249 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Some should really just accept that not every decision in ME1 has its moment of truth in ME2.

[shep82]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Some should really just accept that not every decision in ME1 has its moment of truth in ME2.

There's about as much chance of that as me winning the lotto.

[Il Divo]

Computer_God91 wrote...

Montezuma IV wrote...

Welcome to BioWare forums where a majority of us live in basements, proud of ourselves when we get to insult and belittle someone over the internet to boost our self-esteem.

Apparently.

Il Divo wrote...

That's great, except I don't care. Hate Mass Effect 2. That's your right as a human-being, but these attempts at bringing intelligence into the equation are weak. What about Mass Effect was so damn complicated that your average gamer wouldn't understand?

I didn't say it was complex. All I'm saying is ME2 is a dumbed down version of ME1 except different story. When I say dumbed down it should be pretty obvious what I mean.

• Leveling system went from plenty of skills to like 5 that only level up 4 times
  
• Inventory and squad armor was dropped completely in favor of cat suits and breathers
  
• about zero exploration
  
• weak story with enemies that weren't even around the whole game
  
• our decisions that mattered got reduced to emails

I could keep going but all you ME2 lovers will just say the same crap that you always say and go back to rubbing off to the best game that ever existed. 

Sorry, you lost me with your claim that removing exploration/inventory is "dumbing down". I consider neither element satisfactory, on a fundamental level. Also try to explain to me what emails and enemis have to do with dumbing down. I'm sorry that I can't grasp your "logic" (or lack of).

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 septembre 2011 - 08:52 .

[The Spamming Troll]

shep82 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...




This is what Bioware means by "Things carry over",  not that your choices actually matter,  but that you get some emails.  Because EA's afraid they might lose a sale because someone might think he needs to play the preceeding games first,  and EA doesn't do anything that might not sell the most units humanly possible.

As far as Halo goes,  you don't need a word of the story,  if it moves,  shoot it.  Which ironically described ME2's approach to gameplay,  every problem has a solution...combat,  except for "I want a fish!".

I don't see it that way. Some decisons were in emails others had more of an impact they can't intergrate every possible decision into the game. They handled it fine.

so then, what decisions showed an impact in the game?

its all fine and dandy if you love ME2 to bits, but looking at your last few posts saying "meh, i think its fine." id assume you mearly think ME has already met its peak with ME2, which i entirely disagree with. youd think 2 games would supply alot of consequences, but i havent seen any that matter to the story which arent merely getting an email, or not getting an email.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 05 septembre 2011 - 09:09 .

[didymos1120]

The Spamming Troll wrote...


youd think 2 games would supply alot of consequences, but i havent seen any that matter to the story which arent merely getting an email, or not getting an email.

How can you say that with a straight face?  You don't think the fact that Ash is dead in one playthrough has an effect on the story? You didn't notice how things were different on Tuchanka depending on whether or not Wrex is alive?  You don't think that will result in any difference in ME3, despite seeing the Sur'kesh demo and knowing he'll be there if alive?  You don't think Mordin being dead won't have an effect there either?  The consequences may not be as drastic as you'd have liked, but you can't say they're non-existent and that it's "all just some emails".

[Computer_God91]

Il Divo wrote...

Sorry, you lost me with your claim that removing exploration/inventory is "dumbing down". I consider neither element satisfactory, on a fundamental level. Also try to explain to me what emails and enemis have to do with dumbing down. I'm sorry that I can't grasp your "logic" (or lack of).

No. I'm done with trying to argue my perspective with people like you. No matter what I say it's like talking to someone with their fingers jammed into their ears, they don't listen. This isn't a logical debate, this is me stating why I subjectively didn't like ME2 as much as ME1 and why I probably won't like ME3 more then 1 as well. Every single fan of ME2 acts as if that game being awesome is an objective truth that needs hard evidence for it to be not good to some people, which is not the case. I don't like it as much as ME1 for reasons I state constantly, yet every time I do you people just get defensive and act like I just insulted something sacred and then tell me that unless I provide evidence as to why I think it's not that great then I'm a whiny idiot that doesn't see the awesomeness that is ME2.

You obviously liked the fact that Bioware took the ability to give your teammates ACTUAL combat armor away and replaced it with skin tight cat suits with breathers that don't make sh!t for sense in the vacuum of space. I thought it was moronic, along with many other things the did. That doesn't make me stupid, or a whiner. That means I prefer something you do not. If you can't accept that then you are the idiot.

[crimzontearz]

Computer god

I agree with your gripes. I would have rather had ME evolve in more RPG and less Shooter (or at least a blaanced hybrid) than more shooter and less RPG. I do agree, although, that streamlining ME1's system was needed, redundancy was way too aboundant.......but Bioware kinda went at the task really heavy handed. It seems they learned tho, they are re-introducing RPG mechanics, we will just have to see.

[Il Divo]

Computer_God91 wrote...

No. I'm done with trying to argue my perspective with people like you. No matter what I say it's like talking to someone with their fingers jammed into their ears, they don't listen. This isn't a logical debate, this is me stating why I subjectively didn't like ME2 as much as ME1 and why I probably won't like ME3 more then 1 as well. Every single fan of ME2 acts as if that game being awesome is an objective truth that needs hard evidence for it to be not good to some people, which is not the case. I don't like it as much as ME1 for reasons I state constantly, yet every time I do you people just get defensive and act like I just insulted something sacred and then tell me that unless I provide evidence as to why I think it's not that great then I'm a whiny idiot that doesn't see the awesomeness that is ME2.

You obviously liked the fact that Bioware took the ability to give your teammates ACTUAL combat armor away and replaced it with skin tight cat suits with breathers that don't make sh!t for sense in the vacuum of space. I thought it was moronic, along with many other things the did. That doesn't make me stupid, or a whiner. That means I prefer something you do not. If you can't accept that then you are the idiot.

I don't have to jam my fingers in my ears. And you've made quite a few assumptions about a non-existent position which I have not argued for. I'll say it again: I don't give a damn if you hate Mass Effect 2. However, you chose to go with the "dumbed down" argument, which unfortunately does not make you seem smart. Try voicing your criticisms without those claims and you'll be able to make your point without sounding like an elitist. See how easy that was?

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 septembre 2011 - 11:25 .

[The Spamming Troll]

didymos1120 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...


youd think 2 games would supply alot of consequences, but i havent seen any that matter to the story which arent merely getting an email, or not getting an email.

How can you say that with a straight face?  You don't think the fact that Ash is dead in one playthrough has an effect on the story? You didn't notice how things were different on Tuchanka depending on whether or not Wrex is alive?  You don't think that will result in any difference in ME3, despite seeing the Sur'kesh demo and knowing he'll be there if alive?  You don't think Mordin being dead won't have an effect there either?  The consequences may not be as drastic as you'd have liked, but you can't say they're non-existent and that it's "all just some emails".

the 4 lines of dialogue i had with the VS on horizon changed the story?

wrex doesnt die. there IS NO WREAVE!! wreave is a lie....

im hopeing ME3 shows consequences. i havent seen any that make a big deal at all, thats all im saying.

[shep82]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

shep82 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...




This is what Bioware means by "Things carry over",  not that your choices actually matter,  but that you get some emails.  Because EA's afraid they might lose a sale because someone might think he needs to play the preceeding games first,  and EA doesn't do anything that might not sell the most units humanly possible.

As far as Halo goes,  you don't need a word of the story,  if it moves,  shoot it.  Which ironically described ME2's approach to gameplay,  every problem has a solution...combat,  except for "I want a fish!".

I don't see it that way. Some decisons were in emails others had more of an impact they can't intergrate every possible decision into the game. They handled it fine.

so then, what decisions showed an impact in the game?

its all fine and dandy if you love ME2 to bits, but looking at your last few posts saying "meh, i think its fine." id assume you mearly think ME has already met its peak with ME2, which i entirely disagree with. youd think 2 games would supply alot of consequences, but i havent seen any that matter to the story which arent merely getting an email, or not getting an email.

I do in fact. ME was a great game that I am in fact replaying now but there were/are several things that bug me about it. The MAKO for one is a piece of crap the inventory sucked, the talent tree had way too many etc. ME 2 fixed all that and is a better game IMO. The consequences of your actions may not be what you wanted but IMO they were there and I was happy with how it was done.

[Gatt9]

jreezy wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Um...What?  Not trying to flame,  but that's gotta be the most convulted excuse I've ever seen to hand-wave something's shortcomings.

It's ok because it's the second entry in a trilogy and the main story can't be followed if anything does?  So nothing that occurred in Fellowship of the Ring can effect The Two Towers?  Nothing in A New Hope can effect Empire Strike Back?  Nothing in the Sorcerers Stone can effect Chamber of Secrets (Or anything in the next 4 books either)?

This is what Bioware means by "Things carry over",  not that your choices actually matter,  but that you get some emails.  Because EA's afraid they might lose a sale because someone might think he needs to play the preceeding games first,  and EA doesn't do anything that might not sell the most units humanly possible.

As far as Halo goes,  you don't need a word of the story,  if it moves,  shoot it.  Which ironically described ME2's approach to gameplay,  every problem has a solution...combat,  except for "I want a fish!".

You come off as a very bitter individual from what I've read.

Not really,  I just have a low tolerance for people who either want to pretend ME2 was perfection itself,  people who handwave away blindingly obvious problems,  or hate RPG's but for some strange reason want to pretend they like them and demand all the mechanics be removed so they can have yet another shooter.  I mean seriously,  I've seen some of the most astounding claims ever on these boards,  ones that defy all logic and reason.

Seriously,  the Fallout 3 board wasn't this unreal.

How can you say that with a straight face? You don't think the fact that Ash is dead in one playthrough has an effect on the story? You didn't notice how things were different on Tuchanka depending on whether or not Wrex is alive? You don't think that will result in any difference in ME3, despite seeing the Sur'kesh demo and knowing he'll be there if alive? You don't think Mordin being dead won't have an effect there either? The consequences may not be as drastic as you'd have liked, but you can't say they're non-existent and that it's "all just some emails".

How can you say that with a straight face?

Ash being dead or alive was completely irrelevant,  either her or the guy was there,  and a 60 second conversation with no impact on anything was all it was.  Can't comment on Tuchanka,  but I've read people commenting here that the only difference was who was in the chair,  and everything else was the same.

I don't think there'll be a difference if Mordin's dead.  I think he'll be replaced by some currently unknown "Assistant" or team member,  who'll give you the option to cure the Genophage in Mordin's place.  I don't think you'll be prevented from curing it. 

Hence,  I can say they're non-existant.  If the only difference is who's reading the lines and the rest of the game continues without any difference,  if the person being present or dead doesn't effect the ability to complete storylines,  then it's non-existant. 

Let's be honest here,  that's all it'll be at the very most.  Mordin will give the dialogue,  or some assistant will,  but either way you'll get to cure the genophage and save the krogan's in the exact same manner.  Just like killing Ashely or whatshisname didn't make any difference.

[111987]

@ Gatt9

I didn't realize you had played Mass Effect 3, and knew all the outcomes of all the choices...

You lucky dog!

[littlezack]

I don't think there'll be a difference if Mordin's dead. I think he'll be replaced by some currently unknown "Assistant" or team member, who'll give you the option to cure the Genophage in Mordin's place. I don't think you'll be prevented from curing it.


I know the extreme futility of trying to hold an argument with you on anything, so I won't even bother responding to your full post. But I will add that they've straight up confirmed that there won't be any 'replacement' characters - if Mordin or Wrex are dead, whatever role they fill is not replaced.

Now I'm sure you'll twist that to mean that they don't play any integral part in the story, and that them living and dying still doesn't mean anything. Have at it.

[ThePwener]

111987 wrote...

@ Gatt9

I didn't realize you had played Mass Effect 3, and knew all the outcomes of all the choices...

You lucky dog!

Im split by what he said. 

Casey (I think it was him) once said that what they wanted was for people to play ME how they wanted to play ME, and that they weren't going to punish (consequences) them for it either.

Kill Wrex>Wreav=no astonshing deifference

VS dead turns out the same way

ect.


I don't expect ME3 to bring in anything new to the fold. I hope it will, but ME2 left a sour taste in my mouth and I BW must have done an a Game of the Year to cleanse it.

[The Spamming Troll]

111987 wrote...

@ Gatt9

I didn't realize you had played Mass Effect 3, and knew all the outcomes of all the choices...

You lucky dog!

irrelevant.

hes talking about ME1 ---> ME2 and basing his assumptions on what hes seen so far.

[The Spamming Troll]

littlezack wrote...

I don't think there'll be a difference if Mordin's dead. I think he'll be replaced by some currently unknown "Assistant" or team member, who'll give you the option to cure the Genophage in Mordin's place. I don't think you'll be prevented from curing it.


I know the extreme futility of trying to hold an argument with you on anything, so I won't even bother responding to your full post. But I will add that they've straight up confirmed that there won't be any 'replacement' characters - if Mordin or Wrex are dead, whatever role they fill is not replaced.

Now I'm sure you'll twist that to mean that they don't play any integral part in the story, and that them living and dying still doesn't mean anything. Have at it.

so if mordin dies in ME2, that entire demo weve all watched just simply wont be in the game? theres no option to save the krogan princess or kure the genophage? just becaseu mordin is dead???

how large of a game do you think ME3 is actually gonig to be?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 06 septembre 2011 - 03:30 .

[111987]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

111987 wrote...

@ Gatt9

I didn't realize you had played Mass Effect 3, and knew all the outcomes of all the choices...

You lucky dog!

irrelevant.

hes talking about ME1 ---> ME2 and basing his assumptions on what hes seen so far.

Key word=assumption

I have no problem with people complaining about choices not making a difference in Mass Effect 2, cause we played that game. It's a bit premature to say that about Mass Effect 3.

[Bluko]

didymos1120 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...


youd think 2 games would supply alot of consequences, but i havent seen any that matter to the story which arent merely getting an email, or not getting an email.

How can you say that with a straight face?  You don't think the fact that Ash is dead in one playthrough has an effect on the story? You didn't notice how things were different on Tuchanka depending on whether or not Wrex is alive?  You don't think that will result in any difference in ME3, despite seeing the Sur'kesh demo and knowing he'll be there if alive?  You don't think Mordin being dead won't have an effect there either?  The consequences may not be as drastic as you'd have liked, but you can't say they're non-existent and that it's "all just some emails".

He has a point though. Okay saying it's just emails is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not too far from the truth.

You get some different dialogue maybe talk to a person or two that you wouldn't normally. But not a whole lot else changes. The environments and missions all remain the same. Heck almost all the NPCs remain in the same places. You don't experience anything new or different other then a few minor cameo appearences.

Let's take the classic example of whether you saved the Council or not in ME1. If you saved the Council you visit Anderson in the Human Embassy. If you killed the original Council you meet Anderson in the Human Embassy. There's not much of a difference other then if you saved the Council you get to speak to their holograms and possibly get reinstated as a Spectre. (Which I doubt will have little or no effect in ME3.)

I mean why don't Renegades get to meet the new Council in the Presidium Tower, especially if it's entirely made up of Humans. Why would the Human reject meeting the hero of Humanity? Why don't we get to meet the see the newly formed Human lead council if you choose the inbetween? Seriously how hard is it to create what is essentially three scenarios?

But nope instead regardless of what you did at the end of ME1 you still end up in the same Human Embassy talking to Anderson with Udina coming in later going "WTF Shepard?!" Everyone more or less experiences the same thing. To me it's a bit of shame as there is very little reason to do additional playthroughs other then to play as a different class really, which is why I doubt I'll ever play through any of the games more then 6 times. Frankly I thought I was nuts for having 4-5 playthroughs (only finished 3 so far in ME2) through the series.

I'm not really complaining, because frankly it's not a big deal to me if the story isn't all that divergent because I'm really only interested in doing one "canon" playthrough for the series anyways. I really doubt ME3 will offer such radical endings to compel me to create an entirely new character starting from ME1 because ME3could end up as an entirely different game. I can be almost certain it won't. You'll go on all the same missions and do all the same things, you might save someone or kill someone depending on whether you're Paragon/Renegade. But if anyone really thinks such things are going to hinge on what they did in ME1 or ME2... well I feel sorry for them. Kind of setting yourself up to be disappointed I'd say.

[Computer_God91]

Bluko wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...


youd think 2 games would supply alot of consequences, but i havent seen any that matter to the story which arent merely getting an email, or not getting an email.

How can you say that with a straight face?  You don't think the fact that Ash is dead in one playthrough has an effect on the story? You didn't notice how things were different on Tuchanka depending on whether or not Wrex is alive?  You don't think that will result in any difference in ME3, despite seeing the Sur'kesh demo and knowing he'll be there if alive?  You don't think Mordin being dead won't have an effect there either?  The consequences may not be as drastic as you'd have liked, but you can't say they're non-existent and that it's "all just some emails".

He has a point though. Okay saying it's just emails is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not too far from the truth.

You get some different dialogue maybe talk to a person or two that you wouldn't normally. But not a whole lot else changes. The environments and missions all remain the same. Heck almost all the NPCs remain in the same places. You don't experience anything new or different other then a few minor cameo appearences.

Let's take the classic example of whether you saved the Council or not in ME1. If you saved the Council you visit Anderson in the Human Embassy. If you killed the original Council you meet Anderson in the Human Embassy. There's not much of a difference other then if you saved the Council you get to speak to their holograms and possibly get reinstated as a Spectre. (Which I doubt will have little or no effect in ME3.)

I mean why don't Renegades get to meet the new Council in the Presidium Tower, especially if it's entirely made up of Humans. Why would the Human reject meeting the hero of Humanity? Why don't we get to meet the see the newly formed Human lead council if you choose the inbetween? Seriously how hard is it to create what is essentially three scenarios?

But nope instead regardless of what you did at the end of ME1 you still end up in the same Human Embassy talking to Anderson with Udina coming in later going "WTF Shepard?!" Everyone more or less experiences the same thing. To me it's a bit of shame as there is very little reason to do additional playthroughs other then to play as a different class really, which is why I doubt I'll ever play through any of the games more then 6 times. Frankly I thought I was nuts for having 4-5 playthroughs (only finished 3 so far in ME2) through the series.

I'm not really complaining, because frankly it's not a big deal to me if the story isn't all that divergent because I'm really only interested in doing one "canon" playthrough for the series anyways. I really doubt ME3 will offer such radical endings to compel me to create an entirely new character starting from ME1 because ME3could end up as an entirely different game. I can be almost certain it won't. You'll go on all the same missions and do all the same things, you might save someone or kill someone depending on whether you're Paragon/Renegade. But if anyone really thinks such things are going to hinge on what they did in ME1 or ME2... well I feel sorry for them. Kind of setting yourself up to be disappointed I'd say.

This is one of the main reasons why I don't like ME2 very much. Your choices didn't matter as much as they advertised they would. If I were in charge of a game series with player choice as the focus I'd make the games diverge as much as possible while still being able to tell a story.

Now many people may just say that would be a lot of work to under take, but to me it is worth the extra effort. In the end the more work you put into keeping your promises and making choices really have weight the more it will be respected and be hailed as one of the greatest games of all time. If your making a game you really shouldn't cut corners just because it would take to much work.

I hope that choices from ME1 will effect what kind of ending you will get in ME3. Sure some choices may change a few things here and there. Here's an example, let's say you shot Wrex now because of this it makes uniting the Krogan in 3 near impossible and without their support the galaxy takes massive loses and/or is unable to defeat the reapers. Now, that is a harsh punishment for shooting someone you didn't think had that much weight in the grand scope of things but still I think if you make the wrong choices you should face those consquences. Or if you don't like the idea of Wrex being that important just replace Wrex with Rachni Queen. Or you could reverse that, saving the queen causes the reapers to have stronger forces and makes the galaxy lose more lives and/or fails to defend itself. I want something from both games to have a major impact on the end of ME3.

However, I know this is a wish that will not be granted because Bioware advertises this game as a standalone and wouldn't punish new comers for not playing the other games of the series, but at least it would give replay value back to ME1 and 2.

Modifié par Computer_God91, 06 septembre 2011 - 08:05 .

[Computer_God91]

crimzontearz wrote...

Computer god

I agree with your gripes. I would have rather had ME evolve in more RPG and less Shooter (or at least a blaanced hybrid) than more shooter and less RPG. I do agree, although, that streamlining ME1's system was needed, redundancy was way too aboundant.......but Bioware kinda went at the task really heavy handed. It seems they learned tho, they are re-introducing RPG mechanics, we will just have to see.

Glad to see that someone else is on my side.

Il Divo wrote...

I don't have to jam my fingers in my ears. And you've made quite a few assumptions about a non-existent position which I have not argued for. I'll say it again: I don't give a damn if you hate Mass Effect 2. However, you chose to go with the "dumbed down" argument, which unfortunately does not make you seem smart. Try voicing your criticisms without those claims and you'll be able to make your point without sounding like an elitist. See how easy that was?

I am not trying to sound smart, anyone who trys that fails. I use the dumbed down arguement because it's an easy two word sum up that prevents me from writing a page of text as to why I don't like ME2. Every time I bother to do that it is just ignored so I stop trying. I also stated a few reasons already why I don't like ME2 as much, but you rejected them all just because I brought up a feature you didn't argee was needed.

[Someone With Mass]

Wow, are people still butthurt over the emails? It's a gesture of gratitude from someone who simply don't have the means of contacting you personally. That's it.

To expect every single person you've saved to walk up to you wherever you are and thank you personally is just a little unreal. Most of the people Shepard can rescue do have a job and may simply not have enough money to make such a long trip to just thank you.

I also like how people can wave aside entire characters simply because they might have a replacement and completely ignore them as individuals.

Is Mordin the same character as STG member #51? No.

Is Wrex the same character as Werav? No. That alone may make a difference for some people as they prefer one character over another.

And again, not every single outcome in the Mass Effect universe could've been resolved in ME2.

Think about it. Would you rather waste one of your trump cards like the rachni to stop the Collectors instead of letting them build up their strength to help you against the Reapers?

Does curing/improving the genophage have any effect on the Collectors' progress? No.

Can Kasumi's graybox have any significant impact on the Collectors? No.

Does turning/brainwashing the heretic geth help you in any way to stop the Collectors? Probably not.

[Computer_God91]

jreezy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Computer god

I agree with your gripes. I would have rather had ME evolve in more RPG and less Shooter (or at least a blaanced hybrid) than more shooter and less RPG. I do agree, although, that streamlining ME1's system was needed, redundancy was way too aboundant.......but Bioware kinda went at the task really heavy handed. It seems they learned tho, they are re-introducing RPG mechanics, we will just have to see.

It's hard to re-introduce something that was never missing in the first place.

It was watered down a bit.

[Computer_God91]

[quote]jreezy wrote...

[/quote]
Watered down but in no way absent.

[/quote]

He/she never said that RPG mechanics were absent.