462 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

Mass Effect 2 fails completly to show why a conflict with the terminus system is feared...

Its not like the blue suns actually managed to capture one big,powerfull space ship or have one theirself.Unorganized space pirates.

[DarthSliver]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 is that Mass Effect 2 is actually enjoyable multiple times through. In Dragon Age no matter what race you were the game was the same.

[Schneidend]

You don't visit the entirety of the Terminus. The Terminus also includes the batarian homeworld and probably other renegade states. It's not so much that they fear war out of fear of defeat, but they don't want to be the Council that started such a war. Political suicide, they call it.

[AkiKishi]

DarthSliver wrote...

Difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 is that Mass Effect 2 is actually enjoyable multiple times through. In Dragon Age no matter what race you were the game was the same.

As opposed to only having one race/individual ?

At the very least the origin stories were different.

[MajesticJazz]

BobSmith101 wrote...


The common claim is that ME2 does nothing to advance the Reaper plot I just pointed out it does. Since ME3 is very likely to be about killing Reapers what you learn in ME2 is both valid and important.

ME is all about the Reapers as big scary boogey men ME2 shined a light on them.

I'll just borrow your lines with a minor alteration.

ME 1 you stop the Reaper Vanguard.
ME 2 you realise that was a waste of time and they are coming anyway.
ME 3 you most likely kill them all.

You could easily say ME was pointless by your logic. What you did in ME1 had no effect on the Reaper threat.

See! You just validated my point right there. You basically state that at the end of ME2, nothing has changed and the Reapers are still coming.

By that logic, I can play ME1, skip ME2 and play ME3 and feel right at home.

By your logic, you're trying to argue that ME1 was pointless and that the TRUE start to the story was ME2.

[AkiKishi]

MajesticJazz wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


The common claim is that ME2 does nothing to advance the Reaper plot I just pointed out it does. Since ME3 is very likely to be about killing Reapers what you learn in ME2 is both valid and important.

ME is all about the Reapers as big scary boogey men ME2 shined a light on them.

I'll just borrow your lines with a minor alteration.

ME 1 you stop the Reaper Vanguard.
ME 2 you realise that was a waste of time and they are coming anyway.
ME 3 you most likely kill them all.

You could easily say ME was pointless by your logic. What you did in ME1 had no effect on the Reaper threat.

See! You just validated my point right there. You basically state that at the end of ME2, nothing has changed and the Reapers are still coming.

By that logic, I can play ME1, skip ME2 and play ME3 and feel right at home.

By your logic, you're trying to argue that ME1 was pointless and that the TRUE start to the story was ME2.

Not really, if you say ME2 is pointless because the Repears are still coming then you can say the same thing about ME1. You can equally skip ME , many PS3 players have already done so and not missed a lot.

2 By the way means you realise what you did in ME1 was a waste of time. That should be pretty clear.
 
What you accomplish in ME2 is killing some Reapers and seeing that they are not as tough as the myth makes them out. That's good progress for when the Reapers arrive en masse.

The conclusion being that what you learned from ME2 was far more useful than what you learned ME1.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 06:49 .

[Slayer299]

@BobSmith101 - What two Reapers are you talking about being destroyed in ME2? You only kill a baby-Reaper (which doesn't count *that* much) and Harbinger gets away (and quite easily). So who exactly was #2??

[AkiKishi]

Slayer299 wrote...

@BobSmith101 - What two Reapers are you talking about being destroyed in ME2? You only kill a baby-Reaper (which doesn't count *that* much) and Harbinger gets away (and quite easily). So who exactly was #2??

The geriatric Reaper   IFF mission.

That's some resume a baby and an OAP...

[Slayer299]

DarthSliver wrote...
Difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 is that Mass Effect 2 is actually enjoyable multiple times through. In Dragon Age no matter what race you were the game was the same.

It is completely subjective to state that DAO is not fun to play multiple times but ME2 is. I happen to love DAO over ME2, that doesn't make my liking DAO untrue.

And how is ME2 different each time anymore than DAO is? In ME2 you die, come back, work for TIM, recruit, fight the Collectors on Horizon, recruit, visit the CS, the disabled Reaper and the SM. What exactly changes each time you're playing ME2 beyond random or different recruitment of teammates?

[Whatever42]

MajesticJazz wrote...
See! You just validated my point right there. You basically state that at the end of ME2, nothing has changed and the Reapers are still coming.

By that logic, I can play ME1, skip ME2 and play ME3 and feel right at home.

By your logic, you're trying to argue that ME1 was pointless and that the TRUE start to the story was ME2.

That's not exactly what he stated. He said in ME2 that you realized killing Sovereign was a waste of time.

At the end of ME1, you know you ended the immediate threat and you know that there are a number of Reapers sitting outside of your galaxy.

At the end of ME2, you know that the Reapers have much more of a presence in the galaxy that you thought, that they are not simply machines but cyborgs, that they have more of a plan than simple extermintion, and that they are targeting humanity specifically.

You also neutralize two Reaper allies: the collectors and the heretic geth. Defeating henchmen on the way to the main boss is pretty standard in all stories.

If you leave out ME1 or ME2, you lose crucial bits of the story. We don't know which of those bits are important in ME3 but Bioware usually does pretty well on that point. At some point people are going to have to stop assuming Bioware writers are idiots and just wait to see what happens.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 03 février 2011 - 06:56 .

[Slayer299]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

@BobSmith101 - What two Reapers are you talking about being destroyed in ME2? You only kill a baby-Reaper (which doesn't count *that* much) and Harbinger gets away (and quite easily). So who exactly was #2??

The geriatric Reaper   IFF mission.

That's some resume a baby and an OAP...

You don't kill the dead Reaper, its already dead for millions of years. Having the corpse get destroyed doesn't count at all for humanities tally count.

[AkiKishi]

Slayer299 wrote...

You don't kill the dead Reaper, its already dead for millions of years. Having the corpse get destroyed doesn't count at all for humanities tally count.

It's still active ME field is still up Joker comments as you fly through it. You "kill" its core. Takes one shot with a Cain priceless.


ME2 should be banned for encouraging you to kill infants and infirm

Modifié par BobSmith101, 03 février 2011 - 07:00 .

[MajesticJazz]

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.

[Whatever42]

Slayer299 wrote...

You don't kill the dead Reaper, its already dead for millions of years. Having the corpse get destroyed doesn't count at all for humanities tally count.

Well, the core is still active, including energy generation, mass effect fields, and indoctrination field.  You might say its in a coma. 

I believe that the brain was dead but the mechanical autonomous system was still functional; we murdered a brain dead Reaper.

And I agree that DA:O has plenty of replayability. Personally, I find ME2 more replayable because I enjoy the gameplay more but storywise both have plenty of possible variation to motivate experimentation. I suspect which one is "better" depends entirely on personal taste.

[Slayer299]

Sorry, but that doesn't count at all. The ME field is up, yes, but the Reaper itself is no more alive than an empty can of coke. EDI states that the ME field was an automatic protective function of the ship, not a conscious one. So in my book that doesn't count for anything other than garbage clean up.

[Slayer299]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Well, the core is still active, including energy generation, mass effect fields, and indoctrination field.  You might say its in a coma. 

I believe that the brain was dead but the mechanical autonomous system was still functional; we murdered a brain dead Reaper.

And I agree that DA:O has plenty of replayability. Personally, I find ME2 more replayable because I enjoy the gameplay more but storywise both have plenty of possible variation to motivate experimentation. I suspect which one is "better" depends entirely on personal taste.

Yeah, that I can agree with.

[Iakus]

The Big Nothing wrote...

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."

Not at all.

Well, yes, I'm arguing, But because I think the analogy is wrong.

I'd call "nearly died" and "dead" a major difference.  In one, the character is still alive, and could possibly (with advanced medical technology) recover.  "Dead" is "We needed a reset button"  Particularly in the circumstances surrounding Shepard's death.  He was very thoroughly dead from any number of causes.  I could quote the Parrot Sketch for emphasis, but that might be construed as argumentative

Protagonist injured, rehabilited.

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

RIght on the first part. Luke very nearly died on Hoth, would have died if Han hadn't found him.  But he lived and made a full recovery (albiet with a few scars)

Shepard, howver, was not injured.  Shepard was dead.  Spaced, suffocated, smacked into a planet, frozen, and spent the better part of two years dead.

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."

Yes.  Death makes all the difference.

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."

How was TIM a guide or mentor?  What insights did he provide aboutr the Reapers?  The Collectors?  About Shepard himself?  I'd even argue Anderson wasn't a "guide" so much as a "mentor" as he had no better idea what was going onthan Shepard did.  But TIM, assuming he did know what was happening, wasn't talking.

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."

The Prothean reveal could have been bigger news.  I'd even agree that it should have been bigger news.  It could have been the catalyst needed to unify his squad in truth, not merely because they all owe Shepard a favor.  But the way it was revealed, and Shepard's reaction to it, was so anticlimatic it was almost a parody.  Nothing is made of this revelation.  I believe Shepard even says something along the lines of "None of this matters.  They're working for the Reapers now"  And goes on his merry way blasting Collectors.

Vader's revelation evoked a powerful emotional response from Luke, and would go on to shape his actions for the rest of the series.  It was also a powerful moment fro Vader.  In fact, that moment started both of them down the road that would ultimately lead to Vader's redemption. 

[Capeo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Anyone who says that ME 2 was more character-driven than DA, is probably doing the same with the term "character-driven" that some people do with the term "RPG": Redefine the meaning of the word until it fits, just because they want it to fit for a game that they like and want to defend.

Exactly.  It's laughable to say ME is more character driven than DAO.  DAO had actual characters with real personalities that reacted to how you talked to them and what you did.  They also reacted to each other.  In ME you can talk to them in any way you want and every dialog ends the same.  DAO also had character dialog that evolved over time and LI that actually took work to woo.  Hell, it was work to really earn thier trust.  Not to mention they were so defined in their personality they could turn on you if you pissed them.

ME is a lot of things.  Character driven it is not.  Nothing about any of your squad mates in any way effects the game.

[AkiKishi]

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"

[DarthSliver]

Slayer299 wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...
Difference between Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 is that Mass Effect 2 is actually enjoyable multiple times through. In Dragon Age no matter what race you were the game was the same.

It is completely subjective to state that DAO is not fun to play multiple times but ME2 is. I happen to love DAO over ME2, that doesn't make my liking DAO untrue.

And how is ME2 different each time anymore than DAO is? In ME2 you die, come back, work for TIM, recruit, fight the Collectors on Horizon, recruit, visit the CS, the disabled Reaper and the SM. What exactly changes each time you're playing ME2 beyond random or different recruitment of teammates?

Well in ME2 i didnt have to get to know my companions everytime i replayed the game just to make sure they wouldnt leave. Neither did i have to hassle with giving them gifts to improve their liking of me. There also the fact ME2 felt different when you played again with the opposite gender that you played with first time around. Also i think i enjoy space faring games over middle earth type games. I did enjoy Dragon Age, just wasnt fun for me the second time. Like i said the fact i had to talk to my companions to keep them happy with me was something that really degrades replay value to me.

[AkiKishi]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Well, the core is still active, including energy generation, mass effect fields, and indoctrination field.  You might say its in a coma. 

I believe that the brain was dead but the mechanical autonomous system was still functional; we murdered a brain dead Reaper.

It was still capable of indoctrination and creating husks and scions. I don't think that qualifies as brain dead. Maybe paralysed would be better ? After all it could not move but it could still perform all the other Reaper functions.

[Jabarai]

cachx wrote...

Through the recruitment / loyalty missions, we got to learn and
experience a lot of stuff related to the ME universe, including stuff
like:

+The fate of migrant fleet
+The fate of true/heretic geth
+The escalating conflict between the previous 2
+The Krogan culture and how they're dealing with the genophage (wich can vary depending on ME1 decisions).
+Life on the terminus systems (Illium, Omega) or "why is the council is scared ****less of it".
+The various merc groups.
+Cerberus, and more stuff they had done.
+The Shadow Broker

And that's not counting the whole Collector plan and all that it tells us about the Reapers.

I really don't have anything else on this subject. You may have not liked the hows, and that's fine. But this "not
needed" or "pointless" crap is just plain wrong.

Agreed.

The collectors were an interesting species ever since ME Ascension and I think their emergence from the shadows was handled quite well. Successful bunch in portraying villains and further established the Reapers' goals and methods. I'm having tough time understanding why the fact that they might all be dead and probably won't return in ME3 renders ME2 useless...

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

But the cahracters in DAO responded.  To each other, via party banter, and to the plot by making comments and observations.  Wynne, for example will reaction negatively towards permitting the use of blood magic.  Lelliana will point out to Sten that he's not as gruff and stoic as he pretends to be.  Allistair will not be happy with you if you allow Eamon's wife or son to die.  Characters (not just rival LIs) will acknowledge if you are in a relationship with someone.  And so on. 

It's not that the characters drive the plot.  It's that they react to the plot, and to your choices affecting it.  In ME2, yes, you get a good mission out of Thane.  You learn a lot abou thim, his family, his motivations.  But once it's done, his personality evaporates.  It doesn't matter what other missions you take him on, he doesn't react.  He doesn't advocate, he's just sort of there.  Same with the other characters. 

[Whatever42]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Well, the core is still active, including energy generation, mass effect fields, and indoctrination field.  You might say its in a coma. 

I believe that the brain was dead but the mechanical autonomous system was still functional; we murdered a brain dead Reaper.

It was still capable of indoctrination and creating husks and scions. I don't think that qualifies as brain dead. Maybe paralysed would be better ? After all it could not move but it could still perform all the other Reaper functions.

That's another debate entirely! Personally, I think what we saw at the end of ME2 was that the Reapers are really cyborgs. That their mind is really made up of the consciousness of the race they ascended. The machine part of Reaper is responsible for keeping the organic unified through the indoctrination field.

So if the organic part of the Reaper dies, you still have the machine part but it has no real consciousness. It will generate an indoctrination field but no cognative ability. For example, I doubt Sovereign ran around consciousless indocrinating people, I think its very presence just pulled people into line because the field is always just on.

[AkiKishi]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

That's another debate entirely! Personally, I think what we saw at the end of ME2 was that the Reapers are really cyborgs. That their mind is really made up of the consciousness of the race they ascended. The machine part of Reaper is responsible for keeping the organic unified through the indoctrination field.

So if the organic part of the Reaper dies, you still have the machine part but it has no real consciousness. It will generate an indoctrination field but no cognative ability. For example, I doubt Sovereign ran around consciousless indocrinating people, I think its very presence just pulled people into line because the field is always just on.

Well we actually found out that "Reaper" is a misnomer and that each one is actually one of these races that has been turned into goo.
That also means that each one could be quite different in how it operates. The indoctrination field might be the mechanical aspect but you still need a will behind it.

Granted it's not the sort of kills you could boast about .. A baby and an Invalid , but hey a win is a win.