185 réponses à ce sujet

[Canez fan 1988]

Sharn01 wrote...

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

So how many trilogies did this bum write?

I wish people would stop using remarks like this. 

Since when do you have to be a professional in a field to criticize someone's work? 

If a plumber fixes your sink and it still leak's, are you not allowed to complain because only a professional plumber can judge his workmanship? 

If you order a steak medium rare and it comes to your table burnt, do you eat it and smile because only a professional chef can judge the quality of food?

Agree or disagree with the man, or a mix of both, but comment's like this are stupid.

You don't need to be a professional to criticize something. 

However, when you start every other paragraph with "A good trilogy should do this," or "A good trilogy has these things," then you better have some experience or credentials in that field if you want to be taken seriously. On top of all that, his summary his poorly written and feels more like a post seen on these forums than an objective article.

I wouldn't tell the plumber or the chef how to do their job, but I would let them know that there is still a problem.

Modifié par Canez fan 1988, 19 février 2010 - 03:23 .

[contown]

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

So how many trilogies did this bum write?

Since when did you need to be a succesful writer to see the flaws in a succesful writer's work? Do you think all movie reviewers are esteemed directors? Do you think all book editors are famous authors? What you just said is completely invalid.

And I thought it was a pretty solid critique. Definetly some good points in there.

[Vaenier]

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

However, when you start every other paragraph with "A good trilogy should do this," or "A good trilogy has these things," then you better have some experience or credentials in that field if you want to be taken seriously. On top of all that, his summary his poorly written and feels more like a post seen on these forums than an objective article.

"A good boat floats on water." I have zero experience in making boats, but I know one when i see it. ME was not written as a Trilogy.

It was a game that turned into a trilogy half way through developement. They decided it would be cool if your actions carried over to new games, so ou could import your characters. But they didnt decide how to import your decisions till after ME1 was complete. It leaves so many just cut henging there, and these new twists popping out of thin air.

They should have designed all three games before they built a single level for me1.

[Canez fan 1988]

Vaenier wrote...

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

However, when you start every other paragraph with "A good trilogy should do this," or "A good trilogy has these things," then you better have some experience or credentials in that field if you want to be taken seriously. On top of all that, his summary his poorly written and feels more like a post seen on these forums than an objective article.

"A good boat floats on water." I have zero experience in making boats, but I know one when i see it. ME was not written as a Trilogy.

That's a horrible analogy.

Also, I seem to remember way back Bioware letting the fanbase know to NOT throw away their game saves. In addition to that, they had a built in system in ME1 making invisible saves that could be transported over to ME2 later on, so it seems they have been planning this for quite some time.

Modifié par Canez fan 1988, 19 février 2010 - 03:33 .

[Canez fan 1988]

contown wrote...

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

So how many trilogies did this bum write?

Since when did you need to be a succesful writer to see the flaws in a succesful writer's work? Do you think all movie reviewers are esteemed directors? Do you think all book editors are famous authors? What you just said is completely invalid.

And I thought it was a pretty solid critique. Definetly some good points in there.

Let me clarify myself. If you want to critique someone's work, that's fine. If you want to critique someone's work and come off like your an expert on that person's field, then you better be one if you want to be taken seriously.

[jasonontko]

I agree with everything in the review. It was sloppy story construction. I like ME2 but it could have been one of the best games ever made but it now has to settle for one of the best games this year. So much potential wasted, its sad.

[Default137]

Joker joined Cerberus because the Alliance grounded him permanently after ME1 due to his vocal opposition to what the Council and the Alliance said about Shepard, and well, he has a disease that kind of makes life difficult for him other then flying.



Chakwas joined Cerberus because she wanted to make sure Joker stayed safe, as she knew he would always have Vroliks, and she considered him like a son that she would have to take care of forever.



Human Reaper is fairly unexplained, but will probably get more airtime in DLC or ME3.



Sovereign and the Reapers were described as machines in ME1, but not that they hated humans, just that they wanted to purge us, huge difference, when you euthanize a pet, that doesn't mean you hate it, you just have to put it down, in ME2, its implied they are purging us for some reason that we will most likely find out in ME3.



The mission after IFF is to get the important people off the ship in case the Reaper tech from the IFF messes up, and opens the airlocks, or sets off other defenses, the Collector attack could be pointed at as kind of pushing the plot forward, but whatever.



Bug in Mordins office pre-Collectors, joining Cerberus, and a few other changes are retcons, or plotholes, but not big enough for me to care honestly.

[axl99]

I considered myself given fair warning when the dev diaries explicitly said Mass Effect 2 was a huge character piece.

Even then, I'd love to have seen even more from the cast. But then again there's probably issues with time, money, system resources. I'd hate to imagine just how much it cost to get all those celebrities to deliver their lines for the whole game, and all that animation and lip synching that had to be done afterwards.

Modifié par axl99, 19 février 2010 - 04:23 .

[Yakko77]

Their points on Cerberus changing so much from ME1 and ME2 are very valid.  Especially for Sole Survivor Shepard the Cerberus aspect of the game just doesn't fit but I go with it anyways because the game is so much darn fun.

[Canez fan 1988]

Yakko77 wrote...

Their points on Cerberus changing so much from ME1 and ME2 are very valid.  Especially for Sole Survivor Shepard the Cerberus aspect of the game just doesn't fit but I go with it anyways because the game is so much darn fun.

I agree with this, however it is clearly explained in-game that Cerberus is split into 3 different cells, with each cell being completely independent. This means that one cell is not responsible nor does it have control over another cells actions. Still, I would have like to have seen something about Cerberus's involvement with my Shep's background on Akuze.

[D4rk50ul808]

Look I'm pretty sure by the game announcements posted in 2005 by multiple companies, this was ALWAYS meant to be a trilogy.



Exhibit A:



Rich and engaging storyline. While defending galactic peace and earning a position of respect for humanity in the community, gamers will discover that a greater conflict between organic life and artificial intelligence exists. Players' decisions and actions will serve to shape the destiny of all life in the galaxy as you become absorbed in the story that is "Mass Effect," the first game in an epic trilogy from BioWare. They will become the center of an engrossing story as they battle against alien life forms to save the galaxy from threatening armies.



This was taken from a post on October 4th, 2005 on teamxbox.com. People are talking about this being a bad trilogy before they even see the end of it.



As for the discussion I was having earlier, my bad on the synthetic life cannot evolve. What I meant is that in order to have intelligence and take actual form it would need to be built. I know that this is applying real world logic to a game world that could be much different, so I could be wrong.



Reapers could be the result of a program/system becoming self aware (Terminator again), or even an AI that decided to preserve its own life, etc. I guess my point is I don't see how the thing could just become a Reaper without some kind of organic first creating part/all of it.





Now for the Cerberus thing. I guess I'm playing a different game like someone claimed earlier, because I never felt like it was forgotten how evil they truly are. What choice does Shepard really have after waking up from being dead 2 years in a Cerberus lab? He never calls out Cerberus for past events but what would it accomplish if he did?



The way I felt was that he and Cerberus knew that he did not trust them. He also knew that they gave him the means to get back into the fight that he never got to finish due to it killing him 2 years ago. By the end of the game many more things happen to make you trust them even less, and your crew sees this.



If they brought up the Akuze thing in THIS game, how could you possibly have progressed with the working with Cerberus gameplay? Its not like they had 2 more DVD's to write the "Shepard works for Alliance because of Akuze" version. That would be better used in the beginning of the third game as a way to put Shepard back into the Alliance.



They do a good job of not showing you black/white stuff, instead making you sort through the shades of gray to figure out how you feel about them. In the end you can choose to A) Abandoned Cerberus and blow up their ultimate goal leaving them with nothing to show for their investment Side with Cerberus and the belief that to win you must be willing to sacrifice anything. Doing this will deliver a potentially devastating technology to an organization with that kind of past that would lead you to believe the use of it won't be ethical.



Collectors also come up a lot. You know it has been 2 years since they killed you. I understand that they weren't mentioned in the first game, but I think the intro mission was a really cool way to show what happened to you, and brought them into the picture in a very exciting way. Would it have been better if you had played that intro level at the end of ME1? It would totally ruin its effect because you KNOW Shepard has to live for the story to progress yet no explanation of how would be given. The forums would have been flooded for 2 years with theories on how Shepard comes back to life.



The point is the game was never intended as a 2 game series. They needed to leave each game feeling complete, so the 2 year wait in between won't seem like an eternity. When looking at a game/movie series with a huge budget, its not all the creative side of things it still has to make business sense. I plan on throwing down my cash on the next installment just like the last two, and have no regrets doing it. That is a lot more than can be said about quite a few games I feel I wasted my money on.