198 réponses à ce sujet

[Yakko77]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

i meen....every trilogy works that way. lord of the rings retrun of the king was the last of the 3, and it was the most action packed, and won 11 oscars. the bourne ultimatum was the best of the bourne trilogy but it was the most action packed. and return of the jedi was the most action packed of the original star wars trilogy and while not as good as empire strikes back it was still very good.

serosuly its THE FINAL BATTLE OF COURSE ITS GONNA BE ACTION PACKED. but there will be rpg elements, bioware cant just tell us everything all at once ya know, it takes time. besides theres still character development, dialouge choices, diffrent ways for the game to play out. i think its shapeing up to be the best of the 3
do any of you agree

There you go making sense.  stop it, STOP IT I SAY!!!!

[Ricinator]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Personally, I just want Bioware to take their time with their mission designs like they did for the first Mass Effect and Dragon Age. My biggest complaint for ME2 was the fact that the missions themselves were too linear. For instance, in the first Mass Effect, there were multiple ways to get into the Garage on Noveria; you could help out Parasini, sell out the Hanar shop keeper, etc. Everything in ME2 was straight forward, "Go here and shoot" and I hated that.

That is my main fear.

Preach it dude

[Terror_K]

stu117 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The problem isn't so much that it's action-packed, but the way it goes about it. The execution and style of it basically. It's just too fast-paced and "rule of cool" the way its done. It just screams that it's trying to hard to be "teh awesomez badass!!1" and that it's trying to be too mainstream and over-the-top. You can be action-packed without coming across like an interactive Michael Bay movie through good pacing, execution and maturity.

since when is being badass a bad thing?

When you try too hard at it, when it comes off as incredibly immature because you're trying too hard and when you start messing around with lore, consistency and your own universe's logic for the sake of it. ME2 already felt like too much was sacrificed in the name of "being badass awesumz!!1" as it was after the first game did such a good job of establishing a rich, coherent and overly mature universe, and it's worrying to see ME3 continuing this horrible trend that ME2 started of immature style over substance.

[HogarthHughes 3]

RowanCF wrote...

It probably depends on how much you talk to people in the game, but yes, of course both elements are curcial. But I think you know what I meant. I just hope they didn't emphasise action too much and interaction too little.

I think I know what you meant, and I don't really disagree with it.  I was simply expressing my opinion that the combat is a key part of the game.

As for how much time Bioware is putting into a new combat system, I can't really tell yet.  I'm getting mixed results as to how much the combat as changed.  Watching the demo, it appears to be a spiffier ME2 system, and while Shepard has some new toys, it is still pretty similar.  Then reading the IGN demo review they talk about the weapons just feeling much better and it practically being an entirely new game.  I suppose I won't know until I actually play it myself.

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 08 juin 2011 - 05:08 .

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 already felt like too much was sacrificed in the name of "being badass awesumz!!1" as it was after the first game did such a good job of establishing a rich, coherent and overly mature universe, and it's worrying to see ME3 continuing this horrible trend that ME2 started of immature style over substance.

It's cheesy science fiction/space opera.  It always has been.  It's not some erudite projection of a nihilistic world.  It's an action-packed video game.

[FluffyScarf]

ME1 was action-packed. It also had a bunch of pointless RPG mechanics stapled on. And I seem to recall plenty of try hard moments as well. Oh how time seems to dull memories.

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...
 "being badass awesumz!!1" 

And here I almost missed being patronized.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

When you try too hard at it, when it comes off as incredibly immature because you're trying too hard and when you start messing around with lore, consistency and your own universe's logic for the sake of it.

You're right. It was pretty annoying when ME1 invented a lot of largely technobabble lore to justify gameplay. It's a shame ME2 kept up the tradition, and even worse when Shepard was being venerated by just about every Alliance personnel you could find under the sun.

Not to mention the lore-nightmare that is biotic Shepard.

ME2 already felt like too much was sacrificed in the name of "being badass awesumz!!1" as it was after the first game did such a good job of establishing a rich, coherent and overly mature universe, and it's worrying to see ME3 continuing this horrible trend that ME2 started of immature style over substance.

Wait, you think ME1 avoided slathering on the praise for Shepard? That intro was so self-congratulatory it put ME2's Miranda/TIM slobbering to shame.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 juin 2011 - 05:09 .

[HogarthHughes 3]

In Exile wrote...

Wait, you think ME1 avoided slathering on the praise for Shepard? That intro was so self-congratulatory it put ME2's Miranda/TIM slobbering to shame.

With the ruthless background Hackett will remark disapprovingly about Shepard getting most of his/her unit killed on Torfan!  Udina will be somewhat negative about it as well, but he generally is about everything so I suppose that doesn't count.  That still isn't much is it?  Or did you mean the whole shebang with the Spectre induction ceremony?

Modifié par HogarthHughes 3, 08 juin 2011 - 05:25 .

[FluffyScarf]

ME1 was far from mature. Remind me, when did we meet the Asari prostitutes? Oh, that's right. In the first 15 minutes. 'Well size isn't everything. Why so touchy, Joker?' Remember that? A genital joke. In the first 15 minutes.
And the Spectre induction...all I can say is it's a good thing scenes are skippable.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 08 juin 2011 - 05:19 .

[Iakus]

Umm, in Me1's intro it's noted that Shep had a tough childhood and survived a dangerous incident a few years back while being considered for the Spectres.

In ME2, Shep's very existence is crucial to preventing the destruction of galactic civilization.

I'd call that a bit of an upgrade...

[CroGamer002]

Because Bioware is dumbing it down for CoD fans. Derp

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

You're right. It was pretty annoying when ME1 invented a lot of largely technobabble lore to justify gameplay. It's a shame ME2 kept up the tradition, and even worse when Shepard was being venerated by just about every Alliance personnel you could find under the sun.

Not to mention the lore-nightmare that is biotic Shepard.

ME2 didn't keep up the tradition very well; it contradicted itself and previous established lore, all too keen to play the pathetic "rule of cool" cards just for the sake of it. Thermal clips made next to no logical sense, and the new lore entries related to the medi-gel system were contradicted directly by the fact that most of your squad didn't even wear the armour that would be needed to benefit from it, not to mention running around in the hazardous environments in almost no protection. And now in ME3 we have a "blade of light" that you stab people in the face with and Ashley suddenly throwing all sense aside and becoming Miranda II.

Wait, you think ME1 avoided slathering on the praise for Shepard? That intro was so self-congratulatory it put ME2's Miranda/TIM slobbering to shame.

Uh.... what does that have to do with Mass Effect suddenly deciding to go all "Modern Hollywood" in the second game? I think you're entirely missing the point. I'm not talking about Shepard's capabilties; I'm talking about the tone and style of the game and even the IP itself shifting.

If you can't see the vast difference in style and tone between ME1 and ME2, then you're either blind or stupid. It's one thing to agree with it and thus prefer it, it's another to deny it entirely. Mass Effect was intended to be a homage to the sci-fi greats from around the 70's and 80's, which Casey Hudson, Drew Karpyshyn, Mac Walters and other devs have stated numerous times. Now it's just like a modern non-sensical action movie that throws logic and reason aside for the sake of over-the-top mindless action, violence and breasts.

Oh, and I suppose all those who bring up ME1's mention of sex, strippers, prostitutes and the like are going to go and call Blade Runner an immature, over-the-top, piece of tripe too then, huh? Newsflash: it's not always the content, it's how it's presented. ME1 may have had strippers, but it didn't have several companions that dressed as one almost constantly and a Yeoman who could come up and dance for you like one just for the sake of a quick jerk-off. <_<

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 juin 2011 - 05:37 .

[Massadonious1]

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

[In Exile]

HogarthHughes 3 wrote...
With the ruthless background Hackett will remark disapprovingly about Shepard getting most of his/her unit killed on Torfan!  Udina will be somewhat negative about it as well, but he generally is about everything so I suppose that doesn't count.  That still isn't much is it?  Or did you mean the whole shebang with the Spectre induction ceremony?

A ruthless background has all that, ''you're a ruthless dude, but you get the job done''. They say that so much, Shepard might as well just campaign as a politian with his slogan ''I'm Cmdr. Shepard - I might get your children murdered, but by god, I get the job done!''.

I meant, that intro scene (Shepard's the best we've got; humanity needs a hero), plus Jenkins praising Shepard to no end, plus Nihilus praising Shepard, culminating in the ''I'll take him down!'' line Shepard has with Saren.

Essentially, the Eden Prime scenario.

[In Exile]

iakus wrote...

Umm, in Me1's intro it's noted that Shep had a tough childhood and survived a dangerous incident a few years back while being considered for the Spectres.

That failed to get killed, and really failed to get killed was a choice just adds to the plot problems that ME1 has. What does a anything + Sole Survivor have that qualifies Shepard for the Spectres? A war hero has the obvious credentials, and ruthless Shepard destroyed every Batarian on Torfan. But a sole survivor? Running away from a thresher maw is, I suppose, a lot better than getting killed by one, but otherwise...

[Yakko77]

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

Thank goodness someone else has their eyes (and their mind) open too.  Well played.

[Aimi]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 didn't keep up the tradition very well; it contradicted itself and previous established lore, all too keen to play the pathetic "rule of cool" cards just for the sake of it. Thermal clips made next to no logical sense, and the new lore entries related to the medi-gel system were contradicted directly by the fact that most of your squad didn't even wear the armour that would be needed to benefit from it, not to mention running around in the hazardous environments in almost no protection. And now in ME3 we have a "blade of light" that you stab people in the face with and Ashley suddenly throwing all sense aside and becoming Miranda II.

Sure it did. You're just ignoring ME1's lore contradictions. Biotics in the Codex emphatically do not work the way they do in game, and never have.  Ship to ship combat in the Battle of the Citadel was nothing like ship to ship combat as elucidated in the Codex. But, hey, that stuff was ignored in favor of fun, effective, good gameplay and cool cutscenes. Mass Effect would have been a boring game if you could only use biotics once or twice in a given firefight and have to chow down on protein bars afterwards, just like the Battle of the Citadel would've been pretty boring if the Fifth Fleet hadn't gotten up close and personal with Nazara to duke it out. And then they improved on the gameplay and made cutscenes look cooler in the second game, while throwing out a decent lore attempt at saying why they did so. Did it mesh perfectly? Of course not. Were there glitches in the explanation? Of course there were. And there always have been.

Now, the omni-blade already has something of a Codex explanation. Patrick Weekes gave it via Twitter: "diamond monoblade created from canonically present omni-tool fabrication tech, charged with [mass effect] or plasma field". Is that going to hold up to the scrutiny of a materials physicist or engineer? Maybe, maybe not. I dunno, I'm just a historian. Seems plausible enough to run with, though.

I'm not sure why I'm saying this, because you've been told this in the past and have either hand-waved or ignored it, so whatever.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 didn't keep up the tradition very well; it contradicted itself and previous established lore, all too keen to play the pathetic "rule of cool" cards just for the sake of it.

Let's try this again. Lots of stuff in ME1 was invented for the sake of 'dumbing down' shooter mechanics for the RPG crowd. The best possible example of this is the heating mechanism, as a way for ME to dodge reloading.

ME2 made ad-hoc changes to the lore in the same spirit - justifying a gameplay feature to cater to a segment of their target market. Only in this case it was the other part of the target market.

Thermal clips made next to no logical sense, and the new lore entries related to the medi-gel system were contradicted directly by the fact that most of your squad didn't even wear the armour that would be needed to benefit from it, not to mention running around in the hazardous environments in almost no protection.

Therminal clips made as much sense as any of the other junk science in ME1. As for dramatic lore contadictions - read up the space combat codex entries, then watch the battle of the Citadel. It's like that sequence tried it's hardest to contradict almost every single thing the lore set out to establish. All in the name of an awesome close-quarters space dogfight.

ME1 threw aside it's own lore for the rule of cool, and ME1 invented lore to justify catering to a market segment.

ME2 does the same thing for different reasosn. That's what I mean by the tradition being kept alive.

And now in ME3 we have a "blade of light" that you stab people in the face with and Ashley suddenly throwing all sense aside and becoming Miranda II.

You mean, letting down her hair? Ye gods! The nerve of that woman.

Uh.... what does that have to do with Mass Effect suddenly deciding to go all "Modern Hollywood" in the second game? I think you're entirely missing the point. I'm not talking about Shepard's capabilties; I'm talking about the tone and style of the game and even the IP itself shifting.

I'm talking about the manufactured 'badass' criticism you had. ME1 tried much harder to make Shepard a 'badass normal' than ME2 did. If anything, ME2 at least praised Shepard for something that is epic - beating Sovereign. Which Shepard did, since Sovereign's death in DIRECT CONTROL immediately led to Sovereign's shield's falling, and the Normandy (speaking of pushing aside lore for manufactured rule of cool) gave the killing blow to an already crippled Sovereign.

If you can't see the vast difference in style and tone between ME1 and ME2, then you're either blind or stupid.

I'm glad to see you're mature. It's a please to have a conversation with one so refined as you.

That said, I noted that ME1 was internally inconsistent in the tone that it had. It tried to channel 80s sci-fi, but it could only do so until we had Sovereign revealed as a reaper. By the time we got to the battle of the Citadel, 80s sci-fi was thrown out the window for rule-of-cool space battles and Shepard fighting almost singehandedly to kill an army of geth and krogan to get to Saren, before a 1v1 duel with Robo-Saren.

ME2's tone was ME1's tone from Ilos onward.

It's one thing to agree with it and thus prefer it, it's another to deny it entirely. Mass Effect was intended to be a homage to the sci-fi greats from around the 70's and 80's, which Casey Hudson, Drew Karpyshyn, Mac Walters and other devs have stated numerous times.

It certainly had homages, but those were all 'chase Saren' moments that entirely ignored the repear plot. The second we learned about Ilos, 70s and 80s sci-fi went right out the window. 

Now it's just like a modern non-sensical action movie that throws logic and reason aside for the sake of over-the-top mindless action, violence and breasts.

Again, this is the entire Council fight scene. Robo-Saren dying so our noble hero Shepard can strike the final blow? All ship-to-ship combat lore being ignored for the dogfight? The Normandy striking the final blow?

[Terror_K]

Yakko77 wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

Thank goodness someone else has their eyes (and their mind) open too.  Well played.

Not at all. In fact that pathetic reasoning is specious at best. For one thing we all know that that section of the game takes place during the Reaper invasion on Earth, when Shepard and Anderson likely don't have access to proper armour easy at hand. We see Shepard wearing proper armour in all the other sections later on as well.

And that's not even going into the whole factor that Ashley dressing and looking like that pretty much goes against everything her character seemed to stand for in the original game (simply put, that she's a practical soldier above all else). There's nothing about what Anderson and Shepard are wearing in the gameplay video we've seen that contradicts their personalities.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Terror_K wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Ashley is becoming "Miranda 2" then both Shepard and Anderson are becoming "Thane 2 and Jacob 2" because no one else was wearing heavy armor in that scene.

But, it's just easier to assume. It always has been. Carry on.

Thank goodness someone else has their eyes (and their mind) open too.  Well played.

Not at all. In fact that pathetic reasoning is specious at best. For one thing we all know that that section of the game takes place during the Reaper invasion on Earth, when Shepard and Anderson likely don't have access to proper armour easy at hand. We see Shepard wearing proper armour in all the other sections later on as well.

And that's not even going into the whole factor that Ashley dressing and looking like that pretty much goes against everything her character seemed to stand for in the original game (simply put, that she's a practical soldier above all else). There's nothing about what Anderson and Shepard are wearing in the gameplay video we've seen that contradicts their personalities.

I'd also like to point out that that whole section takes place during the Reaper invasion on Earth, when Ashley likely is too busy getting the Normandy ready to launch so they can rescue Shepard and Anderson and is not concerned with piling on 60 pounds of armor when she's aboard a space**** and quick movement is key. We see Ashley wearing prop.... oh wait, we don't because that 1 second glimpse of Ashley in the Normandy is ALL WE SEE OF HER IN THE GAMEPLAY VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN SO FAR.

You want to complain about her being Miranda 2 or whatever, wait until there is actual gameplay video out of her on a combat mission and we'll see what she's wearing then.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Therminal clips made as much sense as any of the other junk science in ME1. As for dramatic lore contadictions - read up the space combat codex entries, then watch the battle of the Citadel. It's like that sequence tried it's hardest to contradict almost every single thing the lore set out to establish. All in the name of an awesome close-quarters space dogfight.

Heh. How much filmed SF hasn't pulled crap like this? Trek TOS comes across relatively well, but only because they didn't have enough of an FX budget to do anything that looked good.

What does "80s sci-fi" mean, anyway? TNG? Dr. Who (lete 5th-6th Doctor era)?

[Massadonious1]

A practical soldier that (along with FemShep) apparently is still feminine enough to wear heavy "armor" that shows off her breasts and hugs her rump pretty snugly.

If armor in this game was practical they would all be wearing Kestrel breastplates.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Heh. How much filmed SF hasn't pulled crap like this? Trek TOS comes across relatively well, but only because they didn't have enough of an FX budget to do anything that looked good.

Star Wars? I don't even think there's that much established lore in the series to begin with. I mean, absolute nonsence twists like Vader being Luke's father fly in sequel to sequel.

What does "80s sci-fi" mean, anyway? TNG? Dr. Who (lete 5th-6th Doctor era)?

I'm thinking 80s sci-fi is more Blade Runner, Dune and Aliens than it is Star Wars and Stark Trek.

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

Therminal clips made as much sense as any of the other junk science in ME1.

Thermal clips on their own aren't so much an issue. The idea that they'd replace the old system and that it would be done to such an extent in less than two years is dubious at best. I still don't think it makes logical sense to change from an unlimited system with no dependencies on anything to a limited system that requires a finite resource to operate. Perhaps if it were a hybrid system I could, but it's not.

As for dramatic lore contadictions - read up the space combat codex entries, then watch the battle of the Citadel. It's like that sequence tried it's hardest to contradict almost every single thing the lore set out to establish. All in the name of an awesome close-quarters space dogfight.

The codex entries refer to back-and-forth skirmishes over long distances. This isn't as easy to do when one is caught by surprise fighting a (largely) unknown enemy. The Citadel is masked in a nebula cloud too, so The Alliance Fleet couldn't have used standard tactics when coming to the rescue either: they needed to get in close. Tactics change given different circumstances, and all the codex lore states is how things are usually done and usually play out.

You mean, letting down her hair? Ye gods! The nerve of that woman.

Given her personality it conflicts a fair amount, IMO. Now if this ends up being just her more casual garb and she wears proper gear on missions then I'll be more than happy to zip my mouth about it and even thank BioWare for not turning squaddie outfits into a pathetic farce, but there's been no evidence of this yet.

I'm talking about the manufactured 'badass' criticism you had. ME1 tried much harder to make Shepard a 'badass normal' than ME2 did. If anything, ME2 at least praised Shepard for something that is epic - beating Sovereign. Which Shepard did, since Sovereign's death in DIRECT CONTROL immediately led to Sovereign's shield's falling, and the Normandy (speaking of pushing aside lore for manufactured rule of cool) gave the killing blow to an already crippled Sovereign.

I have no problem with Shepard being painted as a badass because he/she is one. It's the tone of the game and IP itself that I have issues with.

That said, I noted that ME1 was internally inconsistent in the tone that it had. It tried to channel 80s sci-fi, but it could only do so until we had Sovereign revealed as a reaper. By the time we got to the battle of the Citadel, 80s sci-fi was thrown out the window for rule-of-cool space battles and Shepard fighting almost singehandedly to kill an army of geth and krogan to get to Saren, before a 1v1 duel with Robo-Saren.

ME2's tone was ME1's tone from Ilos onward.

It certainly had homages, but those were all 'chase Saren' moments that entirely ignored the repear plot. The second we learned about Ilos, 70s and 80s sci-fi went right out the window.

Hmmm... sorry, I don't see it personally. I thought ME1
remained pretty damn consistent throughout. And the very ending is one
of my favourite parts of the entire game, and ME series thus far, in
fact. By your logic if that were the case I should have hated it, but I didn't.

Again, this is the entire Council fight scene. Robo-Saren dying so our noble hero Shepard can strike the final low? All ship-to-ship combat lore being ignored for the dogfight? The Normandy striking the final blow?

Again, I don't see it. Those are great sci-fi moments for the most part as far as I'm concerned.

Don't get me wrong though... I don't think all of ME2 was too "Modern Hollywood" and not classic retro-scfi-fi enough. Most of it actually held up, but it was a lot of the little things like some of the more over-the-top and non-sensical powers, the squaddies being overly cliched and bombastic comic book-esque heroes in some cases (though I forgive much of this due to the plot), stuff like the thermal clips and the squaddies running around in dangerous environments in barely anything (yet getting all the benefits of full armour somehow), The Hammerhead, etc. ME2 was still mostly a throw-back homage to classic sci-fi, but just had a lot of little things here and there that just felt too "rule of cool" and Modern Hollywood for my tastes and just didn't feel right, IMO.