171 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Thompson family wrote...

Soundly reasoned and well put, iakus, but I still can't agree, mainly because my insufferable Paragon saint of a Shep didn't go to Omega first. He didn't recruit Mordin or anything. He took command and immediately flew the new Normandy straight to the Citadel, docked into a dock just like they one where they locked down the old Normandy before the Ilos mission and, in effect, turned himself in -- taking two of Cerberus top operatives with him to Anderson's office.

Indeed.  But notice Shepard did all this after agreeing to work with Cerberus.   You make no effort to verify any of TIM's claims about the Council, the Alliance, or the old crew before signing on.  You get one vanished colony and TIM's word that no one's doing anything about it.  You don't even ask Tali to fill you in on the last two years.  For all Shep knows, the Citadel's got a massive task force working on the situation, spearheaded by the Virmire Survivor.

The Council or the Alliance could have seized the the ship, interned the whole crew, arrested Miranda and Jacob -- and Shep. The Alliance considered it, we know for a fact. See the communication to Admiral Hackett in the Shadow Broker files.

Yes, as seen in Lair of the Shadow Broker, the DLC that did as much as humanly possible to address the complaints about the main game.  If Bioware put out another three or four such DLCs, ME 2 might be coherent enough for me to play again.

So what happens after Shep shows up at the Citadel, having done everything except put himself in handcuffs? He gets called a nutjob and a traitor by the Council, gets his Spectre status reinstated and is sent off with a mission in the Cerberus ship.

You realize this statement does not encourage me to reevaluate my stance on ME 2's storyline, right? 

From your point of view -- and it's a perfectly valid one -- that's not giving you a choice. To me, it's ultimately more choice than you ever got in ME1. In ME1, you were an Alliance Marine, a Spectre and the arch foe of Saren.Paragon or Renegade, you wound up killing Soveriegn and Saren.  In ME2, (if you're Paragon) you're in an unwilling allliance with TIM -- but you s**** him hard at the end and laugh in his face.

In ME 1 you have no choice but to become a Spectre.  But you do have a choice as to why.  To advance human interests.  Vengence for Eden Prime.  Justice for Saren.  To gain closer ties with the Council.  Forboding about the Reapers and potential threats to Earth.  Or you just like killing, and Spectres can kill criminals.

ME2 offers little such choice,  I say, if we have to join with Cerberus (and I admit "working with the bad guys" is an interesting plotline) then you have to demonstrate that no other option is viable before signing on.  Not after. 

Visiting the Citadel or having the option to, before agreeing to work with Cerberus, perhaps even before Freedom's Progress would have made much more sense.  Or have the option to try and contact Admiral Hackett, the Virmire Survivor, Liara, Arcturus Base.  You find out they're all unwilling or unable to help, then go back to TIM and say "All right, I'll work with you.  For now"

That's the illusion of choice.

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

In ME 1 you have no choice but to become a Spectre.  But you do have a choice as to why.  To advance human interests.  Vengence for Eden Prime.  Justice for Saren.  To gain closer ties with the Council.  Forboding about the Reapers and potential threats to Earth.  Or you just like killing, and Spectres can kill criminals.

ME2 offers little such choice,  I say, if we have to join with Cerberus (and I admit "working with the bad guys" is an interesting plotline) then you have to demonstrate that no other option is viable before signing on.  Not after. 

Visiting the Citadel or having the option to, before agreeing to work with Cerberus, perhaps even before Freedom's Progress would have made much more sense.  Or have the option to try and contact Admiral Hackett, the Virmire Survivor, Liara, Arcturus Base.  You find out they're all unwilling or unable to help, then go back to TIM and say "All right, I'll work with you.  For now"

That's the illusion of choice.

When I read this, I get feeling, sure what you tell could be valid, but it's just how some player wants to see something.

Example ME1 or ME2 you have absolute ZERO possibility play the story different ways.

WTF are you and me talking, did we play same game? I don't mean any harm by my comment, but those are just your own "invented" motives why you character does what it does in the game. I did not even ones read anything about Vengence or Justice in the story. You job in ME1 as Specter was hunt Saren down, because he has gone rogue. That is the story. In ME2 you job was stop the attacks to human colonies and bring down those who where doing it. That's the ME2 story. What ever motive and attitude or role you self invent to your character, is your own doing.

My point is, the problem isn't the game, it's you self. One game you want to invent the motive why you do stuff and other game you refuse to do same. That is because? Prove your point what you make? Or could it be that you like one game better than other and it's affecting you interest of role-playing?

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 mars 2011 - 06:56 .

[Iakus]

Manic Sheep wrote...

The fact that you couldn’t bring Akuze, Kahoku was a huge missed opportunity IMO and it was far too big a point for them to skip over like that. In genral thats the part I think they didn't do well. You never really  got to talk about the controversy of anything. It was always breezed over. Still I think what they did with Cerberus for the most part was all right, showing the less extreme side and showing some of the experiments from ME1 that you can bring up with Miranda from an inside rather than outside view. (could have gone into that a bit more tho)

The talk with Miranda is nice, but not nearly enough.  It took Tela Vasir in LOTSB to bring up any of Cerberus' really big crimes, and there was no paragon response to it.  That smacks of a major whitewash

They do also give you a very very obvious reminder of the kind of things Cerberus dose, they didn't change in between games. Pragia and Jack? Why do people seem to forget about this one? Its arguably worse than what we got in ME1 witch was mostly just lax safety procedures again. Sure TIM supposedly didn’t know about everything but he must have known they were experimenting on children like that. He monitors everything personally.

I believe, and you believe.  But of course, the project simply "went rogue" right?  And took place over a decade ago.  A tragic, isolated incident.
 

Not only that but you remember Horizon right? He used them as bait and made no apologies for it. Yeah sure, there was a good reason for that. It would be pretty stupid if he didn’t have a reason and then he uses you with the collector ship mission.

Horizon was the single "morally gray" choice I would expect from the "old" Cerberus group in the game.  I wanted more events like that to happen.  The Collector Ship mission was more insanity than morally gray.  He put all his eggs in one basket there.

with the "I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done” thing. Isn’t that kinda how Miranda describes him? "he's no saint and he would be the first to admit it" and he doesn’t out right say this to you (why would he) but that was definitely the vibe I was getting from him. They don’t need to state it.

There's a world of difference between "no saint" and "monster".  "No saint" could simply mean he drinks and smokes a lot.  Maybe he swears a little when a Cerberus facility blows up.  A "monster" would outright admit to Kahoku's assassination, of feeding marines to thresher maws and torturing children.  But all done to ensure the security of the human race.  He may regret the necessity, but would do it without hesitation.  And may even supply evidence as to the necessity.  As it is, TIM made Cerberus seem to be guilty of nothing more than lax security protocols, and he should perhaps do better background checks of his supervisors.

As for no anti alien rhetoric, well probably because he an extreme human nationalist but not necessarily anti alien? (he could be but we haven’t seen much indication of that so far) which is much more better than if they make him an anti alien xenophobe. You can agree or disagree with that.

Miranda brings up the fact that too many join out of xenophobia with you and I’m sure TIM would have gone thru and picked his more...agreeable members for sheps mission. A ship full of pro human extremist would not be good for convincing Shep they aren’t all evil or for working with the Aliens and why would he be getting Sheps to make calls on anything other than the collectors? He is keeping Shep in the dark, the rest of Cerberus projects are none of you business unless he needs you to clean something up. That and he does give you a “grey choice” what was the collector base decision?

And what if the Shep being played is a pro-human extremist?  "It's a big, stupid jellyfish"

And the problem with stacking the Normandy with so many "agreeable" members is that it was done too well.  They're too friendly.  This was an Alliance Black Ops group, a quasi-terrorist organization.  Paramilitary.  Practically the human version of the Spectres gone rogue.  But they've got less problems working with aliens than the original Normandy crew!  It just adds to the dissonence between the "original" Cerberus organization and this "kinder, gentler Cerberus"  It's a whitewash, and an obvious one.  Yet now is likely to be the "canon" one.

You are not being punished for playing ME1, the stuff from ME1 was not retconned. Plying ME1 gives you more context.

Perhaps not retconned (yet) but the game is showing a very selective memory about the recent past. 

Modifié par iakus, 12 mars 2011 - 06:58 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

WTF are you and me talking, did we play same game? I don't mean any harm by my comment, but those are just your own "invented" motives why you character does what it does in the game. I did not even ones read anything about Vengence or Justice in the story. You job in ME1 as Specter was hunt Saren down, because he has gone rogue. That is the story. In ME2 you job was stop the attacks to human colonies and bring down those who where doing it. That's the ME2 story. What ever motive and attitude or role you self invent to your character, is your own doing.

My point is, the problem isn't the game, it's you self. One game you want to invent the motive why you do stuff and other game you refuse to do same. That is because? Prove your point what you make? Or could it be that you like one game better than other and it's affecting you interest of role-playing?

But that's what a role-playing game is.  At least to me.  Filling a role, Taking the character and choosing how and why you do things.  Either through actions or dialogue options.  Without the "why", you might as well be playing a Mario Brothers game, breaking blocks and jumping on mushrooms for no other reason than they are there.

In ME 1, through dialogue, you can express reasons why you're an Alliance marine, why you want to be a Spectre, and why you're after Saren.  In ME 2, You sign on with Cerberus instead of someone else just because the hologram of this man you've never met said so. 

[MassEffect762]

Lumikki wrote...

MassEffect762 wrote...


I find ME2 as barebone and lacking as you find ME1 overwhelming cluster-f#$/unorganized.

I just comment this even if it's not for me.
I my self find both lacking in some areas while doing well in some other areas. Example for me:

ME2 is lacking in customation, story and impression details, while it's good at gameplay and combat.
ME1 is lacking in combat and gameplay as too clumpsy and shine in story, customation and impression details.

So, it's like one games strenght is others weakeness. If ME3 could get the strengh side only from both, then wow.

I can agree with the bolded sections.

I found combat in ME1 equally enjoyable with ME2 for different reasons.

I enjoyed that ME1 had universal cooldowns(I like using more than one ability at a time), lack of thermal clips/ammo and better HUD. I also liked the midgel-heal feature.(quicker to heal)

I enjoyed that ME2 had crisper shooting, heavy weapons and better reactive targets.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 12 mars 2011 - 07:07 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

WTF are you and me talking, did we play same game? I don't mean any harm by my comment, but those are just your own "invented" motives why you character does what it does in the game. I did not even ones read anything about Vengence or Justice in the story. You job in ME1 as Specter was hunt Saren down, because he has gone rogue. That is the story. In ME2 you job was stop the attacks to human colonies and bring down those who where doing it. That's the ME2 story. What ever motive and attitude or role you self invent to your character, is your own doing.

My point is, the problem isn't the game, it's you self. One game you want to invent the motive why you do stuff and other game you refuse to do same. That is because? Prove your point what you make? Or could it be that you like one game better than other and it's affecting you interest of role-playing?

But that's what a role-playing game is.  At least to me.  Filling a role, Taking the character and choosing how and why you do things.  Either through actions or dialogue options.  Without the "why", you might as well be playing a Mario Brothers game, breaking blocks and jumping on mushrooms for no other reason than they are there.

In ME 1, through dialogue, you can express reasons why you're an Alliance marine, why you want to be a Spectre, and why you're after Saren.  In ME 2, You sign on with Cerberus instead of someone else just because the hologram of this man you've never met said so. 

Sorry, yeah that's role-playing. How ever, for me when I listen you, it's more like you refuse to role-play because you don't like the situation where you are. Like you liked the situation where with you character in ME1 and hated where you are in ME2, so you refuse to role-play it out. Then blame it's games fault because it doesn't allow you to role-play, then it's you who refuse to role-play. You can't invent secret motive why you work with Cerberus?

Not sure, if I make my self clear. I had no problems to role-play in both games.

Example, you say " In ME 2, You sign on with Cerberus instead of someon...". Notice this, you are wanting the HOLE ME2 story be something else than you working with Cerberus. You don't even want to invent role-playing reasons why you work with Cerberus. You do know that you can't EVER play agaist story. ME2 story is connected to Cerberus, there nothing what you can do about it. Same way that ME1 story is connetected Specter and there is nothing what you can do about it. You will work for Council and you will be Specter in hole ME1 story. You can invent other motives or not to be loyal, but you can do same in ME2 too.

If you mean dialog choise doesn't allways fit what you try to invent as role-play. Yeah, they suck many times, but it happens in both games, unless you are lucky and they fit you role...

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[II J0SePh X II]

iakus is just being bogus for effect methinks..
Seriously, if you or your Shepard has problems working with Cerberus, then ME2 isn't the game for you - because that's what the game is about.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...
Sorry, yeah that's role-playing. How ever, for me when I listen you, it's more like you refuse to role-play because you don't like the situation where you are. Like you liked the situation where with you character in ME1 and hated where you are in ME2, so you refuse to role-play it out. Then blame it's games fault because it doesn't allow you to role-play, then it's you who refuse to role-play. You can't invent secret motive why you work with Cerberus?

Not sure, if I make my self clear. I had no problems to role-play in both games.

Example, you say " In ME 2, You sign on with Cerberus instead of someon...". Notice this, you are wanting the HOLE ME2 story be something else than you working with Cerberus. You don't even want to invent role-playing reasons why you work with Cerberus. You do know that you can't EVER play agaist story. ME2 story is connected to Cerberus, there nothing what you can do about it. Same way that ME1 story is connetected Specter and there is nothing what you can do about it. You will work for Council and you will be Specter in hole ME1 story. You can invent other motives or not to be loyal, but you can do same in ME2 too.

If you mean dialog choise doesn't allways fit what you try to invent as role-play. Yeah, they suck many times, but it happens in both games, unless you are lucky and they fit you role...

That's not it at all.

I like the idea of having to work for the "bad guys" as a story.  What I dislike about ME 2 is that Commander Shepard, regardless of being paragon ro renegade, seems to jump at the opportunity to sign on with them.  Or at the very least, doesn't seem very reluctant about the concept.  Lemme cite a recent response to Thompson Family:

Visiting the Citadel or having the option to, before agreeing to work with Cerberus, perhaps even before Freedom's Progress would have made much more sense.  Or have the option to try and contact Admiral Hackett, the Virmire Survivor, Liara, Arcturus Base.  You find out they're all unwilling or unable to help, then go back to TIM and say "All right, I'll work with you.  For now"

That's the illusion of choice.


It's not the idea of working with Cerberus that constricts role-playing for me.  It's the concept that Shepard implicitly goes along with TIM's assesment that there are no other options without verifying any of this beforehand.  Shepard's only source of information about what's gone on for the last two years are...members of Cerberus.  Not exactly an unbiased source.  If Shep verifies for him/herself that Cerberus is the only viable option (before agreeing to anything), then it makes much more sense

Modifié par iakus, 12 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[Lumikki]

I don't see the difference between TIM vs Council + Hackett. All very biased information sources, all also giving you the missions. You also have to understand while you work with TIM, it is little different than working for council or Hackett. Shepard is "friend" to Council and Hackett, but "enemy" to Cerberus. So, TIM is careful not to meet face to face or give any unecassary information about what he does and how. The situation is different. One is based trust and other is not.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 mars 2011 - 08:36 .

[AlanC9]

I get it. As a matter of role-playing, Shepard should be allowed to kick at the walls of the box he's in, just to prove that it really is a box.

This could have been done at minimal cost. Since the setting and VO actors where Shepard could find this out are already in the game, it's really just a matter of a few more lines from Udina/Anderson/etc. and the appropriate "I told you so" from Miranda and/or TIM.

It's not the illusion of choice so much as it's the verification that there is no choice.

[tonnactus]

Manic Sheep wrote...

They do also give you a very very obvious reminder of the kind of things Cerberus dose, they didn't change in between games. Pragia and Jack? Why do people seem to forget about this one?

What??? Worser?
At least they didnt infused thresher maw accid in jacks veins.

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 mars 2011 - 08:34 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

Yes, as seen in Lair of the Shadow Broker, the DLC that did as much as humanly possible to address the complaints about the main game.

But not in this case. Shepardt to Tela Vasir: "I know what cerberus done.It doesnt matter"

Seriously,that a was a "wtf" moment in an otherwise decent Dlc.

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 mars 2011 - 09:17 .

[Rurik_Niall]

I'd look at that in the context of "Yes, Cerberus has done terrible things and someday they will pay dearly, but now, at this moment in time it doesn't matter. The council and alliance refuse to acknowledge the Reapers, Cerberus doesn't. That's why I work for them, and make no mistake, as soon as I'm finished with the Reapers, I'm going to kick down Tim's door and beat him senseless myself, but for now we're on the same side and I can't afford to be picky about my allies."

[tonnactus]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

I'd look at that in the context of "Yes, Cerberus has done terrible things and someday they will pay dearly, but now, at this moment in time it doesn't matter. The council and alliance refuse to acknowledge the Reapers, Cerberus doesn't.

Either things matter or not.
Even if shepardt didnt want to do something against this at the moment,but later,it still matters for him
He/she rather answered like:"I had no other option than that.I did what had to be done".

[Lumikki]

I don't know. I mean if we start complaining about how something is sayed in dialogs, where is only 3 choises to make. Then how we could ever role-play anything, when there is like 100's different ways to say something, because different roles and attitudes and motives.

Yeah, I would want more choises in dialogs, but I ques it cost money, all the extra voice acting.

Example in ME1 when you where first time front of council and Saren was talking. You had dialogs, did they make any sense at all. I mean I could not at least say anyting I liked from all 3 choises.

My point is if we go on this path there is no end in complain, there is never gonna be enough choises to make to fill all players role-playing options.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 mars 2011 - 09:45 .

[Zulu_DFA]

If anything, it's the renegade dialogue that suffered in ME2 most of all the three branches, and LotSB is the best example of it.

[Rurik_Niall]

Not to mention imagine how cluttered the dialogue menu would be. You'd have to sift through a metric crap ton of submenus to find the dialogue option you want with each option leading to more options. Something as simple as telling Garrus he's ugly would be divided into paragon and renegade, then further divided into things like light hearted snark, cruel mocking, completely serious, serious with just a hint of snark, etc. While it would be wonderful to be able to account for every possible role playing possibility, it's just not with the current level of technology. You'd need to be able to create a functional AI that can basically design the game from scratch and voice synthesising programs able to voice the characters, in other words you'd need to create a computerised Dungeon Master. Would I love to see this? Oh gods yes, but we just don't have the technology for that yet.

As it stands though I think Bioware did a pretty good job of capturing the choices most players will want to take, you've got the goody good paragon, the at all costs renegade, and you usually have a third middle ground option available if you prefer it, rarely do I find a situation where none of the options fit with the Shepard I'm role playing. There are a few missed opportunities, sure, I for one find the idea of spreading it around when Joker says not to priceless. I can just imagine Joker hobbling away from Garrus wielding a stick, or being forced to listen to a lecture from Mordin, but this is hardly something that ruins the game.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I get it. As a matter of role-playing, Shepard should be allowed to kick at the walls of the box he's in, just to prove that it really is a box.

This could have been done at minimal cost. Since the setting and VO actors where Shepard could find this out are already in the game, it's really just a matter of a few more lines from Udina/Anderson/etc. and the appropriate "I told you so" from Miranda and/or TIM.

It's not the illusion of choice so much as it's the verification that there is no choice.

Yes!  Exactly!  Thank you!

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

But not in this case. Shepardt to Tela Vasir: "I know what cerberus done.It doesnt matter"

Seriously,that a was a "wtf" moment in an otherwise decent Dlc.

Okay  almost everything.  But it still addressed several things that were wrong with ME 2's story.

[Thompson family]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Different strokes for different blokes Thompson.

I find ME2 as barebone and lacking as you find ME1 overwhelming cluster-f#$/unorganized.

Now that's a difference of opinion I can respect.

[Thompson family]

Another good analysis in your response to my prior points, iakus. I still can't agree, but can see your reasoning clearly. Thanks for the elaboration.

One thing I won't let pass, however.

iakus wrote...

You realize this statement does not encourage me to reevaluate my stance on ME 2's storyline, right? 

Ouch. That hurt. Well played, iakus.