672 réponses à ce sujet

[Eyesofjon]

Disappointing to see so many people who claim to be Mass Effect fans try to tear it down on the fan forums.

[James2912]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

Pwner1323 wrote...

NewMessageN00b wrote...

I think Casey Hudson doesn't understand that we do understand they are the story. Seriously, they are all over the place. How can you call us not understanding it. The problem with them is that there's no focus - you can't genuinely care for them all. For that matter, they do not come together to a single "whole" in the end, either.



The stories should be less and should develop connection and utilize conflicts.

Also, any fun of story development was destroyed by the Illusive Man handing you the assignments as if you're just running a script... what's the point? And even... why is this all happening. The rage of Shepard can be felt hard, but the game just goes on and on. Right, it's because we feel the rage, not you.

He also... died... which is just impossible. It's on the same level as the Mass Effect statement in the ME1 opening scene (which is acceptable, given that we know there are many secrets of Universe). But we do understand the brain cannot be resurrected after death, making such idea plain wrong.

As for the teammates, anyone of these crazy people could have just gone and done what Shepard is doing anyway. The first game was very toned down in this respect. It gave anything that happened more weight. Also notice how extra big statements (the one about Mass Effect at the opening scene) are toned down. They are cringe-inducing. They need to be toned down.

As for the rest... the characters... were the stories; seriously, wtf - there is TONS more of conflicts left unexplored. You even set up a perfect route to the second game, and for some reason decide that the success of the first didn't exist... That's just professional misleading.

Don't talik about it like it's all facts. I disagree with everything you say here. This is your pesonal opinion, not the actual stuff.

EDIT: talking about the lazarus project like it's real is pointless. It's a videogame. F-a-n-t-a-s-y. Aliens aren't real 
           either, did you know that?

Wait... but it is my opinion.

Wait I think its very probable aliens are real and even likely they visit. Of course they are probably ten times stranger than anything in Mass Effect though.. That is my opinion!

Modifié par James2912, 10 janvier 2011 - 10:48 .

[AlanC9]

Yeah, but a well-founded opinion. The idea that alien life will be anything much like human life isn't founded on anything except wishful thinking.

[wulf3n]

Bamboozalist wrote...
 At the same time if they came through and there was an entire fleet I highly doubt the Normandy would go in guns blazzing like they did.

If there was an entire fleet through the omega 4 relay the normandy would have been destroyed either way as its cloak doesn't work on the collectors. So it was just dumb luck the suicide mission succeeded.

Eyesofjon wrote...
Disappointing to see so many people who claim to be Mass Effect fans try to tear it down on the fan forums.

So the definition of a fan is someone who has no criticisms about something that is obviously not perfect? So just because you like something means you can't criticize what you didn't like? honestly i think your confusing fan with fanboy.

Modifié par wulf3n, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:07 .

[didymos1120]

PureMethodActor wrote...
I know we're talking about ME1. and I was just making a joke because I've seen lots of complaints about Tali ninja-romancing through forcing herself onto the crew. Just all in jest, nothing to be taken seriously

Your smiley was too ambiguous.  

[InvincibleHero]

The character interactions were much more involved than ME1. I liked that but they needed more personalized missions with each of them to pull off a character centric story. Both games used missions via quests to build the story.



So why was ME 1 considered better? Probaly two reasons. 1. You are in Alliance instead of with Cerberus. I think alot of people spew hate from that alone. 2. More memorable recurring NPCs in ME1 to build the story. You have Hackett and Anderson as well as the council and Saren as well.



In ME 2 the illusive man drives the story, but is mostly background. You are more in charge than ever instead of always following orders.

[RiouHotaru]

didymos1120 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
 The Tech Expert is killed due to a stray rocket and bad luck. This means they are not individuals but one in the same and nothing changes.

The techie is killed because under that pressure of constant fire, they screw up when bypassing the door systems, resulting in a jam, which requires Shep to help them force the doors closed.  They then expose their head in the closing gap, and get nailed in the face with the rocket at the last moment.  It's directly related to their technical ability.  You simply didn't pick up on that fact.

Also, the same resulting cutscene doesn't mean the characters aren't individualized.  That's trying to use a gameplay mechanic to say the story is bad.  People need to stop trying to use Gameplay vs. Story Segregation to justify things.

[PrinceLionheart]

Eyesofjon wrote...

Disappointing to see so many people who claim to be Mass Effect fans try to tear it down on the fan forums.

There's a difference between being a fan and being a sheep though. Bioware isn't immune to criticisms, even on their social forums, and rightfully so. True, there may be people who blindly bash stuff they don like, but form what I've seen in this thread, it's been full of constructive criticism. And I don't think it's fair to say someone isn't a real fan just because they don't blindly praise everything about the game. Mass Effect 2, story-wise, was heavily flawed and it's within everyone's rights to voice their opinion on it. <_<

Modifié par PrinceLionheart, 10 janvier 2011 - 11:55 .

[Iakus]

InvincibleHero wrote...

The character interactions were much more involved than ME1. I liked that but they needed more personalized missions with each of them to pull off a character centric story. Both games used missions via quests to build the story.

So why was ME 1 considered better? Probaly two reasons. 1. You are in Alliance instead of with Cerberus. I think alot of people spew hate from that alone. 2. More memorable recurring NPCs in ME1 to build the story. You have Hackett and Anderson as well as the council and Saren as well.

In ME 2 the illusive man drives the story, but is mostly background. You are more in charge than ever instead of always following orders.

Hey, I liked the idea of having to work with Cerberus.  My only beef wit hthat is Shepard was too credulous at first about TIM being the only option and I didn't get to yell at TIM enough during the game.  Oh, and Cerberus went from being evil to merely incompetant.  but I digress.

The difference between the games was (to me, at least) that while ME 1 may not be an incredible story in and of itself, it suceeded at what it set out to do better than ME2

ME 1 was a perfectly serviceable quest story, set in an sf universe.  Saren is Up To Something.  Now go get 'im!Deep character interactions would have been nice, but were not vital to the story.  What we had was "adequate" for what the game was.

ME 2 was all about the characters "Build a team!"  "Earn loyalty!" "Prepare for a suicide mission!" "Who lives and who dies is up to you!"  As such, you expect the characters to have mich more depth.  To have opinions and agendas.  They may befriend each other, or despise each other, or simply have a friendly rivalry going.  What I did not expect for them to do is ignore each other. 

While the interactions between the characters and Shepard were all right, and the quests were quite good, that doesn't give you a well-rounded character.  For that they need to interact with their surroundings.  That includes missions that they are not the focus of, and other characters.  

This is where ME 2 failed.  Instead of characters that actually responded to their surroundings, we had disposable companions "Okay, Garrus, back to your closet!  Jack, you're on deck!"  Outside their own personal focus missions, it literally doesn't matter who's with you.It's not like they're going to have any real observations or insights.

ME1 can get away with this.  Characters less important, focus on plot
ME 2, cannot afford to do this, focus is on characters, not plot

Again, it doesn't make ME 1 better (except that it has a better plot, I suppose) it makes it more successful in a storytelling medium.  It accomplished what it set out to do.

[Durontan]

Well I don't know. I 2 had a bit of a problem that some chars didn't have much to say on loyalty missions of other chars. But other then that I must say I actually did love entire ME2, well human reaper was a bit over the top, to look as a larva great, but to have it look like a human was ****ed up.

Other then that I must say I loved it, and after LotS all I can say is if they keep ME3 the way they made that DLC I'll love every single second of it.

Modifié par Durontan, 11 janvier 2011 - 12:10 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

If on the final approach to Berlin, the allies had to fight a demon supporting the Germans, then maybe the plan wouldn't have seemed quite so crazy, would it? [/quote]

No. We don't have an actual demon come. Sovereign isn't, at mere visual inspection, clearly a reaper. Shepard didn't know Sovereign was a reaper until Sovereign was all ''Yo, check it Sheps, I'm a reaper, exist because we allow it, yada yada''.

Sovereign could plausibly be just a warship from everything the Council saw. The plothole is that the Citadel attack gives them no new evidence that Sovereign is a reaper for them to change their minds, and they had quite the adamant belief that Shepard was nuts and wrong. People don't change such dramatic opinions without evidence.

[quote]You also seem to be forgetting that the Reapers really are coming. Shepard isn't crazy. Liara already had evidence of the Reaper cycles before meeting Shepard. [/quote]

Liara believed the Protheans weren't the first species and there seemed to be some galactic extinctions, but that could very well be proof species tend to nuke themselves to the stone age. Plausible explanations, again.

Yeah, we as players know Shepard isn't nuts. But the Council doesn't.

[quote]Flash back to WWII, though. A British politician had been raving about Hitler and the Germans for years. There was actual reason to consider him a madman, since the last time he was in control of the navy, he sent them on a disasterous plan to take Turkey out of WWI (Galipoli, which by all accounts was a pretty spectacular failure).

And yet when the Germans attacked, he not only was put back into power, but promoted to Prime Minister and led the British spectacularly well. [/quote]

Sure. But Hitler attacking isn't an insane belief of the same scope at all. For one, everyone had proof Hitler was real. He gave speeches. Hell, he might have even visited England once or twice. Secondly, the German army was plausibly real as well.

Now, if what he said after WWII was that aliens from Zabrlox 222 were actually posing as Hitler and would invade the Earth in 3 years and we needed to get ready... I'm going to bet some good money Teddy and Stalin don't take him at his word.

[quote]Not to mention there would have been huge benefits to using the Reapers as a political reason to justify rebuilding the fleets. Could play down the threat from its full extent (supported by the fact that they did win at the Citadel), but there was no reason to simply dismiss it, even if they didn't believe it.[/quote]

Right. The Council would just tell everyone they're arming themselves to fight off Satan and his legions. Because that totally won't get them impeached on grounds of insanity.

[quote]Well other than the fact that the US weren't claiming any such divine strategic power and that the science behind such weapons was known by others, including the Germans, the western allies and if not immediately, soon after, the Russians.[/quote]

That doesn't matter. What matters is the standard of evidence. When you have two theories, one plausible and backed by evidence, and one totally insane one with no evidence, you're inclined to go with the not crazy.

[quote]So you are saying that the fleet took orders from an inexperienced ship's pilot rather than from the ship's inexperienced captain despite the pilot being with the fleet and having no better information than they do other than any instructions from Shepard?[/quote]

That this happened at all is a plothole. I'm just telling you that in terms of in-game content, Shepard never speaks to or orders Hackett and the 5th fleet to do anything. He just orders Joker, and it is apparently (according to the ME2 codex) his lead that the fleet follows.

[quote]Not to mention you keep saying 'clearly insane' despite the fact the Reapers are coming and Shepard isn't insane, his doctor on the Normandy doesn't consider him insane, and no Alliance doctor nor any other has declared him insane, rendering your cardiologist example just another straw man.[/quote]

Shepard isn't insane. But what he says, not from our perspective as players, but rather from the perspective of someone in-universe in ME, is. To appreciate what Shepard says from a non-Shepard or Player PoV, we have to evaluate the claim on in-setting plausibility. 

The example with the cardiologist counters your central claim: that proving something plausible within your area of expertiese means people should take your word on faith about something supernatural outside of your area of expertiese.

[quote]Umm.. Vigil isn't on the citadel and wasn't able to insert the override program, otherwise Shepard wouldn't have to have fought his way to the interface. You really love your straw men, don't you? [/quote]

....

Vigil gave the override. The protheans developed it. All their override did was stop Sovereign from doing what it wanted. The reapers can shut down all Mass Relays and so all communication, but the Council can't do the same. That was my point. I'm not sure you're reading what I'm writing at this point.

[quote]I agree that any such actions on the part of humanity would have been foolish, but there are many on the boards here who were defending them anyway. Keep in mind that not only would humanity have controlled the relays, but would also (at least temporarily) have had the largest fleet. War wouldn't have been a cakewalk for the other races. At any rate, any such war certainly wouldn't have been resolved within two years.[/quote]

No. Humanity doesn't have the largest fleet per se. We don't know what numbers of ships the asari and turians didn't keep in the Citadel fleet. The salarians and asari outnumbered the humans 3:1 in dreadnoughts. The turians 5:1. Even if Turian losses were 4:1 for every human ship, that might still not give humans the edge against turians alone.

The ME plot just makes no sense here.

[quote]And again, that you personally disagree with such a decision doesn't make it a plot hole.[/quote]

No, the fact in-setting facts are contradicted makes it a plot hole.

[quote]Your 'logical way' is to dismiss them as if it was the Council or Udina that had a mommentarly lapse of insanity in supporting Shepard.  You don't like the ending of ME1, so you don't mind it being completely tossed out the window.[/quote]

It was a dramatic shift in their position, based on little to no new evidence. Frankly, if the US President survived a terrorist attack and told everyone it was ochestrated by demons and it was time to build the army against their invasion, and his word was the fact his best CIA operative had a vision about it...

I'm saying impeachment is the more rational choice than stocking up on bullets for the demon invasion.

[Lewie]

wulf3n wrote...

Bamboozalist wrote...
 At the same time if they came through and there was an entire fleet I highly doubt the Normandy would go in guns blazzing like they did.

If there was an entire fleet through the omega 4 relay the normandy would have been destroyed either way as its cloak doesn't work on the collectors. So it was just dumb luck the suicide mission succeeded.

Eyesofjon wrote...
Disappointing to see so many people who claim to be Mass Effect fans try to tear it down on the fan forums.

So the definition of a fan is someone who has no criticisms about something that is obviously not perfect? So just because you like something means you can't criticize what you didn't like? honestly i think your confusing fan with fanboy.

This puts me off forums, all this fan or fanboy talk. If you love the game but don't complain all the time your a fanboy? Or which is it... seriously. I could complain about things i didn't agree with but im reserving it.

Most now like myself will have played 1 and 2 out and people can't wait for 3. 

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yeah, but a well-founded opinion. The idea that alien life will be anything much like human life isn't founded on anything except wishful thinking.

You can make a decent convergent evolution argument for our body plan. Just saying. They'd be arcane horror in terms of physical apperance, but the roughly human silhouette might be there.

[Aigyl]

On the "Characters should have interacted more" stuff. Well yeah, who wouldn't want more of that stuff? I think a lot of people had just recently played Dragon Age before picking up ME2, which has a freaking incredible focus on companions, so come ME2 people are directly comparing it to DA:O and finding it lacking.

However, you have to remember Bioware have limited time/money. If they put in more squad interaction, something else would have had to go. That could mean anything from the cinematics being less polished, to the game being buggier, to whole missions being cut out (just speculating here, I'm by no means an expert on game development).

So if you wanted more squad interaction, would you have been comfortable with the game as a whole being rougher around the edges, or even having less content to play through, to accomodate the resources needed to put in squad interaction, keeping in mind some of your favourite moments in the game might have been cut to make way for it?

Modifié par Aigyl, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:00 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

You're still making a mistaken assumption here with the bolded though. If I were to make a prediction that chocolate marshmallows are going to fall from the sky tomorrow and kill us all, and it comes true, then people might be inclined to believe I am right that demons are coming. The primary reason being that both predictions occupy something that we currently believe to be impossible. No one believes in evil chocolate marshmallows falling from the sky any more than they believe demons are coming. Shepard's claims about Saren and the Conduit are considered possible, but unproven. The Council can comprehend the idea of Saren going rogue and the Protheans building a second relay onto the Citadel even if they didn't believe it was true. Shepard's presenting evidence of something plausible does not give credibility to his unplausible theories. [/quote]

Sovereign wasn't a chocolate marshmallow. It was a ship far more advanced than any known vessels, including anything else in the Geth fleet. That you personally don't consider that evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Noone had really looked hard at Liara's evidence before either, since it seemed implausable and she was young. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence either, and now they had more reason to look.

Again, that they didn't take it seriously before the Citadel battle is understandable, but so is them deciding to do so after.




[quote]As Saren says "Are we admitting dreams into evidence now?" The Asari failing to mindmeld with Shepard has been a plothole from the start, but where are all these visions the Consort sees coming true and why had they not been admitted as evidence during Shepard's accusations at Saren? [/quote]

Shepard wasn't Asari and hadn't even met the Consort yet, so how could he use information he didn't yet have in his defence? The council at the time were not even allowing the investigator they assigned access to the files neccessary to investigate Saren. Saren obviously didn't want it taken seriously.. he knew it was real and not just a dream. If you want an actual plot hole, how about Shepard raving OMG REAPERS! like a madman, rather than comprehending he actually had to make a case?



[quote]Aside from Anderson, did the Alliance believe it? Anderson, based on what was shown, kept his opinions relatively low key. He did not go rushing into the streets screaming "Reapers are coming!" or demand the Alliance to send its fleets into dark space. That is a key difference.[/quote]

Listen to yourself. Send the fleets into darkspace, where, exactly? It isn't like there was a note attached to Sovereign's corpse with a map. Hackett always took Shepard seriously and never treated him like a madman. Again, the fleet was not just ready,  but acted on Shepard's first hand assessment.




[quote]How are the two not equated? A man who is  able to recognize the true threat is best able to counter-act it and often shows a greater understanding of what's going on. If I make an announcement on national television that chocolate marshmallows will fall from the sky, and it does happen, you can bet people will expect I have answers on these evil chocolate marshmallows, for whatever reason. Prime Minister or whatever, the person who accurately predicted the German threat is not going to be set aside once the prediction has been proven.  [/quote]

You don't really know about Galipoli do you? Australia and New Zealand have a separate holiday just to mourn the losses. He was kicked out of politics for it. Shepard on the other hand has a solid record.



[quote]The difference between your demon and the Reaper is rather subtle. Dismissing a demon as simple biotechnology raises certain questions. Is the demon sentient? Did it speak? Was it shooting fire from its fingertips and breaking the laws of physics? Did it summon other demons from a pit in hell, which would make it harder to dismiss as 'biotechnology'. How advanced was biotechnology at the time? Can we believe that someone could feasibly create this monstrous creature? The Reaper can feasibly remain within the sphere of "advanced technology" since the Council has some idea of its abilities based on Eden Prime and Virmire, yet they still  felt comfortable dismissing Sovereign as Geth technology, mainly because they'd not been seen for 200 years past. [/quote]

Define 'laws of physics.' Sovereign was vastly more powerful than any known ship, including the geth vessels. Its weapons were based on much more advanced concepts. We know from the thanix cannon that that they could have been adapted to Geth ships easily, yet were were not. Why if they were Geth designs?

"Comfortable' in this case is 'willful denial.' More to the point, you are saying it is impossible to conclude anything other than Sovereign being a Geth vessel. On what basis do you make that claim? 

 

[quote]Politicians don't go out of their way validating outlandish claims. Going back to the British politician example. The notion that Hitler could attack is within the realm of believability, simply unsubstantiated. If this same politician after told us there are mutant space ships coming to kill us all, people will not 'go out of their way' to endure this.[/quote]

Look, it really WAS a Reaper, so saying it is an 'impossible event' or 'outlandish claim' is simply wrong. It sounded outlandish til it happened. And it wasn't merely that Churchill was right about Germany, it is that they put him in charge even though the last time he was in charge of anything important he cost the empire considerable lives and resources with nothing to show for it.[/quote]

[quote]Really? I don't know many politicians in this day and age who expect to hold onto their appointments while maintaining outrageous claims. You're saying that the Council, leaders of the known galaxy, are going to believe in a race of supergalactic machines coming to kill us and the basis for this decision is instinct? When politicians make 'gut feelings', this usually involves things like "Oh, this policy looks like it will work" or "I think we should move troops to this location". What you are suggesting is not making a bad decision but rather political suicide. All because of 'instinct'. If I'm expected to take action (and you can bet belief in the Reapers would require action), then I better be damn certain that I'm right. There is no room for 'insufficient evidence'. Not in this.

I mean, if it's that simple, then in Mass Effect 2 instinct allowed the Council to change their mind again and decide that Shepard is still a raving lunatic.[/quote]
 
Given one of those politicians is an Asari matriarch who not just might have been able to predict the future, but had lived through the Rachni war, which consisted of a race of supergalactic 'bugs' coming to kill us all, and given the other two councillors would have at least studied the Rachni war, on what grounds is this as far fetched as you present it? In other words, THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED ONCE IN KNOWN HISTORY. The Rachni weren't as advanced as Sovereign, but were still able to force an intergallactic war that was lasting hundreds of years, and which the Council races nearly lost.

And that was a hostile race showing up completely by surprise.

So this is completely unbelievable, why, exactly?



[quote]National security takes priority. Always. If a fleet of Geth ships appearing completely out of nowhere is not enough motivation to convince the populus that we need to rebuild, nothing is likely to do it. You don't need a Reaper theory to convince people that we need to restore our naval strength.[/quote]

It appearantly takes a long time to rebuild these warships. What you think should be priority, isn't always. what countries have agreed is historicly priority. Even the US doesn't have WWII level troops strength currently. Most nations have nowhere near their WWII troop levels. Again, if the DA goes down, the Asari DE-mobilize, which flies in the face of your insistance.



[quote]They thought the beacon scrambled Shepard's brain because he told them that a race of Super machines had manipulated our entire existence and will soon extinguish all life from the galaxy. After the fact, a Japanese scholar or theologian would only be taken seriously if they believed the claims they maintained. Shepard, for example, tells us that Reapers are coming, but even after the attack we do not have proof that we are dealing with Reapers, so he still can't be taken seriously. [/quote]

If someone had warned them of the Rachni, would they still have considered that person a madman after the first Rachni encounter? There doesn't have to be absolute conclusive proof that it was a Reaper for them to at least consider the possiblity.



[quote]A reason to reject the visions is the equivalent of it being unacceptable that they would accept them if we have reason to believe the Council would be stubborn. Again, these are leaders of galactic civilization and their decisions will impact the entire galaxy. They cannot afford to rely on 'instinct' or 'trust'. [/quote]

Based on that, all nations should de-mobilize entirely, since there is no proof anyone would ever attack in the future. There is a difference between panicing the people and treating this as a possibility, and investigating properly rather than outright dismissing. Giving Shepard at least the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean sending fleets randomly into darkspace in the hopes they might actually accidentally stumble across an enemy.

You say they cannot afford to rely on instinct. They cannot afford to be unprepared if there really are reapers too. Or of the Geth come back with a fleet of Sovereign class vessels. Even if it was a Geth ship, it was tech and the Geth could presumably build more.



[quote]Then you missed the point of his cardeologist example. This (once more) delves into a plausible vs. implausible theory. I will trust a cardeologist if he says that I'm suffering from heart problems, provided that I have cause to think there i a problem. This falls within the realm of 'plausibility'. I will be less inclined if he thinks I'm possessed by a demon, which falls into the 'implausible' category. Shepard is much the same way. Proving Saren guilty and the existence of the Conduit were both considered plausible but unsupported theories. I can believe a Spectre can go rogue once proof is given. Likewise, with the Conduit the Council believes that the Protheans created the relays and we accept that it is possible that a relay could be connected to the Citadel. The Reaper does not fall within the realms of plausibility; it requires making an extremely large leap in understanding.[/quote]

And yet, if someone who shows no other signs of insanity, all blood tests show nothing out of the ordinary, all brain scans normal, who has had contact with a device that might have had 'inside knowledge', just as it did about the Ilos facility, who is by all accounts a competent commander, who has a crew also swearing to having witnessed the same things, including a Doctor and a former CSEC officer who retired in good standing, and despite the fact that there has already been contact with an alien race of at least similar threat level in the past (the Rachni), the claims 'do not fall within the realms of plausability?'

You would have done great in the role of the man Churchill replaced....



[quote]No, the issue is regarding plot holes in Mass Effect. The Council goes from a belief that Sovereign 'is Geth' via Occam's Razor to a belief that Sovereign 'is Reaper' at the conclusion of Mass Effect. I'm not required to prove to you what was the status quo (that Sovereign was a geth vessel). You must prove to me what evidence there was for them to change their beliefs. Whenever there is change, the change must be explained. [/quote]

I repeats, the tech level difference between Sovereign and the other Geth vessels is huge, and we know by that point that the weapons tech could have easily been fitted on Geth vessels, but wasn't. Remember, based on what they knew of the Geth ships, they didn't expect any losses at the Citadel, or to be attacked at all.

[quote]A fair point, but one which is addressed. The Council dismissed Sovereign, past and present, as a 'Geth warship' because it is simply easier as Anderson tells us. From a technological perspective, yes we can say that Sovereign obviously was something out of this world, but the Council on Eden Prime and Virmire showed that they were willing to turn a blind eye to such evidence as Sovereign's landing on a planet and maneuverability, despite Shepard and the Salarian commandos as evidence. There is enough evidence that we might question Sovereign's status as a geth vessel, but still far less to prove that he is a Reaper. [/quote]

You keep saying they need absolute proof before even taking precautions or investigating. Why? it is like saying 'there is something to what you say, but we need proof' then 'By the way, because we have no proof, we forbid you from trying to find any.'

They even order him into the Terminus Systems as a spectre.... you know... that region they expressly forbade him from entering? They didn't really care what happened to him over the last two years, or whether he agreed with Cerberus or not. No debriefing, not even asking what he knew of Cerberus or if he had any useful intel.  It was essentially 'you believe in Reapers therefore you are a liability, go away.'

If he is reinstated, the only time it is even mentioned, ever, is he gets to point out to a CSEC officer that the officer is threatening to arrest a spectre. If he isn't reinstated, he says 'former spectre', which strangely has exactly the same effect.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:11 .

[James2912]

Aigyl wrote...

On the "Characters should have interacted more" stuff. Well yeah, who wouldn't want more of that stuff? I think a lot of people had just recently played Dragon Age before picking up ME2, which has a freaking incredible focus on companions, so come ME2 people are directly comparing it to DA:O and finding it lacking.

However, you have to remember Bioware have limited time/money. If they put in more squad interaction, something else would have had to go. That could mean anything from the cinematics being less polished, to the game being buggier, to whole missions being cut out (just speculating here, I'm by no means an expert on game development).

So if you wanted more squad interaction, would you have been comfortable with the game as a whole being rougher around the edges, or even having less content to play through, to accomodate the resources needed to put in squad interaction, keeping in mind some of your favourite moments in the game might have been cut to make way for it?

I think this thread is an example of letting the devs know what we would like to see more of, its helpful and if they can fit it in great, if not were going to play ME3 anyways. I don't want to design the game of course it would suck lol, I trust the devs to make a great game, but if they know what we want it really can't hurt. 

[Iakus]

Aigyl wrote...

However, you have to remember Bioware have limited time/money. If they put in more squad interaction, something else would have had to go. That could mean anything from the cinematics being less polished, to the game being buggier, to whole missions being cut out (just speculating here, I'm by no means an expert on game development).

This is entirely possible, which then asks the question:  Why make such a character-centered game and not do a proper (imo) job of it?  Why create such characters knowing you can only keep them lifelike for an hour or so?  Why so many characters with such limited resources? 

My thoughts?  They bit off mor ethan they could chew.  Technology, disk space, budget, or whatever was simply not up to teh task.

[Volus Warlord]

iakus wrote...


My thoughts?  They bit off mor ethan they could chew.  Technology, disk space, budget, or whatever was simply not up to teh task.

Mass Effect 3 will have 25 disks.

If you Xbox people thought 2 was bad...

[Iakus]

Volus Warlord wrote...

iakus wrote...


My thoughts?  They bit off mor ethan they could chew.  Technology, disk space, budget, or whatever was simply not up to teh task.

Mass Effect 3 will have 25 disks.

If you Xbox people thought 2 was bad...

KOTOR had five disks.  I believe BG2 did asd well (+1 for ToB).  Good stuff.  Of course, I'm a PC user...

[Moiaussi]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Sovereign could plausibly be just a warship from everything the Council saw. The plothole is that the Citadel attack gives them no new evidence that Sovereign is a reaper for them to change their minds, and they had quite the adamant belief that Shepard was nuts and wrong. People don't change such dramatic opinions without evidence.[/quote]

Sovereign could also plausably be more, based on the differences in effectiveness and weapon design. People do occasionally make dramatic changes in opinion, especially after major events such as the citadel battle. Eden was the Alliance's Pearl Harbor, the Citadel was the Council's.

[quote]Liara believed the Protheans weren't the first species and there seemed to be some galactic extinctions, but that could very well be proof species tend to nuke themselves to the stone age. Plausible explanations, again.

Yeah, we as players know Shepard isn't nuts. But the Council doesn't.[/quote]

No... She had found patterns of evidence that civilizations hadn't merely nuked themselves, but that there was some sort of more systematic clean up. It wasn't just that there were other civilizations, but details as to what specificly was left and what wasn't.

[quote]Sure. But Hitler attacking isn't an insane belief of the same scope at all. For one, everyone had proof Hitler was real. He gave speeches. Hell, he might have even visited England once or twice. Secondly, the German army was plausibly real as well.

Now, if what he said after WWII was that aliens from Zabrlox 222 were actually posing as Hitler and would invade the Earth in 3 years and we needed to get ready... I'm going to bet some good money Teddy and Stalin don't take him at his word.[/quote]

And until the Citadel battle, there was no evidence of Sovereign's capabilities. At the citadel, they saw. Besides, my point about Churchill wasn't that he should have been disbelieved, merely that based on his track record, being right about Germany wasn't a particularly good reason to risk putting him in power. Again, look up Galipoli.

It was the right choice, but that doesn't change the implausability.

[quote]Right. The Council would just tell everyone they're arming themselves to fight off Satan and his legions. Because that totally won't get them impeached on grounds of insanity. [/quote]

You figure telling people there might be more ships out there like Sovereign (a ship that really did exist and did attack the Citadel) equates to telling people Satan is coming? Pardon?

[quote]That doesn't matter. What matters is the standard of evidence. When you have two theories, one plausible and backed by evidence, and one totally insane one with no evidence, you're inclined to go with the not crazy. [/quote]

And when evidence shows up, such as the bombs actually falling, you are inclined to consider there maybe something other than crazy there.

[quote]That this happened at all is a plothole. I'm just telling you that in terms of in-game content, Shepard never speaks to or orders Hackett and the 5th fleet to do anything. He just orders Joker, and it is apparently (according to the ME2 codex) his lead that the fleet follows.[/quote]

And Hackett, an experienced admiral who was in touch with the Normandy, would have known from Joker what happened on Illos and that Shepard was on the Citadel, assumed that Joker would be just giving his own opinion with no contact with Shepard? You were saying something about implausability?

[quote]Shepard isn't insane. But what he says, not from our perspective as players, but rather from the perspective of someone in-universe in ME, is. To appreciate what Shepard says from a non-Shepard or Player PoV, we have to evaluate the claim on in-setting plausibility. 

The example with the cardiologist counters your central claim: that proving something plausible within your area of expertiese means people should take your word on faith about something supernatural outside of your area of expertiese. [/quote]

Not purely on faith, but on other evidence dismissed so far, including historical precident (the Rachni war). Not to mention THE REAPERS ARE NOT SUPERNATURAL. There is NO claim that they are supernatural.

[quote]Vigil gave the override. The protheans developed it. All their override did was stop Sovereign from doing what it wanted. The reapers can shut down all Mass Relays and so all communication, but the Council can't do the same. That was my point. I'm not sure you're reading what I'm writing at this point.[/quote]

You sure seem to know a lot about how the Citadel works. Source please? Why would the reapers limit themselves to shutting down rather than controlling, or at the very least, you suggest Sovereign was the one overriding, and simply blocking its signal reverted back to default 'on.'

Regardless, All Udina or whoever had to believe when they said that was that they could now control the relays. They would have still had Vigil's program for study regardless. Even if it was written in prothean, Shepard understands Prothean.

[quote]No. Humanity doesn't have the largest fleet per se. We don't know what numbers of ships the asari and turians didn't keep in the Citadel fleet. The salarians and asari outnumbered the humans 3:1 in dreadnoughts. The turians 5:1. Even if Turian losses were 4:1 for every human ship, that might still not give humans the edge against turians alone.

The ME plot just makes no sense here. [/quote]

We don't know how much of the fleets were deployed at the Citadel either. It was in one of the books though. Interestingly, in ME2 it is suggested that the Migrant Fleet might be the largest at that point.

[quote]No, the fact in-setting facts are contradicted makes it a plot hole.[/quote]

Again, those alleged contradictions are a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

[quote]It was a dramatic shift in their position, based on little to no new evidence. Frankly, if the US President survived a terrorist attack and told everyone it was ochestrated by demons and it was time to build the army against their invasion, and his word was the fact his best CIA operative had a vision about it...

I'm saying impeachment is the more rational choice than stocking up on bullets for the demon invasion. [/quote]

There was evidence they found along the way, including the conversations had with Sovereign at Vermire, that multiple crew members (not just Shepard) were part of. The accusation is that the entire crew were really in some great conspiracy rather than taking them at face value. Even with Vigil shut off, there was everything else at Illos, shepard's ability to understand prothean, again other crew member's observations and stories all matching.

If the president survived a terrorist attack that involved an actual demon, with demon bits everywhere taken in for study, even if they didn't tell the american people, stocking up on anti demon bullets might not have seemed so strange an idea. And in this case by demon I mean a creature that is literally indestructable until its avatar is slain.

[Nightwriter]

Aigyl wrote...

On the "Characters should have interacted more" stuff. Well yeah, who wouldn't want more of that stuff? I think a lot of people had just recently played Dragon Age before picking up ME2, which has a freaking incredible focus on companions, so come ME2 people are directly comparing it to DA:O and finding it lacking.

However, you have to remember Bioware have limited time/money. If they put in more squad interaction, something else would have had to go. That could mean anything from the cinematics being less polished, to the game being buggier, to whole missions being cut out (just speculating here, I'm by no means an expert on game development).

So if you wanted more squad interaction, would you have been comfortable with the game as a whole being rougher around the edges, or even having less content to play through, to accomodate the resources needed to put in squad interaction, keeping in mind some of your favourite moments in the game might have been cut to make way for it?

Hmm. I'd have to say yes, squad interaction is paramount, but I can only speak for me.

But, I think even if I had not just played DA:O, I would have noticed that Wrex does not acknowledge Tali or Garrus, Liara does not acknowledge Tali or Garrus, and speaks of her dealings with Cerberus as if Miranda is not in the room. I think I would still have noticed that you can kiss Liara in front of your LI and the LI won't react.

I'm not sure why they couldn't just add things like:

Wrex: Still tagging around with this one, are you, turian?
Garrus: Yep.

Liara: Lawson.
Miranda: T'Soni.

And things like that. They're fairly simple, so it almost feels like those parts of the game were just rough cut.

[Lewie]

Nightwriter wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

On the "Characters should have interacted more" stuff. Well yeah, who wouldn't want more of that stuff? I think a lot of people had just recently played Dragon Age before picking up ME2, which has a freaking incredible focus on companions, so come ME2 people are directly comparing it to DA:O and finding it lacking.

However, you have to remember Bioware have limited time/money. If they put in more squad interaction, something else would have had to go. That could mean anything from the cinematics being less polished, to the game being buggier, to whole missions being cut out (just speculating here, I'm by no means an expert on game development).

So if you wanted more squad interaction, would you have been comfortable with the game as a whole being rougher around the edges, or even having less content to play through, to accomodate the resources needed to put in squad interaction, keeping in mind some of your favourite moments in the game might have been cut to make way for it?

Hmm. I'd have to say yes, squad interaction is paramount, but I can only speak for me.

But, I think even if I had not just played DA:O, I would have noticed that Wrex does not acknowledge Tali or Garrus, Liara does not acknowledge Tali or Garrus, and speaks of her dealings with Cerberus as if Miranda is not in the room. I think I would still have noticed that you can kiss Liara in front of your LI and the LI won't react.

I'm not sure why they couldn't just add things like:

Wrex: Still tagging around with this one, are you, turian?
Garrus: Yep.

Liara: Lawson.
Miranda: T'Soni.

And things like that. They're fairly simple, so it almost feels like those parts of the game were just rough cut.

This is exactly why LI's should be left out of games.

[Interactive Civilian]

Nightwriter wrote...

Hmm. I'd have to say yes, squad interaction is paramount, but I can only speak for me.

But, I think even if I had not just played DA:O, I would have noticed that Wrex does not acknowledge Tali or Garrus, Liara does not acknowledge Tali or Garrus, and speaks of her dealings with Cerberus as if Miranda is not in the room. I think I would still have noticed that you can kiss Liara in front of your LI and the LI won't react.

I'm not sure why they couldn't just add things like:

Wrex: Still tagging around with this one, are you, turian?
Garrus: Yep.

Liara: Lawson.
Miranda: T'Soni.

And things like that. They're fairly simple, so it almost feels like those parts of the game were just rough cut.

This is pretty much my opinion of the whole thing. Not just between squadmates, but, as you suggest with Wrex, some kind of interaction with surroundings. I deliberately took Garrus and Tali with me to see Liara, and not a hint of reaction. When choosing Jack for a mission, you might expect the other squad mate to say something like "Nice tats... TATS. As in TATOOS!"

ME1 had far more of this than ME2, and how limited it was in ME1 just shows how lacking it is in ME2. Squadmates talked to each other on elevator rides, and their conversations varied with their companions (off the top of my head, Garrus asking Tali about her envirosuit, Ash and Kaiden talking politics, I think Tali asked Liara something, etc). The lack of such things made the characters, who are supposed to be the MAIN STORY in ME2, feel very flat and robotic.

The only time I felt anything remotely close to that was the banter with Liara in LotSB ("Hey, Liara. Remember when we could just slap some omni-gel on it?"  ), and even that didn't include the 3rd squadmate, who just seemed to be along for the ride. The only one who acknowledges the 3rd squadmate is the Shadow Broker.

I really wish that had been there, because the lack of it really does take away from the character based story IMHO.

(and FWIW, I've never played DA:O or any DA game)

Modifié par Interactive Civilian, 11 janvier 2011 - 03:52 .