1093 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.

True, ME2's story is even worse than ME3's story. At least ME3 had a story that was directly related to the premise set by ME1 (even though ME3 did retcon a whole lot of ME1).

ME2.... man, ME2 barely even had a story to begin with! The story in ME2 was completely shoven to the background in favor of contrived loyalty missions.

ME3's ending was worse than anything in ME2.ME2 just had a worse plot and ME3 had that.....Ending......Thingy.

[The Heretic of Time]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

as flawed as ME2's plot may be you still end up achieving something (blowing up the enemy base)

If you blow up the enemy base you actually achieve absolutely NOTHING.
You're literally back to zero after doing that. You're no furter than you were at the end of ME1.

If you keep the collector base you can at least say you have that. I mean, a Collector base most likely won't win you the war against a hyper-advanced race of synthetic space-Cthulhu's, but it's at least SOMETHING.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 has better story than ME1 and ME3?ME2 hardly has a story.It's mostly random side missions and a couple collector related missions

[Reorte]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.

It's also the most fulfilling, and you get to do what you set out to do. There is no sudden and inexcusible shift in the narrative of the story. There is no change in theme.

Indeed. ME2's was ordinary and mediocre, but not plain downright stupid and awful (or at least nowhere near as much, althought the Reaper Baby is pushing it). I'll take well done and satisfying ordinary over a different mess. Being different for the sake of being different doesn't win prizes with most people and it certainly doesn't give you any leeway to excuse a poor effort. In fact it can add to the criticism because all too often it looks like you were trying to rely on being different to cover up for the lack of actual quality.

[mass perfection]

If there's something ME3 did right,it was that ALL the sidequests had something to do with the Reaper War.The bad part was that 80%-95% were fetch quests with nothing interesting.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.

True, ME2's story is even worse than ME3's story. At least ME3 had a story that was directly related to the premise set by ME1 (even though ME3 did retcon a whole lot of ME1).

ME2.... man, ME2 barely even had a story to begin with! The story in ME2 was completely shoven to the background in favor of contrived loyalty missions.

I disagree.

I think ME3 went against the buildup of the story that was present in both ME1 and ME2. I think ME1 and ME2 set up for a separate ME3 than what we got. And I blame ME3 for making the appearance of diconnect between ME1 and ME2. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Redbelle wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

The same thing, just without unnecessary stupid stuff like Lazarus, Cerberus's plan, the Collector's methods and motives, a two year leap in time, no progression in the main plot, characters that are there for no other reason than to be cool, and past characters who developed off-screen in nonsensical ways.

Wait amin. you just yanked alot of plot development out of the narrative that was able to occur because these events occured.

You say no cerberus plan? Does that mean that Shep goes after the collectors as an alliance marine? With or without the original Normandy. And if without because the old one got blown up.......

As much as I'd like to fire off thousands of words on ideas I have for a different ME2, I won't, because I'm not writer; just a fan with an over active imagination who knows far too much about a work of fiction.

Basically, when I say I'd change all those things, I don't mean it as drastically as it might appear. I actually appreciate the foundation of ME2; Shepard being forced to work with a more morally ambiguous and potentially villainous and untrustworthy organization in order to protect the galaxy. So most stuff would stay. Cerberus stays, the Collectors stay, the characters stay, just some of the specifics and plot points change.

As an example though, I wouldn't have Shepard die or two years pass. Instead, the Normandy is destroyed by the Collectors, Shepard survives, but the Council and Alliance are too busy with 'more important' things to take the Reapers seriously, at least to an extent that would make a difference. So, Shepard works with Cerberus because they want to help, giving her a ship and a crew.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:38 .

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

There's no reason for them to be so close to the planet unless they were doing something with it.

My guess was that they were scanning it, maybe to see if someone was dumping drive charge? But that's just a guess.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:19 .

[mass perfection]

Why didn't the Normandy go FTL when the Collector ship attacked?

[Reorte]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

as flawed as ME2's plot may be you still end up achieving something (blowing up the enemy base)

If you blow up the enemy base you actually achieve absolutely NOTHING.
You're literally back to zero after doing that. You're no furter than you were at the end of ME1.

If you keep the collector base you can at least say you have that. I mean, a Collector base most likely won't win you the war against a hyper-advanced race of synthetic space-Cthulhu's, but it's at least SOMETHING.

Something for Cerberus.

What you've done is stop the Reapers' Plan B. That was fine as a thing to achieve, at least until ME3 came along and made not only your achievements look pointless but also whatever the Collectors and Harbinger were trying to do. That said ME2 really should've set up something for the solution to the Reaper problem. If we must have the Crucible it should've been discovered during ME2.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

I'm telling you 100% fact: I think ME2 had a better story than ME1. It is 100% fact that I feel that way.

Don't tell me how I feel. Don't tell me how to feel.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:21 .

[mass perfection]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

I'm telling you 100% fact: I think ME2 had a better story than ME1. It is 100% fact that I feel that way.

Don't tell me how I feel. Don't tell me how to feel.

YOU'LL DO AS I COMMAND

[Mcfly616]

mass perfection wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People call Synthesis: "space magic". Yet, we've seen it before. Hello, Project Lazarus.

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People say your choices don't matter in ME3. Well, your choices matter in ME2 about as much as they do in 3.....if not even less.

Don't get me started on the waste of time narrative focus on the Collectors.

Shoehorned into joining Cerberus.

Taking away nearly the entire original crew (stunting character growth), and over-populating the Normandy with a bunch of comic book heroes.

People hate the Catalyst (I'll admit, I hate the fact it appears as a child. Kids are just annoying). But come on, that human Reaper fetus is just god awful. And imo, trying to come up with something different and thoughtful is better than just coming right out and saying "hey we're idiots...now abort this human Reaper fetus"



Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.

First, you kill the Reaper fetus (god, that's not a great start). Then, you get up and escape the Collector base while being chased by seeker swarms. Base explodes, we tell TIM to shove it, and then we see Reapers coming. (Okay, I'll admit that last bit gives me chills). That (for the most part) seems like the script of a Michael Bay action film. (While fun, it isn't anything to put on a pedestal)

Meanwhile, I had chills the entire time after going up the beam in ME3 (Extended Cut). We all have our preferences though.

Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

easy. I wouldn't have created a completely new villain. I wouldve kept the focus on the Reapers. I wouldn't have killed off the protagonist for shock value and a clean slate. I would've continued to develop existing squadmates, and added several more recruits (not 10). I wouldn't have completely removed features that fans criticised in ME1. I wouldve refined them.

The Reapers would've invaded halfway through ME2. That way, the war would be drawn out over the course of half the trilogy (1 and half games), instead of trying to cram the entire invasion, war and resolution into a single installment.

I would've made the Reaper War another three games.First one being about finding about the Crucible and destroying Cerberus before they get out of hand.The second being about building alliances.The third being about finishing the Crucible and learning about the Reapers and destroying them.

yeah, but you wouldn't have had to if we picked up on it during ME2. It was supposed to be a trilogy and it could've worked much better had ME2 not had a stalling pattern type plot. Absolutely zero progress was made from the end of ME1 and the end of ME2. We're in the same exact position.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:26 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 has better story than ME1 and ME3?ME2 hardly has a story.It's mostly random side missions and a couple collector related missions

And I disagree. Don't tell me that I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. 

I think ME2 had a better story than both ME1 and ME3. I like the side quests, character missions, and overall tone and style of storytelling much better than ME1 or ME3.

[tonnactus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

True, ME2's story is even worse than ME3's story. At least ME3 had a story that was directly related to the premise set by ME1 (even though ME3 did retcon a whole lot of ME1).

Just wait a little, some people will write something about dark energy,mentioned in about 2-3 sentences in the game...

[David7204]

Thank God people on the BSN are not writers.

[AlanC9]

mass perfection wrote...

Why didn't the Normandy go FTL when the Collector ship attacked?

Same reason Sarevok's trying an assassination plan in BG1 even though the targets would be resurrected in short order anyway.  Bio made a bad mistake when they set up the ME universe and they were trying to ignore it. 

[The Heretic of Time]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, I'm not wrong.

I'm telling you 100% fact: I think ME2 had a better story than ME1. It is 100% fact that I feel that way.

How is that possible though? ME2 didn't even have a story. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.

No, I'm not wrong.

I'm telling you 100% fact: I think ME2 had a better story than ME1. It is 100% fact that I feel that way.

Don't tell me how I feel. Don't tell me how to feel.

YOU'LL DO AS I COMMAND

Just try and stop me. 

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Thank God people on the BSN are not writers.

Says who?

As far as I can remember, there are plenty of writers here on BSN, some even (semi-) proffesional.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:26 .

[mass perfection]

Mcfly616 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People call Synthesis: "space magic". Yet, we've seen it before. Hello, Project Lazarus.

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People say your choices don't matter in ME3. Well, your choices matter in ME2 about as much as they do in 3.....if not even less.

Don't get me started on the waste of time narrative focus on the Collectors.

Shoehorned into joining Cerberus.

Taking away nearly the entire original crew (stunting character growth), and over-populating the Normandy with a bunch of comic book heroes.

People hate the Catalyst (I'll admit, I hate the fact it appears as a child. Kids are just annoying). But come on, that human Reaper fetus is just god awful. And imo, trying to come up with something different and thoughtful is better than just coming right out and saying "hey we're idiots...now abort this human Reaper fetus"



Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.

First, you kill the Reaper fetus (god, that's not a great start). Then, you get up and escape the Collector base while being chased by seeker swarms. Base explodes, we tell TIM to shove it, and then we see Reapers coming. (Okay, I'll admit that last bit gives me chills). That (for the most part) seems like the script of a Michael Bay action film. (While fun, it isn't anything to put on a pedestal)

Meanwhile, I had chills the entire time after going up the beam in ME3 (Extended Cut). We all have our preferences though.

Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

easy. I wouldn't have created a completely new villain. I wouldve kept the focus on the Reapers. I wouldn't have killed off the protagonist for shock value and a clean slate. I would've continued to develop existing squadmates, and added several more recruits (not 10). I wouldn't have completely removed features that fans criticised in ME1. I wouldve refined them.

The Reapers would've invaded halfway through ME2. That way, the war would be drawn out over the course of half the trilogy (1 and half games), instead of trying to cram the entire invasion, war and resolution into a single installment.

I would've made the Reaper War another three games.First one being about finding about the Crucible and destroying Cerberus before they get out of hand.The second being about building alliances.The third being about finishing the Crucible and learning about the Reapers and destroying them.

yeah, but you wouldn't have had to if we picked up on during ME2. It was supposed to be a trilogy and it could've worked much better had ME2 not had a stalling pattern type plot. Absolutely zero progress was made from the end of ME1 and the end of ME2. We're in the same exact position.

Whch is why ME2 was the worst game.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No, I'm not wrong.

I'm telling you 100% fact: I think ME2 had a better story than ME1. It is 100% fact that I feel that way.

How is that possible though? ME2 didn't even have a story. 

To you it didn't. 

To me, it was better in almost every way to ME1.

[mass perfection]

David7204 wrote...

Thank God people on the BSN are not writers.

I know.Imagine how much people would hate your stories.It'd have Lazarus 2.0 and Catalyst as a protagonist Synthesizing everything to solve a problem.

[The Heretic of Time]

tonnactus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

True, ME2's story is even worse than ME3's story. At least ME3 had a story that was directly related to the premise set by ME1 (even though ME3 did retcon a whole lot of ME1).

Just wait a little, some people will write something about dark energy,mentioned in about 2-3 sentences in the game...

The dark energy bullcrap was from ME2, and it was only mentioned like... twice in that game.

And honestly, I'm glad they never used that potential plot-hook as the main plot for ME3. It would have been too much of a Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann rip-off.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Thank God people on the BSN are not writers.

Some of them might be, and some of them probably should be.  How would you know if they weren't?