174 réponses à ce sujet

[BiancoAngelo7]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

@slimgrin:

Ideas? Really? Couldn't get any more specific than that? I'd like to see the list of these "ideas" are because people using generic terminology to slam something sounds very very fishy talk for saying "I don't like it and people should listen because I don't like it".

I still can't believe that people honestly believed that in order for ME2 to be great the story had to have Shepard already curb-checking the Reapers by the end. Where's the creativity in that? It's like with JRPGs where almost every one deals with destroying the evil that plagues the universe.

Did anyone get the gist that Bioware was making ME2 darker than ME1? Did anyone gather that ME2 was going to have a different story than ME1?

Half the people complaining about ME2 I've seen advocate for the things that most other games (some not worth mentioning) already did or do on a regular basis. Nobody likes a "writer" who writes basically the same book over and over. And I'm not talking about people like Tom Clancy and Stephen King who write in a particular style repeatedly. I'm talking about someone who write something which if you switched around just the names you'd get any one of the number of stories they wrote nearly identically.

Dude.

<_<

Way to assume a bunch of things that no one said or even complained about, and then try to use them as if they belonged to those who put forward valid criticisms of the game.

Also, you lost me as soon as you tried to peddle the dev's mantra that ME2 was somehow the "dark chapter" in the story.

Just that alone made me go wtf. If nothing else, I think we can all agree that ME2 was about as dark as Disney land at mid day in August. The only really "dark" thing that happens is we witness ONE character get liquified by the collectors. oooo wow. DARK.

Locations were not dark, conveyed no sense of evil or lawlessness, regardless of how many times the devs said thats what they would do.

Enemies were generic and many times outright laughable. (laughing AT them, mind you)

*THIS HURTS YOU SHEPARD* ...ring a bell?

Yeah "main" characters can die, but they only do so if you wish them to, because making sure they don't die is about as easy as clicking to upgrade your ship and doing the loyalty missions. WOW. DARK.

Dude. Your entire post basically boils down to the opposite of what you are complaining about. You liked the game and apparently saw no faults with it, and are frustrated by others who had a higher standard of quality, therefore having criticisms about the game.

It's fine if you don't think anything was bad. But please don't expect everyone else to think the same thing...

[ADLegend21]

Apparently (<-keyword right there) alot fo the stuff that was taken out was complained about ALOT like the Mako and then when it's gone that's complained about. The elevator rides were complained about so they took them out, the mako driving on worlds was complained about so they took it out, the difficulties were, what'd you know, actually difficult this time, etc. this is all rom what I've read since I started the ME franchise from 2 and went back to play 1.

[slimgrin]

JamieCOTC wrote...
but I just feel the story and atmosphere was better in the first game. 

Yep. Bioware got all enamored with Shepard's team and their personalities in ME2. Granted, I thought they were better than than those in ME1, but unfortunately they left the main story behind; they left tons of stuff behind so they could turn it into a celebrity parade of sorts.

[jpbreon]

I enjoyed both games greatly. People get all bent out of shape because the plot didn't involve everything from ME1, as if you're supposed to just continue on with the crew you have. In a way, Shepherd working for Cerberus was damn near a requirement to take on the Reapers. Throughout ME1, even as Sovereign lay smashed up in the Citadel, the Council was still rejecting the impending invasion. There was a simple limit to what Shepherd would accomplish had he stayed in the Alliance or as a Spectre, likely following around Heretic Geth while the Collectors prepared the way for the Reapers.



Since, after all, the colonies disappearing were all in the Terminus Systems, where the Council would simply refuse to do anything. Shepherd would get zero done. The game developers decided to get Shepherd into a position to combat the Harbinger by having him die, but I guess some fans would rather have him tell the Council to pound sand and quit, losing the command of the Normandy anyway to fight the Reapers by hiring shuttles to carry him out to the Terminus.



It's entirely possible that ME2 was designed to allow Shepherd to gather allies he would otherwise have no opportunity to acquire under his ME2 station. It's hard to imagine how the galaxy would learn of True Geth otherwise, since the Council races would obliterate any Geth found in Council space, and certainly would not send anyone to the Veil to offer an olive branch. The Shadow Broker, Cerberus, the Quarians, the Krogans, the Rachni, and other such entities would not be called upon if Shepherd stayed playing Council games. It makes sense, even if it does seem disjointed.

[MassEffect762]

The Spamming Troll wrote...



the thing is ME2 is more parts gears of war, then mass effect1. i have a feeling ME3 isnt going to resemble ME1 at all. i dont think making cerberus a household name is nearly as importnat as ME2 having a story that follows what i did in ME1. whats this "flow" you speak of in ME2?  ME2s story doesnt advance untill the last mission. ME1 revolved around saren because he was half the story. ME2 is 12 sepereate short stories with one story mission, that being the SM. im not looking for more alien species, merc groups, or hanar squadmates. i have 1/3rd of my journey left, im not looking for questions, im looking for answers.

honestly ME2 gives me blue balls. i feel like im playing a game that had so much potential, but just left so much behind.

Your words reflect my thoughts on the matter.

[Sparda Stonerule]

sumoaltus wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I agree. Honestly some people are upset because they have no idea how to stop the Reapers. They feel the whole game should have been exploring the Galaxy and trying to find a way to stop the Reapers. I believe that's stupid and generic. In ME 2 we assembled a team and lined up possible allies to fight the Reapers with. To me assembling the people of the Galaxy is vastly more interesting than "well we checked all these planets and finally found some super weapon to help fight the Reapers, is anyone nervous about them showing up anymore? I'm not."

I mean honestly over the Reapers entire lifespan no race has ever taken out the entire lot. Assuming there's some magical and easy way to kill the Reapers is silly. Heck even Vigil in ME 1 kind of stated that at least this cycle has early warning and because of the Prothean effort the Keepers no longer work for the Reapers. That's already a big advantage for us. Even adding to that the Collectors were the only thing that had any link to the Reapers that Shepard knew about. He knows they are real, and TIM tells him that the Collectors may be linked with the Reapers. He had nothing else to go on, no other clues, not even a hint of anything else Reaper related. ME 2 was a logical step in the story that focused on the people of the Galaxy. If some people are really so bored by the people of the Galaxy then I have no idea what they wanted out of the entire Mass Effect story arc. ME 1 set the Universe up and let us see Citadel Space and introduced us to the Species. ME 2 set up more characters and made (me at least) care about saving the Galaxy. 

That's just my two cents and I know a lot of people just want the standard story. However assuming ME 3 will pull this together nicely then I enjoy this deviation of the Savior of the Galaxy story.

See this is what I want this thread to revolve around, intelligent discussion about why ME2 is better/worse than ME1.

This is also the point I was trying to make in my oroginal post as well. Great post my friend.

Yes well rather unfortunately people seem to be avoiding any kind of intelligence or conversation.

People who like the game seem to like the gameplay elements and tend to focus on those. People who were upset miss the RPG and the rather false bigness that ME 1 had. I'm more concerned with narrative direction and story diversity. I will never understand people who want answers served up to the on a silver platter. I've never seen anything wrong with some questions hanging around as long as there is a clear and decisive ending. It honestly makes me feel like the writer feels that I am not smart enough to connect the dots when someone just stands there and drones at me about exactly what the flip is going on and even worse just what we're going to do about it.

I prefer my stories to have some characters who don't know exactly what's going on. I like them to guess and be wrong sometimes. I enjoy trying to work it out at the same time they are. To me the story is the only part that can truly immerse you in the game. Not elevators or empty skyboxes. It's about learning and growing into the story with the characters. Quite frankly I enjoy not knowing exactly how I'm going to take the fight to the Reapers in ME 3. It adds tension and excitement. If I knew exactly what we were going to use to destroy the Reapers I wouldn't be sitting here waiting in anticipation for the game. I'd be sitting here just waiting to go through the motions and do what the game told me I was going to do.

Evolution and growth is what we need in games. Sure we have 12 Squad Mates and the story revolved around them for the most part. But I liked that, I liked getting to know about them and I enjoyed growing to care about every one of my crew members. Sure we don't know how we are going to win but there weren't any Reapers alive in the Galaxy for us to analyze and figure out. So we make do with the time we have and analyze some of the Reapers minions in order to try and understand the Reapers just a little bit better. Is that really so bad? Or is it just maybe that when people see something that they personally didn't expect they get upset and look for things to tear into? I admit I was thrown off at first by ME 2 but in time I have grown to love and understand it. Is it really so hard to try and understand things? Or would you really rather just have the same thing happen every time you play a game with exposition man staring at you telling you exactly what is going to go down, when it is going to go down, and how you are going to win?

[sumoaltus]

I honestly have to reiterate this point again. For some reason the "plot" is still being called sub-par and weak. Again, this is a middle of the road point in a trilogy, this is the filler story within the three titles.



So what they took the nasty inventory out along with elevator rides and mako exploring, look how many other interesting and diverse aspects Bioware brought into ME2.

[Iakus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I agree. Honestly some people are upset because they have no idea how to stop the Reapers. They feel the whole game should have been exploring the Galaxy and trying to find a way to stop the Reapers. I believe that's stupid and generic. In ME 2 we assembled a team and lined up possible allies to fight the Reapers with. To me assembling the people of the Galaxy is vastly more interesting than "well we checked all these planets and finally found some super weapon to help fight the Reapers, is anyone nervous about them showing up anymore? I'm not."

In general, I liked the new characters.  Several of them were rather over the top superhero-y.  But the concepts were pretty solid.  The problem wasn't really giving them individual stories, It was faiing to integrate them into the main story of ME 2.  Namely the Collectors and the Suicide Mission.

If you looks at most caper stories, war stories, or anything with an ensemble cast, you see how the characters play off each other.  They get to know each other, express likes or dislikes.  Some bond and become friends.  Others rivals.  Personalities mesh or clash.Ultimately, that saves or costs lives.  That, quite simply, did not happen in ME2.  Shepard recruits the characters, talks to them, does missions for them.  But they never really talk to each other.  Never express opinions on missions, never speak out for or against a particular decision.  They never even seem to acknowledge that there's anyone else on board besides Shepard.  No, ME 1 is not much better in this.  But ME 2 is supposed to be character centric.  Different from ME1.  Deeper.  But each character develops in his or her own slice of the game.  Insular is the best word I've heard describing it.  I find that very distressing in a game that's supposed to be about teambuilding.

Look at the banter thread in the Spoilers section and you'll see what kind of things people are writing as inserts into teh game.  Not all of it is serious.  But it gives you an idea of what's really missing about the characters.

I mean honestly over the Reapers entire lifespan no race has ever taken out the entire lot. Assuming there's some magical and easy way to kill the Reapers is silly. Heck even Vigil in ME 1 kind of stated that at least this cycle has early warning and because of the Prothean effort the Keepers no longer work for the Reapers. That's already a big advantage for us. Even adding to that the Collectors were the only thing that had any link to the Reapers that Shepard knew about. He knows they are real, and TIM tells him that the Collectors may be linked with the Reapers. He had nothing else to go on, no other clues, not even a hint of anything else Reaper related. ME 2 was a logical step in the story that focused on the people of the Galaxy. If some people are really so bored by the people of the Galaxy then I have no idea what they wanted out of the entire Mass Effect story arc. ME 1 set the Universe up and let us see Citadel Space and introduced us to the Species. ME 2 set up more characters and made (me at least) care about saving the Galaxy. 

It's not just the fact that Shepard doesn't go looking for ways to defeat the Reapers.  It's that he didn't even try, really.  Trying and failing can be dark and gritty.  ME 2 took it way further and totally shifted teh focus of the story.  Now pretty much all the discoveries is going to hafta be left to ME 3 plus the actual showdown.  I mean, in ME 2 we haven't even learned what the Collectors were ultimately up to.  Not just "we were wrong" or "that was unexpected" but "What did we stop, if anything?"  Look at it this way, we don't even know why TIM believed Shepard about the Reapers to begin with, let alone how he knows the Collectors were connected to the Reapers.  We're going into ME 3 that ignorant.  That's why people point out that ME 2 ends with Shepard no better off than the end of ME 1.  Worse off in many ways.

[AlanC9]

If you're doing lists with multiple points, it's convenient to number them. Easy to pick which ones to agree with and which ones to disagree with.

Numbers mine:

slimgrin wrote...

Ideas to keep:

1-Overheating weapons, not heat clips. Meant the game wans't your typical shooter.

2-Strong overarching plot, not introducing a pointless distraction like the Collectors. The plot in ME2 suffered as a result. It's called sequel-itus

3-Level design that isn't on-the-rails linear. Hub worlds in ME1 felt like real locations, not video game levels.

4-Remote outposts. We had them in ME1. It provided great atmosphere, felt like I was truly in space. 

5-Dialog skills in ME1, a brilliant concept. Gone. 

I strongly agree with 5, don't given a damn about 1, and have no idea what 4 means

As for 3, it doesn't make sense to talk about battle zone and hub zone design at the same time, since they're doing different things. Sure, you can prefer both of them to be nonlinear if you like, but those are different arguments. Given the small size of ME2 hub worlds, nonlinear design wouldn't have made much difference. If you want to talk about making them bigger, then talk about that. For mission zones, I'd base design on the type of mission. If Shepard knows what he's there to do and where he's supposed to do it, then linear is better. For other types of mission, different design may be better.

As for 2, it depends on what you mean by "strong overarching plot," I guess. I didn't see any real superiority in the ME1 implementation, but that may be because Bio has overused the structure so much in ME1, NWN, and KotOR that I can't take it seriously anymore.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
 I mean, in ME 2 we haven't even learned what the Collectors were ultimately up to.  Not just "we were wrong" or "that was unexpected" but "What did we stop, if anything?"  

Huh? I thought the endgame showed exactly what the Collectors were doing with all those humans.

[Nightwriter]

I think iakus means that we never find out what the Reapers were even planning to do with the human Reaper larva.

[Lumikki]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think iakus means that we never find out what the Reapers were even planning to do with the human Reaper larva.

Of course not, because story ended before we got the information. In many tv-series we don't learn everyting, because it's in next season or episode. Sometimes even some stuff will never be revealed. What's the problem with that?

[sumoaltus]

Exactly, the game is still left completely open.

[Encarmine]

these threds are just crap, infact these forums are getting old fast, nothing other people say is going to stop me playing ME2 over and over, i joined these forums to enjoy talking about the games the future and speculating.



Not watch some never ending fight between the haters and the fans, boring.



Opinions are like ****s, everyone has one, and other people think they stink.



some of you need to get over yourselves. I wish this forum displayed the date of birth for all of us, as i suspect half the time im reading things written by angry 16 year olds.



good bye boring repetative forums

[Code_R]

ME2 is "lacklustre" because despite being labelled the 2nd part of a trilogy, the main storyline offers little more than a stop gap, a restart where Shepherd starts from scratch and by the end is still left with the threat of Reaper invasion, sat there on the edge of space. There is nothing that suggests this is a standard part 2 - typically this would be written as a darker, moodier experience that has a few key reveals and ends in a big dramatic moment, so that part 3 can be the all out triumphant finale. What should have been the "Empire Strikes Back" of the series, is nothing of the sort. We haven't learnt anything substantial, and the ending is almost the same as part 1 - something major never happened (I was expecting Shepherd to screw up the suicide mission and get stranded or die). In fact it's weaker than part 1 since there was never a real nemesis to battle. This summaries exactly why it's lacklustre filler story writing.

As games they are both very good, each with their own problems and flaws. But the main plot is a lot stronger in ME1 which in a role playing genre game like this is one of the most important aspects, so I wont start on the RPG elements or gameplay changes. Some people think the sequel is supposed to be the weak link? Not an excuse when sci-fi stories in other media have had many of the greatest part 2s. What I'm saying here isn't crazy or throwing wild accusations - there's no "hating" going on, ME2 was in my top 5 games of this year. But you have to see what I'm saying when Bioware should have been aiming a lot higher with the story line.

Modifié par Code_R, 31 décembre 2010 - 04:20 .

[slimgrin]

AlanC9 wrote...

I strongly agree with 5, don't given a damn about 1, and have no idea what 4 means

By remote outposts, I'm referring to the planets. I obviously don't want dozens of copy-paste locations back, but I liked the fact you frequently landed on planets in ME1 that were mostly uninhabited. They might have had a collection of buildings, a laboratory, etc. and little more. With ME1, they did a better job of depicting the vast emptiness of space. 

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...
Of course not, because story ended before we got the information. In many tv-series we don't learn everyting, because it's in next season or episode. Sometimes even some stuff will never be revealed. What's the problem with that?

Because each game was supposed to stand alone.  In ME 1 you eventually discover what it is Saren and Sovereign were planning to do.  It didn't end with the player going "Huh, I wonder what Saren was doing with that console in the Council Chamber"  You knew he was trying to help Sovereign open the dark space relay, and the consequences if that happened.  ME 1's story stood on its own.  ME 2's story, you never know why things are happening.  DId you save the Terminus systems? The galaxy?  A few human colonies?  Or were you just a speed bump and barely slowed the Reapers down?  Until ME 3 comes out, or a developer posts an explanation the ending to ME 2 will continue to make no sense to me.  How is that "standalone"?

If the developers told us right from the start that if things seem strange, it's because the story is ongoing and Shepard (ie "you) do not have all the facts, that would be one thing.  I could live with that.  But we were told that each game was a seperate story that, while connected into a single larger story. could also stand alone.  ME 1 does that.  It's tells a complete story with an ending.  It also leaves things open for a second installment.  ME 2 seems to be more like the first of a two part story.  Totally severed from ME 1 and totally dependant on ME 3. 

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Of course not, because story ended before we got the information. In many tv-series we don't learn everyting, because it's in next season or episode. Sometimes even some stuff will never be revealed. What's the problem with that?

Because each game was supposed to stand alone. 

*snip*

Totally severed from ME 1 and totally dependant on ME 3. 

So, stand alone or depending of other games in the serie? Choose one or other, because both can't exist same time. Also if you choose one for ME2, it has to also apply to ME1 and ME3 as well.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 décembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...
So, stand alone or depending of other games in the serie?
So, how the game would have be good for you?

I would lookt to ME 1's storyline, which seemed to encompass the original intent.  The game had a beginning, a middle, and an end.  Shepard's profile and prewar history made references to past events and provided extra mission/dialogue options (since there was no previous game to refer to).  In the end, the villain's plans are unveiled, the immediate threat is taken care of.  Time is bought to prepare for the onslought.  But there's more work to be done, and so the story continues.

In ME 2, the time bought in the first game is wasted.  Shepard's accomplishments trivialized.  In effect, nothing mattered before waking up during the tutorial.  And at the end, what Shepard accomplished is questionable.  How would I have made the game better? Potential examples:

In the intro, Shepard is seen traveling from world to world, trying to unearth more evidence of the Reapers, and how the Protheans or other races tried to fight them.  Over two years, Shepard fails to uncover anything significant.  The old squad breaks up over time as tehy're called away for other duties.  The Council and Alliance conclude that with Sovereign dead and teh Keepers altered, the Reaper threat is gone fro good and stop taking Shep seriously.  Funding dries up.  Eventually a broken-down Normandy pulls into Omega, where Miranda and Jacob contact Shepard with an offer from a "wealthy benefactor" who believes Shepard and has information about a Reaper plot.

Thus Shepard is in essentially the same situation as in the start of ME 2.  But it's a more natural transition.  Heroes can fall without literally passing through the Underworld.

At the ending:  EDI reports to Shepard that she has uncovered additional information from the Collector vessel's computers. She has found evidence that there are other Collector bases out there.  The Collectors are working on other projects in other places.  Cut to some unknown region of space where a  crew of Collectors are building what appears to be a miniaturized version of the Citadel (a new dark space relay)

Thus it would be revelaed that a larger scheme was in the works.  One which Shepard has failed to significanlty alter.  The invasion is now imminent.


Edit:  I see you edited your question:  So, stand alone or depending of other games in the serie? Choose one or other, because both can't exist same time. Also if you choose one for ME2, it has to also apply to ME1 and ME3 as well.

If I have to choose, so does Bioware.  But since I apparantly have to choose, I say "build on the story that came before"  Like I said, I'd have more confidence in the story if I knew that there would eventually be an explanation.  That it would all fit together somehow.  The impression I got form ME 2 was that the writers were not going to let logic or continuity get in the way of the story they want to tell.

Modifié par iakus, 31 décembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[tonnactus]

habitat 67 wrote...


Now I completely enjoyed my entire playthrough of Ghostbusters and wanted to enjoy it ten times more (Bill Murray dammit!) but in no way does that game match the customization of Mass Effect.

You earn money for every killed ghost and then upgrade for example the weapon penetration of your proton gun.Or that you can faster fire boson streams. Exactly like in Mass Effect 2. What wasnt like in Mass Effect was that i didnt have to collect ammo clips after a fight...

ME2 gameplay flows smooth like baby oil and overall consensus is in agreement.

Never played a vanguard then.There isnt a mission where i didnt get the message "cant reach the target".
When the enemy is in line of sight and just some meters away.Or i charge and end at a glaswall where the enemy could shoot at my head.

[Lumikki]

So, here is what I hear you saying, as short as possible.

1. You would like ME series stories to continue eatch others.
2. You liked ME1 story, but not ME2 story.

Personally I think I get you point, but I don't see ME2 the way you do. You look situation little like ME2 stories was waste of time and ME1 was everyting what matters. In my opinion ME1 opened story and it was great, but also ME2 added new stuff to it too. Example I know alot more about cerberus, collectors and other races in Mass Effect universe now. Mass Effect 2 may not continue the orginal goal directly and may even put Shepard in position where player did not want to be, but life isn't allways fair. It will be very interesting to see where story goes in ME3.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 décembre 2010 - 08:18 .

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...


By remote outposts, I'm referring to the planets. I obviously don't want dozens of copy-paste locations back, but I liked the fact you frequently landed on planets in ME1 that were mostly uninhabited. They might have had a collection of buildings, a laboratory, etc. and little more. With ME1, they did a better job of depicting the vast emptiness of space. 

Thanks for the clarification. In which case I'm somewhat hostile to point four. I agree that it showed the emptiness of space better, but I don't agree that this is necessary or even worthwhile in ME. When I hit those sidequests "why is Shepard doing this?" kept popping into my head. The only answer that I could come up with is that Shepard is doing this because AlanC9 paid for all this content and is making Shepard go to these places to extract all the gameplay possible from the disc.

Edit: integrating that feeling into the main quests is another matter. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[AlanC9]

tonnactus wrote...


Never played a vanguard then.There isnt a mission where i didnt get the message "cant reach the target".
When the enemy is in line of sight and just some meters away.Or i charge and end at a glaswall where the enemy could shoot at my head.

I'm half-though and haven't had this happen yet. OTOH that's because at the higher difficulty levels I really don't like Charge at all.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
In ME 2, the time bought in the first game is wasted.  Shepard's accomplishments trivialized.  In effect, nothing mattered before waking up during the tutorial.

Huh? ME1 wasn't about "buying time." It was about preventing total Reaper victory. If anyone's trivializing what Shep did in the first game it's you.

In the intro, Shepard is seen traveling from world to world, trying to unearth more evidence of the Reapers, and how the Protheans or other races tried to fight them.  Over two years, Shepard fails to uncover anything significant.  The old squad breaks up over time as tehy're called away for other duties.  The Council and Alliance conclude that with Sovereign dead and teh Keepers altered, the Reaper threat is gone fro good and stop taking Shep seriously.  Funding dries up.  Eventually a broken-down Normandy pulls into Omega, where Miranda and Jacob contact Shepard with an offer from a "wealthy benefactor" who believes Shepard and has information about a Reaper plot.

Thus Shepard is in essentially the same situation as in the start of ME 2.  But it's a more natural transition.  Heroes can fall without literally passing through the Underworld.

You like this better. I'm indifferent, except that I think your method would need even more cutscene time before the player can take meaningful action.

At the ending:  EDI reports to Shepard that she has uncovered additional information from the Collector vessel's computers. She has found evidence that there are other Collector bases out there.  The Collectors are working on other projects in other places.  Cut to some unknown region of space where a  crew of Collectors are building what appears to be a miniaturized version of the Citadel (a new dark space relay)

Thus it would be revelaed that a larger scheme was in the works.  One which Shepard has failed to significanlty alter.  The invasion is now imminent.

So what Shepard has accomplished in ME2 is questionable, and your improvement is to make his results.... even more questionable? 

[tonnactus]

AlanC9 wrote...


I'm half-though and haven't had this happen yet. OTOH that's because at the higher difficulty levels I really don't like Charge at all.

Whats the point of playing as vanguard then? I would rather play an adept without charge.But even then,in the mission with the batarians singularity sometimes didnt work like in all other mission.

Squad ammo isnt still really solved,because only if i have squad ammo myself(and activate/use it) other squadmembers didnt otherwrite my heavy versions.