1765 réponses à ce sujet

[Necroscope]

[Edited to remove personal attack]

Modifié par BioWareMod01, 07 février 2014 - 04:22 .

[CronoDragoon]

So putting the Crucible aside (I agree there's contrivances and head-scratchers there) what was wrong with Leviathan?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 07 février 2014 - 04:24 .

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

I think the worst written thing of the trilogy is how they bridge every game (especially ME2 < ME3).

Eh, I think we should give that particular prize to the game that kills and resurrects the protagonist in order to break up the crew, fast-forward two years, and force cooperation with Cerberus. 

[AlanC9]

dreamgazer wrote...
Eh, I think we should give that particular prize to the game that kills and resurrects the protagonist in order to break up the crew, fast-forward two years, and force cooperation with Cerberus. 

Agreed. ME3's start doesn't work all that well if you didn't play Arrival, but it doesn't gratuitously blow up anything except maybe Shepard's relationship with Cerberus. Though it does push some of the squadmates off to the side, aye.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 février 2014 - 04:37 .

[CronoDragoon]

StreetMagic wrote...

The worst thing is how all of it breaks immersion right off the bat (for either game). It's expected to have immersion breaking moments during a game, but not right away. You have to go through a frustrating adjustment period just to enjoy things. edit: Admittedly, "frustrating" is a relative term. Some people adjust differently.

I started with ME2 since ME1 was not available on PS3, and it sounds like that saved me some headache, and also explains why I love the intro and Lazarus: it was literally done for people like me.

I really don't know what to say to people frustrated with Shepard's status at the beginning of ME3. It was spelled out for you in Arrival. I suppose as Alan said if you skipped Arrival it'd be an issue.

[ImaginaryMatter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I started with ME2 since ME1 was not available on PS3, and it sounds like that saved me some headache, and also explains why I love the intro and Lazarus: it was literally done for people like me.

I really don't know what to say to people frustrated with Shepard's status at the beginning of ME3. It was spelled out for you in Arrival. I suppose as Alan said if you skipped Arrival it'd be an issue.

I think what frustrates people is not so much that Shepard is on Earth but the fact that he doesn't do anything while there except lift weights and talk to Vega (FemShep gets cosmetic surgery). Although, technically shouldn't he be on the Arcturus Station?

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 07 février 2014 - 05:00 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't have much opinion about Arrival. Other than that it sucks. The only good thing about it is that it's short. I don't mind Shepard being on Earth and/or turning themselves in for other reasons. I'd have preferred a trial or hearing though.

I always enjoy playing through the Object Rho fight on Insanity through all 5 waves.

[CronoDragoon]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
I think what frustrates people is not so much that Shepard is on Earth but the fact that he doesn't do anything while there except lift weights and talk to Vega (FemShep gets cosmetic surgery). Although, technically shouldn't he be on the Arcturus Station?

What would you have liked him to do?

[ImaginaryMatter]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...
I think what frustrates people is not so much that Shepard is on Earth but the fact that he doesn't do anything while there except lift weights and talk to Vega (FemShep gets cosmetic surgery). Although, technically shouldn't he be on the Arcturus Station?

What would you have liked him to do?

Something, anything. Anderson states that the only reason why Shepard hasn't been court martialed is because of Shepard's knowledge and experience fighting the Reapers. Yet, when Shepard visits the defense council they don't know anything. Which makes me wonder if the Alliance has the worst command structure ever to have plagued future Earth or if Shepard just sat around in his nice apartment all day without bothering to do anything about the Reapers.

[thehomeworld]

All the interactions between shep and TIM in ME2 made even worse if you're Akuze background and shep doesn't do anything but flip him the vocal bird but still plays along.

VS and Shep's contrived dialogue on Horizon shep couldn't give real answers and VS was just too tunnel vision to ask proper questions.

The entire conversation between shep and space brat that should've gone

crazy TIM and shep because crazy TIM was just contrived shep was basically having a constant one side conversation

All of Lang's scenes and his dialogue

[George Costanza]

AlanC9 wrote...

George Costanza wrote...
First, you have plans for a superweapon, capable of defeating the Reapers, that just turns up out of the blue five minutes after the Reapers invade.

"Five minutes" is hyperbole, right? Hackett, Liara, and TIM knew about the plans well before Shepard hears about them.

Off course! We know that the plans have been found previously as there's no other way Cerberus could be there (although, as evidenced by ME3, they do turn up pretty much everywhere regardless of common sense) but narratively the plans enter the story immediately after the invasion. We just transition from "Uh oh, they're here!" to "Oh btw I found these plans" within the space of, what, ten minutes game time?

If Bioware had the benefit of foresight, and knew how ME3 was going to pan out earlier in the series, they could have made it look a little less convenient. Perhaps Liara could show Shepard plans for various Prothean artifacts in ME, one being the Crucible. And then when Javik is released, he could ask how the device was coming along, and then when they revealed they didn't know what he was talking about, he could see the plans and explain what it was to them. You know, maybe not that, but something a little more organic, and a little less jarring.

AlanC9 wrote...

Imagine if someone had walked into Churchill's office in the middle of World War II .....

That's not a great metaphor, since Churchill wasn't facing imminent and certain defeat. How about Hitler's office in January 1945?

It's not a great metaphor, but then it isn't a metaphor at all. That's beside the point though. The point was that Hitler was invading countries left, right and centre, as were the Reapers, and when the Brits were heading into a full scale World War, pooling a tonne of resources into building a weapon without knowing some of the parts, or the origin, or what it actually did, is a stretch. A big one.

[von uber]

My mate who didn't play me1 couldn't see the issue with cerberus and found their switch to bad guys in me3 jarring.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with the OP on all points. That scene with Liara in ME2 always stood out to me, even on the first playthrough. It's frustrating and makes no sense.

[Rusty Sandusky]

ayshego

[The Don's Hound]

That one part with the character

[AlanC9]

George Costanza wrote...

Off course! We know that the plans have been found previously as there's no other way Cerberus could be there (although, as evidenced by ME3, they do turn up pretty much everywhere regardless of common sense) but narratively the plans enter the story immediately after the invasion.

Sure, but the timing is just an artifact of the POV being highly Shep-centric. Something I wish Bio would do more of... but since they've been giving us spoilers from the villain's POV since BG2, I suppose I'm doomed to disappointment on this front.

AlanC9 wrote...
It's not a great metaphor, but then it isn't a metaphor at all. That's beside the point though. The point was that Hitler was invading countries left, right and centre, as were the Reapers, and when the Brits were heading into a full scale World War, pooling a tonne of resources into building a weapon without knowing some of the parts, or the origin, or what it actually did, is a stretch. A big one.

Analogy, right. But you ducked the substantive point. Churchill wasn't inevitably doomed, and Hitler was.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 février 2014 - 02:42 .

[AlexMBrennan]

It's not a great metaphor, but then it isn't a metaphor at all. That's beside the point though. The point was that Hitler was invading countries left, right and centre, as were the Reapers, and when the Brits were heading into a full scale World War, pooling a tonne of resources into building a weapon without knowing some of the parts, or the origin, or what it actually did, is a stretch. A big one.

The difference is that the Alliance knows fully well that it is completely impossible to defeat the Reapers without some kind of super weapon whereas the Germans weren't nearly as advanced (for that analogy to work the Germans would have had to show up with ATLAS battle mechs)... So the choice is simply between certain defeat, and a million-to-one chance of not losing.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Analogy, right. But you ducked the substantive point. Churchill wasn't inevitably doomed, and Hitler was.

That's the benefit of hindsight speaking.  Up until the Battle of Britain they were essentially hanging  on by their fingernails.  The British Isles were literally under siege.

Wouldn' surprise me if Hackett's speach just prior to the attack onEarth didn't draw inspiration from Churchill's speeches

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

That's the benefit of hindsight speaking.  Up until the Battle of Britain they were essentially hanging  on by their fingernails.  The British Isles were literally under siege.

Wouldn' surprise me if Hackett's speach just prior to the attack onEarth didn't draw inspiration from Churchill's speeches

It was never quite clear how Germany was going to pull off an invasion, unless the UK command panicked and withdrew the fleet to Canada or some such. Even with air superiority they couldn't have protected those barges for long, if the RN was willing to accept losses.

Anyway, it's not like the Brits believed that their defeat in the Battle of Britain was certain, and it's the certainty of defeat that makes the analogy fail.

It's somewhat difficult to find historical examples of known inevitable defeat. Even when material factors make it inevitable, there's usually some reason to hope for some sort of political change. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 février 2014 - 03:25 .