178 réponses à ce sujet

[Knoll Argonar]

Quote wars!

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Knoll Argonar wrote...

Who cares?

[/quote]
Me.  And so should the writers.   Because it's their job to write well.[/quote]

They do write well for me, but you didn't get my point at all =/

[quote][quote]
ME is a trilogy.
[/quote]
Exactly.  ME2 is a flimsy bridge at best.  Where's the plot development?  Shepard is in the same position and characterization he/she was in at the end of ME1.  We know Collectors (which are gone) were once Protheans.  We also learn that Reapers are really stupid, yet supposedly millions of years smarter.[/quote]

You don't get the point: what I mean is that character development would be shared in 3 games, not just one. Therefore the all "10 characters too much" thing is irrelevant, since you have plenty of room to advance relationships.

[quote][quote]
In ME2 you make a team with the best of the best in the galaxy, to outcome any situation possible: even destroy a massive space station - reaper factory. Your recruiting experts, not experts-that-have-to-be-related-to-the-collectors-because-if-not-it's-not-cool.
[/quote]
What is "every situation possible"?  I don't think that was ever mentioned, nor do I think this team has that capacity.  There's talk of people and their record being "great additions to the team", but we don't know in what capacity or to what end.  Nor do we know we're going to destroy a massive space station/reaper factory.

Here's a thought: get a demolitions expert.  Why?  Because you want to destroy the Collectors.  Oh wait, that's not part of the plot.  Nor is Mordin making some deadly Collector virus.  Or camping/mining the Omega-4 relay.

And all of this could've made sense if, (magically, but at least we could've seen they were valuable), everyone had a unique, if not interchangeable, role to play at the end.  Instead, we get 4 out of 11.[/quote]

"Every situation possible" means that you don't know what the hell will you find out once you get through the Omega 4 relay. If you want to build a team to fight the unknown, you want it to be the best. Demolition's expert? Got the Normandy itself already =/

[quote][quote]Why would you need someone like Williams or Alenko when you can have Grunt or Jack instead?
[/quote]
You're making my point for me.
[quote]
Just because they may be plot-related? that's just unrealistic crap. Facts are: you've got a mission, you don't know what you ill need, but it will be tough, almost impossible. Gather the best experts you can find, because there's only one chance. Even if it turns out to be that in the actual mission you need 1/3 of them. Real life works like this: sometimes you don't know what you need, so you may collect more than what really was necessary.
[/quote]
Wait, what's your point?  If something is plot related, it's unrealistic crap?  So you don't want things to make sense?  Williams and Alenko are not plot related.  Secondly, plot related means something relevant or meaningful to the main plot.  Something that makes sense.  Because the mission is unknown does not mean it should remain so.  It does not mean "do whatever the shadowy figure says so" just because (or at least explain why; better still, allow options.)  We need to know what our goal is: where, what, who, when, how, etc.  Why we need these people.  All we know is who and how to get to where, and that they have a ship that comes into the Terminus system.  So that means we need a bunch of ground troop soldiers to potentially attack an enemy in an advanced warship?  What exactly are we attacking?

The story is about going to unknown place B and supposedly attacking something, somehow.  But when we get to B, we'll be prepared for anything, whatever that is?

Does the word contrived mean anything here?

If we knew what we were actually supposed to do, a la Guns of Navarone, what our taget was, then great (hint: it's the guns of Navarone).  We could have a meaningful plot with meaningful side characters who are picked up in whatever manner.  "Attacking the Collectors" could've been an entire planet, or solar system, or series of solar systems.  We could've needed the galaxies best navigator, or shoe salesman, or whatever.

Compare this to ME1's Saren.[/quote]

You just don't understand -.-

Seewhat you did there? Fanfic and changing all main plot for the lulz.

First of all: no, I didn't mean that it had to be non-plot-related. But Magic-usefullness of every character  in the final mission and the course events on ME2 is narrative crap, given the actual GAME PLOT, even if you would like it that way.

Second: Ashley and Alenko were just examples. What I meant is that if you're recruiting the best buddys out there, you're not gonna demmand or even care if they are related to the collectors or not. In facf, it would be laughtable that every character you pick up had something to do with them. Because plot isn't planned to advance that way. You're recruiting them because they are the best of the best.

And yes: this game's about fighting the unknown. Did that bothered you? Sorry, but that doesn't make it bad.

Again, you just seem to think that if you don't like something, it's bad. It doesn't have to be your way. It's good the way it is. Improvable? Sure! Character interaction was mentioned before. But it isn't bad. You just don't like it. Face the difference. [quote][quote]
The fact that almost no character has real motivation-relation with the collector thread is because that's what's suposed to be. Because ME2 is about ONE mission. Characters aren't collector victims, they are just experts with their own individual lifes, feelings, ways of thinking and motivations you team up for that ONE mission. Period.

Don't like it? okay, but that's your problem, not a ME2 problem.

And, again, ME is a trilogy, so what wouldn't have any kind of impact in ME2, it will in ME3.
[/quote]
So your argument is A=A?  Don't you think, just maybe, if they had better motivations and involvement, the massive stamp of "excess baggage" across all their foreheads would be less noticable?  That how you picked them up and why would have more meaning than from contrived utility, and *gasp* relevance to the main plot, aside from TIM just telling you what to do and when to do it?  In no way does any of this detract from anyone being their own character.

Again, the view that ME3 is an apologist to ME2's plot/that ME2 is a bridge, is a pathetic (and a shakey bridge at best) argument.  "Oh don't worry, it's a trilogy.  That's why ME2's story blew."  What?

ME2 could've had a simple plot, with 0 plot holes.  It would just have less characters.  Those present would have potentially several levels of relevance.  And the game play would've been exactly the same.  Although I bet you'd feel much more involved, because you might've actually understood wtf was going on.
[/quote][/quote]

And you miss the point that when I say "ME is a trilogy" I was talking about character development, not refering the plot at all. I'm fine with the latter, given all the upcoming problems ME2 starts and will probably advance in ME3. So yeah, it would be something more like "Don't worry, it's a trilogy. If you felt some characters didn't have enought develpment nor they affected the main-story, you should just wait to the obvious Tali-Legion-Grunt/Wrex-Rachni Queen-Coucil position-Cerberus/Alliance relationship-TIM's actions after your choices in ME2 cliff hangers for ME3."

Again, given ME2's main plot setting, it makes much sense that almost no character you recruit has something to do with the collectors. In fact people like Mordin or Thane end up worrying a lot about the Collector Thread. And even Grunt is related to them somehow.

Makes sense,  it's already good the way it is. You're talking about changing the entire game, not IMPROVING it. You're talking about knowing what's beyond Omega 4 relay when no ship has ever returned from it, which means destroying the whole thing that made Collector's some inaccessible nd actually dangerous thread. Destructive critique vs Constructive one. And just because you don't like it, not because it's bad. Logic error.

And please, lately forums talk about plot holes like if they were talking about what they will have for dinner. You should know first what a real plot-hole is.

Finally, if you couldn't understand "wtf was going on", that's just sad =/

Modifié par Knoll Argonar, 03 mars 2010 - 12:21 .

[smudboy]

[quote]Knoll Argonar wrote...
They do write well for me, but you didn't get my point at all =/
[/quote]
Then you cannot see why these characters are mostly useless.
[quote]
You don't get the point: what I mean is that character development would be shared in 3 games, not just one. Therefore the all "10 characters too much" thing is irrelevant, since you have plenty of room to advance relationships.
[/quote]
That's a fine idea, but we know that's not true.  Where's the character development from ME1->ME2?  Liara?   She's hardened over a situation she mentions if you happen to talk to her a certain way after doing a fetch quest.  This has nothing to do with the main plot.  (Ditto with Garrus and Tali.) And how can you apply that to all the new characters in ME2?  Did you just miss out in ME1 for this grand idea?  Supposing they'll get more developed in ME3?  To what end?  And more importantly, where's the character development of our protagonist?  He/she is just a flat and static character.  Are we going to get more flat and static-ness from him/her in ME3?

[quote]
"Every situation possible" means that you don't know what the hell will you find out once you get through the Omega 4 relay. If you want to build a team to fight the unknown, you want it to be the best. Demolition's expert? Got the Normandy itself already =/
[/quote]

Which doesn't change the validity of my argument at all, or what I've said about the "mysteriousness of the goal."  We still have that general idea!  Kill who, how, where, and what, exactly?

And since most of people who don't understand what I'm saying reduce everyone to gameplay/squad value, a demolitions expert (purely an example) would make sense, because you want to blow someone/thing up.  If the "Normady itself already" were all we needed, then why are we recruiting people?  Why not just blow up the Collector base/ship in space and not even bother with troop deployment?

[quote]
You just don't understand -.-

Seewhat you did there? Fanfic and changing all main plot for the lulz.
[/quote]

I clearly don't understand you, and you clearly don't understand me.

What fanfic?  I'm arguing the validity of characters in the current plot.  Which in case you haven't figured out, is sorely lacking in logic and storytelling.

[quote]
First of all: no, I didn't mean that it had to be non-plot-related. But Magic-usefullness of every character  in the final mission and the course events on ME2 is narrative crap, given the actual GAME PLOT, even if you would like it that way.[/quote]
I agree, it is narrative crap.  But continuity and "magic-usefullness" is perhaps we've got.  Oh wow, Thane and Zaeed are badasses.  They must have some great ability to ...attack the Collectors: and it looks like they do (same with Samara and Jack.)  But they get reduced to a simple dude with a gun out of RPG cliche #140.  And, with no explanation as to who/what we're attacking, and how, and why we need these people, we must believe it's some kind of special (magic) ability they've got.  And yes!  It turns out that we need 4 roles to fill, (1 of which can literally be anyone), if you want to succeed.
[quote]
Second: Ashley and Alenko were just examples. What I meant is that if you're recruiting the best buddys out there, you're not gonna demmand or even care if they are related to the collectors or not. In facf, it would be laughtable that every character you pick up had something to do with them. Because plot isn't planned to advance that way. You're recruiting them because they are the best of the best.
[/quote]
Yes, yes I would!  I want Mr. Anti-Collector Badass on my team!  Because that's the goal of the story!  Why wouldn't I?!  That is the point!  I want a guy who's been studying them (like a Liara), knows how to kill them, had his entire RACE destroyed by them, and is out for vengeance.  He doesn't need my loyalty.  He's got exactly the same goals as me.  Of course I'd want someone like that on my team!  Imagine that was Grunt.  Imagine!  (Again, just an example.  Not writing some fanfic here.)

Best of the best for...whaaaat?  You can't answer that. Oh wait, you fall back on "the unknown."  Fantastic.  We've got the best people to do SOMETHING to SOMEONE/SOME GROUP we're not sure exactly WHERE or WHAT or HOW, but we're ready.  For whatever. 'cause we've got the best of the best at <insert random skills here>.

Right.

[quote]
And yes: this game's about fighting the unknown. Did that bothered you? Sorry, but that doesn't make it bad.

Again, you just seem to think that if you don't like something, it's bad. It doesn't have to be your way. It's good the way it is. Improvable? Sure! Character interaction was mentioned before. But it isn't bad. You just don't like it. Face the difference. [/quote]

I've nothing against the premise of the story (aside from the events that led up to it.)  I've nothing against "fighting the unknown."  I do, however, have a problem with this unknown thing being present during THE ENTIRE STORY and we barely learn anything about the enemy/how to accomplish our goal.  We learn d!ck and all about what's past the Omega-4 relay until we decide to go there because (tada!) the plot demanded it.  What we'll be up against, who, where, how many, how we'll deal with it, is still not revealed.  Mordin was the only logical character that had only a SMALL introduction by Miranda: and that's not even for the plot. That's just to get info on the enemy (to explore) so that we can interrupt and hopefully learn about these creatures.  What the heck was he doing the rest of the time after the fact?  (Hello, galaxy vital mission here.  More science buddy.)
[quote]
And you miss the point that when I say "ME is a trilogy" I was talking about character development, not refering the plot at all. I'm fine with the latter, given all the upcoming problems ME2 starts and will probably advance in ME3. So yeah, it would be something more like "Don't worry, it's a trilogy. If you felt some characters didn't have enought develpment nor they affected the main-story, you should just wait to the obvious Tali-Legion-Grunt/Wrex-Rachni Queen-Coucil position-Cerberus/Alliance relationship-TIM's actions after your choices in ME2 cliff hangers for ME3."
[/quote]
If we're still thinking along the lines (which is not how ME is actually told) that over the course of the ME games, character development occurs, then again, we're missing out character development from ME1 (which every Liara/Kaidan/Ashley fan will mention.)  I can also assume they'll have more side-character development in ME3, too.  However, this is irrelevant.  I'm talking about the main plot in ME2, which NONE of that character development had ANY impact on.  ME2 is effectively telling 11 other stories that have next to NOTHING to do with the main plot of ME2.  There is no apologists argument for ME3 for the crap story telling that was ME2.  A sequel can stand on it's own and still be a continuation and bridge to another story.  ME2 is a bridge made of HOLES.

If ME truly was a trilogy that had that character development you write of, then Shepard would be a fleshed out, round, dyanmic character.  But the story isn't designed that way.
[quote]
Again, given ME2's main plot setting, it makes much sense that almost no character you recruit has something to do with the collectors. In fact people like Mordin or Thane end up worrying a lot about the Collector Thread. And even Grunt is related to them somehow.
[/quote]
Explain how "given ME2's main plot setting" that "almost no character you recruit has something to do with the Collectors."  Especially since the whole point of the story is to DEFEAT the Collectors.  So why would we, the guys who want to Defeat The Collectors, want help from others, that are completely UNRELATED to that end?  This makes sense to you?  What story are you paying attention to here?

I don't know if you're in the working world, but if you get a person who's the right "fit" for a job, regardless of his experience and skills, you'd want that person.  Of course if they were an experienced guru at it, sure.  But if they have the right attitude, are positive about everything coming their way, then that's perfect.  In ME2, we get a whole bunch of random people for whatever reason, hoping they'll be useful for our goal, which we do not even know the who, what, where (exactly), and how, which is never explained.  As it turns out, they're mostly replaceable, excess baggage, or completely useless.

[quote]
Makes sense,  it's already good the way it is. You're talking about changing the entire game, not IMPROVING it. You're talking about knowing what's beyond Omega 4 relay when no ship has ever returned from it, which means destroying the whole thing that made Collector's some inaccessible nd actually dangerous thread. Destructive critique vs Constructive one. And just because you don't like it, not because it's bad. Logic error.
[/quote]
It makes sense to tell a shoddy story with poor/lack of story telling techniques?  How about foreshadowing?  How about learning about what's beyond the Omega-4 relay without having to go there yet in basic stages?  How about learning about the enemy, actually having a dialog with them in some capacity, to undersand wtf is going on?  How about getting a crew that's now relevant to the task at hand, instead of "oh, we'll be ready for any GROUND/SQUAD based operation in our state of the art SPACESHIP."  How about explaining what's up with the human reaper, and why they're building one, which would've taken potentially dozens-hundreds of years to do, gotten the attention of many more civilizations in the galaxy to take notice, (like the planet Earth?!) which is being conduced by one (alibi large) Collector ship?  Damn right this is a destructive critique.  These are all basic questions that went across my brain as you try to fathom this drivel.

A writer can add explanation at little cost or quantity.  It could be stupid explanation.  It could be brilliant and subtle, punchy: just enough to cover up those massive holes, and reasons for why we have n number of people.  But they didn't do that.
[quote]
And please, lately forums talk about plot holes like if they were talking about what they will have for dinner. You should know first what a real plot-hole is.

Finally, if you couldn't understand "wtf was going on", that's just sad =/
[/quote]
Oh, just so we're clear, Mr. Dictionary:
"A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot,
or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the
plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of
characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no
apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in
the storyline."

I can have a big list with these, and many have on the forums.  But my argument is with the validity of the characters in relation to the main plot.

Shepard: "I'll need an army, or a really good team."
TIM: "Well dawg, here's some dossiers.  Get to it, chief." <inhale random hallucinogen>
Shepard: "Wait, why do I need these people?"

-I do not understand wtf is going on because it's not explained.  You need to explain the behavior of aliens.  Harbinger mocking me is just annoying.  (Does he want to tear us apart or collect us?  Which one?  Why?)
-I do not understand why TIM would have you recruit people just because.

I do however understand what a plot hole is.  What a deus ex machine device is.  What excess baggage is.  What foreshadowing is.  What editing is.  What a general flow of logic would be for someone to accomplish a goal, especially, an unknown goal with a great chance of failure.  One of these lines of thought IS NOT "get a whole bunch of specialists together" to they can tell me their daddy issues, and later hope that what's around that corner is destroyable with them, when most don't actually do anything, or are redundant.

[meznaric]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Um how about both? Judging by your language and posts you obviously don't like Bioware's direction.

I don't like BioWare's story or storytelling.

If both, then they're only relevant as game play characters, which is not what I'm arguing.  The point of them being in that story scene (the latter example) is to be a grunt off camera.  That means they're completely along for the ride, and you could've taken one of your 25 red shirt crew with you.

Well if you don't like BioWare's story or storytelling, here is a good suggestion for you, don't play bioware games.

No one is forcing you too, not your fault your too stupid to realise why there is so many diverse characters in the game so that people can choose the people they'd like in their squad over your pathetic linear driving nonsense of limitting the squad numbers down to the bare minimum.

Maybe it would be better, though, if Bioware spent more resources developing a deaper and more convluted story rather than spend them on loads of characters. When you play ME sometimes you just feel "Now I have to go talk to Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, Tali, Samara" and then I am still not done. And their tales most often have nothing to do with the main story. At LEAST if the characters' stories were told through some kind of side missions... That's usually more fun.

[smudboy]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Maybe it would be better, though, if Bioware spent more resources developing a deaper and more convluted story rather than spend them on loads of characters. When you play ME sometimes you just feel "Now I have to go talk to Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, Tali, Samara" and then I am still not done. And their tales most often have nothing to do with the main story. At LEAST if the characters' stories were told through some kind of side missions... That's usually more fun.

Technically, they were told through the recruit & loyalty missions, which could be considered side-missions (although once you complete a handful, TIM would call you to go to the main plot missions.)

Although I definitely wouldn't want BioWare to tell a convoluted story.  Epic, big, deep (as in, character and plot development), yes.

Modifié par smudboy, 04 mars 2010 - 01:56 .

[Neo Hex Omega]

I do feel like there are almost too many characters that can be squad mates. Having more characters means less depth for each due to time and writing constraints. The six teammates in ME1 felt somewhat more fleshed out to me than the 11(12 after Kasumi is released) in ME2.



Not a game breaker for me, but it might have been better to chop that number down a bit. It's supposed to be a close-knit team, not a private army.

[smudboy]

Neo Hex Omega wrote...

I do feel like there are almost too many characters that can be squad mates. Having more characters means less depth for each due to time and writing constraints. The six teammates in ME1 felt somewhat more fleshed out to me than the 11(12 after Kasumi is released) in ME2.

Not a game breaker for me, but it might have been better to chop that number down a bit. It's supposed to be a close-knit team, not a private army.

Actually I feel the ME2 characters were more fleshed out.  They just weren't as relevant, as they didn't have as many motivations as the characters in ME1, in regards to the main plot.  ME1 was one story being told, whereas ME2 had about 12 or so.

I listed the motivations of the ME2 characters, and some from ME1 on page 3 (I'm sure they have more, like with Wrex being conflicted about the Saren genophage cure.)

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/912920/3

[Knoll Argonar]

Read again my posts.



Tip: logic relation errors.

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Read again my posts.

Tip: logic relation errors.

No.  I've responded to all of your posts.

Tip: WTF is a logic relation error?

[deathbringer248]

okay, the game was advertised as "build a large squad to take down an unknown threat, also gaining loyalty before taking down threat." the game was about making just a badass team, and solving thier "daddy issues" to take down some creepy monsters which you actually do learn a little about throughout the game. you were suppposed to fight an UNKNOWN threat, but you do get a little info. the daddy issues are actually logical because hey, if you were probably about to die then wouldn't you think "dont i have anything to die before i die? mabye make sure my son is fine? save my sis or ensure that i am a real member of my species/ die in respect to them? srsly. also you don't bomb it from space / do need a ground crew because you need to RESCUE captured humans... foo

[smudboy]

deathbringer248 wrote...

okay, the game was advertised as "build a large squad to take down an unknown threat, also gaining loyalty before taking down threat." the game was about making just a badass team, and solving thier "daddy issues" to take down some creepy monsters which you actually do learn a little about throughout the game. you were suppposed to fight an UNKNOWN threat, but you do get a little info. the daddy issues are actually logical because hey, if you were probably about to die then wouldn't you think "dont i have anything to die before i die? mabye make sure my son is fine? save my sis or ensure that i am a real member of my species/ die in respect to them? srsly. also you don't bomb it from space / do need a ground crew because you need to RESCUE captured humans... foo

Yes.  You do get a little info about the main opposing force.  But you get none of what's actually relevant to the mission:, where to go exactly, what to attack, how to attack, why they're building a human reaper, etc.  These bits of data can be few and far between, provided they're actually there; but they're not.  For a sci-fi setting, with a quest like goal, this is essential.  Compare this to The Dirty Dozen, Guns of Navarone, The Seven Samurai, etc.  (Any quest story will do, really.)

If you were with a group of badasses, do you honestly think they'd have daddy issues that could prove fatal?  Thane was going to die anyway unless Shepard showed up.  Would a normal military operation involve doing loyalty missions?  No.  We needed a sense of anxiety and tension, like a race to the Omega-4 relay, but we never even got that.  People are already to die if they're onboard already.  What, now they can die in peace?  Dodge bullets?  We never saw how making them loyal actually does, aside from mysteriously not dying.  I don't think anyone wants to die regardless of their unresolved dysfunctional family issues. Yet these trained, veteran killers will.

Loyalty misions are nothing more than an excuse to pay a level designer.

There is no mention of rescuing crew members till that becomes an issue: EDI picks up the slack, and everyone ends up going on the mission anyway.  Additionally, Renegade Shepard doesn't really care if crew members are recused at all, and you can go about your merry way doing side-quests while they get processed.

'Slap my fro.  Yo mamma.

[Ray Joel Oh]

I like many of the characters and I love the loyalty missions but they spread the story out so thin that the depth of their development suffered. I think they could've done with three or four fewer squadmates, especially if it would mean more chances for interaction with the squadmates they'd keep. Not ballsy enough to say who I'd dump, though.

[ResidentNoob]

Actually, OP, I believe that Grunt and Zaeed should be a bit higher on your list.

This is because they do actually have some usefulness during the suicide mission. I'll explain:

During the suicide mission, there are certain areas where a certain type of character becomes useful: Tech specialists for vents, and Biotic specialists for the biotic bubble, yes?

So why isn't there a Combat specialists section?

In fact, there is, but it is never actually explained to the player.

Depending on who you leave behind to 'hold the line' when you go off to fight the Human-Reaper, someone may die. You need to leave behind a Combat specialist to help the other teammates kick the Collectors' buggy asses. You must leave behind either Grunt, Garrus, or Zaeed (all with loyalty), otherwise someone will die holding the line. Seriously, try it out.

P.S. If I came across as too professor-ish, then sorry. I just find that people listen better when I explain like this.

Modifié par ResidentNoob, 08 mars 2010 - 09:17 .

[GenericPlayer2]

AiusLocutius wrote...

I suppose Zaeed was a marketting strategy to ensure original game sellings in middle east due to demand on pirate versions around...

That is an interesting thought. I know of only two Arabs in ME, Khalisah Al-Jilani and Zaeed. And both can be punched in the face by Shepard. I wonder if that will increase or decrease demand in the Middle East?

[Knoll Argonar]

smudboy wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Read again my posts.

Tip: logic relation errors.

No.  I've responded to all of your posts.

Tip: WTF is a logic relation error?

And yet you didn't understand =/

[smudboy]

ResidentNoob wrote...

Actually, OP, I believe that Grunt and Zaeed should be a bit higher on your list.

This is because they do actually have some usefulness during the suicide mission. I'll explain:

During the suicide mission, there are certain areas where a certain type of character becomes useful: Tech specialists for vents, and Biotic specialists for the biotic bubble, yes?

So why isn't there a Combat specialists section?

In fact, there is, but it is never actually explained to the player.

Depending on who you leave behind to 'hold the line' when you go off to fight the Human-Reaper, someone may die. You need to leave behind a Combat specialist to help the other teammates kick the Collectors' buggy asses. You must leave behind either Grunt, Garrus, or Zaeed (all with loyalty), otherwise someone will die holding the line. Seriously, try it out.

P.S. If I came across as too professor-ish, then sorry. I just find that people listen better when I explain like this.

I've read about that on the forums, too.

Considering it's not explained to the player, and the fact you've got everyone else being there, let alone you can't take Grunt, Garrus and Zaeed with you in the last battle, makes it a mishmash of "whoever", let alone an unknown.  Only in this example, it's worse than the escort role, because it's simply "whoever you didn't pick and who's still around."  The only time we see what's goin on is when you radio Thane, Jack (or whomever) while they're holding off Collector troops.

Let alone everyone already being "combat specialists."

[smudboy]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Read again my posts.

Tip: logic relation errors.

No.  I've responded to all of your posts.

Tip: WTF is a logic relation error?

And yet you didn't understand =/

Explain it better, simpler, then.

[Kaosu Haze]

Just throwing this out there, I'd give Grunt a point in Suicide Mission usefulness.

Given that his 'Hold the Line' score is supposedly the highest of any squadmate, and would therefore vastly improve team survivability when left behind to defend the rear.

[slackbheep]

ShadowWolf_Kell wrote...

In many ways, ME2 reminds me of how the Matrix was when it first came out, and the massive uproar about the movie.  Like Matrix, there are many layers to the story, the characters and to what's going on.  It just goes over some people's heads, so rather than try to understand the story, personalities and whatnot, they revert to seeing it purely as an action entertainment device.  It wasn't until the third movie that people slapped their foreheads and whent "OH I GET IT!"

Yeah, you get the idea. 

There was only one Matrix movie, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's probably a good thing they stopped before they lost their minds, anyway. (http://xkcd.com/566/)

On topic: I agree that there were more characters than necessary, and think the game probably would have been better overall if a few had been cut. We could have lost Jacob Samara and Thane and missed nothing.  Keep in mind that I actually like Thane and Samara. I can't say much about Jacob, just like in ME1 the humans in your party were by far the least interesting members.

[Nu-Nu]

I think they'll spilt off into a few groups in me3 for the final battle. I think it's to have as much people as you can for the last mission of the trilogy.

[PTPR]

Grunt and Zaeed are necessary for the "hold the line" part.

They are the tanks.

[SonvarTheMighty]

I agree with the point that some of the characters have no role they can fill in the suicide mission without getting killed. It would have been better if two characters could fill a particular role at the end so that you could use what squad you wanted but there is a member still left to do a vital role.

[Aceyalone7777]

I read the initial post and it was a masterpiece..
Although I like diversity many of these characters have been added just for fun.

Mordin should have remained non-combatant (that way we wouldn't lose him in ME3)
DLC should not add EVEN MORE squad members (we had that covered already even without dlc)
Jacob should have been ditched.
It should be only Samara and not Morinth

And then we could have 8 members. From which imho noone shouldn't have died...
As I said in another thread, suicide mission would be ideal for the ME3, not ME2. That way we could have enjoyed all their potential and in ME3 too...

Despite the fact that I am loyal to Bioware, I hope thay can pull this off. Still, no matter how hard they try it would be better if none of the died.
Just my opinion but anyway...

Modifié par Aceyalone7777, 28 avril 2010 - 04:10 .

[onelifecrisis]

Having just read the OP I have to agree with the assessment of Thane. I really have no idea how an assassin is supposed to help Shepard on his/her mission... and indeed he doesn't help. At all.



As for Zaeed, he's DLC so he shouldn't really even be on the list.

[celuloid]

I would dare to create my own personal list of characters and divide them into 3 groups:
"Meaningful" characters
Miranda - startup henchman No.1
Jacob   - startup henchman No.2 (aka DJ Priiize)
Mordin  - biologist, used to develop countermeasures against Collector's bugs
Garrus  - second leader, old familiar face
Tali    - electronic expert, old familiar face
Samara  - biotic goddess with lifetime commitment to unroot all injustice in the universe; plus her daughter is just awesome, albeit too one-dimensional. I would like to see more self-conflict and will to find a cure, but that belongs to another thread
Legion  - what? All Geth are not the same? This changes perspective of the entire first game.

"Complementary" characters
Grunt   - used to describe Krogan into more detail;
            Special ability: can kill... stuff.
Thane   - the same as Grunt, only with Drell; Tali was the only one of her race in ME1 too;
            Special ability: can kill stuff... while being unnoticed

"Totally off" characters
Jack    - just annoyance, why do we need another super-biotic? How the hell came TIM to conclusion that uncontrollable psychopath, whose condition was caused by the very same organization he represents, will be asset to the mission? OK, ability to destroy 3 YMIR mechs could come really useful. Why doesn't she do that in other parts of the game? Like in Garrus loyalty mission? Do I have to ****** her off enough first?
Zaeed, Kasumi - they are DLC, I should not comment on them. But: For suicide mission and fighting for the greater good of the universe, you do not recruit paid people. Period. In addition to be paid, they won't do any good, if their personal issues are not settled. Zaeed have had 20 years to settle his "grudge". Why should I care? These are paid professionals?
----------------------------------------------

Overall, I would be happier if they stuck only with the "Meaningful" characters. You can expand your game lore in other ways than through 12 loyalty missions, that is just insane amount of sidestepping from the main plot. And what is the chance that they will be present in ME3?
Thane dies. Mordin too, he is like 150 human years. Grunt will embark on his "breeding duty". Jack can go to hell and probably will, since she will attempt to kill Miranda, which I will not allow. She needs psychiatrist, seriously.
DLC characters will go work for someone else who pays, might be Shepard's enemies. That would be more meaningful use of their potential. But I think they will be probably just ditched.

I want henchmen dialog similar to ME1 when Tali said to Garrus: "I am glad that imminent destruction of all organic life improved your career opportunities".
The characters could be more together and interact in more ways, other than each of them being in different part of the ship "in the middle of some calibrations".
Let's go play bowling, pool, chess with Morinth; if you win she would mind-meld with you, and if you lose she would mind-meld too.

If I can count, main to personal missions ratio is 6:20. If you don't develop 8 missions for useless characters and dedicate resources elsewhere, you can have 14:12 ratio. That means better main storyline.
Everyone agrees the plot is shallow. What I missed most is the sense of unraveling mystery like in ME1. There were 7 long main missions divided into 3 parts: introduction (Eden Prime, Citadel), middlegame (Liara recruitment, Feros, Noveria, Virmire) and finale (Ilos/Citadel). Now we have something similar, only the middlegame is just endless stream of recruitments and loyalty missions.

Although in the end, I do not know a game that could hold a candle to this one (except some other Bioware's), and that is the reason why we can be arguing about these "issues".

Modifié par celuloid, 25 mai 2010 - 03:41 .