a threat or obtain useful information that aids your efforts (diplomatic or stategic).... there is no shortage of opportunites for violent encounters. Even Picard fired a phaser often enough.

More to the point, did you play ME1? You do realize that ME1 was very much not just a shooter, don't you? It had a strong storyline with good solid rpg elements. You may prefer a pure shooter, but given this is supposed to be part of a trilogy, any suggestion that the game is best abandoning everything that made ME1 so good simply because ME2 is a better shooter is truely 'rediculous.'

[Turin_4]

And yet, mercenaries operating under no flag other than their own travel all over the Terminus systems, presumably in armed vessels. One more would stand out... why?

OK, I'm going to take a crack at discussing why perhaps some of your objections to ME2 aren't as solid as you think they are again, Moiaussi, and see if it goes anywhere. Case in point: you've asked and answered your own question within the space of two sentences.



Just what do you think would happen Shepard & Co were cruising in a cruiser around the Terminus systems, completely and totally visible and slow to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic sensor suite, as a Paragon or a Renegade? Everyone who could scrape up enough ships to take on a cruiser - and as you just made clear, that would be a not-inconsiderable amount - would come calling. Shepard wouldn't be able to get anything done without having major capital ship battles, and by the time she got anywhere, the bad guys she was trying to fight would have packed up and left!



More to the point, the kind of quibbling and criticism going on in this thread, this is exactly the kind of criticism that would be made if you had a cruiser instead of a frigate, anyway.



When was supply ever an issue? Well, it can safely be said that supply was never an issue in ME1 because we were in a lean, very solo frigate instead of a cruiser. When did the Normandy's stealth systems ever matter? It can safely be said they mattered every time the first time the bad guys ever knew Shepard was even alive was when she started shooting at them, or saw the shuttle landing.



As for the marines aboard the Normandy...OK, you've got me. That's a very valid though incredibly minor trivial criticism. Bioware totally pissed the bed on that one. I don't know why they didn't include a marine contingent on the second Normandy. Though in retrospect, it might have something to do with the game having a lot to do with getting a gang of dangerous killers and filling your ship with them from the get-go.

My main point regarding the cruiser though was that there was nothing in ME2 that needed Shepard rather than conventional forces. It was only Shepard by default because everyone else were written as relatively incompetent. Whether the reapers were a hoax or not, human colonies were still being taken out.

After the prologue, it was very likely that the Collectors were behind the abductions, and therefore very likely that we'd have to go through the Omega 4 Relay to pursue them. Given that that was a mission of very big unknowns, it was very sensible to use a smaller, more flexible tool such as the Normandy 2 rather than a bigger, blunter instrument such as a cruiser. Furthermore as I explained above, there were many, many things in ME2 that needed a frigate such as the Normandy rather than a conventional cruiser.

A shooter can still have diplomacy. For example, Tali's loyalty mission, or even Grunt's. Both involved plenty of shooting. Sometimes you need to shoot your way in just to talk to key people. Sometimes you need to eliminate key people to make your position clear (at least when those people are actively enemies). Sometimes you have to shoot others on behalf of people, either to free them up from a threat or obtain useful information that aids your efforts (diplomatic or stategic).... there is no shortage of opportunites for violent encounters. Even Picard fired a phaser often enough.

Sure, but Picard's thing - and it was brilliant for its genre, and I still watch Next Gen periodically - was staying on the ship and letting others do the dangerous stuff, because that's the Captain's job. So this 'more Picard' business is a bit strange to me.

More to the point, did you play ME1? You do realize that ME1 was very much not just a shooter, don't you? It had a strong storyline with good solid rpg elements. You may prefer a pure shooter, but given this is supposed to be part of a trilogy, any suggestion that the game is best abandoning everything that made ME1 so good simply because ME2 is a better shooter is truely 'rediculous.'

You realize this is supposed to be a shooter, right? At the very least in large part, right?

READ, Moiaussi. Jesus, freaking READ! How many times are you going to ask me if I played ME1, or if I'm aware of the Codex, or questions like that? It's especially baffling because of the two of us, you're the guy who's shown less knowledge of ME trivia in the first place. Did I say I preferred a pure shooter? No! Read what I friggin' posted! Did I say that ME2 ought 'abandon everything that made ME1 so good'? Also no!



[

[Turin_4]

No cloning, please!  The Lazarus Project is silly enough as it is!

People keep saying that as though it were a given.

True, but it's not like the Normandy was being all that stealthy
throughout ME 2 anyway.  Would it have been harder to create a top of
the line stealth frigate(whose priomary, and most expensive, ability is
useless against the enemy you're going up against), or a less advanced,
but more heavily armed, cruiser?

It wasn't?  The Normandy doesn't actually have to do much of anything to be stealthy in ME1 or 2.  And, again, trade-offs as I mentioned above in my post to MoiAussi.

an RPG/shooter hybrid. 
From a company renowned for its rpgs.  I don't think it's silly at all
to demand a story that's a worthy followup to the original ME, from the
same company that created KOTOR and Dragon Age..  Story is not just a
break between bouts of shooting, it's the motivation to be there
shooting things to begin with.

I agree, and I think we got one.  I think we got one evidenced mostly because we're still discussing its story nearly a year after its release, on this little pocket of the Internet.  And everywhere else you go, mostly, where people are discussing its story, they're discussing it favorably...and before the snobbish elitism (this isn't directed at you personally, iakus, because you're being a level-headed, cool kinda guy about this thread's content) gets really out of hand, just remember, sure, there are plenty of 'toilet stains' who like the game, but there are plenty of arty types who like sophisticated media and **** as well who really enjoyed it too.

Anyway, my 'this is getting ridiculous' remark was mainly leveled about the 'More Picard!' criticism.  You guys realize Picard basically sat in an easy chair and talked to a screen, right?

[Revan312]

Turin_4 wrote...

Anyway, my 'this is getting ridiculous' remark was mainly leveled about the 'More Picard!' criticism. You guys realize Picard basically sat in an easy chair and talked to a screen, right?

I think what people were getting at is that Picard (Star Trek) is more intellectual than the Matrix. It's pseudo complexity vs bombastic/unrealistic action.

Comparing the Matrix with ME is actually a pretty good parallel. ME2 did the same thing that the Matrix Reloaded did which is ignore the original atmosphere and story arc of it's predecessor. It instead focused on giant action sequences and "cool" looking protagonists.

And although I agree with you that much of the criticism leads to pointless requests and "should have beens" it is imo warranted criticism. My complaints boil down to a terribly disconnected plot arc being removed from the main bulk of gameplay, an emotionless and pointless new enemy that appears and gets killed within the course of the game, too many squadmates meaning a general lack of depth to all of them and finally a horrendously contrived and threadbare final boss that exists for no other reason than to have an arcade style final battle.

All of that could have been avoided with a few changes to the way the story clips along and by adjusting the number of crew members. I would say just straight out remove the human reaper fetus because although you claim many people who enjoy good stories like ME2, I haven't talked to many that thought that boss was anything but stupid or at least unneeded..

Modifié par Revan312, 04 octobre 2010 - 03:14 .

[Moiaussi]

Turin_4 wrote...

OK, I'm going to take a crack at discussing why perhaps some of your objections to ME2 aren't as solid as you think they are again, Moiaussi, and see if it goes anywhere. Case in point: you've asked and answered your own question within the space of two sentences.

Just what do you think would happen Shepard & Co were cruising in a cruiser around the Terminus systems, completely and totally visible and slow to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic sensor suite, as a Paragon or a Renegade? Everyone who could scrape up enough ships to take on a cruiser - and as you just made clear, that would be a not-inconsiderable amount - would come calling. Shepard wouldn't be able to get anything done without having major capital ship battles, and by the time she got anywhere, the bad guys she was trying to fight would have packed up and left!

More to the point, the kind of quibbling and criticism going on in this thread, this is exactly the kind of criticism that would be made if you had a cruiser instead of a frigate, anyway.

First of all, keep in mind that my point regarding a cruiser is that any given navy could spare at least a cruiser, and that since a cruiser could have handled everything with negligible use of small unit tactics, the whole plot feels like a waste of Shepard's time.

You seem to think that ships are a lot more vulnerable than they really are though. Sure the various pirate bands in the region could take out a single cruiser given the chance, but the cruiser would see them coming too and could flee. If the cruiser captain decided to stand and fight, the pirates would risk losses.

As for the suggestion that they would go after Shepard simply because it is Shepard, if that is true, why wasn't anyone after him on Omega? He was there with only himself and two others, and the Normandy was docked, which makes it rather hard to hide it. Every merc unit Shepard encountered was met on an undefended world, and they weren't shooting because it was Shepard. They were shooting because there were intruders in the middle of whatever operation they were running there.

It is interesting to note that Shepard never once sees any actual pirate vessels other than the Collectors.

When was supply ever an issue? Well, it can safely be said that supply was never an issue in ME1 because we were in a lean, very solo frigate instead of a cruiser. When did the Normandy's stealth systems ever matter? It can safely be said they mattered every time the first time the bad guys ever knew Shepard was even alive was when she started shooting at them, or saw the shuttle landing.

Given the shuttle was not stealthed, isn't it safe to say the 'bad guys' had no way to deal with the Normandy whether the could see it or not? Its not like anyone got fleets full of reinforcement ground troops anywhere before Shepard had been and gone. Again, the mercs were shooting because it was an intruder. Most of them never waited to see who was visiting let alone start shooting simply because it was Shepard.

As for the marines aboard the Normandy...OK, you've got me. That's a very valid though incredibly minor trivial criticism. Bioware totally pissed the bed on that one. I don't know why they didn't include a marine contingent on the second Normandy. Though in retrospect, it might have something to do with the game having a lot to do with getting a gang of dangerous killers and filling your ship with them from the get-go.

Not just filling the ship, but housing people in what would normally be secure areas. Zaheed is in a security station! There is a lounge on board ship that appearantly is not worth visiting unless Kasumi is sleeping there? Yet the bathrooms are free to visit? lol.

After the prologue, it was very likely that the Collectors were behind the abductions, and therefore very likely that we'd have to go through the Omega 4 Relay to pursue them. Given that that was a mission of very big unknowns, it was very sensible to use a smaller, more flexible tool such as the Normandy 2 rather than a bigger, blunter instrument such as a cruiser. Furthermore as I explained above, there were many, many things in ME2 that needed a frigate such as the Normandy rather than a conventional cruiser.

Actually given that it was well known (by the Council and the Alliance) that the Normandy's stealth systems were ineffectual, there is a much better arguement for sending something unmanned through followed shortly by a fleet once it is confirmed the Collectors were on the other side. Sending a frigate through that only survived because the entire Collector fleet was conveniently elsewhere (and based on comments such as 'its a collector hull but unknown', the collecters are known to have other ships) is just plain nuts. The mission succeeded due to luck and writer's fiat, not anything resembling good strategic planning or common sense.

Sure, but Picard's thing - and it was brilliant for its genre, and I still watch Next Gen periodically - was staying on the ship and letting others do the dangerous stuff, because that's the Captain's job. So this 'more Picard' business is a bit strange to me.

Pardon, but I am certain you are the one who mentioned Picard first. I was saying 'more diplomacy.' Star Trek (even DS9 or Enterprise where they were actually at war) were mostly drama rather than action. Some of the Star Trek movies had larger action elements, but strangely that was more the Next Gen movies than TOS. It is also worth noting that the Normandy (SR-1 or 2) doesn't have any formal first officer. Joker seems to serve that role, but is a helmsman. In the final scene he even forgets he is that, and bone issues or no inexplicably leaves the helm to give Seth Green an extra scene, er, to provide covering fire.
 

READ, Moiaussi. Jesus, freaking READ! How many times are you going to ask me if I played ME1, or if I'm aware of the Codex, or questions like that? It's especially baffling because of the two of us, you're the guy who's shown less knowledge of ME trivia in the first place. Did I say I preferred a pure shooter? No! Read what I friggin' posted! Did I say that ME2 ought 'abandon everything that made ME1 so good'? Also no![

The only thing I remember being caught out on was shields in atmospheres. I was responding though to you saying that this is supposed to be a shooter and then invoking Picard. What did you mean when you said that? You strongly implied that if ME2 had more diplomacy it would have been a poor shooter. I was trying to explain not only how you were wrong, but also that without a good balance it is just a shooter.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 04 octobre 2010 - 03:25 .

[Turin_4]

Moiaussi,

First of all, keep in mind that my point regarding a cruiser is that any given navy could spare at least a cruiser, and that since a cruiser could have handled everything with negligible use of small unit tactics, the whole plot feels like a waste of Shepard's time.

I just mentioned a few things a cruiser could not handle by itself. Cruisers, especially cruisers that are unstealthed, are huge, unwieldy, and attract lots of attention from small groups that can band together and destroy it. It's easily tracked, easily followed, and everyone knows it's coming as soon as it's in the neighborhood.

You seem to think that ships are a lot more vulnerable than they really are though. Sure the various pirate bands in the region could take out a single cruiser given the chance, but the cruiser would see them coming too and could flee. If the cruiser captain decided to stand and fight, the pirates would risk losses.

At which point Shepard and Co. gain...what, exactly, if they're forced to flee? The Collectors can continue on abducting colonies building their Reaper while Shepard plays tag with her big old cruiser that everyone can see coming a mile away because the armchair quarterback society thought another Normandy would be unnecessary, despite how incredibly and repeatedly useful the Normandy in ME1 proved to be. Hell, there was even a specific assignment in the sainted ME1 where that was demonstrated to an Alliance admiral!

As for the suggestion that they would go after Shepard simply because it is Shepard, if that is true, why wasn't anyone after him on Omega? He was there with only himself and two others, and the Normandy was docked, which makes it rather hard to hide it. Every merc unit Shepard encountered was met on an undefended world, and they weren't shooting because it was Shepard. They were shooting because there were intruders in the middle of whatever operation they were running there.

Depending on when you're there, let's see. There's a huge station-threatening plague, a huge multi-merc-group operation going on, etc. etc. etc. As for not shooting at Shepard, are you forgetting the enormous bounty the Collectors - in addition to whatever other groups - have on Shepard? You're telling me no other pirate, mercenary, or even nation-state organizations would want to take a shot at Shepard if they knew she was in the region? C'mon, Moiaussi, is that an argument you're seriously going to make?



Maybe the reason nobody takes a shot at Shepard is because by the time they know she's there, it's because she's there with her very heavily armed squad of killers right nearby you with shields up and armor ready, just as a for-example. And her ship, while docked, is only microseconds away from being ready for combat thanks to its AI on EW.

It is interesting to note that Shepard never once sees any actual pirate vessels other than the Collectors.

Why do you think that is?

Given the shuttle was not stealthed, isn't it safe to say the 'bad guys' had no way to deal with the Normandy whether the could see it or not? Its not like anyone got fleets full of reinforcement ground troops anywhere before Shepard had been and gone. Again, the mercs were shooting because it was an intruder. Most of them never waited to see who was visiting let alone start shooting simply because it was Shepard.

It's fascinating how on the one hand, when you can't see something, it clearly isn't there, as is the case with pirates and mercs. We don't see their capital ships, so they're not there-despite repeated references to them in ME1 and Codex lore. But with the Collectors, despite never seeing another Collector ship or base, well, you're pretty sure nothing worthwhile was accomplished by capturing or destroying the collector base and destroying the collector ship, even though they're the only ones we've seen.



Now, please go about explaining away this mysterious double-standard, Moiaussi, in a way that doesn't come out to you just believing whatever supports your argument of the moment.

Not just filling the ship, but housing people in what would normally be secure areas. Zaheed is in a security station! There is a lounge on board ship that appearantly is not worth visiting unless Kasumi is sleeping there? Yet the bathrooms are free to visit? lol.

He's in a security station? The impression I got was that he was in a cargo bay, as clearly indicated by the, y'know, letters stenciled over the door, as well as EDI telling us it was off-limits until the crew member was found for it, but Zaeed being the paranoid militant that he is...set up monitors himself. Seriously, unless you think the security station on the Normandy was right next to the trash compactor.

Actually given that it was well known (by the Council and the Alliance) that the Normandy's stealth systems were ineffectual, there is a much better arguement for sending something unmanned through followed shortly by a fleet once it is confirmed the Collectors were on the other side.

What? What on Earth good would it do to send something unmanned through? Nothing comes back. Before you get the IFF, you cannot send anything safely through the Omega 4 relay. Period. As for other ships...are they known to have other cruisers? You don't know. I don't know.

Pardon, but I am certain you are the one who mentioned Picard first. I was saying 'more diplomacy.' Star Trek (even DS9 or Enterprise where they were actually at war) were mostly drama rather than action. Some of the Star Trek movies had larger action elements, but strangely that was more the Next Gen movies than TOS. It is also worth noting that the Normandy (SR-1 or 2) doesn't have any formal first officer. Joker seems to serve that role, but is a helmsman. In the final scene he even forgets he is that, and bone issues or no inexplicably leaves the helm to give Seth Green an extra scene, er, to provide covering fire.

You're certain, are you? As certain as you were about the shields, or about needing a ship in the region to jam the Turian transmission? I wasn't the one who mentioned Picard first. Someone said 'more Picard', and I responded. I didn't say you mentioned it first, though.

[Iakus]

Turin_4 wrote...

People keep saying that as though it were a given.

Don't make me copy/paste my posts on how death was cheapened in ME 2

It wasn't?  The Normandy doesn't actually have to do much of anything to be stealthy in ME1 or 2.  And, again, trade-offs as I mentioned above in my post to MoiAussi.

So why wasn't having a stealth ship more of a factor in ME 1 or ME 2?  The Normandy can dock pretty much anywehre unchallenged.

Overall a minor point that I could live with, regardless.  Doesn't hold a candle to the Lazarus Project, Collectors,, etc.

I agree, and I think we got one.  I think we got one evidenced mostly because we're still discussing its story nearly a year after its release, on this little pocket of the Internet.  And everywhere else you go, mostly, where people are discussing its story, they're discussing it favorably...and before the snobbish elitism (this isn't directed at you personally, iakus, because you're being a level-headed, cool kinda guy about this thread's content) gets really out of hand, just remember, sure, there are plenty of 'toilet stains' who like the game, but there are plenty of arty types who like sophisticated media and **** as well who really enjoyed it too.

We did get one.  It was Mass Effect 1. 

I'm here discussing it because I found the story of ME 2 to be disjointed, anemic, and lacking in continuity.  The first was an epic space opera.  The second was a comic book to my mind.  Overall, a very poor sequel to a game that had serious potential. 

While I can see how people can praise the combat aspects of the game, or the improved graphics, or even the game concept, I honestly can't see how anyone could praise the storyline. It feels more like an expansion pack than a sequel.  My fondest wish (at the moment) is to be able to ask a developer why.  Why make a character centered game without having the squad interact?  Why create the Collectrors, only to ignore them and let them die ignomiously?  Why ignore the Reapers for virtually the entire game?  Why the brain-damaged Council?  Why half-naked squadmates?

I'd be much more polite about it, of course

Anyway, my 'this is getting ridiculous' remark was mainly leveled about the 'More Picard!' criticism.  You guys realize Picard basically sat in an easy chair and talked to a screen, right?

I seem to recall Picard has more than his share of adventures too  but I think the criticism is aimed at the game being too "Matrix" and is losing its more thoughtful edge in favor of adrenaline.

But maybe it should be "less Wachowski and more Straczynski"  There's more similarities to Babylon 5 anyway (in the first one, at least) 

Modifié par iakus, 04 octobre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Turin_4]

Don't make me copy/paste my posts on how death was cheapened in ME 2 http://social.biowar...cons/tongue.png

*shrug* This is a bit different from what you said. I thought you were quibbling with the opening scene or something. But, honestly, at this point, blah blah, death was cheap, that made the game suck, etc., it's an old argument at this point.

So why wasn't having a stealth ship more of a factor in ME 1 or ME 2? The Normandy can dock pretty much anywehre unchallenged.

Think of the places you dock in ME2 and consider exactly who would challenge you for doing so...and exactly who does challenge you for doing so when you do it. As for having a stealth ship being a factor, to my mind it was a factor. But what, how would it go about being a factor? "OMG they almost but not quite saw us again!"

We did get one. It was Mass Effect 1.

Ohh, zing! Well, no, not really, man. Most of the same people - except for tiny pockets of Internet Critics - who thought the same things you think about ME1 think much the same thing about ME2, but for some strange reason stroll onto threads like these and what's the reason for that difference of opinion? Can't be opinions are subjective, instead it's some sort of degradation of American culture and media, and people are idiots, and people don't recognize good writing, and on and on and on.



Why the brain-damaged Council? Honestly, they were stupid as hell for all of ME1 too, remember? They couldn't make up their own minds about anything, going from trusting their own judgments to trusting Shepard's to not trusting Shepard's to back again on the drop of a hat or a penny or whatever object was convenient. Ignoring the Reapers? There was exactly one in the galaxy, and Shepard killed it, remember? Etc. etc. etc.

I seem to recall Picard has more than his share of adventures too http://social.biowar...ticons/grin.png but I think the criticism is aimed at the game being too "Matrix" and is losing its more thoughtful edge in favor of adrenaline.

Huh, not to read this thread.

But maybe it should be "less Wachowski and more Straczynski" There's more similarities to Babylon 5 anyway (in the first one, at least)

Really? You and I both know that if we went over ME1 with as much of a fine-tooth comb as ME2 is getting here, it could be torn apart quite nicely with the kind of Internet Critic mindset that it's getting here.

[Vendetta11]

Late to the party.......

I am sure what I am about to post has already been said/talked about, but I want to say it anyway-

Mass Effect 2 is one of the greatest games I have ever played. I have pumped in damn near 400 hours into it since I bought it back in Jan. BUT, there were some things I did not care for-

1. I felt like some of the RPG elements were dumbed down. I would have loved to have seen more options in terms of costumes/armor for the team.
2. Weapons..... want more. Yes I said it, I want more. I am a big believer in the assault rifle and since I missed out on the "Collector" armor/rifle, I have three choices (minus the Reverant if I run with a class other than the Soldier).... THREE! Goodness, I want more assault rifles....
3. More weapon customization options would also be nice. 
4. The level up system in ME2 was also dumbed down IMO. I just felt that it needed.... something more than what we got.

There are other small things that I could list, but the above items stuck out for me.

Now, don't get me wrong, none of these things took anything away from the fun to be had for me, since I have a blast playing this game over and over again.

[Iakus]

[quote]Turin_4 wrote...

*shrug* This is a bit different from what you said. I thought you were quibbling with the opening scene or something. But, honestly, at this point, blah blah, death was cheap, that made the game suck, etc., it's an old argument at this point.[/quote]

Nope, not just the opening scene.  The whole concept.  bringing people back from the dead, barring truly extraordinary-to-the-point-of unique circumstances, is a BAD idea.  If it's to be done, it should be an entire story unto itself with big repercussions.  But best to leave well enough alone.


[quote]
Ohh, zing! Well, no, not really, man. Most of the same people - except for tiny pockets of Internet Critics - who thought the same things you think about ME1 think much the same thing about ME2, but for some strange reason stroll onto threads like these and what's the reason for that difference of opinion? Can't be opinions are subjective, instead it's some sort of degradation of American culture and media, and people are idiots, and people don't recognize good writing, and on and on and on.[/quote]

Well I don't think people who like ME 2's story are idiots.  I just can't understand why they think the story was great.  I want to,  I want to be one of those happy people.  But I've examined the games, played them both multiple times.  But while I can see myself playing ME 1 over and over, ME 2 holds little appeal to me.  It didn't feel like a sequel, and in the end I have no idea where the story is going.  Being the middle game in a trilogy, I find that to be quite distressing.

ME 1-epic
ME2- insular

[quote]
Why the brain-damaged Council? Honestly, they were stupid as hell for all of ME1 too, remember? They couldn't make up their own minds about anything, going from trusting their own judgments to trusting Shepard's to not trusting Shepard's to back again on the drop of a hat or a penny or whatever object was convenient. Ignoring the Reapers? There was exactly one in the galaxy, and Shepard killed it, remember? Etc. etc. etc.[/quote]

In ME 1 they were apathetic and arrogant.  The epitome of bureaucracy.  They were slow to realize the threat, but acknowledged things once proof was uncovered.  In the end, if you saved the Council, they acknowledge Sovereign and the Reaper threat.  Then in ME 2, we get "Ah, yes "Reapers'" like nothig happened.

If they had acknowledged that Sovereign was a Reaper, the only Reaper in the galaxy, and that with him dead the dark space relay would remain closed forever, that would be fine.  Better than fine, that's exactly the kind of logic I'd expect from them.  But no, they deny Reapers ever existed.  That's what I mean by brain damaged Council.


[quote]
But maybe it should be "less Wachowski and more Straczynski" There's more similarities to Babylon 5 anyway (in the first one, at least) [/quote]

Really? You and I both know that if we went over ME1 with as much of a fine-tooth comb as ME2 is getting here, it could be torn apart quite nicely with the kind of Internet Critic mindset that it's getting here.[/quote]

Perhaps. I wasn't on the boards when Mass Effect 1  came out so I can't speak for how much the story might or might not have been torn apart.  I can say with certainty, however, that I personally had exactly two complaints about ME 1.  Okay two complaints and a quibble.

1) Game felt kinda short
2) Didn't like the limited activation DRM
quibble:  Ugly armor

And I hold to it, ME 1 had a more" Babylon 5" feel to it, while Mass Effect 2 felt more like "The Matrix Reloaded"

Modifié par iakus, 04 octobre 2010 - 10:27 .

[Moiaussi]

Turin_4 wrote...

I just mentioned a few things a cruiser could not handle by itself. Cruisers, especially cruisers that are unstealthed, are huge, unwieldy, and attract lots of attention from small groups that can band together and destroy it. It's easily tracked, easily followed, and everyone knows it's coming as soon as it's in the neighborhood.

Pardon? You cannot be targetted or tracked in FTL. Likewise Mass Relays don't give forwarding addresses (well they might to the Citadel, but if the Council could shut down or regulate all Terminus mass relays they wouldn't be afraid of war there. In fact, if they could shut down selective relays, they could have shut the Rachni out of Council Space and isolated the Krogan. The Normandy also announces its prescence whenever it comes out of or goes into FTL too. Check out the codex sometime.

And why would a cruiser attract any more attention than any other pirate warship out there? The Terminus systems have not been unified since the blitz. Again, check out the codex.

It would not have to fly any actual flag, and unlike freighters, would be a hard target.

At which point Shepard and Co. gain...what, exactly, if they're forced to flee? The Collectors can continue on abducting colonies building their Reaper while Shepard plays tag with her big old cruiser that everyone can see coming a mile away because the armchair quarterback society thought another Normandy would be unnecessary, despite how incredibly and repeatedly useful the Normandy in ME1 proved to be. Hell, there was even a specific assignment in the sainted ME1 where that was demonstrated to an Alliance admiral!

Going back to what I said above, you only need to fight where you need to fight and you cannot be tracked strategicly. The best any enemy fleet could do is guess where you will go next and wait there and hope to catch you off guard. You seem to be treating the pirates as some sort of omniscient omnipotent force. I repeats, we never even see any pirate ships in ME2, let alone them see us.

Depending on when you're there, let's see. There's a huge station-threatening plague, a huge multi-merc-group operation going on, etc. etc. etc. As for not shooting at Shepard, are you forgetting the enormous bounty the Collectors - in addition to whatever other groups - have on Shepard? You're telling me no other pirate, mercenary, or even nation-state organizations would want to take a shot at Shepard if they knew she was in the region? C'mon, Moiaussi, is that an argument you're seriously going to make?

Maybe the reason nobody takes a shot at Shepard is because by the time they know she's there, it's because she's there with her very heavily armed squad of killers right nearby you with shields up and armor ready, just as a for-example. And her ship, while docked, is only microseconds away from being ready for combat thanks to its AI on EW.

In which case, why would a much more heavily armed heavy cruiser, with a much larger marine contingent be less of a deterrant? Why would any of those organizations take a shot at shepard? People who arbitrarily shoot at anyone tough tend to get shot.

And 'seriously', it is your point. My defence is that there are no such assassination attempts in situations where they 'know Shepard is there.' There aren't even any in LotSB other than the other spectre, despite the SB having good reason to send people to do so.

Why do you think that is?

Because there is no profit in chasing a target that has the experience to run when needed and the strength to stand and fight when needed.

It's fascinating how on the one hand, when you can't see something, it clearly isn't there, as is the case with pirates and mercs. We don't see their capital ships, so they're not there-despite repeated references to them in ME1 and Codex lore. But with the Collectors, despite never seeing another Collector ship or base, well, you're pretty sure nothing worthwhile was accomplished by capturing or destroying the collector base and destroying the collector ship, even though they're the only ones we've seen.

Now, please go about explaining away this mysterious double-standard, Moiaussi, in a way that doesn't come out to you just believing whatever supports your argument of the moment.

I didn't say the mercs and pirates had no ships. I merely said that the ships were not at anywhere Shepard visits. Some are undoubtedly docked at Illium, and some are undoubtedly docked at Omega. Most are likely either out pirating or at headquarters.

What I was trying to say was that travel is not instantaneous and it takes time for ships to respond. It is also not a given that the pirates or mercs have captial ships. Besides whatever they lost in the blitz, you were the one complaining about the supply costs. You don't need capital ships to take on freighters. Even the blitz was meant as a punitive raid on a world they expected to be relatively undefended.

If they did have capital ships, why haven't they gone after the Collectors? The collector cruiser is just that, a cruiser, and since you seem convinced that any solitary cruiser would be considered easy prey for pirates, what is your explaination that the Terminus systems just allowed colonies to disappear?

He's in a security station? The impression I got was that he was in a cargo bay, as clearly indicated by the, y'know, letters stenciled over the door, as well as EDI telling us it was off-limits until the crew member was found for it, but Zaeed being the paranoid militant that he is...set up monitors himself. Seriously, unless you think the security station on the Normandy was right next to the trash compactor.

Even Miranda's room doesn't have such a monitor. Shepard's room doesn't have such a monitor. You are saying that this merc just hacked the Normandy's surveillance systems with noone caring? Not EDI, not TIM, not Shepard... noone? The fact that the room does other duty is likewise strange.
 

What? What on Earth good would it do to send something unmanned through? Nothing comes back. Before you get the IFF, you cannot send anything safely through the Omega 4 relay. Period. As for other ships...are they known to have other cruisers? You don't know. I don't know.

Use some brain cells. I meant After obtaining an IFF. Needing to know the protocols to use it safely should not have required a trip to the Collector vessel to figure out. Not knowing is the point. If the collectors had a fleet there, the Normandy would simply have been destroyed and the Collecters would not have been stopped at all.

You're certain, are you? As certain as you were about the shields, or about needing a ship in the region to jam the Turian transmission? I wasn't the one who mentioned Picard first. Someone said 'more Picard', and I responded. I didn't say you mentioned it first, though.

And your response to that person was to say this was a shooter. My response to that was to say that it could have more diplomacy and still be a shooter, pointing out that ME1's story had a lot more depth to it. Not sure why you took offence to that.

By the way, you still haven't explained how you figure that TIM can remotely compromise every com bouy in known space, or just happened to know in advance to compromise that one. Jamming signals like that isn't as easy as just saying so, especially when you are replacing them with false signals too. I have taken my mia culpa over the shield issue, but that that does not make it relevant here. You were wrong about the pirates uniting (skylian blitz), which is much more core ME lore, so quit pulling this 'you were wrong about something so you are wrong about everything' garbage.

[Moiaussi]

iakus wrote...

Perhaps. I wasn't on the boards when Mass Effect 1  came out so I can't speak for how much the story might or might not have been torn apart.  I can say with certainty, however, that I personally had exactly two complaints about ME 1.  Okay two complaints and a quibble.

1) Game felt kinda short
2) Didn't like the limited activation DRM
quibble:  Ugly armor

And I hold to it, ME 1 had a more" Babylon 5" feel to it, while Mass Effect 2 felt more like "The Matrix Reloaded"

I was there for the ME1 boards. The complaints were mostly about the simpler easier combat. I don't recall anything but praise for the storyline. And debate. LOTS of debate. Over which decisions were the best, over what ME2 would be like. Heh, I was one of the few who predicted the possibilty of another Geth faction

The majority of posts were indirect praise, by way of the plot being worth serious discussion.

[eldav]

I have learnd to love ME2 for its action amped gameplay, but only after installing a trainer.

It made a huge different on game pacing, no more dull planet scaning and no more money vault cracking.

Also ME2 does have more deeper characters.



And on a side note.......lesson learned, thank you.

[Moiaussi]

Not been brought up in a while, but why is the Normandy strip mining the Terminus Systems? Why is noone else strip mining the terminus systems? It is not like the region is uninhabited...



And for that matter how is the Normandy strip mining the Terminus systems? Is the extra space from the doubled size taken up by insanely efficient mining equipment?

[Zhijn]

Right here we go!.

- I didnt like how the main story was told in ME2, not one bit.
It was boring, short, non engaging and just lacking in every department. And to top it i got to fight a giant terminator.

Not once did i ever get the feeling i was on a suicide mission.
Which didnt make much sens considering Shepard loved to throw that in your face to whoever he was recruiting!.

- Main villian were suppose to be the collectors & reapers yet it felt like i was taking on every crime boss in the known galaxy, the mercs with a seemingly unlimited number of troops!. That part got boring real fast.

-  ME2 Side-missions compared to ME1, pretty enviroment but nothing else stands out that i can recall. Just felt like alot of random combat with more mercs. I liked the ship wreck mission tho, for some odd reason!.

- I enjoyed the character development  of the crew, well some of em anyway. & i enjoyed the recruiting of
the crew.

- Quite liked the new combat compared to ME1.
Didnt miss the inventory nor the marko, altho i did miss having more armor options.
--

Ofc you may think i didnt like ME2 at all, which would be false! 
I actually quite enjoyed it, and i imported quite a few characters which iv finished.

Imo there just wasnt enough focus on the main story to keep it interesting when you actually went on a story mission. I just went "oh ok" when Shepard found out who the collectors really were. Something like that should had made me go "omg!".

In short tho to late. I think ME2 could have been so much more. Having this "reboot" to attract new players didnt help either to move it forward, wasnt necessary if you ask me!.

Modifié par Zhijn, 05 octobre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Ghostano]

Moiaussi wrote...

iakus wrote...

Perhaps. I wasn't on the boards when Mass Effect 1  came out so I can't speak for how much the story might or might not have been torn apart.  I can say with certainty, however, that I personally had exactly two complaints about ME 1.  Okay two complaints and a quibble.

1) Game felt kinda short
2) Didn't like the limited activation DRM
quibble:  Ugly armor

And I hold to it, ME 1 had a more" Babylon 5" feel to it, while Mass Effect 2 felt more like "The Matrix Reloaded"

I was there for the ME1 boards. The complaints were mostly about the simpler easier combat. I don't recall anything but praise for the storyline. And debate. LOTS of debate. Over which decisions were the best, over what ME2 would be like. Heh, I was one of the few who predicted the possibilty of another Geth faction

The majority of posts were indirect praise, by way of the plot being worth serious discussion.

 From what I remeber most people wondered how the story would move forward in the second one. I remeber people complaining abuot the invortory,the mako and combat. I did stop reading not because alot of people complaining was more I was excited about the second one comeing. The more I would read what if and such I would get more excited so was best for me to step back to help time move by faster

 I have been playing Mass Effect again as of late and the story feels like it is about Shapard. I still get chills and goose bumps at some points. The closest I get to that feeling in Mass Effect 2 is with the new DLC LoTSB. Even if they fix the story problem in the third and final one(betting shapard dies for good or there LI ) I personally will still ahve the problam of ahveing to play the second one. 

 Changing the combat to much in a trilogy is not really a good idea the way I see it. There is proof how it can damage a online game with 3 different combat versions in a game. Afterall it is part of the reason they are makeing a SW MMO. Pre-CU,Combat Upgrade and my favorite the awsome NGE.

 Oh well it is how I see it and I know it does not matter. I do enjoy this thread even the people I disagree with I can see there point of view. Off to drive the make off a cliff to see how many times it bounces