87 réponses à ce sujet

[CajNatalie]

Malisin wrote...

Am I the only one that think letting the hostages die should be the paragon choice?

First of all, Balak is a known sociopath terrorist. If you find all the bodies, you learn that he murdered them for no reason and he's about to murder 4 million people for... what? To prove a point?

Second of all, you're asked to trust a sociopath terrorist. Umm... no. There is literally no reason why he wouldn't just leave and then blow up the facility with you and the hostages in it. This is a person who you know has shot people in the back of the head for no reason. And then you're going to trust him not to kill you and the hostages as soon as he's safe?

Thirdly, he obviously has the means, the motive and the intent to do this again. And there is no guarantee that you'll be there to stop him next time. So by letting him go, you may as well sign the death warrants of several million people, because you're effectively pulling the trigger.

But choosing to sacrifice the hostages is the noble thing to do. It's a horrific decision, and one that a good person will be haunted by for the remainder of their years. Choosing to take that burden for the good of the galaxy and eliminating the threat of Balak then and there, is by far the greater moral decision. Letting him go is weak-willed and also against the laws of the Citadel (no negotiation with terrorists), so should be the renegade option.

'Weak willed' is the problem.
Renegades are the exact opposite of weak-willed... they do ANYTHING at ANY COST. Strongest will around.

The ultimate Paragon will always find a way to save the most lives possible... sometimes that quality is undesirable in certain situations, such as the Balak one, just like sometimes the Renegade way is undesirable, such as the execution of Shaira.

Anyway, I think there was a hint that the choices weren't considered totally paragon/renegade but both grey in their own ways because the choices are put on the left and right middle points of the wheel, not the top and bottom of the right side of the wheel.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 09 mai 2011 - 02:53 .

[CROAT_56]

I find ps to be a good xp boost since each win in 1670 points that's 21710xp not bad

Ot I loved bdts good hard decision at the end would have been an awesomeplace for a paragon interrupt maybe where you shoot balak

[jmood88]

I thought this was a cool topic until it devolved into the typical "everything in Mass Effect was better than Mass Effect 2" nonsense. I loved the first game but saying that all of the side quests were worthwhile is a lie. You're a military officer and a Spectre, why would you be helping someone find out what happened to their sister or go off and help a criminal when you have other things to do? Not only were the N7 missions more varied and fun to play, there were real reasons in the story for why you were doing them and some of them had their own mini story arcs that were interesting to follow. The Mass Effect side missions were boring and repetitive and weren't even close to being as good as the side missions in Mass Effect 2.

[Frostmourne86]

jmood88 wrote...

I thought this was a cool topic until it devolved into the typical "everything in Mass Effect was better than Mass Effect 2" nonsense. I loved the first game but saying that all of the side quests were worthwhile is a lie. You're a military officer and a Spectre, why would you be helping someone find out what happened to their sister or go off and help a criminal when you have other things to do? Not only were the N7 missions more varied and fun to play, there were real reasons in the story for why you were doing them and some of them had their own mini story arcs that were interesting to follow. The Mass Effect side missions were boring and repetitive and weren't even close to being as good as the side missions in Mass Effect 2.

I second this - and for the people talking about the whining when dealing with LM in ME 2, what does tracking down Dr. Saleon (Garrus' personal mission) and retrieving Wrexs' armor have to do with the main plot? 

[Ahglock]

Malisin wrote...

Am I the only one that think letting the hostages die should be the paragon choice?

First of all, Balak is a known sociopath terrorist. If you find all the bodies, you learn that he murdered them for no reason and he's about to murder 4 million people for... what? To prove a point?

Second of all, you're asked to trust a sociopath terrorist. Umm... no. There is literally no reason why he wouldn't just leave and then blow up the facility with you and the hostages in it. This is a person who you know has shot people in the back of the head for no reason. And then you're going to trust him not to kill you and the hostages as soon as he's safe?

Thirdly, he obviously has the means, the motive and the intent to do this again. And there is no guarantee that you'll be there to stop him next time. So by letting him go, you may as well sign the death warrants of several million people, because you're effectively pulling the trigger.

But choosing to sacrifice the hostages is the noble thing to do. It's a horrific decision, and one that a good person will be haunted by for the remainder of their years. Choosing to take that burden for the good of the galaxy and eliminating the threat of Balak then and there, is by far the greater moral decision. Letting him go is weak-willed and also against the laws of the Citadel (no negotiation with terrorists), so should be the renegade option.

No, that is a fairly classic paragon would let him go situation.  A paragon does not sacrifice innocent people on the threat of a possible future event.  Renegades take the practical approach.  It is a noble sacrifice when you are sacrificing your self, it isn't really noble when you sacrifice some innocent people to accomplish your goal.  

[Ahglock]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

True.

I was HEAVILY disappointed in N7 missions, especially when they popped out stuff like Lair of the Shadow Broker and Overlord.

Lair> Overlord> ME2 Sidequests>>>>>>>>>> ME1 sidequests

Some of the ME1 side mission campaigns if remade could rival or surpass LOTSB or Overlord like the Geth Armstrong cluster missions or Hades' dogs.

Eh, the stories were more interesting than the majority of the ME2 sidequests, but the gameplay in 2 was so much better, and each one was pretty varied, unlike 1 where they had the carbon-copy bunkers and Mako driving. 

While the environements may have sucked more since they were carbon copies the stories being better, kind of makes them better missions on their own IMO.  Also yes the game play was better in ME2 that the 3rd person shooter mechanics were refined, but I don't think the environments were that much better in ME2.  Sure they did less copy and paste, but virtually every N7 level was pretty much corridor + cover with maybe a small room with a couple attack points.  That is almost just as bad, it is like a copy and paste with a new skin thrown on top.   Shiny graphics do not make a good mission.  

[jmood88]

If you really think that the environments were the same in the N7 missions, then you clearly weren't paying attention.

[Darkhour]

Frostmourne86 wrote...

jmood88 wrote...

I thought this was a cool topic until it devolved into the typical "everything in Mass Effect was better than Mass Effect 2" nonsense. I loved the first game but saying that all of the side quests were worthwhile is a lie. You're a military officer and a Spectre, why would you be helping someone find out what happened to their sister or go off and help a criminal when you have other things to do? Not only were the N7 missions more varied and fun to play, there were real reasons in the story for why you were doing them and some of them had their own mini story arcs that were interesting to follow. The Mass Effect side missions were boring and repetitive and weren't even close to being as good as the side missions in Mass Effect 2.

I second this - and for the people talking about the whining when dealing with LM in ME 2, what does tracking down Dr. Saleon (Garrus' personal mission) and retrieving Wrexs' armor have to do with the main plot? 

Garrus has Saleon, Zaeed has Vigo. Funny, as Zaeed was originally to fill Garrus's role, but they decided to include him as a party member as fan service and Zaeed became DLC. Seems Garrus's loyalty always revolves around killing someone.
Doing Wrex's loyalty mission helps him survive the mission just like ME2 

Liara's was the first recruitment mission.

What's another comparison?

[Ahglock]

jmood88 wrote...

If you really think that the environments were the same in the N7 missions, then you clearly weren't paying attention.

Were they the same, no.  But a cave corridor, vs a outdoor corridor with fog, vs a indoor corridor all have one thing in common.  It is a fraking coridor with cover.  The occasional bull branch where you are within spitting distance of the other branch and they come together 20 steps in doesn't really do much to break up the corridor.  If shiny graphics hide that from you, you were not paying much attention.  

[jmood88]

Having them in different environments goes a long way towards making it feel a lot more varied than having it in the exact same buildings over and over again. The environments for the N7 missions were actually nice to look at, something that could never be said for the side missions in Mass Effect.

[casedawgz]

Malisin wrote...

g-w-m wrote...

Is Pinacle Station worth buying? I've just bought BDtS for 80 points but Pinacle Station is still worth 400. Worth it?

Absolutely and most emphatically, no. Pinnacle Station is the epitome of lazy and **** design. Worse, it's not fun. If I wanted a mindless FPS with no point to it, I'd play one. Oh wait, that's right, I did play one: Pinnacle Station.

No you didn't. I hate people who call everything FPS even when it's blatently third person. FP suggests a first person view. That's all. If you want to call it a mindless TPS, that's fine. But an FPS is something entirely different, and something that no segments of any Mass Effect games have mirrored, because they're not played in the first person.

[jmood88]

A lot of people on here have no idea what they're talking about.

[CajNatalie]

So how about this for ME3...
Take the varied environments of ME2's N7s, and the varied style of missions themselves of ME1's UNCs... and combine them?

They both fail in some way and both win in some other way. That's how it is, and that's what can be said for a lot of differences between the games.
How about we just see what happens when ME3 comes out.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 09 mai 2011 - 05:43 .

[Alpha-Centuri]

casedawgz wrote...

Malisin wrote...

g-w-m wrote...

Is Pinacle Station worth buying? I've just bought BDtS for 80 points but Pinacle Station is still worth 400. Worth it?

Absolutely and most emphatically, no. Pinnacle Station is the epitome of lazy and **** design. Worse, it's not fun. If I wanted a mindless FPS with no point to it, I'd play one. Oh wait, that's right, I did play one: Pinnacle Station.

No you didn't. I hate people who call everything FPS even when it's blatently third person. FP suggests a first person view. That's all. If you want to call it a mindless TPS, that's fine. But an FPS is something entirely different, and something that no segments of any Mass Effect games have mirrored, because they're not played in the first person.

Its a derogatory term generally used by RPG fanatics that is supposed to embody their ire at a game that doesn't meet their standards.

G-w-m, when you say something like that, I realize you are using it as an exclamation to an insult, but it really only discredits your ability to have a remotely objective and rational perspective. No part of ME is a FPS.

I'm not saying that to bash you. For all I know, it was an accident. But it's a trend that people continue to follow, and it makes people roll their eyes.

I agree with you though for the lack of value.

Modifié par Alpha-Centuri, 09 mai 2011 - 05:48 .

[jmood88]

I don't want to see a mixture of those two because I don't feel that Mass Effect 1's side missions had anything that was better than the missions in Mass Effect 2.

[Ahglock]

jmood88 wrote...

Having them in different environments goes a long way towards making it feel a lot more varied than having it in the exact same buildings over and over again. The environments for the N7 missions were actually nice to look at, something that could never be said for the side missions in Mass Effect.

Until you got into a prefab building you were on a decent sized map to explore which vastly out varied the different envinronemnts of ME2 IMO.  Sure the graphics were not as good, but meh so what.  They still overall were better to look at since they thematically pulled off alien world much better.  In virutally every way that I think is important the ME1 missions were better than the ME2 missions, both had thier crappy ones, both had good ones, but the overall level of quality in what I value was higher in the ME1 missions.  The combat engine was better in ME2, but I don't consider that in any way related to the side missions, that was the overall system.  

[didymos1120]

Ahglock wrote...

Until you got into a prefab building you were on a decent sized map to explore which vastly out varied the different envinronemnts of ME2 IMO.  Sure the graphics were not as good, but meh so what.

Um, what?  You had the exact same thing on every UNC planet: a bunch of jaggy hills and some flat parts with textures slapped on.  There was no environment to speak of.  If we were lucky, we got some snow falling or a few bugs wandering around on part of the map.  The skyboxes and lighting were the only things worth noting, and only on some worlds.

Modifié par didymos1120, 09 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[SalsaDMA]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

 The end battle is among the best in all of Mass Effect 1. It was strategic, open and fun.

To avoid confusion, when I say "end-battle" I actually mean the battle BEFORE you talk to Balak, when you enter his facility. 

You mean the fight where the best option is just to bunker down in the tunnel leading into the open room and wait for them to come to you one at a time, allowing you to use massed fire on them as they stumble into your 'killzone' ?

Yes, it sure was 'strategic, open and fun'... <_<

Truth be told, I think they had to soft-chain one of the batarians inside the room on the oppsite room to ensure that you didn't kill them without moving towards the stairway, cause they knew the limitation of their engine.

The fight against Balaks cronies afterwards while you were trying to disarm bombs at least was a bit more interesting. Balak himself (when choosing that option) wasn't particular noteworthy either, though.

[jmood88]

Ahglock wrote...

jmood88 wrote...

Having them in different environments goes a long way towards making it feel a lot more varied than having it in the exact same buildings over and over again. The environments for the N7 missions were actually nice to look at, something that could never be said for the side missions in Mass Effect.

Until you got into a prefab building you were on a decent sized map to explore which vastly out varied the different envinronemnts of ME2 IMO.  Sure the graphics were not as good, but meh so what.  They still overall were better to look at since they thematically pulled off alien world much better.  In virutally every way that I think is important the ME1 missions were better than the ME2 missions, both had thier crappy ones, both had good ones, but the overall level of quality in what I value was higher in the ME1 missions.  The combat engine was better in ME2, but I don't consider that in any way related to the side missions, that was the overall system.  

There were a few nice looking worlds but for the most part you did the exact same thing on every one. There was nothing different to explore since at most you find some Matriarch artifact or a salarian dog tag. Yeah you could drive around the planet but there was no point to doing it.

[Ahglock]

SalsaDMA wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

 The end battle is among the best in all of Mass Effect 1. It was strategic, open and fun.

To avoid confusion, when I say "end-battle" I actually mean the battle BEFORE you talk to Balak, when you enter his facility. 

You mean the fight where the best option is just to bunker down in the tunnel leading into the open room and wait for them to come to you one at a time, allowing you to use massed fire on them as they stumble into your 'killzone' ?

Yes, it sure was 'strategic, open and fun'... <_<

Truth be told, I think they had to soft-chain one of the batarians inside the room on the oppsite room to ensure that you didn't kill them without moving towards the stairway, cause they knew the limitation of their engine.

The fight against Balaks cronies afterwards while you were trying to disarm bombs at least was a bit more interesting. Balak himself (when choosing that option) wasn't particular noteworthy either, though.

So you know how to exploit a game engine, and you complain that when you exploit it, the combat isn't fun?  Every shooter has exploits in the game engine, if you use them and get bored I think you are more to blame in most cases.  While not really a shooter Oblivion had a few to many exploits that were normal tactics, so you ended up exploiting things by doing something fairly normal like get to higher ground.  Now that is a issue, something like what you describe here is more on the player.  Hell almost every fight in ME1 and 2 is exploitable in this fashion, just hunker down at the first cover and eventually you will kill them all.  There are few and far between cover busters after all, and I think only one fight has actual infinite respawns in ME2.  

[Ahglock]

jmood88 wrote...


There were a few nice looking worlds but for the most part you did the exact same thing on every one. There was nothing different to explore since at most you find some Matriarch artifact or a salarian dog tag. Yeah you could drive around the planet but there was no point to doing it.

Different tastes for different people.  I liked the feel of epxloration, and found very little point to the N7 missions.  A decent number of the ME1 missions seemed to tie ito the story more.  Maybe once ME3 comes out the N7 missions will look better because they will tie into that at least.  But it always seemd hey go here kill random blue suns guys, leave and get 156 XP.  It might be important on a small scale like shutting down the mech factory so no more rogue vi mechs are produced, but that seemed to have no tie into the story.  

If they had done something where it was the collectors trying to implant a virus into the facility so they would have sleeper agents on various collonies, it would have been cool to me.  As is, just an excuse to shoot mechs.  

[CajNatalie]

Difference between UNCs and N7s: Admiral Hackett

Enough said.

[SalsaDMA]

Ahglock wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

 The end battle is among the best in all of Mass Effect 1. It was strategic, open and fun.

To avoid confusion, when I say "end-battle" I actually mean the battle BEFORE you talk to Balak, when you enter his facility. 

You mean the fight where the best option is just to bunker down in the tunnel leading into the open room and wait for them to come to you one at a time, allowing you to use massed fire on them as they stumble into your 'killzone' ?

Yes, it sure was 'strategic, open and fun'... <_<

Truth be told, I think they had to soft-chain one of the batarians inside the room on the oppsite room to ensure that you didn't kill them without moving towards the stairway, cause they knew the limitation of their engine.

The fight against Balaks cronies afterwards while you were trying to disarm bombs at least was a bit more interesting. Balak himself (when choosing that option) wasn't particular noteworthy either, though.

So you know how to exploit a game engine, and you complain that when you exploit it, the combat isn't fun?  Every shooter has exploits in the game engine, if you use them and get bored I think you are more to blame in most cases.  While not really a shooter Oblivion had a few to many exploits that were normal tactics, so you ended up exploiting things by doing something fairly normal like get to higher ground.  Now that is a issue, something like what you describe here is more on the player.  Hell almost every fight in ME1 and 2 is exploitable in this fashion, just hunker down at the first cover and eventually you will kill them all.  There are few and far between cover busters after all, and I think only one fight has actual infinite respawns in ME2.  

Exploit?

What the hay?

So because the AI is dumb I'm exploiting it by adapting to the tactics of my enemies?

That's like claiming that you are exploiting the game if you use weapon mods that cool off your weapons so you never have to worry about heat...

Get a grip. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

[Chromie]

CajNatalie wrote...

Difference between UNCs and N7s: Admiral Hackett

Enough said.

Not really.

[ReinaHW]

It could be interesting if your choice in BDTS reflects in ME3, like if you had killed Balak having to deal with a sudden Baterian attack due to a group who see him as a symbol, and if you let him live, then having another encounter with him again, and another excellent moral choice to make.

That would be a nice way to tie off a loose end.