1132 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

David7204 wrote...

No. ME 2 should not have been used to unite the galaxy.

One of two things would have happened, and they would both be mediocre storytelling at best.

A) The preparations would have been effective. In which case, after two games of very heavy foreshadowing, what we have is basically a cop out. The Reapers aren't really that powerful at all.
or

The preparations aren't effective. In which case this has accomplished less than nothing.

A) David, so the fight is a bit more evenly matched. Big deal. You seem to be so hung up on the reapers steamrolling. Continuous derping by characters (Liara not recording Vigil -- it is canon you had your entire squad even though game mechanics only allow you to have two squad members; The VS not turning over the recording of Sovereign Conversation to the Council or Alliance), and continuous bad luck by having all evidence of the reapers existence have to be destroyed to escape your situation or turned over to an organization whose only purpose is building itself to become the secondary antagonist for ME3, and you derp once more and not send pass any of that information along to the "good guys" because "Good Is Dumb" is equally bad story writing. It gets so tedious. It's like "story plots" from profession wrestling.

Forget this one.

C) I would have liked to have seen a little more Good Is Smart, and more pragmatism used. But no, we get a bunch of idealistic paragons running around and this stupid Paragon-Renegade system, and instead of uniting the galaxy would start being idealistic about all the **** every government has been pulling on each other all through the damn centuries, like the 1000 page geth-quarian arguments and how evil the quarians are because they attacked to take their house back from the butler, and how evil the Asari are.

Screw it, they should have had Shepard get shot by Marauder Shields at the beam and die. Game Over. Roll Credits. 

[Fixers0]

It's not like the Collectors would be able to finish their plan before the war is well underway, even then, the Alliance is on high alert.

[o Ventus]

David7204 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You can't just unite the galaxy in ME 2, have everyone get bulldozed by the Reapers, and then unite them again in ME 3. It makes utterly no sense.

What if it's not bulldozing? What if ME2 focused on unity and ME3 on the Crucible?

The Reapers have been foreshadowed extensively for two games as immensely powerful, advanced, and ruthless enemies. To validate that foreshadowing, the narrative really needs to follow through. They really do need to be incredibly powerful and hit the galaxy very hard. At least at first.

I think a minimum of 20,000 harvests and a total kill count of at least a few quintillion is enough validation.

[Cainhurst Crow]

dreamgazer wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

See Darkspawn, Sith Empire, Sauron, etc. None of these would have been beaten if we just had a conventional war. That's not the problem at all.

Eh, it's a little unfair to bring medieval fantasy into the equation, and I wouldn't call the semi-conventional defeat of the Sith Empire "strong writing".

Which sith empire we talking about? there's been like 8 or more of them.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Then what would be best for ME2?

Simple. Weaken the Reapers without diminishing them as threats or providing a solution. Pretty much what ME 1 did with crippling the Reapers' weapon of control of the Relays.

I wrote a thread suggesting such a plotline a few days ago. You can take a look here.

ME2 kind of did that already, by destroying a lot of their more useful soldiers and their new Reaper design. I think if that had had its consequences followed up on more in ME3, it may have worked.

Destroying one group who only inhabited one station and killing an embryonic Reaper does nothing.

[Br3admax]

Does it really matter? The stories are all basically the same. Blow up big bad sith space station, you suddenly win. At least KotOR had Bastila's Battle Meditation, but that was hardly an excuse.

[David7204]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

A) David, so the fight is a bit more evenly matched. Big deal. You seem to be so hung up on the reapers steamrolling. Continuous derping by characters (Liara not recording Vigil -- it is canon you had your entire squad even though game mechanics only allow you to have two squad members; The VS not turning over the recording of Sovereign Conversation to the Council or Alliance), and continuous bad luck by having all evidence of the reapers existence have to be destroyed to escape your situation or turned over to an organization whose only purpose is building itself to become the secondary antagonist for ME3, and you derp once more and not send pass any of that information along to the "good guys" because "Good Is Dumb" is equally bad story writing. It gets so tedious. It's like "story plots" from profession wrestling.

If you have any 'smart' ideas on what Shepard should have or could have done, I'm all ears.

First of all, let me go ahead and cut you off by saying a recording a Vigil proves utterly nothing. A recording of Sovereign proves utterly nothing. Why? Because there's nothing stopping Shepard or anyone else from making a recording in their basement of a hologram saying whatever the hell the want.

Is this the best you can do?

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 08:26 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Br3ad wrote...

Does it really matter? The stories are all basically the same. Blow up big bad sith space station, you suddenly win. At least KotOR had Bastila's Battle Meditation, but that was hardly an excuse.

Um yeah, I really wouldn't call those good, per say. They work for star wars, but star wars has the force, a magical semi-to-posssible-fully-sentient metaphysical aspect of the universe in which things like the power of friendship and love can have actual measurable effect.

[Nightwriter]

One of the greatest appeals of the series was following the same character across a three-installment saga. Not saying they did that super well, or that they handled the overarching plot super well either -- quite the opposite -- but what you're suggesting seems to completely throw out several of the five or six things that make Mass Effect Mass Effect.

[David7204]

Success in a story driven game is not determined by the player's determination and skill.

Story driven games are mass produced products built to be beatable with a minimum of frustration and difficult by a reasonable competent child.

It's determined by the player character's determination and skill.

The player sits on the couch and presses buttons.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 08:29 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus was not contrived. It was not stupid. And it was not simply to 'force' Shepard to work with Cerberus.

Yes it is contrived. It is stupid. And it is there simply to railroad Shepard into working with Cerberus with a new squad and new abilities.

David7204 wrote...

You should know better than that. Lair of the Shadow Broker couldn't have existed without Shepard's death.

Lair of the Shadow Broker could have easily worked without Shepard's death, simply give Liara a different reason for wanting to find the Shadow Broker ( I can think of plenty reasons, all of them better than "omg I want revenge").

David7204 wrote...

As for the Reapers being 'no fun,' it's clear that has little to do with you actually thinking a weaker enemy would be more dramatic (it wouldn't be) and more to do with you not liking the endings and not being able to think up any way to make them significantly better. So you assume the Reapers were doomed from the start. Which is nonsense.

The reapers were doomed from the start, or more accurately, the reapers we doomed from the moment Mass Effect introduced them as endless, limitless and near-invincible demi-god space-ships, each and every single one of them being capable of taking on an entire fleet without much of a sweat.

Our dislike for the reapers has nothing to do with the endings. I for one already disliked the reapers a lot since ME2.

[David7204]

I can assure you a lot more people care about Mass Effect than Moby Dick.

[Erez Kristal]

Why are people keep reverting to me2?
We could have easily add me3 and me4 if having me3 to tell the story wasnt enough.
What is all the pressure with finishing the story about?

this is the problem with rushed games and why i enjoy cdproject joke about it.
they advertise their games: "published when ready" 
mass effect story should have been finished when it was completed instead of trying to acomplish too much in one game.

Modifié par erezike, 18 août 2013 - 08:34 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

I can assure you a lot more people care about Mass Effect than Moby Dick.

I can assure you that's factually wrong.

And even if it were true, so what? Why do you think I give a damn? What is your point?

[David7204]

Call it whatever you want. The point is, a video game is not a calculus exam. It's a game. It's a product built to be easily completeable by people of sub-average intelligence. There's no 'skill' or 'determination' necessary to beat Mass Effect or any AAA game aside from a very small niche market focused on difficulty. 

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 08:34 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Success in a story driven game is not determined by the player's determination and skill.

Story driven games are mass produced products built to be beatable with a minimum of frustration and difficult by a reasonable competent child.

It's determined by the player character's determination and skill.

The player sits on the couch and presses buttons.

As a game developer myself I can assure you that you're factually wrong on this.

You really know nothing about game design and you really shouldn't pretend as if you do know anything about game design.

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

Call it whatever you want. The point is, a video game is not a calculus exam. It's a game. It's a product built to be easily completeable by people of sub-average intelligence. There's no 'skill' or 'determination' necessary to beat Mass Effect.

there is a lot of skill involved if you try to finish it without ever dying. and resorting to cheap tricks like medi gel or immunity

[GreyLycanTrope]

Sovereign's attack proved quite a few things to Council and Alliance, it was just never acknowledge publicly or acted upon until the last minute for whatever reason. Derps all around for the powers that be.

[David7204]

It's nobody's fault. It's not a fault at all. Video games are just that. Games. Not chores. Not headaches. Not exams. Not work. Games.

[Hazegurl]

David7204 wrote...

Lazarus was not contrived. It was not stupid. And it was not simply to 'force' Shepard to work with Cerberus.

You should know better than that. Lair of the Shadow Broker couldn't have existed without Shepard's death.

It was contrived. I wouldn't call it stupid but contrived it was. Shepard could have easily worked as a Spectre in the Terminus systems. As for LotSB. That was contrived as well. They had to reboot the Liara character just to make it work.

[David7204]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Sovereign's attack proved quite a few things to Council and Alliance, it was just never acknowledge publicly or acted upon until the last minute for whatever reason. Derps all around for the powers that be.

I'm curious, do you think the general public is going to nod and smile when their taxes are tripled to build fleets because the government says there's an armageddon coming?

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Call it whatever you want. The point is, a video game is not a calculus exam. It's a game. It's a product built to be easily completeable by people of sub-average intelligence. There's no 'skill' or 'determination' necessary to beat Mass Effect or any AAA game aside from a very small niche market focused on difficulty. 

Again, you're factually wrong about this.

Please explain to me the Insanity difficulty in Mass Effect and tell me why it's there.

I tell you why. Let me school yo ass on basic game design principles 101:

Almost all games are designed to offer the player a reasonable challenge that is enough to entertain th player, but isn't too much, or else it becomes frustrating.

Video-games are all about the flow.



A challenge that is just dificult enough will get the player into "the flow", which is the most fun and relaxing state of mind to be in. All games are designed to get the player into this "flow", and a decent challenge is necessary to get into that flow.

Too much of a challenge, and the player will feel anxiety. Too little of a challenge, and the player will feel boredom.

The reason why games often have multiple difficulty settings is because it allows different players with different levels of skill to enjoy the game. A casual player might get into "the flow" with the difficulty on Easy, while a hardcore gamer might get into "the flow" with the difficulty on Insanity.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 18 août 2013 - 08:41 .