541 réponses à ce sujet

[ExtremeOne]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

008Zulu wrote...

Issue 4: The SR-2 was built using highly classified Alliance and Turian schematics. They'd take it to protect their classified technology. If you got your hands on the plans for a stealth fighter your government had designed and made one yourself, you bet they would take it from you.

Its been said quite literally 100 times that the Citadel was their convenient way back in to the galaxy. The Reapers were always going to make it back in to our galaxy, the only thing we could do is stall for time. As for how they got back, try to imagine a giant shotgun loaded with Reapers aimed at where the Alpha Relay would be by the time they arrived in our galaxy.

As for Cerberus turning on you after handing them the base, think of like this; TIM wants to make his own Reaper, in the schematics EDI gave him when she hacked the Base's computers tells him that the plans to make a human Reaper were designed around Shep's mental imprints and is therefore vital to the construction. TIM did say he would stop at nothing to save the galaxy. If that means sacrificing his "Queen" to capture the Reaper's "King" then Shep must be that "Queen".

The other thing to point out about Issue 4... Alliance isn't taking it from Shepard, they are actually taking it from Cerberus. I imagine by ME3, Alliance is probably fully aware that Cord-Hislop Aerospace (you know the company whose markings are all over the SR2 and SR2 crew outfits) is just a front for Cerberus. So considering as mentioned above how the SR2 is based on that Alliance/Turian ship, course they are going to confiscate/force dock the ship. Hell they did it with the original Normandy if you remember?

Regarding the OP overall statement, when I read about Cerb being after us I was a little disappointed, although I am not going to take a tiny statement in an article so far in advance of the game being released and throw such a huge tantrum like you have and that's even though I consider my now Cerberus loyalist Shepard (Avatar) one of my main ones. If TIM and the others come gunning for me, so be it. Ain't the first time Jack has been in such a situation

"Jack Shepard is on everyones Most Wanted list and he only has 24 hours to save the Galaxy! The following takes place in real time."

Personally I think people shouldn't be jumping up and down yet considering what little we learned in that article. It didn't mention Miranda and Jacob *shrugs* as much as I like Miranda I know she has her haters and well, we all know that Jacob isn't the most popular of the ME2 squad. The person who got/gave the information probably just mentioned Garrus and Liara because they know that those 2 do have a large fanbase and it was always obvious Ash/Kaidan would be back because one of the reasons they (along with Liara) were pulled out specifically so they would make it through to ME3. The other thing to point out about Miranda is that considering her plot armor in the suicide mission, I think it would be stupid to think that she won't be in ME3 for those that didn't kill her by having her unloyal and either in the final battle or the weakest member in a weak defence line. No offence intended Extremeone but it seems you left common sense out when writing your statement.

 


Ok you make a good point but I hope we can find out a more informative reason for it once we play the game. As a Die Cerberus fan and one that has a hardcore pro Cerberus Shepard Bioware 's reason for turning Cerberus to hunt My Shepard down pisses Me off so yeah thats why I am full rage towards Bioware. but like in Star Wars My Shepard will turn that rage into destroying The Alliance  

[GuardianAngel470]

squee913 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

squee913 wrote...

And I heard from my sister's cousins pet penguin that the Reapers are not even going to BE in Mass Effect 4!!!!! Damn you Bioware!!! grrrrrr!!!! Gamer Rage!!! etc etc!!!!

Honestly, I can understand expressing concern over some of the things you have heard, but condemning a game's story when you know almost nothing about the story and it is more than 7 months away from it's release is just silly.

No, but seriously... That penguin was telling the truth! For reals!

You know what I thought about when you said penguins? Have you ever heard of those Japanese stores where you can pay them to allow you to break stuff like glassware and such?

Well a friend of mine came up with an absolutely brilliant variant on that concept. Instead of glassware, PENGUINS!

You pay us to allow you to break and slaughter penguins! Genius, I know. I just need to move to antarctica where there are no laws and plenty of penguins. I'll make millions!

ummm.... is there a smiley that slowly backs out of the room and closes the door? cause I think I need one....

Well, we could always use spiders instead, but I don't think it would have the desired effect. Same with c*ckroaches.

[squee913]

I still don't understand how you can be so mad, when we know so little. We have no idea why Cerberus turned on Shepard. We do know, however, that TIM is the kind of guy that would turn on Shepard in a heart beat if he felt it would be advantageous in any way. Cerberus did not turn evil. They are just what they have always been. An organization that promotes it's goals by any means necessary. There are lots of reasons TIM could turn on even a pro Cerberus Shep. He thinks Shep betrayed them when he went back to earth and the alliance took back the Normandy. He could believe that Shepard was indoctrinated during the events of Arrival. Hell, TIM would do it just because someone offered him enough money and resources to out weight Shep's usefulness. The point is, we have no idea why it happened, but with TIM's nature it should not be a big surprise.

[Fiery Phoenix]

squee913 wrote...

I still don't understand how you can be so mad, when we know so little. We have no idea why Cerberus turned on Shepard. We do know, however, that TIM is the kind of guy that would turn on Shepard in a heart beat if he felt it would be advantageous in any way. Cerberus did not turn evil. They are just what they have always been. An organization that promotes it's goals by any means necessary. There are lots of reasons TIM could turn on even a pro Cerberus Shep. He thinks Shep betrayed them when he went back to earth and the alliance took back the Normandy. He could believe that Shepard was indoctrinated during the events of Arrival. Hell, TIM would do it just because someone offered him enough money and resources to out weight Shep's usefulness. The point is, we have no idea why it happened, but with TIM's nature it should not be a big surprise.

+1

Until we actually play the game and see for ourselves, all we can do is speculate.

[didymos1120]

squee913 wrote...

I still don't understand how you can be so mad, when we know so little.

That's just kinda what ExtremeOne does: get really mad about stuff...to the extreme.

[008Zulu]

I don't bother reading most of the stuff posted about what new games may or may not contain. Its easier to pick up the facts in game and draw your own conclusions.

I think that a lot of people like to play the bad guy. Yet they are upset when they discover that their wickedness doesn't pay off. It's the basic morality behind the game; If you are good you get the best rewards, if you are bad you get turned in to grey goop and fed in to a giant organic/machine hybrid.

Is it they are upset that crime actually doesn't pay?

[wulf3n]

squee913 wrote...

I still don't understand how you can be so mad, when we know so little. We have no idea why Cerberus turned on Shepard. We do know, however, that TIM is the kind of guy that would turn on Shepard in a heart beat if he felt it would be advantageous in any way. Cerberus did not turn evil. They are just what they have always been. An organization that promotes it's goals by any means necessary. There are lots of reasons TIM could turn on even a pro Cerberus Shep. He thinks Shep betrayed them when he went back to earth and the alliance took back the Normandy. He could believe that Shepard was indoctrinated during the events of Arrival. Hell, TIM would do it just because someone offered him enough money and resources to out weight Shep's usefulness. The point is, we have no idea why it happened, but with TIM's nature it should not be a big surprise.

While it may be premature, and it's not out of character for TIM, it does raise concern about what actual impact keeping/destroying the collector base, the biggest decision in the game, is going to have in ME3. Past experience may have jaded some of us, but it seems like Bioware have realised the gravity of the situation they've created and are going to give us another council debacle.

[Drake_Hound]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Oh whys that because its the damn truth Commander Shepard does not have anything iconic about him or her because in reality Shepard is a player driven character and one that has no real back story or history  from the 2 games.  I should have guessed the die hard Bioware fans will die defending their precious game call Mass Effect.
 

This is a self  defeating purpose , that you bring up so many issues .
Means you got hooked into the game , that you are calling fans for defending the game .
We can call you a whiner for bringing up issues that are totally not so relevant .
It is a heat of debate .

Look basically I enjoy Mass Effect , cause I feel as player that I have more choice then any other game released last 3 years . Even DA with it massive choices were not satisfying enough . to feel I am playing as a star in a movie .
That you have pyschopaths , Lame brains and other people thinking there way of thinking should be justified .
Doesn´t mean the game is supported for those small minority in Real Life .
Truth is Shepard is Iconic , in 3 ways a selfishe ruthless bastard , then still you need people to cooperate with you.
2nd way a person with chip on the shoulder .
Last a do Gooder , from there on you can decide your story .

That people narrow it down to just straight paragon or renegade is a bit META gaming .
Really in real life you hold conversations , doesn´t mean you know the outcome .
What sounds good for 1 person doesn´t hold water for another .

Now the people have nicely paragraph your original Post you were too lazy to do .
That says enough of your Issue´s and defense of Bioware fan .

[Schattenkeil]

Island Head wrote...


readable 

You're now the official forum Harry Potter.

[Puzzlewell]

I suppose I'm kind of surprised that anyone is shocked about Cerberus turning on Shep. When ME2 first came out and I found out we were working with Cerberus I basically had a "Wait, didn't I spend a chunk of the first game *killing* Cerberus members?" moment.

I'm definitely not surprised TIM might betray Shepard. Look at the case of the Derelict Reaper mission. He sets Shep up when it suits his needs, and as an information broker it's very obvious he knows how to sugar-coat and manipulate. Even on my renegade playthroughs I don't side with Cerberus, Shepard saw what they're willing to do in ME1 and just because they brought her back doesn't mean she has to be indebted to them.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

Your major issues with Bioware. This is just a game FFS, not a super serious tip top report. It has been designed to enjoy people, not to be over-interpeted. If you have problems, deal with them. This is a game, most of them aren't made to be serious as you state.

Modifié par PnXMarcin1PL, 18 avril 2011 - 02:02 .

[DurkBakala]

U mad

[Legbiter]

Oh look, another unreadable wall-of-text nerdrant. How original.

Modifié par Legbiter, 18 avril 2011 - 06:09 .

[Seboist]

CalamityRanger wrote...

I suppose I'm kind of surprised that anyone is shocked about Cerberus turning on Shep. When ME2 first came out and I found out we were working with Cerberus I basically had a "Wait, didn't I spend a chunk of the first game *killing* Cerberus members?" moment.

I'm definitely not surprised TIM might betray Shepard. Look at the case of the Derelict Reaper mission. He sets Shep up when it suits his needs, and as an information broker it's very obvious he knows how to sugar-coat and manipulate. Even on my renegade playthroughs I don't side with Cerberus, Shepard saw what they're willing to do in ME1 and just because they brought her back doesn't mean she has to be indebted to them.

Cerberus hired Zaeed who has killed 50+ operatives of theirs and Jack who took down one of their bases. TIM isn't petty enough to be out for simple revenge when there's a far more important issue at hand.

All the "set Shepard up" moments in ME2 were necessary calculated risks that aided greatly against the Collectors. The game clearly shows TIM having a great admiration for Shepard "Whatever you think of Cerberus, of me, you're a great asset to humanity" and is shown mourning her death in the bad ending regardless of what happens to CB.

Based on all the evidence from ME2, it stinks to high hell that TIM would be out to kill Shepard during a REAPER INVASION.

[Dave666]

Phaedon wrote...

In 2007 Bioware released a game that would introduce a game based on Player’s choice and those choices would matter in other games of the series. The Game was Mass Effect 1 . The Year is 2010 and Bioware would release Mass Effect 2 and the idea with it was the Player’s choices in Mass Effect 1 would have a impact on the story of Mass Effect 2. That is not what happened many of the choices that were made in Mass Effect 1 had little to no real impact in 2. I have huge issues with Bioware since reading Game Informer’s Mass Effect 3 article.

Huge exaggeration, incorrect statement. Next.

Issue 1 - A Player’s choices in the games will matter in other games. If this is true then in Mass Effect 2 I gave Cerberus the collector’s base at the end of the game. Now in Mass Effect 3 you say Cerberus is after Shepard and is out to kill him or her. That flies in the face of a player’s choices in Mass Effect 2 will have impact in Mass Effect 3.

No, no it doesn't.
We would all yell at you post-release for how doing that was a bad choice, and 'you' would call saving the base stupid. You took a very ambiguous choice that had (of course) a negative outcome. I might sound rude, but deal with it.
TIM never dismissed the fact that he fancied the thought of creating a Reaper, and at the point when he lost control of the discussion he starting murmuring about how he would use the base beyond the Reapers.
Giving WMDs to incapable space terrorists can't be considered as a choices with no risk.

Issue 2 - Shepard can be a total renegade to everyone else in Mass Effect 2 but when it comes to certain people like for example Anderson sending spies to spy on Shepard on horizon he has no real way to get even. Even worse when Kaiden or Ashley chew Shepard’s ass out and call him traitor on horizon there is no real way to respond to them.. That is garbage and now in Mass Effect 3 Shepard is suppose to work with either of those 2.

"Whoa, Shepard, what are you doing here, have you been spying on me?"
"What, no, why would I be spying on you. Are you spying on me?"
"How is that even possible, I have been in this garrison in months, plus it's YOU who came here, not me."
"Omg you Alliance snakes, where is my tinfoil hat before you indoctrinate me."

Issue 3 - The Alliance unless I have missed something in Mass Effect 2 this group had no real interest in Shepard. They only cared because Cerberus brought Shepard back to life. It makes no sense at all for Shepard to take orders from a group that does not care if he or she dies or not. At least in Mass Effect 2 Cerberus understood the value of Shepard.

Cerberus thinks that Shepard is completely replaceable, TIM is in fact, pretty satisfied if you both die and save the base. I am sure he didn't mourn on your grave later.
Unlike, let's say Anderson or Hackett who have always been friendly to you. Well, Hackett only if you pick paragon choices, but yeah. Anderson is the one who is happy to see you and doesn't make you blow up a Collector Base or something.

Issue 4 - The Alliance taking The Normandy SR - 2. This makes no logical sense at all. Stealing from Shepard is wrong. even if Shepard destroyed the base in Mass Effect 2 the SR 2 is his ship not the Alliance’s.

learn2confiscate

Issue 5 - What was the whole point of Cerberus in Mass Effect 2 if you are just going to turn them evil in 3 Bioware. This sounds to me like you have no real story and it has no logic to it. If Cerberus is evil why did you even do Mass Effect 2. I mean from all that I have heard in Mass Effect 1 Cerberus is the enemy of the Alliance. So in 2 Cerberus are a pro human group that brings Shepard back to life. They want to stop the reapers like The Illusive Man says in Mass Effect 2 he will do what ever it takes to stop the reapers. Why turn them evil. Is it because you have no other ideas. Or is the real reason you are doing this to simply make the anti Cerberus fans from Mass Effect 2 happy in Mass Effect 3. I have heard rumors that Cerberus could be under the control of the reapers and that explains why they are out for Shepard in 3. That makes no sense. I mean if that was the case wouldn’t Cerberus had tried to kill Shepard in Mass Effect 2. I am sure some will say well Cerberus got corrupted by reaper tech from the Collector’s Base. That makes no sense as well since Cerberus had a team working on the dead reaper in 2.

to turn them evil in 3 Bioware.

What? WHAT?!
Since when is killing colonists, soldiers and prisoners, torturing and doing inhuman experiments on children, colonists and personal enemies, NOT evil?

Issue 6 - The Reapers it seems as if Bioware wanted to make theme out like Mass Effect’s version of The Borg from Star Trek. The only difference with that is The Borg actually attack and do what they say they will do. In Mass Effect 1 we were all told that the reapers could only get into Council space by using the Mass relay in the Citadel. Then at the end of Mass Effect 2 the reaper fleet is at the edge of the galaxy. So something does not seem right with the story in Mass Effect. Its real clear the reapers are not the big enemies in Mass Effect 3 because if they were then why turn Cerberus and make them a enemy in 3 as well . It sounds like you needed a second enemy in the 3rd game. If you need a second enemy in your game that means the story is a joke. If the reapers are the most dangerous enemy in Mass Effect and they invade Earth shouldn’t that be the main focus of Mass Effect 3.

It's really not that mind bogging!
ME1 and ME2 were about destroying the Reaper vanguards who would unlock the Citadel relay. ME3 is about the Reapers, being unable to be transported immediately to a strategic location, having to go from deep space to the reaches of the galaxy, and reap their way around until they find a relay that connects them to a strategically important system.

Issue 7 - Bioware and its clear cut decision to side with the Paragon fans with Mass Effect 3. This pisses me off to no end. How can a company that says the Mass Effect games are based on player’s choice make a clear choice to side with the paragons is mind blowing. They give us Cerberus and renegade fans a Big F U in Mass Effect 3. These games are not based on player choice at all. If they really are then the start of Mass Effect 3 would be totally different depending on the choices you made in Mass Effect 2. Either it starts out with you being aligned with Cerberus or being aligned with the Alliance. No thats not how Mass Effect 3 starts out. Its clear from the GI article which side Bioware is supporting and its the Anti Cerberus and paragon fans. So the paragon ending to Mass Effect 2 is the cannon ending. Then it brings up the question of why even have a renegade and paragon choice at the end of Mass Effect 2. This makes no sense at all. If choice ultimately does not matter then it has no place in the game simple as that. Players like myself and many others made a choice to give Cerberus the base and basically decided to work with them. Now in Mass Effect 3 we are told that our choices mean nothing and us wanting to work with Cerberus is not even possible in the game. Its a load of sh*t just because the forums started ****ing and moaning about how they hated Cerberus. So you basically did stupid fan service and rewarded them just like you did with tali and Garrus in Mass Effect 2.

Some parts of this paragraph make no sense at all.
Tell me then, if Bioware loves paragons so much, then why do the renegades have all of the cool interrupts? Yeah, I see.
A renegade is a badass, and if you can't deal with the consequences of your actions.
Well, that doesn't sound renegade at all.

Since you want to reward fans then you need to reward us Cerberus and renegade fans as well. Bioware you need to start giving a dam about all of you’re fans instead of ass kissing the select few that you like. One huge thing I noticed in the GI article is there is no mention of Miranda and Jacob in Mass Effect 3. Why the hell aren’t they in the game. Is this going to be another Mass Effect reboot of the franchise as many claimed Mass Effect 2 was. Really is fan service controlling the way you guys create the story for Mass Effect 3. I wonder is there any real story to the Mass Effect games because there seems to not be one that connects all 3 games. Mass Effect is nothing more than a mere rip off of Star Wars and Star Trek. The only problem is Commander Shepard is and never will be as iconic as Captain Kirk and Luke SkyWalker as well Lord Vader and all the other iconic characters with in the Star Wars and Star Trek Universes. What I find funny is how Commander Shepard is the one unstoppable force in the Mass Effect Universe. I guess someone watched the Matrix and said we need our Neo for this game. In Star Trek Captain Kirk and Captain Picard dealt with things with reason and logic or in some cases by force. The point is no one in the Star Trek ever coward in fear of those 2 men. If Shepard is suppose to be this unstoppable force then why does he need a team to help him at all.

Pure rage fit that adds nothing.

*Tips hat at Phaedon*

[Moiaussi]

squee913 wrote...

I still don't understand how you can be so mad, when we know so little. We have no idea why Cerberus turned on Shepard. We do know, however, that TIM is the kind of guy that would turn on Shepard in a heart beat if he felt it would be advantageous in any way. Cerberus did not turn evil. They are just what they have always been. An organization that promotes it's goals by any means necessary. There are lots of reasons TIM could turn on even a pro Cerberus Shep. He thinks Shep betrayed them when he went back to earth and the alliance took back the Normandy. He could believe that Shepard was indoctrinated during the events of Arrival. Hell, TIM would do it just because someone offered him enough money and resources to out weight Shep's usefulness. The point is, we have no idea why it happened, but with TIM's nature it should not be a big surprise.

For those of us who don't like some of the directions they have already taken (such as the whole 'you must work with Cerberus' thing when Shepard could almost certainly have overpowered Jacob and Miranda and just taken the shuttle himself), there isn't quite as much room for optimism regarding the ME3 writing.

Does anyone really like the Council's turning their backs on Shepard either? I know there are people who don't mind it or excuse it, but really like it? Properly set up, betrayals can be great plot devices. Improperly set up, they just end up feeling arbitrary and contrived.

Based on what we have seen in ME2, there is plenty of reason for pessimism.

And a lot of the things a lot of the pre-defenders of ME3 (who haven't seen ME3 yet any more than those of us expressing concern) sound very much like similar fans on the ME1 boards, when Bioware was being even more active in saying things like 'decisions will matter.'

I am not pro TIM nor pro Cerberus. I am, however, not a fan of arbitrary plot twists.

[88mphSlayer]

a franchise all about choice having canon is an oxymoron

which is why it's frustrating to get railroaded

[MACharlie1]

How can we possibly be having this conversation when we've seen a single article on the game and know next to nothing about what is happening?

[fivefingaslap18]

I blame EA's direction more than anything. ME2 would have been a different game entirely done solely under BioWare's discretion. I think the Collectors would've been ground forces for the Reapers once they got into the galaxy, not before. Since the Collectors by themselves felt like a sidestep to the overall story arc. Also, having the Reapers stay out in Dark Space still felt like a bad decision narratively speaking. Leave them out in ME1, understandable as you introduced the enemy in the first. Bring the enemy in, in the 2nd and show no hope of winning until the group finds a way of winning right at the end of the game. ME3 is the way to win, or not and the player's actions do just that.

I think most people forget that BioWare was always known to have large and small parties. Baldur's Gate had a giant number of party members. KotOR did, Jade Empire did as well. There was always a party of nine or so. Mass Effect only had 6 which to me was surprising. However, even their larger parties made it feel as if no one was unnecessary as if they all had purpose in the narration or if they were different in speech and character. ME2 changed I think. Sure we had an abundance of characters and I get that. Bring people onto a suicide mission (which was laughable) so bring a huge group. Like the dirty dozen!

I have a separate issue about this because BioWare was marketing the game originally with twelve characters calling it your own dirty dozen. Then they brought it down to ten. People asked what they were talking about and they said no it was a mistake by the fanbase. What happened? Oh yeah, 12 characters. Number one, this is false advertising. Number two, it is directly lying to the fanbase to get more money. I don't know if BioWare has ever done this before EA, but still you see my point.

I didn't have a problem with BioWare. I have a problem with EA. I haven't had a problem with BioWare until they were consumed by EA. It is not because of personal bias or prejudice but having seen what they have narratively destroyed in ME2 and utterly destroyed in DA2 many RPG fans see and come to the dilemma that we all have. How do you support a once grand company for it's current actions?

We may never know what BioWare might have originally done separate from EA. I honestly think it wouldn't have been as bad as it was. However I will say this, I'm glad the OP calmed down because most of the arguments were laughable. You were having a tantrum dude. I hated ME2 simply because it was bad storytelling. Yes it wasn't what I wanted either, but mainly it was bad storytelling. You don't give a person a ship and say do what you will while finding people and expect there to be a plot. I'm learning this as a GM right now in my Star Wars game with 7 completely new people to roleplaying. They're all having a blast but they have no direction and very little character development going on. I hope they do it soon because I'm about to just make it hack and slash the way they're going.

Modifié par fivefingaslap18, 18 avril 2011 - 04:44 .

[Mersey]

The Bioware forums should create a section for whining and nagging. 50% of the forum is full of it.

[Almostfaceman]

Moiaussi wrote...

squee913 wrote...

I still don't understand how you can be so mad, when we know so little. We have no idea why Cerberus turned on Shepard. We do know, however, that TIM is the kind of guy that would turn on Shepard in a heart beat if he felt it would be advantageous in any way. Cerberus did not turn evil. They are just what they have always been. An organization that promotes it's goals by any means necessary. There are lots of reasons TIM could turn on even a pro Cerberus Shep. He thinks Shep betrayed them when he went back to earth and the alliance took back the Normandy. He could believe that Shepard was indoctrinated during the events of Arrival. Hell, TIM would do it just because someone offered him enough money and resources to out weight Shep's usefulness. The point is, we have no idea why it happened, but with TIM's nature it should not be a big surprise.

For those of us who don't like some of the directions they have already taken (such as the whole 'you must work with Cerberus' thing when Shepard could almost certainly have overpowered Jacob and Miranda and just taken the shuttle himself), there isn't quite as much room for optimism regarding the ME3 writing.

Does anyone really like the Council's turning their backs on Shepard either? I know there are people who don't mind it or excuse it, but really like it? Properly set up, betrayals can be great plot devices. Improperly set up, they just end up feeling arbitrary and contrived.

Based on what we have seen in ME2, there is plenty of reason for pessimism.

And a lot of the things a lot of the pre-defenders of ME3 (who haven't seen ME3 yet any more than those of us expressing concern) sound very much like similar fans on the ME1 boards, when Bioware was being even more active in saying things like 'decisions will matter.'

I am not pro TIM nor pro Cerberus. I am, however, not a fan of arbitrary plot twists.

Look, the game has been out for over a year and ME3 is nearing completion.  If the devs haven't heard your complaints by now, they never will.

So all this really boils down to now is you moaning and complaining, over and over again.

I mean seriously, you got nothin' better to do with your time?

I came here to talk about the game, not endlessly complain about stuff I can't change or don't know anything about yet.

[fivefingaslap18]

Mersey wrote...

The Bioware forums should create a section for whining and nagging. 50% of the forum is full of it.

It's pretty obvious if we didn't then things wouldn't change. If we gave a negative label to it, the BioWare moderators would possibly give these words a negative label too if there was anything good that came out of these "whiners" mouths.

To some extent I agree, see extremeist Talimancers, but it's a fine line. This is a medium you have direct knoweldge of what the audience wishes and so you try to give them that while trying to not sacrifice the story. I had that problem with the fanbase of Heroes. The 2nd season would've been just fine had there not been a writer's strike. They just decided to destroy everything in the 2nd season because they said, "It ended too soon," or, "It didn't go anywhere," because they were literally given 11 or 12 episodes for what was only half of the season's journey. The deus ex machina at the end where they grab the vial before it drops to the ground and breaks was supposed to be the opposite. The future was supposed to occur and not be averted like in season 1.

Sometimes the fanbase has good influence like with the ability to romance Garrus and Tali and in some cases not like with Heroes's 3rd season. I know people are going to throw verbal slings and arrows at me but quite honestly the voice talent of Garrus and Tali were really good in the 1st game. I fell in love with Tali because her voice actress made her this insecure woman putting on a tough exterior. She had this voice of falling on Shepard's every word and just was too insecure to say anything in the 1st game. That's why it made sense for a romance option in the 2nd. If you don't believe me listen to her speech in the 1st game. Garrus made sense because he never appeared intrested until you did so in the 2nd. I think because of who he was and the time together it was naturally working together what made him so affected by Shepard. A way in which you may love your professor as a mentor and when that mentor extends to you the ability to do him/her you jump at the chance. That's how I see it.

Modifié par fivefingaslap18, 18 avril 2011 - 05:05 .

[fivefingaslap18]

Sorry, double post.

Modifié par fivefingaslap18, 18 avril 2011 - 05:05 .

[Endurium]

Here are mine:

1. Having to explore quite a bit of the game (lacking meta-knowledge) just to finally get the party members I want. (Liara aside, this wasn't much of a problem in ME1 thankfully. It's a pain in the butt in ME2 though.)

2. The recent hype of "your choices in the first game will carry over and affect your second/third/etc. games!" Yet Bioware can't be bothered to fix the handling of imported flags regarding Conrad and Shi'ara (the two I can recall) between ME1 and ME2. I hope these errors don't carry over into ME3, but given Bioware's recent track record, my hope is greatly diminished.

3. With the notable exception of NWN, Bioware tends to release only a few patches and then leave their games with obvious flaws that are never fixed, unless the player community can find a way to fix them. Wish I could be that sloppy in my workplace.

This is based on memory of years going back to 1999 or so; as a disclaimer I must add that my memory is imperfect.