50907 réponses à ce sujet

[flem1]

On a slightly meta topic, how come the Ashley and Kaidan threads have so much cross-faction support vs here? Interesting.

[Movodor]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Movodor wrote...

It's the same one from the codex entry on asari, as far as I know.
so -shepard- cut and pasted from extranet-google

Its been altered slightly. Her cheeks have been made pink for some reason, and her mouth has been turned into a slight smile.

But yeah, its basically a slightly touched up Noveria screenshot of Liara.

Looking at the entry now..yeah. you're right. Okay, so shep's photoshopping pics of liara? 

[Yeled]

flem1 wrote...

On a slightly meta topic, how come the Ashley and Kaidan threads have so much cross-faction support vs here? Interesting.

Because Ash and Kaiden are intricately tied together.  One is alive and the other is dead based on your choice in ME1.  One appears on Horizon to berate you and the other is still dead, again based on that choice in ME1.  If Ash/Kaiden make it to ME3, they will do so as a linked pair.  Their fans know this.

[JPfanner]

flem1 wrote...

On a slightly meta topic, how come the Ashley and Kaidan threads have so much cross-faction support vs here? Interesting.

I think it's because of the comic myself.  Liara is off saving Shepard while their love interest just doesn't do anything.  So I can understand how that'd be a bit insulting to have Bioware dictate something like that.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Yeled wrote...


Because Ash and Kaiden are intricately tied together.  One is alive and the other is dead based on your choice in ME1.  One appears on Horizon to berate you and the other is still dead, again based on that choice in ME1.  If Ash/Kaiden make it to ME3, they will do so as a linked pair.  Their fans know this.

Exactly. Feel a little sorry for them actually, since now both Ash and Kaidan occupy the same character (virmire survivor) only just with different personalities. Liara is 100% her own character, which they cannot say, and so they stick together more.

[Nozybidaj]

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...


If you read the comics, sure I suppose you could deduce that.  From playing the game though?

What about new players, in two years when ME3 comes around are they going to care at all that this crazy chick they met on Illium is now a squad memeber or are they going to be clamoring for the likes of Aria and Kal'Reegar to be squadmates?  

While the old fans may be able to at least understand if not appreciate the role Liara was given in ME2 new folks have not had any sort of introduction to the character at all.  Does this mean we are going to get 're-introduced' to these characters again in ME3 or are is it an indication of their importance to the story of the finale?

BW missed their golden oppotunity here and no amount of DLC or expansions is going to make up for that.

In my opinion, it's the responsibility of the player to play the original game and fully understand Liara's character, along with Ashley, Kaidan, Wrex, Saren, Sovereign etc. People who have only played the second game should have very little credibility with regards to opinions regarding characters and events from ME1.

In the build up to ME2 alot of people were complaining that BW seemed to be catering to players who hadn't played ME1, which I agree with. If you're confused with events in ME2 or misunderstand characters, then it's up to the player to play the original game and get with the program.

This is of course if there isn't a Liara DLC that explains and expands on her emotions, her motivations and her devotion to Shepard, which I'm fairly confident there will be.

I don't disagree, but will BW?  They did a lot in ME2 in the name of "don't want to confuse new players".

Either way their failure to introduce these characters properly to new players is going to be a problem.  

[Yeled]

On an unrelated Liara note, I haven't listened to that audio file of cut material. How much stuff was cut? Is it a lot or just a few lines?

[Nozybidaj]

justinnstuff wrote...

Exactly. As it stands ME2 is a sequel. ME is finishing as a trilogy. If the person comes in starting with ME2, they simply aren't going to know what all happened in the past. It's up to them to fill themselves in. I felt that ME2 had too much catering to the new crowd myself, but I'm confident that there will be some DLC to fill that gap for us that have been here since the beginning.

I suppose ME2 is a sequel in the loosest sense of the term.  It is a game that has Mass Effect in the title, and it has a 2 after it.  It has Shepard in it.  That is about all the case you can make for it being a sequel.

Going back to something Priestly said on the old forums, was Temple of Doom really a sequel to Raiders of the Lost Arc?  Sure, it had Indiana Jones in the title, and it immediately followed the first move, and it had Harrison Ford in it.  It was not however a contiuation of the first that expanded on the story and introduced new twists to existing themes.

Myself I do not consider ToD to be a sequel and I do not consider Indiana Jones to be a trilogy (aside from the fact that there is more than three movies).  It is just a collection of different adventures tales that may or may not be told in chronological order.

When I think of a trilogy and a sequel I think Star Wars and Empire as a sequel to New Hope or I think Lord of the Rings and Two Towers as a sequel to Fellowship.  These are examples of an over arcing story broken into three chapters.  Mass Effect has already broken that definition with ME2. 

Personally I consider ME2 to be Mass Effects Temple of Doom since there are, at best, very loose and inconsequential ties to the previous title and I certainly won't consider it a trilogy when all is said and done. 

If they do turn around and try to make ME3 the Return of the Jedi of the series things are going to feel very contrived and disjointed without an ESB there in the middle.

[WilliamShatner]

Nozybidaj wrote...

justinnstuff wrote...

Exactly. As it stands ME2 is a sequel. ME is finishing as a trilogy. If the person comes in starting with ME2, they simply aren't going to know what all happened in the past. It's up to them to fill themselves in. I felt that ME2 had too much catering to the new crowd myself, but I'm confident that there will be some DLC to fill that gap for us that have been here since the beginning.

I suppose ME2 is a sequel in the loosest sense of the term.  It is a game that has Mass Effect in the title, and it has a 2 after it.  It has Shepard in it.  That is about all the case you can make for it being a sequel.

Going back to something Priestly said on the old forums, was Temple of Doom really a sequel to Raiders of the Lost Arc?  Sure, it had Indiana Jones in the title, and it immediately followed the first move, and it had Harrison Ford in it.  It was not however a contiuation of the first that expanded on the story and introduced new twists to existing themes.

Myself I do not consider ToD to be a sequel and I do not consider Indiana Jones to be a trilogy (aside from the fact that there is more than three movies).  It is just a collection of different adventures tales that may or may not be told in chronological order.

When I think of a trilogy and a sequel I think Star Wars and Empire as a sequel to New Hope or I think Lord of the Rings and Two Towers as a sequel to Fellowship.  These are examples of an over arcing story broken into three chapters.  Mass Effect has already broken that definition with ME2. 

Personally I consider ME2 to be Mass Effects Temple of Doom since there are, at best, very loose and inconsequential ties to the previous title and I certainly won't consider it a trilogy when all is said and done. 

If they do turn around and try to make ME3 the Return of the Jedi of the series things are going to feel very contrived and disjointed without an ESB there in the middle.

Temple of Doom has an excuse - it's a prequel.  It's set a year before Raiders.

[Nozybidaj]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Temple of Doom has an excuse - it's a prequel.  It's set a year before Raiders.

I did not know that, interesting.

I think my point still stands though that ME2 isn't really a sequel in the same vein that Empire or Two Towers were to their respectives series.  It is very much a seperate adventure tale with loosely tied connections.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 23 février 2010 - 07:24 .

[WilliamShatner]

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

Yeled wrote...

On an unrelated Liara note, I haven't listened to that audio file of cut material. How much stuff was cut? Is it a lot or just a few lines?

There's quite a few lines, yes.

Plus, when Shepard tells Liara she/he has got info on the location of the Shadow Broker, Liara sounds like her old self, all happy again.

Makes me feel sad that as it stands we can't comfort her or cheer her up in ME2. Still, here's hoping for the DLC!

To me it was just another two minutes of Liara being obessive. 

[JPfanner]

ME2 feels more like an episodic non-continuity television serial. Like the early seasons of the X-Files, or the classic "monster of the week" shows. Where Commander Shepard and the crew of the Normandy tour the galaxy having twenty minute self-contained adventures. So you'll have Commander Shepard and the Planet of Captive Women, then you jump to Commander Shepard Single's Club Serial Killer Bait.

[WilliamShatner]

Nozybidaj wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Temple of Doom has an excuse - it's a prequel.  It's set a year before Raiders.

I did not know that, interesting.

I think my point still stands though that ME2 isn't really a sequel in the same vein that Empire or Two Towers were to their respectives series.  It is very much a seperate adventure tale with loosely tied connections.

Indeed.  It's all the more disappointing when you consider that this was conceived as a trilogy from the start.  Surely the disconnect between the two wasn't originally planned.  I have a feeling they didn't get the sales numbers they wanted to get for ME1 and decided to reboot the thing to bring in a bigger audience.

There was a very bad omen during a pre-release video on XBL when the interviewer asked one of the developers (it wasn't one of the well known ones so I can't remember his name) whether people had to play ME1 to get the msot of out ME2 and the he said "Absolutely not."  I remember the bullet going into my heart at that moment.  It was like a betrayal of every thing we had been told about the series up to that point.

Modifié par WilliamShatner, 23 février 2010 - 07:31 .

[Nozybidaj]

JPfanner wrote...

ME2 feels more like an episodic non-continuity television serial. Like the early seasons of the X-Files, or the classic "monster of the week" shows. Where Commander Shepard and the crew of the Normandy tour the galaxy having twenty minute self-contained adventures. So you'll have Commander Shepard and the Planet of Captive Women, then you jump to Commander Shepard Single's Club Serial Killer Bait.

Agreed, that is a nice way to put it.

[Nozybidaj]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
I think my point still stands though that ME2 isn't really a sequel in the same vein that Empire or Two Towers were to their respectives series.  It is very much a seperate adventure tale with loosely tied connections.

Indeed.  It's all the more disappointing when you consider that this was conceived as a trilogy from the start.  Surely the disconnect between the two wasn't originally planned.  I have a feeling they didn't get the sales numbers they wanted to get for ME1 and decided to reboot the thing to bring in a bigger audience.

There was a very bad omen during a pre-release video on XBL when the interviewer asked one of the developers (it wasn't one of the well known ones so I can't remember his name) whether people had to play ME1 to get the msot of out ME2 and the he said "Absolutely not."  I remember the bullet going into my heart at that moment.

I dunno about the sales numbers, I thought ME1 had done fairly well?  I do agree that the series was rebooted and it was done to draw in a wider audience though, so I suppose to BW it is a job well done, even if it isn't really a trilogy anymore.

The question is which story will ME3 wrap up?  The one started in ME1 or the one started in ME2?

[Midnight Reyn]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Exactly. Feel a little sorry for them actually, since now both Ash and Kaidan occupy the same character (virmire survivor) only just with different personalities. Liara is 100% her own character, which they cannot say, and so they stick together more.

Great.

I'm annoyed at Bioware for making the Ash/Kaidan cameo interchangeable, and I wish they had given the two more unique lines, but I still feel like Ash is her own character. The Horizon scene certainly had more overlapping dialogue than I wanted to see, but the follow up email was 100% Ash - and as an Ash fan, that was lovely to see.

If the 'Virmire survivor' has no dialogue to distinguish them from eachother come ME3, then I, as an Ash fan,  will feel slighted because then they will simply be a placeholder. But I am willing to wait until ME3 before I commit to saying that Ash and Kaidan are now the same character.

[WilliamShatner]

ME1 sold 2 million copes, which although very good isn't Halo or Gears of War numbers. Considering how much they're trying to copy GoW I imagine they are looking at sales around that ballpark, 5 million.

[JPfanner]

Midnight Reyn wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Exactly. Feel a little sorry for them actually, since now both Ash and Kaidan occupy the same character (virmire survivor) only just with different personalities. Liara is 100% her own character, which they cannot say, and so they stick together more.

Great.

I'm annoyed at Bioware for making the Ash/Kaidan cameo interchangeable, and I wish they had given the two more unique lines, but I still feel like Ash is her own character. The Horizon scene certainly had more overlapping dialogue than I wanted to see, but the follow up email was 100% Ash - and as an Ash fan, that was lovely to see.

If the 'Virmire survivor' has no dialogue to distinguish them from eachother come ME3, then I, as an Ash fan,  will feel slighted because then they will simply be a placeholder. But I am willing to wait until ME3 before I commit to saying that Ash and Kaidan are now the same character.

Well it's kind of sexist and shallow, but maybe the thought behind the non-import ME2 survivor being the opposite gender of Shepard was to bring them each back in the full squadmate/LI role in ME3.  I hope to get Ashley back in a role that she deserves.  My Earthborn Femshep had no family of her own and Ashley's stories about her sisters brought something special to her <sob>

[jlb524]

Littledoom wrote...

Well they are selling there soul in the proses in my opinion. I don't play many games and most of the ones I play are BW games, soon I won't have anything to play it seems. I'll become a full grown responsible adult soon it seems

I'm in the same boat as you.  I'll just look for other games to play from other companies..I'm not ready to become a full adult yet

[bjdbwea]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Temple of Doom has an excuse - it's a prequel. It's set a year before Raiders.

I did not know that, interesting. {smilie}

I think my point still stands though that ME2 isn't really a sequel in the same vein that Empire or Two Towers were to their respectives series. It is very much a seperate adventure tale with loosely tied connections.

Indeed. It's all the more disappointing when you consider that this was conceived as a trilogy from the start. Surely the disconnect between the two wasn't originally planned. I have a feeling they didn't get the sales numbers they wanted to get for ME1 and decided to reboot the thing to bring in a bigger audience.

There was a very bad omen during a pre-release video on XBL when the interviewer asked one of the developers (it wasn't one of the well known ones so I can't remember his name) whether people had to play ME1 to get the msot of out ME2 and the he said "Absolutely not." I remember the bullet going into my heart at that moment.

Someone on this forums said that ME 2 feels more like the first part, and ME 1 could be the successor. That sums up my feelings. Except for the graphics of course, everything was more refined in ME 1 - gameplay, story, presentation, characters, even level design as far as the main story levels are concerned. And if you think about it, with some obviously necessary changes it could easily work from a story perspective too.

I don't think the sales numbers from part 1 disappointed them, on the contrary. It's always the same thing: Once a franchise is financially successful, it evokes the desire to make even more from it. So the next part has to be done a) quickly and with appeal to an even wider audience.

Also I have the feeling they figure that the old fans don't matter anymore. They seem to think that most will continue to buy anyway, and those who won't are acceptable losses in comparison to increased sales to the shooter and casual gamer market.

If you view it strictly from a business perspective, those presumptions indeed make sense. So no lamenting. It's just the way it is, and since EA calls the shots now, BioWare couldn't do differently even if they wanted. But this is not the topic to debate that again, and I'm sure it wouldn't be well-received, so let's leave it at that.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 février 2010 - 07:48 .