270 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But it would be effectively a retcon.

Unless they intended to it to be one and at least attempted to make that fact clear, it wouldn't actually be one.  It would just be a plothole.

Unintentional retcon.
Accidental retcon.
Uncontemplated retcon.


ME2 sucks! ME1 FTW!!!

[didymos1120]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But it would be effectively a retcon.

Unless they intended to it to be one and at least attempted to make that fact clear, it wouldn't actually be one.  It would just be a plothole.

Unintentional retcon.
Accidental retcon.
Uncontemplated retcon.


ME2 sucks! ME1 FTW!!!

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty ZuluDFA said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

[Arijharn]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The "Trial on Earth" thing certainly sounds like a plot-hole to me. A rather unimportant one, but a plot-hole all the same.

It very well may be, but calling it a plothole now is pretty damn presumptious don't you think?

[Arijharn]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

It very well may be, but calling it a plothole now is pretty damn presumptious don't you think?

No.

o.0 I think my sarcasm net-filter is broken.

The game isn't out yet, it may be you know, explained (to a satisfactory degree too!). Ergo, considering it's a plothole now in the absence of data is pretty damn illogical (as illogical as destroying the CB even... ZINGGGGG )

[Xaijin]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Pacifien wrote...
Zulu, I'm pretty sure you don't know what "plothole" means. Unless you accept my "something I don't like, believe, nor want" definition.

I'm sure there are plot holes that I do like. Example: Gianna Parasini on Illium.

...

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

I see.

You're using the term incorrectly, by the way.

I think that's about as much as I want to go off-topic about it, though. I think your ship has sailed and you're beyond wanting to correct yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plothole wrote...

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

I argue that Shepard's trial on Earth has no apparent reason within the universe. How am I using the term "plot hole" incorrectly?

bald man in a boat wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

One more time: zero mass = you're some kind of pure energy wave sci-fi stuff, and such things as "walls" don't exist for you.

Fail. Remember: "Virtually mass free" isn't zero mass. And that = big ass squish.

So uh, yeah. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

"Virtually" = maybe it's so maybe it isn't, but for all practical intents and purposes (such as solid objects passing through walls and planets), it is.

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.

Modifié par Xaijin, 16 avril 2011 - 03:53 .

[NoSoyBueno]

The discussion about going through the solid walls of the Citadel with a mass relay is very interesting, but it doesn't have much to do with this topic, unfortunately. While I care neither for plotholes nor loose use of the term, the ones I know of are minor enough that they do not bother me a whole lot (I have mentioned the use of mechs on Aeia, but this was simply to demonstrate how some of the missions even take stretches just to follow the same formula).

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 16 avril 2011 - 03:54 .

[lazuli]

NoSoyBueno wrote...
 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?

The missions without combat were nice breaks in the action the first time through the game.  Now I dread them.  The first few times I played through ME2, it was for the story.  I wanted to see different sides.  Now I play for the combat.  I like that there are enemies on Pragia.  I like that I get to face Hock's guards on Bekenstein.  If combat is boring you, shake it up with a different class, an unorthodox build, or bump up the difficulty.

[NoSoyBueno]

lazuli:

I am not actually arguing specifically for non-combat missions, but rather that more missions involve player choices (though I still would like if there was more consideration for the nature and character of the squadmate being recruited/made loyal). I liked in ME1 that there were a number of missions where shootouts could be avoided. However, if you prefer to have shootouts, then by all means - having the choice means we can both be satisfied.


Another point has just occurred to me: for fairness, I must mention that Mordin's recruitment does actually have two instances of being able to prevent shootouts - one is with the Batarians and the other is at the entrance of the slums, where you can intimidate or charm the guard into making the barricade watchmen stand down.

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 16 avril 2011 - 04:12 .

[Moiaussi]

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.

[lazuli]

NoSoyBueno wrote...
 I liked in ME1 that there were a number of missions where shootouts could be avoided. However, if you prefer to have shootouts, then by all means - having the choice means we can both be satisfied.

Well that's not exactly fair, because avoiding combat in ME1 was more enjoyable than actually partaking in it.

[didymos1120]

NoSoyBueno wrote...
Another point has just occurred to me: for fairness, I must mention that Mordin's recruitment does actually have two instances of being able to prevent shootouts - one is with the Batarians and the other is at the entrance of the slums, where you can intimidate or charm the guard into making the barricade watchmen stand down.

-NSB

There's a third one:  you can annoy the human looters. They then attack you.

[bald man in a boat]

lazuli wrote...
Well that's not exactly fair, because avoiding combat in ME1 was more enjoyable than actually partaking in it.

So much win in one post. 

[GreaseMunkeh]

Agree with absolutely everything.

ME2 was "luhk at mah visheral shooty combaht n flsh cinnymaticz!" It was a long list of shooter combat courses with brief conversations intersped.

They really need to get back to style in ME3 that isnt just "Oh goody, Ive defeated another wave using only the power of boxes and shooter combat", and more a feel of really getting involved with a sci-fi galaxy. Not just shooting guns in it. I mean, thats what Gears of War is for, and I originally got interested in Mass Effect because I wanted something that WASNT Gears of War or Halo.

[Nashiktal]

Anyone who says Noveria sucks should report to Lorik Qu'in for an immediate dosage of awesome sauce.

[Aradace]

GreaseMunkeh wrote...

Agree with absolutely everything.

ME2 was "luhk at mah visheral shooty combaht n flsh cinnymaticz!" It was a long list of shooter combat courses with brief conversations intersped.

They really need to get back to style in ME3 that isnt just "Oh goody, Ive defeated another wave using only the power of boxes and shooter combat", and more a feel of really getting involved with a sci-fi galaxy. Not just shooting guns in it. I mean, thats what Gears of War is for, and I originally got interested in Mass Effect because I wanted something that WASNT Gears of War or Halo.

Right, and if they did that, the next thing you'd want is a "diplomatic solution" for dealing with the Reapers.  *facepalm* Why are you people so idealistic and naive? lol
Sorry kiddies, you dont get to be "Space Ghandi"

Modifié par Aradace, 16 avril 2011 - 08:21 .

[Nashiktal]

Aradace wrote...

GreaseMunkeh wrote...

Agree with absolutely everything.

ME2 was "luhk at mah visheral shooty combaht n flsh cinnymaticz!" It was a long list of shooter combat courses with brief conversations intersped.

They really need to get back to style in ME3 that isnt just "Oh goody, Ive defeated another wave using only the power of boxes and shooter combat", and more a feel of really getting involved with a sci-fi galaxy. Not just shooting guns in it. I mean, thats what Gears of War is for, and I originally got interested in Mass Effect because I wanted something that WASNT Gears of War or Halo.

Right, and if they did that, the next thing you'd want is a "diplomatic solution" for dealing with the Reapers.  *facepalm* Why are you people so idealistic and naive? lol
Sorry kiddies, you dont get to be "Space Ghandi"

Dude, he's not asking for something like that. He is asking for more of what made mass effect different in the first place. I love ME2, but while they improved the combat in many area's they scaled back everything that made ME1 worth taking notice in the first place!

Now that they have revamped the me combat system, I am hoping they will spend more time crafting, and writing more dialogue moments for ME3. Give us time in between blasting husks, and fighting reapers to talk to our crew, to talk to the people who witness the destruction.

Why is someone naive for likeing wht made ME1 great in the first place?

[Aradace]

Nashiktal wrote...


Why is someone naive for likeing wht made ME1 great in the first place?

Your definition of what made ME1 great and mine are vastly different it seems.  For me, it was NOT that you could have a diplomatic solution for certain things instead of fighting.  For me, it was just about everything else other than that.  In fact, that's about the only gripe I have with ME1.  That and the ****'ing Mako.  Christ at a bbq I hated that thing lol.  Make no mistake though, I love ME1 just as much as I love ME2.  And I dont know where you're getting lack of dialog from your squadmates from?  Because I dont know about you, but Im able to talk to everyone of my crew mates after each mission.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

[blind-tiger]

I like the scope of 2 more, but I think the story could have been stronger without the collectors. They were very boring enemies, compared to the crew's own personal stories. Actually, if 2 had focused on the secret conflicts for Prothean and Reaper tech, between Alliance, Counsel, and Cerberus, I think the story could have been better.

[Panther_536]

Well from initial impressions..

In terms of the actual gameplay, it's too easy. I've already breezed through the opening, Freedom's Progress, and two recruitment missions in about a couple of hours (including the time spent talking on the Normandy\\Omega\\etc). I'm new to the series too.

Maybe I need to turn it up to Insanity difficulty.

Secondly, the dialogue could be better. Perhaps I'm a snob, but Joss Whedon-level writing isn't exactly impressive. The humour's okay though, and it's clear the voice cast are trying their best with the material (excepting Meer\\Hale).

[Nashiktal]

Aradace wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...


Why is someone naive for likeing wht made ME1 great in the first place?

Your definition of what made ME1 great and mine are vastly different it seems.  For me, it was NOT that you could have a diplomatic solution for certain things instead of fighting.  For me, it was just about everything else other than that.  In fact, that's about the only gripe I have with ME1.  That and the ****'ing Mako.  Christ at a bbq I hated that thing lol.  Make no mistake though, I love ME1 just as much as I love ME2.  And I dont know where you're getting lack of dialog from your squadmates from?  Because I dont know about you, but Im able to talk to everyone of my crew mates after each mission.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

I think you are missing the point entirely. He isn't asking for diplomatic solutions for every conflict, he is asking for choices. Branching conversations tree's that tell us more of the Mass effect univers, conversations that lead to different quests and lead to interesting NPC's. (Lorik Qu'in FTW!) Dialogue that give the fighting MEANING.

ME2 largely gets rid of this. 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. Shooting things is fun for a while, but mindless shooting isnt. Even cod has a story behind its madness.

[Aradace]

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.

[NoSoyBueno]

Aradace wrote...
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.

It is interesting you should mention that.  Warden Kuril could have simply sold Jack to them, and everyone would be on their merry way.  Instead, he chooses to risk everything just to attempt to acquire a prisoner that there is clearly no way he could ever take or hold onto.  Instead of making money off of the transaction, he loses his prison ship and his life.

He says Shepard is worth more to him as a prisoner - why?  It is because Shepard's fighting abilities are unmatched.  He then believes he is going to be able to subdue Shepard through force.

Warden Kuril would have to be totally irrational for this to make sense, yet his entire money-making scheme with that prison indicates that he is very adept at cost-benefit analysis.

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 16 avril 2011 - 11:09 .

[Aradace]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

Aradace wrote...
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.

It is interesting you should mention that.  Warden Kuril could have simply sold Jack to them, and everyone would be on their merry way.  Instead, he chooses to risk everything just to attempt to acquire a prisoner that there is clearly no way he could ever take or hold onto.  Instead of making money off of the transaction, he loses his prison ship and his life.

He says Shepard is worth more to him as a prisoner - why?  It is because Shepard's fighting abilities are unmatched.  He then believes he is going to be able to subdue Shepard through force.

Warden Kuril would have to be totally irrational for this to make sense.

-NSB

Irrelevant to the point trying to be made atm.  But I unfortunately agree with you on that.  I often wondered why he didnt do that myself lol.  The point being made on that is that the "reason" isnt "random" as it was claimed.  There was a reason behind it, it was not random, and was at least semi-important to the matter at hand.

[NoSoyBueno]

I don't know, it seems to me that having a character that is established to be extremely rational do something that is totally illogical is quite random.

-NSB