1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Spornicus]

Well, the fact remains that a lot of people (me included) really enjoyed the game and find all of this nitpicking unnecessary. Actually, it sucks that people like Smudboy not only can't enjoy the game, but have to rain on everyone else's parade and tell them how terrible the game was, and if they don't agree they're wrong. It's what makes me come to these forums less and less. I realize that so-called "fans" have nothing better to do than complain about X plot not being up to snuff or Y character not getting enough face time. People think less RPG elements=terrible game, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot FPS fratboy. They just sound like hipsters who don't like ME2 because it's too "mainstream" for their underground tastes.

[marshalleck]

Spornicus wrote...

Well, the fact remains that a lot of people (me included) really enjoyed the game and find all of this nitpicking unnecessary. Actually, it sucks that people like Smudboy not only can't enjoy the game, but have to rain on everyone else's parade and tell them how terrible the game was, and if they don't agree they're wrong. It's what makes me come to these forums less and less. I realize that so-called "fans" have nothing better to do than complain about X plot not being up to snuff or Y character not getting enough face time. People think less RPG elements=terrible game, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot FPS fratboy. They just sound like hipsters who don't like ME2 because it's too "mainstream" for their underground tastes.

If you really think you're accurately characterizing people who have criticism of ME2, you should read the link in iakus' signature. It sums up exceptionally well (without hyperbole or histrionics)  all the glaring problems with this sequel. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 14 mars 2011 - 04:45 .

[Chala]

I never saw those videos, I can read english with no problem, but when is about listening something in this language I still have a lot of issues.
In other words, someone can explain me what Smudboy said in those videos?

[William Adama]

Spornicus wrote...

Well, the fact remains that a lot of people (me included) really enjoyed the game and find all of this nitpicking unnecessary. Actually, it sucks that people like Smudboy not only can't enjoy the game, but have to rain on everyone else's parade and tell them how terrible the game was, and if they don't agree they're wrong. It's what makes me come to these forums less and less. I realize that so-called "fans" have nothing better to do than complain about X plot not being up to snuff or Y character not getting enough face time. People think less RPG elements=terrible game, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot FPS fratboy. They just sound like hipsters who don't like ME2 because it's too "mainstream" for their underground tastes.

People need to be corrected and learn from their mistakes. That is how people evolve and improve over their life time, they make CONSTANT mistakes and learn from them by choosing correct behaviours in similar instances.

Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as CONSUMERS of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a game FOR US!

They pissed off people who were already fans of the series, thats BAD. It's like they erased ME1.

[squee913]

William Adama wrote...


Ya, but Bioware has PAGES of codex explaining every piece of technology and upgrade for the lore of ME. Saying that the best scientific minds and 7 billion credits were utilized to resurrect you doesn't cut it. That is called a JUST SO STORY. Those kind of tales may have been good enough for toddlers but not mature gamers.

All of those pages only explain what tech does, not how it
does it. Nothing explains how element zero can change the mass of an object. It
is impossible with today's understanding of physics and the world around us,
just as it is impossible to bring people back to life. Impossible is
impossible, there are no different levels of it. Yet, lots of people are
willing to accept one but not the other. You can quote all the codex pages you
want, but unless you can show the schematics for how element zero does the impossible
you can't expect me to show the schematics of how Cerberus did the impossible.

This is CRITICALLY important because of the effects resurrection technology could have on both the plot and gameplay. Here is HOW:

1) Cerberus has just found a way to bring the dead back to life...why do we have a mission failed screen whenever we die in the game? Cerberus could just as easily taken my FRESH corpse back to the Normandy and be brought back to life everytime I died.

first, the Normandy probably does not have the equipment the
Lazarus station had, second it took 2 years to bring Shepard back... I don't think
Cerberus has the time to do that every time you kick the bucket. Third, Wilson
is dead, and since he helped develop the technique, some of the vital
information needed to do it may have died with him.

2) If cerberus could bring back one super dead corpse, why not resurrect the PROTHEANS to ask them for their help on building mass relay technology? Maybe even find a way to dark space and destroy the Reapers as they hibernate?

And where exactly are they going to get a Prothean body to
bring back to life? At least, one that has not decomposed into dust in the last
50,000 years? They did not know the collectors were Protheans (not that that
would have helped since they are just drones)

3) If the ME universe now has the technology to bring a 2 year old corpse back to life, why do they still have problems with HEAT management in weapons and propulsion tech? Think of the application of this advancement! They can now COMPLETELY repair and duplicate a individuals brain using NO reference material or scan! The brain is the most complex thing in the known universe and they just happend to get it perfectly right for Shepards personality and memories... cmon, that's a stretch.

How does creating an advanced technology in one field of
science give us the ability to solve tons of problems that have nothing to do
with it? In what way, shape, or form is heat management on a ship related to
regenerating cell tissue? We have developed bombs that could wipe out entire
cities. With that in mind, why haven't we cured the common cold?

Modifié par squee913, 14 mars 2011 - 05:07 .

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...


All of those pages only explain what tech does, not how it
does it. Nothing explains how element zero can change the mass of an object. It
is impossible with today's understanding of physics and the world around us,
just as it is impossible to bring people back to life. Impossible is
impossible, there are no different levels of it. Yet, lots of people are
willing to accept one but not the other. You can quote all the codex pages you
want, but unless you can show the schematics for how element zero does the impossible
you can't expect me to show the schematics of how Cerberus did the impossible.

So, what does the Cure for Death do to bring necrotic tissue back to life, and restore functions with such precision that a human brain is borught back "exactly" as before?

We're willing to accept mass effect fields it because it permeates Shepard's universe.  It's in the frakking title!  We are told and shown that in this universe, these things are possible.  Even more, it is the basis of all advanced technology in the galaxy.  And we accept that. 

We are never shown, right up until Shep gets off the table in the lab, that any sort of ressurection technology exists.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  This is not part of the galaxy described to us, even in foreshadowing. 

At this point there's really only two directions Bioware could have gone that made sense:

A) Explain it, even in general terms like they did the mass relays and biotics.  A few details to explain just how "cutting edge" it is and how Cerberus got a hold of it.

Make it a mystery.  People keep wondering how it works, but no one, even TIM and Miranda, can explain it.  It's a fluke.  It's not-entirely-understood alien tech.  The Collectors did something to the body.  Whatever, it's a mystery not meant to be solved.

But Bioware did neither and handwaved it away. 

How does creating an advanced technology in one field of
science give us the ability to solve tons of problems that have nothing to do
with it? In what way, shape, or form is heat management on a ship related to
regenerating cell tissue? We have developed bombs that could wipe out entire
cities. With that in mind, why haven't we cured the common cold?

By the same token, why is it so easy to go along with ressurection technology just because FTL travel exists?  In your own words, they have nothing to do with each other.  Heck, I've read and watched plenty of sf stories with FTL, yet "dead is dead"

[piemanz]

Nice videos dude.Although i do feel it's an exercise in futility as most of the people complaining seem incapable of suspending their disbeleif or even using a modicum of imagination , i actually feel kind of sorry for them.

iakus wrote...

So, what does the Cure for Death do to bring necrotic tissue back to life, and restore functions with such precision that a human brain is borught back "exactly" as before?

We're willing to accept mass effect fields it because it permeates Shepard's universe.  It's in the frakking title!  We are told and shown that in this universe, these things are possible.  Even more, it is the basis of all advanced technology in the galaxy.  And we accept that. 

We are never shown, right up until Shep gets off the table in the lab, that any sort of ressurection technology exists.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  This is not part of the galaxy described to us, even in foreshadowing. 

At this point there's really only two directions Bioware could have gone that made sense:

A) Explain it, even in general terms like they did the mass relays and biotics.  A few details to explain just how "cutting edge" it is and how Cerberus got a hold of it.

Make it a mystery.  People keep wondering how it works, but no one, even TIM and Miranda, can explain it.  It's a fluke.  It's not-entirely-understood alien tech.  The Collectors did something to the body.  Whatever, it's a mystery not meant to be solved.

But Bioware did neither and handwaved it away.

Your argument that this is not something that happens all the time in the mass effect universe thefore it must be explained or be unbeleivable makes no sense.Everything has to be done for the first time even mass effect fields did'nt always exist.Maybe this is the first time it's ever been done.

Why do they have to explain exactly how they did it?.It seems kind of
pointless.All i really need to know as commander shepard is the fact
they did it and i have a galaxy to save.

iakus wrote...

Heck, I've read and watched plenty of sf stories with FTL, yet "dead is dead"

But those stories were not mass effect...right?

Modifié par piemanz, 14 mars 2011 - 06:08 .

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

We're willing to accept mass effect fields it because it permeates Shepard's universe.  It's in the frakking title!  We are told and shown that in this universe, these things are possible.  Even more, it is the basis of all advanced technology in the galaxy.  And we accept that. 

We are never shown, right up until Shep gets off the table in the lab, that any sort of ressurection technology exists.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  This is not part of the galaxy described to us, even in foreshadowing. 

Am I to assume that you also hate empire strikes back because Han Solo was frozen
in carbonite( don't know if that's spelled right )? We are never shown, right
up until Vader says it's going to happen 5 minutes before it does, that any
sort of carbon freezing people technology exists.  Nada.  Zip. 
Zilch.  This is not part of the galaxy described to us, even in
foreshadowing. You are basically saying that Bioware is not allowed to
introduce new concepts part way into a story. If it is not in the title or
explained in the first chapter, you can't add  it.

How does creating an advanced technology in one field of
science give us the ability to solve tons of problems that have nothing to do
with it? In what way, shape, or form is heat management on a ship related to
regenerating cell tissue? We have developed bombs that could wipe out entire
cities. With that in mind, why haven't we cured the common cold?

By the same token, why is it so easy to go along with ressurection technology just because FTL travel exists?  In your own words, they have nothing to do with each other.  Heck, I've read and watched plenty of sf stories with FTL, yet "dead is dead"

I agree they have nothing to do with each other. That's
probably why I never said I believe in Shepard's resurrection "Because" FTL travel
exists in the game. I never stated anything that could be remotely seen as making that
statement. I simply said that they are both impossible with the science and
tech we have now. On the other hand, the statement I was arguing stated that we
should be able to solve heat distribution problems "Because"
we have resurrected people.

William Adama wrote

People need to be corrected and learn from their mistakes. That is how
people evolve and improve over their life time, they make
CONSTANT mistakes and learn from them by choosing correct behaviours in
similar instances.

Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as
CONSUMERS of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game FOR US!

They pissed off people who were already fans of the series, thats BAD.

Gamespot readers choice for game of the year (xbox 360) Mass
effect 2

1up.com readers choice for game of the year (xbox 360) Mass
effect 2

(ME 2 was beaten out by star craft 2 for PC, go figure)

reader review for Mass Effect 2

Game informer  9.5 out
of 10

IGN 9.2 out of 10

Gamespot 9.4 out of 10

And this is just what I found in 3 minutes of searching. In light of this information, I
think it would be more accurate to say this, "Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as "a small minority of consumers" of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game "for this small minority"!
They pissed off "a realativly small number of people" who were already fans of the series, thats "unavoidable as you can't please everyone".


I am not saying that your view is not important. It is and I think Bioware should take it into account, but I feel it is not right to try and give the impression that the majority of consumers feel this way.

Modifié par squee913, 14 mars 2011 - 06:30 .

[squee913]

piemanz wrote...

Nice videos dude.Although i do feel it's an exercise in futility as most of the people complaining seem incapable of suspending their disbeleif or even using a modicum of imagination , i actually feel kind of sorry for them.

I know, but I could not stop thinking about it. It irks me that the few who hate Mass Effect 2 are always so much louder then the ones who loved it 

Modifié par squee913, 14 mars 2011 - 09:14 .

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Nice videos dude.Although i do feel it's an exercise in futility as most of the people complaining seem incapable of suspending their disbeleif or even using a modicum of imagination , i actually feel kind of sorry for them.

I know, but I could not stop thinking about it. It irks me that the few who hate it are always so much louder then the ones who loved it 

Well I like your video also golly gee wiz!  

[squee913]

Almostfaceman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Nice videos dude.Although i do feel it's an exercise in futility as most of the people complaining seem incapable of suspending their disbeleif or even using a modicum of imagination , i actually feel kind of sorry for them.

I know, but I could not stop thinking about it. It irks me that the few who hate it are always so much louder then the ones who loved it 

Well I like your video also golly gee wiz!  

Well, I meant the people who hate the game are louder, but I thank you all the same fella!

[CoolioThane]

A lot ofpPeople who dislike ME2 seem to be the ignorant, loud-mouted people who won't ever back down or STFU even though they are being retarded. (Not saying if you dislike ME2 you are a retard, just the people who never concede any points in arguments etc.)

[Zulu_DFA]

squee913 wrote...

I am not saying that your view is not important. It is and I think Bioware should take it into account, but I feel it is not right to try and give the impression that the majority of consumers feel this way.

No, but it can get worse. Check the DA2 boards for details. If BioWare think it's OK to blatantly disregard the foundations of their IPs and motivate everything happening in-game in their further installments by the real world reasons (such as EA's desire to get at Activision and win over the "CoD crowd"), there will be a point when the IPs simply fall apart.

On topic:

You do again a very good job at debuking Smudboy's suggestions, if that's your sole purpose. But the point still stands, that the plot of ME2 is a bit too confusing (to say the least), especially towards the end of the game. In particular, one of the most confusing moments is when Shepard somehow gets the idea that "the mission was to destroy the Base". Which it couldn't be for several reasons:

1) Until the Normandy traveled through the O-4 relay, there was not conclusive proof that there was just a space station and not something bigger, like a planet, or a really huge artificial construction, or a fleet of Reapers or a portal to another dimension, etc. Like you said it yourself, Shepard's is the recon mission (which thanks to Collectors' turning out to be inept wussies develops into a search&rescue and then into a sabotage raid).

2) The fate of the hundreds of thousands of abducted colonists is not confirmed until Shepard's team is already deep in the Base and have possibly sustained first losses. But if there were at least a thousand of those colonists still alive (more than the Normandy could take), it would have been a whole different story, with Shepard having to explore options to save as many of them as possible.

3) Since Cerberus couldn't care less about the Citadel conventions about WMDs and outfitted the Normandy with enough of those for Shepard to casually spare one to satisfy one crazy girl's whim, that would seem to be a better option to take instead of going for the station's reactor, if the mission was just to destroy the Base.

In fact, the mission was to meet the mega-baby-T-800, but it's kinda slipped through the sloppy writing.


Also, based on the occasional cutscenes, such as the intro, the Collector attack of Horizon, the end of the Collector General, and, most importantly, the "Joker's mission", Smudboy thinks that it was the writers' intent to tell the entire story from the "third person omniscient" perspective, which would imply a whole another level of the audience's awareness of what's going on, as opposed to the "first person" perspective, which must indeed leave a lot of info in the dark, until it becomes available to the protagonist in-universe. Well, to me it seems the latter is more of a case, but one can't deny that those cutscenes seriously interfere with and botch the "first person" approach.

[Almostfaceman]

squee913 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

squee913 wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Nice videos dude.Although i do feel it's an exercise in futility as most of the people complaining seem incapable of suspending their disbeleif or even using a modicum of imagination , i actually feel kind of sorry for them.

I know, but I could not stop thinking about it. It irks me that the few who hate it are always so much louder then the ones who loved it 

Well I like your video also golly gee wiz!  

Well, I meant the people who hate the game are louder, but I thank you all the same fella!

It's cool I knew what you meant so I felt the need to chime in and slightly balance out the negative with some positive. 

[piemanz]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

You do again a very good job at debuking
Smudboy's suggestions, if that's your sole purpose. But the point still
stands, that the plot of ME2 is a bit too confusing (to say the least),
especially towards the end of the game. In particular, one of the most
confusing moments is when Shepard somehow gets the idea that "the
mission was to destroy the Base". Which it couldn't be for several
reasons:

1) Until the Normandy traveled through the O-4 relay,
there was not conclusive proof that there was just a space station and
not something bigger, like a planet, or a really huge artificial
construction, or a fleet of Reapers or a portal to another dimension,
etc. Like you said it yourself, Shepard's is the recon mission
(which thanks to Collectors' turning out to be inept wussies develops
into a search&rescue and then into a sabotage raid).

2) The
fate of the hundreds of thousands of abducted colonists is not confirmed
until Shepard's team is already deep in the Base and have possibly
sustained first losses. But if there were at least a thousand of those
colonists still alive (more than the Normandy could take), it would have
been a whole different story, with Shepard having to explore options to
save as many of them as possible.

3) Since Cerberus couldn't
care less about the Citadel conventions about WMDs and outfitted the
Normandy with enough of those for Shepard to casually spare one to
satisfy one crazy girl's whim, that would seem to be a better option to
take instead of going for the station's reactor, if the mission was just
to destroy the Base.

In fact, the mission was to meet the mega-baby-T-800, but it's kinda slipped through the sloppy writing.

The mission was to stop the collectors by entering the omega 4 relay.Both destroying the base and killing the Reaper were opportunities presented to to do this upon arriving through the relay.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Well, to me it seems the latter is more of a case, but one can't deny that those cutscenes seriously interfere with and botch the "first person" approach.

I'm not sure how you feel about ME1 but the way the story is told has stayed consistent throughout both games.I mean you could also point to a number of occasions in ME1 that are not consistent with a first person aproach.

Saren killing nihlus
Saren and Benezia aboard sovereign
Anderson helping you get off the citadel after you've been grounded.

Thats just a few that i can think of off the top of my head.

I dont think the story is being told in either a first person or third person basis, more of a need to know basis.

Modifié par piemanz, 14 mars 2011 - 12:26 .

[William Adama]

squee913 wrote...

William Adama wrote

People need to be corrected and learn from their mistakes. That is how
people evolve and improve over their life time, they make
CONSTANT mistakes and learn from them by choosing correct behaviours in
similar instances.

Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as
CONSUMERS of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game FOR US!

They pissed off people who were already fans of the series, thats BAD.

Gamespot readers choice for game of the year (xbox 360) Mass
effect 2

1up.com readers choice for game of the year (xbox 360) Mass
effect 2

(ME 2 was beaten out by star craft 2 for PC, go figure)

reader review for Mass Effect 2

Game informer  9.5 out
of 10

IGN 9.2 out of 10

Gamespot 9.4 out of 10

And this is just what I found in 3 minutes of searching. In light of this information, I
think it would be more accurate to say this, "Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as "a small minority of consumers" of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game "for this small minority"!
They pissed off "a realativly small number of people" who were already fans of the series, thats "unavoidable as you can't please everyone".


I am not saying that your view is not important. It is and I think Bioware should take it into account, but I feel it is not right to try and give the impression that the majority of consumers feel this way.

You are quoting a HUMAN individuals opinioned score. Do you have any idea how subjective a review score actually is?! Example, IGN gave Assassins creed 2 a GOTY nod, whist I absolutely hated that videogame.

Same with Halo 3, same with Burnout, CODMW2, CODMW Black ops and Red Dead Redemption (boring as hell). And they gave LOW scores to games I loved!

What good were their reviews to me? Anyone with half a brain and personality should acknowledge that videogame reviews are ice breakers for product purchase. Just because the reviewer enjoyed the game, doesn't mean its a GOOD game. Are the ign reviewers ME fans? Do they even know how a mass effect field is generated? NO. They are CASUAL ME players.

It's their job to play as many games as possible and review them at a passing glance. That's all.

If you were a casual gamer Im sure ME2 seemed like a pretty good game, but to those people who want games to reaffirm their own LORE, this game was disapppointing. If Bioware made another game with the mechanics of this game OUTSIDE of the ME universe I probably would have enjoyed it more, but the fact is Bioware took the established canon and dicked with it. That's a no no in sci fi.

Imagine if star trek gave an alternatve explaination for warp fields or if star wars gave a alternate explaination for the Force ... wait, didn't George already do that? And didnt he ruin the saga thru the prequels?!

I don't see IGN employees visiting the Bioware forums and commenting on the game, nor do I see them hanging posters of ME in their offices. If Bioware made ME2 to attract the casual gamer and alienate the established fan base for profit purposes, good for them; it was successful. 

But dont think that I as a consumer will buy another Bioware game after the ME series is done. I was turned onto Bioware because of KOTOR and I was turned off Bioware because of ME2. The only reason I am willing to play the final game... is because I have wasted TOO MANY hours in both my ME games to not see it concluded, I always finish what I've started.

[Whatever42]

Actually, you'd be wrong about IGN. They've written many articles about the game. They've even done short skits about the game. Many of their editors put it down as one of their all-time favorite games ever. IGN is an ME2 fanboy.

But that's besides the point.There are many critics, with many likes and dislikes. The GS editor probably is smudboy with his massive hatred of any deviation from the RPG standard, and even he gave ME2 a 9.0. And when you average them allogether, ME2 knocked it out of the park.

Sorry, its not the game for you. It happens.

[piemanz]

William Adama wrote...

You are quoting a HUMAN individuals opinioned score. Do you have any idea how subjective a review score actually is?!

He was citing reader reviews not paid reviewers. For example ME2 has a reader review score of 9.2 out of 10 on IGN  with 5132 ratings and Gamespot has a 9.4 reader score with over 7000 ratings,  i think thats a pretty good sample size. His point i think was to show that you are in the minority no matter how right you think you are.

squee913 wrote...

reader review for Mass Effect 2

Game informer  9.5 out
of 10

IGN 9.2 out of 10

Gamespot 9.4 out of 10

And this is just what I found in 3 minutes of searching. In light of this information, I
think it would be more accurate to say this, "Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as "a small minority of consumers" of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game "for this small minority"!
They pissed off "a realativly small number of people" who were already fans of the series, thats "unavoidable as you can't please everyone".

Modifié par piemanz, 14 mars 2011 - 04:52 .

[ADLegend21]

William Adama wrote...

You are quoting a HUMAN individuals opinioned score. Do you have any idea how subjective a review score actually is?!

He was citing reader reviews not paid reviewers. For example ME2 has a reader review score of 9.2 out of 10 on IGN  with 5132 ratings and Gamespot has a 9.4 reader score with over 7000 ratings,  i think thats a pretty good sample size. His point i think was to show that you are in the minority no matter how right you think you are.

squee913 wrote...

reader review for Mass Effect 2

Game informer  9.5 out
of 10

IGN 9.2 out of 10

Gamespot 9.4 out of 10

And this is just what I found in 3 minutes of searching. In light of this information, I
think it would be more accurate to say this, "Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as "a small minority of consumers" of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game "for this small minority"!
They pissed off "a realativly small number of people" who were already fans of the series, thats "unavoidable as you can't please everyone".

This.

[Zulu_DFA]

piemanz wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In fact, the mission was to meet the mega-baby-T-800, but it's kinda slipped through the sloppy writing.

The mission was to stop the collectors by entering the omega 4 relay.Both destroying the base and killing the Reaper were opportunities presented to to do this upon arriving through the relay.

1. That's not how our idiot-hero Commander Shepard puts it.

2. The option to destroy the Base would be in serious trouble, if the abducted colonists were alive, so the mission simply could not be "destroy the base" at its start, up until the talk to Dr. Chakwas.

3. There were other options to stop the Collectors. BTW, their Cruiser is already destroyed before Shepard even touches the Base (and we never saw another, so it's kinda a worthy question aren't the Collectors stopped already). 

4. Reapers, man.

piemanz wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Well, to me it seems the latter is more of a case, but one can't deny that those cutscenes seriously interfere with and botch the "first person" approach.

I'm not sure how you feel about ME1 but the way the story is told has stayed consistent throughout both games.I mean you could also point to a number of occasions in ME1 that are not consistent with a first person aproach.

Saren killing nihlus
Saren and Benezia aboard sovereign
Anderson helping you get off the citadel after you've been grounded.

Thats just a few that i can think of off the top of my head.

I dont think the story is being told in either a first person or third person basis, more of a need to know basis.

I don't think we really need to know those "third person omniscient" moments at all, or they should have been at least presented as "flashbacks" when Shepard comes in contact and listens to the reports of survivors involved in  those situations... So yeah, ME1 story is no better in this particular respect, which doesn't meant it isn't better overall. And anyway I was just telling Squee where Smudboy's gripes may be coming from, so if you want to turn this into another "ME1 vs. ME2", or "Keep It vs. Blow It" thread, better we took this to the existing threads.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2011 - 06:41 .

[William Adama]

piemanz wrote...

William Adama wrote...

You are quoting a HUMAN individuals opinioned score. Do you have any idea how subjective a review score actually is?!

He was citing reader reviews not paid reviewers. For example ME2 has a reader review score of 9.2 out of 10 on IGN  with 5132 ratings and Gamespot has a 9.4 reader score with over 7000 ratings,  i think thats a pretty good sample size. His point i think was to show that you are in the minority no matter how right you think you are.

squee913 wrote...

reader review for Mass Effect 2

Game informer  9.5 out
of 10

IGN 9.2 out of 10

Gamespot 9.4 out of 10

And this is just what I found in 3 minutes of searching. In light of this information, I
think it would be more accurate to say this, "Bioware made BIG mistakes in ME2. We as "a small minority of consumers" of their product are voicing these errors and hoping they
correct them. We are trying to help them sell their product by making a
game "for this small minority"!
They pissed off "a realativly small number of people" who were already fans of the series, thats "unavoidable as you can't please everyone".

Are you a Star wars Prequel fan?

Did you enjoy the Clash of the Titans remake? War or the worlds remake? Matrix Reloaded? Tranformers?

There are vast amounts of people in the world that actually enjoyed those movies because they looked pretty, even though they were terrible films. That's the kind of people that actively POLL on those sites, casual gamers.

Did you, GASP, even think that the majority of those scores may have come from people who DONT EVEN HAVE THE GAME?! I know for a fact that MOST people on GS reader scores review games that they THINK LOOKS GOOD or are just scoring high because a game recieved critical acclaim.

Dare to be different is not something the average human wants to be. People like to conform, and its people like these that dont bring anything special to society.

Modifié par William Adama, 14 mars 2011 - 06:13 .

[piemanz]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

1. That's not how our idiot-hero Commander Shepard puts it.

2.
The option to destroy the Base would be in serious trouble, if the
abducted colonists were alive, so the mission simply could not be
"destroy the base" at its start, up until the talk to Dr. Chakwas.

3.
There were other options to stop the Collectors. BTW, their Cruiser is
already destroyed before Shepard even touches the Base (and we never saw
another, so it's kinda a worthy question aren't the Collectors stopped
already). 

4. Reapers, man.

1.I honestly don't remember him saying specifcly "we're going to destroy the collector base"...i could be wrong though.Either way it's not something i would personelly fret over.But it obviously bothers you and you're entitled to that i guess.

2.Not really.The mission was to stop the collectors even at the cost of their
own lives if need be.I dont see how surviving colonists would change
things, especially for renegades.

3.Assumption is the mother of all **** ups.Assuming they are all dead because you destroy 1 ship is just stupid.

4.yes reapers....

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I don't think we really need to know those "third person omniscient"
moments at all, or they should have been at least presented as
"flasbacks" when Shepard comes in contact an listens to the reports of
survivors of those situations... So yeah, ME1 story is no better in this
particular respect, which doesn't meant it isn't better overall. And
anyway I was just telling Squee where Smudboy's gripes may be coming
from, so if you want to turn this into another "ME1 vs. ME2", or "Keep
It vs. Blow It" thread, better we took this to the existing threads.

I enjoyed both games.Infact i will agree that ME1 is slightly the better
game, I was just pointing out that there was no first person narative to
botch.

William Adama wrote...

Are you a Star wars Prequel fan?

Did you enjoy the Clash of the Titans remake? War or the worlds remake? Matrix Reloaded? Tranformers?

There are vast amounts of people in the world that actually enjoyed those movies because they looked pretty, even though they were terrible films. That's the kind of people that actively POLL on those sites, casual gamers.

Did you, GASP, even think that the majority of those scores may have come from people who DONT EVEN HAVE THE GAME?! I know for a fact that MOST people on GS reader scores review games that they THINK LOOKS GOOD or are just scoring high because a game recieved critical acclaim.

Dare to be different is not something the average human wants to be. People like to conform, and its people like these that dont bring anything special to society.

Try reading some of the reviews......And no i hated pretty much all the star wars prequals but then i think most people did didn't they?

I'm not saying you're opinion does'nt count i'm just pointing out that you don't speak for as large a pert of the community as you think you are.And you don't even speak for a large part of the hardcore fans either.

Modifié par piemanz, 14 mars 2011 - 06:41 .

[Zulu_DFA]

piemanz wrote...

1.I honestly don't remember him saying specifcly "we're going to destroy the collector base"...i could be wrong though.Either way it's not something i would personelly fret over.But it obviously bothers you and you're entitled to that i guess.

"Our mission was to destroy the base" - is what Shepard says when TIM pops up and requests to use the neutron purge. This is a piece of flat out sloppy writing, because it has never been discussed or brought up, even as Shepard assembed the team in the Comm Room prior to embarking onto the Base.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2011 - 07:34 .

[piemanz]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

piemanz wrote...

1.I honestly don't remember him saying specifcly "we're going to destroy the collector base"...i could be wrong though.Either way it's not something i would personelly fret over.But it obviously bothers you and you're entitled to that i guess.

"Our mission was to destroy the base" - is what Shepard says when TIM pops up and requests to use the newtron purge. This is a piece of flat out sloppy writing, because it has never been discussed or brought up, even as Shepard assembed the team in the Comm Room prior to embarking onto the Base.

It was wasn't it?.The mission was to stop the collectors going into the relay, but once there it changed for obvious reason to destroying the base.I don't see how this is sloppy or even hard to grasp, does it really need to be spelled out?.I mean did you think you were heading over there for a sightseeing tour?

Modifié par piemanz, 14 mars 2011 - 07:17 .

[SSV Enterprise]

William Adama wrote...

Are you a Star wars Prequel fan?

Did you enjoy the Clash of the Titans remake? War or the worlds remake? Matrix Reloaded? Tranformers?

There are vast amounts of people in the world that actually enjoyed those movies because they looked pretty, even though they were terrible films. That's the kind of people that actively POLL on those sites, casual gamers.

Did you, GASP, even think that the majority of those scores may have come from people who DONT EVEN HAVE THE GAME?! I know for a fact that MOST people on GS reader scores review games that they THINK LOOKS GOOD or are just scoring high because a game recieved critical acclaim.

Dare to be different is not something the average human wants to be. People like to conform, and its people like these that dont bring anything special to society.

You, sir, are an idiot.  You claim that the "fans" hated ME2 and saw it as a step back from ME1, without any sort of proof.  When proof was posted that the opinion of the majority saw ME2 as a very good game and an improvement over ME1, you whine WAAAAAAH THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE GAME.  With NO proof besides your puny little opinion.

Come back when you have actual evidence that most people thought ME2 was worse than ME1.