672 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
 the other baddies are forever "trapped in darkspace" and there are no real plot threads hanging."

Really? That's why ME1 ends with Anderson/Udina and Shepard promising to fight the Reapers back when they come? Yeah that sounds like they're forever trapped in Darkspace. I mean hell the line "The Reapers are coming" directly contradicts that.

I did not write that, cachx did. I posted against it.

FeelTheMighty wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
For Mass Effect being mostly standalone. It was, and this due to it being the initiate title of the trilogy. A sequel is suppose to develop the plot, which does not happen. Furthermore, while the majority of ME's plot concluded. I would imagine the glaring inevitability of the Reaper invasion is a pretty compelling thread left hanging. Too bad it was hardly mentioned despite to repeat "the Reapers are coming."

Or expand upon the universe. Which definitely does happen, since we go to previously unexplored locations, and see first hand what the Codex in ME1 was talking about. Things like Quarian/Krogan politics, Quarian/Geth relations ,the Shadow Broker, etc...

And technically, the plot is advanced. As mentioned before, the people that Shepard gets involved with are part of massive organizations that will no doubt have huge roles in ME3...there's also the whole thing with humanity having caught the eye of the Reapers.

This is minimal and a partial example of the wasted potential I found. Tali's loyalty mission is a diamond in the rough for Mass Effect 2 due to the abundance of angles eloquently spun and attached to conversations we had during Mass Effect. The loss of Legion being there was a horrendous design choice unfortunately because that was such a fundamental development arc.

That does not advance the Reaper plot, but merely include further variables. Cerberus' involvement did not provide any knowledge of the Reapers nor a means to prevent the cycle. Everyone about ME2 is complete reliant upon ME3. It cannot stand on its own. If the characters of this supposed character driven story offered the Wrex Effect. ME2 would be completely irrelevant. Your example of Cerberus is speculation. Look at the ramification the Council had.

The prospect of "humanity catching the Reapers' eye" insinuates ME3 could be less about the galaxy and more about Earth. This almost completely alters the established plot from Mass Effect.

[Pwner1323]

Im not reading all that Riou.

Modifié par Pwner1323, 09 janvier 2011 - 09:54 .

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

Riou, you've got really flimsy and convenient reasons for why characters don't speak up in ME2. Er, in my opinion, that is. I should point out that Tali gets involved in the entire Citadel quest, Garrus gets involved in the Citadel quest, Liara is involved in the Benezia plotline and Noveria, Wrex is involved in the Saren genophage cure debacle, and Kaidan/Ashley are involved in the Virmire decision. Everyone participates in the story events, personally, at one point or another. ME2? Not so much.

Actually, i'll counter that only Tali and Liara contribute to the plot of ME1 in any degree, Tali for the evidence against Saren, and Liara for the beacon visions.  Garrus and Wrex provide interaction, but don't move the story forward or mean anything.  Ash and Kaidan being involved in the Virmire decision also doesn't move the plot forward.  All four remaining squaddies could have easily been absent or replaced with generic NPCs and nothing would've changed.  Which makes them cannon fodder.

As for participation in story events, ME2 squaddies do that all the time with their dialog lines.  Sure, they don't get their own cutscenes for it, but since when did a cutscene become a pre-requisite for squadmate participation?

[Nightwriter]

Pwner1323 wrote...

At this point you're all repeating everything that's been said pages ago. Anything new going on?

Come now. When people make the same arguments, they force a repeat of the same rebuttals.

But here is something "new" for you to ponder in between commentary, whilst I read Riou's large post:

If ME2 had delivered an excellent crew with excellent interactions, development, dialogue, and relationships, the most oustanding team building mechanic you've ever seen... would it still be okay if the enemy - and the reason for bringing them together - was just throwaway?

[RiouHotaru]

iakus wrote...

Not every squadmate would have something to say in a given situation, but none of them having anything to say?  These are twelve highly independent individuals from a bunch of different backgrounds.  Barring Shepard having his own indoctrination field going, they should have something to say in situations that they have personal feelings about.  To Samara, burning a refinery should have gotten a reaction out of her, even if it's only to tell Zaeed that they will "discuss" this at a later time.  Tali learning about the Heretic and True geth?  Might be worthy of a line or two of conversation.  Garrus wanting to kill Sidonis, Thane has been down that road before, and it's his greatest regret.  These characters have information and insights that could have added to the mission, and yes to the depth of the game.  Yet they do nothing but shoot at stuff.

Do they?  Remember, the squadmate with the loyalty mission give a message to Kelly to pass along to Shepard.  Beyond that, no one else even knows that the others on their team have any issues in the first place.  And again, they have no reason to comment.  Just using your examples, Samara respects Shepard's decisions.  She isn't going to try to start anything with Zaeed, because Shepard would obviously intervene.  While she's on your team, she follows you and accepts your decisions.  Thane, regarding Garrus, probably realizes that Garrus' problems are his own and that he should figure them out.  I understand you want more input, but a lot of your ideas involve circumstances which don't work, IMO.

As for "teambuilding" I guess you and I have two different ideas of what teambuilding is.  I dislike the constant comparisons between ME and DA, as though the two should've drawn ideas from each other.  Two different types of games, two different settings and concepts.  I considering ME2 to be team-building.  The squad already works together well under combat conditions, and you get to know them and help them resolve their personal affairs before they go on a mission where (for all intents and purposes, thematically) they're likely going to die.

[Pwner1323]

Nightwriter wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

At this point you're all repeating everything that's been said pages ago. Anything new going on?

Come now. When people make the same arguments, they force a repeat of the same rebuttals.

But here is something "new" for you to ponder in between commentary, whilst I read Riou's large post:

If ME2 had delivered an excellent crew with excellent interactions, development, dialogue, and relationships, the most oustanding team building mechanic you've ever seen... would it still be okay if the enemy - and the reason for bringing them together - was just throwaway?

Ignoring the team we spent 30+ hours building and even worse, disposing of them would be the biggest ball dropper to date for BW.

[dan350z]

RiouHotaru wrote...

 ...I think people are making some rather huge leaps here between the "story" of ME1, and the "story" of ME2.  How this continues to happen, I will not ever fully understand.  You can't honestly make these comparisons, as, while the two games are part of the same trilogy, they both look and feel like two completely separate games, in terms of how the plot and story work.

In ME1:
Crew "recruitment" is practically non-existant.  You get everyone BUT Liara before even leaving the Citadel, and two of those six while on Eden Prime.  It's possible to "skip" Garrus or Wrex, but why would you?  Once on the Normandy, they take up their own self-enclosed spaces and...that's it.  Tali is an exposition machine on the Quarian Race, and Ash/Kaidan/Liara give some background on themselves while ninja-ing you into a romance with them that you have to go specifically out of your way to avoid, lest you be forced into it by the end-game.  Squad interactions are also non-existant.  Ash and Kaidan get a few, which is to say I could count them all on ONE HAND, unique conversations, most everyone else gets pre-scripted elevator convos which are almost identical between characters.  Once you've heard a few of them, you've heard them all.

The ONLY other interactions are the debriefings between story missions, and even then, you only hear input from a few.  Ash and Kaidan once again get the most dialog here, with Liara in a close second.  Garrus, Tali and even Wrex get about...oh, ONE dialog line each, but for the most part keep their mouths shut any other time.  There's very little sense of connection of the squadmates to each other outside of the elevators, which barely counts for the above reasons.  There was some unique dialog on missions...like Liara vs. Benezia, but otherwise it doesn't exist.  The story missions don't offer any more interaction until you get to Virmire, whose only noteworthy moments are Wrex and the Sacrifice Decision.

ME1's problem is that it was simply too BIG.  Too many things to do in the galaxy, probably almost twice if not three times the number of sidequests, only a few of which ever had anything to do with Shepard personally (the background-related missions), and the few squaddie-related quests as well, which was everyone BUT Ash/Kaidan.


In ME2:

Story opens with Shepard's death, which IMO is a fantastic way to get things going.  I disregard the "but the resurrection makes no sense!" arguments because it doesn't break my personal suspension of disbelief.  Just because it breaks yours doesn't make it a plothole.  Now, sure, Miranda and Jacob fill the slots of Ashley and Kaidan, and aside from Mordin, the other squaddies are just there...which is just like ME1...only in ME2 they have a lot more to say than simply exposition about their species.  Sure, just like ME1, they take up spaces in different parts of the ship, but this time they have more to say.  More about themselves (except in the case of Garrus and Tali, who give minimal background because there's some assumption people have played ME1 already), and their issues, personal beliefs, etc etc.  Basically, the dialog you got from Ash and Kaidan, only this time you get it from everyone.

Now, while there are pre-scripted unique interactions between characters (the burning bodies in Mordin's recruitment, talking about the situation in Jacob's loyalty, etc etc, it at least feels like each character has something different to say.  As for characters playing "third wheel" during loyalties, this makes perfect sense.  Not every squaddie has anything to say about the situation the other is in.  And most of them probably know well enough to NOT say anything.  After all, thematically the loyalty missions are about the squadmate themselves, so Samara wouldn't make any comment on Garrus' quest for revenge, she follows Shepard's orders.  Plus I'm sure she knows better than to comment in the first place.

Honestly, ME2 develops the squadmates much, MUCH more than ME1 did, at least as individual characters with regards to Shepard.  You're right, they don't interact with each other much...but then they didn't in ME1 much either.  I'd much prefer NO interaction, than identical scripted interaction (Looking at you elevators!).  As for their "integration" into the Collector Plot, you're right, it does feel more like an episode of a TV series than a movie (which is what ME1 felt like).  But I liked that.

I guess, when it comes down to it, your like/dislike of the plot is a case of YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary), but I wish people would stop saying "The story/plot of ME2 is weak" as though it were a statement of fact.

Because it's not.  That's your opinion.

I think the biggest complaint among fans is that by tossing the old crew aside and starting over with a new crew made ME2 seem like it was going sideways in the story arc instead of forward.

Having so many crew members is pointless, you can beat the game with just half of them.   instead of having so many crew members they should of cut it in half which would of allowed for deeper and richer back stories for the ones they kept.   It would of also allowed for bigger side quests, the ones we got in ME2 were so small, it only took maybe 10-15 mins to do them.

We got 3 Biotics (Miranda, Jack and Samara), 5 Warriors (Garrus, Jacob, Grunt, Thane and Zaeed) and 3 Tech's (Mordin, Legion and Tali), just seems like over kill since you can only take 2 of them with you on any given mission.

Sometimes less is better.....

[Bamboozalist]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Do they?  Remember, the squadmate with the loyalty mission give a message to Kelly to pass along to Shepard.  Beyond that, no one else even knows that the others on their team have any issues in the first place.  And again, they have no reason to comment.  Just using your examples, Samara respects Shepard's decisions.  She isn't going to try to start anything with Zaeed, because Shepard would obviously intervene.  While she's on your team, she follows you and accepts your decisions.  Thane, regarding Garrus, probably realizes that Garrus' problems are his own and that he should figure them out.  I understand you want more input, but a lot of your ideas involve circumstances which don't work, IMO.

As for "teambuilding" I guess you and I have two different ideas of what teambuilding is.  I dislike the constant comparisons between ME and DA, as though the two should've drawn ideas from each other.  Two different types of games, two different settings and concepts.  I considering ME2 to be team-building.  The squad already works together well under combat conditions, and you get to know them and help them resolve their personal affairs before they go on a mission where (for all intents and purposes, thematically) they're likely going to die.

This but at the same time, if they stick around to help Shepard beat the Reapers beyond the one mission they should start to develop as a full team working together long term in ME3.

[Nightwriter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

ME2 didn't NEED to expand on the Reaper plot, besides the fact they they're obviously coming or planning something.  Shepard is looking for a means to stop them when the Collectors come along and go "Not so fast, Bucko!" and kill you.  TIM reveals that there's something going on that he strongly believes is connected to the Reapers and wants you to investigate.  Yes, the Collectors being Protheans is sort of ignored after it's discovered, but really, it changes nothing, nor negates anything you learned.  The Protheans were still wiped out by the Reapers, they no longer exist as themselves.

In fact, the mere fact that the Collectors are Protheans repurposed DOES contribute to the plot.  At first, we just assume the Reapers warp into the galaxy via the Citadel, wipe out all organic civilization down to the last man, then warp back out and wait for it to happen again.  Simple, yes?  No, now we know they have possible ulterior motives for trying to wipe everyone out.  Apparently they're making more of themselves!  Why?  For what reason?  Well, those are questions set up for ME3.  Sure, we're no closer to stopping the Reapers than before, but we do have some insight, even if it raises more questions than answers.

As for LOTSB and the Omega 4 probes, I need to point this out since everyone keeps bringing it up.  Did anyone actually LISTEN to the dialog?  "The remains of the probes have been recovered."  REMAINS.  It means they were wrecked.  Destroyed.  Note that if you confront the broker prior to the Suicide Mission, he doesn't say anything about those probes, just that "The offer with the Collectors still stands."  Which means those probes didn't reveal anything!  Post-SM, he only knows about Shepard's success because he has cameras and listening devices on the Normandy.

As for the dead Reaper, does everyone forget that both the Alliance and Council don't care what Shepard finds?  You're with Cerberus, as long as you're with Cerberus, they can't trust you.  So yeah, you find evidence, shame no one will listen since you're working with terrorists.

The shuttle, I concede, is weak.  But given that the game's recruitment layout was MUCH more open-ended in development, likely they just didn't change the shuttle bit, which made more sense with the original design.  But again, doesn't break suspension of disbelief.  I concede that it's a necessary if poorly-planned plot device to make sure none of the squad get abducted.

Also, as for the comparison between the ME squad and ME2 squad.  No.  Blatantly untrue.  Not everyone in ME1 has some importance during one time or another.  Tali and Liara are technically the only ones who are absolutely necessary.  Tali provides the info that proves Saren's guilt, and Liara pieces together the vision.  Wrex, Garrus, and BOTH Ash/Kaidan don't do anything to advance the plot.  Technically you only need Ash OR Kaidan to sacrifice on Virmire, which makes the other person largely unecessary as well.  So out of six, only two people actually contribute.  Why does each squadmate in ME2 HAVE to contribute to the main story?  Technically their very existence at ALL contributes to the main story, by virute of the fact that you need the best soldiers, scientists, etc, to form a team that will cover basic fields of expertise.  TIM doesn't know what you'll face, so he wants you ready for anything.

Believe it or not, there are some good points in here.

Nothing to do with characters, of course - ME1 characters remain the much more plot involved crew (notice we only said they were involved with the plot more, not advanced the plot more).

Which is my point: characters don't need to be connected to the story, but they need to be involved. Wrex is not connected to the Reapers, yet he becomes involved in the story on Virmire.

But you're right, we do find out what the Reapers are doing with organics and why they harvest us. I wonder why this revelation fizzled, and why the Collector/Prothean revelation did also.

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

At this point you're all repeating everything that's been said pages ago. Anything new going on?

Come now. When people make the same arguments, they force a repeat of the same rebuttals.

But here is something "new" for you to ponder in between commentary, whilst I read Riou's large post:

If ME2 had delivered an excellent crew with excellent interactions, development, dialogue, and relationships, the most oustanding team building mechanic you've ever seen... would it still be okay if the enemy - and the reason for bringing them together - was just throwaway?

Haha, sorry for the walls of text, Night.  Something about you always gets me into a vigorous typing mood 

As for your "new" question, actually, that WOULDN'T be okay.  What would've been the point of all these awesome and interesting dynamics if the conflict was basically invisible?

[Bamboozalist]

dan350z wrote...

I think the biggest complaint among fans is that by tossing the old crew aside and starting over with a new crew made ME2 seem like it was going sideways in the story arc instead of forward.

Sometimes less is better.....

That's classic action adventure trilogy format though. The group forms in the first part, splits up in the second part gathering new allies, and then those two split groups either come together or fight two different parts of the same battle in the final act.

[In Exile]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think you guys should try and break this habit of defending ME2 by attacking ME1.

I realize this is your first instinct because you perceive that others are attacking ME2 and you want to respond in kind, but no one is saying, for instance, that just because ME2's squad interaction is poor, ME1's squad interaction was great.

It clearly wasn't. Virmire was the first time I felt like they really came to life. However, ME2 didn't even have the menial elevator banter that ME1 had, there were no conversations where the crew acknowledge each other like Ashley does when she says she's nervous about Wrex and Garrus, etc...

It's not about attacking ME1. It's rather about equivalent standards.

If you want to say ME1 was a better game in some respects (i.e. ME2 was a step back) then you can't use criticisms that apply equally well to ME1.

Take, for example, the conversation acknowledging each other. In ME2 you have Jack and Miranda and Legion and Tali explode in kill-each-other-unless-Shepard-interferes conflicts. That's dramatically better than ME1, where you have Wrex and Grunt basically hang around next to each other and never so much as bother to speak up.

The only really good character moment in ME1 was Wrex.

We had some ridiculous cringe-worthy moments in ME1, like Liara's justifications for teh hot asari sex and her despearate pleas to jump Shepard's bones.

[cachx]

It is supposed to be standalone, yet it needs ME3 to validate its
relevance. People complain that it is too standalone, yet complain that
it is not standalone enough to explain to us what its worth was. People
defend ME2 by saying its story was meant to be standalone, disconnected
- then say wait, don't judge an unfinished product, its relevance is
connected to ME3.

Probably different people though... they share the same sentiment (defend ME2) but they may not agree on the specifics. The whole standalone yes/no and continuty to ME3 are usually two separate arguments that get different reponses from different people. Maybe we should make factions and hand out memos, but I can't spare the time right now .

It's a bit of a strech to go from "leaving things for ME3 to pickup on" to "I have no meaning without ME3". Maybe people wouldn't complain that much about ME2 not being a real sequel if ME1 had done a more proper setup.

At this point you're all repeating everything that's been said pages ago. Anything new going on?

This has been going on for a little over a year. ME forums have their own cycle of destruction, it seems.

[Pwner1323]

Wrex doesn't hate Turians and Garrus couldn't care less about stuff like that. There could't have been any conflicts with the crew in ME1.

[In Exile]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Nightwriter, myself and many others have already mentioned by the squad in ME2 held no importance to the main plot and were merely cannon fodder. The sole exception being Mordin. This was not the case in ME, where each had a role to some extent, albeit some less than others.

See, this is my problem. Everyone in ME1 was irrelevant except for Liara, and she was only relevant because she could brain scan Shepard. Kaiden and Ashley are filler marines. You don't even need to recruit Wrex or Garrus. Tali contributes nothing at any point during the game.

It's the double standard that bugs me,not the criticism, because ME2 does fail at actually being about the characters if that was the goal of the writing.

[Chuvvy]

It's story was horse ****. And the loyalty missions? Some of them were great (Legion, Garrus, Mordin) The other ones have been done a thousand times over. So has Garrus's but they did it well. Also Hudsons defends of the story of ME2 by saying it's main purpose wasn't to continue the story of ME1? He must really be trying to catch up with Kotick.

Loyalty Missions Bullet point.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I am the daddy issues.
Shepard, I don't have a daddy I was raised in a lab, I have desk issues.
Shepard, I have child issues.
Shepard, I have tank issues.
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge.
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge.
Shepard, we have heretic issues.
Shepard, I accidentally an entire species for the good of the galaxy and now my protege is trying to undo it.

Modifié par Slidell505, 09 janvier 2011 - 10:37 .

[Nightwriter]

In Exile wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I think you guys should try and break this habit of defending ME2 by attacking ME1.

I realize this is your first instinct because you perceive that others are attacking ME2 and you want to respond in kind, but no one is saying, for instance, that just because ME2's squad interaction is poor, ME1's squad interaction was great.

It clearly wasn't. Virmire was the first time I felt like they really came to life. However, ME2 didn't even have the menial elevator banter that ME1 had, there were no conversations where the crew acknowledge each other like Ashley does when she says she's nervous about Wrex and Garrus, etc...

It's not about attacking ME1. It's rather about equivalent standards.

If you want to say ME1 was a better game in some respects (i.e. ME2 was a step back) then you can't use criticisms that apply equally well to ME1.

Take, for example, the conversation acknowledging each other. In ME2 you have Jack and Miranda and Legion and Tali explode in kill-each-other-unless-Shepard-interferes conflicts. That's dramatically better than ME1, where you have Wrex and Grunt basically hang around next to each other and never so much as bother to speak up.

The only really good character moment in ME1 was Wrex.

We had some ridiculous cringe-worthy moments in ME1, like Liara's justifications for teh hot asari sex and her despearate pleas to jump Shepard's bones.

But... those are two line fights you are describing. They are brief firecracker moments after which the crew goes back to not acknowledging each others' existence. I was very disappointed that there were only those two fights. In ME1, I get to have a whole conversation with Ashley that delves into her beliefs and assumptions about aliens.

That said, ME1 is far from the shining poster child of good character interaction. The idea of those fights was a bona fide improvement, I just wish they'd put the pedal to the metal with it. All I've ever said is that I didn't stroll through the SR1 going, "God, do these people even know each other are alive?"

Modifié par Nightwriter, 09 janvier 2011 - 10:37 .

[In Exile]

Bamboozalist wrote..
Really? That's why ME1 ends with Anderson/Udina and Shepard promising to fight the Reapers back when they come? Yeah that sounds like they're forever trapped in Darkspace. I mean hell the line "The Reapers are coming" directly contradicts that.

That was a huge plothole, though. The Council don't buy Shepards half-psychotic ravings the entire game. Then, with no proof whatsoever, they suddenly believe in the Reapers because Shepard said so? Sovereign is a bad-ass ship, but I thought the ME2 ''it was geth'' makes much more sense, since it's the reasonable explanation via Ockham's Razor.

It was just like the Council-is-Dead ME speeches that were all about humanity leading the way. Since the entire indiustrial and military might of the asari, turians and salarians was unharmed, the whole rant was a little loopy.

ME2, IMO at least, covered up these two major end-game plothole that, again IMO, only seemed to be there because ME1 needed a standalone happy ending.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 janvier 2011 - 10:38 .

[FeelTheMighty]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
This is minimal and a partial example of the wasted potential I found. Tali's loyalty mission is a diamond in the rough for Mass Effect 2 due to the abundance of angles eloquently spun and attached to conversations we had during Mass Effect. The loss of Legion being there was a horrendous design choice unfortunately because that was such a fundamental development arc.

So wait, you're saying that ME2 didn't expand on the Universe at all? What about the fact that you actually get to visit Tuchanka? That Geth station or whatever? Or getting to explore locations outside of Council control? Or the whole thing with the Shadow Broker? It most definitely does expand on the Universe. ME1 just told you about all these things in the Codex. You actually get to witness them in ME2.

It's those things that are the most important in Mass Effect. Not the Reapers.

[The Smoking Man]

Slidell505 wrote...

Loyalty Missions Bullet point.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I am the daddy issues.
Shepard, I don't have a daddy I was raised in a lab, I have desk issues.
Shepard, I have child issues.
Shepard, I have tank issues.
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge.
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge.
Shepard, we have heretic issues.
Shepard, I accidentally an entire species for the good of the galaxy and now my protege is trying to undo it.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 09 janvier 2011 - 10:39 .

[In Exile]

Nightwriter wrote...
But... those are two line fights you are describing. They are brief firecracker moments after which the crew goes back to not acknowledging each others' existence. I was very disappointed that there were only those two fights. In ME1, I get to have a whole conversation with Ashley that delves into her beliefs and assumptions about aliens.

Yes - you have four lines with Ashley, compared to a combined four lines with the four NPCs. Yes, ME2 totally took a step back there. Way to rock that depth, ME1.

I'm sorry, but Ashley's racism comments weren't related to the crew at all, except as a tangetial introduction. They were just her characterization track, like Jack's emotional damage or Grunt's puberty. They all relate to the fact her grandfather lost Shanxi.

That said, ME1 is far from the shining poster child of good character interaction. The idea of those fights was a bona fide improvement, I just wish they'd put the pedal to the metal with it. All I've ever said is that I didn't stroll through the SR1 going, "God, do these people even know each other are alive?"

Like ME1. Aside from the cat-fight between Liara and Ashley or Kaiden, no one knew anyone else was alive.

[Chuvvy]

FeelTheMighty wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
This is minimal and a partial example of the wasted potential I found. Tali's loyalty mission is a diamond in the rough for Mass Effect 2 due to the abundance of angles eloquently spun and attached to conversations we had during Mass Effect. The loss of Legion being there was a horrendous design choice unfortunately because that was such a fundamental development arc.

So wait, you're saying that ME2 didn't expand on the Universe at all? What about the fact that you actually get to visit Tuchanka? That Geth station or whatever? Or getting to explore locations outside of Council control? Or the whole thing with the Shadow Broker? It most definitely does expand on the Universe. ME1 just told you about all these things in the Codex. You actually get to witness them in ME2.

It's those things that are the most important in Mass Effect. Not the Reapers.

Are you ****ting me? The reapers are the mainplot.

[The Smoking Man]

Of course, you all realize that, by complaining about the character development in ME2, that aspect will get the inventory/elevator/Mako treatment in ME3, right?

[Bamboozalist]

Slidell505 wrote...
Loyalty Missions Bullet point.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I have daddy issues.
Shepard, I am the daddy issues.
Shepard, I don't have a daddy I was raised in a lab, I have desk issues.
Shepard, I have child issues.
Shepard, I have tank issues.
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge.
Shepard, my friend betrayed me help me hunt him down for revenge.
Shepard, we have heretic issues.
Shepard, I accidentally an entire species for the good of the galaxy and now my protege is trying to undo it.

I laughed. Jacob doesn't start out with Daddy issues though. And where is Kasumi in that list?

Modifié par Bamboozalist, 09 janvier 2011 - 10:43 .

[FeelTheMighty]

Nightwriter wrote...
But... those are two line fights you are describing. They are brief firecracker moments after which the crew goes back to not acknowledging each others' existence. I was very disappointed that there were only those two fights. In ME1, I get to have a whole conversation with Ashley that delves into her beliefs and assumptions about aliens.

That said, ME1 is far from the shining poster child of good character interaction. The idea of those fights was a bona fide improvement, I just wish they'd put the pedal to the metal with it. All I've ever said is that I didn't stroll through the SR1 going, "God, do these people even know each other are alive?"

The same can be done with Grunt, Legion, and Mordin. Except not in just one conversation. You get little quips from them about attitudes they have about other species all throughout the game.