1093 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I acknowledge the flaws of ME2, but I never saw a narrative disconnect in the way others do. I do believe Mass Effect 2 is the best game I ever played. I'm not calling it perfect by any means though.

Does that bother you?

Does it bother me? No.

But it does leave me scratching my head to be honest.

Would this really be the first game you've ever played that you hated while others loved, or others hated which you loved?

I see the occasional post detailing how Mass Effect 1 in various ways was the best of the trilogy. Personally I think that's absolute crap, but it wouldn't be the first time people had different opinions.

No its not the first time I dislike a game that other people like (or vice-versa). That's clearly not the point or the reason why I made this topic though. Did you even read the OP?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So tell me people, how is it possible to hate ME3 yet love ME2 at the same time? How can you point out all the flaws in ME3 yet be absolutely blind to the flaws of ME2? I would very much like to know that.

That would depend on what grounds you like or hate each game. From a narrative perspective, you probably won't get too far since ME2's story has its own set of issues. So it's hard for me to applaud ME2's plot and hate on ME3.

I assume here you're referring on a narrative level, but that's not the only relevant criteria for liking or hating each game.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:22 .

[David7204]

Quite a bit. The whole first 90 minutes is all a result of Lazarus. The meetings with Garrus and Tali and Liara. Various other conversations.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I acknowledge the flaws of ME2, but I never saw a narrative disconnect in the way others do. I do believe Mass Effect 2 is the best game I ever played. I'm not calling it perfect by any means though.

Does that bother you?

Does it bother me? No.

But it does leave me scratching my head to be honest.

Would this really be the first game you've ever played that you hated while others loved, or others hated which you loved?

I see the occasional post detailing how Mass Effect 1 in various ways was the best of the trilogy. Personally I think that's absolute crap, but it wouldn't be the first time people had different opinions.

No its not the first time I dislike a game that other people like (or vice-versa). That's clearly not the point or the reason why I made this topic though. Did you even read the OP?

Sure did. You sound shocked, from your wording.

[adayaday]

Skydivers survive falls by "debris surfing"-basicly clinging onto an object that slows the fall enough to make it surviveable,oh and  they don't do it while on fire ,choking to death and falling from space.

off topic.where is Admiral cheescake?i think he would love this thread.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

All of these complaints that Lazarus was brought up simply to 'enforce a time skip' are completely ridiculous. Lazarus is continually referenced as a source of drama between the characters. By Ashley. By Liara. By Miranda. By Javik. Lazarus was put in because it's good.

Then tell us how it was good. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with you.

You're not giving an argument, you're making a claim, with evidence that is not passable.

Just because all the drama that is caused in the story from Lazarus exists does not make it's inclusion good.

Put up a real argument, something that other people (who I disagree with) have been doing, or shut up.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The cycle cannot be broken.

You can't stop the signal, Mal.

[Seboist]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're absolutely right, Hanar. It's the BSN process. When a new game comes out, the old one suddenly becomes gold. When ME2 came out, ME1 went from a crappy shooter with a remarkably traditional Bioware story and a "cheap" squadmate choice and a difficult (to say the least) inventory and an incredibly stupid boss fight to a TRU ARR PEE GEE with wonderful characters and a "good" story. Same thing happened to ME2. It will happen to ME3 in a couple years.

The cycle cannot be broken.

Except ME1 actually did have a decent plot and is more of an RPG than the sequels.

[DeinonSlayer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Have you ever seen what happens when someone's parachute doesn't open? Have you ever seen what happens when someone falls from a high distance? Are you even defining gorey mess the same way as other people? 

Maybe you should Google instances of skydivers surviving impacts? Clearly, there's nothing even remotely close to a certainty of being turned into soup.

Maybe you shouldn't use the exception-to-the-rule fallacy (or make another argument towards which there is none from my end.)

"People have survived skydiving impacts. Therefore, skydiving impacts must not leave gory messes."

A google search confirms that most people in high impacts from altitude are killed. I can't say whether they're all turned into soup, but I'm sure it's not a pretty site.

I believe Shepard was in space until recovered. Miranda's notes talk about tissue damage from long-term exposure to vacuum and sub-zero temperatures, whereas the planet the Normandy crashed on is described as having a thick (if transparent) atmosphere. Even at that, I figure a greybox would be needed for intact memories to be salvaged.

Reconstruction after impacting a mountainside at 80 meters per second after atmospheric re-entry is just plain stupid. The helmet found in the Normandy Crash Site DLC could just as easily come from Shepard's locker.

I've turned enough armor sets into omni-gel to know they have spares.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:26 .

[David7204]

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

All of these complaints that Lazarus was brought up simply to 'enforce a time skip' are completely ridiculous. Lazarus is continually referenced as a source of drama between the characters. By Ashley. By Liara. By Miranda. By Javik.

But it is simply used to enforce a time skip.  There is no other reason for it to be there, then to have the ability to "re-create" Shepard, in terms of gameplay, to build up the so called "Collector threat" and to help establish the tension between Shepard and the VS/Alliance in general.  

That's simply not true at all. Something being good is 'reason' enough to include it within a story. There doesn't need to be further justification than that.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're absolutely right, Hanar. It's the BSN process. When a new game comes out, the old one suddenly becomes gold. When ME2 came out, ME1 went from a crappy shooter with a remarkably traditional Bioware story and a "cheap" squadmate choice and a difficult (to say the least) inventory and an incredibly stupid boss fight to a TRU ARR PEE GEE with wonderful characters and a "good" story. Same thing happened to ME2. It will happen to ME3 in a couple years.

The cycle cannot be broken.

It's untrue for me at least.

I loved ME1 despite it's flaws when it came out, I loved ME2 despite its flaws, I loved DAO.

I still hate DA2. That's not going to change.

I still think ME3 is by far the most disappointing game I've ever played. That's not going to change.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Seboist wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're absolutely right, Hanar. It's the BSN process. When a new game comes out, the old one suddenly becomes gold. When ME2 came out, ME1 went from a crappy shooter with a remarkably traditional Bioware story and a "cheap" squadmate choice and a difficult (to say the least) inventory and an incredibly stupid boss fight to a TRU ARR PEE GEE with wonderful characters and a "good" story. Same thing happened to ME2. It will happen to ME3 in a couple years.

The cycle cannot be broken.

Except ME1 actually did have a decent plot and is more of an RPG than the sequels.

More of an RPG will never mean a better RPG.

As it stands, Mass Effect's efforts at inventory alone was the single worst I've experienced in any RPG.

And ME1's plot had quite a few flaws of its own.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:26 .

[The Night Mammoth]

David7204 wrote...

All of these complaints that Lazarus was brought up simply to 'enforce a time skip' are completely ridiculous. Lazarus is continually referenced as a source of drama between the characters. By Ashley. By Liara. By Miranda. By Javik. Lazarus was put in because it's good.

Only if you insist it's the only reason it was put in. Skipping forward two years is part of it. 

[spirosz]

Seboist wrote...
Except ME1 actually did have a decent plot and is more of an RPG than the sequels.

That's great, except it was still traditional trying to achieve "hybrid" status.  

[The Heretic of Time]

David, your black-and-white thinking and lack of imagination is quite astonishing. There is more to the Lazarus Project than just "whining about how awesome it is".

In real-life, something like the Lazarus Project would in fact create a grand political fallout, especially if this project came from a known terrorist organisation. Imagine the political, moral and ethical ramifications of such a project in real-life and how that would impact people, shock people, and quite possibly worry people. Especially authority figures such as the Council would probably want this stuff to be investigated and they would probably want to bring Shepard and Miranda in for questioning.

The fact that NONE of this happens in Mass Effect is a missed opportunity and it makes the Lazarus Project feel rather contrived and detached from the rest of the game/series.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

All of these complaints that Lazarus was brought up simply to 'enforce a time skip' are completely ridiculous. Lazarus is continually referenced as a source of drama between the characters. By Ashley. By Liara. By Miranda. By Javik.

But it is simply used to enforce a time skip.  There is no other reason for it to be there, then to have the ability to "re-create" Shepard, in terms of gameplay, to build up the so called "Collector threat" and to help establish the tension between Shepard and the VS/Alliance in general.  

That's simply not true at all. Something being good is 'reason' enough to include it within a story. There doesn't need to be further justification than that.

Well obviously, people disagree with you on what is and isn't good. Unless you think you know more and are better than anyone else.

There does need to be justification. You destroy any credibility you have by pulling that card. 

Why is it good? How is it good?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David, your black-and-white thinking and lack of imagination is quite astonishing. There is more to the Lazarus Project than just "whining about how awesome it is".

In real-life, something like the Lazarus Project would in fact create a grand political fallout, especially if this project came from a known terrorist organisation. Imagine the political, moral and ethical ramifications of such a project in real-life and how that would impact people, shock people, and quite possibly worry people. Especially authority figures such as the Council would probably want this stuff to be investigated and they would probably want to bring Shepard and Miranda in for questioning.

The fact that NONE of this happens in Mass Effect is a missed opportunity and it makes the Lazarus Project feel rather contrived and detached from the rest of the game/series.

Agreed.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Have you ever seen what happens when someone's parachute doesn't open? Have you ever seen what happens when someone falls from a high distance? Are you even defining gorey mess the same way as other people? 

Maybe you should Google instances of skydivers surviving impacts? Clearly, there's nothing even remotely close to a certainty of being turned into soup.

Maybe you shouldn't use the exception-to-the-rule fallacy (or make another argument towards which there is none from my end.)

"People have survived skydiving impacts. Therefore, skydiving impacts must not leave gory messes."

A google search confirms that most people in high impacts from altitude are killed. I can't say whether they're all turned into soup, but I'm sure it's not a pretty site.

Please consider that shepard fell from a height greater than any skydiver or building jumper has ever fallen from. Also consider the amount of damage the body would sustain from atmospheric reentry and the amount of thermo energy friction would generate, along with the added inertia and kinetic force of the impact.

Also consider the enviromental damage of being exposed to high levels of heat followed by rapid levels of cold from the icy planet, the ice's chemical composition, and the amount of time shepards body would have been exposed to the elements before being discovered.

But it's okay, shepard was wearing a helmet, so all that is null and void in game right?

[Seboist]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Seboist wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're absolutely right, Hanar. It's the BSN process. When a new game comes out, the old one suddenly becomes gold. When ME2 came out, ME1 went from a crappy shooter with a remarkably traditional Bioware story and a "cheap" squadmate choice and a difficult (to say the least) inventory and an incredibly stupid boss fight to a TRU ARR PEE GEE with wonderful characters and a "good" story. Same thing happened to ME2. It will happen to ME3 in a couple years.

The cycle cannot be broken.

Except ME1 actually did have a decent plot and is more of an RPG than the sequels.

More of an RPG will never mean a better RPG.

As it stands, Mass Effect's efforts at inventory alone was the single worst I've experienced in any RPG.

And ME1's plot had quite a few flaws of its own.

ME1's flawed plot is far superior to the near-nonexistent stagnant plot of ME2 that wrecks the overarching story and sets the stage for a lot of 3's derp.

And ME2 is just a shooter with dialogue options.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seboist wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're absolutely right, Hanar. It's the BSN process. When a new game comes out, the old one suddenly becomes gold. When ME2 came out, ME1 went from a crappy shooter with a remarkably traditional Bioware story and a "cheap" squadmate choice and a difficult (to say the least) inventory and an incredibly stupid boss fight to a TRU ARR PEE GEE with wonderful characters and a "good" story. Same thing happened to ME2. It will happen to ME3 in a couple years.

The cycle cannot be broken.

Except ME1 actually did have a decent plot and is more of an RPG than the sequels.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it better. I think the characters and the more personal tone of ME2 was superior to that of ME1. I liked how the story was told much better than ME1's, even if the story itself was incredibly weak.

[Jorji Costava]

Speaking as a fan of ME1, I have to admit that it's not the most smoothly plotted game. It could have been retitled "Mass Effect: A Series of MacGuffins." First you need to find the Beacon, then you need the Quarian who has the Evidence, then you need to find the Conduit, but in order to do that you need the Cypher and the Other Beacon, etc.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Seboist wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Seboist wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're absolutely right, Hanar. It's the BSN process. When a new game comes out, the old one suddenly becomes gold. When ME2 came out, ME1 went from a crappy shooter with a remarkably traditional Bioware story and a "cheap" squadmate choice and a difficult (to say the least) inventory and an incredibly stupid boss fight to a TRU ARR PEE GEE with wonderful characters and a "good" story. Same thing happened to ME2. It will happen to ME3 in a couple years.

The cycle cannot be broken.

Except ME1 actually did have a decent plot and is more of an RPG than the sequels.

More of an RPG will never mean a better RPG.

As it stands, Mass Effect's efforts at inventory alone was the single worst I've experienced in any RPG.

And ME1's plot had quite a few flaws of its own.

ME1's flawed plot is far superior to the near-nonexistent stagnant plot of ME2 that wrecks the overarching story and sets the stage for a lot of 3's derp.

And ME2 is just a shooter with dialogue options.

I don't think ME2 ruined the story of ME1 at all. I think it built upon and geared it up for a huge standoff in ME3. 

I think ME3 ruined the translation between the entire series. It ruined the change from ME1 to ME2, and from ME2 into ME3.

That's just how I see it personally. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Seboist wrote...

ME1's flawed plot is far superior to the near-nonexistent stagnant plot of ME2 that wrecks the overarching story and sets the stage for a lot of 3's derp.

3 easily could have rectified many of its own problems, depending on what the developers wanted to go for. ME2 could have pushed the story forward a bit more, but there was more than enough material to make a halfway decent plot for 3.

Bioware chose to go down the "Crucible was secretly hidden on Mars" plot point. There were other, more viable options.

And ME2 is just a shooter with dialogue options.

For which I'm thankful. At least it stopped pretending to be what it was never good at.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 juillet 2013 - 09:33 .