1093 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

erezike wrote...

Could you please repeat shepard explanation from me1 how the reapers are still coming?
The only part i remember was him saying, the reapers are still coming.
Which is equal to the regular generals warning in time of cease fire or peace.
They go with their usual routine, the enemy is always looking for ways to hit us. even if the enemy is stuck deep in the mud. they often go with the saying how now is a more dangerous time than yesterday even though the risk is always the same.
Its regualr military doctorine.
Nothing more.
Shepard had no special intel about the reapers in me1

He doesn't need special intel. He believes they are coming. How is Shepard omniscient? No idea, but that's something the narrative tosses at you, regardless of what you as a player want to think. "The Reapers are coming and I'm going to find some way to stop them"- his words.

Stop trying to move goalposts.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 juillet 2013 - 01:03 .

[Erez Kristal]

he believes they are coming, but he has no idea how they are going to do it or when. you can only prove what you know.
not what you believe in. at that point, shepard(and the player) didnt know much.

Modifié par erezike, 15 juillet 2013 - 01:07 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Could you please repeat shepard explanation from me1 how the reapers are still coming?

You know from conversation with Sovereign and Vigil that
1) Reapers are the builders of the mass relay network, and thus capable of traveling mass relay jump distances without using mass relays
2) Reapers are trying to kill us
3) we just foiled their latest attempt to kill us

On the balance of probability, I think it is very likely that they will try again. That changed things because prior to ME1 no one knew that a hostile armada looking to kill us was out there.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

erezike wrote...

Could you please repeat shepard explanation from me1 how the reapers are still coming?

does it matter?You knew they're coming,because BioWare would obviously use them to make more money.You don't need in game explanation

[o Ventus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

He's right though. ME2 already got rid of pretty much most of the neutral-response options. The game forced you to either go full-paragon, full-renegade or play some who suffers from a bipolar multi-personality disorder.

These are 2 totally different issues. And no, ME2 did not get rid of "pretty much most of the neutral-response options". People blow the P/R system way out of proportion. Was it flawed? Yes, without a doubt. Did it force you to play down a particular morality path? No, not even close.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

o Ventus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

He's right though. ME2 already got rid of pretty much most of the neutral-response options. The game forced you to either go full-paragon, full-renegade or play some who suffers from a bipolar multi-personality disorder.

These are 2 totally different issues. And no, ME2 did not get rid of "pretty much most of the neutral-response options". People blow the P/R system way out of proportion. Was it flawed? Yes, without a doubt. Did it force you to play down a particular morality path? No, not even close.

Were there even many to begin with? I always hear people talk about how multiple dialogue options leading to one option, but I never cared enough to test how often that was true. The impression I got though was Mass Effect 1 especially doesn't have as much diversity in dialogue as it first appears.

[The Heretic of Time]

o Ventus wrote...

Did it force you to play down a particular morality path? No, not even close.

Sure, you're not actually forced  to play full-Paragon or full-Renegade if you like your Shepard with bipolar-syndrome.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Morocco Mole wrote...

You are gimping yourself if you don't pick either the top right or bottom right at all times. So the neutral option may as well not be there.

I don't really see that as a problem. At least, no more than your typical Bioware game.

You're gimping yourself if you don't choose whatever dialogue makes Alistair + companions most happy. In KotOR and Jade Empire, you're gimping your combat prowess if you don't go full Light or Dark side.

Some would argue (to an extent this applies to me as well) that it's good for an RPG to force you to have various checks and balances on your decisions-making.

The ME2 system doesn't make much sense, but then neither did ME1 where I can theoretically become a master charm/intimidate even without utilizing those skills. Really, the only intelligible rules systems are those where using a skill makes that skill stronger, as per TES.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 juillet 2013 - 01:40 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Did it force you to play down a particular morality path? No, not even close.

Sure, you're not actually forced  to play full-Paragon or full-Renegade if you like your Shepard with bipolar-syndrome.

I never felt that my Shepard was bipolar at all. Rather, I think my Shepard was doing what he thinks is right for the situation with the knowledge he  has in the context of said situation. My Shepard is technically amoral, with a leaning towards liberal/progressively constructivist idealism, but tempered by common sense of the actual situation and a more realist understanding of the galaxy.

[Erez Kristal]

I can understand the fear of the neutral path gimp.
Despite that it was still possibile for me to play a paragade or a renegade with paragon tendecies on all of my playthroughs with having the important options unlocked( tali trial, miri-jack conflict)

Best way to play the game is to edit your character to level 30 with all the upgrades and boost yourself with renegade-paragon points. that way you can only RP. (this is true for the entire mass effect series)

[Seboist]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Did it force you to play down a particular morality path? No, not even close.

Sure, you're not actually forced  to play full-Paragon or full-Renegade if you like your Shepard with bipolar-syndrome.

You actually still get bi-polar syndrome even if you play full Paragon or Renegade; Paragon can go from being lawful and compassionate to threatening to break an elcor's legs and Renegade goes from being space punisher against criminals one moment and then making crooked deals with them the next.

Modifié par Seboist, 15 juillet 2013 - 02:08 .

[RZIBARA]

I find ME2 to be the weakest of the three. I don't find much replay value in it either, but maybe because that is from how many ****ing mercs i have to shoot up in the first few recruitmemt missions, which bores me. The second half of the game is better though, and the final mission is epic.

I much preferred the ME1 and ME3 crew over the ME2 ones (i did like the ME2 cast but ME1's was my fav).

Also, the gameplay, weapons, and skill trees are crap. And there's barely a plot too . Fighting mercs 80% of the time didnt help either.

I still like ME2, but its my least favourite of the three games

Also, i personally believe part of the reason ME3 had so many problems actually goes back to ME2. It added in 9 new squadmates, and ALL OF THEM could live or die. So could Tali and Garrus. And then there were all the choices in the loyalty missions. It just added an insane amount of variables to the game. Not to also mention ME2 didnt even advance the plot. It should involved preparing for the reaper invasion. but nope. Go kill the collectors, that was the plot. 

IMO the plot needed to be preparing for the reaper invasion, including EARTH as a hub planet, and have it fall at the end of the game. And ME3 shouldve been purely war with the reapers, with a final mission similar to the suicide mission but 100 times bigger.

ME3 to me (excluding priority earth and on) was vastly superior to ME2

Modifié par RZIBARA, 15 juillet 2013 - 02:35 .

[Erez Kristal]

Thats why you have to choose your choices, being renegade or paragon wasnt about being softhearted or rough.
It was about roleplaying the answer that was suited to the situation.
In me3 the difference in choices was only cosmetic with very few expections.

[HellbirdIV]

While we're on the Paragon/Renegade topic: Can we just remove it from the next game in the series?

It's been mentioned quite a few times elsewhere that moral choices are bogus, especially when there's a number or stat attached to it.

You gotta pick Renegade choices to level up your Renegade meter to be able to pick more Renegade choices further on in the story... Instead of picking whatever choices make sense for your character, the way Roleplaying is supposed to work.

I found myself picking a number of Paragon choices when Neutral/Renegade was just as valid in my latest ME1 playthrough simply so I would be able to talk Wrex and Saren down in the lategame. Picking Paragon choices had a tangible benefit to gameplay; That's not roleplaying.

Basically, I think that the degree of choice in the next ME should be as wide and varied as in the first game... but with no Red or Blue choices, at all, and no meters. It benefits the Roleplaying aspect, I think.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 15 juillet 2013 - 02:18 .

[Erez Kristal]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Except the system Bioware set up inhibited role play

i wholeheartedly agree.

Modifié par erezike, 15 juillet 2013 - 02:25 .

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
"Relying on whites to progress" and slaughtering the people you're supposedly responsible for are incompatable concepts. The people who think we're responsible for this planet are not the people strip-mining and clearcutting. That's what you're suggesting.

That we are "stewards of nature" is exactly the defense that many use for the exploitation of natural resources.  It may seem incompatable to logic, but human psychology OFTEN flies in the face of logic.  Far too often.

----

On-topic -

I hate the ending of ME3, the charge the light elevator forward part.  Even with the Extended Cut.  Whereupon I loved the ending of ME2.  Are there good points to the end of ME3 or bad points to the end of ME2?  Sure.  But the former's bad points outweigh its good ones, and vice versa for the latter.

I also dislike the simplifying of conversation options and increase in auto-dialog in ME3 over ME2.  But I don't hate it, I just would rather it hadn't happened.  Preference, not a deal-breaker.

I ALSO dislike the focus on combat and being more like Gears of War in ME2, but the trying to be Battlefield in ME3 is a step further.  This is even less of a problem to me, overall, than the conversation simplification - but a mark against the games in my book regardless.

ALL THAT SAID...

ME2 was, from a game mechanics and gameplay POV (ignoring story and role-playing for the moment), a vast improvement on ME1.  And (ready for this) ME3 was a noticeable improvement on ME2 in those departments as well.


So I guess I'm not in the "ME2 is perfect" club, even if I'm all over hating on ME3...
...'s ending...
But I can say that, overall, I liked ME2 more than ME3.

Of course...
I liked ME1 more than ME2.

So parse that however you will.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

ME2 was my favorite. Not because of plot, because it was virtually non existent. But because of characters. ME3 tried to add in a plot, but my god was it horrible.

[Guy On The Moon]

I think you guys maybe confused on the dialogue circle for the entire Mass Effect series

The only thing ME3 lacked was a "middle option" and it forced you to choose renegade or paragon. This is because the middle option is actually the "Default" Shepard response. It's just a coincidence that they happen to be neutral most of the time. This was mentioned in the first game's directions. There is no middle option in ME3 because it's the end of Shepard's story, you just have to choose in this game...either or.

Mass Effect was f'd up with ME2 and since ME3 had to follow in ME2's path it ended up being messed up too. The first one outdoes both of them put together.

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Could you please repeat shepard explanation from me1 how the reapers are still coming?

You know from conversation with Sovereign and Vigil that
1) Reapers are the builders of the mass relay network, and thus capable of traveling mass relay jump distances without using mass relays
2) Reapers are trying to kill us
3) we just foiled their latest attempt to kill us

On the balance of probability, I think it is very likely that they will try again. That changed things because prior to ME1 no one knew that a hostile armada looking to kill us was out there.

Right. And even if Shepard's wrong about the Reapers coming, so what? The downside there is only that he wastes time trying to stop something that isn't going to happen

[Fixers0]

 The dialogue system of Mass Effect 3 is considerably weaker then those of it's predecessors.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I can never tell if it's decisions made in ME2 or in ME3 that really make it seem like ME2 was useless to the entire plot and didn't need to be there. People often say the characters out of ME2 were the biggest contribution to ME3, but other than Mordin and Leigon, the characters didn't have that much of an impact on ME3, and I feel that those two characters could've been introduced in ME3. As for the other characters, think about it. Sanctuary? Miranda didn't need to be there. All you would've needed to know was there was a crazy Ceberus operative turning people into husks. Grissom Academy? Sure, the kids being Jack's kids made it more emotionally investing, but it still would've had potential to be emotionally investing without her being there. Samara's mission would've been just fine without Samara being there and Liara flipping out. Honestly, with how everything played out, they could've just jumped from ME1 to ME3 without much problems. The Lazarus Project never happened, TIM acts like how I'd expect the leader of ME1 Cerberus to act, you actually get to see the new Council instead of "lol, they don't want to talk to you", the Galaxy is still in as much peril after ME2 anyways and you could just say the Reapers are attacking full force because Sovereign got wiped out. Harbinger, the main villian of ME2, only gets like one line in the game. They could've just not written ME2 and had ME3 start in a slightly different way. Everybody is getting invaded, but Shepard isn't under arrest. It just seems like that ME2 was 30 hours of walking in circles while playing Dr. Phil Shepard.

Am I wrong here?

There's a good amount of truth to this, but I think the final answer is a touch more complicated.

What ME2 failed to do was be significant in its own right. And by that I mean, when you finish ME2 it's difficult to say what, if anything, we managed to achieve.

However, it's always possible to give a game retroactive plot importance. This can be done by giving the player information which they were not previously aware of, to make seemingly trivial information very important.

The best example of where I saw this done was Neil Gaiman's Sandman graphic novel. It's a ten volume dark fantasy series about this dude, Morpheus, known as the King of Dreams. It has a central story spanning the entire work, but a lot of the time it takes seemingly trivial details the reader learns earlier and turns them into major plot points. Issues which are previously thought of as unimportant have a huge connection to the central narrative, etc.

Basically, ME2 could have done more to stand on its own, especially if so much content wasn't optional. But there was nothing stopping ME3 from finding some plot threads to latch onto.

[clarkusdarkus]

ME2 let me down straight away when shepard died, Then they rebuild him/her robocop style and i then had to pick up some ammo.......of which i didnt do once in ME1,That first 15mins was nowhere near what i expected it to be, ME2 was the beginning of the downfall storywise and RPG wise. ME1 squadmates were turned into cameo roles and ME3 made ME2 squadmates into cameo roles.....