3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

I see what you're saying SBvera, but by that token, ME1 had little choice as well.

Granted I can understand the not liking the storytelling of ME2, overall it does seem to pale in comparison to the threat of ME1.

But I also like to look at the fact that a lot of human lives were lost to the collectors (more so than the geth i'd say) compartively speaking. Instead of just eden prime or feros being hit, we had to deal with enemies that have already captured and liquidated Tens of thousands of human colonists and with the tech to not even be touched.

So to me it has a broader scope in that sense... granted you never see all but a few colonies and just hear about the others.

The storytelling to me in ME2 while not as vast in scope to ME1, Is understandable as it is the second act and the "new car" smell has worn off, as everything is established mostly and so from then on you're just adding more ingredients so to speak.

and nothing is ever quite as good as the first time you're introduced to something.

[Il Divo]

sbvera13 wrote...
The original issue was whether or not ME2 was distinct from most shooters, and someone (I forget who) brought up the choices.  The little "can you..." meme started to illustrate that it really didn't have many serious choices after all.  What it does have is great voice acting and writing, which sets it apart, but gameplay mechanics not so much.

Keep in mind that few RPGs present any serious choices until the end-game. This is purposely done so that developers don't have a divergent storyline haflway through the game. All of Mass Effect 2's dialogue, choices, and interaction does lead to the same end-game. But so does every other Bioware game. We can apply the meme ad infinitum, if we so desired.

Ex: How many choices in Mass Effect would you say impacted the storyline significantly?

Saving/murdering the Council is the only one that comes to mind, and that's end-game.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2011 - 04:25 .

[this isnt my name]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Savber100 wrote...


Does Halo have the option where I don't have to fight the damn Covenant? Does God of War 3 have the option where Kratos does not have to kill Zeus? Does Assassin's Creed have an option where I can join the Templars?

No? Then, shut the hell up about ME2 being a shooter with lots of dialogue.  

Does ME2 have an option where I dont fight collectors ? WHere I dont fight the mechs ? And the same 3 merc groups ?

An option not to kill the collector general ?
An option not to work with cerberus ?


Please, your argument fails, ME2 has bugger all in terms of choices, mst are end quest choices, which have no impact on the game.

Its a shooter, it has dialouge, most of which is pointless. 3 ways to get the same outcome, but hey shepard got to be angr in one option... That changes it right ? Oh wait.

You know what halo has that mass effect 2 dosent ?

A decent story.

Halo has a decent story? News to me!

My opinion is ME2 (Hell Mass Effect generally) has a better storyline than all the Halos combined!

That said does Halo: COmbat Evolved give me the option to NOT be Master chief? Or fight the same 5 aliens or the flood?

See we can do this for everything in existence!

Mass effect 2 still has more choices and variables in it that Halo ever had.  and sure the end results are "mostly" the same.... but what did you expect? Them to make 10 different games for every plot variable possible?  Even I know thats not possible or worthwhile. 

Also what other game do you know that can carry over choices like the Mass effect series through the whole trilogy? Sure the differences may not be major as there is an overarching plot, but the side characters can vary as can a few missions here and there.

Halo didnt have the flood/forerunners/covenant get dumber when the plot demanded it. It was also a great twist finding halo was a weapon made to wipe out all life and "starve" the flood. It was also relavent, unlike ME2 which is just 90% daddy issues unrelated to the plot.

Nope, just you know IMPACT, hell FABLE 2/3 has more impact in choices, in fable 2 dont save oakfield it becomes like wraithmarsh, same for paying barnum to improve westcliffe.

I dont play other games that import. But seeing as we had a camo or two and some emails. The import sucks. You get more impact out of other games e.g alpha protocal than you do with mass effect. Its quite sad tbh that the yped it up and it does buggger all with the "wait till ME3" excuse.

[Ace of Dawn]

sbvera13 wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

Does Halo have the option where I don't have to fight the damn Covenant? Does God of War have the option of not having to kill Zeus? Does Assassin's Creed have an option where I can join the Templars?

Does ME2 have an option where you don't ally with Cerberus?

Technically, at he beginning of the game it was told to you that if the search at Freedeom's Progress turned up nothing, Cerberus and Shepard would go their separate ways. And that's where something very important comes into play. You are role-playing as Shepard, not as a projection of yourself. In the end, Shepard is still his own person, and you are guiding him through the games. Shepard wants to go out and save the galaxy, but you guide him into doing it either as a paragon or renegade. Shepard, in ME2, felt working with Cerberus was a good idea.

[sbvera13]

The storytelling to me in ME2 while not as vast in scope to ME1, Is
understandable as it is the second act and the "new car" smell has worn
off, as everything is established mostly and so from then on you're just
adding more ingredients so to speak.

Agreed, it's sequelitis at work.  ME1 set the bar so high, and ME2 didn't match it (which is forgivable, it wouldn't be the first high quality work to follow an amazing one and get panned *cough*star wars prequels*cough), but on top of that, it triggered my "cliche detector" something fierce even before you woke up in the med bay. Big Red Reset button, blech. 

I would've loved to see it start on the highpoint theat ME1 ended on, with full council support and fleets at your command, then have you play through the abondanment and ultimately own betrayal and death, so by the time Cerberus comes to your resuce, you're BEGGING them to take you on.  How much more powerful of a story can you get then one that convinces you to turn on your own morals as you go through it?  That's the real loss... that ME2 really does have the epic story to it, but that it was not told.  Instead, it was handed to you in the first 5 minutes and you spend the rest of the game wandering around listening to other character's stories.  The writer in me feels... ugh. Just ugh.  It kills me.

Modifié par sbvera13, 04 juillet 2011 - 04:48 .

[this isnt my name]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I see what you're saying SBvera, but by that token, ME1 had little choice as well.

Granted I can understand the not liking the storytelling of ME2, overall it does seem to pale in comparison to the threat of ME1.

But I also like to look at the fact that a lot of human lives were lost to the collectors (more so than the geth i'd say) compartively speaking. Instead of just eden prime or feros being hit, we had to deal with enemies that have already captured and liquidated Tens of thousands of human colonists and with the tech to not even be touched.

So to me it has a broader scope in that sense... granted you never see all but a few colonies and just hear about the others.

The storytelling to me in ME2 while not as vast in scope to ME1, Is understandable as it is the second act and the "new car" smell has worn off, as everything is established mostly and so from then on you're just adding more ingredients so to speak.

and nothing is ever quite as good as the first time you're introduced to something.

Yes ME1 had little choice, but ME1 made up for it with the gameplay chocies, not story.

Accept the entire plot is pointless, it changes nothing. The reaper wouldnt have been finished by the time the reapers arrive, we dont learn anything about the reapers. So what changed nothing, there was no progress, just filler.

[Ace of Dawn]

this isnt my name wrote...

Halo didnt have the flood/forerunners/covenant get dumber when the plot demanded it. It was also a great twist finding halo was a weapon made to wipe out all life and "starve" the flood. It was also relavent, unlike ME2 which is just 90% daddy issues unrelated to the plot.

Nope, just you know IMPACT, hell FABLE 2/3 has more impact in choices, in fable 2 dont save oakfield it becomes like wraithmarsh, same for paying barnum to improve westcliffe.

I dont play other games that import. But seeing as we had a camo or two and some emails. The import sucks. You get more impact out of other games e.g alpha protocal than you do with mass effect. Its quite sad tbh that the yped it up and it does buggger all with the "wait till ME3" excuse.

Well, there is a very good reason. If you accounted for every serious divergent path for ME1, Mass Effect 2 would have likely just been released. Huge divergent paths are hard to develop for. You can make some noticeable changes here and there, but if you truly made each thing significant while still planning for future games, you will in the end be making multiple different games because you had 5 divergent paths in the first game alone. However, Mass Effect 3 is the end of the trilogy. Meaning that they can make many different paths because they don't have to account for development of another game based off of this game's choices.

[this isnt my name]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Halo didnt have the flood/forerunners/covenant get dumber when the plot demanded it. It was also a great twist finding halo was a weapon made to wipe out all life and "starve" the flood. It was also relavent, unlike ME2 which is just 90% daddy issues unrelated to the plot.

Nope, just you know IMPACT, hell FABLE 2/3 has more impact in choices, in fable 2 dont save oakfield it becomes like wraithmarsh, same for paying barnum to improve westcliffe.

I dont play other games that import. But seeing as we had a camo or two and some emails. The import sucks. You get more impact out of other games e.g alpha protocal than you do with mass effect. Its quite sad tbh that the yped it up and it does buggger all with the "wait till ME3" excuse.

Well, there is a very good reason. If you accounted for every serious divergent path for ME1, Mass Effect 2 would have likely just been released. Huge divergent paths are hard to develop for. You can make some noticeable changes here and there, but if you truly made each thing significant while still planning for future games, you will in the end be making multiple different games because you had 5 divergent paths in the first game alone. However, Mass Effect 3 is the end of the trilogy. Meaning that they can make many different paths because they don't have to account for development of another game based off of this game's choices.

All you have is an illusion of choice, they should either give proper consequences/impact or not ddo it at all. The illusion of choice to me is insulting, its presenting you with something that isnt there, so why have it ?

Besides what little they did do they made it minor, like the council spectre status. What a joke.

[Cainne Chapel]

this isnt my name wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I see what you're saying SBvera, but by that token, ME1 had little choice as well.

Granted I can understand the not liking the storytelling of ME2, overall it does seem to pale in comparison to the threat of ME1.

But I also like to look at the fact that a lot of human lives were lost to the collectors (more so than the geth i'd say) compartively speaking. Instead of just eden prime or feros being hit, we had to deal with enemies that have already captured and liquidated Tens of thousands of human colonists and with the tech to not even be touched.

So to me it has a broader scope in that sense... granted you never see all but a few colonies and just hear about the others.

The storytelling to me in ME2 while not as vast in scope to ME1, Is understandable as it is the second act and the "new car" smell has worn off, as everything is established mostly and so from then on you're just adding more ingredients so to speak.

and nothing is ever quite as good as the first time you're introduced to something.

Yes ME1 had little choice, but ME1 made up for it with the gameplay chocies, not story.

Accept the entire plot is pointless, it changes nothing. The reaper wouldnt have been finished by the time the reapers arrive, we dont learn anything about the reapers. So what changed nothing, there was no progress, just filler.

I wouldnt say ME2 is pointless, it touches on the reaper threat, continues to build their abilities while outside our galaxy and progresses to the end point, i.e the eventual war with the reapers.

So I wouldnt say it changed nothing, you stopped their back up plan and "quick route" in arrival so yeah the inevitable will still happen but there was character exposition and what not in the middle.  

Like with ANY trilogy, the middle part is always the so-so part as its the carry over from the beginning, to the end of the series, its the bridge.  I'm not forgiving it of course, but its not the first or last time the second arc in a trilogy will be the hold over.

As for gameplay choices... thats debatable, i'd say there's just as many gameplay choices in ME2 as there are in ME1 if not more so depending on your class and abilities and weapons load out.  But once again thats an opinion peace and debatable.

[Lunatic LK47]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...



I played the entire game using stealth (multiple times). You do need combat skills for a couple of the bosses, but that's kind of the point of a "boss." And, you don't for the final boss. I thought it had the potential to be so much more; so much bugginess and twitchy controls for some of the mini-games. It did a lot of things well that ME could learn from, if not totally copy, like replying to emails or timed response in conversations. I would recommend that game to any and everyone, if only to see what it could have been.

Obsidian was outright misleading then. What's the point of hyping up something like "Choice is your weapon" when in actuality it's "Use very specific builds, or you're ****ed?"

[Cainne Chapel]

ALso Fable 2 and 3 are nice in terms of the variations when it comes to choices, but those games are dreadfully short.

I did like em though. But I wouldn't say their stories are vast in scope as is ME1 or 2. Not bad, just, different.

But then those are just my thoughts.... no need to go spreading em around or anything

[Ace of Dawn]

this isnt my name wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Halo didnt have the flood/forerunners/covenant get dumber when the plot demanded it. It was also a great twist finding halo was a weapon made to wipe out all life and "starve" the flood. It was also relavent, unlike ME2 which is just 90% daddy issues unrelated to the plot.

Nope, just you know IMPACT, hell FABLE 2/3 has more impact in choices, in fable 2 dont save oakfield it becomes like wraithmarsh, same for paying barnum to improve westcliffe.

I dont play other games that import. But seeing as we had a camo or two and some emails. The import sucks. You get more impact out of other games e.g alpha protocal than you do with mass effect. Its quite sad tbh that the yped it up and it does buggger all with the "wait till ME3" excuse.

Well, there is a very good reason. If you accounted for every serious divergent path for ME1, Mass Effect 2 would have likely just been released. Huge divergent paths are hard to develop for. You can make some noticeable changes here and there, but if you truly made each thing significant while still planning for future games, you will in the end be making multiple different games because you had 5 divergent paths in the first game alone. However, Mass Effect 3 is the end of the trilogy. Meaning that they can make many different paths because they don't have to account for development of another game based off of this game's choices.

All you have is an illusion of choice, they should either give proper consequences/impact or not ddo it at all. The illusion of choice to me is insulting, its presenting you with something that isnt there, so why have it ?

Besides what little they did do they made it minor, like the council spectre status. What a joke.

And that's how they say it will be for ME3. If you made differing decisions, it will be harder or impossible to make allies and such. But at the end of the day, what you are asking for is ambitious to say the least. To make a choice in the first game have immediate changes and the account for it in ME3 would necessitate make two different scenerios anytime the change is mentioned in ME2, then 4 different scenarios for everytime its mentioned in ME3 and you could have affected it in ME2. This could be anywhere from simple dialogue to entire groups of people having a different opinion on you, changing large amounts of dialogue and what could be done. That is a huge undertaking, being very resource intensive. With how they did things, it's easier to account for differences and go from there.

[marshalleck]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...



I played the entire game using stealth (multiple times). You do need combat skills for a couple of the bosses, but that's kind of the point of a "boss." And, you don't for the final boss. I thought it had the potential to be so much more; so much bugginess and twitchy controls for some of the mini-games. It did a lot of things well that ME could learn from, if not totally copy, like replying to emails or timed response in conversations. I would recommend that game to any and everyone, if only to see what it could have been.

Obsidian was outright misleading then. What's the point of hyping up something like "Choice is your weapon" when in actuality it's "Use very specific builds, or you're ****ed?"

And yet flawed though it was, it was still more an RPG than ME2

Combat and gameplay in ME2 is so utterly easy and one-dimensional you don't even need a build at all. Filling in the four blocks of one power is so trivial I don't even know why Bioware bothered. It's obvious they wanted to make a Gears of War clone, they should have just made it and then been done with it.

Modifié par marshalleck, 04 juillet 2011 - 04:51 .

[Savber100]

this isnt my name wrote...

Does ME2 have an option where I dont fight collectors ? WHere I dont fight the mechs ? And the same 3 merc groups ?

An option not to kill the collector general ?
An option not to work with cerberus ?


Please, your argument fails, ME2 has bugger all in terms of choices, mst are end quest choices, which have no impact on the game.

Its a shooter, it has dialouge, most of which is pointless. 3 ways to get the same outcome, but hey shepard got to be angr in one option... That changes it right ? Oh wait.

You know what halo has that mass effect 2 dosent ?

A decent story.

*facepalms* 

Talk about totally missing my point.  

Although I admit you gave me a good laugh when you mentioned Halo having a better story than ME2. Good one!  


Mass Effect 2 gives you something that NO other pure shooters have. Choice and Consequences. **** all you want about how it doesn't affect anything but the fact remains. The ability to roleplay by choosing your decisions are in ME2 unlike Halo, Call of Duty, or Assassin's Creed. 

Same ending? Really? Not saving the Collector's Base and saving it doesn't change anything? Getting yourself killed or managing to keep your entire team is not a difference? The decision to rewrite the heretics? The call for peace between quarian vs. geth? The preservation of the genophage cure? 

It's like saying saving the Council or not in ME didn't make a difference because we didn't see the immediate result in ME. Did the fact that it was trilogy where ME3 is the ultimate culimination of the results of your choices not give you a clue?

However, I don't care whether ME2's choice makes a difference or not because THAT is not the point of my argument. The point is ME2 offers C&C. **** all you want on how the C&C aren't good but ME2 remains a HYBRID of RPG elements and shooters despite the lack of stats and loots. 

Hope that's more understandable. I'm just tired of people that disliked ME2 start making erroneous claims that ME2 is nothing but a "shooter with lots of dialogues". 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 juillet 2011 - 04:52 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Yeah, I realize Bioware aren't miracle workers and what they HAVE done and are trying to do hasn't ever been done on this kind of scale in gaming (as far as I know anyway).

But as Ace mentioned it would be virtually impossible to account for EVERY single permutation if ALL the choices were major game altering choices. They would essentially be making dozens of different scenarios for any scenario that branched off. Which would make the games darn near impossible to code for, save for a duke nukem forever length dev time.

Now am I saying having immediate actions and long term repercussions is bad in a game? Heck no, that'd be awesome if they could take decisions made immediately and vastly alter the immediate game to account for decisions, but I also realize on a realistic level that would be pretty much impossible to do and account for over the course of 3 games.

Thus I settle for minor things here and there. Even the devs said before ME2 was even released that while decisions wont vastly alter the storyline, each persons game would be "Flavored" with the decisions they've made.

I was happy with that, didnt expect vast changes to be made in the first place because I realized they're not going to make 2 completely divergent games just because the council lived or died.

That said it will be nice if in the future they can adjust and account for major story altering decisions having more immediate and longterm impact on the story as well as cross games.

But I wont exactly hold my breath on that one for any company to do.

[Ace of Dawn]

marshalleck wrote...

And yet flawed though it was, it was still more an RPG than ME2

Yup. Now if you'll excuse, I'll go play Splinter Cell if I want a stealth game.

[littlezack]

Accept the entire plot is pointless, it changes nothing. The reaper wouldnt have been finished by the time the reapers arrive, we dont learn anything about the reapers. So what changed nothing, there was no progress, just filler.

You actually learn quite a bit about the Reapers. The way they apparently reproduce, the extent of their resources, their ability to manipulate things through the Collectors. The Collectors would have likely served as the Reapers' ground troops if you hadn't stopped them, and the Seeker Swarms would have been very hard to fight against. Without the Collectors to do their ground work, the Reapers have to fall back on indoctrination to make things work on small scale. Yes, you're just annoying the Reapers, but that's sort of the whole point.

[marshalleck]

Savber100 wrote...

this isnt my name wrote...

Does ME2 have an option where I dont fight collectors ? WHere I dont fight the mechs ? And the same 3 merc groups ?

An option not to kill the collector general ?
An option not to work with cerberus ?


Please, your argument fails, ME2 has bugger all in terms of choices, mst are end quest choices, which have no impact on the game.

Its a shooter, it has dialouge, most of which is pointless. 3 ways to get the same outcome, but hey shepard got to be angr in one option... That changes it right ? Oh wait.

You know what halo has that mass effect 2 dosent ?

A decent story.

*facepalms* 

Talk about totally missing my point.  

Although I admit you gave me a good laugh when you mentioned Halo having a better story than ME2. Good one!  


Mass Effect 2 gives you something that NO other pure shooters have. Choice and Consequences. **** all you want about how it doesn't effect anything but the fact remains. The ability to roleplay by choosing your decisions are in ME2 unlike Halo, Call of Duty, or Assassin's Creed. 

Same ending? Really? Not saving the Collector's Base and saving it doesn't change anything? Getting yourself killed or managing to keep your entire team is not a difference? The decision to rewrite the heretics? The call for peace between quarian vs. geth? The preservation of the genophage cure? 

It's like saying saving the Council or not in ME didn't make a difference because we didn't see the immediate result in ME. Did the fact that it was trilogy where ME3 is the ultimate culimination of the results of your choices not give you a clue?

However, I don't care whether ME2's choice makes a difference or not because THAT is not the point of my argument. The point is ME2 offers C&C. **** all you want on how the C&C aren't good but ME2 remains a HYBRID of RPG elements and shooters despite the lack of stats and loots. 

Hope that's more understandable. I'm just tired of people that disliked ME2 start making erroneous claims that ME2 is nothing but a "shooter with lots of dialogues". 

There's nothing erroneous about those claims. Each decision you've cited, Bioware have yet to deliver a consequence. It's not incorrect to say those decisions don't effect their respective game, because they don't. 

[Savber100]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

And yet flawed though it was, it was still more an RPG than ME2

Yup. Now if you'll excuse, I'll go play Splinter Cell if I want a stealth game.

...Splinter Cell?

Hitman: Blood Money all the way! 

marshalleck wrote...

There's nothing erroneous about those claims. Each decision you've cited, Bioware have yet to deliver a consequence. It's not incorrect to say those decisions don't effect their respective game, because they don't. 

Then wait till the trilogy wraps. If Bioware fails with ME3 than by all means rage !  I'll even join you all! 

However until then, these claims are just that...  erroneous leaps into a conclusion provided by mere guesswork. 

Why say there are no consequences to your choices when the final chapter has not even arrive? 

Modifié par Savber100, 04 juillet 2011 - 04:59 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Savber100 wrote...


Mass Effect 2 gives you something that NO other pure shooters have. Choice and Consequences. ]

[Ace of Dawn]

Savber100 wrote...

Ace of Dawn wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

And yet flawed though it was, it was still more an RPG than ME2

Yup. Now if you'll excuse, I'll go play Splinter Cell if I want a stealth game.

...Splinter Cell?

Hitman: Blood Money all the way! 

Actually, I suppose we should be going with Theif, shouldn't we? I personally love Splinter Cell, so much snark... haha.

[the_one_54321]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
Gatt9's post in a nutshell...Mass Effect 2 was Gears Of War in space, with a cheap dialogue and interrupt system added.

That comment he made about the "crippled shooter mechanics" was genius. Thats what people consider RPG mechanics these days? "Hey! My gun sucks! Oh wait! I have squad points! Hey! It doesnt suck anymore! This is the greatest RPG EVER!"

This is why I keep saying that ME2 is a mediocre shooter. It doesn't handle shooter mechanics very well at all.

[sbvera13]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
<image snipped>

Reinstall? RE?!?! IT"S STILL ON MY HARD DRIVE, YO!

Proudly wearing sunglasses at night....

[Il Divo]

Savber100 wrote...

...Splinter Cell?

Hitman: Blood Money all the way!  

Great game. I just finished the mission where you get to kill the Opera singer using a real WWI pistol. Priceless!