462 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yeah, would that at least have been better. If these are supposed to be the best characters for the mission, it goes without saying that they'd all do their best regardless of whether they like Shepard or not. Their own life depends on it after all. But it would make sense that the characters are more focused after their respective quests. Still, whether you call it loyalty or focus, it makes no sense whatsoever to let that switch decide whether falling debris kills a companion or not. Who comes up with something like that?

They all issues that prevent them being at 100%. Remember that story recently about the soldier who phoned the wrong woman and proposed to her? He'd seen a friend blown up recently and it was bothering him.As a result he hit the wrong buttons on the phone. Translate that to a combat situation and you get a feel for what sort of implications someone being distracted has on the mission, and theirs and others survivability. In that context ME2 made perfect sense.

James2912 wrote...

I feel sorry for the Playstation owners ME1 was such a fantastic game! 

Very overated and very short game. Plot planets were decent, but everything else was generic because of the limited space on DvDs'.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 février 2011 - 08:10 .

[bjdbwea]

BobSmith101 wrote...

They all issues that prevent them being at 100%. Remember that story recently about the soldier who phoned the wrong woman and proposed to her? He'd seen a friend blown up recently and it was bothering him. As a result he hit the wrong buttons on the phone. Translate that to a combat situation and you get a feel for what sort of implications someone being distracted has on the mission, and theirs and others survivability. In that context ME2 made perfect sense.

Actually, no, it doesn't. You can come up with a lot of explanations to explain away the plot holes and make sense of nonsensical plot elements in ME 2. But the truth is, it's not in the game. In the actual game, falling debris kills the companions if they weren't loyal, and they survive if they were. That makes no sense whatsoever. Falling debris does not care about whether the companion was loyal or not. Nor do other circumstances that potentially lead to the deaths of companions in ME 2. It would have made sense if, for example, their loyalty would somehow have enabled the companions to actually evade the debris. Still a bit far-fetched and no substitute for a proper, actually meaningful loyalty system, but at least it would have been logical.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 février 2011 - 09:28 .

[AkiKishi]

bjdbwea wrote...

Actually, no, it doesn't. You can come up with a lot of explanations to explain away the plot holes and make sense of nonsensical plot elements in ME 2. But the truth is, it's not in the game. In the actual game, falling debris kills the companions if they weren't loyal, and they survive if they were. That makes no sense whatsoever. Falling debris does not care about whether the companion was loyal or not. Nor do other circumstances that potentially lead to the deaths of companions in ME 2. It would have made sense if, for example, their loyalty would somehow have enabled the companions to actually evade the debris. Still a bit far-fetched and no substitute for a proper, actually meaningful loyalty system, but at least it would have been logical.

A focused companion sees it coming and eaither rolls in a way as to make it hit less vital areas, or they brace it somehow and take less of an impact.
An unfocused companion does not see it coming and gets crushed in a more fatal way.

There is nothing particularly farfetched about that.

[Moiaussi]

A blurry companion is harder for the enemy to aim at. The companions in focus get their heads sniped off

[bjdbwea]

BobSmith101 wrote...

A focused companion sees it coming and eaither rolls in a way as to make it hit less vital areas, or they brace it somehow and take less of an impact. An unfocused companion does not see it coming and gets crushed in a more fatal way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cutscene plays out exactly the same in both cases. And there goes your argument. If you want to defend the game, you can make up almost anything to explain criticisms away, but only what's in the game matters.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 février 2011 - 10:16 .

[AkiKishi]

bjdbwea wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cutscene plays out exactly the same in both cases. And there goes your argument. If you want to defend the game, you can make up almost anything to explain criticisms away, but only what's in the game matters.

Except that one results in death and one does not. You have to fill in the blanks on why they did not die.

Heres a more real life example.

Someone throws a dodgeball at my face. I'm paying attention. I don't have time to dodge but I do have time to put my hands in front of my face. I don't get a bloody nose as a result.

Someone throws a dodgeball at me. I'm thinking about an arguement I had with my GF the night before and it hits me square in the face hurts like hell and leaves me with a bloody nose.

In example one I could not stop it happening, but I did mitigate the damage. Thats the difference of being focused and why I'm less injured as a result.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 février 2011 - 11:01 .

[Whatever42]

And if you dislike games, you can exaggarate anything into a horrible gamebreaking flaw.

If you've ever played sports, you know its possible to not have your head in the game and that can significantly affect your play. No difference with your teammates.

And again, these replace  side missions from ME1 that were completely meaningless to the main story. So its a step in the right direction. I guess we could debate whether they should gone farther but at least they tied more of the game back to the final outcome.

And again again, ME2 was not a reset that could allow you to restart the series. If you play ME1, you play from the paragon faction. If you play ME2, you play from the renegade faction. Skip the first game and you lose all your perspective on the choices you're making.

Sure, structurally, they are similar - bad guy trying to conquer galaxy and you stop him. In one, you jump through the conduit to the big battle, in two you jump through the omega 4 relay to the big battle. The only difference is that in game 1 you have the opportunity to advance or hurt the paragon faction and in game 2 you have the opportunity to advance or hurt the renegade faction. Each game allows you to experience the characters and attitude prevelant to each faction.

However, that's plot-wise. Storywise, throughout both games, you get a steady stream of reveals and buildup. You learn about the protheans, then the reapers, then the goal of the reapers, then indoctrination, then the cycle, then the citadel relay, then the collectors, then the genetic experimentation, then the focus on humanity, then that collectors are the protheans, more about indoctrination, then about an ancient space station in the middle of the galaxy, then about how reapers are cybernetic and how they reproduce.

In both games you gain potential new allies. In both games you experience new facets of the galaxy and encounter new races. Everything advances. Skip either game and you miss out on huge portions of the game and your experience will dramatically change. And ME3, I suspect, will leverage both games.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 09 février 2011 - 12:26 .

[przemichal]

I'd like to add something to the argument that ME1 and ME2 are structurally similiar. They (in a sense mentioned before) are. But at the same time they are not (in other sense): that ME1 is much more linear. And when playing linear game one will always have very strong feeling that it has really strong MAIN plot (because you can not really change anything, this "anything" can become part of the main plot). If the game is -- among other things -- about pursuit, and ME1 is surely about you chasing Saren, it HAS to be linear. (If it's time race, it doesn't have, vide ME2 and Dragon Age Origins). Now let's see, what if we remove this large possibility of choice from ME2 (which mission you do first, which you do not do at all etc.)? We would get a game just as linear as ME1; the problem is that there is just much more content in ME2 that is optional, but at the same time it is necessary because of the final mission, and if one avoids some "side mission", there may be repercussions in the final one; that means those side missions, some recruiting missions and loyalty ones, as well as some team mates, are in fact part of the main plot. (Come to this, I think it shouldn't be hard to compare both games structurally to see what differences make people think ME2 is "less substantial"; I may just do that later.)

Modifié par przemichal, 09 février 2011 - 02:21 .

[In Exile]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Except that one results in death and one does not. You have to fill in the blanks on why they did not die.

Heres a more real life example.

Someone throws a dodgeball at my face. I'm paying attention. I don't have time to dodge but I do have time to put my hands in front of my face. I don't get a bloody nose as a result.

Someone throws a dodgeball at me. I'm thinking about an arguement I had with my GF the night before and it hits me square in the face hurts like hell and leaves me with a bloody nose.

In example one I could not stop it happening, but I did mitigate the damage. Thats the difference of being focused and why I'm less injured as a result.

That might be true in the technical sense (i.e. that we could imagine that this happend and this is what the game seems to want) but it's bad design. The player needs to see that a particular choice has a consequence versus think of it as a gameplay mechanism, and the random deaths on the suicide mission do not make loyalty, which was a serious and significant part leading up to the suicide mission don't seem causally connection to death/life.

[AkiKishi]

In Exile wrote...
That might be true in the technical sense (i.e. that we could imagine that this happend and this is what the game seems to want) but it's bad design. The player needs to see that a particular choice has a consequence versus think of it as a gameplay mechanism, and the random deaths on the suicide mission do not make loyalty, which was a serious and significant part leading up to the suicide mission don't seem causally connection to death/life.

Well I've been playing RPGs from a time when that was almost a requirement I'm a big RPG retrogamer.
Is it really worth making a cutscene where the character shields themselves from the rubble with their arms ? Then multiply that by the number of characters possible for that scenerio to occur ? 



It's a game, everything is a game mechanic in one form or another.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 février 2011 - 05:11 .

[Shadow of Sparta]

let bioware make the main plot of mass effect 3 and related side missions (a la loyalty missions) 60 hrs long and everything gets explained.this way,no one will complain as they will be lots of time to implement previous games and make their outcomes more significant.it would be nice for me too.

Modifié par Shadow of Sparta, 09 février 2011 - 04:08 .

[Lunatic LK47]

BobSmith101 wrote...


A focused companion sees it coming and eaither rolls in a way as to make it hit less vital areas, or they brace it somehow and take less of an impact.
An unfocused companion does not see it coming and gets crushed in a more fatal way.

There is nothing particularly farfetched about that.

This. There's something called "Survival mindset." I remember hearing a story where a dad literally walked through a blizzard just to get outside help to save his wife and kid. Sure he got the help, but lost a few toes in the process because of frostbite. If he didn't have the survival mindset, he would have died halfway through the trip.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...


Yeah, would that at least have been better. If these are supposed to be the best characters for the mission, it goes without saying that they'd all do their best regardless of whether they like Shepard or not. Their own life depends on it after all. But it would make sense that the characters are more focused after their respective quests. Still, whether you call it loyalty or focus, it makes no sense whatsoever to let that switch decide whether falling debris kills a companion or not. Who comes up with something like that?

Its funny that the only real loyality mission in the sense of the word was Wrex Family Armor in the first game.This decides if he side with shepardt/could be reasened with
or try to attack to stop him to destroy the last hope for his people.