968 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Not the focus of the dreams

Really now? This much vo for the dreams have no meaning?

  the stupid kid is the focus, we chase after him, watch him burst into flames.

And yet every time Shepard wakes up from the dream he talks about someone close to him he lost.

I remeber a"I miss Kaiden/Ashley" option in the diologue wheel after the first dream.

That means noting?

I don't miss Ashley. I killed her off for a reason

Whichis why option exsist. You had a prompt  to not take about your dream. That still mean what bothered your Shepard wasnot the child alone but the voices in the background...

We're not actually experiencing the menace of the MEU, we're detatched observers, insensitive to direct infliction. The dreams merely shadow the noises of the beacons. A byproduct of association with advanced communication with such. Asari live out their dreams, Javik kept his on an ipod.. We're new to all that "stuff".  The dreamstates are representitive of Shepard burning out.

IT?

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

Not irrelivent. The dream cover everything bad that happened to Shepard not just the kid.
Example...


And after the dream what were the options to talk about? Didn' t the first dream had a comment were Shepard stated he misses the person who dies in virmire?
It was way more then the kid in those dreams.

And yet the kid remains the focal point. Not to mention, this is the narrative making assumptions. Some Shepards would have a different perspective and rationalization where dream sequences would not occur, especially if they were not particularly close to certain dead squadmates. In my file, my Femshep:

Kaidan: Died in duty; moved
Thane: Died; moved on
Legion: Sacrificed himself for his people; moved on
Wrex: Shot him herself; had a moment with Garrus, moved on.

Everyone else is alive and she is "moved on." The dream sequences convey a degree of emotion this Shepard simply does not have, all to invoke a reaction from me, the player, that I do not desire.

To your other point. Those quotes are a demonstration of my subsequent remark that "ME3 has multiple problems that render it lackluster. Forced dialogue is simply one amongst the many."

So, I'm still waiting for where I said "I can't be mean makes ME3 a bad game."

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 28 novembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[Steelcan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Petrosky fate didn't decide it, but Petrosky himself was an underwhelming piece in an underwhelming DLC.

Oh well: it seems Biowware is only capable of interesting antagonists on accident, not as a skill.

Really?  I thought TIM was interesting, as was Saren.  I guess folks have a different idea of interesting though.

He was interesting until he became Space Hitler

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Not the focus of the dreams

Really now? This much vo for the dreams have no meaning?

  the stupid kid is the focus, we chase after him, watch him burst into flames.

And yet every time Shepard wakes up from the dream he talks about someone close to him he lost.

I remeber a"I miss Kaiden/Ashley" option in the diologue wheel after the first dream.

That means noting?

I don't miss Ashley. I killed her off for a reason

You know what the sheer irony of that is? Ashley gets more characterization than Shepard! You can be an absolute ass to her in previous games and in ME3, she outright tells you, "I hope the Reapers send you to hell." Meanwhile, Shepard always feels bad about every death, no more how he/she might have treated that person.

And now weare back to why not being able to hate people or let's them know you hate them makes the game bad.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I was pointing out the irony of Ashley displaying a greater sense of variety than Shepard based upon player action. To reference my earlier statement, Shepard not saluting Hackett is not "mean" but merely shows he/she may not consider themselves Alliance or view Hackett as anything more than an effective resource. An accurate definition would be "Shepard is a pragmatic."

[Ithurael]

OP, has the DLC done what you wanted?

[Bourne Endeavor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Petrosky fate didn't decide it, but Petrosky himself was an underwhelming piece in an underwhelming DLC.

Oh well: it seems Biowware is only capable of interesting antagonists on accident, not as a skill.

Really?  I thought TIM was interesting, as was Saren.  I guess folks have a different idea of interesting though.

TIM was intriguing in ME2. He was ambiguous and meticulous but appeared to be a "well intended extremist" at best, a xenophobe at worst. All this characterization was lost in ME3, where he devolved into a Saturday morning cartoon villain, who came just shy of twirling his mustache.

[Steelcan]

Ithurael wrote...

OP, has the DLC done what you wanted?

I think he said it was better than nothing.

[Dean_the_Young]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Petrosky fate didn't decide it, but Petrosky himself was an underwhelming piece in an underwhelming DLC.

Oh well: it seems Biowware is only capable of interesting antagonists on accident, not as a skill.

Really?  I thought TIM was interesting, as was Saren.  I guess folks have a different idea of interesting though.

TIM stopped being interesting as he was transitioned into an antagonist: he was his most interesting when an (unreliable) ally, but in ME3 he and Cerberus lost the ideological framework and nuance that made them interesting. In ME2, TIM at his most unreliable (the Collector Ship) had a clear and definitie purpose, while at the same time he frequently showed ambivalence or even open-minded acceptence-opportunism to take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves regardless of choice.

Saren never spurred my interest because he had so little presence. While the conceit of 'submission is preferable to destruction' is a genuinely interesting one, it was undermined by two things: how little exposure it got (only on Virmire, before his indoctrination), and how it was known to be fatally flawed from the start (because the Reaper cycle of genocide already precluded submission as a viable strategy).

[Ieldra]

Ithurael wrote...
OP, has the DLC done what you wanted?

Haven't played it yet. Long download times and time zones interfered. I'll know in 16 hours or so. From what I hear, the overall picture looks like this:

The good:
(1) I can spare Petrovsky
(2) He is mostly the interesting character we know from ME:Invasion

The bad:
(1) One line of Shepard autodialogue

So I guess I can live with it, but the writers should put up a sign above their PCs: Dialogue lines illustrating core aspects of Shepard's character, emotions and motivations should be left for the players to decide about.

[Hey]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dialogue lines illustrating core aspects of Shepard's character, emotions and motivations should be left for the players to decide about.

no doubt,,.

[TobiTobsen]

dreman9999 wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

*sarcasm* Why should we try to convince the highest, unindoctrinated Cerberus officer to defect from his crazy commander and commit all his soldiers and scientists from his cell to Cerberus' original objective of protecting and advancing humanity when we can simply hand over the station to a criminal kingpin? */sarcasm*

We can recruit Dr. Coles unindoctrinated bunch, why not General Petrovsky?
I have the feeling that a well funded and equiped cell from a spec ops organisation like Cerberus would provide much more to the war effort than a bunch of gangs and criminals.

Did you play the dlc? You have an option to have him defect

Yes. After butchering his whole cell and handing Omega back to the gangs.

[wright1978]

Festae9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dialogue lines illustrating core aspects of Shepard's character, emotions and motivations should be left for the players to decide about.

no doubt,,.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Nimrodell]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ithurael wrote...
OP, has the DLC done what you wanted?

Haven't played it yet. Long download times and time zones interfered. I'll know in 16 hours or so. From what I hear, the overall picture looks like this:

The good:
(1) I can spare Petrovsky
(2) He is mostly the interesting character we know from ME:Invasion

The bad:
(1) One line of Shepard autodialogue

So I guess I can live with it, but the writers should put up a sign above their PCs: Dialogue lines illustrating core aspects of Shepard's character, emotions and motivations should be left for the players to decide about.

Ieldra, you'll be ok with how they handled Petrovsky (though, you won't see much of him). But I don't think you'll like the fact how lacking in dialogue and choices is your own Shepard - the combat, gameplay itself is a good one and it's a party for those who screamed on BSN how much they wanted Aria - but I think you'll have a feeling that something's missing - like depth in story itself. I'm still very ambiguous to be honest - don't know what to think about this DLC - if I liked it or not.

[WhiteKnyght]

The pros

Adjutants
Aria stoftened
Petrovsky is on our side
Nice amount of war assets

Cons

No debriefing with Hackett(I like those)
No dialogue with squadmates about what happened.
Cant explore the Omega Nebula afterward.

Overal: 7 out of 10

Good DLC

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:07 .

[xsdob]

TIM has always been space hitler, he just lied to shepard in ME2 about it. Read the books and tell me that isn't the same illusive man? He's just as cold, ruthless, and well equipped as he's ever been.

DLC is great and I love how petrovsky was done in the dlc, he seemed different from all the other villians, able to be reasoned with and who doesn't just throw away innocent lives just because. Him surrendering was great to me, since it seemed like something he would do rather than order a suicide attack or rig the place to explode or something.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Just got done playing, also watched a video on youtube to see some of what I didn't do.

Anyway, I'll get right to Petrovsky. The handling of his fate was decent, IMO. It's best, though, if you played through the mission as a renegade. The video I watched was of a paragon player, in which case Aria leaves Petrovsky's fate (live/die) to you because you "softened" her, and then doesn't really care what choice you make.

As a renegade, though, Aria is bent on killing him in the end. I was playing quite ruthlessly, and I expected it to be no different when I got to the general himself. However, when I got there, I thought his terms of surrender were fair. But to save him, you must paragon-interrupt twice. And I must say, those interrupts are quite well done, much like the two renegade ones in Leviathan DLC.


FYI, that's probably the best course of action for any Aria non-fans. She gets trolled hard by you denying her revenge.

[Ieldra]

xsdob wrote...
TIM has always been space hitler, he just lied to shepard in ME2 about it. Read the books and tell me that isn't the same illusive man? He's just as cold, ruthless, and well equipped as he's ever been.

The thing is, what Cerberus did in ME2 - rebuilding and improving the Normandy and above all Lazarus - was AWESOME! What Henry Lawson did when he created MIranda was awesome as well. That's the aspect of Cerberus I want to save for the future. Radical advancement and not cowering in the face of the unknown just because it might change you. The problem is that no other group represents such goals, and thus they get drawn into the moral abyss alongside Cerberus' atrocities. Having people like Petrosky and Miranda - and Brynn Cole - mitigates that impression, and that's why it is very important to me. 

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil". 

@Nimrodell:
Long time no see. Thanks for the info. I'll see soon enough for myself and then I'll be back.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 novembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[jpraelster93]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The pros

Adjutants
Aria stoftened
Petrovsky is on our side
Nice amount of war assets

Cons

No debriefing with Hackett(I like those)
No dialogue with squadmates about what happened.
Cant explore the Omega Nebula afterward.

Overal: 7 out of 10

Good DLC

Another con it was overpriced

[Xilizhra]

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil".

The Alliance is the organization for human advancement; Cerberus is its twisted and corrupt shadow (until it matures into another arm of the Reapers). I believe that they dropped the ball by not having more non-Cerberus people be seen to try to actively advance things (within all species), true, but that doesn't make Cerberus a good thing.

[Steelcan]

xsdob wrote...

TIM has always been space hitler, he just lied to shepard in ME2 about it. Read the books and tell me that isn't the same illusive man? He's just as cold, ruthless, and well equipped as he's ever been.

DLC is great and I love how petrovsky was done in the dlc, he seemed different from all the other villians, able to be reasoned with and who doesn't just throw away innocent lives just because. Him surrendering was great to me, since it seemed like something he would do rather than order a suicide attack or rig the place to explode or something.

. There's a line between ruthless and ambitious, and ruler of a space N*zi empire.  In ME3 he loses complexity, he is portrayed as a reaper puppet through out ME3, even if you'd like to agree with him.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil".

The Alliance is the organization for human advancement; Cerberus is its twisted and corrupt shadow (until it matures into another arm of the Reapers). I believe that they dropped the ball by not having more non-Cerberus people be seen to try to actively advance things (within all species), true, but that doesn't make Cerberus a good thing.

The Alliance is lazy and bureaucratic.  They don't get anything done until Shepard comes back.  They are useless.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil".

The Alliance is the organization for human advancement; Cerberus is its twisted and corrupt shadow (until it matures into another arm of the Reapers). I believe that they dropped the ball by not having more non-Cerberus people be seen to try to actively advance things (within all species), true, but that doesn't make Cerberus a good thing.

The Alliance is lazy and bureaucratic.  They don't get anything done until Shepard comes back.  They are useless.

Well, they win the war while Cerberus loses it.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil".

The Alliance is the organization for human advancement; Cerberus is its twisted and corrupt shadow (until it matures into another arm of the Reapers). I believe that they dropped the ball by not having more non-Cerberus people be seen to try to actively advance things (within all species), true, but that doesn't make Cerberus a good thing.

The Alliance is lazy and bureaucratic.  They don't get anything done until Shepard comes back.  They are useless.

Well, they win the war while Cerberus loses it.

. Shepard wins the war, the Alliance comes along for the ride.  On the ther hand, Cerberus is successful in their main goal, finding a way to control the Reapers, but we can't use their research data, because.....

[N7Gold]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil".

The Alliance is the organization for human advancement; Cerberus is its twisted and corrupt shadow (until it matures into another arm of the Reapers). I believe that they dropped the ball by not having more non-Cerberus people be seen to try to actively advance things (within all species), true, but that doesn't make Cerberus a good thing.

The Alliance is lazy and bureaucratic.  They don't get anything done until Shepard comes back.  They are useless.

How do you explain the cannons on Horizon and Ashley/Kaidan's appearance there? The Alliance knew about the Collectors and were doing something about it, they were just being hush-hush about it, that's why Anderson couldn't tell Shepard why Ashley/Kaidan was on Horizon, because he didn't want Cerberus to know that the Alliance IS aware of the colony abductions. The Alliance is not as useless as the Illusive Man leads you to believe. Both the Alliance and Cerberus have their own flaws, admit that.

Modifié par N7Gold, 28 novembre 2012 - 01:13 .

[Steelcan]

N7Gold wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So there are two different reasons why I'm glad they didn't derail him into a space N*zi - character integrity and the mitigation of the message "human advancement is evil".

The Alliance is the organization for human advancement; Cerberus is its twisted and corrupt shadow (until it matures into another arm of the Reapers). I believe that they dropped the ball by not having more non-Cerberus people be seen to try to actively advance things (within all species), true, but that doesn't make Cerberus a good thing.

The Alliance is lazy and bureaucratic.  They don't get anything done until Shepard comes back.  They are useless.

How do you explain the cannons on Horizon and Ashley/Kaidan's appearance there? The Alliance knew about the Collectors and were doing something about it, they were just being hush-hush about it, that's why Anderson couldn't tell Shepard why Ashley/Kaidan was on Horizon, because he didn't want Cerberus to know that the Alliance IS aware of the colony abductions. The Alliance is not as useless as the Illusive Man leads you to believe.

. They sent one soldier and guns that didnt work.  They did a great job?  Cerberus put together an elite team and rebuilt Shepard and the Normandy, and stopped the Collectors.