124 réponses à ce sujet

[voteDC]

I think backgrounds should be the least mentioned in the final game. Who cares if the Shepard is from Mindoir or butchered his squad on Torfan? It isn't important in the large scale of things. Reapers attack and the one who rallies the races is the Commander Shepard, first human Spectre, captain of the Normandy, saviour of the Citadel. That's what's important, not Shepard losing his family on Mindoir or getting his squad killed on Torfan many years ago. Missions like that would've been only important to Shepard, be personal and disconnected with the main plot.

Such missions could fit in ME2, when there is less rush and you can spend ages scanning planets.

Who cares? Well there is me for a start.

Yes Shepard is the captain of the Normandy and Saviour of the Citadel, but equally important is how that person arrived at that point.

Shepard is hugely important because that is our avatar into that world, and that avatar shapes that world. A 'small' thing such as causing Major Kyle's breakdown or a large thing such as bringing peace to the quarians and geth, it is Shepard's previous actions which cause those events. No matter if it is picking the background or saving a character in a previous game.

To dismiss those choices is to dismiss Shepard.

I would not want game being tailored to the protagonist. That's one of the things that are good about ME3 - despite spearheading the fight against the Reapers you are still just a small detail in the huge war machine. Your indifference can impact you negatively, unlike ME1 and (to a lesser extent) 2.

Yet the game IS taloired to the protagonist, that is why they are in that role.

Why even bother having a background if that is never brought up in the final game, the resolution of that character's story. I confess that I tend to favour a Spacer background these days simply cause it at least gets a line from Hackett that Hannah Shepard, the main character's mother, is still alive. A small line like that for the Colonist or Earthborn backgrounds would have gone a long way to keeping the illusion of 'my Shepard intact.

In essence, why have a player defined character if you are only going to get to play as a predefined one.

I agree, but you don't put that intent into a paraphrase, you put it into the actual spoken line.

I completely disagree.

You can say "I love you" in exactly the same way, with the same tone of voice, but it is your intent behind saying it that makes the difference.

It was just a minor annoyance to me, I had the face code saved

The problem was that if you didn't change your face in ME2, you had no face-code to import into Mass Effect 3.

Bioware missed somehow that people might not want to change Shepard's face in the second game, and so somehow missed that by not doing so the game wouldn't create a face-code.

So when importing into Mass Effect 3, there was nothing for the game to import.

A pretty HUGE oversight to be honest.

[Vazgen]

 

Who cares? Well there is me for a start.

Yes Shepard is the captain of the Normandy and Saviour of the Citadel, but equally important is how that person arrived at that point.

Shepard is hugely important because that is our avatar into that world, and that avatar shapes that world. A 'small' thing such as causing Major Kyle's breakdown or a large thing such as bringing peace to the quarians and geth, it is Shepard's previous actions which cause those events. No matter if it is picking the background or saving a character in a previous game.

To dismiss those choices is to dismiss Shepard.
 

 

Yet the game IS taloired to the protagonist, that is why they are in that role.

Why even bother having a background if that is never brought up in the final game, the resolution of that character's story. I confess that I tend to favour a Spacer background these days simply cause it at least gets a line from Hackett that Hannah Shepard, the main character's mother, is still alive. A small line like that for the Colonist or Earthborn backgrounds would have gone a long way to keeping the illusion of 'my Shepard intact.

In essence, why have a player defined character if you are only going to get to play as a predefined one.

 

I completely disagree.

You can say "I love you" in exactly the same way, with the same tone of voice, but it is your intent behind saying it that makes the difference.

 

The problem was that if you didn't change your face in ME2, you had no face-code to import into Mass Effect 3.

Bioware missed somehow that people might not want to change Shepard's face in the second game, and so somehow missed that by not doing so the game wouldn't create a face-code.

So when importing into Mass Effect 3, there was nothing for the game to import.

A pretty HUGE oversight to be honest.

 

When I said "who cares?" I meant in-game NPC characters. For them, the recent events matter a lot more than what Shepard did back in the past. Hackett mentions Torfan and Akuze on Cerberus HQ mission because it's appropriate analogy at that point. 

You mentioned line about Hannah Shepard. The reason there is no such line for Mindoir or 10th street Reds is that Shepard moved on from those events, he dealt with them long time ago. By putting something like "Reapers attacked Mindoir, I thought you might be interested" implies that Shepard still retains connection to the colony, which is not the case for all Shepards out there.

Those choices are not dismissed, they are in the game like in Hackett's dialogue and Liara's time capsule scene. However, they are much less important in the context of the story. It's a natural progression of the character's fame - people refer to the recent events more than to the distant ones and the game reflects that. You have a lot more interactions with backstory elements in ME1, when you are not famous figure. In ME2 there are less occurrences and in ME3 - about the same amount as in ME2.

About the intent, guess our ways of playing the game are different. Saying "I want to be with you" to Tali with the intent of just spending time with her before returning to Ashley results in "Tali, I know you're scared. But I don't want anyone else. I want you. And I'll do whatever it takes to make it work". I can't imagine someone saying that line in that tone with that intent, unless he's a complete d*ck (and I don't want to play as such a character).

Regarding the face code, well, I'm glad I've edited the face in ME2 ME1 character creation is quite bad, I never managed to get what I wanted until I found the tool on the net

[von uber]

Eh with lazarus I've never had an issue with the face import.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Eh with lazarus I've never had an issue with the face import.

 

I would have felt better if Shepard's face had magically changed over night if it meant not having the Lazarus project and Shepard's death.

[von uber]

Sorry I meant the lazarus face mod tool to correct the import into me3, not the ridiculous ploy device.

[Dabrikishaw]

Yes you do. You're forcing people to pick the 'action' mode while there's no reason to do so.

 

You just want to feel special for paying attention.

Agreeing with this. Forcing roleplaying on everyone is not the way to go here.

[Vazgen]

Agreeing with this. Forcing roleplaying on everyone is not the way to go here.

Can you explain why would someone play RPG mode if he doesn't care about roleplaying? 

[Lars10178]

I loved Mass Effect 1 for probably the same reasons as you OP. The music, the scenery, the storyline all pulled me right into the depend of the Mass Effect Universe. I probably played the campaign 5 or 6 times on both of my profiles. The dlc was a little lack luster at best, but it couldn't deter my love of that game.

Mass Effect 2, for me, was the highlight of the series. The new environments are so much more exotic and the quicker gameplay moved more in my area (Halo 3 was the highlight of my 360 years at that point). I also loved the storyline and playing for the enemy. The customization was much nicer, as were the side missions. Exploring planets was dull, as were a few other things, but I could replay that game another 20 times. 

Mass Effect 3 was a lot of fun with the new combat system, and I liked the general plot of it. The things that really crept up on me after a few play throughs was how dreary the mood is past earth. It starts as a desperate fight for survival but then moves to a hopeless feeling. Palaven was one of my favorite levels in terms of how it made me feel. It really brought the sense of the war home. The ending didn't bother me as much as others. I loved Citadel in every way, Leviathan was a lot of fun but I hate the ending of it. Omega was fun but didn't add much to the story. 

 

my 2 cents

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The geth can be taken care of at any point after Sovereign's stopped.  If Sovereign succeeds, everyone's screwed.  The Ascension is secondary, and you throw humans under the bus to preserve it. 

 

The geth are also understanding of the concept of destruction of synthetics under these circumstances, especially since it jibes with their beliefs of stopping the Old Machines.  "It is ... logical".  

 

It's a trade off. You throw 10,000 Asari and the Council under the bus to go directly after Sovereign. Saving the Council and the Destiny Ascension cost HUNDREDS of human lives, not tens of thousands. That is according to Khalisah Bint Sinan Al Jilani who is trying to smear Shepard. Eight cruisers: Cape Town, Shenyang, Emden, Cairo, Seoul, Warsaw, Madrid, and Jakarta.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

It's a trade off. You throw 10,000 Asari and the Council under the bus to go directly after Sovereign. Saving the Council and the Destiny Ascension cost HUNDREDS of human lives, not tens of thousands. That is according to Khalisah Bint Sinan Al Jilani who is trying to smear Shepard. Eight cruisers: Cape Town, Shenyang, Emden, Cairo, Seoul, Warsaw, Madrid, and Jakarta.

To add on, at the point where Shepard makes the decision, s/he already has control of the citadel. There's nothing Sovereign can do. 

Also, going straight after Sovereign leaves the 5th fleet wide open to a pincer attack if the Geth aren't taken care off. Being stuck between Sovereign and a Geth fleet is not a good position to be in. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

To add on, at the point where Shepard makes the decision, s/he already has control of the citadel. There's nothing Sovereign can do. 

Also, going straight after Sovereign leaves the 5th fleet wide open to a pincer attack if the Geth aren't taken care off. Being stuck between Sovereign and a Geth fleet is not a good position to be in. 

 

That's part my problem with that choice. It's painted as a moral choice of some sort between dominance and cooperation, which it partly is; however, the decision itself is undercut because it is also a tactical decision. Whenever I'm making the choice I'm not thinking about the tradeoff between the limited perspective of one race or the hindrance of the established Council, or something like that; I'm thinking about how to deal with the Geth fleet, whether or not the remainder of the CDF can help take down Sovereign, how much is the Alliance fleet diminished, etc (heck, in the focus on Sovereign options the Geth just sort of disappear).

[themikefest]

I would place the decision on Hackett to save the council or not. When Shepard says to save/kill the council. Hackett would know the situation since he can see the battle first hand whereas Shepard can't. He would be able to determine if he has enough forces to save the council and deal with Sovereign. He has the element of surprise on the Geth. So he should be able to take them out fairly easily.

 

 

The other thing is when your up against an enemy, you always attack that will lead to the smallest amount of losses as possible. It was stupid of him to attack Sovereign from the front when its backside was vulnerable. Sovereign was hooked to the tower. Had Hackett done that, the losses would be minimal. But no, he wanted the "take down that monster, no matter the cost" crap dialogue.

[Vazgen]

 

I would place the decision on Hackett to save the council or not. When Shepard says to save/kill the council. Hackett would know the situation since he can see the battle first hand whereas Shepard can't. He would be able to determine if he has enough forces to save the council and deal with Sovereign. He has the element of surprise on the Geth. So he should be able to take them out fairly easily.

 

 

The other thing is when your up against an enemy, you always attack that will lead to the smallest amount of losses as possible. It was stupid of him to attack Sovereign from the front when its backside was vulnerable. Sovereign was hooked to the tower. Had Hackett done that, the losses would be minimal. But no, he wanted the "take down that monster, no matter the cost" crap dialogue.

 

Isn't the Sovereign surrounded from all sides?

[themikefest]

Isn't the Sovereign surrounded from all sides?

Nope. You see a couple of ships behind, but not directly behind. Had all ships been behind the reaper, the losses would be minimal at worst and the possiblity of the reaper being destroyed without Shepard fighting the grasshopper.

 

Bioware just wanted to show how powerful the reaper is and to have the Normandy, along with 2 fighters, fire the killshots at Sovereign

[Vazgen]

Nope. You see a couple of ships behind, but not directly behind. Had all ships been behind the reaper, the losses would be minimal at worst and the possiblity of the reaper being destroyed without Shepard fighting the grasshopper.

 

Bioware just wanted to show how powerful the reaper is and to have the Normandy, along with 2 fighters, fire the killshots at Sovereign

It can shoot behind its back too. Notice the destroyed ship left of the green line

Spoiler

Interestingly, none of the ships targets Sovereign lol

[themikefest]

It can shoot behind its back too. Notice the destroyed ship left of the green line

 

Interestingly, none of the ships targets Sovereign lol

looks like Sovereign has aready lost its shields at that point. 

 

Again. If you have the opportunity to kill an enemy, you always fine a way that will minimize any loss. Hackett failed to do that. He is a poor leader. Sovereign was hooked on the tower. Had the ships fired at Sovereign from behind, there's a good chance there would be no losses. For Sovereign to fire at them, it would have to unhook itself from the tower, turn around and fire. I hold Hackett responsible for the losses.

[Vazgen]

looks like Sovereign has aready lost its shields at that point. 

 

Again. If you have the opportunity to kill an enemy, you always fine a way that will minimize any loss. Hackett failed to do that. He is a poor leader. Sovereign was hooked on the tower. Had the ships fired at Sovereign from behind, there's a good chance there would be no losses. For Sovereign to fire at them, it would have to unhook itself from the tower, turn around and fire. I hold Hackett responsible for the losses.

Yeah, I tried to capture a shot after Sovereign shoots down a few ships to figure out where it can shoot. I believe its "arms" can twist so it can shot behind its back, like we can bend our arms behind our backs. With AI targeting it should be quite deadly. I don't think it has such a huge blind spot, for such an advanced warship

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It was done that way for the dramaz. When are you guys going to learn that logic and sound tactics get thrown under the bus.

[Vazgen]

It was done that way for the dramaz. When are you guys going to learn that logic and sound tactics get thrown under the bus.

I certainly didn't analyze that scene before I think we all play games for fun and it was certainly fun I'm pretty sure that new ME will be fun too (and I hope for a little more realism)

[ImaginaryMatter]

looks like Sovereign has aready lost its shields at that point. 

 

Again. If you have the opportunity to kill an enemy, you always fine a way that will minimize any loss. Hackett failed to do that. He is a poor leader. Sovereign was hooked on the tower. Had the ships fired at Sovereign from behind, there's a good chance there would be no losses. For Sovereign to fire at them, it would have to unhook itself from the tower, turn around and fire. I hold Hackett responsible for the losses.

 

Um... this just seems like you're looking for a reason to complain about Hackett. There are a myriad of cinematic reasons why the scene is the way it is yet you dive directly for Hackett's competency. Surely you wouldn't hold someone like TIM responsible for all the dumb cinematic/plot stuff the game puts him through (which are both more numerous and more legitimate for making a case that he is hyper incompetent).

[themikefest]

Um... this just seems like you're looking for a reason to complain about Hackett. There are a myriad of cinematic reasons why the scene is the way it is yet you dive directly for Hackett's competency. Surely you wouldn't hold someone like TIM responsible for all the dumb cinematic/plot stuff the game puts him through (which are both more numerous and more legitimate for making a case that he is hyper incompetent).

And you're trying to find a way to justify his incompetence as a leader.

 

Whether its Hackett in charge or the guy down the street who's in charge, he failed to protect the fleet by not finding a better way to defeat Sovereign.

When that guy says we need to pull back, why didn't Hackett have them move around to Sovereign's backside?

[ImaginaryMatter]

And you're trying to find a way to justify his incompetence as a leader.

 

Whether its Hackett in charge or the guy down the street who's in charge, he failed to protect the fleet by not finding a better way to defeat Sovereign.

When that guy says we need to pull back, why didn't Hackett have them move around to Sovereign's backside?

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying you can easily attribute what is an extremely nit picky observation to the general inaccuracy of a video game cutscene.

 

Why I bring up TIM is because it seems like if you held everyone up in Mass Effect to this level of scrutiny you would be equally frustrated with everyone, which doesn't seem to be the case. Thus, it seems like you dislike Hackett for some other reason and combing the game for anything to complain about him.

[themikefest]

No, I'm not. I'm saying you can easily attribute what is an extremely nit picky observation to the general inaccuracy of a video game cutscene.

 

Why I bring up TIM is because it seems like if you held everyone up in Mass Effect to this level of scrutiny you would be equally frustrated with everyone, which doesn't seem to be the case. Thus, it seems like you dislike Hackett for some other reason and combing the game for anything to complain about him.

Can you support what you're saying about me combing the trilogy to find a way to complain about him?

 

 

[Farangbaa]

Again with the not firing from behind? My goodness.

They do fire from behind. Do you have some selective blindness or something?

[twizbuck]

I beat the game 3 days after it came out. Grinded like a mofo. Didn't have to work that week. So my last save was on March 9th, 2012.

 

Right now, I'm about to try again. Two and a half years later.