1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

StarCraft 2 hands down.

As a Starcraft fan, I must disagree.  Not that it wasn't AWESOME, but definitely not the BEST.

Definitely better than ME2.

It has all that ME2 got:

- The (Paragade) Protagonist travels the Galaxy in a fancy starship
- Which has an Armory and a Laboratory, where new upgrades for equipment are researched for the cash and resources gathered on missions
- NPC characters occasionally join the Protagonist's team and hand out new missions
- Back on the ship they interact with the Protagonist and with each other
- The Protagonist gets to make Big Choices sometimes
- Galactic news and commercials
- The Galaxy is full of aliens and mercenaries
- Some primordial Evil supposedly is poised at extinguishing the life
- Aliens were uplifted by even more ancient aliens.
- Trasnhuman soldiers
- Rogue spectres
- Evil Experiments
- Cerberus
- Ali Hillis, Tricia Helfer, Michael Dorn.
- even the left-hand salute (SC feature since Brood War)

... but not the squinty eyes...

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Anyway, back on topic.  I really liked ME2, but a few things bugged me about it.  Firstly, the whole Collector shebang was interesting, but nonsensical and underdeveloped.  Also, I think completely cutting flawed features instead of improving them didn't work as well as it should have, but hopefully in ME3 they can find a middle ground.  More convos and interactions BETWEEN squadmates, please, since I hate how isolated they are from one another.

And I beg you, no more retconning.

Lol, funny how you bring up the interaction BETWEEN squadmates while opposing me in my "poll" thread. Can't you see that the decision to "bring back" the ME2 expandables will mean no interaction between squadmates? They'll be just the same ME2 dolls they were!

Christ's sake, Zulu, stop treating me like I'm your mortal enemy. While SC2 DID have all the things ME2 had, I felt ME2 did them better.

 
Seriously?

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Also, I felt the end was rather... stupid, really. SPOILER I mean Kerrigan human again? Please.

Human-Reaper larva looking like a three-eyed Terminator. Really? Please.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
The level of immersion isn't the same, and the plot had me rolling my eyes more often. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but for as long as I waited for it, I couldn't help but feel a bit let down.

Don't get me wrong, I know StarCraft 2's plot is so so. So is ME2 plot. Only in ME2 it matters more. Yet in StarCraft 2 you have this delightful feature of being able to replay all the cinematics in a row and what you get is... cinematic experience. Also some characters (although not so numerous, of course) have more depth to them than the ME2 squadmates. And the humor is one league up.

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Christ's sake again. How would bringing back old squadmates make them dolls again, hm? How do you know Bioware wouldn't make an effort to improve that?

Improve, huh?.. You said it yourself now. It's a synonym of "remove" in BioWare's books. Just look through this thread for details. But in the case of ME2 squadmates it migh be acually very well justified, as they are MASS EFECT 2 squadmates, aka dolls that (in a game supposedly about team building) hardly acknowledge they are on a commando team and not on Shepard's help-line therapist list for this season's fashion show winners.

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

Your logic is broken.  Allow me to make this clear: the presence or absence of a character HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether or not conversations are improved.  Just because Garrus COULD HAVE DIED does not mean he is 100% doomed to spend all of ME3 in the middle of some goddamn calibrations.  Also, just because a character is new doesn't mean they will have better conversation options.  For example, Jacob.  There is no correlation or inherent causation here.  The lack of squad-to-Shepard and squad-to-squad convo was a design oversight.  Finally, the lack of development of a character in one game does not mean they will be expanded upon in the next.  Behold:

--Tali was a walking documentary of quarian lifestyle in ME1, and suddenly in ME2 she is a deep and complex character.

--Garrus was a hot-headed rookie in ME1, and in ME2 he suddenly develops a sense of humor and matures greatly. 

--Liara in ME1 was a creepy virgin, just plain creepy in ME2, but in LotSB she finally blossomed into a confident and powerful woman, one that had a very deep connection with your character regardless or whether or not you romanced her.

--Wrex is also interesting, but since you seem to not like him I'll skip him.

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
[

AdmiralCheez wrote...
Christ's sake again. How would bringing back old squadmates make them dolls again, hm? How do you know Bioware wouldn't make an effort to improve that?

Improve, huh?.. You said it yourself now. It's a synonym of "remove" in BioWare's books. Just look through this thread for details. But in the case of ME2 squadmates it migh be acually very well justified, as they are MASS EFECT 2 squadmates, aka dolls that (in a game supposedly about team building) hardly acknowledge they are on a commando team and not on Shepard's help-line therapist list for this season's fashion show winners.

I'm dropping SC2 since it's entirely a matter of opinion and off-topic (even though "Card to Play" is my favorite cinematic; I actually downloaded the song that plays in the background, pardon the geekdom).  As for Mass Effect 2, it has the luck of being in the middle of a trilogy.  Bioware gets one more shot at doing it right, and I have a feeling they'll get pretty damn close.  They seem to be listening to the fans, thus they should be aware that they over-corrected.  As for the squadmate thing, I think I already covered that.  You want to keep argung it, we can continue it in your thread.  Let's not get this one locked, mmkay?

EDIT: PS, if you want to keep talking about SC2, feel free to PM me.  Nice to meet a fellow fan, and I'm having a jolly good time comparing it to ME2. ;-)

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:41 .

[Mike2640]

I wouldn't say they're completely without merit Admiral. Dragon Age: Awakenings was the product put out after ME2, and it's characters were drastically cut back in terms of dialogue and interaction, even less then what was present in ME2. And there were no story conflicts with them. Those guys were always going to be in the game.

Now, considering the work necessary to integrate all the squaddies into ME3 naturally. If Bioware doesn't want to put more dialogue in brand new, non-compromising characters, is it crazy to assume that they wont for ME3?

Modifié par Mike2640, 20 novembre 2010 - 10:39 .

[Moiaussi]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

--Garrus was a hot-headed rookie in ME1, and in ME2 he suddenly develops a sense of humor and matures greatly. 

I think you need to replay ME1. In ME1, Garrus was one of the few who has actual character development. In ME2, that all seemed tossed out the window and he becomes renegade, regardless of which direction he developed in ME1.

[AdmiralCheez]

@Mike: I haven't played DAO or DAA yet, but you've got a point. However, I hope we can still have fully-integrated new and old team members without cutting convo.



@Moiaussi: Oh yeah, the Paragon Retcon (I actually just played ME1 so I know what you mean). However, I never really got that worked up about it. He DID say "no civilian casualties," plus he only went all renegade in the first place because his mentor died (that's how I see it anyway). That aside, even with the continuity SNAFU I still really liked how Garrus turned out. Hopefully we can get that "persuasive development" back. Without a retcon. Yeah, that'd be nice.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

I think you're just fixated on expandable dolls. 

And I don't know about you, but I have yet to lose a single one of them on the "suicide" mission.   (If only BioWare had never used that phrase, we wouldn't have people thinking that you're supposed to lose half or more of the squad...)

[Killjoy Cutter]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

Your logic is broken.  Allow me to make this clear: the presence or absence of a character HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether or not conversations are improved.  Just because Garrus COULD HAVE DIED does not mean he is 100% doomed to spend all of ME3 in the middle of some goddamn calibrations.  Also, just because a character is new doesn't mean they will have better conversation options.  For example, Jacob.  There is no correlation or inherent causation here.  The lack of squad-to-Shepard and squad-to-squad convo was a design oversight.  Finally, the lack of development of a character in one game does not mean they will be expanded upon in the next. 

^ THIS.

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

I think you're just fixated on expandable dolls. 

And I think some people are just fixated on ME2 expendables.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
And I don't know about you, but I have yet to lose a single one of them on the "suicide" mission. 

And I have yet to earn the "No One Left Behind" achievement. But really a can't see the point.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
(If only BioWare had never used that phrase, we wouldn't have people thinking that you're supposed to lose half or more of the squad...)

If only BioWare made the "suicide mission" to pack a little more sense, this thread might have been a few dozen pages shorter.

[AdmiralCheez]

[quote][quote]I think you're just fixated on expandable dolls. 
[/quote]
And I think some people are just fixated on ME2 expendables.[/quote]

And I think some poeple are just fixated on people who are fixated on expendable dolls.  And some people are fixated on the people who are fixated on the people who are fixated on the expendable dolls.  And some people are fixated on... um...  Oh, screw this.

[quote][quote]And I don't know about you, but I have yet to lose a single one of them on the "suicide" mission. 
[/quote]
And I have yet to earn the "No One Left Behind" achievement. But really a can't see the point.[/quote]

The point?  The point is that you get an achievement for it and it SAYS ON THE DAMN BOX, AND I QUOTE:

"They call it a suicide mission.
PROVE THEM WRONG."

Thus ever-so-subtly implying that you are supposed to at least attempt to get everyone out alive.

[quote][quote](If only BioWare had never used that phrase, we wouldn't have people thinking that you're supposed to lose half or more of the squad...)[/quote]
If only BioWare made the "suicide mission" to pack a little more sense, this thread might have been a few dozen pages shorter.[/quote][/quote]

A suicide mission implies impossible odds against an unknown enemy.  Shepard has a habit of taking those impossible odds and using them to beat said unknown enemies into next Tuesday.  They could have made it a little more challenging and less obvious, yes.  I, however, found the mission incredibly fun and innovative.  Apart from the giant terminator fetus.  And just repeating Virmire would have been lame.

Let's save the mandatory character deaths for ME3.  It's the end of the trilogy and supposedly the most dramatic chapter, anyway.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

I think you're just fixated on expandable dolls. 

And I think some people are just fixated on ME2 expendables.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
And I don't know about you, but I have yet to lose a single one of them on the "suicide" mission. 

And I have yet to earn the "No One Left Behind" achievement. But really a can't see the point.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
(If only BioWare had never used that phrase, we wouldn't have people thinking that you're supposed to lose half or more of the squad...)

If only BioWare made the "suicide mission" to pack a little more sense, this thread might have been a few dozen pages shorter.

Oh, you meant expendable.   You kept saying "expandable", and I was trying to figure out what you were trying to say. 

I have yet to run across any expendable squadmates in ME2. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 21 novembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[Nightwriter]

Zulu, I must say, it is no less than astonishing the way you manage to argue your side of an intense debate whilst dropping plugs for your threads left, right, and center. I salute you.

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Not sure how bringing back ME2 squadmates will automatically make them into "dolls". The two factors have nothing to do with each other. The same mistake could just as easily be made with a whole new set of characters.

New characters may or may not be made "dolls". ME2 expandables can't be anything but "dolls" as they were ones even before contracting the HIV called "suicide mission".

I think you're just fixated on expandable dolls. 

And I think some people are just fixated on ME2 expendables.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
And I don't know about you, but I have yet to lose a single one of them on the "suicide" mission. 

And I have yet to earn the "No One Left Behind" achievement. But really a can't see the point.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
(If only BioWare had never used that phrase, we wouldn't have people thinking that you're supposed to lose half or more of the squad...)

If only BioWare made the "suicide mission" to pack a little more sense, this thread might have been a few dozen pages shorter.

Oh, you meant expendable.   You kept saying "expandable", and I was trying to figure out what you were trying to say. 

Might've been difficult with your fantasies all up because of my honest typo... Sorry, dude. I understand.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I have yet to run across any expendable squadmates in ME2. 

Ain't no so hard looking at this.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu... I salute you.

I've already plugged this linky tonight, but, nevertheless I

left-hand-salute you in response, Nightwriter!

[Il Divo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Nice twist of my words. I said the main hook of the series was exactly that FOR THE FIRST GAME. They did not hype the multiplayer when the first ****ing game was previewed. BTW, Halo mostly had you alone a good majority of the game, with the exception of a few levels here and there. 

That's great, so Call of Duty 1 gets a cookie. Now, what is your actual point? The poster I quoted was arguing that with each Call of Duty game, the campaign stories have been getting steadily better, which has not been the case. Barring Modern Warfare and now Black Ops it seems, every CoD campaign has provided merely a framework for why you are killing things. Who cares that Call of Duty 1's focus was squad-based combat when the series has moved so far from that?

BTW, Halo 1 had you play alone the second half of the campaign. The first five missions had you fighting with marines the entre time. Of course, my post was also referring to Halo Reach, not Halo 1, where every mission involves squad-based combat.

Oops, my PC was not powerful enough to play Call of Duty 1 online, and gaming cafes were as common as a needle in a haystack. BTW, campaign *WAS* a main focus. I have an old out-of-print gaming magazine saying exactly that since the game was previewed . Last time I checked, no other World War II FPS ever had an "easy-to-get-into" squad-based combat since Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.

'Was'. Again, 'was' does not pertain to our discussion of Call of Duty's direction now. Call of Duty is no longer the only game to feature squad-based combat. Even so, it is not a primary focus of the game. Playing Call of Duty offers a completely different style than playing Mass Effect 2, which was my ultimate point.

[Mir5]

Ahh, Starcraft 2, such a finely crafted game. I always hated though how the Zerg flew in space, flapping wings'n sh. Sad thing is that the Reaper stuff in Mass 2 feels even worse.



And I kinda agree with the most characters being doll-like. I think they were spread too thin, needs more quality than quantity. The character missions are mostly great, but beyond those they are reduced to extra guns, 2-3 conversations and few lines. The only way to give some importance to a character is to romance him or her. And that is only one unique extra scene and the ability call to sit in your cabin. Better than nothing, but I am seriously expecting (hoping) to get more in Mass 3.



A small addition: I think Mordin had a little more to talk than the others, gives info on Collectors, drives story forward (the swarm protection) and notices the romance. Probably even had more personal history talk than the others.



Actually, if Mordin had been involved maybe in a few unique cutscenes in the main story, that would've been the quite ideal amount of importance and appearance for any character.

[Lunatic LK47]

Il Divo wrote...

That's great, so Call of Duty 1 gets a cookie. Now, what is your actual point? The poster I quoted was arguing that with each Call of Duty game, the campaign stories have been getting steadily better, which has not been the case. Barring Modern Warfare and now Black Ops it seems, every CoD campaign has provided merely a framework for why you are killing things. Who cares that Call of Duty 1's focus was squad-based combat when the series has moved so far from that?

Oh, you should have reworded your posts carefully before I called you out on the "Call of Duty wasn't reknowned for its campaign."The way you worded it was "Call of Duty is known solely for multiplayer," and that sounded outright ignorant. While Multiplayer became a bigger focus on the later titles, almost every E3 promotion was dedicated to their campaigns and not multiplayer.

BTW, Halo 1 had you play alone the second half of the campaign. The first five missions had you fighting with marines the entre time. Of course, my post was also referring to Halo Reach, not Halo 1, where every mission involves squad-based combat.

Uh, no. You did have to go at it alone at times during the first half of your campaign as well. The Marines were more or less "Reinforcments have arrived" and "Chief/Arbiter/ODST/Noble 6, we need your help." At no point did Halo give you a permanent squad. Only Reach half-attempted it with the Spartan squadmates.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Might've been difficult with your fantasies all up because of my honest typo... Sorry, dude. I understand.

Huh?  You're the one talking about dolls and saying "expandable" over and over.  Sorry I can't read your mind. 

Well, not that sorry.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I have yet to run across any expendable squadmates in ME2. 

Ain't no so hard looking at this.

As I said, I haven't seen an expendable squadmates in ME2. 

I've seen squadmates that a careless or sadistic player can get killed, but I have yet to see a single expendable one.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:58 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
At least i could start the game with a bonus weapon talent and dont have to wait for the collector ship to get a weapon i want for a class.

And it's a shame you have to unlock that bonus weapon talent, first.

But i do it once and dont have to wait everytime until my adept or vanguard get an assault rilfe.(50 percent of the game is over then anyway)

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 novembre 2010 - 10:30 .

[Alithinos]

 What I didn't liked at ME2 was that the manual of the game didn't had any information about how much important planet-mining was,and that at a specific time (that you don't expect) you suddenly have to go to the mission for the relay,and there is no turning back.
At my first playthrough I thought that ship upgrades would help but that they weren't a must.
I thought that they would just make it easier for me later.
When I went to the Omega 4 relay I was unprepared. 
Unfortunately I lost squadmates and that made me hate planet mining,which I found boring at the beginning.
And only at my second playthrough I understood how to mine well.
Before my second playthrough,I would just launch a probe anywhere at the surface of a planet and I thought that this was how it was supposed to be done.
I lost huge mass of elements because I didn't knew how to do it well.
So I think that Bioware should include some "how to" guides at their game manuals about things that are actually so basic and important on their games.

One thing that I thought they could do better is how the game become a little routine.
Meaning "Get dossier,go to planet X,give a fight to take person X with you,person X asks you to do something,travel at planet Y,fight numerous enemies until reaching a "boss-like" battle,person X got loyalty".
At ME1 making people come with you didn't felt like a routine.

Other than that,I found it an excellent game that other companies should look at and learn.
I liked the new gun sounds,thermal clips and the more options for romance and the deeper development of the characters.

Modifié par Alithinos, 10 décembre 2010 - 11:47 .

[General User]

A few things I wish were different in ME2:  
 
1)      SR-2 internal layout, in a few specific instances. Namely, Dr. Chakwas (and later Tali) should have had their own semi-private quarters, they’re just too senior to be hot-racking or bunking in their workspace.   

 
2)      I wish the Normandy had an onboard Galactic News and/or Emily Wong News terminal. Might cause some continuity errors when the Normandy goes “off the grid”, but on the whole I say it’s be a plus. It’d add to the atmosphere (most of the time).
 
 
3)      The Collector Particle Beam is such a cool, useful gun. I really, really wish it didn’t look like a giant poo strapped to Shep’s back.

Modifié par General User, 10 décembre 2010 - 02:05 .

[glacier1701]

While ME2 has been a success in returning a profit to BioWare and has garnered awards it does appear not to be making much of a splash lately. I have recently seen 2 "Must Buy Games" lists for this upcoming holiday season. Mass Effect 2 did not make those lists even though older games than ME2 and dlc for games (other than ME2) did. Indeed NO BioWare title made those lists. While it might be just those lists a few weeks ago there was a release about how a Canadian Army garrison had bought $25,000 worth of games. What was interesting about it was the breakdown of what games were purchased. No BioWare title was included in that purchase. While achieving critical aclaim (dubious at best considering that many game sites feature ads for games thus cannot be considered unbiased) and winning awards the actual game consumer is NOT purchasing the game after 6 months. I believe this speaks volumes for the what the true status of ME2 actually is. It is a good game but definetly not one that hype would say it was. This is just another way of saying that according to the standards we KNOW BioWare can deliver ME2 did not meet that minimum standard and it shows up in these lists by not being there. That is perhaps the truth that hurts the most.

[Sparda Stonerule]

glacier1701 wrote...

While ME2 has been a success in returning a profit to BioWare and has garnered awards it does appear not to be making much of a splash lately. I have recently seen 2 "Must Buy Games" lists for this upcoming holiday season. Mass Effect 2 did not make those lists even though older games than ME2 and dlc for games (other than ME2) did. Indeed NO BioWare title made those lists. While it might be just those lists a few weeks ago there was a release about how a Canadian Army garrison had bought $25,000 worth of games. What was interesting about it was the breakdown of what games were purchased. No BioWare title was included in that purchase. While achieving critical aclaim (dubious at best considering that many game sites feature ads for games thus cannot be considered unbiased) and winning awards the actual game consumer is NOT purchasing the game after 6 months. I believe this speaks volumes for the what the true status of ME2 actually is. It is a good game but definetly not one that hype would say it was. This is just another way of saying that according to the standards we KNOW BioWare can deliver ME2 did not meet that minimum standard and it shows up in these lists by not being there. That is perhaps the truth that hurts the most.

You do understand must buy games lists are generated by just looking at what games are selling the best at the current moment right? A game doesn't even have to be good to get on those lists. I've seen Wii shovelware and Kinect games on Must Buy lists. So your point is largely invalid and taken out of an extremely narrow context.