203 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

For my reasons,  just reread Franzius's post,  pretty much sums up my feelings.

As far as quality goes,  it's bad,  really bad.  10 years ago when the gaming press wasn't bought,  it'd have gotten a 5 at best,  it didn't do anything well,  nowhere near as well as it's peers.  As a Shooter it's horrible,  as an RPG it's worse.

The one credit I can give them,  at least the missions are varied with some relatively new takes on it.

As far as "Everyone loves it",  no,  not even close.  These boards were really bad on release,  it's not uncommon to find people saying they weren't impressed.

As far as the Press goes,  I don't know how much more obvious it could be that they aren't honest,  especially after the glowing reviews of DA2.  Sure,  they'll scream it's perfect.  Watch the full ME3 previews,  you'll find a ton of "...and Bioware went to great lengths to address ME2's faults and failings",  despite having spent so much time screaming it was perfect.

That's just what they did with Oblivion,  it was absolutely perfect until Fallout 3,  which was going to fix it's faults that the reviewers didn't mention when they reviewed the game.  Now we have Skyrim and suddenly there's a list of things that were wrong with Oblivion despite them screaming it was perfect.

Now don't get me wrong,  I'm going to be open minded enough to give ME3 consideration and see what the boards say about it.  But ME2?  I paid $60 for an RPG and I got a bad ripoff of Gears of War,  and I'm *still* mad that I got taken,  I expected to buy a sequel to Mass Effect,  not Gears of War.  I haven't felt this disgruntled since I made the mistake of buying Battlecruiser 3000AD on release day (Go google it if you don't know what it is,  or the story behind it,  you'll laugh).

Modifié par Gatt9, 27 avril 2011 - 04:06 .

[Chaos Gate]

JaegerBane wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

- No story whatsoever

Wat.

My thoughts exactly, Mr Phaedon. I've heard some pretty varied criticism for ME2, ranging from the insightful to the silly, but someone actually claiming that there is no story whatsoever pretty much raises the bar for absurdity. It's like the gaming equivalent of being a member of the Flat Earth Society.

I love how certain members of the Mass Effect 2 justice league are unable to respond to criticism except via personal attacks.

The above doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response, but I'll bite anyway.

To reiterate, Mass Effect 2 didn't have a story. And this is why.

A bunch of unrelated character quests is not a story. Why Shep wanted to be an interplanetary therapist when there was a universe to save was completely beyond me. Present this "dirty dozen" formula to any author or playwright worth their salt, and they'll laugh at you. It's the stuff of action movies, when clueless directors don't know how to fill two hours. The Expendables, anyone? "Let's handpick a bunch of mercs! And discuss them for abit! Bum around until we reach the finale! Where we can blow up heaps of stuff! GARRR!!!" However, this grade four form of storytelling just doesn't work. It doesn't achieve anything, and it doesn't get you anywhere. It's comical, pointless filler, symptomatic of just how empty and vapid the Mass Effect 2 experience actually was. The loyalty missions should have been consigned to add-on DLC, because that's all they were. Afterthoughts masquerading as a plot, when in fact there was none.

Not only that, but these character quests could have resembled a plot had they contributed to the main thrust of the game. But did they? Nope. What's more, they took away narrative time which should have been devoted to foreshadowing the Suicide Mission, which had absolutely zero buildup, and only seemed to gain relevance and urgency when Shep had finished his social work. What horrible pacing. The game didn't care at all for the end mission, so much so that when it finally arrived, it seemed a ho-hum tedium to overcome, rather than an epic finale. (The mission itself was also very substandard, but that's another argument).

And so, I stand by my point: Mass Effect 2 had no story whatsoever.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 27 avril 2011 - 11:11 .

[lolwut666]

Chaos Gate wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

- No story whatsoever

Wat.

My thoughts exactly, Mr Phaedon. I've heard some pretty varied criticism for ME2, ranging from the insightful to the silly, but someone actually claiming that there is no story whatsoever pretty much raises the bar for absurdity. It's like the gaming equivalent of being a member of the Flat Earth Society.

I love how certain members of the Mass Effect 2 justice league are unable to respond to criticism except via personal attacks.

The above doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response, but I'll bite anyway.

To reiterate, Mass Effect 2 didn't have a story. And this is why.

A bunch of unrelated character quests is not a story. Why Shep wanted to be an interplanetary therapist when there was a universe to save was completely beyond me. Present this "dirty dozen" formula to any author or playwright worth their salt, and they'll laugh at you. It's the stuff of action movies, when clueless directors don't know how to fill two hours. The Expendables, anyone? "Let's handpick a bunch of mercs! And discuss them for abit! Bum around until we reach the finale! Where we can blow up heaps of stuff! GARRR!!!" However, this grade four form of storytelling just doesn't work. It doesn't achieve anything, and it doesn't get you anywhere. It's comical, pointless filler, symptomatic of just how empty and vapid the Mass Effect 2 experience actually was. The loyalty missions should have been consigned to add-on DLC, because that's all they were. Afterthoughts masquerading as a plot, when in fact there was none.

Not only that, but these character quests could have resembled a plot had they contributed to the main thrust of the game. But did they? Nope. What's more, they took away narrative time which should have been devoted to foreshadowing the Suicide Mission, which had absolutely zero buildup, and only seemed to gain relevance and urgency when Shep had finished his social work. What horrible pacing. The game didn't care at all for the end mission, so much so that when it finally arrived, it seemed a ho-hum tedium to overcome, rather than an epic finale. (The mission itself was also very substandard, but that's another argument).

And so, I stand by my point: Mass Effect 2 had no story whatsoever.

Because Mass Effect's story is continuous from one installment to the other.

Mass Effect 2 was a bridge between 1 and 3.

In ME2, Shepard was building a team and making allies that would help him on ME3.

You think the game has no plot because you're judging it like a standalone.

I'm not even gonna address all the strawmen on your post because I have better things to do, but basically you're saying that the loyalty missions where "pointless", which is ridiculous. The loyalty missions taught us more about the characters and their motivations.

If you think earing someone's loyalty is playing the "psychologyst", then you're not very smart. If anything, the first Mass Effect is unrealistic because the characters were willing to follow Shepard to the gates of hell even though they barely knew him and he didn't do anything for them besides letting them join his party.

If you think real people will just bark when you tell them to, you're very wrong.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you're just trying to pose as some high-brow, like most of the nay-sayers do. No point discussing.

Modifié par lolwut666, 27 avril 2011 - 11:16 .

[tonnactus]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

I just wish I didn't become so blind by hype and my own fanboy attitude towards the once great bioware which lead me to buy the collector's edition. When I could've easily just bought this half-assed game for $20 in less than a year to play through the bare-boned and almost irrelevant story for my Shephard from ME1. I'm glad I didn't make the same mistake with DA2 atleast, even though I couldn't even force myself to play it at bargain-price because of the fact it's a well-known terrible game and it has nothing to do with my grey warden character from DA:O.

Well,dont judge the game only by the terrible demo. Its still more rpg then the first Mass Effect(who was an rpg light by any standards,even as a action rpg,so dont now what has to "streamlined" be there) and have characters who interact with eachother(plenty of partybanter),not dumb puppets.

I expected tDragon Age 2 to be as worse as Mass Effect 2 and was suprised that the opposite was the case.The game is better(by miles) then Mass Effect 2 in nearly every way except the graphics.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 avril 2011 - 12:05 .

[theSteeeeels]

lolwut666 wrote...

Because Mass Effect's story is continuous from one installment to the other.

Mass Effect 2 was a bridge between 1 and 3.

In ME2, Shepard was building a team and making allies that would help him on ME3.

You think the game has no plot because you're judging it like a standalone.

I'm not even gonna address all the strawmen on your post because I have better things to do, but basically you're saying that the loyalty missions where "pointless", which is ridiculous. The loyalty missions taught us more about the characters and their motivations.

If you think earing someone's loyalty is playing the "psychologyst", then you're not very smart. If anything, the first Mass Effect is unrealistic because the characters were willing to follow Shepard to the gates of hell even though they barely knew him and he didn't do anything for them besides letting them join his party.

If you think real people will just bark when you tell them to, you're very wrong.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you're just trying to pose as some high-brow, like most of the nay-sayers do. No point discussing.

regardless of if me1 was realistic with your squadmates or not, i'd rather have them randomly joining me than having to play a whole game to understand their life problems so that i could actually get on with the game

[bjdbwea]

I dislike a lot in ME 2. It's not a proper continuation of ME 1, nor is it a good RPG. But even as a stand-alone game, I wouldn't call it a good game. Especially the main story is quite bad, and the writing in general is, with a few exceptions, mostly mediocre. I could go on and name many other criticisms that make ME 2 together with KotoR 2 the most disappointing video games that I have ever played. Especially of course exactly because the expectations were very high after the amazing and great games that their respective predecessors were. I think that the only improvements in ME 2 over ME 1 were graphics and sound, the interrupt system, and the reduced DRM. Everything else, indeed even including the combat system, was in my opinion better in ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 avril 2011 - 12:46 .

[Obro]

What I don't like about ME2 is :

many characters that have no ....actual place in the main story (like jack/samara/that...fish dude that I don't remember the name) I mean...they have no connection to the story other than "ok bro I will help you"

Little choices that actually do something
****ty conversation wheel conversation
just an example: I got to choose from 3 things ..
1 let's go
2 we have to hurry
3 time is short

I mean REALLY? It's the same f*cking choice!

Much worse writing than in ME1. Honestly did they change writers or something?

MassEffect1 reapers
Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding.We are eternal. The pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything. You could never understand our desires puny human.

MassEffect2 reapers
lol we need your bodies so we can make procreate which is basically the goal of every species

and the last thing...classes...just...feel the same. You need more class diversity. How do I pick locks and hack computers with a soldier ffs?

On the technical point the game is good works much better on my PC than ME1 did so that's the plus.

[caradoc2000]

Does anyone actually dislike ME 2 ?

I hate shooters. Combat was tolerable in ME1, but abysmal in ME2.

[JaegerBane]

Chaos Gate wrote...
I love how certain members of the Mass Effect 2 justice league are unable to respond to criticism except via personal attacks.

And I love how certain haters don't seem to be able to differentiate between dislike and total absence. If they don't like something, it ceases to exist. In a psychology lecture it would probably be a fascinating concept, but on a forum about games it comes across as being blinkered.

To reiterate, Mass Effect 2 didn't have a story. And this is why.

A bunch of unrelated character quests is not a story. Why Shep wanted to be an interplanetary therapist when there was a universe to save was completely beyond me. Present this "dirty dozen" formula to any author or playwright worth their salt, and they'll laugh at you. It's the stuff of action movies, when clueless directors don't know how to fill two hours. The Expendables, anyone? "Let's handpick a bunch of mercs! And discuss them for abit! Bum around until we reach the finale! Where we can blow up heaps of stuff! GARRR!!!" However, this grade four form of storytelling just doesn't work. It doesn't achieve anything, and it doesn't get you anywhere. It's comical, pointless filler, symptomatic of just how empty and vapid the Mass Effect 2 experience actually was. The loyalty missions should have been consigned to add-on DLC, because that's all they were. Afterthoughts masquerading as a plot, when in fact there was none.

Contrary to your initial assertion, the above isn't remotely a reason as to why ME2 doesn't have a story. The above doesn't actually qualify as point, as it's essentially a rambling passage of dislike  which makes multiple baseless assertions, hilariously unjustified comparisons and general gibberish ( i mean, present the 'dirty dozen' formula to any author and they'll laugh? Precisely how did the actual Dirty Dozen story was then made a film, in that case?) 

It's pretty clear you disliked the story. That's fine, if you choose to dislike it, that's up to you. I don't agree with your criteria that you're judging it by but if you want to look like you're *trying* to hate it, that's your business.

However, claiming that there is *no* story whatsoever is a straightforward point. It indicates an absence of a storyline. If such a situation were true then the object of all that spleen-venting of yours above doesn't exist.

There is a storyline in ME2. It's self-evident. Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact that it's there, and I'm afraid such a point is true no matter how huge your ego is.

So I stand by Phaedron's original point: The assertion that there is no storyline whatsoever is a statement of unmitigated nonsense.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 avril 2011 - 01:32 .

[theSteeeeels]

JaegerBane wrote...
Contrary to your initial assertion, the above isn't remotely a reason as to why ME2 doesn't have a story. The above doesn't actually qualify as point, as it's essentially a rambling passage of dislike  which makes multiple baseless assertions, hilariously unjustified comparisons and general gibberish ( i mean, present the 'dirty dozen' formula to any author and they'll laugh? Precisely how did the actual Dirty Dozen story was then made a film, in that case?) 

It's pretty clear you disliked the story. That's fine, if you choose to dislike it, that's up to you. I don't agree with your criteria that you're judging it by but if you want to look like you're *trying* to hate it, that's your business.

However, claiming that there is *no* story whatsoever is a straightforward point. It indicates an absence of a storyline. If such a situation were true then the object of all that spleen-venting of yours above doesn't exist.

There is a storyline in ME2. It's self-evident. Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact that it's there, and I'm afraid such a point is true no matter how huge your ego is.

So I stand by Phaedron's original point: The assertion that there is no storyline whatsoever is a statement of unmitigated nonsense.

if you actually read his post youd realise he didnt literally mean there was no story. he just said that as an emphasise on how bad the story is

funny how you bring up psychology and blabber on for a whole paragraph whilst saying nothing at the same time (which you couldve cut down to about 2 sentences). you come across as a massive dunce

Modifié par theSteeeeels, 27 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[AlbertoAquilani]

Obro wrote...

many characters that have no ....actual place in the main story (like jack/samara/that...fish dude that I don't remember the name) I mean...they have no connection to the story other than "ok bro I will help you"

Your opinion no longer counted as soon as you referred to Thane as 'that fish dude.'

By that logic, no characters had their actual place in the main story. Rubbish. Regardless if I agree with anything else in the rest of your post.

Modifié par AlbertoAquilani, 27 avril 2011 - 02:02 .

[lolwut666]

Well, you just know that when there's a critically acclaimed and comercially successful work like Mass Effect, the pseudo-intellectuals will always come flocking at it, thinking that having an opinion about it that is the complete opposite of the consensus makes them somehow sound superior/different.

You're entitled to your opinion, but why can't you just come at us straight and say "I don't like ME2"? Why'd gotta come up with all those strawmen? No justificative is better than a bad justificative.

Just something to think about.

[AlbertoAquilani]

I'll sum up Franzius' post in one line to save everybody the hassle:

'It was the PS3's fault.'

He actually had some decent criticisms until he came up with rubbish like that.

And he says that 'HUBs are too small' in like 3 different ways.

Modifié par AlbertoAquilani, 27 avril 2011 - 02:07 .

[bjdbwea]

It's certainly not the fault of the PS 3 or its users per se. But what reason could there be to disregard and sideline so much of the story and so many NPCs from the first part of a trilogy? What reason could there be to even reset the main character? In such a drastic way, no less, but without ever mentioning it again later in the game, or even using it to add some depth to the game? From a storytelling perspective, this makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't even make sense if the developers had to work under time constraints, which quite obviously was the case with ME 2, because then especially it would have been wiser to reuse existing assets. The only somewhat logical explanation is that they had to reset everything because of the already planned PS 3 version.

It doesn't really matter to us as the customers why those flaws came to be though, only that they are important flaws of ME 2, and that they add up with its many other flaws.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 27 avril 2011 - 02:40 .

[The7Sins]

Did I hate ME2? Honestly no but t was as close amount of dissappointment I could have had in a game without it crossing from game I dislike to game I hate. ME2 was a game full of retcons and plot holes with a laughably bad plot and a combat system that was worsened from 1 to 2. Honestly the only saving grace this game had was the inventory system change and LotSB. Without that DLC ME2 would be in hated game territiory as it was for a long while. I hope hope hope that ME3 goes back to its roots and is more like ME1 both in comba and story with most of the retcons from 2 removed. That would make this game a fun unique experience again like it was in 2 rather than generic lame shooter mark #445566 ala what ME2 was.

Only reason to play this game was to get my ME1 Shepards ready for ME3. But beacause of how bad 2 was it makes me fear for 3 so I have only made 2 ME2 playthroughs. And if ME3 is like ME2 in the retcons, bad combat, and bad plot categories I shall not buy it. Though I'll be quite pissed for wasting my time on 2. But if 3 is a great game ala ME1 I'll be forced to play ME2 9 more times to get all my Shepards to 3.

Modifié par The7Sins, 27 avril 2011 - 03:45 .

[Ahglock]

lolwut666 wrote...

Because Mass Effect's story is continuous from one installment to the other.

Mass Effect 2 was a bridge between 1 and 3.

In ME2, Shepard was building a team and making allies that would help him on ME3.

You think the game has no plot because you're judging it like a standalone.

I'm not even gonna address all the strawmen on your post because I have better things to do, but basically you're saying that the loyalty missions where "pointless", which is ridiculous. The loyalty missions taught us more about the characters and their motivations.

If you think earing someone's loyalty is playing the "psychologyst", then you're not very smart. If anything, the first Mass Effect is unrealistic because the characters were willing to follow Shepard to the gates of hell even though they barely knew him and he didn't do anything for them besides letting them join his party.

If you think real people will just bark when you tell them to, you're very wrong.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you're just trying to pose as some high-brow, like most of the nay-sayers do. No point discussing.

While I don't want to go on a no story nerdrage, if anything you are even further off form the mark.

A bridge between ME1 and 3, WTF.  Outside adding some action hero style characters to ME3 what the hell changed.  You could totally skip ME2 and jump right to ME3 and you wouldn't miss a beat besides not knowing who Jack is.  It isn't a bridge in the slightest at best it is a detour.  

On top of that if anything the ME1 team had much better reasons to follw you into hell than the ME2 team.  Some were sodliers under orders,(ash/kaiden) but the others had personal reasons for wanting to bring down saren.  Garus the pissed off cop who sees the scumbag getting away, Liara who sees her mother teaming up with a maniac and neds answers+wanting to investigate prothean history more, Tali who found a geth plot which is key to her people's identity etc.  

Jack she is coming along because why, you got her off an exploding prison and promised her computer access?  What the hell is keeping her around once she got access to the computer, she what honors her deals?  Hell the deal wasn't even to come on a sicide mission it was just come with me off this blowing up space station.   A couple mercs are coming on a suicide mission because ah you helped them on a job.  How's nice of you, commit suicide sure, that sounds great I always put the paycheck first up until this point but now I just want to help  my best buddy. Mordin is about the only one who has a remotely valid reason to be there and even that is stretching it.  

Which is I suspect the person's point.  It would have been a better story if you were picking these people because they somehow tied into the main story, not just they are really bad ass.  And now they are going to follow you no matter what into hell for no good reason, but maybe they will give it their all if you do a loyalty quest for them.  

[JaegerBane]

theSteeeeels wrote...
if you actually read his post youd realise he didnt literally mean there was no story. he just said that as an emphasise on how bad the story is

funny how you bring up psychology and blabber on for a whole paragraph whilst saying nothing at the same time (which you couldve cut down to about 2 sentences). you come across as a massive dunce

I did realise that, genius. That was the point of the post.

Run along now, pot. Leave the kettles alone.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 avril 2011 - 04:36 .

[Obro]

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

Obro wrote...

many characters that have no ....actual place in the main story (like jack/samara/that...fish dude that I don't remember the name) I mean...they have no connection to the story other than "ok bro I will help you"

Your opinion no longer counted as soon as you referred to Thane as 'that fish dude.'

By that logic, no characters had their actual place in the main story. Rubbish. Regardless if I agree with anything else in the rest of your post.

sorry bro he was just so relevant to the story I forgot his name. Sorry for offending your husbando fish

As for the "By that logic, no characters had their actual place in the main story."....what the hell are you talking about? I didn't say all of them are irelevant. Mordin was relevant because he had to make the antidote for the paralysis.

[ScepticMatt]

bjdbwea: I agree, the way Shepard was 'resurrected' with no mention later on was really staggering for me.

[theSteeeeels]

JaegerBane wrote...

theSteeeeels wrote...
if you actually read his post youd realise he didnt literally mean there was no story. he just said that as an emphasise on how bad the story is

funny how you bring up psychology and blabber on for a whole paragraph whilst saying nothing at the same time (which you couldve cut down to about 2 sentences). you come across as a massive dunce

I did realise that, genius. That was the point of the post.

Run along now, pot. Leave the kettles alone.

lmao!!!!

However, claiming that there is *no* story whatsoever is a
straightforward point. It indicates an absence of a storyline. If such a
situation were true then the object of all that spleen-venting of yours
above doesn't exist.

There is a storyline in ME2. It's
self-evident. Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact that
it's there, and I'm afraid such a point is true no matter how huge your
ego is.

So I stand by Phaedron's original point: The assertion
that there is no storyline whatsoever is a statement of unmitigated
nonsense.

how the hell was that the point of ur post!

are u kidding me? ur not fooling anyone. DUNCE

Modifié par theSteeeeels, 27 avril 2011 - 04:46 .

[lolwut666]

Ahglock wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

Because Mass Effect's story is continuous from one installment to the other.

Mass Effect 2 was a bridge between 1 and 3.

In ME2, Shepard was building a team and making allies that would help him on ME3.

You think the game has no plot because you're judging it like a standalone.

I'm not even gonna address all the strawmen on your post because I have better things to do, but basically you're saying that the loyalty missions where "pointless", which is ridiculous. The loyalty missions taught us more about the characters and their motivations.

If you think earing someone's loyalty is playing the "psychologyst", then you're not very smart. If anything, the first Mass Effect is unrealistic because the characters were willing to follow Shepard to the gates of hell even though they barely knew him and he didn't do anything for them besides letting them join his party.

If you think real people will just bark when you tell them to, you're very wrong.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you're just trying to pose as some high-brow, like most of the nay-sayers do. No point discussing.

While I don't want to go on a no story nerdrage, if anything you are even further off form the mark.

A bridge between ME1 and 3, WTF.  Outside adding some action hero style characters to ME3 what the hell changed.  You could totally skip ME2 and jump right to ME3 and you wouldn't miss a beat besides not knowing who Jack is.  It isn't a bridge in the slightest at best it is a detour.  

On top of that if anything the ME1 team had much better reasons to follw you into hell than the ME2 team.  Some were sodliers under orders,(ash/kaiden) but the others had personal reasons for wanting to bring down saren.  Garus the pissed off cop who sees the scumbag getting away, Liara who sees her mother teaming up with a maniac and neds answers+wanting to investigate prothean history more, Tali who found a geth plot which is key to her people's identity etc.  

Jack she is coming along because why, you got her off an exploding prison and promised her computer access?  What the hell is keeping her around once she got access to the computer, she what honors her deals?  Hell the deal wasn't even to come on a sicide mission it was just come with me off this blowing up space station.   A couple mercs are coming on a suicide mission because ah you helped them on a job.  How's nice of you, commit suicide sure, that sounds great I always put the paycheck first up until this point but now I just want to help  my best buddy. Mordin is about the only one who has a remotely valid reason to be there and even that is stretching it.  

Which is I suspect the person's point.  It would have been a better story if you were picking these people because they somehow tied into the main story, not just they are really bad ass.  And now they are going to follow you no matter what into hell for no good reason, but maybe they will give it their all if you do a loyalty quest for them.  

"BLAH BLAH BLAH I HATE JACK BLAH BLAH BLAH STRAWMAN STRAWMAN"

Whatever, dude. That's your opinion and I'll respect it, as long as you respect mine.

I'm done arguing about this subject.

Arguing is pointless, anyway. Once a person has made up her mind about something, that's the end of that. Even if she's proven wrong eventually, she'll stand to her opinion out of ego.

[theSteeeeels]

lolwut666 wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

Because Mass Effect's story is continuous from one installment to the other.

Mass Effect 2 was a bridge between 1 and 3.

In ME2, Shepard was building a team and making allies that would help him on ME3.

You think the game has no plot because you're judging it like a standalone.

I'm not even gonna address all the strawmen on your post because I have better things to do, but basically you're saying that the loyalty missions where "pointless", which is ridiculous. The loyalty missions taught us more about the characters and their motivations.

If you think earing someone's loyalty is playing the "psychologyst", then you're not very smart. If anything, the first Mass Effect is unrealistic because the characters were willing to follow Shepard to the gates of hell even though they barely knew him and he didn't do anything for them besides letting them join his party.

If you think real people will just bark when you tell them to, you're very wrong.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you're just trying to pose as some high-brow, like most of the nay-sayers do. No point discussing.

While I don't want to go on a no story nerdrage, if anything you are even further off form the mark.

A bridge between ME1 and 3, WTF.  Outside adding some action hero style characters to ME3 what the hell changed.  You could totally skip ME2 and jump right to ME3 and you wouldn't miss a beat besides not knowing who Jack is.  It isn't a bridge in the slightest at best it is a detour.  

On top of that if anything the ME1 team had much better reasons to follw you into hell than the ME2 team.  Some were sodliers under orders,(ash/kaiden) but the others had personal reasons for wanting to bring down saren.  Garus the pissed off cop who sees the scumbag getting away, Liara who sees her mother teaming up with a maniac and neds answers+wanting to investigate prothean history more, Tali who found a geth plot which is key to her people's identity etc.  

Jack she is coming along because why, you got her off an exploding prison and promised her computer access?  What the hell is keeping her around once she got access to the computer, she what honors her deals?  Hell the deal wasn't even to come on a sicide mission it was just come with me off this blowing up space station.   A couple mercs are coming on a suicide mission because ah you helped them on a job.  How's nice of you, commit suicide sure, that sounds great I always put the paycheck first up until this point but now I just want to help  my best buddy. Mordin is about the only one who has a remotely valid reason to be there and even that is stretching it.  

Which is I suspect the person's point.  It would have been a better story if you were picking these people because they somehow tied into the main story, not just they are really bad ass.  And now they are going to follow you no matter what into hell for no good reason, but maybe they will give it their all if you do a loyalty quest for them.  

"BLAH BLAH BLAH I HATE JACK BLAH BLAH BLAH STRAWMAN STRAWMAN"

Whatever, dude. That's your opinion and I'll respect it, as long as you respect mine.

I'm done arguing about this subject.

Arguing is pointless, anyway. Once a person has made up her mind about something, that's the end of that. Even if she's proven wrong eventually, she'll stand to her opinion out of ego.

argueing is pointless (apart from exerting agression or whatever)

but debating is not!

the dudes made many valid points and you respond with "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH"

really ?? REALLY ??

Modifié par theSteeeeels, 27 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[JaegerBane]

Ahglock wrote...
Jack she is coming along because why, you got her off an exploding prison and promised her computer access?  What the hell is keeping her around once she got access to the computer, she what honors her deals?  Hell the deal wasn't even to come on a sicide mission it was just come with me off this blowing up space station.   A couple mercs are coming on a suicide mission because ah you helped them on a job.  How's nice of you, commit suicide sure, that sounds great I always put the paycheck first up until this point but now I just want to help  my best buddy. Mordin is about the only one who has a remotely valid reason to be there and even that is stretching it.  

It's true about Jack, and Kasumi as well - their reasons aren't really well explored or obvious. The rest of them have pretty good reasons for doing the mission, though.

- Samara is bound by her code. No further motivation for her is necessary. She has pledged to assist Shepard and that is all there is to it for her.
- Zaeed is shown to be psychologically unstable, near suicidal and driven primarily by seeking a challenge.
- Grunt is obsessed with pitting himself against impossible odds for personal reasons.
- Tali and Garrus are not only close friends with Shepard, and personally aware of the Reaper threat, but have become disillusioned with their prior path
- Miranda and Jacob are under orders from an organisation they're commited to (at least initially)
- Thane and Mordin are taking part in the mission out of a sense of penance for what they see as past crimes
- Legion literally has no fear and is ideologically in favour of the reasonings behind the mission

The rest have got very good reasons for being on the mission.

[JaegerBane]

theSteeeeels wrote...
are u kidding me? ur not fooling anyone. DUNCE

Oh sweet lordy.....

The point was that his post was so full of hyperbole that the best way of responding was to do it tongue-in-cheek.

Good lord. Is that clear enough? Do I need to use smaller words? Do I need to explain line by line what the point was? Do I have to explain sarcasm to you? Do I have to explain hypocrisy to you? Do I need to explain how idiotic it makes someone look to keep shouting 'DUNCE!' like it's supposed to mean something?

It seems I have fooled at least one person on here, genius. Though I did it unintentionally, as I didn't think anyone was honestly dim enough to miss the point...

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 avril 2011 - 05:02 .

[tommythetomcat]

There is one aspect that needs to be moved to a Journal entry only or removed altogether... the Mission Complete screen.

I understand they were trying something different and it makes sense in the context that you are working for Cerberus and TIM has something to say about how the missions turn out. I just hope it is laid down to rest in ME2 and doesn't make a comeback in ME3.