Personally i enjoyed many of the personal quests. Maybe they should have been called focus missions rather than loyalty missions.
The idea that distracted leaders cost lives isn't bad but implementation could of course be refined.
I'm not likely to play any of the Mass Effect games for a while, but I'll always remember the loyalty missions as being one of Bioware's career highlights.
I'm not likely to play any of the Mass Effect games for a while, but I'll always remember the loyalty missions as being one of Bioware's career highlights.
I was amazed at how many problems could be traced back to three mercenary groups and poor parenting.
I was amazed at how many problems could be traced back to three mercenary groups and poor parenting.
Daddy issues, despite the pejorative implications, can still allow for a decent plotline, although YMMV. And ME2's loyalty missions wouldn't be the first enjoyable Bioware quests with bland mook mercenaries/villains.
Although I might be a bit biased; after ME1's somewhat bland cast, anything would have looked like a dramatic improvement. 
Daddy issues, despite the pejorative implications, can still allow for a decent plotline, although YMMV. And ME2's loyalty missions wouldn't be the first enjoyable Bioware quests with bland mook mercenaries/villains.
Although I might be a bit biased; after ME1's somewhat bland cast, anything would have looked like a dramatic improvement.
A decent plotline sure. But I counted no less than four (six if you count Grunt not having a daddy as an issue and see a father/son dynamic between Mordin and Maelon) plus Samara's "mommy issue" Tali's was the only plotline I'd call "decent"
Overall, it wore rather thin
A decent plotline sure. But I counted no less than four (six if you count Grunt not having a daddy as an issue and see a father/son dynamic between Mordin and Maelon) plus Samara's "mommy issue" Tali's was the only plotline I'd call "decent"
Overall, it wore rather thin
I disagree. If you break down stories with problems its only a handful of things on the general level that are the motivations. Family, money, power, friends etc. So 4-6 out of 12? being about family problems is kind of normal. The issue isn't that they went all daddy issue, its just that they had the quests in the first place as having them did nothing to develop they story and due to the nature of any stories being able to be broken down to some base level like family problem means some people will find them samey. But I think that's mainly when people are looking for a reason to complain. And even having all the stories about the characters would have been fine if the suicide mission actually was one. Because then it would have been about making you give a crap about the characters so their loss would mean something. When the norm is probably no losses to maybe one loss, learning about them has no real story purpose other than in itself. And those 12 missions would have been better served in learning about the collectors and how they tied to the reaper threat.
^Not to mention, I think it's exaggerating to throw Grunt and Mordin under daddy issues. If we're generalizing to that extent, the category loses all meaning. Even Miranda's case is arguably more of a sister-issue just given the general climax of the story.
If we're looking to avoid family issues, Bioware probably isn't the best developer to target judging by, well, all their companions. I think Inquisition might be one of the few Bioware games where family issues don't make up the most emphasized character conflict (Dorian aside).
I disagree. If you break down stories with problems its only a handful of things on the general level that are the motivations. Family, money, power, friends etc. So 4-6 out of 12? being about family problems is kind of normal.
I disagree, survival (from a non parental unit), wanting to keep a secret that could harm (Mordin), National or other group loyalties (Legion), Revenge (jack and Garrus), Also the ones he counted were daddy issues, siblings, and distant family or family ties were much more rare, heck even mother issues were pretty rare. Wanting something personal (kasumi)
Add in that these issues were often because of an absent, cruel, or distant relation how many family members did we need to rescue? 2! one from a mean dad and another because the character was a distant father. Not counting Morinth because she was to be killed but still counts under cruel.
Also an idealogy can be a good motivation. Doing something to help a group of people they are apart of/ agree with is a totally acceptable quest. And even if you can fit all of these into 4 simple catagories, the fact a majority is one very specific kind of a motivation while the others are varied, kinda points out it is overused.
I like my companions to have family that are not wayward children and evil/distant fathers. Garrus and Ashley's sisters are way more interesting than Kolyat to me. Kaiden, Garrus, Ashley's parents could make for great motivations (because we know they care about them.) Mordin's nephew could also be a good inspiration also. But the variety on family motivations would be nice.
One thing I want the series to move away from is giving the protagonist decisions that he has no business making. Things like the Rachni Queen, why the **** is Shepard the one making the decision to let her go or not? Even as a Spectre this is way above his paygrade and the decision should fall directly to the council. It's not like the Rachni Queen is going anywhere, she was locked in there.. Another one is the council choice, why is Hackett asking Shepard what to do when Hackett is with the fleet and has clear visuals on the developing situation whilst Shepard is in the Council Chambers and can't see what's happening?
Bioware got carried away with adding massive life/death decisions to the games even though many of them were completely illogical, and they actually caused trouble for Bioware themselves in a development sense since they had to take those decisions into account in future games. If they had kept the decisions smaller and more personalized, like the Virmire choice, we wouldn't have had stupid **** like clone Rachni, hopefully Bioware realize this and avoid these same traps in Andromeda.
Yeah, it would have made more sense if the decision was to either turn her over to the Council or release her. Of course, it would be best if we could have more than binary choices, such as 1) turn her over to the Council and recommend keeping her alive, 2) turn her over to the Council and recommend exterminating her, 3) release her and try to form an alliance with her, or 4) kill her in the tube.
I agree about the rachni. I would've left it up to the council to make the decision.
The council decision should never of been in the hands of Shepard. Before Shepard can say yes or no to saving the council, there were two opportunities for the council to live. Once the Alliance came through the relay, a third opportunity was presented to save the council. Hackett knows how many ships he has. He can override what Shepard suggests. To make it interesting, I would have Hackett's decision based on the player's playthrough to save the council or not.
Hackett never asked Shepard about saving or letting the council die. It was Joker asking Shepard.
If I were to rewrite the trilogy, I would have the council live every time.
The other decision is who to be councilor. Why is up to Shepard?
The life and death thing in ME2 was lame. Its funny that if a squadmates loyalty mission isn't completed, they can't perform to the best of their ability. How pathetic. In a life and death situation, having your loyalty mission not completed should be the furthest thing from your mind. The other thing is that if they can't focus on the mission, why would you want them as a squadmate?
Maybe if the loyalty mission were more firmly connected to combat mechanics it would be more realistic? Say, after Jacob's mission, his father either gives him the location of a hidden cache or we find the location in his belongings. The cache has some experimental technology that Jacob can use to increase his biotic power, or we can choose to sell it for extra funds. Then in the suicide mission, instead of an automatic fail if we didn't complete his loyalty mission, he has a 50/50 chance of success without completing it, but a 100% chance of success if we gave him the technology and a 20/80 chance of failure if we sold it. Chalk the decreased odds up to his lowered morale affecting his performance.
If we could have concrete results to the loyalty missions rather than just clearing the squadmate's mind/conscience, that might make more sense in the context of performance on the suicide mission.
I was amazed at how many problems could be traced back to three mercenary groups and poor parenting.
And aren't the three mercenary groups really only influential in the Terminus Systems? Which are theoretically only inhabited by the worst of the worst, so why do so many people have close relations with this "forbidden zone"?
Maybe if the loyalty mission were more firmly connected to combat mechanics it would be more realistic?
I wouldn't have the loyalty mission connected to any combat mechanic at all. I would have it effect the relationship with Shepard
So if Shepard has this or that character do whatever during the suicide mission, that character gives 'yeah, sure, whatever' treatment. When that squadmate is seen in the next game, they give the 'What do you want?' attitude, they don't show up after completing the mission related to them. Like after helping get the students from Grissom, Jack doesn't show up on purgatory. That's just one example. It could have the squadmate not be seen in the Citadel dlc.
ME2 should've been about finding a means of stopping the reapers and helping the galaxy get it's act together in time, not playing spectre therapist and having a filler middle entry about the adventures of Shepard and friends with a disposable monster of the week.
All this talk of how loyalty mechanics should've worked or whether a sub-plot was a daddy issue or not is besides the point.
Maybe if the loyalty mission were more firmly connected to combat mechanics it would be more realistic? Say, after Jacob's mission, his father either gives him the location of a hidden cache or we find the location in his belongings. The cache has some experimental technology that Jacob can use to increase his biotic power, or we can choose to sell it for extra funds. Then in the suicide mission, instead of an automatic fail if we didn't complete his loyalty mission, he has a 50/50 chance of success without completing it, but a 100% chance of success if we gave him the technology and a 20/80 chance of failure if we sold it. Chalk the decreased odds up to his lowered morale affecting his performance.
If the loyalty missions were more firmly connected to combat mechanics, there wouldn't be thermal clips all over the place in Jacob's mission 
But yes, the "loyalty missions" should have focused more on investigating the Collectors, building up strength, gathering intel, and such.
And not in a creepy "excuse me, Kasumi, but I couldn't help overhearing that you're looking for the greybox of your old lover. It's in Docking Bay D24"
It's a game made mostly to be enjoyed if you don't doesn't matter.
Today everything is "tuned" to release maximum emotions.
A lot of people are "hooked" on the release of endorfines triggered by emotion.
ME franshise does that in spades = mission completed.
I wouldn't have the loyalty mission connected to any combat mechanic at all. I would have it effect the relationship with Shepard
So if Shepard has this or that character do whatever during the suicide mission, that character gives 'yeah, sure, whatever' treatment. When that squadmate is seen in the next game, they give the 'What do you want?' attitude, they don't show up after completing the mission related to them. Like after helping get the students from Grissom, Jack doesn't show up on purgatory. That's just one example. It could have the squadmate not be seen in the Citadel dlc.
That would be interesting, but put all players who didn't import at a severe disadvantage. Not that I want the third game in a series to cater to new consumers, but it does preclude players who have ME1 and not ME2, or those who switched systems between the games so they can't import.
ME2 should've been about finding a means of stopping the reapers and helping the galaxy get it's act together in time, not playing spectre therapist and having a filler middle entry about the adventures of Shepard and friends with a disposable monster of the week.
All this talk of how loyalty mechanics should've worked or whether a sub-plot was a daddy issue or not is besides the point.
True enough, I'm just talking about the context of the missions as they already exist in the game.
If the loyalty missions were more firmly connected to combat mechanics, there wouldn't be thermal clips all over the place in Jacob's mission
But yes, the "loyalty missions" should have focused more on investigating the Collectors, building up strength, gathering intel, and such.
And not in a creepy "excuse me, Kasumi, but I couldn't help overhearing that you're looking for the greybox of your old lover. It's in Docking Bay D24"
IMO thermal clips shouldn't have been introduced at all, but what can you do?
I enjoyed the loyalty missions as expanding on our squadmates, but agree that they are out of context of the overall story of trying to stop the Reapers. I would have liked more missions directly involved in researching/hampering the Collectors and Reapers.
So if Shepard has this or that character do whatever during the suicide mission, that character gives 'yeah, sure, whatever' treatment. When that squadmate is seen in the next game, they give the 'What do you want?' attitude, they don't show up after completing the mission related to them. Like after helping get the students from Grissom, Jack doesn't show up on purgatory. That's just one example. It could have the squadmate not be seen in the Citadel dlc.
If the loyalty missions were more firmly connected to combat mechanics, there wouldn't be thermal clips all over the place in Jacob's mission
But yes, the "loyalty missions" should have focused more on investigating the Collectors, building up strength, gathering intel, and such.
Hmm... but then the LM would be meaningless in ME2 itself?
Would they be meaningless?
To be honest i like games with emotions but not forced emotions like the last mass effect, sorry some parts of the story where less for me because i didn't feel the same way as shepard did acording to the writers. I still like the game a lot but for me this destoyed some of the fun.
I don't see how you write a mission that's simultaneously focused on the individual NPC and focused on investigating the Collectors without making it really contrived. Or is "loyalty missions" in the quote ironic, and you're talking about abolishing the whole "loyalty mission" concept?
Each companion you recruit is supposed to bring something to the table. Well, how about doing a mission to let them do so? A mission that both centers around the character and help "unlock" their potential for the mission?
Consider Thane. He is, sorry to say, useless. He may be the greatest assassin in the Terminus, but he serves no purpose on the mission. But what if he knew a place with information on the Collectors? Or there was a mission that could unlock a power or an upgrade that would explicitly come in handy during the Suicide mission?
And along the way, during the mission, Thane would talk about his experiences as an assassin, his son, his wife, his devotion to the hanar, etc.
Same with the others. How about instead of Garrus just handing you the schematics to the thanix canon, his mission could have been one to acquire it and the materials to build it? Maybe involving him breaking into C-Sec, or the turian military, and comparing that old life to his time as a vigilante?
I don't see how you write a mission that's simultaneously focused on the individual NPC and focused on investigating the Collectors without making it really contrived. Or is "loyalty missions" in the quote ironic, and you're talking about abolishing the whole "loyalty mission" concept?
Yeah i don't really think the individual missions needed to be contrived into the collector mission. Making them personal missions worked well imo.
So to sum it up i hope we have to make hard decision that would impact us in real life and make us remember that we are a soldier and hard decision have to be made and life would be lost no matter what we do.
I apologize for any spelling or grammar mistakes, english isn't my first language.
That is part of the problem with gaming culture (and with popular culture in general) is that it is the consumer power fantasy.
Each companion you recruit is supposed to bring something to the table. Well, how about doing a mission to let them do so? A mission that both centers around the character and help "unlock" their potential for the mission?
Consider Thane. He is, sorry to say, useless. He may be the greatest assassin in the Terminus, but he serves no purpose on the mission. But what if he knew a place with information on the Collectors? Or there was a mission that could unlock a power or an upgrade that would explicitly come in handy during the Suicide mission?
And along the way, during the mission, Thane would talk about his experiences as an assassin, his son, his wife, his devotion to the hanar, etc.
Same with the others. How about instead of Garrus just handing you the schematics to the thanix canon, his mission could have been one to acquire it and the materials to build it? Maybe involving him breaking into C-Sec, or the turian military, and comparing that old life to his time as a vigilante?
I like this idea. It would at least help make the game feel less like playing counselor to our ragtag bunch of misfits while horrifying cosmological horrors are on their way to eradicate civilization and more like making progress in working on ways to stop said horrors. But still provide some characterization to our crew.
I mean, TIM created these dossiers for us; theoretically he hand picked the crew because they're the "best of the best" in their field. But wouldn't it make more sense if he picked them because they brought something to the table involving the Reapers/Collectors and he wanted us to capitalize on this? Given how Cerberus throws bodies at a problem until it's solved, we could have just filled a ship with commandos once we received the IFF and stormed the Collector Base rather than spend weeks/months recruiting specialists from across the galaxy.
I like this idea. It would at least help make the game feel less like playing counselor to our ragtag bunch of misfits while horrifying cosmological horrors are on their way to eradicate civilization and more like making progress in working on ways to stop said horrors. But still provide some characterization to our crew.
I mean, TIM created these dossiers for us; theoretically he hand picked the crew because they're the "best of the best" in their field. But wouldn't it make more sense if he picked them because they brought something to the table involving the Reapers/Collectors and he wanted us to capitalize on this? Given how Cerberus throws bodies at a problem until it's solved, we could have just filled a ship with commandos once we received the IFF and stormed the Collector Base rather than spend weeks/months recruiting specialists from across the galaxy.
No way to know what would be required - therefore get the best of specializations.
Point of Omega 4 relay was that it was possible Portal to Certain Doom. Better to have a bunch of people which were individually great at more things when working as a group, than a bunch of people who were only good at less things. Kasumi may be canonically worse at anything except unlocking stuff in the base, but she's one of the best ones to do that. Zaeed may be canonically worse at anything except being an aggressive fighter, but he's one of the best ones to do that. Mordin may be canonically worse at anything except suggesting and developing tech for countering the Collectors, but he's one of the best ones to do that. Success in the suicide mission and up to it required their skills. Not all of them, but at least almost all of them if the goal of Shepard is for everyone to get out alive.
TIM throws bodies at a problem until its solved... when he thinks he can. His approach towards Shepard was different, and he knew that illustrating his typical approach would lose Shepard's support (as it eventually did). In ME2 TIM was still thinking that he was serving humanity (he had a semi-justification for every action), not that he/Cerberus *was* humanity so anything goes (ME3 recklessness). While Shepard, even Renegade, gets more and more careful and considerate of his actions, TIM loses grip of this and embraces Reaper tech, and masses of soldiers to be ground away, more and more - ME2 is like a middle point of this. I don't see it as a problem that TIM plays the considerate partner towards Shep in ME2; he may not even genuinely prefer doing this 'dossier' stuff, but it serves the purpose of getting Shepard to feel invested in all this.
Retour en haut
