631 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]PKchu wrote...


[/quote]1. Why couldn't they finish that Reaper? It's not like there are inherent laws of Reaper construction. The writers could determine the difficulty of construction themselves.[/quote]Finishing the Reaper is strongly implied to necessitate an attack on Earth, the bastion of Humanity.
[quote]
2. I remember the Collectors ambushing planets, not destroying whole fleets.[/quote]That's the problem: once the Collectors leave the Terminus systems (where Alliance fleets can't go easily), they can't 'ambush planets' anymore without a fleet showing up in short period of time. This goes double for Earth, which more or less has standing fleets around it.

[quote]
3. The frigate is heavily upgraded to specifically handle Collector attacks.[/quote]Not necessarily: you can beat the Collectors with an un-upgraded SR2, which is functionally identical to the SR1 in terms of ability.

Since the Normandy SR1 is hardly the cutting edge of Alliance military power, the fact that the SR2 can beat the Collectors with 'conventional' weapons does not speak for the Collector's abilities to be a threat against organized resistance.

[quote]
4. Harbinger is an idiot...because nitpicks?[/quote]I'd argue it's because the abductions have no greater purpose behind their targetting or timing. That could just as well be blamed on the writers, but in-universe it's all on the Reapers.

ME2 could easily have cast the colony abductions in terms of fanning Council-Terminus tensions to spark a war that would divide the galaxy in preparation for the Reaper arrival. The Collectors could just as easily have been developing and trading technologies to spur that conflict, incourage divisions, and otherwise have a point outside of 'let's start this project we can't finish until after the Arrival just because.'

[Dean_the_Young]

PKchu wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Even before EA, has Bioware ever warranted that sort of faith in Major Consequences?

I think we've discussed this before, but I haven't actually played to completion any other Bioware games and my view of them was, "Oh, these are quality games and I really enjoyed them - they know what they're doing." As I said, it was naive. 

I do know in regards to the ending they wanted a delay to change things around and make the prothean the catalyst and all that, so I think if they had more time in general like they wanted, things would have been put together somewhat better.

And sure, Bioware loves money too. And nor are they perfect - I mostly bring up EA in relation to budget and deadlines for games, everything needing to come out fast and sell _many_ millions to be continued, forcing everything to be a large windfall success or not exist. (Primary example being the issues with Dead Space 3.) That's not a good context for dealing a game having to rely heavily on import flags.

In the case of ME2 and ME3, though, I don't think it was the time that doomed most of them to irrelevance: it was the sheer number of plan-less flags. The ME2 philosophy really did seem to be along the lines of 'throw a bunch of wet noodles at a wall and see what sticks.'

Would more time have improved it? I'm not sure which in particular: most Big Decisions never had clear follow-ups (Jack, Jacob, Thane), and many of the problem-threads are more of a result of choice rather than resource loss. Given the rather fundamental design decisions that marginalized her (Cerberus as an enemy, potentially dead herself, and unnecessary as a squadmate), I'm not sure roles like Miranda would be greatly revised even if they did have more time.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

"Finishing the Reaper is strongly implied to necessitate an attack on Earth, the bastion of Humanity."

Hmmmm...OK. Still, I don't think he has to finish it* to have a clear and logical motivation to start the process.

"That's the problem: once the Collectors leave the Terminus systems (where Alliance fleets can't go easily), they can't 'ambush planets' anymore without a fleet showing up in short period of time. This goes double for Earth, which more or less has standing fleets around it."

I generally just assumed there was a non-insignificant number of colonies in the Terminus system that would keep them occupied for awhile. Is it established somewhere there is a shortage of colonies?

"Not necessarily: you can beat the Collectors with an un-upgraded SR2, which is functionally identical to the SR1 in terms of ability."

I honestly often forget you can often succeed by doing the least effort and generally being terrible for the purposes of keeping the game going.

Going to chalk that up to the constraints of game design.

"I'd argue it's because the abductions have no greater purpose behind their targetting or timing. That could just as well be blamed on the writers, but in-universe it's all on the Reapers."

I generally assume the oddities of the execution have a reason for it but that the specifics are all vague Reaperisms that by design aren't privy to, "beyond comprehension." In minor elements of motivation and why, I personally fit it still to be coherent.


....

* Prior to the invasion of Earth, he of course has to finish it. But not with the colonies.

Modifié par PKchu, 01 mars 2013 - 02:05 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In the case of ME2 and ME3, though, I don't think it was the time that doomed most of them to irrelevance: it was the sheer number of plan-less flags. The ME2 philosophy really did seem to be along the lines of 'throw a bunch of wet noodles at a wall and see what sticks.'

Would more time have improved it? I'm not sure which in particular: most Big Decisions never had clear follow-ups (Jack, Jacob, Thane), and many of the problem-threads are more of a result of choice rather than resource loss. Given the rather fundamental design decisions that marginalized her (Cerberus as an enemy, potentially dead herself, and unnecessary as a squadmate), I'm not sure roles like Miranda would be greatly revised even if they did have more time.

I wouldn't deny that ME2 is a hard game to work from, but I think they could have done a better job if they simply had an additional year and a half and more funding. That may sound unrealistic in today's gaming world, but as a game, I don't think nature of ME2 is so hard to follow up on as much as it would generate content some people wouldn't see and the developers decided they didn't want to do that because of money. (And not just EA, probably Bioware to an extent too.)

I am sure if the deadlines were different that some of the base construction would have been changed around too. 

[MECavScout01]

Well, OP, that can certainly be your opinion.

I believe that ME3 is way overrated. I don't feel it didn't deserve all of the awards it got, but then again, I think most video game awards are crap anyway (even for games I like). The best critic a game can get is from the most dedicated fans IMO. That's also usually the only critic I personally listen too, generally making up my mind about a game myself.

ME1 and ME2 I put as the two best video games I've ever played. ME3 had some of the series greatest moments, but those are offset by, in my opinion, the sheer number of disappointments.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Here, I'll put it this way:

Making a "proper" sequel to ME2 would have had excess costs for a lot of content and development several players many have never seen in a market where not all games are finished at high rates.

So from a capitalistic venture, it was poorly set up and the developers making the game didn't want to commit to the implications of the game they created made, because it needed content that wouldn't have appeared in every game and that's bad from a business perspective. As an actual story, I don't think those plot flags are impossible to thread.

Modifié par PKchu, 01 mars 2013 - 01:54 .

[Cakcedny]

So what's your perfect and fairly rated game with no such flaws attached, precious?

[xoxin]

Cakcedny wrote...

So what's your perfect and fairly rated game with no such flaws attached, precious?

This.

I'm sure I could come up with a nice long list of flaws Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time had as well. Surely that doesn't deserve to be one of the greatest games of all time then, yes?

[NeonFlux117]

Over-rated? No.

ME1 is amazing.

ME2 is one of the greatest games of all time. 164 GOTY awards. inducted into the Smithsonian. 1 of only 80 games in 40 years to be selected.


overrated? WTF.

And ME3 is a GREAT game. It's just not on the same level of ME1 and ME2. And the ending is, shall we say, less than spectacular. But it's still great.

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

@Max:

1. I don't see why he needs to finish it to validate what he does in Mass Effect 2. He's starting the process and constructing the Reaper. To make assumptions about how it could be stupid when the details don't exist confuses me. Shepard wanted to stop colonies from dying, TIM seizing Collector tech.

Of course. He just acts because reasons.
The only details(Shepard, EDI) we have about that - is easily discarded by EAWare defenders. Because obviously, ME2 makes sense just because it exists.

2. "Minor" colonies still have populations to harvest. As for lacking protection...because there is not an on-screen explanation as to why how things are executed doesn't mean it must inherently be stupid. They could have put in a bit in the Codex about it being expensive to watch over colonies or the Alliance being spread out because of being in the Council now and protecting others, or a bit about stealth Collector tech. I don't think the events are so implausible when I play the game I'm like, oh nope. Definitely ruined.

Freedom's progress. Terminus systems.
Ferris fields. Terminus systems.
Horizon. Attican traverse.
Of course, there is completely no need in defending the only regions that Council allowed SA to settle into. At expense of betrayed batarians, no less. Who also acted against said colonies.

3. I don't think it's that ludicrous that the Normandy blew up the Collector ship. It happens in a cutscene and utilizes the music and feel of the game to get away with it in the "Rule of Cool." It didn't seem so outlandish looking on the surface that it could never happen, like Shep killing the Reapers with blinking. There are levels of stress events can take.

What?
So, because it is a cutscene, - collector's transport now can destroy entire SA fleet?

This is clearly a game of science fantasy and not science fiction - biotics are not realistic enough for this to be some kind of hardcore sci-fi game.

ME1 was a soft sci-fi.
ME2 is a nonsensical bad comics-level story, with a good gameplay. Good as standalone game, bad as sequel.
ME3 is a pure nonsensical garbage, with a bad fairytail-level story, and bad design.

4. You're assuming he intends to finish the Reaper. There could be all sorts of reasons to want to construct an embryo, like brain development before adding on more. To abscribe stupidity to his motivations as an assumption is unfounded.

So, he just acted because reasons. And of course, just because there is no direct statement, but some indirect statements - those statements can easily be discarded, for a sole reason that ME2's story makes sense just because that story exists.
Riiight

Re: ME 1

I cannot *find* this exact spot in the Codex that explains the problem, but there's an issue with the Mako either going into the beam without some kind of mass adjustment or technology to interface with the Conduit or an issue about it having the potential for drift and it splatting into the Citadel instead of getting inside it. I've seen people bring up this issue with how the beams function in 1 and 3. Can't remember the details - basically, the approximation is that they play fast and loose with how the relays work with the Conduit.

Mako have eezo core, actually.

I could level similar complaints about ME1 like you are about Harbinger - why doesn't Saren just ambush the control panel? But there are possible hypothetical answers to that. it's not like a guy having the obvious means to do something right in front of him and then not taking it. I think the suspension of disbelief is reasonable in both ME1 and ME2.

Saren couldn't do that, simply because he will be killed by C-Sec. Because you know, panel in main seat of power in the galaxy, which also used to close Citadel wards - is obviously protected.

As for the Witcher or Star Control 2...good for Witcher or Star Control 2? Sorry every game is not the Witcher or Star Control 2? I've never even played them, but something tells me they are not paragons of story telling perfection. My point is that minor details don't obliterate the entirety of a story.

So, you haven't played that, but this minor inconvenience doesn't stop you from claiming that they are not good at storytelling.

Of course, motivation of antagonists is just a nitpick and minor detail. Plot coherence and consistence is a nitpick.
Events in a story just happens. Because reasons.
That is how good stories are written

[Maxster_]

JesseLee202 wrote...

Maxster, you realize that ME2 ended with the Dark energy plot-line? And the goal of the Human Reaper was to end the threat.

I'm done listening to you rant about how much you dislike these games, still, I find it quite funny you are on these forums so much considering...

Have fun being negative.

There was no dark energy plot in ME2

[111987]

xoxin wrote...

Cakcedny wrote...

So what's your perfect and fairly rated game with no such flaws attached, precious?

This.

I'm sure I could come up with a nice long list of flaws Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time had as well. Surely that doesn't deserve to be one of the greatest games of all time then, yes?

Actually, I bet you couldn't. A lot of ME's problems is the scope of its story and universe. That's why a game like Super Mario Galaxy is nearly flawless, while any story-driven game will have issues.

[Maxster_]

JesseLee202 wrote...

PKchu wrote...

"Have fun being negative."

I don't mind disagreements or discussion, but coming here is like: "Everything is bad, this game is terrible, why would anyone like Mass Effect."

I just find it funny that people who dislike this game and bash it, are on the forums of said game, for how many hours. Why don't they go find something they like and say something good about it?

Obviously. Because it is fun to point at plotholes and nonsense of said game.
C. O.

[Cakcedny]

Maxster_ wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

Maxster, you realize that ME2 ended with the Dark energy plot-line? And the goal of the Human Reaper was to end the threat.

I'm done listening to you rant about how much you dislike these games, still, I find it quite funny you are on these forums so much considering...

Have fun being negative.

There was no dark energy plot in ME2

I believe there was a plot without any proper explanation. But with Kal'Reegar dead, the space magic was gone.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

"- is easily discarded by EAWare defenders."

Who says I'm some kind of super biased "EAWare defender?" I'm one of the very first to complain and unsatisfied with this series when something is bad - I was very disappointed in the ending and Omegs. But I'm not going to intentionally try to make myself sad about things I enjoyed.

Being derisive and condescending is cute, but a real or compelling point it is not.

I didn't personally find any of the plot or motivation issues to stick out or bug when I played ME2. It seemed coherent to me. We apparently have a different level of tolerance for missing details or seeing how stories are put together.

"Mako have eezo core, actually."

We'll return this idea later if someone else can remember the specific problem. I thought it was well known. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I remember it pretty clearly being an issue.

"Saren couldn't do that, simply because he will be killed by C-Sec. Because you know, panel in main seat of power in the galaxy, which also used to close Citadel wards - is obviously protected."

You, like, completely miss the point so hardcore here. That's what I generally think too. But you could counter, "Oh Saren is trusted had connections, he could have bought off the C-Sec officers easier than the plan of ME1, etc."

There's a certain level for cracks in the plot that bug me, and I don't think the ones in ME2 turn into gaping craters. If cracks bother you (or you think I've misidentified their significance), me and you just have different values.

"So, you haven't played that, but this minor inconvenience doesn't stop you from claiming that they are not good at storytelling. "

Do you even try to understand the other person in discussions? My point is that they likely aren't flawless and have some level of error that appears in virtually every piece of fiction I run across nowadays. Not that they are bad.

---

Is it not OK to like Mass Effect on the Mass Effect forum? Seriously?

Modifié par PKchu, 01 mars 2013 - 02:23 .

[Uncle Jo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

*snip*

KOTOR, Jade Empire, even DAO: in all of these Big Decisions mattered little, and I can't think of a single character arc in which a character continued to be major after a potential-death moment. While I will admit that I've never played through Baldur's Gate, I've also never heard any conherent praise on such grounds either.

*snip*

You should. Both of them. Really.

[d-boy15]

Overrated? yes. the same as Halo and COD, both receive the praise than it should.

Too many flaws and the main story is nothing new, Characters design is good but
Bioware is not the only one who can do that in gaming industry.

It's not bad game, in fact it's one of the best of this generation but not of all time as
some people claim.

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

"- is easily discarded by EAWare defenders."

Who says I'm some kind of super biased "EAWare defender?" I'm one of the very first to complain and unsatisfied with this series when something is bad - I was very disappointed in the ending and Omegs. But I'm not going to intentionally try to make myself sad about things I enjoyed.

Being derisive and condescending is cute, but a real or compelling point it is not.

I didn't personally find any of the plot or motivation issues to stick out or bug when I played ME2. It seemed coherent to me. We apparently have a different level of tolerance for missing details or seeing how stories are put together.

Compelling point was - EDI and Shepard's lines.
And this is only explanation about Harbringer's motivations.
And this explanation makes absolutely no sense, and portrays Harbringer as an idiot.
It is a plothole, plain and simple. It is not coherent at all.
You can headcanon any explanation you want, that doesn't make ME2 story sensical.

And your point, now being - "i like it so stfu".
If you don't like my critique - don't read it. Simple.

"Mako have eezo core, actually."

We'll return this idea later if someone else can remember the specific problem. I thought it was well known. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I remember it pretty clearly being an issue.

ME1 is good written, but not greatly written. There are several places which lacks explanation - like, for example, why Turians attacked SA without warning and reconnaissance?

"Saren couldn't do that, simply because he will be killed by C-Sec. Because you know, panel in main seat of power in the galaxy, which also used to close Citadel wards - is obviously protected."

You, like, completely miss the point so hardcore here. That's what I generally think too. But you could counter, "Oh Saren is trusted had connections, he could have bought off the C-Sec officers easier than the plan of ME1, etc."

There is enough information about C-Sec and Citadel Fleet in codex. And of course, if someone willing to ignore lore in a discussion about lore - that would end funny.

There's a certain level for cracks in the plot that bug me, and I don't think the ones in ME2 turn into gaping craters. If cracks bother you (or you think I've misidentified their significance), me and you just have different values.

This is obvious. People have different tastes, and different standarts.
Some even watch endless serials. And don't read any books.
Does that makes ME2's story coherent and sensical - it does not.

"So, you haven't played that, but this minor inconvenience doesn't stop you from claiming that they are not good at storytelling. "

Do you even try to understand the other person in discussions? My point is that they likely aren't flawless and have some level of error that appears in virtually every piece of fiction I run across nowadays. Not that they are bad.

Of course. There are glaring plotholes, like ME3 as a whole, and ME2's main story - and there is minor lack of exposition, like in ME1.
Quality of writing obviously differs.

---

Is it not OK to like Mass Effect on the Mass Effect forum? Seriously?

Liking or disliking is subjective.
Quality of writing is objective.

[Seboist]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

ME2 is one of the greatest games of all time. 164 GOTY awards. inducted into the Smithsonian. 1 of only 80 games in 40 years to be selected.

Right, a TPS that lacks the basic features of the genre like rolling and going from cover to cover that Gears 1 standardized in '06, mediocre level design where everything looks like a warehouse and A.I from circa 1998 is one of the "greatest games of all time".

Pardon me while I wipe the tears from laughing at such an assertion.

[NeonFlux117]

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

ME2 is one of the greatest games of all time. 164 GOTY awards. inducted into the Smithsonian. 1 of only 80 games in 40 years to be selected.

Right, a TPS that lacks the basic features of the genre like rolling and going from cover to cover that Gears 1 standardized in '06, mediocre level design where everything looks like a warehouse and A.I from circa 1998 is one of the "greatest games of all time".

Pardon me while I wipe the tears from laughing at such an assertion.

oh look, it's come out from under it's bridge. Be gone demon. Be gone. 

[Reap_ii]

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

ME2 is one of the greatest games of all time. 164 GOTY awards. inducted into the Smithsonian. 1 of only 80 games in 40 years to be selected.

Right, a TPS that lacks the basic features of the genre like rolling and going from cover to cover that Gears 1 standardized in '06, mediocre level design where everything looks like a warehouse and A.I from circa 1998 is one of the "greatest games of all time".

Pardon me while I wipe the tears from laughing at such an assertion.

i think you are doing it wrong.  i can go easily from cover to cover in ME3, very much like you can in Gears, with the touch of a button and pushing towards the direction of the next cover.  and you can double tap a button for a vault which is much like Gears rolling action, its used to get you out of crap quickly.  so, im not sure what you are talking about here.  its almost like you have never actually played ME3.

Modifié par Reap_ii, 01 mars 2013 - 02:46 .

[David7204]

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

ME2 is one of the greatest games of all time. 164 GOTY awards. inducted into the Smithsonian. 1 of only 80 games in 40 years to be selected.

Right, a TPS that lacks the basic features of the genre like rolling and going from cover to cover that Gears 1 standardized in '06, mediocre level design where everything looks like a warehouse and A.I from circa 1998 is one of the "greatest games of all time".

Pardon me while I wipe the tears from laughing at such an assertion.

I distinctly remember you posting this exact same comment several days. Now, I'm sure that the people you prefer to spend your time with are very impressed by how many times you can use the phrase 'derp' in a paragraph, and you're not near smart enough to do much else, but it might surprise you to know that not everyone in this world is so impressed by repetition?

Or perhaps it simply takes you several days to think something up? That wouldn't surprise me either.

Modifié par David7204, 01 mars 2013 - 02:48 .

[Addictress]

Just shut the hell up and give me Mass Effect 4.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

"Quality of writing is objective."

To an extent, although the criticism of writing and ideas of what things should be do change over time. Novels were once looked down upon heavily.

I'm not saying everything is relative, I'm stating I don't agree with your inability to parse minor details in a story without saying its complete rubbish. Explaining every plotpoint in detail is something that can be done and then generate a bad story. There's a give and take for narrative flow and cohesion. You can have a good story _experience_ with some damage on the edges of its plot as long as the core is not nonsensical.

This idea that every single possible detail must be explained for stories to make sense and it is the criteria above all things is asinine.

The issue is if the unexplained is extremely relevant and pervades your mind as you play the story. Harbinger's precise motivations to the T are not something I feel I need to know to enjoy ME2, just his general goal.

"There is enough information about C-Sec and Citadel Fleet in codex. And of course, if someone willing to ignore lore in a discussion about lore - that would end funny."

This, like many of your points, I find incoherent and condescending. You really don't think the Citadel's most trusted spectre doesn't have inside knowledge and information and that there's SO much individual detail about the minute details of how that area is guarded so securely that an infiltration strike would just be so impossible? No, that story could have been written without blowing up and destroying all of the lore.

I don't agree about your views on EDI and Shepard's level of information and how much credibility that should be given. Your response to my point that they do not have Word of God level of information and that EDI claims to be making an estimate is, "lol no, I am right you are wrong." Why should I even try to engage you if you twist what I say and are rude to me?

Go have fun playing the Witcher or something.

Modifié par PKchu, 01 mars 2013 - 03:00 .

[RedBeardJim]

Reap_ii wrote...

Seboist wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

ME2 is one of the greatest games of all time. 164 GOTY awards. inducted into the Smithsonian. 1 of only 80 games in 40 years to be selected.

Right, a TPS that lacks the basic features of the genre like rolling and going from cover to cover that Gears 1 standardized in '06, mediocre level design where everything looks like a warehouse and A.I from circa 1998 is one of the "greatest games of all time".

Pardon me while I wipe the tears from laughing at such an assertion.

i think you are doing it wrong.  i can go easily from cover to cover in ME3, very much like you can in Gears, with the touch of a button and pushing towards the direction of the next cover.  and you can double tap a button for a vault which is much like Gears rolling action, its used to get you out of crap quickly.  so, im not sure what you are talking about here.  its almost like you have never actually played ME3.

You might note that they're talking about ME2, not ME3.