1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Turin_4]

Moiaussi,

[quote]

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.[/quote]

Yes, I'm aware of all of that.  You keep saying, "Check out the Codex," and it keeps on being funny, because each and every time you and I have gone head to head over something in the codex - shields, communications, frigates - well, you've been wrong.  Now I'm not sayiong that makes me an expert or anything, but it would certainly indicate that you're not in any position to lord anything over me, moiaussi.

Anyway, my point was that a cruiser can be done all of those things outside of FTL.  Tracked, targeted, etc.  Say it with me now: it's easier to know where a cruiser is than it is to know where a single stealthed frigate is.  Can you really not agree on that?

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Criminals don't, y'know, band together for common interest when there is a gigantic enormous price tag attached?  Or even more likely, in a Paragon case, when one of the biggest criminal/pirate killers ever - Shepard - strolls into the neighborhood?  By all means, I've checked my Codex, if you're a War Hero or Butcher, the kinds of people we're talking about would have lots of motive to team up if you're in an easily seen cruiser and take you down.

And they could do it if they could find you.  And you would admit it, too, if your arguments weren't so consistently shifting.

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

Yes, because after all, flying flags is how warships are identified.  That's not even how they do it now, in the surface of ocean navies, Moiaussi.  Or would you like to lecture me some more?

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Oh, OK, so now the plan is to be so incredibly overwhelming that you're overkill for every group out there that could conceivably band together and take you on, anywhere?  How plans change.  Setting aside the fact that, hey, Blue Suns and Eclipse certainly feel, in ME2, like organizations that would have the resources to commit to being able to take down a cruiser if they could find it in a pretty straightforward way...your plan has changed.  Again.

Pretty much in the fashion of the greatest armchair quarterbacks as usual.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

It's not about deterrence, it's about they're on the clock, remember?  Tens of thousands of human colonists being abducted with alarming frequency, connection to the Reapers with a completely unknown agenda?  Deterrence against unpredictable pirates whose local resources you can't possibly predict that far in advance?  Or simply not being seen?  Why would any of those organizations take a shot at Shepard?  is that a serious question?  Money, power, hatred, take your pick.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

...really?  I seem to remember the Shadow Broker working hard to sell your corpse to the Collectors.  Umm, like, Moiaussi, check the Codex or something.  Geeze!

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Yeah, that's how bounty hunters work.  They just say, "Well, the money's good, but hey, she's just too good, and we're not tough enough, even with all our buddies."  Despite the fact that even with the Alliance's resources at Shepard's back in the sainted ME1, there was at least one mission in ME1 where exactly this happened, you're exactly right.

You're totally winging even your armchair quarterbacking plan here, Moiaussi, are you even aware of it?

[quote]
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.[/quote]

You didn't have to say they had no ships, you said 'we never see them' and 'it's interesting'.  The inferrence was pretty dang clear, but by all means, backpedal.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

What have the pirates been doing in the two years in the great military weakening after the Citadel attack, to say nothing of the many years since the Blitz?  Nothing?  You're seriously suggesting no criminal organization has capital ships?  And, of course, criminals aren't the only group that is out there to worry about, Moiaussi!  Hey...how about those Geth who aren't completely wiped out, just as a for-instance?  And then the Collectors, of course.

But then, in your rock-solid plan of magic and mystery, one Cerberus cruiser would of course be able to easily overpower or run away from any number of any number of enemy capital ships, unscathed, and everything would be just fine, right?

[quote]
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?[/quote]

Go after the Collectors how?  Through the relay no one can travel through?  Great plan!  As good as your other one!

[quote]
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.[/quote]

I was just playing the game.  It's not a security room.  He's got a chair, and a little monitor, and that's it.  My personal impression is that it's a little affectation of Zaeed's.  Anything else you're reading into it is as absurd as your tIM is insane nonsense.  The fact that he's not hiding it makes it relatively harmless, in fact.  Do you think he got that past EDI at all?  C'mon.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Use some brain cells?  How do you send something unmanned through and get it back without the protocols?  Which you need to go to a dead Reaper to get?  Send as many drones through as you want, it'll do you no good, Moiaussi.  But then, this is right up there with your plan of, "They won't know it's Shepard's cruiser, it's not like she'll be flying a flag or anything," so hey.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

No, that wasn't my response.  Close, but not quite.  You could get some traction in fairly criticizing me, because I was wrong in what I said, but I'm not surprised you can't even get this right.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

First of all, it's not a matter of 'jamming'.  Second, I didn't say he compromised every com system in known space, though it's good you're comfortable with that aspect of ME lore now, because you weren't before.  I wasn't wrong about the pirates uniting, so nice try.  I've pointed out that for reasons of hatred and money and power they might team up to take on Shepard, and those are very, very valid, so again nice try.

As for how tIM might be in a position to have his fingers in communications?   Think about it.  Turian military communications.  Remember human history with the Turian military.  Think about tIM and Cerberus.  Who do you imagine would be among the first people's mail tIM would want to be reading without them knowing about it?  Not only is it not implausible, it's actually likely that he would attempt to be in a position to bug their communications, Moiaussi.

And now I'm done talking about this with you again, unless you'll do a real mea culpa, which incidentally doesn't usually just mean, "Whoops, my bad," but generally involves a transition from the method of doing things that led to the fault in the first place-in this case, not knowing what you don't know.  Specifically, here would be refusing to acknowledge the many serious flaws with the cruiser idea, still clinging to the 'there's a problem with the bugging the Turian's comms' idea, and on and on.

[Pauravi]

I had no disappointment.

ME2 was one of the best games I've ever played. Any complaints I have are really pretty minor compared to the incredible accomplishment that this game represents. It had everything that I truly love about RPGs combined with everything that I truly love about action games. Even in terms of story I loved it. I agree that it did not have the sort of epic plot that ME1 did, and ME1 will always have a place as one of the greatest RPGs. But ME2s plot was wrapped up in the characters, most of whom I love, so I am totally okay with that. I found their individual stories compelling, and my attachment to them made me want to help them and fight alongside them. If story is the motivation for the action then, IMO, this game had plenty of it.

Other than the character-based plot, most of the complaints I see seem to revolve around complaining about some easily explained plot hole, wanting the combat to be like ME1 (I thought that the ME2 combat was a MASSIVE improvement over ME1) or some nonsense about it not being an RPG anymore because it was lacking some stale, old, unrealistic, tedious JRPG mechanic like being able to carry around an inventory of 47 assault rifles and 25 suits of combat armor everywhere so you could sell them to the nearest vendor who would inexplicably be happy to give you thousands of rather meaningless credits for them. Frankly, even as an RPG enthusiast, I'm glad that stuff is gone. It just doesn't fit with the feel of ME.

[Iakus]

Ghostano wrote...

 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 can understand complainsts about inventory and the Mako.  Both could have used tweaking.  Mako turned out to be a case of "be careful what you wish for" 

I'll bet the direction the story would move fooled everyone.  Nowhere! 

Boy I'm gonna catch it for saying that aren't I?

 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 haveing to play the second one. 

This.  ME 2 will always be with us now.

I'm don't really speculate on what willl happen in ME3.  I have absolutely no idea what they're gonna do with the story now.  But if Shepard dies, all they'll really need is a few thousand gold pieces worth of diamonds and a cleric a few billion credits and some high tech gizmos and all is well again!

 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.

In some ways combat is better, in some ways it's worse.  If they hadn't done horrible things to the story, I could live with the changes

[Turin_4]

In what sense does ME1 feel like it's about Shepard? That can be said of very early ME1, particularly when you become a Spectre...but that's about it, really, after that it's a shooter-RPG, very much like ME2. Shepard doesn't grow as a character, much, really.

But if Shepard dies, all they'll really need is a few thousand gold pieces worth of diamonds and a cleric a few billion credits and some high tech gizmos and all is well again!

Outrage! This is after all not a convention in fantasy and sci-fi stories all over the place or anything, yeah, total bull****!

In some ways combat is better, in some ways it's worse.  If they
hadn't done horrible things to the story, I could live with the changes

Puh-leaze.  The Internet Critic strikes again.  Bad enough this nonsense 'the story is crap' this thread is rife with, but now 'in some ways combat is better in some ways it's worse'?  Bah.  Humbug.  People on Internet forums always know how to do things better.

Modifié par Turin_4, 05 octobre 2010 - 03:32 .

[smudboy]

Turin_4 wrote...

In what sense does ME1 feel like it's about Shepard? That can be said of very early ME1, particularly when you become a Spectre...but that's about it, really, after that it's a shooter-RPG, very much like ME2. Shepard doesn't grow as a character, much, really.

Right after the Beacon.  Only Shepard knows what's going on, and is the only one that can stop it.

Puh-leaze.  The Internet Critic strikes again.  Bad enough this nonsense 'the story is crap' this thread is rife with, but now 'in some ways combat is better in some ways it's worse'?  Bah.  Humbug.  People on Internet forums always know how to do things better.

1. The story is obviously worse.
2. In some ways the combat is better (better weapons, simplified.)
3. In some ways the combat is worse (no weapon mods, lack of biotics, silly weapon "powers", global cooldowns, constant cover.)
4. The plot is crap.
5. No, really!

[Yeti13]

Was I disappointed with Mass Effect 2? No, in fact my favorite game since: Rome Total War, if I was disappointed by it I would not be on BW's forums talking about it months after it came out. ME1 was a highly graded game despite some technical flaws, even earning a coveted 10 from Xbox Mag or Xbox world (cant remember which). ME2 has been received even higher. Critics love the hell out of it. I love the hell out of it. Are there some things that I wish were different, of course but I also know the world doesn't revolve around what I want. I know that BW has a crack team that is devoted to it's fans and also knows that it has to appeal to a large audience in order to bring in the essential cash flow required to stay in business. I'm sure they would love to cater to every fans dreams but it's just not possible. They have to make as many fans as happy as possible and encourage new players to purchase their product. I believe they do this to the best of their abilities and I respect that about them. They took their time on it and cleaned up the tech problems. The 20 or so perfect scores are deserved and I wish BW many happy years to come!

[Moiaussi]

Turin,

Look, there is no much point in continuing this discussion if you are just going to troll by claiming you know better than I anything I say, that any clairification I attempt is some sort of backpedal, that only you know the codex (regardless of how many times you are wrong), and rationalize everything in sight.

That said, I don't think you really understand how big space is. It looks small on the galactic map, and travel times seem short because players are not going to spend days or months playing the trips between star systems.

Stopping the collectors did not require getting to the base. That merely made it more efficient. Blowing up collector ships whereever they were found could stop them too, and all these pirates you seem to think would gang up on Shepard (despite no evidence of them even considering doing so and no evidence of any bounty on his head, despite your assuming so) would care about whole colonies vanishing in their space to do something about it. If they had enough to take out a heavy crusier as easily as you claim, they certainly would have enough to take out a collector cruiser.

By the way, if there was a price on Shepard's head, hunters wouldn't have to find him. They would trick Shepard into coming to them. War Hero shepard only survives such a trap in ME1 because the idiot who sets the trap doesn't simply immediatly set off the nuke instead of taking the time to gloat that he is about to kill Shep. The writers could kill Shep off at any time in a thousand believable ways. The Normandy' stealth is no protection against an actual intelligent assassin.

And he was mostly fighting Geth and corporate greed in ME1. The latter might have resulted in an assassination attempt in theory, but no clue where you figure all this pirate killing happened.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:16 .

[Frybread76]

I just hope they bring back an inventory and more talents/powers for each character.

[Iakus]

[quote]Turin_4 wrote...


Outrage! This is after all not a convention in fantasy and sci-fi stories all over the place or anything, yeah, total bull****! [/quote]

In science fiction there is generally a science fictiony explanation for what brings the person back.  Cloning.  Nanotech reconstruction of cells.  Cellular regeneration therapies.  Even some weird alien Prothean-or-maybe-Reaper tech Cerberus doesn't understand, but it sure worked!  Not just a really expensive Phased Linear Ocillating Transducer device.  Okay maybe it is but they at least try to dress it up in something that at least sounds possible, if not plausible.

The Lazarus Project did not explain what method(s)  were used to revive Shepard's corpse, let alone how they were able to bring Shepard's mind with intact memories and personality.  Only explanation I can think of: is "cleric with diamonds"  It certainly explains the casual attitude everyone, inclluding Shep, had towards ressurection.

At least I didn't say "a wizard did it"

[quote]
Puh-leaze.  The Internet Critic strikes again.  Bad enough this nonsense 'the story is crap' this thread is rife with, but now 'in some ways combat is better in some ways it's worse'?  Bah.  Humbug.  People on Internet forums always know how to do things better.
[/quote]

Is "Internet Critic" my new title?  I liked some aspects of the combat and disliked others.  Just like every other game I've ever played.   I liked the modular armor concept, disliked the inability to mod weapons.  I liked being able to shoot parts of the body, disliked most biotic and tech powers being useless while armor and shields are up.  Thermal clips I'm ambivalent about.  ME 2 clearly went all out on gameplay and graphics.  I just wish they'd paid as much attention to the story.[/quote]

Modifié par iakus, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Pauravi]

Frybread76 wrote...

I just hope they bring back an inventory and more talents/powers for each character.

I really hope they DON'T bring back the inventory.  I thought it was tedious, and doesn't make any sense at all.  No soldier could or would carry around 23 suits of combat armor, 17 shotguns, and 35 assault rifles just so that they can try and hock them at some random swap meet.  What good is money anyway?  You find so many guns laying around that you'd never buy one, and the Spectre weapons make them all obsolete anyway.  Besides, a soldier takes what he needs and no more.  Upgrading stuff is fine and dandy, but there are no Bags of Holding in ME.  Huge inventories make no sense and don't add anything to the experience unless you like packratting, and I don't find sifting through hundreds of items to be that compelling a gameplay mechanic.

As far as powers, I'd like more powers too, but actually characters get about the same number of actual powers as they had in ME1.  Take Vanguard, for instance.

In ME1 they had Barrier, Lift, Throw, and Warp, for a total of four.
In ME2 they have Pull (Lift), Shockwave, and Charge, and Barrier is learnable from Jacob (or one of the other several powers).  Four, again, and certainly stronger powers that emphasize the Vanguard's close combat style.

In ME1, Adepts had Lift, Singularity, Throw, Warp, Barrier, and Stasis, for 6 total.
In ME2, Adepts have Pull, Singularity, Throw, Warp, and Shockwave, and Barrier, Stasis (with LotSB), Reave, Dominate, or Slam are learnable.  5 total.

So, pretty close as far as the number of powers go, except that you have far more choice with that last power.  The only thing missing are powers which have already been brought back or incorporated in other ways (Unity, Charm / Intimidate, AI Hacking, Overload), some of which were lame passives that didn't add much (Tactical Armor, Assault Training), and some of which wouldn't make any sense to bring back anyway (Weapon skills?  Who ever heard of a Spectre who can't shoot straight?  Preposterous!).

The only thing they really changed with the powers was the point system, and even that isn't THAT much different.  In ME1 each skill had "tiers" where you got something meaningful with "X" number of points, and in between you just got some lame +2% damage that made basically zero difference.  All they did was make you buy skills in whole tiers.  This actually makes things somewhat more strategic -- are you willing to waste a point or two to get another big Improved Power?  Or do you want to make maximum use of your points?

I think the character improvement system is just fine and makes sense in the context of Shepard already being a veteran soldier and Spectre.

Modifié par Pauravi, 05 octobre 2010 - 06:28 .

[Keithhy]

I miss customization, but Mass Effect 1 had too much. If ME3 can find a sort of middle ground, allowing for some more customization, while remaining smooth and streamlined, that would be perfect.

As for the inventory - good riddance! It would be nice to get a few more options weapon and armor-wise though.

On the other hand, I miss the shops. Credits seems almost pointless in this game, with something like 30 things for sale in the entire game.

One more thing that a few people seem to have picked up on; the first game had a certain aura to it - a quality of wonder and beauty, that the sequel seemed to miss entirely. However, after playing through the Kasumi and Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC, I can happily say that ME3 may yet outstrip its predecessors.

[nokori3byo]

To me, ME2 is not only GOTY, but the game of a whole generation. This is because:

--It's a satisfying iteration on the compelling mythology introduced in the first game.

--Improvements to combat have made it a stop and pop shooter fully on par with Gears of war.

--Music and visuals are a huge improvement over the original.

--Legion, one of the most intriguing game characters I've met (second only to Wrex and select HL2 characters).

--I didn't mind most of what was changed, and what I did initially mind I soon got used to.

--Variety.

--Consistency

--Polish

--re-playabilty.



My love is unconditional.

[eldav]

ok stop there...better music...no way dude, and thats a fact

We gotta remember that alldo ME1 and ME2 share the same universe, they are two different games and therefore can not be compared.

I think ME1 is technicaly a new high gameplay wise, you will not once see a loading screen.

ME2 is an exelent game in its own right, more so if you have a trainer.

[Nightwriter]

The reason I don't like the story is that it never gave the characters a chance to flourish.

Look, I totally get that ME2 is a character driven game. But handing us great characters without giving a central story for them to act in is like handing us a big check and not letting us cash it. In ME2 the characters felt like the ship models I bought and put on display in my quarters. I collected them, did one mission with them, and then they sat there. And sat there. And sat there.

Until the suicide mission.

I strongly believe that you need to have most of your characters onboard when the bulk of the story starts, or else your experience of the story will be splintered. ME2 fails with this. You go through most of the story with an incomplete crew. Not cool. Not cool.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I just recently found out that the lead ME1 writer (Drew Karpshyn) was completely replaced by Mac Walters for ME2. I'm guessing this is why the plot of the second game felt so disconnected from the first. Does anyone know if Drew Karpshyn will be re-hired for ME3 as lead writer or is bioware sticking with Mac Walters?

[tonnactus]

Pauravi wrote...

I think the character improvement system is just fine and makes sense in the context of Shepard already being a veteran soldier and Spectre.

Why shepardt has to learn throw again? Or how to put different ammo types in his weapon?(which is far more retarded then any weapon talent by the way)

And most biotic talents are now completly uneffective if enemies have shields/armor.Dumb.Only singularity and stasis disable enemies now,but have a far smaller range then in the first game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 05 octobre 2010 - 11:54 .

[Mox Ruuga]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I just recently found out that the lead ME1 writer (Drew Karpshyn) was completely replaced by Mac Walters for ME2. I'm guessing this is why the plot of the second game felt so disconnected from the first. Does anyone know if Drew Karpshyn will be re-hired for ME3 as lead writer or is bioware sticking with Mac Walters?

Most likely not, though Drew does still work for Bioware. Only in that Star Wars MMORPG thing, something I have no interest in personally.

[smudboy]

Nightwriter wrote...

The reason I don't like the story is that it never gave the characters a chance to flourish.

Look, I totally get that ME2 is a character driven game. But handing us great characters without giving a central story for them to act in is like handing us a big check and not letting us cash it. In ME2 the characters felt like the ship models I bought and put on display in my quarters. I collected them, did one mission with them, and then they sat there. And sat there. And sat there.

If it was a character driven narrative, then a character, or characters, would drive the narrative.  That is, it would be a story about a character(s) and what they want to do.

ME2 is a frame story, with various other stories in it.  That doesn't make it a character driven story, although we could argue that the characters in it push their loyalty missions along.

Until the suicide mission.

I strongly believe that you need to have most of your characters onboard when the bulk of the story starts, or else your experience of the story will be splintered. ME2 fails with this. You go through most of the story with an incomplete crew. Not cool. Not cool.

I don't think the incompleteness of the crew is the issue.  More like the lack of understanding of what the hell's going on, and why we're doing things that way, is the problem.

For example, TIM could be the master logician and have deduced before all the events of ME2 that there's a base of Collectors beyond the Omega-4 relay, and so long as the audience could clue in to that knowledge of his, would the random Pokémoning and Disabled Reaper ass pulling begin to make sense.

[Turin_4]

Right after the Beacon.  Only Shepard knows what's going on, and is the only one that can stop it.

But that's not about Shepard personally, that's not characterization or anything, that's just a plot hook.  It's a good one, don't get me wrong, but the kinds of criticism ME2 is getting for failing despite being 'character centric'?  In ME1, Shepard is despite speaking pretty silent character wise herself.  She doesn't grow, doesn't change, doesn't have many crises.

This is to be expected, of course, because she already starts out quite the badass hero/butcher/survivor, and it's necessary for the story.

1. The story is obviously worse.
2. In some ways the combat is better (better weapons, simplified.)
3. In some ways the combat is worse (no weapon mods, lack of biotics, silly weapon "powers", global cooldowns, constant cover.)
4. The plot is crap.
5. No, really!

1. It's always good to hear an 'intellectual' argue subjectives as though they were absolutes, proves their points every time.  The funny thing is, though, I agree, though not as much as you do.
3. In what way were weapon powers any 'sillier' than modded ammunition and weapons were in ME1?  If I'm not mistaken, you could even do it in combat, but I don't remember for certain, if so isn't that silly?  Global cooldowns make combat worse?  That's a a completely arbitrary complaint, and you know it.  There was constant cover in ME1 as well, so I don't see how it fits in an ME2 has worse combat than ME1 complaint list.
4. See above.
5. Really!

-----------------

Look, there is no much point in continuing this discussion if you
are just going to troll by claiming you know better than I anything I
say, that any clairification I attempt is some sort of backpedal, that
only you know the codex (regardless of how many times you are wrong), and rationalize everything in sight.

I didn't say I know better than anything you said.  I said I knew better than specific things you said, and provided examples and clear explanations of the things you said.  I didn't say only I know the codex, I said that between the two of us, one of us has been wrong more often when talking about the codex, and that's you (shields, frigate usage, communications), while the times you've accused me of being wrong you either leapt to conclusions or didn't read what I actually wrote.

...despite no evidence of them even considering doing so and no evidence of any bounty on his head, despite your assuming so...

Case in point, remember LotSB?  Remember how the Shadow Broker spent a great deal of time and money attempting to capture you in an effort to get an even greater reward?  A...bounty, may be the term we're looking for?  No evidence indeed.  Now, please, go about pretending this part of the exchange never happened, OK?

It's mistaken or deliberate misunderstandings like these that have led me to dropping this discussion with you again.  Maybe I'll take another crack at it again in the future, hopefully with not the same outcome.  Now please, go about declaring victory again.

------------------

Is "Internet Critic" my new title?  I liked some aspects of the
combat and disliked others.  Just like every other game I've ever
played.   I liked the modular armor concept, disliked the inability to
mod weapons.  I liked being able to shoot parts of the body, disliked
most biotic and tech powers being useless while armor and shields are
up.  Thermal clips I'm ambivalent about.  ME 2 clearly went all out on
gameplay and graphics.  I just wish they'd paid as much attention to the
story.

Sorry, that wasn't fair.  You were getting caught up again in the nonsense being spewed in the rest of this thread, I apologize.

-------------------

I really hope they DON'T bring back the inventory.  I thought it was
tedious, and doesn't make any sense at all.  No soldier could or would
carry around 23 suits of combat armor, 17 shotguns, and 35 assault
rifles just so that they can try and hock them at some random swap
meet.  What good is money anyway?  You find so many guns laying around
that you'd never buy one, and the Spectre weapons make them all obsolete
anyway.  Besides, a soldier takes what he needs and no more.  Upgrading
stuff is fine and dandy, but there are no Bags of Holding in ME.  Huge
inventories make no sense and don't add anything to the experience
unless you like packratting, and I don't find sifting through hundreds
of items to be that compelling a gameplay mechanic.

Very well put.  The inventory system as done in ME1 was frequently very tedious, put simply.  Why people are canoninizing it in religious terms now is simply beyond me, and makes me and hopefully Bioware if they're even paying attention to stuff such as this take this sort of criticism with a great big shaker's worth of salt.

So, pretty close as far as the number of powers go, except that you
have far more choice with that last power.  The only thing missing are
powers which have already been brought back or incorporated in other
ways (Unity, Charm / Intimidate, AI Hacking, Overload), some of which
were lame passives that didn't add much (Tactical Armor, Assault
Training), and some of which wouldn't make any sense to bring back
anyway (Weapon skills?  Who ever heard of a Spectre who can't shoot
straight?  Preposterous!).

Yup.  I remember being initially disappointed in the slim size of the character sheet in ME2, but then I realized just what was missing, and got over it pretty quick.  A lot of what was trimmed truly was either fat or appendix.

[Leon Zweihander]

I for one would like the inventory system to come back for ME3, and for the naysayers Bioware can easily tweak the system so the items are more manageable. There, problem solved and us rpg fans are happy.

[Turin_4]

I would be fine with an inventory system. I've been playing RPGs for twenty years now and loving them, but let's not say, "Make it more like ME1's inventory system!" *shudder*

[Slayer299]

@Turin_4 - Exactly when does the SB try capturing you in LotSB? On Nos Astra as you're killing his pet Spectre and 4 boatloads of his troops. The only time he comments on it is when you confront him in the end and then he'll talk about getting the bounty from the Collectors for you and whatever appropriate comment for your other teammate (getting Archangel, selling Legion, etc,) and getting money for them.

The inventory system in ME1 did need tweaking since the amount of items could grow too large, but now in ME2 we get nothing at all, that is not an improvement, that's a lazy way out.

Modifié par Slayer299, 05 octobre 2010 - 12:49 .

[smudboy]

Turin_4 wrote...

1. It's always good to hear an 'intellectual' argue subjectives as though they were absolutes, proves their points every time.  The funny thing is, though, I agree, though not as much as you do.

Hello, I'm smudboy.  I've made a large series of videos describing why the story blows holy goats.

3. In what way were weapon powers any 'sillier' than modded ammunition and weapons were in ME1?  If I'm not mistaken, you could even do it in combat, but I don't remember for certain, if so isn't that silly?  Global cooldowns make combat worse?  That's a a completely arbitrary complaint, and you know it.  There was constant cover in ME1 as well, so I don't see how it fits in an ME2 has worse combat than ME1 complaint list.

The idea of pressing a button on any gun and getting some kind of...coating?  Add-on?  Doesn't make sense.  It throws away weapon mods from the first game, which was not only a game play function, but a whole integral culture.  This isn't as bad as retconning the other guns features, but it's still bad.  There were illegal weapon mods in the Wards, special upgrades to find, which ends up in special ways to customize your guns.  Here we just simply get some rock-paper-scissors thing with any gun.  Heck, in ME2 there's mention of illegal weapons tech by Pitne, but we've no clue what that is.  I would've certainly liked some illegal weapons tech for my Suicide Mission.

Global cooldowns do make combat worse.  Why does a sentinel that uses a biotic power suddenly can't use a tech power?  What does a concussive round have to do with a shield or biotic skill?  It's like holding two tools in your hand, and you can only use one hand at a time, or only after a 8 seconds.

ME2's entire game and level design is cover.

[Nightwriter]

smudboy wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

The reason I don't like the story is that it never gave the characters a chance to flourish.

Look, I totally get that ME2 is a character driven game. But handing us great characters without giving a central story for them to act in is like handing us a big check and not letting us cash it. In ME2 the characters felt like the ship models I bought and put on display in my quarters. I collected them, did one mission with them, and then they sat there. And sat there. And sat there.

If it was a character driven narrative, then a character, or characters, would drive the narrative.  That is, it would be a story about a character(s) and what they want to do.

ME2 is a frame story, with various other stories in it.  That doesn't make it a character driven story, although we could argue that the characters in it push their loyalty missions along.

Until the suicide mission.

I strongly believe that you need to have most of your characters onboard when the bulk of the story starts, or else your experience of the story will be splintered. ME2 fails with this. You go through most of the story with an incomplete crew. Not cool. Not cool.

I don't think the incompleteness of the crew is the issue.  More like the lack of understanding of what the hell's going on, and why we're doing things that way, is the problem.

For example, TIM could be the master logician and have deduced before all the events of ME2 that there's a base of Collectors beyond the Omega-4 relay, and so long as the audience could clue in to that knowledge of his, would the random Pokémoning and Disabled Reaper ass pulling begin to make sense.

That's just what people always say to me when I criticize the plot - "it was a character driven story".

The incompleteness of the crew bugs me because they don't give me enough time to get to know some of these characters. I only recruit them near the end of the game, after everything's already happened. It reinforces the feeling that the characters don't matter.

And I never knew what the hell was going on in ME2. Felt like an acid trip. With great characters. And cool cinematics.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Night, try playing ME2 like this:

Get the Normandy > Recruit Zaeed > Recruit Mordin > Recruit Garrus > Recruit Kasumi > Recruit Jack > Recruit Grunt > Do Horizon > Recruit Tali > Recruit Samara > Recruit Thane > Do a LM > Do Another LM > Do Collector Ship > Finish Rest of LM's > Do Side-missions > Do Reaper IFF + Get Legion > Do Legion's LM > Do Suicide Mission > Do LOTSB

In short, make recruitment your number one priority. Then loyalty. Then sidequests. Then endgame and LOTSB.

In my own personal opinion, the game makes much more sense this way. Of course, the order in which you do loyalties and recruitments remains entirely arbitrary.

I always play like that.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 05 octobre 2010 - 01:12 .