6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME1 had a couple of errors too, but I can't see anyone complaining about them or how ME1 sucks.

[Iakus]

The Interloper wrote...

iakus wrote...

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost...

Stop making blanket statements like they alone prove your point. It's like saying every game that was bad was bad because of errors.

ME2 has errors.

Therefore, ME2 is a bad game.

Huh? Last time I checked, there was a middle ground. I'm seeing a that fact either ignored or underplayed.

You called the errors "minor omissons" I say they are not.  My link was meant to be a bit of humor, but I guess that, like the nail, was lost.

The point being, you (general you) seem to see these flaws as trivial.  I (specific, though could include others) see them as going right to the heart of the story Bioware was trying to tell.  They trivialize situations that should hav e been quite grave, cause nensencsical (to me) choices to be made.  And in the end, I am left wondering what the choices I did make have to do with ME2's story (not even gonna speculate on what the coiuces might mean in ME3)  Or even what ME2's story will have to do with the trilogy as a whole.

[Someone With Mass]

iakus wrote...

I am not watching any of his videos again. The only way I was able to sit through his ME2 analysis videos was because squee had put some entertainment in it to prevent me from dying of boredom.

Not to mention that he lost the little credibility he had left with his ME3 marketing video, which was just pathetic.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 23 septembre 2011 - 07:43 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Il Divo wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

But this does give me another problem. What, if anything did the IFF actually do? It didn't re-program the Occuli to udentify us as friend. It didn't put any of the uther destroyed ships floating around into a star or black hole, so what good was it?

The IFF allowed more sophisticated Mass Effect jumps. This is why most other ships weren't able to make it back through the relay. Beyond the Omega IV, there is a "safe zone" which the more accurate IFF allows ships to reach. Without the IFF, there is a significant chance that any ship traveling through the relay will not land in the safe zone.

This.

It tells the relay to use a more accurate "protocol".  

On the far end of the jump, either the Occuli or Reaper-allied ships or both have some way of avoiding a confrontation. 

[Iakus]

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...

I am not watching any of his videos again. The only way I was able to sit through his ME2 analysis videos was because squee had put some entertainment in it to prevent me from dying of boredom.

Not to mention that he lost the little credibility he had left with his ME3 marketing video, which was just pathetic.

Just so you know ME1 did not pass without comment 

[Lady Olivia]

iakus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME1 had a couple of errors too, but I can't see anyone complaining about them or how ME1 sucks.

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

[Iakus]

Lady Olivia wrote...

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

Some people (me) finds cohesion and consistency vitally important.  Particularly for a series.  ME1 may not have had the most original story or the hardest science, but I knew my goals. I had clues to follow, and I could blow off the Council in ways I could never act like around TIM 

I have played ME1 more times since ME2 came out than I've played ME2.  Heck i'm planning on another playthrough once I finish my current F:NV game.

[Fixers0]

Lady Olivia wrote...

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

Sure, everybody is entilted to have their own opinion about the games, if for one liked both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 but for whole different reasosn, in fact the things that i ended up liking mass effect 2 for things i would have hated t o see in Mass Effect 1.

But when we come to things writing, storytelling plot and the overall deeper meaning of both games, now while i would still give everybody their opinion on whether they liked it or not, i personally still think that by  an analysis you can uncover a lot more flaws in Mass Effect 2 then in Mass Effect 1.

It seemed to that Mass effect 1 always took the straight approuch of what's going on in the story and what was good and bad, as where in Mass Effect 2 on they're always seemingly trying to cover it up with all kinds of trivial things to make you not think about it too much.

[111987]

iakus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

iakus wrote...

I am not watching any of his videos again. The only way I was able to sit through his ME2 analysis videos was because squee had put some entertainment in it to prevent me from dying of boredom.

Not to mention that he lost the little credibility he had left with his ME3 marketing video, which was just pathetic.

Just so you know ME1 did not pass without comment 

Those videos were nowhere near as critical of ME1 than his videos of ME2. In these videos he would point out a flaw, but he'd then proceed to just gloss over it, while in the ME2 videos he just rips any of the games flaws to shreads. He was clearly biased in favor of ME1.

[Iakus]

111987 wrote...

Those videos were nowhere near as critical of ME1 than his videos of ME2. In these videos he would point out a flaw, but he'd then proceed to just gloss over it, while in the ME2 videos he just rips any of the games flaws to shreads. He was clearly biased in favor of ME1.

Wait, are you saying he shrugged off flaws of a game as unimportant just because they didn't bother him as much as it did others?

[111987]

iakus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Those videos were nowhere near as critical of ME1 than his videos of ME2. In these videos he would point out a flaw, but he'd then proceed to just gloss over it, while in the ME2 videos he just rips any of the games flaws to shreads. He was clearly biased in favor of ME1.

Wait, are you saying he shrugged off flaws of a game as unimportant just because they didn't bother him as much as it did others?

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a complete double standard.

I think I'm missing an implication here...

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost...

I wouldn't say that's particularly applicable. The point of his comparison is that it can always be handled better, but there comes a point where we accept what we're given. I can imagine a million different ways that some of my favorite games could be made "better", but that doesn't mean I'm not content with the released product. If I choose to dislike any product due to a few flaws, it's impossible to be appeased. This applies to any Bioware game.

Things can always be better.  No arguement there.  But some people have an easier time accepting certain imperfections than others.  Some imperfections are more noticeable.  And these imperfections can build up, causing more and more cracks in a storyline.  For some, it gets to a point where these flaws are no longer acceptable.  And just because a problem could have been fixed with the proper application of a few lines, does not make the problem suddenly go away or trivializes it.

Example, since it's been a big topic here lately:  Shepard's death.  Some here think it's not a big deal.  Others find it bugs them how thoroughly Shepard died, questioning how his corpse would be salvageable at all.  How the Lazarus Project is handled so casually, how Shepard's return isn't a big deal, even to Shepard himself,  To many, it's less a plot point than a running gag in the game.

Or the Omega IV Relay:  People now are talking about how it's largely ignored, we have no idea what's on the other side, and no attempts appear to be made to discover what's there.  From there we get pages and pages of posts regarding how probes should or should not have been tried, how whether it was better to jump blind and risk snnihilation  or scout ahead, and risk losing "the element of suprise".  How the whether the squad was "balanced for anything" or it was dumb luck Shepard had just what was needed.

From little cracks come big problems.  Especially when the spread throughout the game itself.  I'm just trying to say that while some fans have no problems ignoring "weak spots" in the narrative, to others it is in fact a big deal, It's not always petty nitpicking.  And it frankly bugs me how some people (not you, Il Divo) can sound very condecending towards those who dare to find some of these things worthy of comment.

Not that some of those who point out the problems are exactly helpful towards the debate either, of course.

But that is my point right there. Essentially, it's all relative. That's why we both recognized fault in Shepard's death, but it possessed different levels of "importance" to each of us. I wasn't disregarding the notion that subjectivity is involved. My point was merely that the poem you linked doesn't really capture it. You don't consider Shepard's death a "minor problem" akin to the nail, rather it's on the level of the kingdom problem.However,  the poem almost seems to imply that we should turn minor problems into major catastrophes, which I consider a little melodramatic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 23 septembre 2011 - 08:52 .

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

Lady Olivia wrote...

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

Some people (me) finds cohesion and consistency vitally important.  Particularly for a series.  ME1 may not have had the most original story or the hardest science, but I knew my goals. I had clues to follow, and I could blow off the Council in ways I could never act like around TIM 

I have played ME1 more times since ME2 came out than I've played ME2.  Heck i'm planning on another playthrough once I finish my current F:NV game.

But their is a constant point to everything your doing in ME2....Getting ready for the suicide mission. Every thing you do, including theloyaltu mission, is about preparing for the mission directly or indirectly. It's like the thing you do first to be able to move forward in the story in ME1 on Feros and Noveria except some are optional.

[Il Divo]

111987 wrote...

iakus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Those videos were nowhere near as critical of ME1 than his videos of ME2. In these videos he would point out a flaw, but he'd then proceed to just gloss over it, while in the ME2 videos he just rips any of the games flaws to shreads. He was clearly biased in favor of ME1.

Wait, are you saying he shrugged off flaws of a game as unimportant just because they didn't bother him as much as it did others?

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a complete double standard.

I think I'm missing an implication here...

How is that a double standard? He played both games and came to the conclusion that one's plot was superior to the other's. A double standard would be if he was evaluating them by the same criteria and gave ME a pass, but not ME2, which (on a general level) doesn't seem to be the case.

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

111987 wrote...

iakus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Those videos were nowhere near as critical of ME1 than his videos of ME2. In these videos he would point out a flaw, but he'd then proceed to just gloss over it, while in the ME2 videos he just rips any of the games flaws to shreads. He was clearly biased in favor of ME1.

Wait, are you saying he shrugged off flaws of a game as unimportant just because they didn't bother him as much as it did others?

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a complete double standard.

I think I'm missing an implication here...

How is that a double standard? He played both games and came to the conclusion that one's plot was superior to the other's. A double standard would be if he was evaluating them by the same criteria and gave ME a pass, but not ME2, which (on a general level) doesn't seem to be the case.

The double stardard here is that they are both part of the same plot and the thing he compline about in ME2 can mostly be explained with the things in ME1. Also, the fact that he doesn't nick pick every detail ME1 presents or doen't havean explination for.

Modifié par dreman9999, 23 septembre 2011 - 09:05 .

[Lady Olivia]

@iakus

"To each their own" is a terribly boring conclusion to any discussion, but also very valid. We can only talk about our own experiences. When I played ME, I couldn't relax my "analytic muscle" for a second. Sure, there was a sense of epic, of important, of intriguing, but the weight of WTF in almost every single cutscene was overwhelming. In contrast, when I played ME2, the analytic muscle only flexed a couple of times, and weakly. Now after the fact, I do agree with most of your complaints, as I said elsewhere and on multiple occasions, but *while* I was playing, I was blissfully unaware of all those issues.

Very few works of fiction could stand up to the kind of analysis you apply to ME2. Could ME? I suspect not. But you'll never apply it to ME with the same passion and intensity because you simply liked it better, end of story. Which is just as well, as long as you're willing to admit it. For my part, I do admit it. I could write an essay about all the things that don't add up in ME if I wasn't so lazy. But in the end, I simply liked ME2 better and there's no argument that can change that.

Which makes these talks a waste of time. The best kind.

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...

The double stardard here is that they are part of the same plot and the thing he compline about in ME2 can mostly be explained with the things in ME1. Also, the fact that he doesn't nick pick every detail ME1 presents or doen't havean explination for.

That's irrelevant. It's like arguing that because the Matrix Reloaded continues the Matrix's plot that we have a double standard. And in many cases ME2's plot holes cannot be explained by ME1.

[111987]

Il Divo wrote...

111987 wrote...

iakus wrote...

111987 wrote...

Those videos were nowhere near as critical of ME1 than his videos of ME2. In these videos he would point out a flaw, but he'd then proceed to just gloss over it, while in the ME2 videos he just rips any of the games flaws to shreads. He was clearly biased in favor of ME1.

Wait, are you saying he shrugged off flaws of a game as unimportant just because they didn't bother him as much as it did others?

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a complete double standard.

I think I'm missing an implication here...

How is that a double standard? He played both games and came to the conclusion that one's plot was superior to the other's. A double standard would be if he was evaluating them by the same criteria and gave ME a pass, but not ME2, which (on a general level) doesn't seem to be the case.

Re-read my original post please. The double standard is that in ME1 he can gloss over issues comparable to ME2 issues, while in ME2 those problems are game-breaking.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lady Olivia wrote...

iakus wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME1 had a couple of errors too, but I can't see anyone complaining about them or how ME1 sucks.

Fair enough, but you can't deny there's a strong tendency among the posters here to put ME1 on a pedestal compared to ME2 and I just can't see why (other than the cohesion thing I mentioned earlier). From where I'm sitting, ME1 sucked far more.

I played ME1 *after* ME2, as ME2 was a gift that I received a long time after it came out.  I'd never played any Bioware games until ME2. 

I actually like ME1 more in many ways.  While the gameplay is rougher, ME1 simply has a kind of charm that ME2 lacks.  In fact, I'd say that DA:O also has a charm that DA2 lacks. 


Whatever the respective faults of ME1 and ME2, ME1 feels like I'm reading a pretty good science fiction novel, while ME2 feels like I'm watching a sci-fi B movie.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 septembre 2011 - 10:46 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]The Interloper wrote...


[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And that exactly why it so sucks. It could have been solved with just a few extra lines of dialouge. It was easy to fix. Yet it wasn't fixed.

[/quote]

And that's exactly why it doesn't bother me so much.[//quote]

It's lazy writing, that's what it is.
.

[quote]
Smudboy and co. try to argue that there are writing problems. I agree. So? They also agrue that these minor omissions make the story fundamentally flawed. They don't. It's uneven execution, and that's a far more trivial issue. Annoying, but not painful. Dropping a few good cookies isn't the same as baking the whole batch with salt instead of sugar. It might become an issue if you always drop cookies every time you make a batch, but that's hasn't really happened yet.[/quote]

The ommisions aren't minor.
The main plot of ME2 sucks donkey balls. The side-plots are great, but that's just it - they are side plots.
Tehy dropped hte ball on the main storylien big time.

ME1 is far from perfect either, but it didn't have as many or as critical mistakes. And it's main plot is more solid than this.




[quote]
Wha? I just admitted ME2 has cracks in the quote box. How does that equate "don't see or refuse to acknowledge?"

You're arguing against a point I never made. What I said was that I don't consider the cracks big. You said I should consider them big....for no given reason.

So didn't read my post and didn't make a counterpoint....high five?[/quote]

You're basicly showing them under a rug. Acknowledging, then handwawing them away.
In some ways it's even worse than jsut refusing to see them in the first place.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Did you bork the quote tags or forget to say something? ;-)

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Wow. Not to break up this extremely interesting discussion, but why is this thread still going? Smudboy just feeds off of this stuff.

-Polite

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Someone had mentioned Samara's LM... the comment was made that Samara had been hunting Morinth for centuries, why couldn't she wait a bit longer?

Shep can ask about this, in a way, and Samara specifically states that she knows where Morinth is "right now", and that if she waits, it might be a long time before she finds her again.

Well, that and, you know, she could die on the mission.  Kinda hard to catch someone when you're no longer alive.

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The double stardard here is that they are part of the same plot and the thing he compline about in ME2 can mostly be explained with the things in ME1. Also, the fact that he doesn't nick pick every detail ME1 presents or doen't havean explination for.

That's irrelevant. It's like arguing that because the Matrix Reloaded continues the Matrix's plot that we have a double standard. And in many cases ME2's plot holes cannot be explained by ME1.

No, it not. I agree a plot for each part of the story has to stand on it own but if details of the very plot is build off another, what is stated before must be considered in analying that plot. The thing with first Matrix and the 2nd is that while the fist movie starts everything, nothing in the first movie expline why things are happening in the 2nd. Everything in the 2nd was just popped it. With ME1 and ME2, ME2 builds off of what ME1 set up. In ME1, things where put in place that is later used in the plot of ME2. Like Ceberus was trying to learn how to use the Bio-synthetic husk tech for their own means and in ME2 they bring back Shepard with Bio-synthetic fusion.
All plot holes but  jacobs loyalty mission can be explained if you look in the lore.