4309 réponses à ce sujet

[AdmiralCheez]

JeffZero wrote...

Certainly. I personally love the end result of seeing those variables add up to something special -- I wouldn't be studying to become (at least) a voice actor if I felt otherwise. But the formula is there -- books just have to be written well and edited decently to be good. Television shows jump through more loops and oftentimes one of those loops trips them up badly.

Plus, since more is being directly presented to the viewer, it leaves less room for imagination.  That's why 90% of people will tell you the book is better than the movie, since what we imagine tends to be better than what we perceive.

[DiebytheSword]

I think the SM could have been handled a little differently. Most of us, Renegade or Paragon, start to identify with our crew. We work to know them better, because that is what this kind of game is about. In the process of knowing them, you usually can't help but do their loyalty missions, and it feels forced not to. What should be done has been mentioned before. We can save Garrus, but it means shafting a Turian colony. We can save Tali and broker peace with the Geth if we only just let half the migrant fleet burn at the whim of the Reapers. Real war decisions to let people go happen like this. You can save your foxhole pal, but that means carrying him, his gear, and moving slower through enemy controlled territory. The game should be made harder for rescuing your friends, the straight and narrow is never easy. I'm not saying punish for paragon and make it easy for renegade, I'm saying both styles can still care for their friends and have to work crazy hard to make everyone come out alive.

That is the stuff of legend for leaders anyway, am I right?

[JeffZero]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Certainly. I personally love the end result of seeing those variables add up to something special -- I wouldn't be studying to become (at least) a voice actor if I felt otherwise. But the formula is there -- books just have to be written well and edited decently to be good. Television shows jump through more loops and oftentimes one of those loops trips them up badly.

Plus, since more is being directly presented to the viewer, it leaves less room for imagination.  That's why 90% of people will tell you the book is better than the movie, since what we imagine tends to be better than what we perceive.

Yeah. For many, whatever we spin in our brains is either too personally attached to what we individually perceive as excellent... or no budget can do it justice.

I like to think my problems typically stem from the latter, but I'm a big egotistical when it comes to vision. 

[Biotic Sage]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Certainly. I personally love the end result of seeing those variables add up to something special -- I wouldn't be studying to become (at least) a voice actor if I felt otherwise. But the formula is there -- books just have to be written well and edited decently to be good. Television shows jump through more loops and oftentimes one of those loops trips them up badly.

Plus, since more is being directly presented to the viewer, it leaves less room for imagination.  That's why 90% of people will tell you the book is better than the movie, since what we imagine tends to be better than what we perceive.

Definitely.  In books, the reader takes complete ownership and control of the fictional universe.  They construct pretty much everything in their imagination, the way they like it to be.  That's why it is such a rare and special achievement when a film can stand on its own as a unique vision while at the same time holding up to the majority of readers'.  The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the only examples I can think of.

[JeffZero]

DiebytheSword wrote...
That is the stuff of legend for leaders anyway, am I right?

Oh yes. :happy:

[Aggie Punbot]

Dave of Canada wrote...


I'd have to force my protagonist to act stupid in the sake of throwing in ineffective drama into the story, something which I've done countless times in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins but it doesn't make me feel anything. Slicing Connor's throat means nothing because I had to pick the dialogue line which was essentially "I don't want to go the Circle, it's too far away and my legs are sore".

I think the problem here is with you, Dave, not the game(s). In (ME) game, it is perfectly logical to not do any loyalty missions until all important quests are done because the mission comes first...and at some point you're going to have to decide whether to go rescue the crew or not. Frankly, if I were Shepard and I had all these people wanting me to do things, I would say, 'Look, I'm sorry. We need to get this done first and I promise we'll get this done for you afterwards. I swear!' But much like real life, sometimes there just isn't an 'afterwards' to be had.

Regarding the Circle Tower decision in DAO, it is a perfectly valid decision to not go to the Tower. What guarantee do you have that Connor isn't going to go loco and kill everyone that's still alive while you're gone? The trip to the Tower is a 2-day round trip journey. There is no guarantee he'll stay passive for that long or that anyone would be able to control him.

ME2 gives you the option of getting a realistic ending without Shepard being stupid, you just aren't able to segregate roleplaying your character with you playing a game.

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 07 octobre 2011 - 08:51 .

[ReallyRue]

I pretty much completely agree with the OP, even though I didn't play paragon as much. I don't even like listening to/watching the news in real life because it's always miserable: horrible crap that's happening to innocent people and how the world sucks. I can't go all vigilante justice on criminals in real life, but I can in ME. It is rather theraputic. I often felt like that in DAO too, and I think that's one of the reasons DA2 always felt so wearing - because Hawke's life always seemed to get worse and s/he could do little to stop it. So I hope ME3 isn't like that either. I hope that even if the chance of a sunshine-and-bunnies ending is really, really, ridiculously slim, that it's in there. Just like a tragic ending will no doubt be in there.

This is a good thread.

[AdmiralCheez]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

So please, Cheez or anyone else here, don't immediately label every death as "contrived and fake." It just isn't true.

I never did.  I'd truly appreciate a well-done, non-contrived, truly emotional death scene because they're a great reminder of how powerful fiction really is--you cared about someone enough to cry for them, even though they aren't real.

I'd just like to be able to avoid it sometimes when I'm having a bad day in real life.

[JeffZero]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
I'd just like to be able to avoid it sometimes when I'm having a bad day in real life.

Totally reasonable desire, I'd say.

[wright1978]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...


I'd have to force my protagonist to act stupid in the sake of throwing in ineffective drama into the story, something which I've done countless times in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins but it doesn't make me feel anything. Slicing Connor's throat means nothing because I had to pick the dialogue line which was essentially "I don't want to go the Circle, it's too far away and my legs are sore".

I think the problem here is with you, Dave, not the game(s). In (ME) game, it is perfectly logical to not do any loyalty missions until all important quests are done because the mission comes first...and at some point you're going to have to decide whether to go rescue the crew or not. Frankly, if I were Shepard and I had all these people wanting me to do things, I would say, 'Look, I'm sorry. We need to get this done first and I promise we'll get this done for you afterwards. I swear!' But much like real life, sometimes there just isn't an 'afterwards' to be had.

Regarding the Circle Tower decision in DAO, it is a perfectly valid decision to not go to the Tower. What guarantee do you have that Connor isn't going to go loco and kill everyone that's still alive while you're gone? The trip to the Tower is a 2-day round trip journey. There is no guarantee he'll stay passive for that long or that anyone would be able to control him.

ME2 gives you the option of getting a realistic ending without Shepard being stupid, you just aren't able to segregate roleplaying your character with you playing a game.

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

[Prince Zeel]

BubbleSauce wrote...

There are many instances of racism against humans and otherwise in the game, your character can state their opinion on the matter on a variety of occasions, you can see terra firma protests and instances of cerberus' exploit, which have the interests of humanity in mind, but often at the expense of other races, and you can decide to rally for, or against in a number of occasions. Racism is referance to quite a few times in the mass effect games.

A reference isnt tackling an issue. you must of skipped English class because anyone can name drop like a motherf'er. Don't mean i've tackled the issuse. and im sorry Mass Effect did that typical fantasy politics that all fantasy games/books and shows do. They mention some racial issue for an episode than drop it as soon as the credits roll. A few conversations with some racist schmuck isnt tackling anything

I should ask you the same question.

Look at the council, there are three main races which retain sovrereignty over the other citadel races, those races have to succumb to citadel law and if they do not, then they are cast out of council space and labeled enemies of state. And then what about Eden Prime? The council did nothing about what was a rather clear and serious threat to citadel jurisdiction, and they did nothing simply because humanity wasn't important enough nor were they powerful enough to have any influance or power over the sovereign races. And so they let innocents die. If that's not oppression I don't what is.

Not buying it. THis isn't oppression. not being accepted into a galatical VIP party isn't my idea of oppression. Take up history or something man.

Are you joking? Yes while my game did have me going to strip clubs, it was for plot reasons, I didn't merely go there to stare at virtual dancers, I don't know if you did either but to each their own I suppose. Did you play legions loyalty mission? Imagine if you had every sigle though and opinion that you held dear taken away from you, so much so that if you were to meet yourself prior to the transformation, you wouldn't recognise yourself at all, simply because someone who had power and control over your future considered you a threat! That, is a complete breach of civil liberty, and that is in itself a very good example of how mass effect does make you think about what you are doing and who you are effecting.

"PLOT REASON" HAHAHHAAHAHHA
The only plot reason was the horny fanbase that needs to be nuked off the planet. Is there a particular plot point in getting an asari lapdance? Or getting ****** drunk in ME2 Omega bar? Come on. Spare me the jargon. This is a game, and like all games it wants to sell. So what does it do? sticks some alcohol, boobies and a crappy ass sex scene in it. Don't you dare delude yourself into thinking that was for the PLOTZ.

All that other crap that followed is complete stetching. Legion is a robot, not some "human being"

Grow up? Really? Your profile has an apology in it to all those you have offended on this forum in the past, in which you promise to "behave" like a child who's come back from his punishment after doing something wrong. I really don't think being told to "grow up" means anything at all coming from you. 

Whether I was acting immature, I always, ALWAYS, made logical points. Ones you should take heed of, right now.

[Wulfram]

You can get no casualties even if you do the main quest missions as soon as possible.

[JeffZero]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

So please, Cheez or anyone else here, don't immediately label every death as "contrived and fake." It just isn't true.

I never did.  I'd truly appreciate a well-done, non-contrived, truly emotional death scene because they're a great reminder of how powerful fiction really is--you cared about someone enough to cry for them, even though they aren't real.

I'd just like to be able to avoid it sometimes when I'm having a bad day in real life.

I don't mind that at all, but the problem for me comes when it's just all solved by being a completionist, which is my natural nature.

I'd rather there were more to it as well. I'm a completionist too but as I've said before I vastly prefer a few deaths during the Suicide Mission all the same.

[Siegdrifa]

wright1978 wrote...

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

The dev choose to let the player enjoy the game to the fullest.
If you had to choose between "play all the game and side mission but loose you crew member" and "save your crew member but make your game experience shoter" is a realy bad design, so the non forced IFF is better.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 octobre 2011 - 09:17 .

[AdmiralCheez]

wright1978 wrote...

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

How many people actually knew that doing the IFF mission would trigger the endgame?  Seriously, the game gives you little hint that it's about to throw you to the wolves.

Horizon triggers after you do the first four recruitment missions.  The Collector Ship triggers three or four missions after that.  The Derelict Reaper is made available immediately afterwards, and completing it sets off the timer.

Seriously, I'm glad getting a "perfect" ending was so easy this round, since you'll probably need help from the people you saved in ME3.  The final game can be much harder since there's little reason to save those resources.  But I'd still like the option.

[Nashiktal]

wright1978 wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...


I'd have to force my protagonist to act stupid in the sake of throwing in ineffective drama into the story, something which I've done countless times in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins but it doesn't make me feel anything. Slicing Connor's throat means nothing because I had to pick the dialogue line which was essentially "I don't want to go the Circle, it's too far away and my legs are sore".

I think the problem here is with you, Dave, not the game(s). In (ME) game, it is perfectly logical to not do any loyalty missions until all important quests are done because the mission comes first...and at some point you're going to have to decide whether to go rescue the crew or not. Frankly, if I were Shepard and I had all these people wanting me to do things, I would say, 'Look, I'm sorry. We need to get this done first and I promise we'll get this done for you afterwards. I swear!' But much like real life, sometimes there just isn't an 'afterwards' to be had.

Regarding the Circle Tower decision in DAO, it is a perfectly valid decision to not go to the Tower. What guarantee do you have that Connor isn't going to go loco and kill everyone that's still alive while you're gone? The trip to the Tower is a 2-day round trip journey. There is no guarantee he'll stay passive for that long or that anyone would be able to control him.

ME2 gives you the option of getting a realistic ending without Shepard being stupid, you just aren't able to segregate roleplaying your character with you playing a game.

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

You miss out on some very important reaper information from legion if you take your time and prepare, i'd say that is a consequence.

[Aggie Punbot]

wright1978 wrote...

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

No, sir/ma'am. The in-game sensible decision is to get mission-related events completed first. Metagaming says that it's better to take your time, yes, but in the actual game itself how does Shepard know that s/he has all the time in the world to get those done? S/he really doesn't. The beauty of that is that is not a paragon/renegade decision, that is a practical one. And by using that method, you would have the time to do exactly two loyalty missions before the crew was abucted and you had to decide if you wanted to go rescue them right away or just wait.

ETA: Okay, maybe three. I forgot that you get to do one (or two?) missions after you do the second round of recruiting before you have to attend to the Collector ship.

Modifié par TS2Aggie, 07 octobre 2011 - 09:18 .

[DiebytheSword]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

How many people actually knew that doing the IFF mission would trigger the endgame?  Seriously, the game gives you little hint that it's about to throw you to the wolves.

Horizon triggers after you do the first four recruitment missions.  The Collector Ship triggers three or four missions after that.  The Derelict Reaper is made available immediately afterwards, and completing it sets off the timer.

Seriously, I'm glad getting a "perfect" ending was so easy this round, since you'll probably need help from the people you saved in ME3.  The final game can be much harder since there's little reason to save those resources.  But I'd still like the option.

There are plenty of reasons not to go after the IFF, in fact, the dialogue after the collector ship pretty much warns you that your team needs to be focused and ready before going after the collectors.  Those lines occur right before the choice.  I just played the collector ship last night.

The warnings are there, if you listen to them.

[Wulfram]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

How many people actually knew that doing the IFF mission would trigger the endgame?  Seriously, the game gives you little hint that it's about to throw you to the wolves.

They certainly gave you a pretty big hint that it was worth being as ready as possible before doing it.

And completing all sidequests before triggering the big main plot thing is standard reflex for me in a Bioware game.

[Nashiktal]

DiebytheSword wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

How many people actually knew that doing the IFF mission would trigger the endgame?  Seriously, the game gives you little hint that it's about to throw you to the wolves.

Horizon triggers after you do the first four recruitment missions.  The Collector Ship triggers three or four missions after that.  The Derelict Reaper is made available immediately afterwards, and completing it sets off the timer.

Seriously, I'm glad getting a "perfect" ending was so easy this round, since you'll probably need help from the people you saved in ME3.  The final game can be much harder since there's little reason to save those resources.  But I'd still like the option.

There are plenty of reasons not to go after the IFF, in fact, the dialogue after the collector ship pretty much warns you that your team needs to be focused and ready before going after the collectors.  Those lines occur right before the choice.  I just played the collector ship last night.

The warnings are there, if you listen to them.

Not that kind of warnings. What those warnings tell you is that you should prepare before going into the relay. Grabbing the IFF is preparing for the relay.

If the game warned you that the IFF was dangerous (which they do AFTER you grab the IFF) then I could understand where you are coming from.

[AdmiralCheez]

DiebytheSword wrote...

There are plenty of reasons not to go after the IFF, in fact, the dialogue after the collector ship pretty much warns you that your team needs to be focused and ready before going after the collectors.  Those lines occur right before the choice.  I just played the collector ship last night.

The warnings are there, if you listen to them.

Well, they had to give a little warning.  Otherwise it'd be completely unfair and bad game design.  But they weren't obvious, and easy to gloss over by courtesy of riding the spacebar or not wanting to listen to a damn thing Miranda says.  The average first-time player probably didn't know it'd be that important (as is evident by average casualties being at 15%).

[wright1978]

TS2Aggie wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

No the problem is with the game in that the sensible route is to take your time and be ready before going through the relay. There are no consequences for spending the extra time recruiting and getting people loyal. If the game forced the IFF mission on you earlier you would be faced with finishing preparations or rushing to save crew unprepared.

No, sir/ma'am. The in-game sensible decision is to get mission-related events completed first. Metagaming says that it's better to take your time, yes, but in the actual game itself how does Shepard know that s/he has all the time in the world to get those done? S/he really doesn't. The beauty of that is that is not a paragon/renegade decision, that is a practical one. And by using that method, you would have the time to do exactly two loyalty missions before the crew was abucted and you had to decide if you wanted to go rescue them right away or just wait.

ETA: Okay, maybe three. I forgot that you get to do one (or two?) missions after you do the second round of recruiting before you have to attend to the Collector ship.

Disagree completely with you on that. The sensible thing is to get the team sorted and ready for action before going to pick up the IFF.

[AdmiralCheez]

Wulfram wrote...

And completing all sidequests before triggering the big main plot thing is standard reflex for me in a Bioware game.

For you, yeah.  For me, being able to continue the game after beating it was a godsend because I could save the piddly things for later.