198 réponses à ce sujet

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

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

I agree with you.  I have two things for these people to consider:

1. I think people are overreacting to all kinds of minor things.

2. Some people's definition of RPG is different from mine.  It is a role playing game, in which you're playing the role of Shepard, and making decisions accordingly, with a strong emphasis on story.  Do you really want D&D style attributes? (STR, DEX...)  I sure don't!  I played NWN singleplayer and multiplayer for 7 years straight, but I like being able to change it up a bit with a game series like Mass Effect, where my aim is more important than my stats.

Ever since I played the first Mass Effect, I thought that the idea to fuse the RPG genre and the shooter genre together was a match made in Heaven.  Personally, I thought that ME 2 was very fun and thrilling.  Story-wise, I didn't feel like it mattered as much as what happened in ME 1, but I don't think I'll have to worry about that in ME 3.  I think it will be one of the most fun games that I've ever played in my life.

[XFemShepX]

iakus wrote...

Indeed there does. and there's nothing wrong with that.  When it's appropriate.  But when there's action and gunfire and explosions for no other reason than to have action, gunfire and explosions, when you have to stop and think "Why am I here again?"  or "what's the point of this mission?" then action has totally subsumed the plot. The action, in fact becomes the plot.  This is a bad thing.  

Iakus, very well said.  I totally agree--about the action becoming the plot. 

I don't think ME's gotten there just yet, but ME2 was maybe the start of it.

DA2, however...I know it's a different team (obviously), but Jesus--I spent the entire game running around doing errands and fighting bad guys, and not even knowing why, or for who, I was doing this for.  It was terrible.

[Gibb_Shepard]

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.

I....Wh...

They were ESCAPING Earth. They were RUNNING for their lives. WHERE would they get armour from? WHY would they stop and take the chance of being swarmed?

It annoys me to no end when someone starts self congratulating when they sound like fools.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I will say one thing. I hated the planetary sidequests in ME 2. I felt like they were far less important than before, and had much less impact. You couldn't even gain paragon/renegade points (thus making it harder to resolve certain conflicts - ahem, Miranda and Jack) from them.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
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.

It's all nonsense to justify gameplay. The heat system only exists in the first place because they want RPG fans to avoid re-loading, and then went they decided to branch out into shooter combat, they introduced ammo. Except Bioware didn't want to bite the bullet enough on their lore to just out-and-out say we retconned ammo, it always worked this way, so we have Shepard being in a coma but knowing about thermal clips.

It's like biotics being able to read minds in ME1. The writers have never tried to stay on-the-ball with their own lore.

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.

No, they violate lore. For one, most Citadel ships should have blown-up from the heat they generated or retreated to FTL. The main guns of the cruisers and dreadnoughts are useless unless at medium range or better. Dreadnoughts only fight at extreme ranges (so the destiny ascension would be less than uselss).

At a close 'knife fight' (i.e. the Citadel Battle) none of the crusiers or dreadnoughts can do anything. They can't even face their bow toward enemy ships, and the exhaust would destroy them. Only frigates can even do anything (e.g. the distance where Sovereign was fought, and where the geth seemed to be engaging the Citadel Fleet) and do so largely by using GARDIAN lasers and fighters (which we never saw).

So, basically, the only ship that could actually fight at the range we saw was the Normandy, plus fighters we never saw exist.

More generally, we never saw the AA guns of ships working against missles, and we never really saw disruptor torpedoes.

Basically, it had nothing to do with tactics. Ships literally did things that were impossible in the lore.

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.

Her personality demands she keep her hair in a bun? We saw Kaiden in full armour, and Miranda's alternate apperance is armour. I think ME3 will just go with iconic armour + on-ship clothing.

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.

What does that mean? How does ME2 differ from ME1? As of right now, all it sounds like is that you liked the same feature in ME1 but not in ME2... because, well, why exactly?

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.

Actually, I'm going to put very good money on you disliking ME2 for other reasons, and using narrative inconsistency as a way to undercut the game.

ME1 broke it's own lore the second a biotic used 3 attacks. Then we had the fact that biotics can basically read minds because the rachni are 'sensitive' to biotics (which contradicts so much it borders on the hilarious). Then we have the plot mess that is Tali actually having a recording of Eden Prime circa 14 hours after Eden Prime on the Citadel.

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,

Okay, so far so good...

but it was a lot of the little things like some of the more over-the-top and non-sensical powers,

You mean like biotic mind-reading? Saren's magic bolts on Virmire?

the squaddies being overly cliched and bombastic comic book-esque heroes in some cases (though I forgive much of this due to the plot)

ME2's squad didn't exactly have depth, I completely agree with you here, but which one of them was comic book-esque?

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

ME1 did the same thing, though. We can quibble about the extent, but it's rule of cool all the way. The cutscenes are just worse.

[XFemShepX]

lazuli wrote...

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.

Lots of big words there.  I'll try to keep up.

I wouldn't label Mass Effect as "cheesy".  There's cheesy parts that are meant for humor, but like any good story the Mass Effect universe is one that is large, vast and complex.  I mean, we've all read the codex for both games.  One of the reasons Mass Effect 1 was so great was that you could immerse yourself as deeply into the ME Universe as you wanted, supplemented by the rich background of the codex, which took hours to read.  There's stories, evolutions, political systems, governments, technologies, cultures, and myths written as asides within one single game.  

It may not be Shakespeare, but there are many parts of Mass Effect that are eruditely written. 

I'm eager to see more RPG elements, to learn more of the story instead of seeing all the action for the shooter crowd.  I'll reserve judgement, however, until I see more clips of the game in the coming weeks ahead.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

Because screw action. We just want an interactive movie with sex scenes and random RPG level ups.

Modifié par Mr.BlazenGlazen, 08 juin 2011 - 06:47 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
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.

I was going to give SW a pass, but then I remembered that the Millenium Falcon can outrun TIE fighters but can't outrun stardestroyers

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Actually, I'm going to put very good money on you disliking ME2 for other reasons, and using narrative inconsistency as a way to undercut the game.

Might be hard to collect on a bet like that.

I'd join in on the substance, but you're doing a pretty good job without me. Tag me in if Gatt9 or someone shows up.

[Clonedzero]

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
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.

I was going to give SW a pass, but then I remembered that the Millenium Falcon can outrun TIE fighters but can't outrun stardestroyers

if you wanna get down to it. for every mass effect inconsistancy you can think of, i could pull out like 5 star wars ones and each star wars inconsistancy would be actually important while the mass effect ones would be fairly minor in comparison.

in fact star wars is so wildly inconsistant its insane when you get down to it, which is kinda nuts. a big part of it is that lucas did the movies and never actually explained how things worked and then gave other people rights to write in "canon" for the universe and then never controlled it so alot of it overwrites each other. its disgusting if you actually look into it. which is a shame cus i LOVED starwars as a kid.

ive seen explainations for how lightsabers work in like 8 different ways from actual offical sources rofl.

[Terror_K]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

It's all nonsense to justify gameplay. The heat system only exists in the first place because they want RPG fans to avoid re-loading, and then went they decided to branch out into shooter combat, they introduced ammo. Except Bioware didn't want to bite the bullet enough on their lore to just out-and-out say we retconned ammo, it always worked this way, so we have Shepard being in a coma but knowing about thermal clips.[/quote]

And we have thermal clips suddenly being everywhere in two years: a system that is inferior to the old method, yet replaced it. It's not so much a contradiction and inconsistency or canon violation as it is a stupid, nonsensical move. Though it at least has a gameplay reason, unlike, say, squaddies running around in PJs all the time.

It's like biotics being able to read minds in ME1. The writers have never tried to stay on-the-ball with their own lore.[/quote]

Biotics can't read minds. More on that later though (when you bring it up again).

[quote]
No, they violate lore. For one, most Citadel ships should have blown-up from the heat they generated or retreated to FTL. The main guns of the cruisers and dreadnoughts are useless unless at medium range or better. Dreadnoughts only fight at extreme ranges (so the destiny ascension would be less than uselss).

At a close 'knife fight' (i.e. the Citadel Battle) none of the crusiers or dreadnoughts can do anything. They can't even face their bow toward enemy ships, and the exhaust would destroy them. Only frigates can even do anything (e.g. the distance where Sovereign was fought, and where the geth seemed to be engaging the Citadel Fleet) and do so largely by using GARDIAN lasers and fighters (which we never saw).

So, basically, the only ship that could actually fight at the range we saw was the Normandy, plus fighters we never saw exist.

More generally, we never saw the AA guns of ships working against missles, and we never really saw disruptor torpedoes.

Basically, it had nothing to do with tactics. Ships literally did things that were impossible in the lore. [/quote]

If everybody's ships were so inept and incapable as you say there'd be little point having them. So what you're basically saying is that to maintain the lore they'd have to be almost completely ineffective, which is just stupid.

[quote]
Her personality demands she keep her hair in a bun? We saw Kaiden in full armour, and Miranda's alternate apperance is armour. I think ME3 will just go with iconic armour + on-ship clothing.[/quote]

Firstly, Ashley would know as both a soldier and a woman having your hair in your face isn't the best combat aide. Secondly, Miranda's alt appearance wasn't actually armour, it was just a black version of her standard gear. It wasn't until the Alt Appearance Pack that she got armour, and even then she was saddled with a silly breathing mask instead of a proper helmet. Finally, I hope you're right on the last point.

[quote]
What does that mean? How does ME2 differ from ME1? As of right now, all it sounds like is that you liked the same feature in ME1 but not in ME2... because, well, why exactly?[/quote]

I don't know where you're getting this from. ME1 didn't have thermal clips. It had squaddies who (IMO) felt like real people and were running around in gear fully appropriate to space exploration and combat. Simply put, ME1 never pulled me out of the game immersion-wise due to stupidity, whereas ME2 did that a lot (granted, usually due to the same factors repeatedly). ME1 felt like the classic sci-fi I grew up with in game form, while ME2 often didn't and seemed to play the "Modern Hollywood" action card a tad too often.

[quote]
Actually, I'm going to put very good money on you disliking ME2 for other reasons, and using narrative inconsistency as a way to undercut the game.

ME1 broke it's own lore the second a biotic used 3 attacks. Then we had the fact that biotics can basically read minds because the rachni are 'sensitive' to biotics (which contradicts so much it borders on the hilarious).[/quote]

Yes, I'll admit that biotics don't quite work exactly the same in the lore as they do in the game. Though they're even worse in ME2 where they're suddenly pathetic when biotic attacks aren't supposed to be so weak and easily neutered by defenses.

Secondly, biotics can't read minds. Benezia can because she's an asari, and a very powerful one at that. She read the rachni's mind using her asari melding ability, not just because she was a biotic. It's her species that allows her to do so, not her biotics.

[quote]
Then we have the plot mess that is Tali actually having a recording of Eden Prime circa 14 hours after Eden Prime on the Citadel.[/quote]

I don't see the issue here personally. She took it from a Geth. Because of how the Geth network together it could have been any heretic geth.

[quote]
You mean like biotic mind-reading? Saren's magic bolts on Virmire?[/quote]

Again, not biotic mind-reading: asari mind-reading, which fits their species as established. Saren's magic bolts? Ummm... he's a biotic. And enhanced by Sovereign at that. Given that, what's so wrong with either of these factors?

[quote]
ME2's squad didn't exactly have depth, I completely agree with you here, but which one of them was comic book-esque?[/quote]

Almost all of them. They're all these Best-of-the-Best super badasses all with their cliched roles. It's only because some of them have got a bit of depth and personality if you did deep enough that it ceases to be shallow and overly cliched. And it's only because of the nature of the mission literally being "find the best of the best" that the plot gets away with it.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

If I may butt in... Biotics are more along the lines of telekinesis than telepathy. Asari read minds.  Or "join", rather.

Modifié par Neverwinter_Knight77, 08 juin 2011 - 07:27 .

[Dave666]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

If I may butt in... Biotics are more along the lines of telekinesis than telepathy. Asari read minds.  Or "join", rather.

Indeed. It was only with the introduction of 'Dominate' that suddenly a Biotic can use mind-control.  Because we all know how raising or lowering a persons Mass can cause that...

[Powgow]

Action and RPG can live side by side you know. The action is influenced in the background by the RPG "stats", so more shooting does not mean less brainy. Atleast i hope so..

[Terror_K]

Dave666 wrote...

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

If I may butt in... Biotics are more along the lines of telekinesis than telepathy. Asari read minds.  Or "join", rather.

Indeed. It was only with the introduction of 'Dominate' that suddenly a Biotic can use mind-control.  Because we all know how raising or lowering a persons Mass can cause that...

To be fair, that's supposed to be Morinth's special ability due to her condition. It only falls on its face because the devs decided to add it as a bonus power for Shepard as well, and then it suddenly makes no sense.

[In Exile]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
And we have thermal clips suddenly being everywhere in two years: a system that is inferior to the old method, yet replaced it. [/quote]

According to the tortured lore, it isn't. And that's what ME's been running on since ME1.

[quote]It's not so much a contradiction and inconsistency or canon violation as it is a stupid, nonsensical move. Though it at least has a gameplay reason, unlike, say, squaddies running around in PJs all the time.

It's like biotics being able to read minds in ME1. The writers have never tried to stay on-the-ball with their own lore.[/quote]

Well, exactly. It's just as dumb as in ME1. So why would you say that ME2 is worse than ME1 in this case, or that ME3 doesn't somehow keep the ME tortured lore trend alive? The omni-blade is just like the infinite fire guns of ME1 and the thermal clips of ME2.

[quote]If everybody's ships were so inept and incapable as you say there'd be little point having them. So what you're basically saying is that to maintain the lore they'd have to be almost completely ineffective, which is just stupid.[/quote]

Er... what? Read the ship-to-ship combat entries. There are effective ranges for all ships. Dreadnoughts kill at extreme range. They shell the enemy fleet before they can bring weapons in-range. Crusiers fight at mid-range, keeping dreadnoughts safe in the back. Freighters and fighters fight at knife-fight range, drilling cruisers and dreadnoughts both.

The lore works just fine - the problem is that the cut-scene just totally ignored it.

[quote]Firstly, Ashley would know as both a soldier and a woman having your hair in your face isn't the best combat aide. [/quote]

Yes, and the unbreakable combat hair elastic is the way to go, versus, say, cutting her hair. ME1 did it for sex appeal as much as ME3 is doing it for sex appeal.

[quote]Secondly, Miranda's alt appearance wasn't actually armour, it was just a black version of her standard gear. It wasn't until the Alt Appearance Pack that she got armour, and even then she was saddled with a silly breathing mask instead of a proper helmet. Finally, I hope you're right on the last point. [/quote]

It's the alt apperance pack that I think it is a response to the oucry, and that, combined with Kaiden spotting heavier armour in the screenshots than we've ever seen Kaiden wear, makes me think everyone's getting armour to some degreee or other.

[quote]
I don't know where you're getting this from. ME1 didn't have thermal clips.[/quote]

It had the same kind of middle-finger-straight-the-lore as ME2 did. It was just in different places.

The armour bothered you. Mind-reading autobiotics compared to very rare and mentally exhausting telekinetics bothered me. 'Badass Shepard' bothered you; the contradiction that was the space battle bothered me. You thought ME2 venerated Shepard; I felt ME1 venerated Shepard.

The gist is - you liked ME1 more than ME2. Quite fair. But ME1 had the same faults as ME2 - just in different places, and it sounds like you're willing to forgive them in one game but not the other.

[quote] It had squaddies who (IMO) felt like real people and were running around in gear fully appropriate to space exploration and combat. [/quote]

What do you mean, real people? Everyone except Ashley and Kaiden was a lore-dump about their culture, with the exception of Garrus, who barely spoke (just like in ME2!). Ashley and Kaiden were brilliantly done, but the ME2 crew was at the level of Tali-Garrus-Wrex, except there were more of them.

I agree with you on the armour; I just think it's the same sort of nonsence as the rachni being 'sensitive' to biotics.

[quote]Simply put, ME1 never pulled me out of the game immersion-wise due to stupidity, whereas ME2 did that a lot (granted, usually due to the same factors repeatedly). ME1 felt like the classic sci-fi I grew up with in game form, while ME2 often didn't and seemed to play the "Modern Hollywood" action card a tad too often.[/quote]

Like I said: you're 100% entitled to feel this way. I'm just saying, ME1 doesn't differ from ME2 structurally. If ME1 worked for you and ME2 didn't, that's fine. But the two games were not radically different.

[quote]Yes, I'll admit that biotics don't quite work exactly the same in the lore as they do in the game. Though they're even worse in ME2 where they're suddenly pathetic when biotic attacks aren't supposed to be so weak and easily neutered by defenses.[/quote]

Meh, it's just a differenet kind of wrong.

[quote]Secondly, biotics can't read minds. Benezia can because she's an asari, and a very powerful one at that. She read the rachni's mind using her asari melding ability, not just because she was a biotic. It's her species that allows her to do so, not her biotics.[/quote]

No, I replayed the section. She specifically mentions biotics. So does the crazy vollus. I'm aware of what asari can do. It's not asari mind-sex.

[quote]I don't see the issue here personally. She took it from a Geth. Because of how the Geth network together it could have been any heretic geth.[/quote]

The issue is time. The recording that she has is post Eden Prime. Recorded by a Geth. But Shepard is on the Citadel half a day later and there's no indication in the game that any time has passed. Yet somehow Tali had time to find a Geth that overheard Saren's conversation with Benezia, fly to the Citadel, contact (and find!) the actual Shadow Broker, contact Fist and arrange for an info-drop. And while Shepard takes 60 minutes to find Harkin or Barla Vonn (sp?).

[quote]
Again, not biotic mind-reading: asari mind-reading, which fits their species as established. [/quote]

Replay the section. It is biotic mind-reading. They refer to it that way.

[quote]Saren's magic bolts? Ummm... he's a biotic. And enhanced by Sovereign at that. Given that, what's so wrong with either of these factors?[/quote]

Saren isn't a biotic. That's established by his backstory in that C-level sci fi novel. As for magic sovereign powers, despite his character model, Sovereign doesn't actually remodel him until after Virmire. That's another inconsistency in ME1.

[quote]Almost all of them. They're all these Best-of-the-Best super badasses all with their cliched roles. It's only because some of them have got a bit of depth and personality if you did deep enough that it ceases to be shallow and overly cliched. And it's only because of the nature of the mission literally being "find the best of the best" that the plot gets away with it.[/quote]

Jacob isn't the best at anything, and unless Tali and Garrus LV'ed up, they're the same as in ME1. Mordin is a scientist. Zaheed is just a mercenary. Legion is just a geth grunt. It's the rest of the crew that's a level above the cut, absolutely. But all the hype aside, none of the ME2 squad do anything extraordinary (except Jack, really).

[Terror_K]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
And we have thermal clips suddenly being everywhere in two years: a system that is inferior to the old method, yet replaced it. [/quote]

According to the tortured lore, it isn't. And that's what ME's been running on since ME1.[/quote]

Uh... no. For starters, just stating that the technology is superior without proper reason doesn't make it so. Secondly, ME1 didn't use a thermal clip system. Thermal clips came about from reverse-engineering Geth technology after the attack on Eden Prime apparently and have only been in common use for less than two years (despite them exisiting on a planet isolated from civilisation for 10 years and mentioned in Zaeed's old stories). Prior to that guns simply overheated and you had to wait for them to cool.

[quote]
It's like biotics being able to read minds in ME1. The writers have never tried to stay on-the-ball with their own lore.[/quote]

Again, that's not the case. You're misreading the situation with this whole "biotics mind-reading" stuff. You're the first person I've heard even mention it since... ever, in fact. It doesn't work how you think it does: a biotic can't simply mind-read.

[quote]
Well, exactly. It's just as dumb as in ME1. So why would you say that ME2 is worse than ME1 in this case, or that ME3 doesn't somehow keep the ME tortured lore trend alive? The omni-blade is just like the infinite fire guns of ME1 and the thermal clips of ME2. [/quote]

What? The guns in ME1 weren't infinite fire at all except as a gameplay element: they just had blocks of metal in them and it took a massively long time to run out, so realistically you wouldn't need to replace them often (i.e. every time you visited the Normandy would be more than enough). The omni-blade --until we get an explanation-- is a blade of solid light from the looks of it. That's just stupid.

[quote]
The armour bothered you. Mind-reading autobiotics compared to very rare and mentally exhausting telekinetics bothered me. 'Badass Shepard' bothered you; the contradiction that was the space battle bothered me. You thought ME2 venerated Shepard; I felt ME1 venerated Shepard. [/quote]

Again, biotics do not work that way. You're misreading how they function, what Benezia did and how. Secondly, "Badass Shepard" doesn't bother me, as I previously stated already, and I don't know where this nonsense about me thinking ME2 "venerated Shepard" even came from?!

[quote]
The gist is - you liked ME1 more than ME2. Quite fair. But ME1 had the same faults as ME2 - just in different places, and it sounds like you're willing to forgive them in one game but not the other. [/quote]

It's all about what sticks out as stupid to me and pulls me out of the game. Nothing in ME1 did that really, while ME2 did it all the time, for various reasons. Both games have faults, but they're different ones, and even when the faults are the same they're the same in different ways. My biggest beef with ME2 is and probably always will be the complete lack of proper outfits for squaddies, because that almost constantly tore me out of the game and results in me always just using Garrus, Tali and Legion most of the time.

[quote]
What do you mean, real people? Everyone except Ashley and Kaiden was a lore-dump about their culture, with the exception of Garrus, who barely spoke (just like in ME2!). Ashley and Kaiden were brilliantly done, but the ME2 crew was at the level of Tali-Garrus-Wrex, except there were more of them. [/quote]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. While some were admittedly a bit of a codex dump (particularly Tali), I still found they were all interesting enough and had in-depth, real personalities. They felt down-to-earth rather than over-the-top, and I didn't find any of them to be cliched, unlike ME2's squad who almost all seemed to have "a thing" to them.

[quote]
Like I said: you're 100% entitled to feel this way. I'm just saying, ME1 doesn't differ from ME2 structurally. If ME1 worked for you and ME2 didn't, that's fine. But the two games were not radically different. [/quote]

Style wise they were very different, IMO. ME1 at least felt like it was treating me as a player with respect and assumed I knew what I was doing and why. ME2 felt like it was constantly trying to baby me and hold me hand, as if I'd never even heard of an RPG. It was insulting, and it was often trying too hard to be "cool!" and "badass!" IMO.

[quote]
No, I replayed the section. She specifically mentions biotics. So does the crazy vollus. I'm aware of what asari can do. It's not asari mind-sex. [/quote]

There are different degrees of melding, you realising. Not all of it is "asari mind sex" it all depends. Shepard melded with both Shiala and Liara to try and help make sense of the prothean beacon visions, and that wasn't "asari mind sex" either. The Rachni being sensitive to biotics may be a factor that allowed Benezia to more easily open the Rachni Queen's mind, but it's not the driving factor that allows the mind-reading to occur: Benezia being an asari is. Normally one would have to open their mind willingly to let her in and for her to be able to access the Queen's mind, but using biotics to tear down her mental defenses she can more easily slip in.

Trust me on this: I researched the topic of asari and melding quite extensively for one of the main characters in my fan novel, because I wanted to be sure it was accurate and lore-friendly. It's not as simple as just being a biotic.

[quote]
The issue is time. The recording that she has is post Eden Prime. Recorded by a Geth. But Shepard is on the Citadel half a day later and there's no indication in the game that any time has passed. Yet somehow Tali had time to find a Geth that overheard Saren's conversation with Benezia, fly to the Citadel, contact (and find!) the actual Shadow Broker, contact Fist and arrange for an info-drop. And while Shepard takes 60 minutes to find Harkin or Barla Vonn (sp?). [/quote]

It's just a matter of time, yes. All Tali needed to do was be closer to The Citadel than Shepard and The Normandy were. That's not that hard. Time is also rather skewed by gameplay, which doesn't totally accurately exhibit it. The entirely of ME1, for instance, feels like perhaps about a week, but it's actually several months.

[quote]
Saren isn't a biotic. That's established by his backstory in that C-level sci fi novel. As for magic sovereign powers, despite his character model, Sovereign doesn't actually remodel him until after Virmire. That's another inconsistency in ME1. [/quote]

Saren was already partially upgraded before we even met him. I distinctly remember one of the ME1 devs on the old forums saying this specifically when some people asked about Saren's character model and were wondering why he already looked changed from the start, and whether that was intentional or whether he was supposed to look more pure-turian early on given the comments at the end of the game about him being upgraded. The dev said that Saren intentionally looked partially synthetic from the start and has been gradually altered over time, and that the final upgrades were just Sovereign making some final adjustments to curb Saren's lingering doubts. So given that comment, Saren was already changed when we met him.

[quote]
Jacob isn't the best at anything, and unless Tali and Garrus LV'ed up, they're the same as in ME1. Mordin is a scientist. Zaheed is just a mercenary. Legion is just a geth grunt. It's the rest of the crew that's a level above the cut, absolutely. But all the hype aside, none of the ME2 squad do anything extraordinary (except Jack, really).
[/quote]

Well, Jacob and the ME1 returns admittedly don't count (though Garrus is tremendously capable and, dare I say, "badass"). Mordin is clearly one of the best salarian minds out there. Zaeed is definitely very capable. Legion doesn't really count because he wasn't on the list. What they actually do or don't do in the game as squaddies is irrelevant: the fact that they're painted and presented as these over-the-top badasses is just a fact. It's practically what ME2 was hyped as being about.

[Yakko77]

Gibb_Shepard 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.

I....Wh...

They were ESCAPING Earth. They were RUNNING for their lives. WHERE would they get armour from? WHY would they stop and take the chance of being swarmed?

It annoys me to no end when someone starts self congratulating when they sound like fools.

Some people are crying, complaining and all around bitc#ing up a storm over Ash's outfit which we see her in for all of 2 seconds when there's no reason to assume she had any more time to put on armor than Shep or Anderson did and yet people are making ridiculous assumptions anyways.  Earth is getting the Pearl harbor treatment as a whole but "fans" are more worried about being fashion police.  So yeah, there's lots of foolishness to go around and it wasn't from the person I initially quoted.

[sp0ck 06]

RowanCF wrote...

ME has never been an action oriented game, it's been about the story and characters and the universe. So that's why I hope they didn't spend too much time on just trying to upgrade combat and not focusing so much on the previously listed elements. 

ME has never been an action oriented game?  How do you figure that?

You know, this is just speculation, but I'll bet there was actually MORE shooting in ME1 than 2.  Especially if you include the awful Mako sequences.  Think about missions like Tali's loyalty, Thane's loyalty.  A significant portion os ME2 is dialogue based, much more than people give it credit for.

A scene like Tali's trial can end in a number of drastically different ways, depending on your dialogue choices and actions.  I don't see how the ME1 missions were any deeper in an RPG sense.  They just had crappier combat.

[lazuli]

XFemShepX wrote...

lazuli wrote...

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.

Lots of big words there.  I'll try to keep up.

I wouldn't label Mass Effect as "cheesy".  There's cheesy parts that are meant for humor, but like any good story the Mass Effect universe is one that is large, vast and complex.  I mean, we've all read the codex for both games.  One of the reasons Mass Effect 1 was so great was that you could immerse yourself as deeply into the ME Universe as you wanted, supplemented by the rich background of the codex, which took hours to read.  There's stories, evolutions, political systems, governments, technologies, cultures, and myths written as asides within one single game.  

It may not be Shakespeare, but there are many parts of Mass Effect that are eruditely written. 

I'm eager to see more RPG elements, to learn more of the story instead of seeing all the action for the shooter crowd.  I'll reserve judgement, however, until I see more clips of the game in the coming weeks ahead.

The big words were to prove a point about what Mass Effect is not in an admittedly tongue-in-cheek fashion.  Certainly some parts of it are higher brow than the rest, but I don't think we should ever lose sight of the fact that we're playing an action-packed video game series.

I think the reason ME1 comes off as more complex than ME2 is because parts of it are just poorly designed.  The combat isn't more complex because you have to sink 10 points into a skill before a weapon becomes useable.  It's just an ineffective model, bogged down with needless effluvia.

And, as others have brought up in this thread, the series has always had action as one of its staples.  The difference with ME2 (and perhaps ME3), is that now the action doesn't suck.  That's a little incendiary, so let me clarify.  ME1 had a few awesome action scenes, but by and large the combat devolved to instantly levitating a room and whittling the whirling enemies down to 0 HP.  Get beyond that, though, and you find Shepard battling geth on the outer walls of the Citadel, storming forward while Sovereign's massive claws loom in the distance.  We're seeing that epic action portrayed again in some of the E3 demos, just now with a bigger budget.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

XFemShepX wrote...

lazuli wrote...

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.

Lots of big words there.  I'll try to keep up.

I wouldn't label Mass Effect as "cheesy".  There's cheesy parts that are meant for humor, but like any good story the Mass Effect universe is one that is large, vast and complex.  I mean, we've all read the codex for both games.  One of the reasons Mass Effect 1 was so great was that you could immerse yourself as deeply into the ME Universe as you wanted, supplemented by the rich background of the codex, which took hours to read.  There's stories, evolutions, political systems, governments, technologies, cultures, and myths written as asides within one single game.  

It may not be Shakespeare, but there are many parts of Mass Effect that are eruditely written. 

I'm eager to see more RPG elements, to learn more of the story instead of seeing all the action for the shooter crowd.  I'll reserve judgement, however, until I see more clips of the game in the coming weeks ahead.

shakespeare...LOLOLOL. mass effect is way better then crap like friggin romeo and juliet

[Il Divo]

Dave666 wrote...

And are you serious? RPG's having 'bad stories'?  As opposed to the awesome stories that you get in Shooters you mean?

Bioshock and Half-Life 2 would both like to have a word with you. I would argue that both manage to tell more effective stories than Mass Effect without being an info dump.

Modifié par Il Divo, 08 juin 2011 - 05:37 .

[sp0ck 06]

Il Divo wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

And are you serious? RPG's having 'bad stories'?  As opposed to the awesome stories that you get in Shooters you mean?

Bioshock and Half-Life 2 would both like to have a word with you. I would argue that both manage to tell more effective stories than Mass Effect without being an info dump.

QFT.  

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

And are you serious? RPG's having 'bad stories'?  As opposed to the awesome stories that you get in Shooters you mean?

Bioshock and Half-Life 2 would both like to have a word with you. I would argue that both manage to tell more effective stories than Mass Effect without being an info dump.

QFT.  

im sorry but im sick of hearing people say that BIOSHCOK AND HALF LIFE 2 ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST...they are not.

bioshock is good but not GOTY material. its story is good but the enemies are just a bunch of people on drugs and the only cool monsters are big daddys. the jumping is clunky, the fact you cant die makes it easy( though you can turn off cryotube). and then half life 2 OMG.....let me get this straight with all of you. valve is good, half life is good, portal is good, but THEY ARE NOT AS GREAT AS PEOPLE SAY THEY ARE. they arent BEST GAME EVER material. they are only prasied cuz VALVE made it. it ticks me off hearing people say that COUNTER STRIKE is the best multyplayer ever cuz its made by VALVE, half life is the best game ever cuz its made by VALVE, left 4 dead( which sucked hard) is the best zombie game ever cuz its VALVE. its just the name VALVE that makes these games praised.   im not saying they all make bad games im just saying they are overated. like is gordan freeman THE BEST CHARACTER EVER....HES GOT NO PERSONALITY

bottomline...shooters are good...but dont compare to rpgs one bit

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

The original Metal Gear Solid (on PS1) is still my favorite game of all time, because of its gripping story. Most of the time, however, when I want a plot-based game (and I usually do), I turn to Bioware.