113 réponses à ce sujet

[XyleJKH]

Good points by the way Andy
Couldn't have said it better myself

[CrazyRah]

I like Arrival more and more. Sure it lacked a lot but it was fun to go in alone and give the Batarians a kick in the daddy bags again. It feels too much like a plot device at times and you really don't have any choices in the DLC but i enjoy it either way

[Savber100]

The clash between choice and narrative is something that Bioware always had trouble with. It's been the downfall of great franchises like Final Fantasy and to a certain extent Dragon Age.

I have nothing against Arrival just that it really shows in a situation where Bioware has to choose: It will always prefer narrative coherence over C&C. A pity... but shouldn't be too surprising if you've played Bioware games even Baldur's Gate II.

[IBPROFEN]

The only thing about that DLC was bad its because noone at BW/EA knows how to make brigdes. Arrials was suppose to be brigding for ME3, this one should have not been released until about 6 week before ME3 release.
It was missed titled as the last of ME2 instead it should have been the first of ME3.
As I have stated before they Built a pier instead of a brigde. ShadowBroker could have basically been the ending ME2 to start the brigde work then added one or two more as the brigde then Arrival to start with a good story right before the release of ME3.

[KotorEffect3]

Saphra Deden wrote...

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

I know that people are angry that DLC is counted as part of the main game events that are taken into consideration for ME3. My question is why people dislike Arrival itself.

Despite the significance of the events in Arrival the DLC as a whole is smaller in scale compared to Lair of the Shadow Broker. It has a cheap and small feeling compared to LOTSB.

That is the problem,  people keep comparing it to LoTSB.  I wonder if people would have complained about arrival so much if it hadn't come on the heels of LoTSB

[essarr71]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

fivefingaslap18 wrote...

I know that people are angry that DLC is counted as part of the main game events that are taken into consideration for ME3. My question is why people dislike Arrival itself.

Despite the significance of the events in Arrival the DLC as a whole is smaller in scale compared to Lair of the Shadow Broker. It has a cheap and small feeling compared to LOTSB.

That is the problem,  people keep comparing it to LoTSB.  I wonder if people would have complained about arrival so much if it hadn't come on the heels of LoTSB

Yeah.  Of course, we wouldn't dare want to compare it to the other DLC.  It might actually seem decent.

[mereck7980]

From a gameplay standpoint I didn't like the fact that Shepard can't use squadmates. I realize why it was a solo mission (BW probably couldn't get the VA to record audio for the mission is the most likely scenario). From a narrative standpoint I think it sets up ME3 pretty well.

I never thought that the Collector plot lead to the return of the Reapers. Its focal point was the creation of a new Reaper. The main story never explains how the Reapers will attack the galaxy after Shepard closed the relay in the Citadel. So, saying that Arrival negates ME2 doesn't really make sense. Shepard doesn't rejoin the Alliance at the end of Arrival, he is told he may have to stand trial for killing millions of batarians and blowing up a mass relay. IMHO this isn't a retcon, it acts as a bridge to ME3.

[Wynne]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Arrival is when Bioware dropped the pretense of choice and consequence. So that might rub people the wrong way if they ever expected any of their actions to have any sort of weight to the main story.

You know that's a lame argument. Anyone who's played the games knows the same.

Why? I shouldn't have to spell it out, but: you never had a choice in ME1 of whether or not to go after Saren, or in ME2 of whether to do the suicide mission. Why? Because it's what every single incarnation of Shepard would do. Why would they? Because to not try to prevent the galaxy from being destroyed? Would be utterly f***ing stupid.

Shepard does Arrival for the same damned reason. Shepard does what needs to be done, and if there's only one thing that needs doing, it gets done. Period.

Arrival could have been better, could have been worse. It was perhaps more interesting for its potential repercussions than for its actual content, but it serves its purpose either way: it's a decent bridge from the 2nd game to the 3rd and an experiment in solo gameplay.

Modifié par Wynne, 30 janvier 2012 - 09:10 .

[Drone223]

I liked Arrival, pretty good DLC, I liked the solo aspect of the DLC made the war between Shepard and the Reaper's seem personal, the atmopshere and soundtrack would imo is the best in all of ME2, also Shepard was sent their as a personal favor for Hackett it was never a Alliance operation, it is also pretty obvious that it was ment to played AFTER the SM

Modifié par Drone223, 30 janvier 2012 - 09:11 .

[Klijpope]

<cough> Kobayashi Maru......

[Pygmalin]

t_skwerl wrote...

I actually liked it, I guess a lot of people complain because the choices you make aren't actually choices. But, the story was pretty good to me. I also liked Harbinger's cameo. I just wish Joker had actually said something.

Then, there's also the little fact that it doesn't actually do anything as far as 3 goes. It happened whether you play it or don't.

I think the choice thing sums it up. YOU HAVE to do what it says, Hey letting the timer go is pretty sweet though. Just sayin'  ANyways I loved it. I hated the fact that shep was Alone, but again part of the story, if someone was with her the council may actually believe. Goodness forbid. <3

[KotorEffect3]

The solo aspect works because it works out for ME 3 why Shepard is the one on trial if we had a squad with us in arrival the bsn would have broken out in a b*tchfest about why is Shepard on trial but not his accomplices. Also from a gameplay perspective it was an interesting change of pace not to mention the ego trip I felt when I heard "Shepard is tearing us apart" was quite nice.

[PrinceLionheart]

Arrival made ME2 feel more like filler than it already was.

[KotorEffect3]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Arrival made ME2 feel more like filler than it already was.

Then you didn't understand ME 2.

[Pygmalin]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Arrival made ME2 feel more like filler than it already was.

To me ME2 Main game was a filler, and Arrival got back to the bones of what Mass Effect was about. Along with LOSB I thought they should have been part of the main game, as they will have an impact on ME3 (guess here, but a good educated guess from seeing demo)  IMO don't shoot me.  

[Pacifien]

Admiral Hackett calls up my Shepard, mentions Reapers, and my Shepard goes "So?"

So I flipped a table and called Arrival the worst DLC ever.

But other than that, I didn't like the solo run for Shepard after playing a game that concentrated on the importance of team. I don't think Arrival plays well in the middle of ME2. As a denouement to ME2, well, it isn't. As a connection to ME3, it plays the dangerous game of treating DLC as requirements versus perks. Even as a connection to ME3, I think it fails because, in my opinion, it should have been treated as either a more indepth DLC or a small expansion.

I said it in another thread once, but Arrival should be a mission that you play after ME2 and separate from ME2, much as Deus Ex: Human Revolution's The Missing Link DLC is played. (Which is funny because *that* DLC shouldn't have been played that way.) That way the designers don't have to mess with the ambiguity of whether or not the player knows what Harbinger is. Shepard's final conversation with Harbinger was, I imagine, supposed to be on the same scale as the one he had with Sovereign. It does not work when he's talking to a Collector General.

Also, Shepard's final conversation with Harbinger does not work. Did they lose their sound design guy between Mass Effect 1 and 2? Did their old sound design guy take the secrets of producing Sovereign's voice with him? Harbinger's voice likes all levels of reverb, bass, menace, and severity.

[Soccer FeverMan]

ParagonForLife wrote...

its just that Arrival was the worst mission ever...you have no choice...Paragon *BOOM* Renegade *BOOM* doesnt matter what you do they all still die they only added Arrival in to make more money it wasent needed at all its not like everyone prepared for the reapers so it was stupid

*looks at username, then snickers*

[Tazzmission]

Pacifien wrote...

Admiral Hackett calls up my Shepard, mentions Reapers, and my Shepard goes "So?"

So I flipped a table and called Arrival the worst DLC ever.

But other than that, I didn't like the solo run for Shepard after playing a game that concentrated on the importance of team. I don't think Arrival plays well in the middle of ME2. As a denouement to ME2, well, it isn't. As a connection to ME3, it plays the dangerous game of treating DLC as requirements versus perks. Even as a connection to ME3, I think it fails because, in my opinion, it should have been treated as either a more indepth DLC or a small expansion.

I said it in another thread once, but Arrival should be a mission that you play after ME2 and separate from ME2, much as Deus Ex: Human Revolution's The Missing Link DLC is played. (Which is funny because *that* DLC shouldn't have been played that way.) That way the designers don't have to mess with the ambiguity of whether or not the player knows what Harbinger is. Shepard's final conversation with Harbinger was, I imagine, supposed to be on the same scale as the one he had with Sovereign. It does not work when he's talking to a Collector General.

Also, Shepard's final conversation with Harbinger does not work. Did they lose their sound design guy between Mass Effect 1 and 2? Did their old sound design guy take the secrets of producing Sovereign's voice with him? Harbinger's voice likes all levels of reverb, bass, menace, and severity.

or like i said arrival should have been the me2 final ending but having the whole sucide mission before it.

just imagine how that wouldve played out and heres what i thought of

after succecfully completing the sm you get a call from hackett saying he needs you now to save kenson and the whole whoblah about reapers.

complete arrival and end the game after hackett is done with his debriefing on the normandy then cut to credits and enter me3 like that


regardless i still think its my 2nd favorite dlc wile lotsb is numero uno

Modifié par Tazzmission, 31 janvier 2012 - 01:07 .

[ediskrad327]

ParagonForLife wrote...

its just that Arrival was the worst mission ever...you have no choice...Paragon *BOOM* Renegade *BOOM* doesnt matter what you do they all still die they only added Arrival in to make more money it wasent needed at all its not like everyone prepared for the reapers so it was stupid

technically you can choose to not blow it up

Modifié par ediskrad327, 31 janvier 2012 - 01:24 .

[Pacifien]

Tazzmission wrote...
or like i said arrival should have been the me2 final ending but having the whole sucide mission before it.

Which makes something billed as a suicide mission feel anticlimactic, and gives the player the sense they're being given a game attached to a game and an ending attached to an ending. If there's one thing I want most in a BioWare game, it's a tightly put together story. One thing I can at least do with Arrival as a DLC is play it as an event that takes place some time beyond the events of ME2 if I want to.

Also, Shepard's solo run, while interesting from a gameplay point of view, was unnecessary and I don't know why BioWare did it. I know of people in the strategy forums who take pride in running through ME2 on Insanity solo, so is it a nod to them? I mean, they could have just as easily done the DLC solo as they'd done all of ME2. Were they trying to stress the idea of Shepard alone, one man against the Reapers? In which case, what was the message from ME2's team building exercise? Feels like BioWare simply didn't want to hear another complaint from the fanbase of yet another DLC where the squadmates followed and didn't have anything to say, so they just left them out.

LotSB is good because the writing team had obviously been plotting out that mission for awhile; the seeds of that mission are in the original game files and they spent several months tweaking it. Arrival's entire story felt rushed and sloppy. Which is a pity, the gameplay was strong.

[wirelesstkd]

andy69156915 wrote...

Three, the complaint about it being a solo mission... That was the best part about Arrival. We always hear about how badass Shepard and specters are (Jenkins referring to Nihlus- "I heard he took down an enemy platoon all by himself"), yes we never got to see how good Shepard is in a fight "all by himself/herself".

(snip)

Show, don't tell, that's good story telling. Well, Arrival finally showed us. Shepard indeed did "take down an entire enemy platoon by himself/herself", and entire base full of marines on top of that. It showed how good Shepard truly is, without help. And I for one LOVED that. I wanted a solo mission to show what Shepard could do since ME1, but they always force you to take a team. I finally got my solo mission, and I'm glad.

Okay - the thing is that this is a game first, story second. If two games have set up the concept of squad based combat, then the game play is pretty firmly established. I just didn't enjoy readjusting to a solo based combat. So yeah - if this was a movie or something, then fine, show a solo mission. But it's not a movie.

[essarr71]

Pacifien wrote...

Also, Shepard's solo run, while interesting from a gameplay point of view, was unnecessary and I don't know why BioWare did it. I know of people in the strategy forums who take pride in running through ME2 on Insanity solo, so is it a nod to them? I mean, they could have just as easily done the DLC solo as they'd done all of ME2. Were they trying to stress the idea of Shepard alone, one man against the Reapers? In which case, what was the message from ME2's team building exercise? Feels like BioWare simply didn't want to hear another complaint from the fanbase of yet another DLC where the squadmates followed and didn't have anything to say, so they just left them out.

Voice actors cost money.

If you notice your squad member in LotSB doesn't talk much, either.