270 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

So Kuril is arrogant but he's not irrational - which is what I believe your argument was.

Sorry, I misinterpreted this quote.  I will redact your name.

-NSB

And this is what it boils down to.  He is ARROGANT, not IRRATIONAL.  They are no where close to being the same thing.

[NoSoyBueno]

The quote mentioned regarding 'three armed guests' does strongly imply that Kuril is arrogant or over-confident, and would suggest the Kuril could make such a colossal mistake, so I will concede that on this fact.

End of point.

I must make a point about terminology, though:
As rationality is generally defined, that would be irrational because he is choosing an illogical outcome (or, alternatively, he is just really out of touch, in which case it is imperfect information).

Just for clarity from Wiktionary:
Rational -
1. healthy or balanced intellectually; reasonable
2. capable of deductive reasoning
If his arrogance causes him to do this, then his deductive reasoning is lacking and he is not reasonable.

I feel compelled at this point to state that this does justify your means of argumentation, Aradace.

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 17 avril 2011 - 01:05 .

[Nashiktal]

Aradace wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...



. Instead of storming a base to save the alliance from a geth invasion, you are storming a base... to shoot mercs for some random reason. The reason might be important, but no one gives you a reason to care.

Right, because "storming a base" to save Garrus from the multiple bands of MERCS that are hunting him isnt important at all *rolls eyes*

And apparently the hordes of vorcha you have to kill to get to Mordin dont have a reason for being there either right? Because that's random too? *facepalm*

And the mercs running the prison ship where you pick up Jack?  Right, I suppose killing them is pointless and "unimportant" as well right?  Not like it has ANYTHING to do with you getting Jack out of there or anything.

Let's see, oh yea, the mercs on Korlus have a reason for being there too.  And if you pay attention, the reason is at least semi-important to whats going on there.  But again, apparently, since it's not "reaper-centric" you cant be bothered to "care" about it.

Sure the "types" of enemies are a bit repetitive.  I'll give you that.  But to say that they are there for "random reasons" and that it's mostly "unimportant" is a bit of a wild stretch.  Just because it's not a "reaper-centric" reason, doesnt necessarily make it "unimportant".

But, if you feel it does, it's your perrogative and Im sorry you feel that way.  But to try and pass that off as "fact", yea, I dont think so.

I was not referring to the main recruitment missions. I was referring to the multitude of side quests. The main missions, with a few reservations, are fine. (Why don't companions talk to each other, or hell even acknowledge each other? Garrus and Tali talk to each other once outside of any cutscene. Otherwise everyone is a bunch of robots waiting for shep to push a button so they can move) However side quests, the meant and potatoes of the game, felt extremely lacking. Especially since they cut down on the dialogue of each squadmate.

[NoSoyBueno]

I was using economics and game theory. An assumption was flawed - the assumptions were that Kuril is rational and that Shepard's value is based off of his combat abilities. Almostfaceman demonstrated with the quote how the rationality assumption was flawed because Kuril is arrogant.  If both of these assumptions had been accurate, as I had believed them to have been, then the logic would hold.

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 17 avril 2011 - 01:12 .

[Aradace]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

The quote mentioned regarding 'three armed guests' does strongly imply that Kuril is arrogant or over-confident, and would suggest the Kuril could make such a colossal mistake, so I will concede that on this fact.

End of point.

I must make a point about terminology, though:
As rationality is generally defined, that would be irrational because he is choosing an illogical outcome (or, alternatively, he is just really out of touch, in which case it is imperfect information).

Just for clarity from Wiktionary:
Rational -
1. healthy or balanced intellectually; reasonable
2. capable of deductive reasoning
If his arrogance causes him to do this, then his deductive reasoning is lacking and he is not reasonable.

I feel compelled at this point to state that this does justify your means of argumentation, Aradace.

-NSB

Arrogance, greed.  As I said, can cause people to make some pretty screwed up decisions despite any cognitive thought they may have prior lol.  Ok, well, Im an old man, and it's well beyond my bed time.  Im racking out now lol

[Phaelducan]

Shrug, waste of time thread. To anyone who loves ME1 to the point where they want to just replay it over and over...


...go ahead. You probably own the game so the effort involved in playing it should be relatively minimal.

If you don't like ME2, don't play it any more. Nothing is changing about it, it's done, finished, kaput.

It also sold bajillions, so ME3 is probably going to be a lot like it. Don't like that? Don't play it. I highly recommend Deus Ex or Skyrim if you want to skip the end of Mass Effect.

[Almostfaceman]

Nyoka wrote...

NoSoyBueno wrote...

An assumption was flawed - the assumptions were that Kuril is rational and that Shepard's value is based off of his combat abilities. Almostfaceman demonstrated with the quote how the rationality assumption was flawed because Kuril is arrogant.  If both of these assumptions had been accurate, as I had believed them to have been, then the logic would hold.

Your argument is: If Shepard is good at combat, then it's impossible to take her down by fighting and therefore nobody can rationally expect to take her down in a fight. So Kuril is irrational.

That's not good reasoning, man. Just because someone is good doesn't mean she's invincible. Shepard is just one woman, after all. Good fighter, sure, but still mortal. Kuril did believe Shepard was good at combat, but he also believed he was better. And the fact that he subdued the most powerful human biotic ever, and that he owns a maximum security prison nobody has ever escaped from, speaks in his favor. It was a pretty reasonable conclusion, really.

+1

[NoSoyBueno]

I don't know what you want from me. I've said that the assumption was flawed based on information that did not occur to me earlier. Kuril was apparently wrong in his evaluation of his own versus Shepard's capabilities (at least in all of my playthroughs where he loses), which suggests arrogance (overestimation of himself) and/or bad information (underestimation of Shepard).

Are you now opportunistically going to keep beating a dead horse?  May I remind you that you are not always right either?  And you wonder why some people on this forum are so dogmatic...

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 17 avril 2011 - 01:37 .

[eldav]

1969 top single was sugar, sugar by The Archies
they where more popular than Rolling stones, The Beatles, The Doors ect, ect, but they aint even remembered today.
Me1 is going to be remembered for a long time.

[VendettaI154]

Teknor wrote...

ME>ME2>ME3. Problem Bioware ?

Fingers crossed for ME> ME3> ME2.

[Bluko]

I see this thread got ugly fast.

Anyways to the OP, I share some of your sentiment. And while I understand the need to voice one's opinion, you're kind of poking the bee hive here. These sorts of issues have been brought up dozens of times before, and a lot of folks are just beyond trying to be courteous anymore. Frankly I've just plain decided to stop even trying. Also it may be getting to the point in time where feedback from players about ME2 isn't all that useful to Bioware. I doubt there can be much impact on what happens now in ME3 as most decisions have likely been made.

Still I don't think this should be a reason to condemn what you have to say.

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Dialogue
Where is the dialogue in main plot missions?  Most dialogue in ME2 seems to be just filler there.  I remember the entire first half of the mission on Noveria was just talking to people - I can negotiate deals with the shopkeeper, Anoleis, Parasini, Qui'in, the Krogan, and the ERCS guards.  ME2 has no negotiation and no serious dialogue in main plot missions - on Collector Ships the only real dialogue is about the genetic experiments.

I kind of see what you're getting at. Mass Effect 2 seems to be more "shoot first, ask questions later". It certainly does seem like there's less actual dialogue in the actual missions themselves. For me this is most noticeable in the side missions, which are either shooting galleries or short puzzles. I kind of miss ME1's longer  more involved side missions.

I dunno, but as the actual Character missions go there's usually a fair bit of dialogue. I didn't really feel like there was any less Renegade/Paragaon options in comparison to ME1.

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Morality
Why is there so little morality in main plot missions in ME2?  Remember Feros?  That mission is loaded with moral decisions - whether to help the colonists, how to deal with Jeong, dealing with that woman's daughter, whether to kill the Thorian slaves, whether to kill Shiala.  On Horizon you just talk about a dead husk and have conversations with Delan and the Virmire Survivor that can only end one way.

Even the action-oriented mission on Virmire is packed with dialogue and moral decisions.

I'll agree the Collector missions are pretty unfulfilling by themselves. But there's plenty of moral decisions to be made in the Character missions. Thing is ME2 really heavily focused on just the characters. This means besides the Suicide Mission, there's relatively little going on in the main plot itself. Some people like this, some people don't. Personally I would have rather dealt more with Collectors/Reapers then spend as much time helping my crew, who all for some reason seem to have personal problems.

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Immersion
Aside from Omega, and to a lesser extent Illium, I feel much less immersion in ME2.  The first problem came with the removal of the Mako - I don't know what everyone's feelings on the Mako are, but I know that it made it feel like I was actually exploring another world rather than just visiting a different room (this isn't to say that I considered the Mako an ideal solution - I just would like to have something that accomplishes that).  The second problem is that a couple of the hubs are just a bit too small.

I have to agree with you here. I thought Omega was pretty impressive and Illium was nifty as well, but yeah after that the game lacks the general "awe" factor ME1 had on. The Citadel feels like a shopping mall and Tuchanka is basically rubble, niether of which looked all the impressive or interesting. And there's basically nothing to look at in any of the side missions in ME2, unless you think coffee tables are really neat. True ME1's worlds were very bland, but they at least they had cool backgrounds that made you feel like you were on another planet. Honestly as far as I can tell most of ME2 feels like I'm on Earth.

Yeah if there's any reason why I like ME1 better, it's cause it did a lot more to make me feel like I was out exploring the galaxy.

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Missions
Aside from Samara's and Thane's Loyalty, all Recruitment and Loyalty missions are the same in ME2.  You force your way through twenty to fifty enemies to get to the objective.  If there is a moral decision, it is most likely at the end.  Sure, this is similar to Tali's or Liara's 'recruitment', or Wrex's and Garrus' 'loyalty' in ME1, but did they seriously have to make the entire game like this?  Some of the missions don't even fit - why am I fighting waves of enemies in Kasumi's loyalty mission, which is supposed to be a discreet heist-style operation?  Why did there have to be enemies in the abandoned Pragia facility?  Why am I fighting mechs on Aeia?

You don't like fighting countless waves of generic Mercs/Mechs?

Yeah I feel ya. There really in my opinion was a lack of enemy variety. Not that ME1 was all that diverse in that you basically spent 3/4 of your time killing Geth. But at least the Geth had several troop types and stuff like Armatures. I dunno ME2 just lacks that sense of challenge. Also the Collectors fought exactly like the Mercs. It would have been more neat if they had actually flown around and stuff in combat. Harbinger sort of added a level challenge, but was more annoying then actually fearsome.

I dunno I just can't help but notice that in ME2 enemies rarely uses Biotics, and they only seem to use Warp. Also where are the Snipers? What happened to the Geth Hoopers?

I know folks found those enemies more annoying, but they added a little flavor and kept you on your toes. In ME2 you basically slaughtered Assault Rifle dudes and not a whole lot else.

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Squadmates
Twelve squadmates is too many.  Some of them don't seem to add much to the setting, like Jacob or Zaeed (and I already know I angered someone with those picks).  I also noticed, when playing ME1 yesterday, that all of your squad is in the briefing room after plot missions - I rather liked that set up, even if some of the squad didn't speak.  In ME2, the only time this happens is right before the Suicide Mission.

Again I gotta agree. While I do pretty much like all of the team in ME2, I don't feel any real attachment to them. Heck half the time I even forget I have certain squadmates. At the end of the day they all feel like they were meant to be replaceable. It felt less liked I had a actual squad and was instead running a circus sideshow.

I really hope in ME3 we only have like 6-8 Squadmates, cause after that other characters lose whatever makes them unique. Why do I need two Biotic masters, when I  really only need one? I think the game would have been a lot more interesting if you say only got to pick 6 people each time you played. You know rather then drag everyone with you, you'd have to pick certain people. Would have added a lot of replayability and made the Suicide Mission that much more dangerous.

Modifié par Bluko, 18 avril 2011 - 04:26 .

[Nashiktal]

eldav wrote...

1969 top single was sugar, sugar by The Archies
they where more popular than Rolling stones, The Beatles, The Doors ect, ect, but they aint even remembered today.
Me1 is going to be remembered for a long time.

I remember them just fine, and I wasn't even alive during the time. That damn song has been stuck in my head too many times to count.

[Avalon Aurora]

I liked ME1 better in terms of narrative. I also liked the level of squad equipment customization and the weapon mods and special ammo better than in ME2. The Mako was often painful, but sometimes strangely fun. Unfortunately the worlds you explore with the Mako looked like some kinds of random mountains generated with Bryce that Bioware just randomly generated with a few modified areas to put stuff in like where buildings go and thresher maw nests and dropped stuff.

I liked ME2 better in terms of eye candy (although a lot of it killed my immersion). Controls in ME2 were also smoother, although the skill system and cool-downs were a bit wonky and silly in the way they were implemented. Planet scanning was super fail. The 'recruitment-loyalty' mission pairs for each character felt horrible and ruined a lot of the suspension of disbelief. The fact that over half the squadmates seemed to have serious daddy issues as part of their loyalty missions...

Here's to hoping Bioware has listened to the smarter ones of us on the forums and learned their lessons from ME1 and ME2 in terms of what works and doesn't, and ME3 is a giant castle of awesome.

[NoSoyBueno]

I do have one issue with the ME2 interface:
I would like if the 'run' and 'take cover' buttons were separate. It's annoying when I am trying to get away from an enemy and I get stuck on a wall or box only to be mowed down. I can see why 'use' would be the same button as 'take cover', but 'run' just doesn't seem to fit.

-NSB

[Niddy']

ME2 was really terrible in comparison to ME. People who say otherwise would rather scan planets than drive around in the mako.

I don't know about you, but trying to go up 100% vertical hills was very amusing.

[Xaijin]

Moiaussi wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

Except BW wants to directly show the destruction of Earth and it's direct-to-person impact, and they have a limited budget and time to do so. So there will be no 3 hour long sequence with a Batarian inquest and maneuvering and a trial on Arcturus Station under "neutral ground" and then a trip to Earth to see what the big deal with screaming over the monitors is. Unless, by all means if you and smudboy are planning to front the money... I figure about $200,000 and a three week month delay on the game might cover it, IF everything else is sufficiently along and in place, (barring recalling voice actors for add callbacks) and extra dev logistics needed to make it happen. Bear in mind it's an EA property so you'll be donating the fundage and manpower gratis.

So you are saying because at this point it is a done deal, we should all love it and be happy with it?

If it had been written in a sensible manner in the first place, your cost issue wouldn't have been quite the issue. The fact that they aren't going to remake any given bad movie doesn't make it a good movie.

No I'm saying "your (or anyone's) opinion" of plot borne anything is at this point irrelevant, as actors are turning out finalized dialog. What is done is done and literally put to immutable stone. Complaining that the ****s were bad now is irrelevant to the context of someone who lived in germany pre 30s, and so is b!tching about the ozone layer after it's been completely depleted. What's done is done and the denizens of BSN are not the sole purveyors of content quality,as had proven by BioWare's continued and steadfast holding to their own ideas, whether good or ill, subjectively AND objectively.

Opinions do not equal facts, and facts can only support opinions, not become them. BW has had a design goal since 2004, and very little in regard to that overall arch is going to be gleaned from the outside unless BW chooses to make it public. Whilst specifics might be modified by design and logistical considerations, what is apparent is that BW does not have a 300 million budget and 6 years to make this game, and this game is also squarely targeted at a casual audience as opposed to hardcore sf purists, else it wouldn't have been borne of 80's pop scifi.

Additionally, there is a very literal and real sense pervading here that people genuinely think that Casey sits down in front of a flatscreen monitor with some vague symbols on it and says "Computer, make Garrus be gay" and *poof* Garrus is gay and all his dialog content and assets magically align to said paradigm instantaneously, and so those who wish Garrus to be "romance-ibly" gay are now satisfied with the literal click of a button.

Mayhaps those of such a mindset should go look at the credits and see exactly what kind of manpower is needed to bring this game to life, and exactly how difficult it is to get that amount of people on the same page with ANYTHING, much less a coherent branching dynamic multipathed narrative borne along by seamless assets.

Modifié par Xaijin, 20 avril 2011 - 09:08 .

[Dracotamer]

I agree that ME was far superior to ME2.