268 réponses à ce sujet

[Destroy Raiden_]

CajNatalie wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

My problem with it is it happened to soon, really lacked the impact it was going for.

That and we found out about it way too early.

I heard about BioWare spoiling the ShepDeath... I guess I dodged that one...
I only got Mass Effect in March this year, and moved on to ME2 straight after that without watching any trailers or even knowing what to expect beyond what the manual told me.
I can understand how bad that would be, though... for me the death hit hard enough because I wasn't expecting it... if I already knew beforehand, well... I can imagine having some level of indifference to the intro instead of shock.

I didn't know about shep dying either I knew he could die at the end though so when it happened in the beginning I was confused thinking I'd get a game over but then shep comes back? It was a traumatic opening with a 10 min wtf moment when they bring shep back. He should've been dead longer maybe you could've played as Tali, Garrus, Liara, or Ash/Kaiden during this time frame of him coming back and then cut to shep in the cerberus hospital lab coming back very confused in the CG panic cutscene they had.

I also have an issue with him being brought back because it wasn't God who did it just some halfhusk guy who wishes he was.

I also have a major problem with the lack of shep development shep the brick is in full force on this one he doesn't ask Miranda or Chakwas while taking the ship tour specifics on the Lazarus Project at all nor is he remotely bothered by the whole dying experience. I think shep may react more to a paper cut then he did at dying.

[PD ORTA]

Nohvarr wrote...

I have to admit, I enjoyed ME 2's ending more. I was significantly more invested in that ending than I was in ME 1. I had to work for my happy ending in ME 2. I had to find gear, gather a team, and then make sure that they all trusted me enough to follow my orders, even when they didn't always trust one another. Not only that, but then I had to make the right decisions during the final mission to ensure they all lived.

Seeing my Shepard walking through his ship as the entire crew goes about making repairs, while my team checks over our gear was a great feeling. It's an especially great feeling for my Sole survivor/Torphan Shepards. They finally proved to themselves that he could complete a high risk mission with losing people. Something they both failed to do in ME 1.

I agree. I enjoyed the suicide mission, more than ME1's ending. Making decisions that affect the outcome of the mission was great, I hope this is expanded upon for ME3's final mission.

Also I know alot of people loved the "Sheppard rising from the rubble" part of ME1's ending but I absolutely hated that. It was the most cliche (in the worst way) moment in the series so far.

[Savber100]

A great deal of us loved ME2 but I respect your opinion.

For me, Witcher 2 > ME2 in terms of RPG.

However, ME2 > Witcher 2 in terms of video games. If this is the direction of the "new" FPS or TPS genre, I'll be extremely pleased.

Hope that made sense.

[Ahglock]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

Eshaye wrote...

If anything I wished Cerberus' involvement would have been more prominent in 1, they went from a small side thing to ALL of ME.

This. And someone who doesn't do those sidequests much never gets to see Cerberus in ME1,and in the beginning of ME2 Jacob still says "you and Cerberus have quite a history" and you are like "WTF,who the hell is that?!"

You know I never played through the game without doing the Cerberus quests and I always thought joining Cerberus was a really lame idea to be forced on the character.  They were not a big enough player in ME1 and everything you lerned meant you would not want to join them.  On the other hand last month is the first time my Nephew had played through ME1 while doing the side quests, he had gone through it like 8 times but only doing main quests.  When he went to play ME2 he said, you know I really don't want to work for them this time.  Before it had felt pretty random but okay to him, now it was a dumb choice to make on shepards part.  

[Hordriss81]

I'd say both gripped me equally story-wise. However, I much preferred the combat in ME2 over the original.

[DieBySword]

Phaedon wrote...

DieBySword wrote...

ME2 feels like the SM was added as a bonus to a recruitment game. I mean the plot is like Duke Nukem Aliens kidnaping our chicks, especialy the hot ones, we need to rescue them and kill the bad aliens. At leas it worked our for Duke but for ME its lower than low -.-

The collectors don't steal our "chicks" (if you consider Rupert the Chef a hot chick you should probably re-evaluate some aspects of your life) no more than 3 to 4 missions before the suicide one, dudebro.

Woah I can think of 3 thing why you say that:
A) Your totaly in disregard of anyone valid argument in this topic.
 You are dismising my analogy and trying to make it look like a joke because you got no counter agument about its validity
C) This one might be a strech - You didnt play ME2 so you got no idea about the story

ME2 story with Duke Nukem Forever analogy in brackets: Collector (Bad aliens) are kidnaping humans (chick), so Duke (shepard) gonna have to get them back and kick they`re asses.

And thats not my version, its the game own version that is presented to you in the first moments after the tutorial mission searching for cluess about the kidnapers.

Tim basicly spills the whole plot to you - Shep the colectors are kidnaping humans, you need to get a strong team, head out to they`re base in the omega relay and kick they`re asses not fogeting this is a SM mission so ppl gonna die. ( and this is like a cinematics in the game )

Phaedon wrote...
As for it being a 'recruitment game' that characterization appears to be wildly incorrect considering that 8 out of the 24 missions are recruitment ones.

This is the way you answer to post that have facts you cant negate - trying to hide the truth behind a wall of insignificent or not related informations. Yes there might be 24 missions but why are you taking DLC and sidemissions into it while we talk about the story.

Only the Lazarus station/first colony tutorial can be counter as 1 story mission, then 8 recruitments missions, then 1 freedoms hope mission folowed by the collector ship ambush/joker counted as 1 mission and last the SM mission.

So we got 1 tutorial, 8 recruitment, 1 story, 1 pushed on us twist/action mission and ended with the last SM mission.

Let me resume 12 mission total of which 8 are recruitment mission and only 2 can be really said to be pure story missions. Thats 66% recruitments mission versus 33% story mission. ( 16,(6)% of pure story )

Modifié par DieBySword, 01 juin 2011 - 05:00 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

I don't like it when people say that something was "a plot device," and think that that equals a good argument for supporting it.

It was a MAJOR plot device, a major story event, it triggered a huge shift in the narrative, and it should have been elaborated on, whether by Shepard having optional dialogue to discuss it with Miranda, TIM or the LI, or by way of some scene with Chakwas to shed a bit of light on Shep's handling of his situation.

"The writers chose to focus on other things, therefore it is not an ommision," or "The writers decided not to mention Sole Survivors' connection to Cerberus because they felt it wouldn't gel with the working-with-Cerberus story they were trying to tell," aren't really adequate excuses for what amounts to poor character development. Bioware employs professional writers; there should be some degree of expectation for them to pay attention to significant character details like this, especially when it comes to a dialogue system that places so much of the narrative's focus on Shepard.

Seriously, Phaedon, you know I'm looking at you; you need to start placing more value in the writers' work instead of saying "It doesn't matter," or "They can do what they want because... well, they're the writers" all the time. Geez, dude.

/rant

[marshalleck]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

I don't like it when people say that something was "a plot device," and think that that equals a good argument for supporting it.

It was a MAJOR plot device, a major story event, it triggered a huge shift in the narrative, and it should have been elaborated on, whether by Shepard having optional dialogue to discuss it with Miranda, TIM or the LI, or by way of some scene with Chakwas to shed a bit of light on Shep's handling of his situation.

"The writers chose to focus on other things, therefore it is not an ommision," or "The writers decided not to mention Sole Survivors' connection to Cerberus because they felt it wouldn't gel with the working-with-Cerberus story they were trying to tell," aren't really adequate excuses for what amounts to poor character development. Bioware employs professional writers; there should be some degree of expectation for them to pay attention to significant character details like this, especially when it comes to a dialogue system that places so much of the narrative's focus on Shepard.

Seriously, Phaedon, you know I'm looking at you; you need to start placing more value in the writers' work instead of saying "It doesn't matter," or "They can do what they want because... well, they're the writers" all the time. Geez, dude.

/rant

This! 

[Da Mecca]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

I don't like it when people say that something was "a plot device," and think that that equals a good argument for supporting it.

It was a MAJOR plot device, a major story event, it triggered a huge shift in the narrative, and it should have been elaborated on, whether by Shepard having optional dialogue to discuss it with Miranda, TIM or the LI, or by way of some scene with Chakwas to shed a bit of light on Shep's handling of his situation.

"The writers chose to focus on other things, therefore it is not an ommision," or "The writers decided not to mention Sole Survivors' connection to Cerberus because they felt it wouldn't gel with the working-with-Cerberus story they were trying to tell," aren't really adequate excuses for what amounts to poor character development. Bioware employs professional writers; there should be some degree of expectation for them to pay attention to significant character details like this, especially when it comes to a dialogue system that places so much of the narrative's focus on Shepard.

Seriously, Phaedon, you know I'm looking at you; you need to start placing more value in the writers' work instead of saying "It doesn't matter," or "They can do what they want because... well, they're the writers" all the time. Geez, dude.

/rant

I agree x 100.

[mi55ter]

I'd like to play devil's advocate- how many people that have played both, would go back now to another full playthru of ME1 instead of another playthru of 2? I think people would choose 2, more reward for less time investment.

[CajNatalie]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

I don't like it when people say that something was "a plot device," and think that that equals a good argument for supporting it.

It was a MAJOR plot device, a major story event, it triggered a huge shift in the narrative, and it should have been elaborated on, whether by Shepard having optional dialogue to discuss it with Miranda, TIM or the LI, or by way of some scene with Chakwas to shed a bit of light on Shep's handling of his situation.

"The writers chose to focus on other things, therefore it is not an ommision," or "The writers decided not to mention Sole Survivors' connection to Cerberus because they felt it wouldn't gel with the working-with-Cerberus story they were trying to tell," aren't really adequate excuses for what amounts to poor character development. Bioware employs professional writers; there should be some degree of expectation for them to pay attention to significant character details like this, especially when it comes to a dialogue system that places so much of the narrative's focus on Shepard.

Seriously, Phaedon, you know I'm looking at you; you need to start placing more value in the writers' work instead of saying "It doesn't matter," or "They can do what they want because... well, they're the writers" all the time. Geez, dude.

/rant

Y'know what...
I agree.

[Da Mecca]

mi55ter wrote...

I'd like to play devil's advocate- how many people that have played both, would go back now to another full playthru of ME1 instead of another playthru of 2? I think people would choose 2, more reward for less time investment.

I already did that, and I'm struggling to finish ME2 because I'm bored.

But I'm using ME3 as an incentive to finally finish it.

[FrostedFlake84]

Grumpy young man wrote...

Why do people constantly start topics on the basis of their personal affection/dissapointment, and especially for something that has been out so long as ME2 was? Even if it is your opinion, prepare "gasp" - you are not that important. You are not the majority share stake holder in EA.

If you dont like it, then dont read it. What makes you check out this thread anyway? Just click somewhere else if it doesnt interest you. Its obvious that threads like this have been done before and I could care less. I dont care about flames, rep or whatever else people like you replace real feeling in life with. I wanted to share my opinion about this game and get direct feedback of those who felt the same way or didnt. I can do that and there is nothing you can do to stop it. So prepare "gasp" not only is there nothing you can do about it, it will continue to happen! Your not that important either.

[Trinity66]

Can't understand what people mean when saying "ME1 story was better, but anything else is better in ME2"... What is better? ME2 only have smoother gameplay (combat) and environment.

Other then that:

Better exploration? - No
Better customization? - No
Better side quests? - No
Better main quests? - No
Better vehicle? - No
Better Citadel? - No
Banters? - No
Better dialogues? -No

I don't know, should I continue?

OK, better DLCs for ME2, that's it.

Just my opinion, don't attack me now.

Modifié par Trinity66, 01 juin 2011 - 07:19 .

[FrostedFlake84]

Savber100 wrote...

A great deal of us loved ME2 but I respect your opinion.

For me, Witcher 2 > ME2 in terms of RPG.

However, ME2 > Witcher 2 in terms of video games. If this is the direction of the "new" FPS or TPS genre, I'll be extremely pleased.

Hope that made sense.

I agree with you, in fact I think alot of people are not catching my points. I think we all agree that ME1 was great because of RPG elements. Level up, exploration, the squad control, and tons of side stuff to do. Im pretty sure there is no argument there. I must also say I dont play many RPGs, but the few I have I really enjoyed. I have actually played more shooters than anything. I love shooters. As a shooter ME2 was great. The graphics were great, cover was improved, and some mechanics were improved on. I will also state that the suicide mission itself was great also. Here is where my complaint comes in. Why take a great RPG/3rd person shooter hybrid and mainly focus on improving the shooter aspects of it while the RPG aspects got severly dumbed down. The conversations were boring, the choice and reaction didnt go together most of the time, the story was very linear, to me I never felt it rewarding to go out and search for things as in ME1 and because of the recruit then loyalty mission cycle it just made every character feel the same. I think its obvious that while some things were improved others that made ME1 great suffered. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

CajNatalie wrote...

I don't see what's wrong with the death/resurrection thing.

Plot device. It worked.

When It's OK for the Protagonist to Die

Promise me to read this entire article, otherwise don't bother engaging me if you intend to.

[woods26]

Trinity66 wrote...

Can't understand what people mean when saying "ME1 story was better, but anything else is better in ME2"... What is better? ME2 only have smoother gameplay (combat) and environment.

Other then that:

Better exploration? - No
Better customization? - No
Better side quests? - No
Better main quests? - No
Better vehicle? - No
Better Citadel? - No
Banters? - No
Better dialogues? -No

I don't know, should I continue?

OK, better DLCs for ME2, that's it.

Just my opinion, don't attack me now.

ATTACK! Actually, I agree with you here. I do rate ME2 very highly though. It's just unfortunate that the target market for this series has shifted. Nothing wrong with that, but it has left me dissapointed.

[Savber100]

Trinity66 wrote...

Can't understand what people mean when saying "ME1 story was better, but anything else is better in ME2"... What is better? ME2 only have smoother gameplay (combat) and environment.

Other then that:

Better exploration? - No
Better customization? - No
Better side quests? - No
Better main quests? - No
Better vehicle? - No
Better Citadel? - No
Banters? - No
Better dialogues? -No

I don't know, should I continue?

OK, better DLCs for ME2, that's it.

Just my opinion, don't attack me now.

Good god... not again.

Let me put this simply... a great deal of the issues you raised were subjective and not absolute facts.

Better Exploration - Depends. Personally while ME2 might have few places to explore, I found them richer and more varied in comparison to vast copy-paste areas that ME had. Noveria has nothing on Illium besides being slightly bigger. To me it's was a quality vs quantity comparison and while greater quantity amped up the epic feel, ME2's hubs were more interesting to look at and explore. Not to say it was perfect. I would love to see the scope expanded.

Better Customization - I agree but this is a point that everyone was raging about so I don't see how this is a new issue.

Better Side Quests - I'm assuming that the recuriment quests were ME2's side and loyalty quests since they were mostly optional. If so, ME2 wins this round. Hands down. It was in these quests that the writing was strongest. Mac Walters did well in developing your squadmates. ME sidequests... I honestly can't remember any right now. I think I recall one where I had to drive the Mako to another loca- Oh wait.  ;P

Better Main Quests - Once again, I though the MQ did well for a second installment. It broke the typical save-the-world quests we have from Bioware and gave us a more personal story. ME2 sets up many key issues for ME3 (genopahe, quarian v geth etc) while also eliminating the Collector threat.

I agree that the Cerberus issue could have been handled better but it wasn't a gamebreaker for me. Liara also unwillingly sided with Cerberus to find Shepard's body because no one else would and the same goes for Shepard where I don't work with Cerberus, they're just an asset I'm using and I expressed that in the dialogue choices.

Better vehicle? I liked the Hammerhead better. The Mako was a meh for me. Once again, I think this is purely subjective and I won't mind some vast improvements upon the vechicles. ;P

Better Citadel? - You get this one.

Banters? -  Both ME and ME2 lacked this so I can't see how ME was better than ME2 on squad banters.  Truth be told, I think the ME team can take some advice from the DA team in increasing squad banter.

Better dialogues? - Really? Prove it. (I'm not talking about story arcs just dialogues.)

I got

Garrus Vakarian:
Do you ever miss those talks we had on the elevators?
Tali'Zorah:
No.
Garrus Vakarian:
Come on. Remember how we'd always ask you about life on the flotilla? It was an opportunity to share!
Tali'Zorah:
This conversation is over.
Garrus Vakarian:
Tell me again about your immune system.
Tali'Zorah:
I have a shotgun.
Garrus Vakarian:
Mmmmaybe we'll talk later.


Commander Shepard:
[discussing 'sparring'[/i]] So when should I book the room?
Garrus Vakarian:
I'd wait if you're OK with it. Disrupt the crew a little as possible.
Take that last chance to find some calm just before the storm. You know
me, always like to savor that last shot before popping the heatsink.

[Shepard gives Garrus a knowing smirk[/i]]

Garrus Vakarian:
Wait... that metaphor just went somewhere horrible.


Gunnery Chief:
This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five
seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to
1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb
bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on
Hiroshima back on Earth. That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest
son-of-a-**** in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's
First Law?


"I am a biotic GOD!" - High Volus (And anything this guy said)

Your move. ;D

Modifié par Savber100, 01 juin 2011 - 07:40 .

[ScepticMatt]

They are definitely thing that I miss from ME1 (Story, Exploration,Customization ...), but I hated the shooting mechanic and the reused side missions. So overall I enjoyed ME2 a little better than ME1.

[CroGamer002]

Trinity66 wrote...

Can't understand what people mean when saying "ME1 story was better, but anything else is better in ME2"... What is better? ME2 only have smoother gameplay (combat) and environment.

Other then that:

Better exploration? - No
Better customization? - No
Better side quests? - No
Better main quests? - No
Better vehicle? - No
Better Citadel? - No
Banters? - No
Better dialogues? -No

I don't know, should I continue?

OK, better DLCs for ME2, that's it.

Just my opinion, don't attack me now.

ME1 exploration sucks. No big loss.
In ME2 you can customize your armor. ME1 failed to do that visually but even for game mechanics it was pathetic.
Side quests? Yes! They are better! Most ME1 side quests were just generic badly made maps that you drive Mako with bad controls, you go to generic made base or tunnel to do generic side quest so you can shoot people with bad shooting mechanic and mediocre RPG elements.
Better main quests? Debatable.
Better Citadel? Debatable.
Banters? You got point there but most banters you got are from elevators and elevators can kiss my ass.
Better dialogues? WHAT?!

[CroGamer002]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

I don't see what's wrong with the death/resurrection thing.

Plot device. It worked.

When It's OK for the Protagonist to Die

Promise me to read this entire article, otherwise don't bother engaging me if you intend to.

I read it.
I don't see ANYTHING bad for what ME2 did.

[onelifecrisis]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

I don't see what's wrong with the death/resurrection thing.

Plot device. It worked.

When It's OK for the Protagonist to Die

Promise me to read this entire article, otherwise don't bother engaging me if you intend to.

Good article. But... aren't the people at BW supposed to be professional writers? Don't they know this stuff? One has to wonder.

I would *love* to see someone interview Mac Walters and interrogate him on Shepard's death. I'd love to see him attempting to show it was good writing. Also, I'd love to know if Mr. Walters ever played ME1. I'm sure he must have read the script for it, but did he ever actually sit down and play? I'd seriously bet good money that he never has.

[Da Mecca]

Savber100 wrote...
snip

No the Loyalty missions ARE NOT sidequest.

I don't care what you say. if you want people to live you have to do them, not all of them but enough to see that you survive.

A large majority of the game's content is Loyalty misiions, they are not side quest, they are integral to the plot and if you don't do them because you don't have to you are not only cheating yourself out of content but you are a damn fool.

[Da Mecca]

Mesina2 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

I don't see what's wrong with the death/resurrection thing.

Plot device. It worked.

When It's OK for the Protagonist to Die

Promise me to read this entire article, otherwise don't bother engaging me if you intend to.

I read it.
I don't see ANYTHING bad for what ME2 did.

Shepard died for no reason.

THAT'S bad.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Da Mecca wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

CajNatalie wrote...

I don't see what's wrong with the death/resurrection thing.

Plot device. It worked.

When It's OK for the Protagonist to Die

Promise me to read this entire article, otherwise don't bother engaging me if you intend to.

I read it.
I don't see ANYTHING bad for what ME2 did.

Shepard died for no reason.

THAT'S bad.

I love you.