1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

TheProtheans wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

ITT:

Yeah I'm not getting that at all, that image is about 1 year late.
There is a relaxed bitter atmosphere in this thread.

Nothing that silly and extreme.

You're screaming inside. 

[Megaton_Hope]

David7204 wrote...

Are you being serious, or are you really that deluded? Or stupid?

Do you consider these to be valid questions to which I might respond, or are you just hoping to evoke a response?

[David7204]

I honestly don't know what to think. I'd like to believe no literate person could possibly claim with a straight face that 'every game review they've ever read' encouraged them to make a purchase.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

- Any new enemy is going to 'come out nowhere.' That's not contrived.

Not necessarily.  The enemy could have been alluded to in ME1 or it could have been a very logical outgrowth of an enemy in ME1.  For example the gangs in ME2 were 'new' but they were not contrived since we already knew the Terminus system was a lawless section of the galaxy that was rife with merc gangs and pirates.  The Blue Suns, Eclipse, and Bloodpack were merely logical extensions of this and thus not contrived.

- How is the fact that collectors are Protheans 'convenient' at all? And I've played ME 2 plenty of times but never heard anything about the Reapers being 'unable to reapify them.' So I dunno where that's coming from.

Edi says it during the Collecter Base/Suicide Mission.

- The last two complaints are really just one complaint, and you're trying to pretend that it's two. Yes, the collectors should have been made a bigger threat, but that would give Shepard a purpose in defeating them.

The problem is the Collector's don't fit the overall narrative of defeating the Reapers.  At the end of the day, you are no closer to knowing how to defeat the Reapers than you were before.

I would have done more-or-less the same thing. Shepard is not going to be fighting the Reapers until ME 3, so whatever s/he's dealing with is going to have to be servant or ally of them, and obviously far less dangerous.

No, what should have happened is that Shepard should have found/fought/discovered some way to fight the Reapers or at least deal with the Reaper problem.  He (or she) didn't.  We are no closer to defeating the Reapers at the end of ME2 than we are at the start.

-Polaris

[TheProtheans]

Eterna5 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

ITT:

Yeah I'm not getting that at all, that image is about 1 year late.
There is a relaxed bitter atmosphere in this thread.

Nothing that silly and extreme.

You're screaming inside. 

I'm actually shaking my head in disappointment.

[David7204]

That is simply wrong, and I'm a little tired of hearing it. No, Shepard should not have 'discovered a way to fight the Reapers' during ME 2. It would have killed a whole lot of the drama. I want the player asking 'How the hell are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2.

Not 'How the hell is this device/technology/whatever going to save us? (because we all know it will.)'

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 08:09 .

[tevix]

@David

The reapers were brand new in a brand new IP and didn't feel like they came out of nowhere. The collectors felt like they were just dropped.

No, shepard shouldn't be fighting actual reapers in ME2, but they could have had you do something more productive than fight a harmless race of super-sleuths that don't seem to really be doing anything.

The collectors being prothean is another one of BW's forced emotional moments. It's supposed to make you go *GASP!* "PROTHEANS?!" I had no such reaction. My reaction was "Oh...just...protheans?" The collectors are a walking plot hole. Why would the collectors have JUST been conveniently built out of the last race. Why would they just build a random base so suddenly so poorly defended with ships that pose no real threat. They were created not just by the devs, but seemingly by the reapers JUST now JUST so we would have another "mysterious" enemy with an epic revelation to encounter.

I expected the collectors to be something much, much older that the reapers always use to asess the state of the galaxy and potential targets.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

That is simply wrong, and I'm a little tired of hearing it. No, Shepard should not have 'discovered a way to fight the Reapers' during ME 2. It would have killed a whole lot of the drama. I want the player asking 'How the hell are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2.

I don't see why.  It makes a lot more sense and IMHO makes for much better drama then Liara discovering a computer file that's been overlooked for more than thirty years on mars.

-Polaris

[Indy_S]

IanPolaris wrote...

No, what should have happened is that Shepard should have found/fought/discovered some way to fight the Reapers or at least deal with the Reaper problem.  He (or she) didn't.  We are no closer to defeating the Reapers at the end of ME2 than we are at the start.

I disagree that it needs to stop them. I think what we needed from ME2 was a way to stop them from just winning instantly when they arrived.

[David7204]

The fact that it would have been better than what actually happened in ME 3 is irreverent. That doesn't justify making ME 2 worse.

[IanPolaris]

Indy_S wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

No, what should have happened is that Shepard should have found/fought/discovered some way to fight the Reapers or at least deal with the Reaper problem.  He (or she) didn't.  We are no closer to defeating the Reapers at the end of ME2 than we are at the start.

I disagree that it needs to stop them. I think what we needed from ME2 was a way to stop them from just winning instantly when they arrived.

Well I did say "...or at least deal with" which implies that we don't lose instantly when the Reapers show up at our doorstep.  I am not saying that such a thing would be easy, but at the end of ME2, we should at least have some sort of gameplan.

The problem is at the end of ME2, we are just as clueless as to how to deal with the Reapers as we are at the end of ME1.

-Polaris

[Morlath]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

That's the thing, though, every game review I've ever read from a "game journalism" site (or especially from a magazine, especially XBox magazine, unsurprisingly) comes across as a come-hither to the consumer to make a purchase. To provide that come-hither, it's necessary to keep some of the less desirable features de-emphasized.

Then perhaps you're only reading the highest scored games? Which, by definition, are high enough for reviewers to recommend. Seems a pretty self-explanatory answer.

What is it that causes you to call my opinion a "taint," and how does my "taint" make me less human?

Human as in making mistakes and not some Grand Reviewer who never makes mistakes.

Your taint, my taint and everyone's taint is playing a game constantly over and over to where your opinion becomes clouded by those experiences. And it's even more of an impact when the game is part of a series.

Reviews aren't tainted because they're coming at the game relatively fresh.

[David7204]

That isn't a problem at all. That's a good thing. It's good that the player's asking 'How are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2. The problem was that the solution wasn't introduced well in ME 3. But that's ME 3's problem, not ME 2's.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 08:15 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

The fact that it would have been better than what actually happened in ME 3 is irreverent. That doesn't justify making ME 2 worse.

That's an opinion and one I don't share.  For the record, I enjoyed ME2, but it is very much a stand-alone game.  It really doesn't talk (at least with regards to the larger reaper threat) to either ME1 and ME3 and that's the problem.  In terms of fighting the reapers, ME2 may as well not exist.

-Polaris

[Megaton_Hope]

David7204 wrote...

That is simply wrong, and I'm a little tired of hearing it. No, Shepard should not have 'discovered a way to fight the Reapers' during ME 2. It would have killed a whole lot of the drama. I want the player asking 'How the hell are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2.

Not 'How the hell is this device/technology/whatever going to save us? (because we all know it will.)'

That there Crucible deal, which is a moldy old schematic handed down over millennia by races which were ultimately murdered by the things that will soon be murdering us?

That would have been the best time to introduce such a plot device. Not as something which has been created and is ready to be deployed, but rather, much as the beginning of the third game does, something which has recently been discovered and needs to be fleshed out. Far better than records for a big reveal would be, let's say, the Protheans' own Crucible, a decrepit framework rusting in some asteroid belt, perhaps scored by Reaper weapons and cratered by meteoroid impacts, but with the suggestion of future discoveries hanging off it.

With the whole Collector business, one could make it a feature in one way or another to the Collector base. Perhaps it is the base, like the Catalyst is the Citadel. There's a possible reason for Destroy/Save to matter.

I mean, just because Shepard can't defeat the Reaper invasion in the second game, doesn't mean that it has to be on the back burner the entire time.

[tevix]

You can't just drop the end-game device out of nowhere in the third act of a trilogy.

Even halo did a better job of connecting the dots...because some of those dots started in the second game.

You simply cannot spend the second act of a trilogy in a story about trying to stop a seemingly unstoppable ancient enemy doing nothing..you just...can't. And that's what happened.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

That isn't a problem at all. That's a good thing. It's good that the player's asking 'How are we going to do this' at the end of ME 2. The problem was that the solution wasn't introduced well in ME 3. But that's ME 3's problem, not ME 2's.

I don't agree.  I think at the end of ME2, Shepard should have looked at the Reaper Threat as a collossal but winnable war/challenge.  At the very least, we should have had some sense that we were gaining ground on the Reaper threat even if it remained a huge, and even exisential challenge in the future.

In short, with better planning, Liara isn't forced to find an [insert McGuffin here] that acts as a magical [enter name of Reaper Kill switch here] to magically solve the plot.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 mai 2013 - 08:21 .

[David7204]

Frankly, the Crucible should have been scrapped altogether. It's a lousy idea, period.

Just because the Reaper invasion is on the backburner doesn't mean it can't establish the means to defeat the Reapers. And in fact, it conventional victory was possible, that's pretty much exactly what it would have done. The missions in ME 2 provide the basis for the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs to function and be satisfying.

Likewise, missions thoughtout ME 2 could have laid down the foundation for a nonconventional solution. But that doesn't has to be apparent to the player at the time. In fact, I would argue it shouldn't be.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 08:21 .

[SpamBot2000]

IanPolaris wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The fact that it would have been better than what actually happened in ME 3 is irreverent. That doesn't justify making ME 2 worse.

That's an opinion and one I don't share.  For the record, I enjoyed ME2, but it is very much a stand-alone game.  It really doesn't talk (at least with regards to the larger reaper threat) to either ME1 and ME3 and that's the problem.  In terms of fighting the reapers, ME2 may as well not exist.

-Polaris

Yes, and this could easily have been corrected by having the player discover clues to Reaper weaknesses on the mission to stop the Collectors. Having the player clueless as to how to go about fighting the Reapers at the beginning of ME3 is not really working, as it leaves too little time for the discovery and deployment of anti-Reaper measures. This is why we get an ancient superweapon conveniently discovered in Liara's back pocket. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 11 mai 2013 - 08:21 .

[David7204]

IanPolaris wrote...
In short, with better planning, Liara isn't forced to find an [insert McGuffin here] that acts as a magical [enter name of Reaper Kill switch here] to magically solve the plot.

That is just pigheaded hindsight bias.

Yes, the Crucible introduction and execution was bad. Does that mean they had to be bad? Does that mean ME 3 was doomed from the start? No.

[tevix]

@David

"Likewise, missions throughout ME2..."

I agree, actually. And that's my complaint with ME2. Nothing of the sort is established. The story wastes all of it's reaper related content on a filler enemy that serves no purpose.

At the end of ME1 you and shepard knows the reapers ARE coming. SOME way must be found to stop them. He will be doing something reaper-related in ME2. That something was wasted on the collectors.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
In short, with better planning, Liara isn't forced to find an [insert McGuffin here] that acts as a magical [enter name of Reaper Kill switch here] to magically solve the plot.

That is just pigheaded hindsight bias.

Yes, the Crucible introduction and execution was bad. Does that mean they had to be bad? Does that mean ME 3 was doomed from the start? No.

"We fight or we die"

AARRGH!

Yes, a poor beginning doesn't automatically mean that a game (like ME3) is doomed from the start, but it's sure a good way to bet.  Frankly the entire prologue/earth mission and then Priority Mars was some of the worst storytelling in the game up until the ending.  Does it automatically doom ME3?  No, but IMHO it puts it into a deep thematic hole from which it never really recovers....and then we get the endings.

-Polaris

[David7204]

No. Laying down the foundations for a nonconventional solution doesn't mean Shepard has to explicitly be pursuing it, or even know a thing about it until ME 3.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

No. Laying down the foundations for a nonconventional solution doesn't mean Shepard has to explicitly be pursuing it, or even know a thing about it until ME 3.

The problem is that this foundation isn't even laid in prior games, and introducing it like it was in ME3 puts the game into a very deep Thematic hole.  You, yourself, have just admitted that it was sub-par story structure at best.

-Polaris

[David7204]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, a poor beginning doesn't automatically mean that a game (like ME3) is doomed from the start, but it's sure a good way to bet.  Frankly the entire prologue/earth mission and then Priority Mars was some of the worst storytelling in the game up until the ending.  Does it automatically doom ME3?  No, but IMHO it puts it into a deep thematic hole from which it never really recovers....and then we get the endings.

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be evidence or something? Are you trying to argue that the Crucible was bad because Shepard says 'We fight or we die?"

If ME 3 had problems in it's introduction, it's because it had problems in it's introduction. ME 2 didn't make any missteps forcing that to be the case.

And yeah. Introducing a good solution to defeat the Reapers is incredible, immensely difficult. The incredibly awful rewrites and suggestions all over the BSN should be proof of that. If it was easy, anybody could do it.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 08:31 .