194 réponses à ce sujet

[danteliveson]

What a stupid thing to be celebrating.

[Anihilus]

So, if it doesn;t have a inventory, and if it isn't based on a dice roll it's not a RPG?

[Walker White]

Anihilus wrote...

So, if it doesn;t have a inventory, and if it isn't based on a dice roll it's not a RPG?

I was thinking about the BioWare forum when I played this game yesterday: Help the Hero!  By the criteria of this forum, it must be the greatest RPG ever.

[AlanC9]

 Wow. That's even better than Progress Quest!

[SSV Enterprise]

Gatt9 wrote...


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt,  because you seem like an intelligent guy and I suspect we may be able to come to some sort of mutual respect position as Alan and I have.  So I'll iterate exactly why I maintain the gaming press is worthless and the awards equally so.

-Several years ago,  a Gamespot reviewer gave an advertiser's game a poor review.  Gamespot demanded he "Rereview" it at the company's request.  He refused,  and Gamespot fired him.  Essentially,  the advertiser demanded a better number,  and Gamespot fired the guy who refused to "Play ball".

-I can't find the link right now,  and I'm running out of time,  but one game journalist wrote an article a few years back about how Previews came with a set of rules that include "Don't say anything negative",  and other restrictions that essentially amount to "Say it's the greatest thing ever".

-Ignore the thread title and just read the translated article in the first post here...

http://social.biowar...index/7145086/1

So basically Review Embargoes are use to hold the Press hostage because they need the traffic to make money,  but can't get the traffic unless their review is "Sufficiently positive".

-Then there's the evidence that some EA employees failed to disclose their bias and posted 10/10 reviews for DA2 as regular users on Metacritic.  Which is actually quite similiar to what Sony received heavy fines for a few years back.

-Here are some links to the statistical analysis

http://www.joystiq.c...ation-revealed/

http://www.gamecriti...read.php?t=7767

And a good article on how the gaming press works.

http://www.insertcre...lism/index.html

So yes,  I maintain that the industries second biggest company with one of the largest advertising budgets is likely to obtain reviews and awards due to it's advertising expenses and not on the basis of the quality of it's games.

Or in short,  EA spends alot of advertising dollars,  people want it,  so they give EA glowing reviews for just about anything and GOTY awards just to sell the banner ads and keep getting preview/reviews.

It's pretty obvious at this point,  Game Sites need advertisers to pay them,  and traffic to generate the advertisers interest in their sites.  The Advertisers hold all of the power,  the game sites have no leverage,  there's nothing they can hold over the advertisers.  The users give no income,  without the advertisers,  the game sites can't pay the bills.  So the all the cards are in the hands of the advertisers.

Well here's the thing.  Dante's Inferno was published by EA shortly after Mass Effect 2.  EA was clearly willing to spend money in promoting it -- while Mass Effect 2 got a commercial during the NFC championship, Dante's Inferno got a commercial during the Superbowl.  However, Dante's Inferno got reviews firmly in the mid-70s range, and it  didn't show up on anyone's GOTY awards or nominations.

Now, if EA was coercing reviewers into giving Mass Effect 2 dishonestly good scores and awards, why didn't they do the same with Dante's Inferno?

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 22 mai 2011 - 06:21 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Well SSV, they're OBVIOUSLY not going to coerce EVERY reviewer for EVERY game Only the good ones obviously like ME2 get that distinction.

I know doesn't make much sense right? In the end, stating that EA paid for ME2 to get the praise and awards it has been is a flawed argument as there is no tangible proof or evidence to support it.

[Babli]

But it is not the best game they ever released. Its just back then, game reviewers didnt gave 10/10. That was reserved for Holy Grail of gaming. But now we can see 10s every month.

Big success of ME 2 will forever remain a mystery to me.

[Murmillos]

Walker White wrote...

Anihilus wrote...

So, if it doesn;t have a inventory, and if it isn't based on a dice roll it's not a RPG?

I was thinking about the BioWare forum when I played this game yesterday: Help the Hero!  By the criteria of this forum, it must be the greatest RPG ever.

Oh your continuous "what is an RPG?" trolling only gets more boring and duller each time you post.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well there's really not much of a mystery there Babli, is a superbly put together game . Has great production values, replayability and the series as a whole is remarkable.

I, for one, am glad bioware is becoming more of an industry giant than it was. I just hope they keep the trend going with great games in the vein of Mass Effect.

But being the BEST game they ever released is subjective. Some people enjoy other games more, there's no changing personal tastes.

[PD ORTA]

I find that reviews more often than not are the truthful feelings of that particular reviewer. I've never played a game that got a good score or had good things said about it by the gaming media, that turned out to be a bad game.
Although part of that is I have only a few mags or websites that i'll trust for my reviews(Gamespot has never been one of those).

[Cainne Chapel]

Indeed, back in the day when i actually gave a hoot about reviews. There were certain reviewers in particular whose reviews i trusted more than others and also some whom i only trusted in a particular genre (as with ANYTHING, reviewers can be biased as well).
But now i dont really pay attention to reviews, i know what i like after 25 years of gaming so I usually just dive in head first, if id ont like it, i just return it

[PD ORTA]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Indeed, back in the day when i actually gave a hoot about reviews. There were certain reviewers in particular whose reviews i trusted more than others and also some whom i only trusted in a particular genre (as with ANYTHING, reviewers can be biased as well).
But now i dont really pay attention to reviews, i know what i like after 25 years of gaming so I usually just dive in head first, if id ont like it, i just return it

Very true. For me if I see Reviewers handing out  9's and 10's like candy it sets alarm bells ringing.  

As an old school gamer myself I generally use reviews to see if the game has any major playability issues. But I've also found small games that had no hype surrounding them that I had no intension of buying, thanks to a good review.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

@Phaedon (The post is just too big to quote at this point and remain readable)

-Statistical progression is meant to be an abstract method of showing your character's improvement in his skills.  Choices have no effect on this.[/quote]
Character growth= Character development through choice + Player learning curve + Statistical progression

[quote]-Refer to my response to Alan on why Use-based fails.[/quote]
I certainly hope that you are accidentally and not deliberately ignoring/ not understand this.

"User-based" Morrowing-Oblivion like concept applies to stats.
The learning curve applies to all games with a shooter component.

User-based learning curve does not fail, replacing the direct control that shooters offer you with statistical progression does.

[quote]-The original D&D rules had very little detail regarding actual roleplaying.  I own them all.  It wasn't until 2nd edition that the idea of rewarding xps for Roleplaying the Character gained any real recognition.[/quote]
...exactly?

I said that the original ruleset allowed for more creativity.

[quote]-I'm glad we've established that LARP != RPG,  LARP is self insertion,  RPG is stat based Character Representation.  Which precludes ME2.[/quote]
You are thinking of stereotypical JRPGs with no choices or character creation.

[quote]in Roleplaying your ability to hit the dragon is determined by if you can punch your DM in the nose.  In an RPG,  it's determined by your character's ability to hit the Dragon.[/quote]
I haven't LARPed, but this is BS anyway.

You know, the only different between LARP and CRPG is "LA" and "CG".
The only reason that stats are so popular is because the older technolodgy didn't allow for anything more than a simulation.

You said it yourself, XPs were introduced later.
And you know why character attributes were introduced?

Because without them, everyone can supposedly do anything. NOT, in computer games. While I understand the need for them when the combat is purely a simulation (that needs to be more complex to be realistic), you don't need them in the shooter component.

-If your point that I proved was that you have no idea why Stats exist in RPGs,  then you're welcome.

[quote]-RPGs aren't board games.  None of them shipped with a board,  or any game pieces other than dice.  None of them required a minatures.  Although I've gotta give you credit for attempting to define the table as a board game,  would be easier if you'd just admit that you thought RPGs were board games,  because this is really stretching believability now.[/quote]
Umm...I have also played pen & paper RPGs.

And those definitely translate as board games, at least in my languange. You know, for one who thinks that stats make up for a deep RPG experience, your elitist comments are quite impressive.

[quote]-Do I really have to sit here and type out a 5 paragraph essay describing how one shooter is similiar to another?  Seriously?  Let's see...

In ME2 you use the left stick to take aim at an enemy in real time,  while trying to prevent the enemy from shooting you by "Ducking behind objects",  while using the right trigger in order to generate a "Gun shot"...[/quote]
Okay, so we have:
- Aiming, that 100% of modern shooters use
- Use of cover, that 100% of shooters use
- Semi-dynamic cover, which several TPSs use today.
-Shooting that... what.

You are obviously trying to degrade ME2 on purpose here, and you fail by using arguments that turn against you.

[quote]Honestly,  if you think there's any difference between the two games in terms of gameplay you're hellbent on trying to imagine ME2 as something other than what it is. [/quote]
Congratulations, Gatt9, you have discovered that ME2 is a TPS, I praise your powers of perception, now come up with a real argument.

[quote]-Once again,  we get to the "Phaedon doesn't like it so ban them!".  The topic was the awards ME2 won,  I iterated that there were more worthy canididates,  and why.  You don't like the fact that I maligned ME2,  and derailed the thread,  rather than trying to present any kind of counterarguement about why ME2 is worthy.  While handwaving away the criticism.  [/quote]
Well, let's take a look at your first comment:
[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
I'm sorry, I've gotta point out that a bunch of sites gave DA2 10/10 too. If that isn't a huge red flag that the ratings for EA games starts at 7, and gets 3 extra points if the game boots, I don't know what is.

Then there's the huge mess with Oblivion and Fallout 3. A ton of sites called Oblivion flawless, then the Fallout 3 previews applauded how it would fix the flaws that they originally claimed didn't exist in Oblivion.

Nevermind the sites that are starting to talk about "Review embargos" and how some companies will prevent them from posting reviews until after Day 1 unless the reviewer says they're giving a sufficiently positive review.

The whole thing is completely meaningless at this point. There's no integrity in the gaming press anymore, just a bunch of people trying to get the go-ahead for a Day 1 review and access to previews so they can keep traffic up and make more money. 

Seriously, last year saw...

-Red Dead Redemption, the first modern Western, and the first to ever capture the wide open west feeling.

-Starcraft 2, anticipated for a decade.

-Grand Turismo 5, the first GT on the PS3.

-Dead Rising 2, which broke X-box live arcade records for it's prequel.

But Mass Effect 2, a game that tries to be Gears of War but ends up just being a linear walk from one waist-high wall to the next, that lacks the RPG the box claimed was inside, and has huge consistency problems with it's story is the greatest game of the year?

Yeah, in a few years when the gaming press and gaming companies get ripped apart for anti-consumer behavior, we'll be reading about how ME2 and DA2 got the ratings they did.[/quote]
It is:
-Deliberetely inflammatory
-Goes completely off-topic.
-Accuses third parties of bribery.

Hmm.

[quote]You're still doing it.  Despite the fact that there's a significant amount of mounting evidence that the gaming press is pretty biased,[/quote]
By biased I hope that you mean that the reviews are subjective becau-

[quote] you completely disregard it and instead put words in my mouth,  lots of words.  If you go reread my post,  I don't think you'll find the words "Bought,  paid,  paid off,  idiot,  or moron" anywhere.  I think you'll find I iterated that the gaming press isn't objective.[/quote]
Re-read my post, post later.

[quote]I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt,  because you seem like an intelligent guy and I suspect we may be able to come to some sort of mutual respect position as Alan and I have.  So I'll iterate exactly why I maintain the gaming press is worthless and the awards equally so.

-Several years ago,  a Gamespot reviewer gave an advertiser's game a poor review.  Gamespot demanded he "Rereview" it at the company's request.  He refused,  and Gamespot fired him.  Essentially,  the advertiser demanded a better number,  and Gamespot fired the guy who refused to "Play ball".[/quote]
You are using Gamespot as an example of gaming press, congratulations. I think you are missing a small detail. Gamespot sells. Games. 

[quote]-I can't find the link right now,  and I'm running out of time,  but one game journalist wrote an article a few years back about how Previews came with a set of rules that include "Don't say anything negative",  and other restrictions that essentially amount to "Say it's the greatest thing ever".[/quote]
Right, I'll wait for the link then.

[quote]-Ignore the thread title and just read the translated article in the first post here...

http://social.biowar...index/7145086/1

So basically Review Embargoes are use to hold the Press hostage because they need the traffic to make money,  but can't get the traffic unless their review is "Sufficiently positive".[/quote]
I'll give you the chance for you to check what you link me to again, since this is a story of an editor in chief of a random magazine who provides no proof as to his accusations and goes to the extent of speculating that this happens in all titles.

Unless you are saying that this is what happenned with ME2 too? Because I am pretty sure that there are multiple reviews that are post-release.

[quote]-Then there's the evidence that some EA employees failed to disclose their bias and posted 10/10 reviews for DA2 as regular users on Metacritic.  Which is actually quite similiar to what Sony received heavy fines for a few years back.[/quote]
Heh, I actually hoped you would bring that up.

1) You are talking about people deliberately changing the fan metascore, which is unreliable since several games are being score-rated.
2) The actual metascore is affected in no way.
3) This has nothing to do with gaming press.
4) Unless you provied that that Bioware tech was ordered by a higher-up in EA, then that act is not illegal at all.
5) If you are not suggesting that, then you are simply accusing someone of using their right for Freedom of Speech.

[quote]-Here are some links to the statistical analysis

http://www.joystiq.c...ation-revealed/[/quote]
Uh, this proves that the average has increased over the years, which is true, considering that the metascore for 'average' is now well above 50+. And in comparison to the ratings of 2011's titles, your argument appears to be completely flawed.

[quote]IGN's average review score was a whopping 8.0, and the site heavily favors evenly rounded scores. Gamespot, while a little more balanced and even in their curve, has an average review of 7.0. So either there are a butt load of great games we're overlooking, or something fishy is going on.
[/quote]
This comment is also hilarious. 

[quote]http://www.gamecriti...read.php?t=7767

And a good article on how the gaming press works.[/quote]
If by article you mean thread, then no, this only points out the aforemention inflation, which is part of the reason why we don't compare games from different consoles. How the increasement of the average points out to bribery of game reviewers not being objective is a mystery.

[quote]http://www.insertcre...lism/index.html[/quote]
...why are you linking me to a blog?

[quote]So yes,  I maintain that the industries second biggest company with one of the largest advertising budgets is likely to obtain reviews and awards due to it's advertising expenses and not on the basis of the quality of it's games.

Or in short,  EA spends alot of advertising dollars,  people want it,  so they give EA glowing reviews for just about anything and GOTY awards just to sell the banner ads and keep getting preview/reviews.[/quote]
ME2 is easily one of the rather underadvertised EA games as compared to it's rating.

[quote]It's pretty obvious at this point,  Game Sites need advertisers to pay them,  and traffic to generate the advertisers interest in their sites.  The Advertisers hold all of the power,  the game sites have no leverage,  there's nothing they can hold over the advertisers.  The users give no income,  without the advertisers,  the game sites can't pay the bills.  So the all the cards are in the hands of the advertisers.[/quote]
This is all pure speculation, not to mention that you are only talking about online gaming press here, but whatever, it certainly does not help your argument. Not argument, really, more of an accusation, and unless you have some serious evidence to submit, then it falls apart.

I guess that the awards are fixed too.

Oh, and the ones with voting in them.

Modifié par Phaedon, 22 mai 2011 - 06:40 .

[Xeranx]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Xeranx wrote...
I know Shepard isn't perfect, but behaving like a weapon should be more of an extension of self than a power that emanates from your own body is silly to me.  If I should be able to get kill shots, like many expect, just because I can point and shoot I should be able to do more with biotics because that is a true extension of self.  I'm going to retract what I said about tech because that can always be tweaked much like any weapon.[/quote]
Please tell me that you are just exaggerating and that you don't genuinely think that's all the skill that shooters require.[/quote]

Please re-read that line again and not just the part you put in bold.  Particularly the section that says "like many expect".  I guess I should have placed it after shoot than where I did, but I figured it covered everything.

[quote]
[quote] It has consistency issues.  There is no flow to what goes on in the narrative.  It's disjointed.  I mean people are giving DA2 grief over that right now, but you're saying that in ME2 it's fine.  Great even.[/quote]
How so?[/quote][/quote]

It was said that they wanted to avoid past issues of ME in ME2 in regards to urgency.  ME was said to not have that feeling of urgency.  Unfortunately that sense of urgency was rarely existent throughout the whole of ME2.  It's further highlighted by the mining mini-game which is heavily ironic considering how much weight it's given towards endgame.  While people complained that UNC missions were counter-intuitive to the urgency that was supposed to be present in the first game (despite being optional) they were not upset or annoyed about picking people up across the galaxy when that time could have been put to better use.  

The problem (the reason TIM brought Shepard back) is to stop the Collectors because they're agents of the Reapers.  Why is the solution then to go on a cruise of the galaxy to pick people up who could have been hired before hand?  TIM hired three people while Shepard was on the slab: Zaeed, Kasumi, Joker, and got a bonus (according to her comment) in getting Chakwas on as well.  TIM could have hired all the rest (apart from Archangel and Tali) through various means and time could have been spent trying to learn where the Collectors would strike next, but that doesn't happen.  Instead, you traverse the galaxy looking for people and waiting for the story to happen to you rather than move it forward.  Then while you're picking these people up you find that they have no stake in fighting for what you're fighting for.  They don't know about the Collectors being a threat until you bring it to their attention and then they sign on with nary a question about how it's going to go down.  

Any story I've come across where recruitment is a factor always involves what's the objective, what the risks are, and what plan there may be to accomplish the objective and/or how the risks can be somewhat minimized.  I don't remember any of that being discussed during the main part of the game (and it's been a while so I don't even know if it was discussed towards the end either).  If I have dossiers on people of interest then I have an idea of their likes, dislikes, and what might be a good incentive for them to join on.  TIM did that with Zaeed and Kasumi, if I remember correctly, as he paid them.

In short, the solving of the problem (the Collectors are harvesting human colonies) halts until certain criteria are met that will allow us to continue on our quest.  That's par for the course, but we can't help but notice that's what's happening in ME2.  The whole recruitment deal feels like a to-do list that doesn't include the very thing that needs to be done in trying to solve the problem that caused TIM to do what he did to secure Shepard and bring him/her back to life.  

[quote]
[quote]The thing is people will defend Bioware when they decide they want a new market with a current IP, but will try and shut someone up about how ratings on review sites and in magazines can be fixed.  If good business sense for a game developer involves trying to attract new people why is it unthinkable that a review site or magazine would prefer to have everything in their reviews be rosy considering their business is reviewing games?  The ratings don't have to be bought, but when you function like a newspaper and need to be part of the elite covering the hottest story, you're going to cut corners.  That's what Gatt said, and you said he's wrong.[/quote]

Bioware never changed it's market, although the target crowd did get rather bigger with ME2, both the RPG and shooter fans were supposed to be the ones to sell this game to, no matter the flaws of both games.[/quote][/quote]

True, Bioware didn't change it's market, but that doesn't void my point about the review sites and magazines.  If maintaining your bottom line is the bottom line then there's no way you're not going to try to take care of it so that you stay afloat.

[quote]
[quote]Player stats can be woven into the narrative.  They don't have to be visible on screen, but so long as they add to the world and help the player experience more of it it works.  That's what I meant.[/quote]I am sure that you have some sort of valid point there, but I still do not understand what you mean. By stats do you mean powers, such as biotics for example?[/quote]

It's like if someone in-game said they don't see you being able to do something because of one reason or another (let's say dealing with a cunning stat), and then you do whatever it is you have to in order to do what they said you couldn't.  It doesn't stop you from continuing on your quest, but you could miss seeing more of the world.

[quote]
[quote]Are you saying bad storytelling doesn't mean that a story is bad?  If that's the case then no, bad storytelling doesn't mean the story is bad or that there's no story, but it is in the execution of the storytelling that allows someone to state whether the story is good or not.  In order to tell if the storytelling is bad you'd have to disect the story to see where things were going.  This is one of those cases where bad storytelling can ruin a good story or good storytelling can only minimally salvage a bad story and it'll use whatever it has at its disposal to get the job done.  Even then you can still see a bad story for what it is.  If the plot is to stop the Collectors, then the story needs to revolve around that.  If it doesn't do that or doesn't do it seamlessly enough then it doesn't do it's job.  So yes, the characters are an aspect of the story, but because they don't have any stake that we can see it falls apart.  [/quote]Actually, I think that you are mistaking plot concept with story and storytelling.
Storytelling has to do with how the story is presented to the players and has both to do with the aesthetics/cinematical direction of a scene, and the means of transfering the story (plot devices [those aren't necessarily bad], characters, etc.)[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification.


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Our task wasn't to stop the Reapers.  It was to stop Saren and only when doing the UNC missions did you get the feeling that you weren't trying to stop him.  If you didn't do any UNC missions (apart from the Geth preparing for their assault) you felt like you were always at his heels just missing him. [/quote]

And? In ME1 you hunted down geth and Saren's allies most of the time, and that is indeed an integral part of the story. The story is also about the geth and Benezia.[/quote]

I did mention that the UNC missions involving the Geth massing was excluded from being a waste of time.  They are Saren's ground forces in ME.  There's no question.  If there was intel pointing to other locations other than the staging area in another part of the galaxy, that wouldn't be a waste of time either.  Benezia served as a reason to have Liara join.  It just happened to be fortunate that Liara had been researching the Protheans for years prior.  And while Benezia was present in the story, she was Saren's second-in-command who had very little to do. Benezia's ultimate purpose, then, was to link everything to the Prothean issue seeing as what the Protheans did a bungled everything up.

[quote]ME2 isn't just about the Collectors. It's also about recruiting and maintaining a team, and CH was the first to confirm that ME2 is a "character based plot"[/quote]

It's about recruiting a team that could have been brought together for you before hand since the information was there already.  TIM could have paid to have Jack free.  Actually he did provide the funds for that.  There was already an agreement to bring Okeer on board.  So that's settled as well.  The only ones that weren't set in stone were Archangel, Mordin, Tali, Thane, Samara, and Legion.  Considering how TIM was able to locate Tali despite her not wanting to mention where she was going in front of Cerberus (don't know why the writers didn't think to have her ask how Shepard knew where to find her), I think TIM could have found out a way to gain assistance from Samara and Thane.  Legion would have been the only hold out along with Tali and Archangel.  Pretty much all the hard work was done for you on part of recruitment.  

As far as maintaining the team goes, there was very little of that.  Two instances in which you could play referee, but it doesn't matter in the end.  The last thing said before leaving the ship involves trust.  I can't help but imagine that the holding the line segment just happened to be favorable in that everyone on your team was on the same side and making every shot count meant they'd each have a better shot at survival.  I haven't watched The Dirty Dozen, but people have made references to Oceans 11 which I did see.  These people came together and worked in such a way that you would think that they're family.  I never see that in ME2.  That's why I have such an issue with people saying it's about recruiting and maintaining a team or saying things to those effects.  I have it in mind that if there was doubt amongst those who weren't part of Cerberus about the Collector threat and if Shepard died that the whole thing would fall apart.  In Ocean's 13 (I think) when one ends up catatonic the whole team pulls together to avenge him.  I can safely say that wouldn't happen in ME2.

Edit: formatting

Modifié par Xeranx, 22 mai 2011 - 06:53 .

[MassEffect762]

Babli wrote...

But it is not the best game they ever released. Its just back then, game reviewers didnt gave 10/10. That was reserved for Holy Grail of gaming. But now we can see 10s every month.

Big success of ME 2 will forever remain a mystery to me.

No Kidding.

One of the most overrated(among the community, it's not CoD in popularity) games of all time imo.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 22 mai 2011 - 06:52 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]Xeranx wrote...
Please re-read that line again and not just the part you put in bold.  Particularly the section that says "like many expect".  I guess I should have placed it after shoot than where I did, but I figured it covered everything.[/quote]
Fine.
If there was a way to have more direct control on biotics, I would definitely support that. But I can't think of a system with a learning curve.
[quote]It was said that they wanted to avoid past issues of ME in ME2 in regards to urgency.  ME was said to not have that feeling of urgency.  Unfortunately that sense of urgency was rarely existent throughout the whole of ME2.  It's further highlighted by the mining mini-game which is heavily ironic considering how much weight it's given towards endgame.  While people complained that UNC missions were counter-intuitive to the urgency that was supposed to be present in the first game (despite being optional) they were not upset or annoyed about picking people up across the galaxy when that time could have been put to better use.  [/quote]The problem is that: a) UNC missions are way longer than mining a planet, "Picking people up" was a part of the game. If you didn't "pick the people up", then you would die while attempting to destroy the Collector Base by yourself and a bunch of Cerberus operatives who are more likely to shoot their own foot than cover you. c) You would also have no protection against the swarm insects and you would have nothing to do until Cerberus discovered the derelict Reaper, and extracted the IFF.

[quote]The problem (the reason TIM brought Shepard back) is to stop the Collectors because they're agents of the Reapers.  Why is the solution then to go on a cruise of the galaxy to pick people up who could have been hired before hand?  TIM hired three people while Shepard was on the slab: Zaeed, Kasumi, Joker, and got a bonus (according to her comment) in getting Chakwas on as well.  TIM could have hired all the rest through various means and time could have been spent trying to learn where the Collectors would strike next, but that doesn't happen.  Instead, you traverse the galaxy looking for people and waiting for the story to happen to you rather than move it forward.  Then while you're picking these people up you find that they have no stake in fighting for what you're fighting for.  They don't know about the Collectors being a threat until you bring it to their attention and then they sign on with nary a question about how it's going to go down. [/quote]
For starters, TIM didn't bring Shepard back for that reason. He brought him back because of the missing colonies, which he thought were connected to the Reapers, somehow. Not to investigate them, but he was certain that the Reapers would attack in the near future. His initial team is Jacob and Miranda, it would be unwise to hire more before they knew what kind of mission they would need personnel for, or when they would need them. Remember, Shepard got extremely lucky for finding Veetor in the colony.

[quote]Any story I've come across where recruitment is a factor always involves what's the objective, what the risks are, and what plan there may be to accomplish the objective and/or how the risks can be somewhat minimized.  I don't remember any of that being discussed during the main part of the game (and it's been a while so I don't even know if it was discussed towards the end either).  If I have dossiers on people of interest then I have an idea of their likes, dislikes, and what might be a good incentive for them to join on.  TIM did that with Zaeed and Kasumi, if I remember correctly, as he paid them.[/quote]
The initial objective was to investigate the disapperance of humans, and then to build a team to fight against the Collectors. While that remains as the overreaching objective, the top priorities change before important missions, such as Horizon, the Collector Ship, the Reaper IFF, etc.

[quote]In short, the solving of the problem (the Collectors are harvesting human colonies) halts until certain criteria are met that will allow us to continue on our quest.  That's par for the course, but we can't help but notice that's what's happening in ME2.  The whole recruitment deal feels like a to-do list that doesn't include the very thing that needs to be done in trying to solve the problem that caused TIM to do what he did to secure Shepard and bring him/her back to life.  [/quote]
See, above.
ME1 had that too. Although, just like 2 it also had a vague overreaching objective, it's structure went like this: 1. Recruit Squadmates, 2. Investigate Assistant's daughter, 3. Investigate geth sighting 1-3, etc. There is no problem with the structure. The problem is that they didn't hide it properly.

[quote]True, Bioware didn't change it's market, but that doesn't void my point about the review sites and magazines.  If maintaining your bottom line is the bottom line then there's no way you're not going to try to take care of it so that you stay afloat.[/quote]
Corruption is always possible, but considering the evidence so far, there is nothing there to support an accusation.
This is a perfect analogy to:
"Hey, the job that police is to enforce the law, right?"
"Yes, that's right."
"So, they can enforce the objectives of someone else, right?"
"Eh, corruption is possible, I suppose but there is nothing to-"
"ALL COPS ARE CORRUPT"


[quote]It's like if someone in-game said they don't see you being able to do something because of one reason or another (let's say dealing with a cunning stat), and then you do whatever it is you have to in order to do what they said you couldn't.  It doesn't stop you from continuing on your quest, but you could miss seeing more of the world.[/quote]Oh that.
Well, to be honest, this approach has either been deserted or there is another way to do things, nowadays, the opposite seems like a bad design choice to me. Surprisingly, that's what ME2 did in 2 points of the game, though I suppose that you can still convince the squadmates later on.


[quote]I did mention that the UNC missions involving the Geth massing was excluded from being a waste of time.  They are Saren's ground forces in ME.  There's no question.  If there was intel pointing to other locations other than the staging area in another part of the galaxy, that wouldn't be a waste of time either.  Benezia served as a reason to have Liara join.  It just happened to be fortunate that Liara had been researching the Protheans for years prior.  And while Benezia was present in the story, she was Saren's second-in-command who had very little to do. Benezia's ultimate purpose, then, was to link everything to the Prothean issue seeing as what the Protheans did a bungled everything up.[/quote]My point still stands.
Noveria, Feros, etc.
[quote]It's about recruiting a team that could have been brought together for you before hand since the information was there already.  TIM could have paid to have Jack free.  Actually he did provide the funds for that.  There was already an agreement to bring Okeer on board.  So that's settled as well.  The only ones that weren't set in stone were Archangel, Mordin, Tali, Thane, Samara, and Legion.  Considering how TIM was able to locate Tali despite her not wanting to mention where she was going in front of Cerberus (don't know why the writers didn't think to have her ask how Shepard knew where to find her), I think TIM could have found out a way to gain assistance from Samara and Thane.  Legion would have been the only hold out along with Tali.  Pretty much all the hard work was done for you on part of recruitment.  [/quote]I have already answered some of your points. Although a couple of characters, such as Jack or Zaeed could have been hired by TIM, without Shepard's implication, you miss an excellent opportunity for character development. How would it look that once you are back from investigating the colony, you meet half of your team along with Joker? 
[quote]As far as maintaining the team goes, there was very little of that.  Two instances in which you could play referee, but it doesn't matter in the end. [/quote]
I meant the Loyalty Missions.

[quote]The last thing said before leaving the ship involves trust.  I can't help but imagine that the holding the line segment just happened to be favorable in that everyone on your team was on the same side and making every shot count meant they'd each have a better shot at survival.  I haven't watched The Dirty Dozen, but people have made references to Oceans 11 which I did see.  These people came together and worked in such a way that you would think that they're family.  I never see that in ME2.  That's why I have such an issue with people saying it's about recruiting and maintaining a team or saying things to those effects.  I have it in mind that if there was doubt amongst those who weren't part of Cerberus about the Collector threat and if Shepard died that the whole thing would fall apart.  In Ocean's 13 (I think) when one ends up catatonic the whole team pulls together to avenge him.  I can safely say that wouldn't happen in ME2.
[/quote]
I think that that is an important element of the story actually. Shepard is the "immovable center". Characters like Jacob and Thane or Jack and Samara would have never worked together without him.

[CroGamer002]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Babli wrote...

But it is not the best game they ever released. Its just back then, game reviewers didnt gave 10/10. That was reserved for Holy Grail of gaming. But now we can see 10s every month.

Big success of ME 2 will forever remain a mystery to me.

No Kidding.

One of the most overrated(among the community, it's not CoD in popularity) games of all time imo.

For me is a mystery why do you think this game is overrated?

[Phaedon]

Mesina2 wrote...
For me is a mystery why do you think this game is overrated?

There are propably some valid arguments right there, but if someone uses the rose-coloured glasses one, I'll rage.

[shnizzler93]

Phaedon wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
For me is a mystery why do you think this game is overrated?

There are propably some valid arguments right there, but if someone uses the rose-coloured glasses one, I'll rage.

Mass Effect 1 came first, so it was obviously better.

/sarcasm

I prefer the mechanics of ME2 to ME1, but that's just me.