292 réponses à ce sujet

[Luigitornado]

wulf3n wrote...

Luigitornado wrote...
So.."to you."

I even think TIM calls it loyalty to the mission.

You are being nitpicky.

In terms of the name, perhaps, but you don't even need the crews loyalty to complete the mission. so if time is an important factor in stopping the collectors why bother getting they're loyalty?

You can call it nitpicking if you wan't but im merely asking that a feature of the game that is supposedly important plays an important role in the game.

Well as the player, I'm concerned about losing characters that I like. And if Bioware plays their cards right, losing a character, and not having the option of them existing in ME3 would be reason enough to make sure they are loyal to the mission.

Now if you were not to break the 4th wall and assume that Shepard believes that he can complete the mission without enlisting help, or making sure that his team mates are loyal to the mission...because you know he can, then you would have a Shepard that would wish to do what he could to make sure that the suicide mission is successful. 

Modifié par Luigitornado, 02 décembre 2010 - 01:45 .

[wulf3n]

Luigitornado wrote...
Worse would imply that ME was bad for not having enough of it. That's my problem...with you whiners. Saying "I think I would have liked more character input," would be constructive criticism, saying something is bad, is not.

Constructive criticism is anything the person being criticized can take and evolve as a result. Let the creators create, just show them whats good and bad, and let them do what they do. Trying to fill their heads with your ideas is generally counter productive.

Theres a difference between saying "ME2 was bad" and saying "these parts of ME2" were bad, and i haven't seen much of the former in this thread. It just seems that anyone who has any negative criticism is thrown into the hater category without anyone actually thinking about the points they make.

Luigitornado wrote...
Well as the player, I'm concerned about losing characters that I like. And if Bioware plays their cards right, losing a character, and not having the option of them existing in ME3 would be reason enough to make sure they are loyal to the mission.

Same, and because i'm so concerned, i wondered why i needed to bring all these ppl i care about on a ridiculous suicide mission when i could have easily brought along a dozen mercs. 

Modifié par wulf3n, 02 décembre 2010 - 01:45 .

[Iakus]

Luigitornado wrote...

Worse would imply that ME was bad for not having enough of it. That's my problem...with you whiners. Saying "I think I would have liked more character input," would be constructive criticism, saying something is bad, is not.

Lack of character interaction was a weakness of ME 1.  But a weakness that did not break the game.  The focus of ME 2 pretty much demanded (imo) more character interaction than we got in ME 1.  Like I said, outside their personal missions, the characters were all pretty much lifeless dolls.  Instead we got less.  This isn't a case of "I think what we had is okay and more would have made the game better".  This is a case of  "I think a lack of this actually hurt the game and made it worse". 

How is that whining?

[Luigitornado]

For what is worth, I believe that there was enough character interaction to make it unnoticeably not broken. More of it would of made the game more interesting, no doubt about it, but a lack of more did not hurt it.

[Iakus]

Busomjack wrote...

To wulf3e and all the misguided people who agree with him...

Dang, well I'm convinced I was wrong

Oh, so now you're backtracking about what you said regarding the plot.  Earlier you were complaining about plot holes, unanswered questions, etc.  Well no kidding!  This is the not the final chapter in the saga.  It's the third game when we're supposed to get cloture.  The second game's role was to develop the characters so that the third game can focus most of it's time explaining the backstory regarding the reapers and the collectors.

The third game that's supposed to be standalone as well?  

 This focus on character driven plot was intentional by the writers because why should we care if the reapers/collectors/Geth kill everyone if we don't learn to like the characters?  You've missed the point of this game entirely!

I'd have liked them more if they actually interacted with the surroundings more.  As it is, I'd get more teary-eyed if Lelliana or Sten died.  They're much more life like to me.

What I meant about Luke Skywalker is that it seems strange that the emperor would waste so many resources trying to track one man, even if he is a Jedi and the resolution to this mystery is that the emperor intends to replace Vader.  This resolution wouldn't have been nearly as powerful had it been thrown at us in Empire.  You don't seem to realize that Mass Effect 2's purpose is to build up to an immensely satisfying conclusion.  You're supposed to feel like there is a lot missing, that is what Mass Effect 3 will be for.

Mass Effect 1 had a satisfying conclusion that didn't tie up all the loose ends.  Mass Effect 2 is just a bundle of them.  The last time I got that feeling was at the end of The Matrix Reloaded. 

And do NOT dodge the issue of the suicide mission.  You called them irrelevent and compared them to Illos.  There is a big difference though since in Mass Effect 2 the people actually think they are going to die.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's actually easy to save them because as far as the characters are concerned, they will die.  So of course the side missions are relevant!  They're like a last meal of a prisoner before an execution.  It's the last thing they wish to seek closure on before they die! 

Personally, I never said I disliked them, or called them irrelevant (optional, yes, not irrelevant)  But closure is not the same thing as preparing for the Suicide Mission.  Preparation is doing what you can to max out your chances of it NOT being a Suicide Mission.  To which I refer to upgrading the Normandy being the only example I see of that taking place..

How can you say Thane not wanting to save his son from going down the same destructive path as he is "irrelevent!?"  IT'S HIS ONLY FRIGGIN SON!  The CHILD of his DEAD WIFE!  The only thing good thing he believes he has ever added to the world!
DON'T LIE TO ME AND TELL ME YOU WEREN'T MOVED BY THAT SCENE!  I'M AS BAD*** as they come and even I wanted to hug Thane and cry on his shoulder!  He was my BROMANCE!

It is touching

But what did Samara think?

Modifié par iakus, 02 décembre 2010 - 01:59 .

[Busomjack]

Every game is going to have a major plot hole. So is every movie, every book, music etc. This is because all entertainment mediums have limitations. Games and movies in particular are restrained by time and budget.
There is only so much a team of developers can do within time frame and budget given but for what it was worth it was incredible.
Take for example Terminator.  One of the greatest action movies ever made.  However, HOW IN THE HELL IS KYLE REESE THE FATHER OF JOHN CONNER!?  What came first?  The chicken or the egg?
I can either whine about this plot discrepancy and have it ruin the game for me or I can like the movie in spite of it.  No plot is perfect, ever.
Could Mass Effect 2 been even more incredible if it were given 1-2 years extra development time? Sure, anything could be. I however am mortal and don't have time to wait 5 years for the next incarnation in a great franchise.
It's not like the writers of Mass Effect 2 didn't consider any of these ideas people are lamenting weren't in the final product. EVERY PRODUCT has features in the drawing board that don't make it into the final cut and to single out Mass Effect 2 for this is completely unfair.

Modifié par Busomjack, 02 décembre 2010 - 02:02 .

[Luigitornado]

Because you have the tools to gauge how successful the mission would have been by substituting the "best in the galaxy" with some decent hired guns. Because you, as a player, are certain that Shepard and Cerberus knew what they were up against, and that they didn't need any recommendations from the specialists about how to improve their chances of surviving and being successful during the final mission. 

[Iakus]

Luigitornado wrote...

For what is worth, I believe that there was enough character interaction to make it unnoticeably not broken. More of it would of made the game more interesting, no doubt about it, but a lack of more did not hurt it.

To me, the silence is deafening.  I wanted Thane's input on Garrus's vendetta against Sidonis.  Or Jack's.  I wanted Samara to berate Zaed for putting innocents in danger.  I wanted Miranda to comment on "Captain" Taylor's actions.  Samara and Thane's missions are polar opposites of each other.  Surely they'd have something to say.  The lack of this, particularly in the spirit of "build a team" sucked the life out of the game for me.  There is no "team" there are just twelve people on a ship.  Each with their own tale to tell.  Guest starring Commander Shepard.

[Busomjack]

How can you say Mass Effect 2 didn't have a satisfying conclusion? The collectors were committing mass genocide of the human race. That scene with the colonists being melted down into reaper goo was incredibly disturbing. I felt animosity towards the collectors and destroying their base was deeply deeply satisfying, even more so than destroying Sovereign.

The collectors were basically the Reaper's contingency plan and we foiled it. All those questions raised by posters earlier complaining about how things weren't explained regarding the reapers were meaningless. They didn't have to be explained since it could be figured out through simple conjecture.



Just think about it. Sovereign was the only reaper left in the galaxy and after he was destroyed the collectors try to build a new one. Does that really need further explanation? Isn't it obvious they're building a replacement for Sovereign? Is anyone really so naive to think the Reapers are stupid enough to just repeat the same mistake twice.



At the end of Mass Effect1 it seemed like the Reapers were screwed and I thought Mass Effect 2 made them seem very much like a viable threat still and by the end of Mass Effect 2 I felt the reapers have been slowed down but they're far from finished. A perfect PERFECT set up for mass Effect 3.



Your lack of satisfaction with the game is your fault, not the game's.

[SithLordExarKun]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Beacuse it turns ME1 into one of those highly contrived and overly complex traps you see on a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Because it was one of those "complex" traps. I honestly love how you ignore the majority of my post and not respond to any of my questions btw. BUT, not as "complex" as you try to make it out to be.

Nozybidaj wrote...
Imagine you are the reapers and you want to get rid of a hornet's nest (the galactic population).  You set up an overly complicated system where a bee lands on a flower that triggers a ball to drop into a pipe that rolls down the pipe and hits a brick knocking onto a seesaw that lifts up the other end flipping a switch that turns on a water faucet that fills up a suspended bucket that once full falls onto trampoline and rebounds up to knock into another ball that rolls down another pipe to fall onto a can of bug spray and depress the trigger that then sprays hornets nest.  Instead though a bird (Shepard) comes along and kills the bee runing your elaborately laid out plan.  Now you just do what you should have done in the first place, you pick up the can of bug spray, walk over and spray the nest. 

Heres a massive problem with your analogy(and ignoring what i and vigil said in the process), in the end the hornets are killed by bugspray in both situations which is not the case for the reapers methods of annihilation, they don't simply waltz through the relay and then drop a big ass bomb that kills the entire galaxy, they start at the citadel killing their leaders and then cut off all relay networks from one another. Then they go system by system wiping out every speciers they encounter while at the same time preventing the said species from moving to another system or help one another out.

^ THATS a strategy the reapers employ in every extinction cycle, just because they can "waltz into the galaxy" doesn't mean they can follow the same exact plan they had been following for 37 million years, just because they can "
"waltz into the galaxy" doesn't mean they can cut off all relay network and annihilate the species system by system.

Nozybidaj wrote...
So what was the point of the elaborate plan in the first place if all you had to do was walk over and spray the nest in the first place?  And did the brird (Shepard) really accomplish anything by eating the bee (destroying Sovereign)?  Not really.

Because it doesn't involve spraying a nest. A nest isn't a compex network of systems and mass relays. A nest doesn't require you "systematically" cut off all relay access from one another. A nest can be destroyed by bug spray/bomb, a galaxy can't be killed by a bomb.

No offence but your analogy was stupid and nonsensical.

Nozybidaj wrote...
If the Reapers in the end can just waltz right into the galaxy with nary a thought, and do it on a timetable that doesn't cast ME3 out to some distant point in the future (I'm talking generations worth of time to make the time saved by having the relay even be relevant to a race of immortal machine ship human slurpy things) then what was the entire point of the whole "plan" to begin with?

A MASSIVE advantage when followed according to plan as explained by vigil and as explained by me for the second time which you blatantly ignore.

Nozybidaj wrote...
  If the plan is "just float right on in to town" doesn't that make basically everything we have done up to this point feel really cheap and irrelevant?

Again, as shepard clearly stated, he merely delayed the invasion and didn't give the reapers the upperhand by flying through the citadel, they were still going to come one way or another.

[Busomjack]

iakus wrote...

Luigitornado wrote...

For what is worth, I believe that there was enough character interaction to make it unnoticeably not broken. More of it would of made the game more interesting, no doubt about it, but a lack of more did not hurt it.

To me, the silence is deafening.  I wanted Thane's input on Garrus's vendetta against Sidonis.  Or Jack's.  I wanted Samara to berate Zaed for putting innocents in danger.  I wanted Miranda to comment on "Captain" Taylor's actions.  Samara and Thane's missions are polar opposites of each other.  Surely they'd have something to say.  The lack of this, particularly in the spirit of "build a team" sucked the life out of the game for me.  There is no "team" there are just twelve people on a ship.  Each with their own tale to tell.  Guest starring Commander Shepard.

yeah yeah we get it, you're moaning because the squad mates have limited interaction with each other.  I don't dissagree that would've made the game better but really, what game doesn't have at least one major flaw?  Even Deus Ex which I consider the greatest game of all time I will concede has abysmal AI.  Unlike you though I take an optimistic approach towards games and don't let a few negatives overshadow the overwhelmingly postive aspects.

[Iakus]

Busomjack wrote...

Every game is going to have a major plot hole. So is every movie, every book, music etc. This is because all entertainment mediums have limitations. Games and movies in particular are restrained by time and budget.
There is only so much a team of developers can do within time frame and budget given but for what it was worth it was incredible.

The lack of character interaction is only the most pervasive hole in the game.  There are others.  The interaction one is the most egregious because they made a game pretty much designed for it, yet left it almost completely out.  It doesn't help that DAO came out so soon before ME2, which demonstrated just how awesome character interaction could be.

If you find ME 2 incredible, that's great for you.  I genuinely wish I could think the same.  But all I see is wasted potential.

[Busomjack]

As much as I liked Dragon Age Origins I think that the character interaction was inferior to Mass Effect 2's. Sure it had more character interaction but a lot of it wasn't believable. How many women have let you scrog them after giving them a dog bone? It's not just the gift system either, some of the dialogue choices are just way over the top and silly and seem put in there as a practical joke.



There are fewer dialogue options in Mass Effect but every single conversation feels genuine and something real people would say to each other. It's more subtle and less cluttered, I like that.

[Praetor Knight]

Busomjack wrote...

As much as I liked Dragon Age Origins I think that the character interaction was inferior to Mass Effect 2's. Sure it had more character interaction but a lot of it wasn't believable. How many women have let you scrog them after giving them a dog bone? It's not just the gift system either, some of the dialogue choices are just way over the top and silly and seem put in there as a practical joke.

There are fewer dialogue options in Mass Effect but every single conversation feels genuine and something real people would say to each other. It's more subtle and less cluttered, I like that.

But, she's a witch of the wilds... and the achievement...

Nonetheless, ME2 was pretty good with how it's done.

[Luigitornado]

And you didn't get it.

[Iakus]

Busomjack wrote...

yeah yeah we get it, you're moaning because the squad mates have limited interaction with each other.  I don't dissagree that would've made the game better but really, what game doesn't have at least one major flaw?  Even Deus Ex which I consider the greatest game of all time I will concede has abysmal AI.  Unlike you though I take an optimistic approach towards games and don't let a few negatives overshadow the overwhelmingly postive aspects.

What you call "moaning" I call "feedback"  I have not insulted anyone, belittled anyone's intelligence, or derided anyone else's opinion of the game.  This is my opinion as a game owner and longtime fan of Bioware games. I did not like ME 2.  I cite reasons why, and speculate on what could have been done better. 

The weakness with the lack of interaction is that it made it very difficult for me to care about the characters as people.  But even that's just part of the problem.  Ask me about the Lazarus Project, the Reaper larva, 'Ah, yes, "Reapers', and "Kinder, gentler Cerberus"  and the Horizon meeting.  Not to mention the superhero outfits.   ME 2 failed for me on many levels

And I agree, Deus Ex was a great game for its time.  I wish it ran better on my computer or I'd still be playing it.  What disturbs me about ME 2 is that there will be an ME 3.  And if ME 2 is a sign of what's to come, I have a very bad feeling about it.  Think Deus Ex 2.

[SithLordExarKun]

iakus wrote...



What you call "moaning" I call "feedback"  I have not insulted anyone, belittled anyone's intelligence, or derided anyone else's opinion of the game.  This is my opinion as a game owner and longtime fan of Bioware games. I did not like ME 2.  I cite reasons why, and speculate on what could have been done better. 

.

Actually, you have. Every time someone brings up as to why they like ME2, you try to argue with them, tell them that they're wrong and why you're right.

[Busomjack]

And while everyone else is enjoying the Hell out of Mass Effect 2 and is highly anticipating the release of Mass Effect 3 you're going to be sitting in your dark corner, sad and alone.  You're like that one guy at every party who stands in the corner while everyone else is just looking to get buzzed, socialize and have a good time and you ask yourself how people can possibly find entertainment in such stupid things.  You said it earlier, you wish you could enjoy the game as much as most people do but you're obviously not going to convince people to join your little sob-fest since the game didn't turn out like you wanted and nobody else is going to accept your outlandish comparison of Mass Effect 2 to Deus Ex 2 which almost everyone agrees was a colossal failure.
Likewise I'll concede nobody is likely going to convince you to see things differently either so really why bother continuing this Mass Effect 2 sob story?
Your criticisms don't even have any credibility considering your lavish praise of Mass Effect 1 which has pretty much ALL of the issues regarding character interaction that you bring up in Mass Effect 2. I guess you preferred those cookie cutter, 5 minute long side missions that do nothing at all to influence the outcome of the game.

Modifié par Busomjack, 02 décembre 2010 - 02:38 .

[Luigitornado]

There is no doubt that Bioware will hear some of the complaints and move on accordingly. Wanting more character/team interactions would be beneficial, and I wouldn't be surprised if they proceeded down that alley. Complaints about "superhero" outfits seem a little nitpicky. One way around that problem is offering similar customization to what they did with Shepard: have a base design and customize if from there.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 02 décembre 2010 - 03:23 .

[ObserverStatus]

Archereon wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

I thought the story quality was about the same between ME1 and ME2. Now if only I could say the same about the Starcraft series :'(

Starcraft to SCII is like ME to ME2.  The stories are both good by a certain standard, but those standards appeal to different people.

but the speech about freedom that matt horner gave after "breakout" made me want to claw out my eardrums D:

[wulf3n]

Busomjack wrote...
Obviously they are minor flaws since hardly anyone other than you is complaining about it.  What?  You think everyone else is just too stupid to be as brilliant as you?  Get off your high horse. 

No it's just that everyone who used to be here complaining with me has realized you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, and i have nothing better to do.

Busomjack wrote...
Oh, so now you're backtracking about what you said regarding the plot.  Earlier you were complaining about plot holes, unanswered questions, etc.  Well no kidding!  This is the not the final chapter in the saga.  It's the third game when we're supposed to get cloture. 

Not back tracking you're just putting words in my mouth, don' t worry everyone seems to do it, it's just that people don't actually read my posts, they just see, ME2... ... ... bad and go from there.

Busomjack wrote... 
The second game's role was to develop the characters so that the third game can focus most of it's time explaining the backstory regarding the reapers and the collectors.  This focus on character driven plot was intentional by the writers because why should we care if the reapers/collectors/Geth kill everyone if we don't learn to like the characters?  You've missed the point of this game entirely!

Focusing on characters doesn't have to mean the exclusion of every other story aspect. it's a lot easier to like characters if i'm going on a journey with them other than just fixing their problems.

Busomjack wrote... 

What I meant about Luke Skywalker is that it seems strange that the emperor would waste so many resources trying to track one man, even if he is a Jedi and the resolution to this mystery is that the emperor intends to replace Vader.  This resolution wouldn't have been nearly as powerful had it been thrown at us in Empire.  You don't seem to realize that Mass Effect 2's purpose is to build up to an immensely satisfying conclusion.  You're supposed to feel like there is a lot missing, that is what Mass Effect 3 will be for.

You seem to be looking at my point and making it grander than what it is. You keep making the assumption that im upset that ME2 didn't answer all my questions, and thats why i said the character recruitment is pointless.

Busomjack wrote... 

And do NOT dodge the issue of the suicide mission.  You called them irrelevent and compared them to Illos.  There is a big difference though since in Mass Effect 2 the people actually think they are going to die.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's actually easy to save them because as far as the characters are concerned, they will die.  So of course the side missions are relevant!  They're like a last meal of a prisoner before an execution.  It's the last thing they wish to seek closure on before they die! 

I'm not saying the character missions were bad, or that they didn't make sense from the characters perspective. What i'm saying is that as shepard you're told you NEED these people and their LOYALTY to COMPLETE the suicide mission, yet when you get there it's painfully obvious you don't, not to mention the fact that everyone seems all too willing to go on a suicide mission that's unnecessary.

Busomjack wrote... 

How can you say Thane not wanting to save his son from going down the same destructive path as he is "irrelevent!?"  IT'S HIS ONLY FRIGGIN SON!  The CHILD of his DEAD WIFE!  The only thing good thing he believes he has ever added to the world!

And that helps us stop the collectors when we don't need him how?

Modifié par wulf3n, 02 décembre 2010 - 02:47 .

[Busomjack]

While Bioware is out it they should consider banning everyone who says that Mass Effect 2 is a disappointment.

This community should be for fans and fans alone and if you aren't a fan of Bioware's biggest franchise then you shouldn't be allowed to post here.

[Praetor Knight]

Luigitornado wrote...

And you didn't get it.

May I ask who is you? To which you are refering, please?

Thank you in advance.

[SithLordExarKun]

Busomjack wrote...

And while everyone else is enjoying the Hell out of Mass Effect 2 and is highly anticipating the release of Mass Effect 3 you're going to be sitting in your dark corner, sad and alone.  You're like that one guy at every party who stands in the corner while everyone else is just looking to get buzzed, socialize and have a good time and you ask yourself how people can possibly find entertainment in such stupid things.  You said it earlier, you wish you could enjoy the game as much as most people do but you're obviously not going to convince people to join your little sob-fest since the game didn't turn out like you wanted and nobody else is going to accept your outlandish comparison of Mass Effect 2 to Deus Ex 2 which almost everyone agrees was a colossal failure.
Likewise I'll concede nobody is likely going to convince you to see things differently either so really why bother continuing this Mass Effect 2 sob story?
Your criticisms don't even have any credibility considering your lavish praise of Mass Effect 1 which has pretty much ALL of the issues regarding character interaction that you bring up in Mass Effect 2. I guess you preferred those cookie cutter, 5 minute long side missions that do nothing at all to influence the outcome of the game.

hah quoted for truth.

[Spornicus]

I love how people argue personal opinion for 10+ pages, and after it's all said and done no one has changed their views in the slightest.