462 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

Capeo wrote...
I think the only difference in what we're saying is what we each think "significant" means in terms of the plot.  By significant I mean that character has to be there to move the plot forward.  Take the Tali/Quarnarian Fleet example from earlier.  This all assumes getting the Quarnarian Fleet on your side as a plot point BTW.  I don't see keeping Tali on your squad from ME2 as significant.  Significant would be that, if she died in ME2, then you are unable to get the Quarnarian Fleet to join your cause.  Significant means the plot couldn't advance without that character.  Since that can't happen (that would be gamebreaking) there has to be a stand-in or alternate way to get the plot moving which, by extension, really makes Tali's living or dying insignificant in the scope of the plot.  To borrow your wording, it would be trivial.

Granted, that whole plot thread is just an example.  I'm just clarifying what I mean when I say they can't make anything huge revolve around a character that could have died in ME2.  Hence the significance of who lived or died in ME2 is muted.  Will there be side missions galore?  I'm sure there will be.  Could they hinge on who lived or died in ME2?  Sure could.  Can the main plot?  No.  Hence questioning the reasoning of all the squad gathering, at the expense of moving the plot forward in ME2, as pointless.

My ideal scenerio for ME3 would be I start with who I had left and get right to the plot.  The game has to stand alone though.  Hence, her saying being left with almost nobody from your squad wouldn't be gamebreaking.  That means there's some recruiting to be done.  Hopefully it's optional. 

EDITED: for horrific grammar.    

Yup, we were talking past each other. I agree with you 100%.

[Capeo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Capeo wrote...
I think the only difference in what we're saying is what we each think "significant" means in terms of the plot.  By significant I mean that character has to be there to move the plot forward.  Take the Tali/Quarnarian Fleet example from earlier.  This all assumes getting the Quarnarian Fleet on your side as a plot point BTW.  I don't see keeping Tali on your squad from ME2 as significant.  Significant would be that, if she died in ME2, then you are unable to get the Quarnarian Fleet to join your cause.  Significant means the plot couldn't advance without that character.  Since that can't happen (that would be gamebreaking) there has to be a stand-in or alternate way to get the plot moving which, by extension, really makes Tali's living or dying insignificant in the scope of the plot.  To borrow your wording, it would be trivial.

Granted, that whole plot thread is just an example.  I'm just clarifying what I mean when I say they can't make anything huge revolve around a character that could have died in ME2.  Hence the significance of who lived or died in ME2 is muted.  Will there be side missions galore?  I'm sure there will be.  Could they hinge on who lived or died in ME2?  Sure could.  Can the main plot?  No.  Hence questioning the reasoning of all the squad gathering, at the expense of moving the plot forward in ME2, as pointless.

My ideal scenerio for ME3 would be I start with who I had left and get right to the plot.  The game has to stand alone though.  Hence, her saying being left with almost nobody from your squad wouldn't be gamebreaking.  That means there's some recruiting to be done.  Hopefully it's optional. 

EDITED: for horrific grammar.    

Yup, we were talking past each other. I agree with you 100%.

Wait.  What?  Civil discussion... leading to concensus no less?  On an internet forum?  Well, I never.

[aeetos21]

And what about how ME3's plot will transfer into ME4?

Edit:

The point of that statement is that Shepard's story ends with ME3, there is no ME4 that we will continue our progress into. BW will go crazy and not have to worry about any restraints in ME3 since its the end of the series. Thus characters like Samara or Jack or Jacob or whoever can have bigger roles than just the cameos the ME1 members had during ME2. CH and other BW Devs have CONFIRMED this.

As for why ME2 wasn't pointless? I could write a book on this but here's the long and short:

- Reapers want to get into our galaxy and take over, best and most efficient method is through the Citadel Relay. If you need clarification why this is the best way you are either a) a troll or need to play ME1.
- Sovereign and Geth destroyed, Reapers need another agent to unlock the gate for them. Supervised by Harbinger the Collectors start abducting humans in the Terminus Systems to create a new Reaper to take up where Sovereign left off. Once completed the new Human Reaper would basically do what Sovereign did and the events of ME1 would start all over again - likely with a resurrected Shepard acting as its new agent (the Collectors wanted Shepard's body for a reason).
- Thankfully Shepard and his team stopped the Collectors before they could complete their project and have once more stopped the Reapers from accessing the Citadel Mass Relay and what caused Harbinger to say: "You have failed, we will find another way" at the end of the game.

Now did BW conveniently say all of this? No but given all the whining currently going on I'm pretty certain they'll make sure to make mention of all of this in ME3 or maybe the DLC leading up to ME3. Are their plot holes? Yes, but not nearly as bad as some of the others BW has overlooked in the past. I'm half tempted to delete all of this now because I know despite how reasonable and sensible an argument I made people will still act like children, keep knocking on the door, and saying there's a monster in their closet.

So until ME3 comes out and the answers are set in stone people will continue to make pointless threads such as these.

ALL THAT SAID

I would like to now ask a question of my own:

"Why would BW create lore in ME3 that would paint ME2 as being pointless?"

Modifié par aeetos21, 02 février 2011 - 10:15 .

[MajesticJazz]

Babli wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...
I think this has a lot to do with Bioware so content on making ME2 a great stand alone game and entry point for those who didn't play ME1 and the results show. ME2 is a GREAT stand a lone game and a GREAT entry point to the series heading into ME2. But is is POOR in terms of the continuity from ME1.

This has been said many times. And I still agree.

Hopefully Bioware listened to the community and will make ME3 more dependent on decisions from ME1 and ME2 instead of the independent route that ME2 took.

If you haven't played a ME game by now, then you deserve to be lost in ME3. ME3 should be a reward for those who played ME2 AND ME1.

[Lunatic LK47]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Hopefully Bioware listened to the community and will make ME3 more dependent on decisions from ME1 and ME2 instead of the independent route that ME2 took.

If you haven't played a ME game by now, then you deserve to be lost in ME3. ME3 should be a reward for those who played ME2 AND ME1.

This. I did not buy Mass Effect for three stand-alone games.

[Doomlord52]

Was it pointless? Yes.



0 plot progression. The collectors came and left in the span of the one game. The only thing that happened was that we gained their base... MAYBE.



For all the annoying loyalty missions, monotonous side quests (kill infinite mechs... far worse than 'enemies everywhere'), etc. We're basically rewarded with "The reapers are coming! Just like at the end of ME1!".

[DarthSliver]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Hopefully Bioware listened to the community and will make ME3 more dependent on decisions from ME1 and ME2 instead of the independent route that ME2 took.

If you haven't played a ME game by now, then you deserve to be lost in ME3. ME3 should be a reward for those who played ME2 AND ME1.

This. I did not buy Mass Effect for three stand-alone games.

I agree, there must be away Bioware can please the fans and the newcomers. Heck id say the newcomers get to talk alot before the action if they wanna know their team as we the people who upload wont have to talk alot. Yea our companions(assuming we keep the the surviving ones from ME2) will have new stuff to stay. But we wont have to listen to their life story so to speak either, and thats to get to know them better. 

But as Lunatic said, if you havent picked up the ME series yet than you most likely wont.

Also anyone notice ME1 used is more expensive than ME2 used and new?

Modifié par DarthSliver, 03 février 2011 - 05:00 .

[The Big Nothing]

As pointless as "The Empire Strikes Back"... 


Protagonist Injured, Rehabilitated

"Star Wars": Luke is attacked on a routine patrol, nearly dies of exposure. Bacta tank revives him.

"Mass Effect": Shepard is attacked on a routine patrol, dies of exposure. Project Lazarus revives him.


Newer, Wiser, Mysterious-er Mentor

"Star Wars": Obi-wan is replaced by Yoda.

"Mass Effect": Captain Anderson is replaced by the Illusive Man.


Big Revelation

"Star Wars": We discover that Darth Vader was once Anakin Skywalker.

"Mass Effect": We discover that the Collectors were once protheans.


... which was easily the best of the Star Wars trilogy.

Modifié par The Big Nothing, 03 février 2011 - 06:21 .

[Iakus]

The Big Nothing wrote...

As pointless as "The Empire Strikes Back"... 


Protagonist Injured, Rehabilitated

"Star Wars": Luke is attacked on a routine patrol, nearly dies of exposure. Bacta tank revives him.

"Mass Effect": Shepard is attacked on a routine patrol, dies of exposure. Project Lazarus revives him.

Nearly is a very important word here.  

Newer, Wiser, Mysterious-er Mentor

"Star Wars": Obi-wan is replaced by Yoda.

"Mass Effect": Captain Anderson is replaced by the Illusive Man.

Yoda taught Luke the ways of the Force, how to utilize that which made him a "special snowflake" as it were.  This was done specifically so he could face Vader on even terms.  The Illusive Man mainly threw money and dossiers  Shepard's way and made zero use of what makes Shepard so special.  I saw nothing being done here that Jacob or Miranda could not have done on their own.  Perhaps not as well as Shepard, but not "let's spend several billion credits" better.

Big Revelation

"Star Wars": We discover that Darth Vader was once Anakin Skywalker.

"Mass Effect": We discover that the Collectors were once protheans.

When Vader gave his big reveal,  I remember that being an absolutely devastating moment for Luke  that shook the very foundations of what he believed in.  When Shepard learned about the Protheans, he pretty much shrugged and continued on his way.  They were nothing more then targets, unworthy of his time.

[AkiKishi]

I think people give ME1 too much credit, especially as part of what was always supposed to be a triliogy.



ME1 outside the plot planets was bland and generic. Go to a different colour planet. Find the same Ikea pre-fab building and kill whatever is inside ad naseum. That sums up any non plot world in ME outside of the DLC Bring Down the Sky (even that to a certain extent).



While ME2 is undoubtably a bunch of unrelated sidequests , they are all different. Rather than being the same generic areas on random planet X. Even the N7 missions have had more thought put in than most of the non plot ME1 stuff.



With Shepards resurection. If you know the game is going to continue don't set such a high level cap. That again is something you can "blame" ME1 for. I could have told you at the end of ME1 that Shepard was somehow going to be re-set.



ME2 simply did what it could with the baggage ME1 left. It's not perfect, but given the ammount of baggage it was not a bad effort.



With regards to the Ammo system. Ammo leads to more dynamic gameplay as does mission based XP. I don't think either is better, just different.



What I did dislike was lack of armour and inventory. I can't see any justifiable reason for that. While ME1's inventory borded on ridiculous removing the whole thing as well as the statisits just seem a step too far and a bit too much more shooter than RPG.

[The Big Nothing]

iakus wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

As pointless as "The Empire Strikes Back"... 


Protagonist Injured, Rehabilitated

"Star Wars": Luke is attacked on a routine patrol, nearly dies of exposure. Bacta tank revives him.

"Mass Effect": Shepard is attacked on a routine patrol, dies of exposure. Project Lazarus revives him.

Nearly is a very important word here.  

Newer, Wiser, Mysterious-er Mentor

"Star Wars": Obi-wan is replaced by Yoda.

"Mass Effect": Captain Anderson is replaced by the Illusive Man.

Yoda taught Luke the ways of the Force, how to utilize that which made him a "special snowflake" as it were.  This was done specifically so he could face Vader on even terms.  The Illusive Man mainly threw money and dossiers  Shepard's way and made zero use of what makes Shepard so special.  I saw nothing being done here that Jacob or Miranda could not have done on their own.  Perhaps not as well as Shepard, but not "let's spend several billion credits" better.

Big Revelation

"Star Wars": We discover that Darth Vader was once Anakin Skywalker.

"Mass Effect": We discover that the Collectors were once protheans.

When Vader gave his big reveal,  I remember that being an absolutely devastating moment for Luke  that shook the very foundations of what he believed in.  When Shepard learned about the Protheans, he pretty much shrugged and continued on his way.  They were nothing more then targets, unworthy of his time.

You're just being argumentative.

Me: "Hitler and Mussolini had a lot in common."
You: "No, Hitler had that funny little Chaplin moustache, but Mussolini didn't even have a moustache."


Protagonist injured, rehabilited.

Was Luke injured? Yes. Was he rehabilitated? Yes.
Was Shepard injured? Yes. Was he rehabilitated? Yes.

Me: "They were both injured and reborn cybernetically. Luke got a mechanical hand, Shepard got the weapon X treatment.
You: "Shepard died--it's completely different."


Newer, wiser, mysterious-er mentor.

Is Yoda wise, mysterious, and did he replace Obi-wan as Luke's guide? Yes. 
Is Illusive Man wise, mysterious, and did he replace Anderson as Shepard's guide? Yes.

Me: "Their motives are irrelevant; both tried to guide the protagonist."
You: "But the Illusive Man wasn't likable and couldn't use the Force."


Big Revelation

Does Luke discover incredible news about his enemy that makes him relate-able and contradicts what he had come to believe? Yes.
Does Shepard discover incredible news about his enemy that make them relate-able and contradicts what he had come to believe? Yes.

Me: "Luke finds out that Darth Vader is his father, whom he had believed to be dead. This serves to demonstrate that Vader is simply a victim of the true threat: the dark side, and that the same fate may await Luke.
Shepard finds out that the Collectors are repurposed protheans, which he had believed had gone extinct. This serves to demonstrate that the Collectors were simply victims of the true threat: the Reapers, and that the same fate may await humanity."
You: "Your paternity is bigger news."

[AkiKishi]

The big difference is in no way was Luke re-set. Luke still had the same skills and experience he had always had, Shepard does not.

[Chewin]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Chewin3 wrote...

ME1: Introduction
ME2: Building up your relationship with your crew
ME3: Conclusion

I see your point but the whole concept of ME2 being about building your relationship with your crew is really irrelevant. If ME2's crew was the EXACT same as ME1's crew, then your point would hold valid. In that situation, we would be able to continue our relationships and learning of Ashley/Kaiden, Wrex, Liara, Tali, Garrus, Navigator Pressly, Engineer Adams etc....

HOWEVER, ME2 gives us an entirely new crew minus Joker, Chakwas, Tali, and Garrus. In a lot of ways, ME2 kinda brings things back to step 1 all over again.

I think this has a lot to do with Bioware so content on making ME2 a great stand alone game and entry point for those who didn't play ME1 and the results show. ME2 is a GREAT stand a lone game and a GREAT entry point to the series heading into ME2. But is is POOR in terms of the continuity from ME1.

True, but building up your relationship with your new crew heavily indicates that the most of the crew (if not all) will be on board the Normandy in ME 3. Ashley/Kaidan, Wrex and Liara didn't have big roles in ME 2 and people were disappointed you couldn't have them on your crew. The reason being is that the developers of BioWare wanted them to stay alive through ME 2, indicating that they wil have some mayor roles in ME 3, definitly.

Modifié par Chewin3, 03 février 2011 - 11:20 .

[AkiKishi]

Characters have goals of their own , they are not puppets. Sometimes those goals coincide and they become a part of the crew but that does not mean they will be there forever. I think people really need to accept that.

[MajesticJazz]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I think people give ME1 too much credit, especially as part of what was always supposed to be a triliogy.

ME1 outside the plot planets was bland and generic. Go to a different colour planet. Find the same Ikea pre-fab building and kill whatever is inside ad naseum. That sums up any non plot world in ME outside of the DLC Bring Down the Sky (even that to a certain extent).

While ME2 is undoubtably a bunch of unrelated sidequests , they are all different. Rather than being the same generic areas on random planet X. Even the N7 missions have had more thought put in than most of the non plot ME1 stuff.

With Shepards resurection. If you know the game is going to continue don't set such a high level cap. That again is something you can "blame" ME1 for. I could have told you at the end of ME1 that Shepard was somehow going to be re-set.

ME2 simply did what it could with the baggage ME1 left. It's not perfect, but given the ammount of baggage it was not a bad effort.

With regards to the Ammo system. Ammo leads to more dynamic gameplay as does mission based XP. I don't think either is better, just different.

What I did dislike was lack of armour and inventory. I can't see any justifiable reason for that. While ME1's inventory borded on ridiculous removing the whole thing as well as the statisits just seem a step too far and a bit too much more shooter than RPG.

I do not believe you understand the argument.

This isn't about ME1 vs ME2. This is about ME2's progression of the story.

At the end of Mass Effect 1, we were left with the notion that we might have won the battle, but Soverign was just one of many Reapers, and they are coming and we need to find a way to stop them, END ME1.

At the end of Mass Effect 2, we were left with the notion that we might have won the battle, but the Reapers are still coming and we need to find a way to stop them, END ME2.

Basically we are right back at square 1. 

Now we haven't played ME3 yet so we do not know ME1s and ME2's impact on the story. However, as it is right now and from what we know of ME3, it appears that I can play through ME1, skip ME2, and jump into ME3 without the feeling that I missed something important. I say that because at the end of ME1, we are left with the notion that the Reapers are on their way and we need to find ways to stop them, THEN jump to ME3, the Reapers are here and during the game, we'll be finding ways to stop them (such as uniting the races). With that being said, ME2 seems irrelevant. 

[Whatever42]

The problem with saying that it was pointless is that the plot of ME2 was only pointless within the overall story arch. Oh, I have no doubt that there will be some things in ME2 that will prove important in ME3 but the story arch of ME2 was not directly relevent to stopping the Reaper armada. It was like defeating Sauruman in TTT; we take our eyes off the main villian and dither against a henchman. We could remove the henchman entirely from the story and make it a much tighter experience. The whole cloud city debacle in ESB was unnecessary for the plot.

So to be specific, the plot of ME2 was pointless in the context of stopping the greater Reaper invasion. But ME2 was not pointless in itself. Stopping the collectors had a point. And we did learn things. Even before the ME3 trailer, we knew Earth would be the target because of the events of ME2. We learned the nature of Reapers. The leader of the Reapers revealed itself. We possibly eliminated Reaper geth allies. We eliminated their Collector allies. Much had a point within ME2.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 03 février 2011 - 01:42 .

[tonnactus]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

That's because they weren't side missions. That was the game, that was the entire purpose of the game. How many times do the Devs have to say that the game is about the characters before you believe them? Honestly, it's becoming quite ridiculous now.

Everyone who played at least Dragon Age could only laugh about that statement.Mass Effect 2 is a complete and utter joke as an character driven game.

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

Everyone who played at least Dragon Age could only laugh about that statement.Mass Effect 2 is a complete and utter joke as an character driven game.

Played Dragon Age. Played Mass Effect 2. Preferred the latter. Nice try.

[AkiKishi]

I think we learned a lot about the Reapers in ME2. We learned that the squid is a shell and not the Reaper. We learned that Reapers "reproduce" around every 50,000 years by distilling a speices into a goo and growing a cyborg and that a Human Reaper looks just like a T-800.

We also learned that a lot the the Reaper terror is in fact a myth based on what were upto the point of ME very good strategies.



We know that you can fly through a Reaper ME field and that likely slow moving objects will not be stopped by it.



All in all we learned the Reapers are mortal and will die , especially if you shoot a Cain at them.



All that is very important for dispelling the Reaper "myth" that was prevelent in ME1.



Definately not pointless, but maybe could have been a bit more story focused.

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

That's because they weren't side missions. That was the game, that was the entire purpose of the game. How many times do the Devs have to say that the game is about the characters before you believe them? Honestly, it's becoming quite ridiculous now.

Everyone who played at least Dragon Age could only laugh about that statement.Mass Effect 2 is a complete and utter joke as an character driven game.

Nonsense. In ME2, I got spend a great deal of time with Miranda. Through dialogue, I heard some of her backstory and her views. Then I got to spend a whole mission about entirely her, learning more about her sister, her escape from her father, her relationships. I got to see her evolve at the end. And that's true of every character.

DA:O had tiny missions for the characters - kill Flemeth, deal with a paranoid former mentor - but it was a scene, not a whole mission. Sure, DA:O had a lot more dialogue where the characters described themselves and you could bond with them but ME2 showed you that instead, plunging you into a very important part of their lives, where you got to see something very dramatic unfold. Frankly, ME2 did character development much better.

I did like the relationship system better from DA:O (except that it was too easy to game) and I did love the banter but the characters were not any deeper.

[tonnactus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
r but in the end, what did any of it have to do with the coming Blight?  The civil war?  The archdemon? 

Too right, but I would've minded it less in DA:O because even if the game had just been about their loyalty missions, the characters frequently interacted.

Even with loghain in the party...
In game and download content.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 février 2011 - 01:52 .

[Slayer299]

tonnactus said
Everyone who played at least Dragon Age could only laugh about that
statement.Mass Effect 2 is a complete and utter joke as an character
driven game.

I totally agree on that.

In DAO, all the characters had opinions on major subjects and would get upset with the PC depending on their choices, some of which could result in them attacking you or even leaving. There was nothing even minorly close to that in ME2.

edit - annoying formatting

Modifié par Slayer299, 03 février 2011 - 01:57 .

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Nonsense. In ME2, I got spend a great deal of time with Miranda. Through dialogue, I heard some of her backstory and her views. Then I got to spend a whole mission about entirely her, learning more about her sister, her escape from her father, her relationships. I got to see her evolve at the end.

Character driven game means that all characters interact with each other.Just to make that clear.They all have their little moments of fame in their missions,but thats it.And that isnt enough.

Morrigan even discuss with alistair about how he treated his sister...


Mass Effect 2 is a joke as a character driven game.And a very bad one.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 février 2011 - 01:56 .

[AkiKishi]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Nonsense. In ME2, I got spend a great deal of time with Miranda. Through dialogue, I heard some of her backstory and her views. Then I got to spend a whole mission about entirely her, learning more about her sister, her escape from her father, her relationships. I got to see her evolve at the end.

Character driven game means that all characters interact with each other.Just to make that clear.They all have their little moments of fame in their missions,but thats it.And that isnt enough.

Dragon Age was pretty much driven by Alistair.

I prefer the party opinion of Dragon Age over the black/white scale of ME. Otherwise very different games hard to judge which is better.

I think it's fair to say that in DA the characters were less like puppets than in ME.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 01:59 .

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Nonsense. In ME2, I got spend a great deal of time with Miranda. Through dialogue, I heard some of her backstory and her views. Then I got to spend a whole mission about entirely her, learning more about her sister, her escape from her father, her relationships. I got to see her evolve at the end.

Character driven game means that all characters interact with each other.Just to make that clear.They all have their little moments of fame in their missions,but thats it.And that isnt enough.

Character driven does not mean party banter. And the party banter in DA:O did not mean it was character driven. It was awesome. It was a great tool for making the characters seem more real. It was a serious highlight of my experience. But you can't say it was required for character development.

And dismissing the missions as "little" means you weren't paying attention. We learned tons about Thane in his mission. We saw what he would be willing to do to save his son. It was heads-and-shoulders above almost anything in DA:O.

I adored the banter in DA:O too, don't get me wrong. The comments by various characters in ME1 was great but the characters really seem to breath when interacting spontaneously so much. I wholly support more of that in ME3. But to dismiss all the character development in ME2 because of lack of banter is just wrong.