462 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It happens when people try to present their opinion as fact.

None of us are objective. I liked the game. I enjoyed playing it more than I enjoyed playing ME1. In any analysis, I will begin with that and then try to justify it.  Someone who disliked ME2 will likewise find reasons to dislike it.

Where we go wrong is that we try to objectively prove our opinions and convince other people that their opinions are wrong and ours are right. So people say ME2 is pointless, therefore justifying their comparative dislike for the game. Other defend it, comparing ME2 to other middle chapters that almost everyone like to say it structured fine, justifying their enjoyment of the game. However, the whole argument is nonsensical. It simply comes down to whether you enjoyed it or not and that is highly subjective.

That's why, in my opinion, a critic simply should explain why he like or disliked a game and should reveal his own biases in the analysis. Don't simply give the game a 7/10 and say it has awful controls. Saying that you're really picky about controls and if it's not done right, it really bugs you, pre-disposing you against the game. People who share your biases can take note. People who don't can factor your biases into your review.

ME2 clearly advanced the story and therefore had a point. It just didn't advance it in a way that a lot of people liked. Some would have preferred a setback for Shepard. Others would have preferred more movement, such as Shepard gathering armies. Others detest the change of setting. However, that's subjective when we all want to prove that we're objectively right.

[CARL_DF90]

Short answer: yes. Although it introduced me to the world of Mass Effect and I enjoyed the game quite a bit, and still enjoying on the PS3, I would have to concede that yes the story could have been better with quite a few plot holes filled in and events written better. Still, hopefully Bioware is aware of these problems and are working their collective (no pun intended) butts off to make sure ME3 doesn't fall prey to the same problems.

[Moiaussi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It happens when people try to present their opinion as fact.

Do we know more about the Reapers post ME2 than we knew pre-ME2. The answer is yes therefore ME2 was not pointless.

Could it have been done better ? Sure, but then the blame really lies with the OP for the choice of title.

Pardon, but those are all definate statements. Aren't you 'presenting opinion as fact' in chosing that tone? What makes your opinion  any more factual than anyone else's?

[MajesticJazz]

BobSmith101 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

If you play ME1, skip ME2, and jump to ME3, you're probably going to feel like the jump was smooth and that you probably didn't miss anything relevant. Because at the end of ME1, the Reapers were coming and you needed to stop them and at the beginning of ME3, the Reapers came and you'll stop them. ME2 has no place....

So how can you possibly reach this conclusion having not played, nor having any idea, where Mass Effect 3 is headed? If we need to examine all three instalments in order to determine whether something is 'relevant', then your Mass Effect example does not follow. I needed to see Empire Strikes Back in order to watch Return of the Jedi.Mass Effect 2 being 'relevant' will depend entirely on how it is implemented in the final instalment.

My point is that what does ME2 ADD to the OVERALL story arch that is sooooooo relevant? What important information did we learn in ME2 that will be vital to understanding ME3?


ME1 DOES go deeper into the Reaper psychological profile through the Virmire conversation with Soverign, Talks with Saren (Virmire/Citadel) and the chat with Vigil (Illos). Through this, the Reapers background and motives are fleshed out more. 

ME2 DOESNT go deeper into the Reaper psychological profile.


As for Shepard:

ME1 DOES go deeper into the psychological profile of Commander Shepard. Through conversations and side missions, we learn more about his/her past.

ME2 DOES NOT continue with this? There were no more further mentions of Shepard's past prior to ME1. We didn't learn anything new about the character in that regard. Furthermore, our relationships aren't continued (Wrex, Ashlye/Kaiden, and Liara). Yes, we got the Shadow Broker DLC for Liara, but because that wasn't included in the retail version of ME2 back in Jan 2010, that doesn't count. Yes, we can continue these relationships in ME3 but that only goes to even further validate the point that ME2 was pointless and that I can goto ME3 straight from ME1 and feel normal.

ME2 goes into the Reaper physical profile.  How to kill Reapers I bet that's going to be pretty essential in ME3.

The other characters have moved on. Happens in real life too deal with it. Wrex is working towards his goal of uniting his people. That's progress. Liara with your help has set her up as a the new ShadowBroker, thats not only progress but extremely useful to Shepard.
Ashley and Kaiden are Alliance drones just like always but I'm not sure what else you would expect from them?

You forget it comes with the PS3 version. Funny that anything that does not fit your idea "does not count"

Elaborate on how ME2 goes into the psychological profile of the Reapers in the same way ME1 did through Vigil and Soverign.

[Iakus]

What could have made it less "pointless"?
 
1)  Signs that actions will have effects.
 
Some speculate that Shepard's actions will affect which allies will be avalable in ME3. However, accept for the rachni queen, we don't see that kind of preparation taking place.  Even without going into the Council retcon, let's see what we have: 
 
You can advise the quarians not to go to war with the geth.  But even if they take that advice, are tehy any more willing (or able) to face the Reapers when the time comes? 
 
Same with the geth themselves.  Sure they sent Legion to Shepard, but Legion makes it clear the geth are interested in a seperate fate from organics.  I see no assurances that any geth (regardless of faction) is interested in providing any military aid.  Sure helping Legion may ensure you don't have the geth as an enemy.  But as friends/allies? 
 
Heck even Wrex, who knows about the Reapers, only talks about uniting the krogan clans.  I do not remember any lines amounting to "Don't worry, Shepard.  When the time comes, Urdnot and its allies stand with you" 
 
This is likely why I felt like I did more to advance the stroy in LOTSB than in anything else in ME 2.  In that DLC, you take out an ally of the Collectors/Reapers, and install one of your allies in his place.  You've definitely struck a blow against the Reapers, and have a real ally for ME 3. (assuming DLCs mean anything in ME3, which I admit is a definite possibility for the email/news story treatment)
 
Then there's the question of the Teltin facility, Ronald Taylor, Sidonis, and other "minor" details and what the heck those are supposed to accomplish.
 
Any statements otherwise or only speculation about the future.  Not accomplishments of the now.
 
 
2) Information
 
Okay, so now we "know" (or rather, EDI infodumps) on how Reapers reproduce and need organics to do so.  Assuming this is all true, that still doesn't get us any closer to how to fight the Reapers.  Or how others did so, and failed.  Perhaps if there had been a mission exploring the mass accelerator that took out the Derelict Reaper, get an idea as to what kind of technology could take one out.  Or learn about the last days of the Protheans.  What they did, how they failed and ended up becoming the Collectors.  Or something about the Reaper origins.  Perhaps with a hint on how to undo them.  Or what makes human genetics the "special snowflake" that the Reapers apparantly need.
 
3) What does this mean?
 
Even the baby Reaper as shown might have been a sense of accomplishment, if we knew the "why" of it.  Yes people have all sorts of theories about it:  A second attack on the Citadel, a replacement for Sovereign, some sort of Plan B for bringing the Reapers back.  But in the end What was it for?  If I knew for certain what Shepard accomplishes in destroying it, maybe I'd feel more of a sense of...accomplishment?  Or lack of accomplishment.  Does Harbringer have a point when he says "Human.  You have stopped nothing" or was that bravado?  Honestly, I have no idea.  And I'd really like to have one.
 
Think of it this way:  If you did not know that the Citadel was a dark space relay.  But simply that Saren was Up To No Good.  What kind of sense of accomplishment would you get by stopping him and Sovereign?  My guess is there'd be a bit of head-scratching at just what they hoped to accomplish.  How does this bring back the Reapers? 
 
And no, having a new ship and new crew is not enough to feel a sense of accomplishment.  Shepard had a top of the line ship and a crew that could help him take out a Reaper inME 1.  At best, ME 2 simply replaces them, covering the same ground as before and advances nothing in it.

[AkiKishi]

Moiaussi wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

It happens when people try to present their opinion as fact.

Do we know more about the Reapers post ME2 than we knew pre-ME2. The answer is yes therefore ME2 was not pointless.

Could it have been done better ? Sure, but then the blame really lies with the OP for the choice of title.

Pardon, but those are all definate statements. Aren't you 'presenting opinion as fact' in chosing that tone? What makes your opinion  any more factual than anyone else's?

Because it is a fact. You know more about the Reapers having played ME2 than you did before. Seems fairly straightforward. Whether people are happy with what they learned does not change that statement in the least.

[Darth Death]

WOW! Some people actually have the nerve to call ME2 "pointless". There's something called CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, that ME lacked severely.

[Moiaussi]

Darth Death wrote...

WOW! Some people actually have the nerve to call ME2 "pointless". There's something called CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, that ME lacked severely.

Give examples.

The VS loses personality.

Garrus arbitrarily reverts back as if you had never spoken to him at all in ME1.

Wrex has some development but doesn't even ask about the Reapers.

Liara shows nothing til the after-the-fact LotSB.

The Council toss aside any development too.

There are new characters who are somewhat 'developed' in ME2, but much less so than the VS was or Garrus was or Wrex in ME1. As you got to know those characters better in ME1, you got to see their personalities actually shift. In ME2 they are arbitrarily reset and then glued in place.

And to the extent the new squad develops, there is no reason to believe such development won't be tossed aside in ME3 the way all character developement from ME1 was tossed aside in ME2.

[Moiaussi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Because it is a fact. You know more about the Reapers having played ME2 than you did before. Seems fairly straightforward. Whether people are happy with what they learned does not change that statement in the least.

That they make human squishies? And this adds to anything... how? For many of us, that ranks right up there with learning they really all look like bambi and speak in really cute voices in person.

What else? They pre-purpose other races? We already knew that about the keepers. The collectors weren't even on the radar... literally... in ME1, Discovering in ME2 that the Reapers repurposed a second race isn't that big a deal, especially when the collectors really weren't that big a deal.

[Il Divo]

Moiaussi wrote...


That they make human squishies? And this adds to anything... how? For many of us, that ranks right up there with learning they really all look like bambi and speak in really cute voices in person.

We can certainly argue how well/badly most of ME2's spoilers handled. But in Mass Effect 2, we actually found out what the purpose of the Reapers entire cycle was: reproduction. I'd say this qualifies as learning 'more', even if some dislike the direction it took.

[Null_]

ME2 will only be pointless if we have to recruit whole new team in ME3....80% of the game was recruiting in ME2

[Eshaye]

I don't really feel that ME2 is a continuation of ME, it's more like a side story. If they don't want this to remain true then yes they need to stick to what we had going on in ME and ME2, this means NO new companions and tying up of loose plot lines. We certainly don't need anything or anyone new if ME3 is indeed the last part of the 'trilogy', if they don't do this then it's not truly a trilogy in the sense that Lord of the Rings is or Star Wars.



Indeed recruiting in ME3 would be such a bitter disappointment, unless it's recruiting nations instead of individuals.

[MajorStranger]

Mass Effect 1 installed us inside the universe; Powerful species, grand army, Ancient evil and Synthetic lifeform we are unable to understand.

Mass Effect 2 gave us more dept and showed us the darker side of the universe: Mercenary groups, abduction, Xenophobics difference and danger in the terminus system. It also gave us knowledge of the true goal of the Geth, real ties with the Migrant Fleet and great allies.



I can't see how befriending both the Quarian and the Geth can't have a positive point in fighting the Reapers.



I'm not against new companion, but not the way they were in ME2 (They should be recruit like legion, you didn't do the mission specially for recruiting but he was there, he can be useful, why not recruit him?

[Moiaussi]

MajorStranger wrote...

Mass Effect 1 installed us inside the universe; Powerful species, grand army, Ancient evil and Synthetic lifeform we are unable to understand.
Mass Effect 2 gave us more dept and showed us the darker side of the universe: Mercenary groups, abduction, Xenophobics difference and danger in the terminus system. It also gave us knowledge of the true goal of the Geth, real ties with the Migrant Fleet and great allies.

I can't see how befriending both the Quarian and the Geth can't have a positive point in fighting the Reapers.

I'm not against new companion, but not the way they were in ME2 (They should be recruit like legion, you didn't do the mission specially for recruiting but he was there, he can be useful, why not recruit him?

None of the 'threats' of the Terminus systems even remotely lived up to the hype of ME1, though.

In ME1, we were told that merely going into the Terminus systems had a high chance of causing a war.

In ME2, other than the Collectors (who seem to have nothing more than a single Cruiser), we see nothing even resembling a naval threat. In fact, the only hostile factions we see are the same mercenary groups we have already fought in ME1. Going up against them didn't threaten a war before.. these groups operate as normal mercs in Council space.

If they are the big scary 'space pirates', why are they allowed to operate freely in Council space?

Noone in the Terminus systems seems to care about disappearing colonies..... even though presumably it would mean less prey for them, not to mention someone else operating on their turf. If disappearing colonies don't rile them, why would a few warships do so?

The Tali missions (especially her loyalty mission) count as progress, but that is such a small part of the game.

In other words, the collectors were only a threat because the Terminus systems themselves weren't a threat. Anticlimatic, really....

[Phaedon]

Moiaussi wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

WOW! Some people actually have the nerve to call ME2 "pointless". There's something called CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, that ME lacked severely.

Give examples.

The VS loses personality.

Garrus arbitrarily reverts back as if you had never spoken to him at all in ME1.

Wrex has some development but doesn't even ask about the Reapers.

Liara shows nothing til the after-the-fact LotSB.

The Council toss aside any development too.

There are new characters who are somewhat 'developed' in ME2, but much less so than the VS was or Garrus was or Wrex in ME1. As you got to know those characters better in ME1, you got to see their personalities actually shift. In ME2 they are arbitrarily reset and then glued in place.

And to the extent the new squad develops, there is no reason to believe such development won't be tossed aside in ME3 the way all character developement from ME1 was tossed aside in ME2.

A kitten just died thanks to you. You are a horrible person. What, it's just my opinion? Oh well, it's not. ME2 characters have: 1) A recruitment mission, focused on them. 2)A loyalty mission, focused on them. 3)A lot more inter-ship dialogue than the ME1 crew. 

I'll just repost this.
"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3..."

Garrus arbitrarily reverts back as if you had never spoken to him at all in ME1.

Is this the 'Shepard is a demagogue who can keep controlling your personality 2 years post-mortem' argument again?

[SnakeSNMF]

If destroying the Collector Ship (which was going to target Earth which would number in the billions of death, possibly trillions now with incoming measures that aren't just one-man ships that could help support it) And when you think about it, Shepard kind of slowed down the reapers by doing this.

That's irrelevent though.



Through this, they gained the intelligence to one, revive Shepard.

Two, gain the loyalty of the crew that during the time of the invasion would be futile.

Three, SR-2 .. it's dangerous.

Four, gained "schematics" to a Reaper. At the end of Mass Effect 2, or something similar. Weak spots? The world may never know, but the trailer also provided that the Reapers aren't impossible to beat.

This time, the Reapers are alone. But they have a huge army and kick lots of ass.

Thankfully if you chose the right descions..

Geth. Rachni. Quanari. Krogan. The council. (which are Turian, Salarians, Asari, the new pre-flight species, etc.(

Basically saying-- the more numbers you have with more ships attached with thanix cannons going at the same time, the more chance of survival you have. Shock-troopers are a must, the damage will be greawter but the important message is that the entire crew survives.

In long term, Mass Effect 2 was very important. I would dare say even more then the first one because it gaps everything and even though it takes you a moment to reconicle the situations, their is equal situations for both games that allow you an edge to survive.

[Phaedon]

SnakeSNMF wrote...
In long term, Mass Effect 2 was very important. I would dare say even more then the first one because it gaps everything and even though it takes you a moment to reconicle the situations, their is equal situations for both games that allow you an edge to survive.

While I agree with you, we'll have to see about that.
If squaddies are not relevant in ME3 at all, then ME2 will be rather pointless.

[SnakeSNMF]

They'll all be relevent on the side, we all know that. Everyone has to be fighting somewhere on some side.



Just they'd have to be in the right place of course.

[Moiaussi]

Phaedon wrote...

A kitten just died thanks to you. You are a horrible person. What, it's just my opinion? Oh well, it's not. ME2 characters have: 1) A recruitment mission, focused on them. 2)A loyalty mission, focused on them. 3)A lot more inter-ship dialogue than the ME1 crew. 

I'll just repost this.
"This brings us to Act 2. Act 2 is where most of the action is. In general, the protagonist starts Act 2 lacking the necessary skills, partners, whatever, to succesfully resolve the dramatic question raised in Act 1. Therefore, almost all of Act 2 is spent on acquiring these things. This where a number of small conflicts and resolutions can occur, in rapid succesion, allowing for the most exciting or dramatic elements of the piece.[...] Once the protagonist has gathered everything and is ready to answer the overreaching question asked in Act 1, the final act begins. In Act 3..."

More screen time does not equate to more character development. Their personalities don't really change as a result of the missions or dialogue, other than perhaps Miranda's miraculous conversion if you destroy the collector's base.

Jack might arguably have some character development, and Tali's missions do actually move the plot forward, but compared to Garrus or the VS or Wrex in ME1? Not so much.

Describing the plot outline doesn't make the plot meaningful. It only means that there was an outline that you can describe.

Is this the 'Shepard is a demagogue who can keep controlling your personality 2 years post-mortem' argument again?

I have heard your arguement before, too, that personality shifts are some sort of mind control.. in this case, you seem to be arguing that Garrus only became more renegade or paragon because Shepard was somehow controlling his mind, that he couldn't have actually been convinced by good arguements.

In discussing this on this forum, do you really believe that somehow you are temporarily controlling my mind? And that if you convince me of something that as soon as you go away, I will change my mind back, because only your presence changed my mind rather than your arguements?

Fair enough for Garrus to become more jaded on how things played out on Shepard's death, but he doesn't seem to recover at all. He just..... stays that way. Even if he was becomming paragon by the end of ME1, Shepard can only convince him to back off on the assassination plan by using himself as a human shield. Alternatively, if Shepard does the same with a formerly renegade Garrus, Garrus doesn't challenge Shepard on Shepard's appearant weakness.

Even when the ME2 events are consistant with Garrus' ME1 ending personality, he still doesn't apply that personality to the situation.

That isn't character development. That is taking the character and replacing them with a cardboard stand-in and a tape recorder of pre-recorded lines.

[Moiaussi]

By the way, to all those saying "Just wait til ME3!........ that was what we were all saying after ME1 too. All the promises beig cited for ME3 were promised for ME2. Now after they were not delivered in ME2, there seems to be this willingness to buy into the line "ME2? But we meant ME3! Just way til ME3 and then you will really see us fulfil our promises!"



Pardon, but fool me once... why would I be quick to be fooled again?

[AkiKishi]

Moiaussi wrote...

By the way, to all those saying "Just wait til ME3!........ that was what we were all saying after ME1 too. All the promises beig cited for ME3 were promised for ME2. Now after they were not delivered in ME2, there seems to be this willingness to buy into the line "ME2? But we meant ME3! Just way til ME3 and then you will really see us fulfil our promises!"

Pardon, but fool me once... why would I be quick to be fooled again?

This is why I gave up frequenting message boards before games are released.

I came to both games without any pre-conceptions and ultimately found that ME's totally generic outside of the plot planets bothered me far more than anything in ME2.

Although I really can't figure who thought ammo was better than infinate ammo (from a world view not a gameplay one). It does do wonders for dynamic gameplay.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 février 2011 - 12:53 .

[Phaedon]

Moiaussi wrote...
More screen time does not equate to more character development.

Uhhh, yes it does.

Their personalities don't really change as a result of the missions or dialogue, other than perhaps Miranda's miraculous conversion if you destroy the collector's base.

Jack might arguably have some character development, and Tali's missions do actually move the plot forward, but compared to Garrus or the VS or Wrex in ME1? Not so much.

Uhhh, yes they do. 

Garrus confronts someone who killed all of his team and learns that the universe is made of shades of grey.
Grunt becomes an adult and his krogan nature is developed.
Jack confronts ALL of her childhood.
Jacob searches for his dad, who ends up being a different man than he imagined.
Kasumi takes revenge for her dead lover and recovers a secret that would triger intergalactic war.
Legion settles the True and Heretic Geth conflict.
Miranda saves her sister, and faces the only friend that she thought that she had.
Mordin faces his student, and realizes the moral aspect of his actions.
Morinth sucks.
Samara has to murder her daughter in order to obey her code.
Tali discovers that her father is dead and that she is treated as a traitor.
Thane tries to save his son from taking the same path he has.
Zaeed is blinded by revenge.

Wrex- Shoot stuff up, retake armor, discover that it sucks.
Garrus- 1)Find a suspect who got away, 2)Kill him, 3)???, 4)Profit
VS- No quest.

Describing the plot outline doesn't make the plot meaningful. It only means that there was an outline that you can describe.

Except that I did not describe the plot outline. This is, literally, the definition of the second act. And it was not made by me. Since you confused with a description of the plot, then I say that it fits perfectly.

Is this the 'Shepard is a demagogue who can keep controlling your personality 2 years post-mortem' argument again?

I have heard your arguement before, too, that personality shifts are some sort of mind control.. in this case, you seem to be arguing that Garrus only became more renegade or paragon because Shepard was somehow controlling his mind, that he couldn't have actually been convinced by good arguements.

Except that Garrus' personality changes -temporarily- becauses Shepard persuaded him, so I am right?

In discussing this on this forum, do you really believe that somehow you are temporarily controlling my mind? And that if you convince me of something that as soon as you go away, I will change my mind back, because only your presence changed my mind rather than your arguements?

I certainly hope that your personality will evolve on your own.

Fair enough for Garrus to become more jaded on how things played out on Shepard's death, but he doesn't seem to recover at all. He just..... stays that way. Even if he was becomming paragon by the end of ME1, Shepard can only convince him to back off on the assassination plan by using himself as a human shield. Alternatively, if Shepard does the same with a formerly renegade Garrus, Garrus doesn't challenge Shepard on Shepard's appearant weakness.

Wrong. Garrus' goal is one throughout the games. He wants to enforce justice, he quit C-Sec and joined Shepard on his quest. Now Shepard is dead. Turning into a vigilante is his only option?

Even when the ME2 events are consistant with Garrus' ME1 ending personality, he still doesn't apply that personality to the situation.

???

That isn't character development. That is taking the character and replacing them with a cardboard stand-in and a tape recorder of pre-recorded lines.

Nope.
It's funny how you say it, when you have the VS that you suggest that had deep character development. 

[Il Divo]

Moiaussi wrote...

More screen time does not equate to more character development. Their personalities don't really change as a result of the missions or dialogue, other than perhaps Miranda's miraculous conversion if you destroy the collector's base.

Actually, it does. If a character does not appear on screen, he or she does not develop, simple as that. If Han Solo's role in the Star Wars films had been confined to flying Luke and Obi-Wan to Alderaan, there would have been substantially less about his character. Now, to be fair, depending on how well the writing is handled, even a character who appears on screen may not develop.

However, your second sentence also confuses what it means to be a dynamic character and to be 'developed'. A character can still be static and developed (such as Princess Leia) who does not undergo much change throughout the series but whom we still learn quite a bit about. Character development is about learning what they value, 'fleshing them out', etc. It doesn't mean a character has to experience a major shift in their personality.

Jack might arguably have some character development, and Tali's missions do actually move the plot forward, but compared to Garrus or the VS or Wrex in ME1? Not so much.

Wrex does not undergo dramatic changes in his personality following Virmire and Garrus' role as a dynamic character was one of the weakest to be featured in a Bioware game. Mass Effect 2 did an excellent job of developing its characters because of the dialogue and fleshed out loyalty missions, which is what ME1 lacks and limits potential character development. In Mass Effect, we spend five minutes killing Dr. Saleon, return to the Normandy and after a prolonged conversation convince Garrus to be good/evil. Take any Mass Effect 2 loyalty mission (barring Zaeed's and Grunt's) and the overall effect makes ME look terrible, imo.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

Garrus confronts someone who killed all of his team and learns that the universe is made of shades of grey.
Grunt becomes an adult and his krogan nature is developed.
Jack confronts ALL of her childhood.
Jacob searches for his dad, who ends up being a different man than he imagined.
Kasumi takes revenge for her dead lover and recovers a secret that would triger intergalactic war.
Legion settles the True and Heretic Geth conflict.
Miranda saves her sister, and faces the only friend that she thought that she had.
Mordin faces his student, and realizes the moral aspect of his actions.
Morinth sucks.
Samara has to murder her daughter in order to obey her code.
Tali discovers that her father is dead and that she is treated as a traitor.
Thane tries to save his son from taking the same path he has.
Zaeed is blinded by revenge.

And does any of this change their outlook on the mission?  Do they say or do anything differently based on how their loyalty mission goes, aside from the "don't kill me" shield they get for the suicide mission?  Does letting Sidonis live or killing him change Garrus in any way for the rest of the game?  Does Jack say or do anything differently?  You  learn about the characters, sure.  BUt do you change them?

Wrex- Shoot stuff up, retake armor, discover that it sucks.

And on Virmire, trusts Shepard enough to go along with destroying Saren's genophage cure, preventing the necessity of kiling him.  Somehthng you;d otherwise need near-maxed diplomacy or intimidate to accomplish (not that this means anyhting anymore, thanks to the comic)

Garrus- 1)Find a suspect who got away, 2)Kill him, 3)???, 4)Profit

Paragon:

"I've thought a lot about what you've told me.  About not sacrificing innocents to achieve the goal.  About finding the best way through, not just the fastest.  And I've been thinking about Dr. Saleon.  I convinced myself that he deserved to die.  But then I started thinking about why I wanted him dead  I realized it wasn't what he did to those people.  That was part of it, but I think most of it was because he got away from me.  He escaped under my watch and I let it become personal.

"I'm going back to C-Sec.  I think I can make a difference there.  I'll also reapply for Spectre training, but I'll do it right.  I won't comprmise myself to get there.  If the people I'm sworn to protect can't trust me, then I don't deserve to be the one protecting them"

Renegade:

"I've thought about what you've said.  About eliminating the threat immediately, regardless of the cost.  You were right.  You were right about Dr. Saleon too.  Killing him was the only solution.  This way we'll know he'll never hurt anyone again.

"I'm going to reapply for Spectre training.  It will probably kill my father.  But I've got to try.  If that doesn't work, I'll do just about anything, except go back to C-Sec.  I'm done with them.  No more red tape. No more politics.  From now on, I do things my way."

Looks like character growth to me.  Wonder where all that went in ME 2.

VS- No quest.

true, but if you romance them, you eventually get the opportunity to paragon Ashley or renegade Kaiden, changing thier outlook on the Council and aliens in general.  You can actually get Ashely to advocate saving the Destiny Ascension, or Kaiden to sacrifice it.

[AkiKishi]

If you claim that the quest with Wrex which allows him to be saved on Virmire is growth. Then you must accept that the quests you do to prevent a companions death is equally valid because they are exactly the same....


Without stating the obvious if you don't do her loyalty then you can't romance Jack, so yes by doing her loyalty she does change.

Lot's of dialogue variations depending on the outcome of the loyalty missions too.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 février 2011 - 06:05 .