1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Slayer299]

Terror_K wrote...

I think that's only if they passed the test. If they didn't, they were simply either wiped out or used and/or altered to serve the Reapers in some way. I believe The Protheans were the last attempt, but didn't meet the Reapers' standards. Humans did, probably due to Shepard more than anything else. My theory is that Reapers can't evolve naturally, so do so by purposefully setting up the galaxy over and over to try and find the perfect evolution through organic evolution, then simply adopt and adapt to that themselves, then start the cycle again to get even closer to perfection.

Re: ME2 breaking the formula a little and it being a good or bad thing, in some ways it was a good thing, but also came down to execution as much as it did premise. I personally liked that it broke the standard "starter area, then four main world and final place" BioWare formula by having more places that were generally smaller, but the manner in which it was done was the problem. The areas being smaller made them feel smaller and thus less epic and grand in scale. ME2 felt small for the most part compared to ME1. Not having vehicle sections probably didn't help, whereas ME1 managed to make its main places feel huge by adding these. Even The Citadel was smaller in ME2. This also led to the places feeling less real and alive, and more like small, linear levels that were overdesigned and cramped. The fact you've got five major ME1-related NPCs (i.e. Liara, Shiala, Conrad Verner, Gianna Parasini, Rachni Messenger) that are otherwise unconnected in Illium all within about 200 metres of each other makes the universe feel small, not large. It wasn't until the car chase in LotSB that Nos Astra felt like the large city it was purported to be.

Then there's the fact that not only were more than half of the missions about squaddies and their issues more than the central theme of The Reapers, but on top of that the entire game is so far removed from the first one plot-wise that it doesn't even come across as the second part of a trilogy at all but simply more of another part of one single characters' exploits. Things that seemed important in the first part are glossed over, pushed aside and made to seem insignificant, and when they're not they come across as hastily and poorly executed, particularly when you see both versions of it with different imports. Kaidan and Ashley's characters, for example, just feel totally wasted and even spit on, with each pretty much being a lame substitution for the other. The Council decision barely seemed to change the universe at all outside of who appears when you visit Anderson and how a few shopkeepers on The Citadel treat you, and being a Spectre --on of the most defining, epic and important aspects of the first game-- seems about as poignant and monumental as getting a scout badge for "attendance" now.

Basically, the concept was kind of sound in a sense, and it's nice to break the formula... but the way they went about it was severely lacking and questionable. The writing was mostly good for what was there, but much of the basic premise was pretty unspectacular and lacking in depth.

This! 

[Moiaussi]

Jebel Krong wrote...

okeer mentions the technology was used up/destroyed making grunt. grunt was more about the genophage plot threads than the collector ones, that link was merely something to link back to the main storyline, but because it's vague it's not really substantial enough to really mean anything for anyone not preoccupied with having everything link back to the main story.

That is a common plot hole in a great deal of fiction, namely the strange belief in one of technology. Who designs anything significantly complex without any documentation, even in their head?

[Iakus]

Jebel Krong wrote...
if you reduced me1 down the same way it would be even more insubstantial (and i still like the game too much to do that again). also don't confuse game mechanic limitations with storytelling ones - BW are already juggling more variations than just about any other company, tracking something ephemerous like "teambuilding" would be very tricky (though it would have added more to the experience), but at the end of the day it's not a team-management sim, and not everyone wants the hassle, either.

From Casey Hudson:
"The funny thing is that people will say "other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there." But that is the story. In other media, you find stories that are about so many different kinds of things, different structures. In movies you find there are stories about how someone gathers a team and makes them well equipped and well trained"

What training took place, exactly?  How do we prepare our squadmates in any way besides putting their mind at ease with their loyalty missions?  Please understand, I'm not knowcking th eloyalty missions as such (though I do think they focused a bit too much on daddy issues)  But there was no "prepare the team"

Okay so: How do we get them equipped  then?  The only real "equipping I saw for the mission in ME 2 was getting the thannix cannon, the new armor plating, and Tali's shields.  And that's just a matter of gathering the materials and researching them.  That means, interestingly:

Planet scanning and probe launching has more a more direct connection to the main story than almost every mission you do!

How's that for scary?

Game limitations may indeed be a factor.  It may also be why games tend to focus more on "plot" than "character"  I find it difficult to have a character based story when Shepard Just gathers them up, takes them on a run through a mission, then sticks them in storage til they're needed.

you do find out the collectors connection to the reapers, not TIM. the threat is self-evident to most of the smart ones on the team, even without vested interests (cerberus personel, Miranda, Jacob, Shepard). most do act differently once they are loyal - they open up more, thane even states his problems trying to integrate etc. it's not as fully-developed as everyone would like, but it's more than we get in any other game, and will only improve in the future i'm sure.

True the Collector Ship is the first time we get direct evidence connecting them to the Reapers.  The rest of the time we're trusting TIM (or at least not argueing about it)  Though at that point you already have most of your crew who are helping out with zero direct evidence that this is anything but a human concern.

Acting differntly when loyal?  We get, I believe one conversation, at potential LIs suddenly throw themelves at you.  I'm talking about attitude changes that last teh whole game, not just a wardrobe change.  I'm talking about characters giving different answers to keep or destroy the base based on loyalty.  I'm talking potential betrayals from those who aren't loyal.  I'm talking different dialogues, not just unlocked dialogues.

"Not as fully developed as everyone would like" is putting it mildly here.  What we get is little more than what we'd get from sidequests in any other game, shoved out in front and called a "character based game"  Taking the meat out a burger without replacing it doesn't make it a vegetarian burger. 

instead of knocking the game down all the time, it perhaps would be more helpful to encourage growth areas for the future, because all your criticisms are just as apt, if not moreso, for me1 too.

All right, in the future, Bioware, please keep in mind:

If you are going to make a character-based game, you should find a way to integrate the characters into the game, rather than have the player run off in a dozen different directions having  unconnected miniadventures.

If you're going to have a "build a team" style game, it helps to actually focus on building a team.  Have the characters interact.  Argue, fight, make friends, be suspoicious.  Make discoveries.  Bond.  Don't just put them on shelves until they're needed.  Dragon Age was not a character based game (though it was better at it).  They could get away with standing around a campfire.  ME 2 not so much.

If there's going to be an overall plot that brings everyone together in a common cause, might be nice to have the team work on that.  We should see them research their enemy (or complain that there's so little information available)  We should see them gathering components to upgrade the ship, rather than simply firing probes at planets.  We need to see them practice working together.

[S-A128]

it's like i'm getting a like and hate comments from people who hate mass effect:alien:

[crooked]

INVAYNED wrote...

I love Mass Effect 1 hands down.Mass
Effec 2 i have a love/hate relationship with.i was not only disappointed
with Mass effect 2 but let down as well.ill list some things i hated
about it and some things i love about it

Hated:
1.No
weapon/armor mods like me1 had.
2.Lack of customization to
weapons/armor(i really love the micromanaging ME1 had)
3.Ammo
Clips-is this the stone age?(i understand the reasoning) but really i
loved those moments of overheating in me1.it gave it the true ah Sh*t i
might die feel
4.The side missions/quest where not that indepth let
alone long at all.
5.Not being able to crouch anymore.really bioware
you took that feature out(why?)
6.Morality felt like a snow(there one
minute and gone the next.no true impact/effect of dissension)
8.Lets
be honest the RPG of Mass Effect 2 was not there.more like toned down
blog entry of a soldiers war journal
9.No actual real dialog(ME1 had
great party-banter,in mission dialog between squad mates,mission
complete dialog with the whole crew/squad was wonderful and interesting
gave depth to each character)
10.No real replay vaule after you beat
the game for the sixth time(no interest to play it anymore.hint dlc
dosnt help)

Love:
1.Combat was much richer(just way to much of
it)
2.Polished look(didnt have a ripple fuzz effect the first one
had when running)
3.Jack,Mordin,Grunt,Jacob and Zaeed where nice new
editions to the team
4.Soundtrack was awesome(specially afterlife
club music)
5.Cool to see figure head of cerberus(so when i destroy i
the company i know who to save for last)
6.Some of the new
worlds/areas where great(just way too damn small)

When you say the combat was richer, do you mean because of the biotic combos and curving of powers? Because to me the action felt too fixed and straight forward most of the time. Allthough some new fun powers were implemented, I found it way less fun because you could barely customize your character's abilities.

The only thing keeping combat fresh to me was the better cover system (vaulting and rushing to cover etc) and the fact that you could combine and curve powers. Looking for clips all the time invoked a Doom II feeling for me

Modifié par crooked, 21 octobre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Nightwriter]

^ Wow, I can totally agree with all of that.

The combat was also a bit of an Evil ME2 Villain for me because it seemed like every mission was another shooter gallery, it felt like the whole game was about shooting sometimes.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

^ Wow, I can totally agree with all of that.

The combat was also a bit of an Evil ME2 Villain for me because it seemed like every mission was another shooter gallery, it felt like the whole game was about shooting sometimes.

again, certainly no more than me1 was - which people just love to forget - the only difference being combat actually worked properly in ME2.

edit: i would also add that the combat flexibility in me2 was such that it could appear more straightforward, if you played it certain ways. you could, for instance, just hide behind cover, popping up to shoot certain enemies and not move. however, given your ranges of powers (depending on class) and taking advantage of cover and the relatively open battle environments, you can engage in all manner of tactics and flankery*, if you only just experiment with it - and it is much more rewarding that way. of course, people used to just holding down the right trigger whilst standing in the open in me1 would be confused by the concept of movement.

*yes i made that word up.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 21 octobre 2010 - 09:00 .

[Nightwriter]

Jebel Krong wrote...

again, certainly no more than me1 was - which people just love to forget - the only difference being combat actually worked properly in ME2.

No, no, why are people always suggesting this?

ME1 did story immersive combat so much better.

In ME2, while I was shooting people I would honestly just totally lose track of what I was doing or why. It was totally senseless. I'd say this happens about every other mission.

In ME1, even if combat was boring or repetitive, I could always tell you why I was doing it. I could tell you who I was shooting, and why.

Flankery is a nice word.

[Jebel Krong]

yeah shooting that same armoured merc on UNC planet #9531 with the same terrain and slightly different skybox really had a lot of meaning for both of us....

[Nightwriter]

That's just a terrain or environment problem, bro. Why does your side get caught up with superficialities?

Name me any mission that took place on any one of that series of identical landscapes, and I can tell you who I was killing, and why.

It sounds like what you're saying is that because ME2's missions were superficially prettier, they were better than ME1's, even though they were empty, meaningless shooting galleries whose plots are impossible to remember or keep track of.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

That's just a terrain or environment problem, bro. Why does your side get caught up with superficialities?

Name me any mission that took place on any one of that series of identical landscapes, and I can tell you who I was killing, and why.

It sounds like what you're saying is that because ME2's missions were superficially prettier, they were better than ME1's, even though they were empty, meaningless shooting galleries whose plots are impossible to remember or keep track of.

rubbish, here are just a few examples:

vorcha on omega: because they were spreading the collectors' plague. i also had to shoot members of 3 merc gangs because of their turf-war and archangel.
heretic geth: carry-over from me1, further explained and expanded, i knew exactly why i was shooting them.
collectors: i sure as hell knew these guys were bad as soon as they turned up with big guns and started kidnapping whole colonies.

etc. the side-missions were a lot better explained and in content than ME1: the mechs going haywire (3 missions, all connected), the batarian terrorists, blue suns nefarious schemes involving ships bases etc. so not only was there more variation in theme, but story and factions as well...

all are a lot better than busting unnamed cerberus cell #3 doing something unexplained with rachni on planet #5431.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 21 octobre 2010 - 11:11 .

[Terror_K]

Of course when you word it like that and choose the absolute worst example it sounds better. It's all about perspective and how you present things.



The N7 missions in ME2 were completely lacking in any depth, polish or interesting aspects at all though. In ME2 it was mostly nothing but shooting nameless guys and collecting datapads. In ME1 at least most sidequests had an interesting story behind them, had some dialogue and interesting NPCs and felt like there was more to them.



Sorry, but while I'll concede that the main mission stuff had some fairly decent reasoning behind it, the side-missions felt lazy and thrown together and lacked any real meaning. If not for the content, in the way it was presented. Say what you will about the ME1 sidequests, but at least by the time I was done I hated Cerberus and wanted them destroyed and that they would show up somewhere in the future, even before we knew they were going to be a major part of ME2. With ME2's sidequests I just feel that I don't care about what I did and that it's never going to pay off in the future in any way.

[Nightwriter]

WTF.

You compare MAIN missions of ME2 to SIDE missions of ME1? Uh-uh, my friend, that ain’t apples to apples.

Tell me this without looking anything up:

What were the series of mission progression events that led you to the Hahne-Kedar mech factory?
Explain to me the story of the Captain Santiago and MSV Strontium Mule mission strings.

 

 

[Kaiser Shepard]

Nightwriter wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

again, certainly no more than me1 was - which people just love to forget - the only difference being combat actually worked properly in ME2.

No, no, why are people always suggesting this?

ME1 did story immersive combat so much better.

In ME2, while I was shooting people I would honestly just totally lose track of what I was doing or why. It was totally senseless. I'd say this happens about every other mission.

In ME1, even if combat was boring or repetitive, I could always tell you why I was doing it. I could tell you who I was shooting, and why.

Flankery is a nice word.

The combat in ME2 was good enough to enjoy on its own, I cannot say the same of ME1's.

[Nightwriter]

If the trilogy had established itself right away as a game I'm meant to enjoy only for its combat, it wouldn't be an issue.

But once again I'm at a disadvantage for having played ME1 first. ME1 was more than just combat. It's just hard for me playing ME2. I know it was a game for shooters, it wasn't meant to be what I wanted, I just have trouble reminding myself of that.

[MrFob]

I don't see it Nightwinter, sorry. I agree with you that the overall main story arc in ME1 was better and more epic in scale, that Sovereign and Saren were 10 times more compelling villains then Harbinger and the Collectors and I even think that the overall feel and art style of ME1 was more compelling although the graphics f the second game are much better.

BUT: You really don't want to make the argument about the side missions, do you? I mean, on one occasion I land on some planet (after picking up Liara, which normally is the first thing you want to do in order to complete your team) and I slaughter some random mercs without any idea of what I am doing just to find out half a game later that that was supposed to be a side ques that I could have gotten at some later point from an asari chick on the citadel? Now you may say I play the game in the wrong order but if I have to metagame in order to get the good story something is already wrong. Then I land on another planet and fight some Rachni in order to get to a computer console. Not to mention the Armstrong cluster: 30 sec talking to Hacket and than half an hour of repetitive MAKO combat is not what I call a superb narrative.

Even more importantly, what you call "superficialities" is simply sub standard (especially when compared with ME2). I even liked the random mesh planets with different sky boxes but what broke my immersion (and here is a connection with storytelling) were the repetitive interiors. Now that point has been discussed to death but seriously, that is not irrelevant superficial polishing, that was simply a bit ridiculous.And if you curse the developers for sending you into the same cave for the 10th time, only this time you shoot husks (oh yeah, some colonists obscurely transformed because they found an ancient artifact in a cave? So why do I shoot them and don't call a research team to see if they can help them or at least find out what happened?),. well, I don't have the feeling to be part of an engaging story in tis own right.



On the other hand I don't quite understand what makes you feel ME2 is just about combat? The format is exactly the same as in ME1. Even all the cutscenes are much better. Now as I said, the main plot is much worse (although the recruiting/loyalty missions are great on their own) but the side missions have nice little stories to tell. There are even story arcs like the defect mechs, that you trace back to the factory, the mercs who try to steal a prothean artifact, or the others who are luring traders in with a false distress signal that you have to investigate after you find clues to it on a ship that fell victim to the ruse. Or missions that have you decide if you want to save a colonies infrastructural lifeline or rather as many people as possible from a terrorist attack.Now you may say: "But Hackett doesn't call anymore so I have to read everything." Well, I have seen my share of text boxes in ME1 and at least here we are talking about Emails and PDAs in the game worls.I really don't understand why you have the feeling that you don't know whom you are fighting or why in ME2. It is always made perfectly clear. Besides it's not even all about combat in the sense that you fight all the time. They tried to introduce new gameplay with almost every mission (The old ship you explore, a mission with time limit and decreasing visibility due to a sandstorm, some puzzles on an AI controlled space station, etc.). Now I am not saying these new elements are without flaw and always working perfectly but I give BW credit for trying to be experimental (I don't remember a changing mission structure in ME1 aside from the tower of Hanoi puzzle... *in EDIs voice* That was a joke).

Now as I said, I love ME1, I miss elements of it in ME2 and I hope they bring some of them back in ME3. But saying the side missions were better in the first game IMO has much to do with nostalgic transfiguration. I agree it was a great game but it had it's flaws too which we as player compensated for. I try to do the same with ME2 and that way, I have a ton of fun with it.



Hey, just want to say that I hope I don't come of as hostile here. I respect your opinion and I can absolutely see where you are coming from. Just trying to make a good argument here .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Of course when you word it like that and choose the absolute worst example it sounds better. It's all about perspective and how you present things.

isn't that exactly what you - and the other detractors - do? - cherry pick the best example to suit your "argument..." you can't then complain when i do it in reverse.

the N7 missions were quite shallow, but then they weren't supposed to me much more than that (though we can dream), and the connected ones were better than anything involving UNCs in me1. the main game had more than enough material/gameplay as it was, what with the main plot, recruitment and loyalty missions. most of my playthroughs round out about ten hours more than me1s - in the 40-50 hour range, take off time for planet scanning or mako driving, you probably still have 30+ hours of solid play there, for both.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:27 .

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

WTF.

You compare MAIN missions of ME2 to SIDE missions of ME1? Uh-uh, my friend, that ain’t apples to apples.

Tell me this without looking anything up:

What were the series of mission progression events that led you to the Hahne-Kedar mech factory?
Explain to me the story of the Captain Santiago and MSV Strontium Mule mission strings.

no i didn't, i compared like with like and both with both, thing is they are not exactly equatable across both games: N7 in me2 =/= UNC in me1, it's supposed to be less, because there are so many more main missions.

okay: ship crashes on a planet, which you pick up on whilst scanning, you land to find the wreckage strewn across the ship-made valley. recovering the various crew logs it becomes apparent that some mech malfunction infected the ship's VI, causing lockout of critical areas, despite the crews attempts otherwise, causing the crash. as a sandstorm moves into the area, the still functioning mechs attack as you make your way back to the shuttle, after ascertaining the ship had stopped at a facility in a nearby system.

which then unlocks in the galaxy map, and you can dock at the station. inside (and i got a cool deadspace vibe from the docking scene/initial rooms), you find blood and bodies. coming acorss more bodies and logs round the locked-down station, you proceed to reactivate power and piece together what went on: after receiving a visit from the ship whose remains you just explored, the station VI started acting oddly, and began treating the humans on-board as "invaders." whilst they scrambled to stop it, eventually all died. after reactivating power, despite the VIs attempts to stop you, then get you to leave, you learn that the shipment of mechs came from an experimental hahne-kedar facility in another system, and that is where the problem seemingly originated, so you shut the VI down and proceed there.

Upon arriving, you are assaulted by more faulty mechs, but you fight your way inside to view yet more carnage, but - importantly - find the logs (and body) of the senior researcher at the facility, which points to a batch of faulty chips infecting all the mechs with some kind of virus, causing them to go haywire. therefore you have to fight your way through the army of mechs to shut down and destroy the facility to contain the infection.

how's that (all from memory i'd point out)? i would do the strontium mule mission but i'm not writing essays here, ta.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:19 .

[Nightwriter]

MrFob, it sounds like we agree on all the important points. I know there's no hostility intended.

The Asari Diplomacy mission was one mission you could possibly be confused about depending on how you played it - I personally didn't happen across it until after I'd talked to Nassana. ME2 had tons of side missions that confused and disinterested you, not just one that could possibly confuse you.

I will take repetitive compound interiors over a game with no story any day.

I agree, the loyalty missions were great. But my favorites? Kasumi's and Samara's and possibly Thane's. The others were sort of just shoot-em-ups. By the time I got to these missions I was so tired of shoot-em-ups, Fob. That's why I say ME2 was a shooter game, because it felt like I spent all my time mindlessly shooting, emphasis on the mindlessly. It didn't help that the game had a plot whose message was essentially "go kill these things".

I've compared ME2's side missions to watching silent movies. I mourn the loss of dialogue, MrFob, I feel like the quality of the missions has suddenly regressed to pre-speech time periods. It's not reading that bugs me, it's the lack of interaction. Talking to Hackett was talking to a person, I had dialogue options. I could talk to Toombs, to the biotic hostage takers, to Major Kyle. Dialogue = story. Hackett also gave me a sense of why I was doing these things. But do they ever explain why I interfere in merc activity? ... No, not really. It's all incredibly random, and you seem to be doing it just for the heck of it. Now, I don't need great reasons, but I'd for it to not be a silent movie.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:21 .

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

ME2 had tons of side missions that confused and disinterested you, not just one that could possibly confuse you.

really? which, exactly?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:30 .

[Nightwriter]

First off, I found both Grunt's recruitment mission and Miranda's loyalty mission a bit hard to follow, but never mind that.

Take these side missions for example:

N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter
N7: Abandoned Research Station
N7: Hahne-Kedar Facility
N7: Archaeological Dig Site
N7: MSV Strontium Mule
N7: Blue Suns Base

These were confusing because by the time I got to the next mission in the chain I had totally lost the thread of what was going and didn't really care. Every mission threw a ton of meaningless names at me there was no way I could keep track of.

The Estevanico mission and Endangered Research Base missions were examples of ones where I dropped in with no real clue what the hell I was meant to be doing.

It's weird, because I loved absolutely every side mission on the hub worlds. They were awesome.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:41 .

[Jebel Krong]

did you do them as a chain or did you go off and do other things in-between? i could see why if the latter, but the former...?

[MrFob]

Nightwriter wrote...

MrFob, it sounds like we agree on all the important points. I know there's no hostility intended.

The Asari Diplomacy mission was one mission you could possibly be confused about depending on how you played it - I personally didn't happen across it until after I'd talked to Nassana. ME2 had tons of side missions that confused and disinterested you, not just one that could possibly confuse you.

Hm, I don't know which ones you talk about. You are always given reasons for what you do, although it is often in writing (See below).
EDIT:Oh, just saw the posts in the meantime. Nevermind that stuff above then. Looks like the chains are the problem actually. Well, got to sleep over that one.

I will take repetitive compound interiors over a game with no story any day.

Ok, that is a matter of opinion I guess. For me at some point it got immersion breaking, which IMO has an impact on the story.

I agree, the loyalty missions were great. But my favorites? Kasumi's and Samara's and possibly Thane's. The others were sort of just shoot-em-ups. By the time I got to these missions I was so tired of shoot-em-ups, Fob. That's why I say ME2 was a shooter game, because it felt like I spent all my time mindlessly shooting, emphasis on the mindlessly. It didn't help that the game had a plot whose message was essentially "go kill these things".

But the recruitment/loyalty missions have some great story dialogue. You can explore the repercussions of the genophage with Mordin, You find Harkin again with Garrus (not to mention the brilliant part with Sidonis), even Jacobs mission, where you investigate the mystery about the missing ship and find some horrible truth, didn't you find these stories engaging? I mean, the format is an alternation between combat and dialogue, just like it was in ME1 (I am playing it again right now and I don't see anything else happening).

I've compared ME2's side missions to watching silent movies. I mourn the loss of dialogue, MrFob, I feel like the quality of the missions has suddenly regressed to pre-speech time periods. It's not reading that bugs me, it's the lack of interaction. Talking to Hackett was talking to a person, I had dialogue options. I could talk to Toombs, to the biotic hostage takers, to Major Kyle. Dialogue = story. Hackett also gave me a sense of why I was doing these things. But do they ever explain why I interfere in merc activity? ... No, not really. It's all incredibly random, and you seem to be doing it just for the heck of it. Now, I don't need great reasons, but I'd for it to not be a silent movie.

OK, there is less dialogue in the N7 missions, I agree, you have to read through Mails, etc. and I also hope they will change this again in ME3 but it is not true that you have no reasons. Often enough you are answering to distress calls (the ship under geth attack, The broken shiel generator, the downed freighter with the broken mechs, etc). Even more often, one mission will lead to the next, something that almost never happens in ME1. Now you may argument that you have no reason to fly to the planets in the first place so you should never do the scanning and therefore never even find the distress calls or other interesting stuff. However, again, this is not better in ME1. I still have to fly to the planets on my own, the difference is that once I enter orbit, Admiral Hackett miraculously calls me at that time and tells me to find an old nuclear booby-trap or you get -guess what - a distress call that turns out to be a geth trap (which results in a short combat before you go home). Often enough you'd just get text messages (like for the quests with the husk colonists in my precious post).
Long story short, I can see how you miss the dialogue but the missions themselves and their background info is IMO even better in ME2. The structure and gameplay of the mission are almost the same and the environments and level design are much more immersive in ME2.
As one last point I'd like to add that all in all, ME2 does have considerably more dialogue than ME1 had, it is just structured differently.

Well, it's getting late here, I'll sign off but I look forward to continuing this discussion tomorrow.

Modifié par MrFob, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
The N7 missions in ME2 were completely lacking in any depth, polish or interesting aspects at all though.

Well ouch, that's a bit over-dramatic, isn't it?