154 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

I'm pretty sure Mass Effect 3 won't be a perfect game. Neither of the first two games was perfect either. I love them anyway. There are lots of head-scratching story points in both games, but the universe and the characters gives me enough to hang my hat on. If they get the tone of the characters right in Mass Effect 3, I will love the game, even if nothing else improves from ME2 to ME3. I don't really lament the stripping down of "RPG" elements, because for me a lot of that stuff is just pointless minutiae. I don't mind it being there if it appeals to a different group of fans, though, and there's always a chance that some of it might appeal to me. For instance, I never paid attention to the "Tactics" in DA2 until I played a Warrior, and that was quite fun to explore in my fourth playthrough.

One thing I WILL do, however, is not judge Mass Effect 3 until the closing credits roll on my first playthrough—and maybe my second. I will probably play through my über-Paragon Vanguard first (he saved everybody that could be saved), then play my ultra-Renegade Soldier (she made sure anyone who could die in the game did die, so her universe is going to be a LOT more empty than my Vanguard's). Given that those two characters are my "extremes", I should have a good idea of the variation in endings that Mass Effect 3 offers after playing them.

[KainrycKarr]

I don't understand why people think that the choose-your-own dialogue thing is in danger for ME3.

It is pretty much Bioware's STAPLE feature, I have not seen ANY game of theirs where it wasn't present.

Yes, a few times the game "assumed direct control" of Shepard, but I need less than five fingers to count how many times it happened in ME2 and it's DLC, and the only one I can honestly think of off hand is in Arrival.

[Clonedzero]

KainrycKarr wrote...

I don't understand why people think that the choose-your-own dialogue thing is in danger for ME3.

It is pretty much Bioware's STAPLE feature, I have not seen ANY game of theirs where it wasn't present.

Yes, a few times the game "assumed direct control" of Shepard, but I need less than five fingers to count how many times it happened in ME2 and it's DLC, and the only one I can honestly think of off hand is in Arrival.

well the amount of times shepard says stuff without your imput is about the same amount of times in ME1 where every dialogue choice has shepard saying the same exact line of dialogue. it happens more often than you think in ME1 actually lol

[candidate88766]

Clonedzero wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

I don't understand why people think that the choose-your-own dialogue thing is in danger for ME3.

It is pretty much Bioware's STAPLE feature, I have not seen ANY game of theirs where it wasn't present.

Yes, a few times the game "assumed direct control" of Shepard, but I need less than five fingers to count how many times it happened in ME2 and it's DLC, and the only one I can honestly think of off hand is in Arrival.

well the amount of times shepard says stuff without your imput is about the same amount of times in ME1 where every dialogue choice has shepard saying the same exact line of dialogue. it happens more often than you think in ME1 actually lol

Yeah, but people tend to forget that ME1 had problems.

[marshalleck]

yorkj86 wrote...

Oh, and before anyone starts, Epic Games likes to keep oppressive and restrictive control over the Unreal Engine. That's likely why ME/2 has no proper modding toolset.

WTF? You couldn't be more wrong. Unreal 3, which was the last game Epic released for PC, comes with UnrealEd which is the official mod tool for the Unreal engine. Bioware have always been candid about their intentions to *not* distribute their customized mod tools for Mass Effect--it's on them, not Epic.

If you don't believe me, go here. Free, official Unreal engine mod tools. http://www.udk.com/news-beta-may2011

Epic Games Releases May 2011 Unreal Development Kit BetaNews from Epic Games - May 2011 UDK Beta released

May 11, 2010 – Epic Games, Inc. has released the May 2011 UDK Beta[/b], the latest version of the Unreal Development Kit (UDK), the free edition of Unreal Engine 3 that provides access to the award-winning toolset used in blockbuster video games, 3D visualizations, digital films and more.Epic is committed to providing the UDK community with regular software releases at no charge, and the latest beta is available now at www.udk.com/download.

Who's it for?

Anyone. Everyone. You. Unreal Engine 3 has been used by game developers, researchers, television studios, machinima directors, artists and students. If you have an idea that needs to be brought to life in a game engine, UDK is for you.

Modifié par marshalleck, 05 juin 2011 - 05:32 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

The sad thing is you won't be able to use the reviews as guides sense they gave ME2 9/10 in some places and I'd give it a 5/10 as a stand alone but comparing it to ME its a 3/10 to MEs 8/10 sense ME outshines it in plot, antagonist, character charisma, lore, universe, rpg elements, and exploration.

So I'll have to get it play it and hope my $60 isn't a waste like I generally feel ME2 is I should've waited for that one to go down to $20 before buying it.

Though I have to admit I didn't feel the overwhelming need to return it like I did fable 3 after a week but with new game stop and EBs new store policies of you can't return new games you can only trade them in for credit which translates to about $5 - $8 if you're lucky so they essentially made it not worth it to trade things back in and the game companies now want to make all used game buyers into pirates it's almost not worth taking a gamble on games anymore.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 05 juin 2011 - 05:34 .

[Gatt9]

Wizz wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

You're not the only one sympathy. They seem to be pumping up the action/shooter crowd with all of this new coverage, but once again the RPG fanatics are waiting to see how much Bioware's added *cough* CUT *cough* to the game this time.

As you remember after ME3 release they talked a lot about reaching rpg mechanic and not a single word about shooter mechanic. Now things have swapped. I don't know what to think about that, but it may be just advertisment waves for different parts of potential customers. If you are going to attract shooter fan you won't tell him how cool new skill tree is, right?

Even reading some of the twitter posts seems to be getting my hopes down by each day. I'm expecting this to be more cinematic/automatic than ME2 which was unbearable. So much for each player having a unique shepard. That tends to be false when the game assumes control of the player and chooses dialogue/decisions for them. I'm still going to by the game unfortunately, as I'm sure others are, just to finish the trilogy. But thats it from Bioware for me. They don't want to admit it, but the acquisition from EA has changed this company from RPG developer to mainstream action developer. They're not unique anymore. Someone's going to have to take their place as RPG king, and mark my words it's going to be me and my company in the future. Thanks Bioware, you've made it that much easier for me.
-Polite

Bioware always was a flagship in RPG industry, so they are mainstream by default. So it's difficult to separate changes of Bioware from changes of industry. Baldur's Gate also was mainstream sometime.
Oh well, tell me when you create your company.

There haven't been changes in the Industry,  just changes in the Companies priorities.

An RPG hasn't changed,  it is what it still was,  a computer emulation of a PnP Roleplaying Game.  That's all it can ever be.  An RPG is an attempt to recreate the game that previously required a significant number of people to play.  Just like Computer Chess is an attempt to recreate Chess.  You cannot change what it is,  because it's a emulation of a defined thing.

This is in contrast to say,  A Shooter,  which isn't an attempt to emulate some offline game. 

What's changed is the companies priorities.  They're now more interested in maximizing profits,  rather than making a quality game.  They're not interested in selling a copy to almost all of the RPG players,  they want to sell a copy to almost every gamer instead (Which will never happen). 

Since RPG is a subset of the market,  these studios today are instead grabbing the major features of each subset and shoving them together into a mishmash of a game.  Grab some dialogue from RPGs,  grab Player-based Skill from Shooters,  grab big maps from Open Worlds,  mash them all together,  call it an "RPG",  and ship it.  Because now we can sell copies to RPG fans,  Gears of War/COD fans,  GTA fans,  we can make more money!


Which,  honestly,  is a sign of an industry being lead by people who have no clue what they're doing.  Hollywood knows that Horror fans are Horror fans,  and you can't just throw in a guy in a hockey mask into Titanic and get more ticket sales.  But in the Game Industry,  they treat genre features like something you can just toss in willy nilly and suddenly everyone will buy it.

Disclaimer:  Bioware's not as bad about this as Bethseda,  Bioware actually makes an attempt to make the mishmash make sense,  having some Shooter in Mass Effect is understandable.  Bethseda OTOH,  thinks you can just throw everything together and get something functional.

Modifié par Gatt9, 05 juin 2011 - 05:34 .

[Phaedon]

onelifecrisis wrote...
Honestly, SWM, sometimes I think you're just a troll. But on the off-chance you are serious...

The indestructablity of the Mass Relays is rather central to ME1's plot. If a relay can be destroyed by an asteroid then it can certainly be destroyed by a supernova. That would mean no Mu relay, which would render Sarens entire plan and almost all of ME1's plot redundant.

Hackett is an Admiral. That's the highest rank there is, in case you didn't know.

And you didn't even reply to the biggest plot breaker - the maraculous new Plan B that makes everything that has happened so far in both games into a joke.

ogodwhat.gif

Benezia mentioned the Mu Relay changing it's course due to a supernova blast.

I wonder if you are unaware of either the definition of blast, or don't know how far away supernova blasts can travel.

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 juin 2011 - 05:38 .

[Geth_Prime]

@amcnow & candidate88766 (I would quote your posts but I am unable to) I don't think you understand me. You are well within your rights to not like something the developers do. All I'm trying to say is that bashing the developers for choosing to do something different with the series (such as making it more shooter oriented) is unnecessary. You don't have to like it, and you can criticise it, but don't say BioWare have made a mistake and that's a fact, because it's just your opinion. And in my opinion, saying that you've lost faith in the series because BioWare did a few things you don't like, is overreacting.

[candidate88766]

Geth_Prime wrote...

@amcnow & candidate88766 (I would quote your posts but I am unable to) I don't think you understand me. You are well within your rights to not like something the developers do. All I'm trying to say is that bashing the developers for choosing to do something different with the series (such as making it more shooter oriented) is unnecessary. You don't have to like it, and you can criticise it, but don't say BioWare have made a mistake and that's a fact, because it's just your opinion. And in my opinion, saying that you've lost faith in the series because BioWare did a few things you don't like, is overreacting.

I was agreeing with you, and I agree with what you've said here as well. I may not have been clear in what I said earlier, but I can't really remember what point I was trying to make. You're right though - some people seem to confuse 'bad' with 'not what I expected/wanted/demanded'.

[Kabanya101]

Every trilogy of games has the same three principles:
1) The first game will always be good, not perfect, but will always remain a classic.
2) The second game in the trilogy always blows ass, always hyped up, and then sucks, minor improvements such as graphics, but final presentation lacking
3) Final game is the best, minor details lacking, but best gameplay and overall presnetation

So...ME3 will not suck, it goes against the rule of three. Your gut feeling is wrong.

[TheKillerAngel]

candidate88766 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Oh come off it.
Relays can now be destroyed by mere asteroids - breaks the plot of ME1.
All along, the reapers had a Plan B that could have let them invade in mere days - totally destroys the plot of ME1 and ME2.
The Alliance are all of a sudden open to the idea that the reapers are a real threat - breaks the plot of ME2.

Has nothing to do with ME1's plot. Nothing is indestructible.

And Hackett =/= the Alliance as a whole.

Honestly, SWM, sometimes I think you're just a troll. But on the off-chance you are serious...

The indestructablity of the Mass Relays is rather central to ME1's plot. If a relay can be destroyed by an asteroid then it can certainly be destroyed by a supernova. That would mean no Mu relay, which would render Sarens entire plan and almost all of ME1's plot redundant.

Hackett is an Admiral. That's the highest rank there is, in case you didn't know.

And you didn't even reply to the biggest plot breaker - the maraculous new Plan B that makes everything that has happened so far in both games into a joke.

1. The shockwave of a supernova from a distance could never have the same force as an asteroid directly impacting a Realy. If you put a car behind a jet turbine, it'll get blown away. Hit it with a wrecking ball and it'll get destroyed. The supernova couldn't destroy the Mu Relay because it wasn't close enough to the blast - in all the systems in ME, the Relay is near the outer edge.

2. We have no idea how long the Reapers have been travelling for. They may have been travelling for thousands of years, having started out after the Rachni wars failed. The Reapers having a back door into the galaxy in no way invalidates any part of ME1s plot or ME2s plot.

3. I thought the Alliance did think the Reapers were a real threat - Hackett and fifth fleet was there at the Battle of the Citadel. The Council denies the existence of the Reapers, but we were never told the Alliance's stand on it. Besides, just because Hackett is one of the admirals (or possibly the only one) doesn't mean eveyrone in the Alliance knows - information on the Reapers could be top-secret. Also, there may be a Fleet-Admiral above Hackett, who may only be admiral of fifth-fleet.

4. Someone who disagrees with you is instantly a troll? really? I thought BSN was getting past that phase.

On point 3, I should add that Admirals are not purely military figures, unlike most enlisted personnel, NCO's, and lower-ranking Commissioned Officers. Admirals are also political figures, because (at least for the US, and I would imagine, most NATO countries) usually they are appointed by the President and then must be approved (in the US, by the Senate). This often means that they must either hold certain political views private or largely agree with the President on certain issues. It is entirely possible that key Alliance figures privately acknowledge the threat of the Reapers while not making it public, since disagreeing with the Council and outright telling the dire threat of an invasion would cause panic and a political crisis. Hence, we shouldn't be surprised to see Hackett's awareness of the Reapers.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
There haven't been changes in the Industry,  just changes in the Companies priorities.

An RPG hasn't changed,  it is what it still was,  a computer emulation of a PnP Roleplaying Game.  That's all it can ever be.  An RPG is an attempt to recreate the game that previously required a significant number of people to play.  Just like Computer Chess is an attempt to recreate Chess.  You cannot change what it is,  because it's a emulation of a defined thing.

This is in contrast to say,  A Shooter,  which isn't an attempt to emulate some offline game. 

What's changed is the companies priorities.  They're now more interested in maximizing profits,  rather than making a quality game.  They're not interested in selling a copy to almost all of the RPG players,  they want to sell a copy to almost every gamer instead (Which will never happen). 

Since RPG is a subset of the market,  these studios today are instead grabbing the major features of each subset and shoving them together into a mishmash of a game.  Grab some dialogue from RPGs,  grab Player-based Skill from Shooters,  grab big maps from Open Worlds,  mash them all together,  call it an "RPG",  and ship it.  Because now we can sell copies to RPG fans,  Gears of War/COD fans,  GTA fans,  we can make more money!


Which,  honestly,  is a sign of an industry being lead by people who have no clue what they're doing.  Hollywood knows that Horror fans are Horror fans,  and you can't just throw in a guy in a hockey mask into Titanic and get more ticket sales.  But in the Game Industry,  they treat genre features like something you can just toss in willy nilly and suddenly everyone will buy it.

Disclaimer:  Bioware's not as bad about this as Bethseda,  Bioware actually makes an attempt to make the mishmash make sense,  having some Shooter in Mass Effect is understandable.  Bethseda OTOH,  thinks you can just throw everything together and get something functional.

I like this post. If I was to attempt to achieve the amount of elitism it pertains I would say:

"All that adventures can be are text-based stories with several commands in place for you to type"

I think that it is very worrisome how much emphasis some of you people here give on genres. Even though I think that this guy's understanding of RPGs is completely incorrect from it's very foundations, the very attention to a brief definition and attempt of categorization of a game under stereotypes which prevent innovation that is so popular here is very problematic, on any game, let alone alone a game which uses several features from multiple "genres", as if the lines weren't blurred enough.

In any case, this is how it goes, Christina Norman herself said that they wanted to ignore things like genres.

What Bioware did was never to make the ultimate RPG or the ultimate TPS, what they wanted to do was to deliver an awesome sci-fi experience.

How did they do it?
They introduced a very detailed universe, a race of sentient starships that decides to destroy it, and a protagonist whose tale is presented in this trilogy. What they wanted all along, is to give to us, the adventure of Shepard as he fights to save a universe that is shaking to it's core.

And how would that work?
First of all, they seem to agree with me, when it comes to dynamic storytelling. A type of storytelling which is much more interesting, imo, to linear storytelling. They introduced a great universe, choices and consequences, and amazing characters.

Now, as to the fighting part?
Yes, they could have gone KOTOR-style on this one. However, that would require an emphasis on non-ballistic weapons that didn't after all happen. Personally? I think this system is much more interesting.

For those of you want to keep the same mechanics, with no change or innovation whatsoever, I suggest that you just buy a pack with older games. I am sure that the majority agrees with me, when I say that I don't want to see a reskinned KOTOR, Morrowind, Planescape Torment or BG.

[amcnow]

Geth_Prime wrote...

@amcnow & candidate88766 (I would quote your posts but I am unable to) I don't think you understand me. You are well within your rights to not like something the developers do. All I'm trying to say is that bashing the developers for choosing to do something different with the series (such as making it more shooter oriented) is unnecessary. You don't have to like it, and you can criticise it, but don't say BioWare have made a mistake and that's a fact, because it's just your opinion. And in my opinion, saying that you've lost faith in the series because BioWare did a few things you don't like, is overreacting.

I agree with you, to an extent.  With that said, complaining about the complainers is still a waste of your time.

[Siansonea]

Phaedon wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...
Honestly, SWM, sometimes I think you're just a troll. But on the off-chance you are serious...

The indestructablity of the Mass Relays is rather central to ME1's plot. If a relay can be destroyed by an asteroid then it can certainly be destroyed by a supernova. That would mean no Mu relay, which would render Sarens entire plan and almost all of ME1's plot redundant.

Hackett is an Admiral. That's the highest rank there is, in case you didn't know.

And you didn't even reply to the biggest plot breaker - the maraculous new Plan B that makes everything that has happened so far in both games into a joke.

ogodwhat.gif

Benezia mentioned the Mu Relay changing it's course due to a supernova blast.

I wonder if you are unaware of either the definition of blast, or don't know how far away supernova blasts can travel.

I've always thought it was odd that the Mu Relay got lost. Presumably someone knew the position of the Mu Relay before the supernova explosion (and they had to know that star was going to blow, it was clearly no longer on the main sequence) and they knew the position of the star that exploded. Doing the math would give you an idea of how much force was applied to the relay and an approximate idea of how far it traveled from its original position. I'm pretty sure the relay would move in a straight line away from the supernova explosion, though subesquent 'drift' might take it away from the initial location. Still, that's a manageable search cone if you've got FTL-capable ships.

[Vena_86]

ME2 was a little let down for me. According to currenty information on ME3, most things that I found wrong in ME2 have been fixed, while the good parts have been kept. I expect however, that some things we took for granted will be gone in ME3 for no particular reason. Marketing will only cover the good parts to hype us. It is always like that.

Modifié par Vena_86, 05 juin 2011 - 05:57 .

[amcnow]

Kabanya101 wrote...

Every trilogy of games has the same three principles:
1) The first game will always be good, not perfect, but will always remain a classic.
2) The second game in the trilogy always blows ass, always hyped up, and then sucks, minor improvements such as graphics, but final presentation lacking
3) Final game is the best, minor details lacking, but best gameplay and overall presnetation

So...ME3 will not suck, it goes against the rule of three. Your gut feeling is wrong.

The Halo trilogy disagrees with you.  All three of those games are viewed as great amongst the players.  FEAR is one which will most likely end up in this category.  I already mentioned another series earlier in this thread...

Ironically, Mass Effect doesn't seem to fit this mold.  Both games thus far are well-received.

Modifié par amcnow, 05 juin 2011 - 06:07 .

[Ahriman]

Gatt9 wrote...
There haven't been changes in the Industry,  just changes in the Companies priorities.

An RPG hasn't changed,  it is what it still was,  a computer emulation of a PnP Roleplaying Game.  That's all it can ever be.  An RPG is an attempt to recreate the game that previously required a significant number of people to play.  Just like Computer Chess is an attempt to recreate Chess.  You cannot change what it is,  because it's a emulation of a defined thing.

That's how they were created. RPG used formal system which proved itself to be effective, but there is no defined level of that formalization.  BTW These offline role-playing games are not defined actually (4th edition, oh my...).

What's changed is the companies priorities.  They're now more interested in maximizing profits,  rather than making a quality game.  They're not interested in selling a copy to almost all of the RPG players,  they want to sell a copy to almost every gamer instead (Which will never happen).

Oh, not this evil capitalism. Company always want to maximize profits, people who making games may not. And of course hopes that hybrid will sell more that pure one are naive.

Since RPG is a subset of the market,  these studios today are instead grabbing the major features of each subset and shoving them together into a mishmash of a game.  Grab some dialogue from RPGs,  grab Player-based Skill from Shooters,  grab big maps from Open Worlds,  mash them all together,  call it an "RPG",  and ship it.  Because now we can sell copies to RPG fans,  Gears of War/COD fans,  GTA fans,  we can make more money!

Which,  honestly,  is a sign of an industry being lead by people who have no clue what they're doing.  Hollywood knows that Horror fans are Horror fans,  and you can't just throw in a guy in a hockey mask into Titanic and get more ticket sales.  But in the Game Industry,  they treat genre features like something you can just toss in willy nilly and suddenly everyone will buy it.

Those people may just do games as they see it.Problem is that they sometime cannot define what they've done properly.

[Admoniter]

I remain cautiously optimistic. Mind you there are plenty of deal breakers so we will see how it turns out. If the E3 demos don't contain the information that I want; then ME3 loses its day one purchase from me; we'll go from there.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

What Bioware did was never to make the ultimate RPG or the ultimate TPS, what they wanted to do was to deliver an awesome sci-fi experience.

They suceeded with this in ME1, but derailed from it in ME2 where the 'awesome sci-fi experience' got replaced by a decent game shining mostly on the lore established by its predecessor than its own contribution.

Truth be told, I didn't really notice how akward the actual gaming in ME1 + ME2 were till after I had played some other good games and then went back to make another playthrough with a new class. Suddenly I felt unnaturally restricted in what I could do or how I could control my character, because I had experienced in other games just how much better it could be done. The stuff is subtle, but the me series is a letdown gameplay wise and shines because of the tv-show experience the first game laid the grounds for.

That's why I'm worried when they go more and more away from what worked for them (the TV sci-fi feeling) to 'showoff' on stuff they clearly haven't been too adept at producing so far (fluid realtime gaming systems that are actually good).

Even their PR exponations are all about things that are basicly actiongame oriented. Sure, they throw out a line here and there about claims to 'improve rpg stuff', but they aren't really showing us anything in that line, opting instead to show action based stuff instead.

It comes to a point where you start to wonder if they even have any of this 'rpg stuff' to show that they claim they have, when all they are showing is action stuff.

[SalsaDMA]

Wizz wrote...

Oh, not this evil capitalism. Company always want to maximize profits, people who making games may not. And of course hopes that hybrid will sell more that pure one are naive.

The problem arises when companies try to sell of mass produced posters taking 5 minutes to flick together as if they were handcrafted pieces of art comparable to Mona Lisa.

It reduces peoples trust in the companies on average, and the PR department of EA/Bioware really haven't been too..... how do I put this.... hmm...... inspiring.... on the level of getting us to accept what they say at face value as a mature reasonable producer of artistic products...

[BeefoTheBold]

This thread would have been a lot better if the creator had actually took the time to list out some of the signs that ME3 will be a huge letdown.

I agree that the potential is there, but it isn't like ME2 was the equivalent of DA2. While it was definitely far more of a shooter title than I wanted it to be, it was still a damn good game.

An example of something that the TC COULD HAVE listed as a "sign" that ME3 would be a letdown would be "The Arrival".

To me, the jury is still out on ME3, but I'm much more skeptical than I have been with regards to Bioware in quite some time. They've been very shaky lately. Hit or miss with most new releases.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

What Bioware did was never to make the ultimate RPG or the ultimate TPS, what they wanted to do was to deliver an awesome sci-fi experience.

They suceeded with this in ME1, but derailed from it in ME2 where the 'awesome sci-fi experience' got replaced by a decent game shining mostly on the lore established by its predecessor than its own contribution.

Truth be told, I didn't really notice how akward the actual gaming in ME1 + ME2 were till after I had played some other good games and then went back to make another playthrough with a new class. Suddenly I felt unnaturally restricted in what I could do or how I could control my character, because I had experienced in other games just how much better it could be done. The stuff is subtle, but the me series is a letdown gameplay wise and shines because of the tv-show experience the first game laid the grounds for.

That's why I'm worried when they go more and more away from what worked for them (the TV sci-fi feeling) to 'showoff' on stuff they clearly haven't been too adept at producing so far (fluid realtime gaming systems that are actually good).

Even their PR exponations are all about things that are basicly actiongame oriented. Sure, they throw out a line here and there about claims to 'improve rpg stuff', but they aren't really showing us anything in that line, opting instead to show action based stuff instead.

It comes to a point where you start to wonder if they even have any of this 'rpg stuff' to show that they claim they have, when all they are showing is action stuff.

ME2 did a very good job at what it set out to do, present a character-driven plot, which analyzes themes that will be important in ME3 (thus far confirmed: Gethoquarian conflict, Cerberus, Genophage, Geth division), the collection of resources that will be vital to the third act (Normandy SR2, squadmates) and maintaining the overreaching threat while looking a bit deeper at it. I don't understand what else you expected by a second act.

The first one introduced the universe, the overreaching threat and includes the first conflict with the threat.
The second one sets up some themes for the third act, invests on character development and resource collection, while still keeping the threat from the first one, but changing the conditions a bit to make it more interesting.

And finally, the third act is the huge and epic lysis to the overreaching threat and the mini-plots that are introduced in the first and second act. I think that any other expectation is unrealistic.

[Russianbear0027]

The Mu relay was the one the Rachni came from, wasn't it? Maybe they let it get lost on purpose.

Also, a lot of the complaining about the Reapers sudden arrival in Arrival doesn't make sense to me. You don't actually know; A) how long ME2 took with in-universe time. I got the impression that it was at least a couple months, plus the time you spent cavorting about the galaxy after the suicide mission; how far the Reapers were from their chosen insertion point, nor how fast they can fly.

As far as expectations go, well, I enjoyed both games so far. I expect ME3 to be a bit different from it's predecessor (as ME2 was from ME), but damn good. It'll have flaws, I'm sure, though I personally probably won't notice most of them until my third or fourth play-through. Some say that the dev team is leaving story behind for profit... well, good storytelling=profit a lot of the time, especially in a game where about 70% of what you do is talk to people. I'm sure Bioware still gets that, they'd have to be pretty dumb to have suddenly forgotten it.

*optimisim*

Modifié par Russianbear0027, 05 juin 2011 - 07:03 .

[Ahriman]

SalsaDMA wrote...
The problem arises when companies try to sell of mass produced posters taking 5 minutes to flick together as if they were handcrafted pieces of art comparable to Mona Lisa.

It reduces peoples trust in the companies on average, and the PR department of EA/Bioware really haven't been too..... how do I put this.... hmm...... inspiring.... on the level of getting us to accept what they say at face value as a mature reasonable producer of artistic products...

EA's PR department is bastion of honesty compared to Molyneux. They could be better in that, but unfortunately all what we can do is learn to separate advertisment from actual information.

Modifié par Wizz, 05 juin 2011 - 06:39 .