63501 réponses à ce sujet

[sapphyreelf]

AkodoRyu wrote...

sapphyreelf wrote...

FireEye wrote...
The great thing about Kaidan is that he is versatile and fits well with any other class. 

Hello gutter. I've missed you.

In case someone missed that, I'll quote... For justice...

For great justice!



*PS: Thanks Sirius for finding the pic!

[sapphyreelf]

I'm one of the ones that prefers ME2 over ME1. The gameplay was improved, and I really enjoyed the story. It did well to make me feel "disconnected", as if I really was trying to find my place back in the world after being dead for two years. As much as this may generate ire towards me, I'm not sure that the inclusion of Kaidan/Ashley in larger roles would have made this game better. Not for me. I like that they are not willing to sacrifice their principles just to join up with Shepard.

As far as the story goes, I do prefer the story of ME1 more; however, that's just as a stand alone story. Being as these games are part of a trilogy, I can't completely disconnect the stories. ME2 is the Empire Strikes Back of the franchise, and I'm willing to reserve final judgement of the story in its entirety until after ME3.

And, I disagree that ME2 is too linear. I've played linear RPGs before. You go to place Y after completing task X and only then does the story continue. There are no side quests. You just trudge along the path given to you. (Most jRPGs) ME2 has certain timed events that take place after you complete X number of events. You control what you do to trigger those events. The order of how I do things isn't the same order of how Sesh does it, or Sia does it. We have choice. That's not linear game play to me.

[RubyRed1975]

Alenko wrote...

And with Kaidan/Ash not being recruitable, at first i was miffed about it and even though i would love to have seen more Kaidan in the game - maybe have more dialouge with him, I can understand that they did it so they can ensure their survival for ME3.

There is only one problem....Everyone can survive the Suicide Mission...so they really don't have a legimate reason for leaving out the LI's. The reason that they should have used is the reason your LI's gave you, which is they won't work for Cerberus. With the exception of Liara, who is on a revenge mission. It's bad enough that they turned Shep into a walking/ talking idiot and can't come up with a better greeting than:
1) It's been a long time...How are you doing?
2) You don't sound happy to see me.

I know there is a 3rd response can't remember it though cuz it was just as stupid but, the first 2 really take the cake. I do want to see how they are going to resolve the issues with our LI's in ME3 and I really want to see how they are going to bridge the gap between the two games. If I remember correctly they were supposed to bridge the gap in ME to ME2 and all we got was Pinnacle Station and Bring Down The Sky and that in no way bridge anything Part of me wonders if they think that if they keep bombarding us with DLC that we will forget what they said. IDK sometimes all this thinking makes my head hurt

[RubyRed1975]

sorry dp monster

Modifié par RubyRed1975, 16 juillet 2010 - 10:36 .

[Collider]

I agree completely with sapphyrelf. The story in ME1 was definitely better, but I liked the character focus of ME2. It will, however, only work for ME2 and ME2 alone. ME3 must refocus on story, which fortunately seems will be the case. Kaidan refusing to join Shepard on Horizon may actually make the romance continuation in ME3 that much better - the rough times can make the good times greater. A powerful, heartfelt reunion will be one thing all of the other romance interests will lack.

[Collider]

@Ruby: Yea, everyone can survive. However, you cannot give a pivotal and integral role to an ME2 squad mate. For example, you cannot have Liara be the only one to save Shepard if she could have died in ME1...you cannot have Kaidan find something vital and neededl to beat the Reapers if he died in ME2.

[RubyRed1975]

Collider wrote...

I agree completely with sapphyrelf. The story in ME1 was definitely better, but I liked the character focus of ME2. It will, however, only work for ME2 and ME2 alone. ME3 must refocus on story, which fortunately seems will be the case. Kaidan refusing to join Shepard on Horizon may actually make the romance continuation in ME3 that much better - the rough times can make the good times greater. A powerful, heartfelt reunion will be one thing all of the other romance interests will lack.

And that is only if we really get that heart felt reunion....I know I'm being so pessimistic today...I'm sorry

[Collider]

It's ok. I understand why people would be pessimistic about this.

[RubyRed1975]

Collider wrote...

@Ruby: Yea, everyone can survive. However, you cannot give a pivotal and integral role to an ME2 squad mate. For example, you cannot have Liara be the only one to save Shepard if she could have died in ME1...you cannot have Kaidan find something vital and neededl to beat the Reapers if he died in ME2.

I understand what you are saying Collider however I think I would have preferred the reason that your LI's give you and that is they are Alliance Soldiers and they will never work for Cerberus. I believe that someone said they think they kept the LI's out so that they could give the ME2 LI's a shot. I guess we will never really know

[*Kioux*]

I agree with saph on the aspects on ME2 being part of a trilogy and thus being an independent story and yes, they sure did a good job in making me (my shep) feel disconnected. I also didn't mind the gameplay changes - thus as the combat system and I had a lot of fun with my Infiltrator... *sighs*



But I personally still consider it rather linear. Sure, you have a few small choices (whom to recruit first) but other than that, there are not so much different choices.

I'm actually trying to come up with situations that would be worth to be mentioned in ME3... and other than punching the reporter and telling Tim to f* off (or not)... I can't really come up with any. It's not like ME where it felt to me that I actually had a unique impact on the world.



But then again - I am full of no sense... so I might be alone with this.

[sapphyreelf]

There are days when I get pessmistic too, but I've been trying to have faith that the larger picture that I can't see is in mind and that there will be happy times for Shenko land. And like Collider said, we - the Virmire Survivor supporters and Liara supporters - have secure knowledge that these characters will be in ME3. Yes, you can make all the other people survive your mission, but ME3 will have to be developed with the condition that anyone who could die in ME2 may be dead. So, it's impossible to say right now how that will impact their role.

[Lady Cousland]

sapphyreelf wrote...

As far as the story goes, I do prefer the story of ME1 more; however, that's just as a stand alone story. Being as these games are part of a trilogy, I can't completely disconnect the stories. ME2 is the Empire Strikes Back of the franchise, and I'm willing to reserve final judgement of the story in its entirety until after ME3.

I agree with you there, though i did prefer ME1 and i do like ME2 even though there were somethings i didn't enjoy as much as ME1, it is part of a trilogy and like you sapphy i guess we all can't completely judge the story until it is complete. And i do agree with you that the overall gameplay and design of ME2 was better though i prefered the planet exploration of ME1 more.

[sapphyreelf]

Kioux wrote...

I agree with saph on the aspects on ME2 being part of a trilogy and thus being an independent story and yes, they sure did a good job in making me (my shep) feel disconnected. I also didn't mind the gameplay changes - thus as the combat system and I had a lot of fun with my Infiltrator... *sighs*

But I personally still consider it rather linear. Sure, you have a few small choices (whom to recruit first) but other than that, there are not so much different choices.
I'm actually trying to come up with situations that would be worth to be mentioned in ME3... and other than punching the reporter and telling Tim to f* off (or not)... I can't really come up with any. It's not like ME where it felt to me that I actually had a unique impact on the world.

But then again - I am full of no sense... so I might be alone with this.

Did you keep the data from the Cerberus agent? Send it to the Alliance? Give it to Cerberus?

Did you find the Batarians attacking the colony and stop them from completely destroying it? Did you choose to save the colonists or the infrastructure?

Those are just two side missions that came to mind that could and should be mentioned in ME3.

And, ME1 is just as linear as ME2. You choose the order of the story missions, but you still do Noveria, Feroes, Therum, Virmire.

I can load up ME2, recruit any 3 characters I want, and then do every possible side quest available to me, without ever triggering Horizon, because squad member #4 isn't recruited (and this discludes Kasumi and Zaeed and their LM - since they don't count towards Horizon). Just like in ME1, I can go do every side quest I want and then all the story - or mix and mingle. You control the pace on how the story unfolds.

[Collider]

I found ME1 to be more linear. You HAVE to do Virmire, Noveria, Feros, and Therum. No way around that. Besides Virmire, none of the choices at the end of those planets have an effect on other missions.



In ME2, you can choose not to recruit 6 squad mates and can choose Morinth over Samara if you so wish. The loyalty missions affect everyone's performance in the suicide mission.



Certain story missions do trigger after a number of character missions, but you can still choose which loyalty and recruitment missions you do and do not want to do (and how you do them). You have several choices with the suicide mission - who to assign where, and how soon you enter the Omega 4 relay.



Anyways, it really boils down to opinion. I thought that ME1 was fantastic and so was ME2, but as a whole I enjoyed ME2 better. Anyone and everyone who disagrees with that is of course as equally valid.

[sapphyreelf]

Collider wrote...

I found ME1 to be more linear. You HAVE to do Virmire, Noveria, Feros, and Therum. No way around that. Besides Virmire, none of the choices at the end of those planets have an effect on other missions.

In ME2, you can choose not to recruit 6 squad mates and can choose Morinth over Samara if you so wish. The loyalty missions affect everyone's performance in the suicide mission.

Certain story missions do trigger after a number of character missions, but you can still choose which loyalty and recruitment missions you do and do not want to do (and how you do them). You have several choices with the suicide mission - who to assign where, and how soon you enter the Omega 4 relay.

Anyways, it really boils down to opinion. I thought that ME1 was fantastic and so was ME2, but as a whole I enjoyed ME2 better. Anyone and everyone who disagrees with that is of course as equally valid.

I agree that anyone's opinion is as valid as mine.

Also, I intentionally did my Renegade playthrough so that not everyone would survive. I wanted the story to be dynamically different than my "cannon" Shepard playthrough. I had those options available to me.

And I also found that places like Horizon and the Collector Ship trigger because it signifies that a certain period of time has elapsed in game for Shepard for those events to happen. It's not that it's linear, but that you are in an actual environment with time moving forward while you do your own thing. So, just because you only recruited four people, the Collectors didn't halt their plans while they waited on you.

In contrast, Saren sure did wait for me to do certain things in ME1.

Sadly, I now have to leave for work. Laters!

Modifié par sapphyreelf, 16 juillet 2010 - 11:04 .

[Lady Cousland]

Bye sapphy


Have a Kaidan:

[FireEye]

I think my major discomfort is that I could have enjoyed ME2 if everything had been shifted slightly to the left, which somehow makes it worse for me.  A lot of the time, I did enjoy watching my Shepard's reaction - I had built up her personality through a couple of playthroughs of ME1 and listening to her react to the entirety of ME2 was... interesting, to say the least.

It's just... there are some things I can't get around, I can't really articulate them, and yet they're bugging me.  I'm actually content with Kaidan and Horizon ("how you doin'" and lack of email response option notwithstanding), so... yeah.  I do hope that ME3 is worth waiting for, I just couldn't get into ME2 like I got into ME1.

And, yeah - everybody's opinion is valid.  I was just curious about what other people thought, to see if maybe I could go, "hmm!"  or possibly, "Eureka!"  I don't mean to put anybody out.



...hypnotic. 

[jillyfae]

@FireEye: The first time I played ME1, the style, atmosphere, and characters, sucked me in completely. Who me, sleep? ^_~

The first time I fired up ME2, I quit after half an hour. It completely failed to engage me. I have, eventually, come to respect it for what it does do, and I agree the mechanics are mostly better, but I had to force myself to play the game the first time, and I still miss that initial connection that I got from ME1.

And it's not even because Alenko/Williams isn't in it. It's just that, as a story, I didn't buy into any of it, so I didn't really care. What I was looking forward to in a trilogy was continued character development, whether it be the previous squad, NPCs, or Shepard herself, and instead I got 12 new character introductions, and everyone else acting like an idiot. For reasons I need a discussion thread to figure out, rather than getting it from the game.

So, obviously, I have the same problem you do, and it's mostly just that, stylistically, ME2 storytelling doesn't work for me the same way the traditional BioWare model does. And they should be applauded for trying something different, and all that, but I'm glad ME3 will, of necessity, have to be something else again.

[*Kioux*]

sapphyreelf wrote...

Kioux wrote...

I agree with saph on the aspects on ME2 being part of a trilogy and thus being an independent story and yes, they sure did a good job in making me (my shep) feel disconnected. I also didn't mind the gameplay changes - thus as the combat system and I had a lot of fun with my Infiltrator... *sighs*

But I personally still consider it rather linear. Sure, you have a few small choices (whom to recruit first) but other than that, there are not so much different choices.
I'm actually trying to come up with situations that would be worth to be mentioned in ME3... and other than punching the reporter and telling Tim to f* off (or not)... I can't really come up with any. It's not like ME where it felt to me that I actually had a unique impact on the world.

But then again - I am full of no sense... so I might be alone with this.

Did you keep the data from the Cerberus agent? Send it to the Alliance? Give it to Cerberus?

Did you find the Batarians attacking the colony and stop them from completely destroying it? Did you choose to save the colonists or the infrastructure?

Those are just two side missions that came to mind that could and should be mentioned in ME3.

And, ME1 is just as linear as ME2. You choose the order of the story missions, but you still do Noveria, Feroes, Therum, Virmire.

I can load up ME2, recruit any 3 characters I want, and then do every possible side quest available to me, without ever triggering Horizon, because squad member #4 isn't recruited (and this discludes Kasumi and Zaeed and their LM - since they don't count towards Horizon). Just like in ME1, I can go do every side quest I want and then all the story - or mix and mingle. You control the pace on how the story unfolds.

I see where you are coming from and yes, I actually just couldn't come up with the options you mentioned. As I mentioned though - it's a personal thing and I just didn't feel as attached and involved in ME2 than I did in ME1 - that might be the problem. I also don't wanna sound like I didn't enjoy ME2 - I did! I suppose I was just expecting something a little different.
And while I actually enjoyed the gameplay aspect of time - it feels inconsistent. You can do a lot of missions before Horizon (so timeless... bascially) but a single stop on a planet/ doing a last mission before the Suicide mission will cost you half of your crew. Again - it's my personal impression. 

Be that as it may - I try to approach ME3 without expectations and yet with a little hope. It'll be good - it has to be! BW wouldn't risk colored feathers and honey/tar... would they? Ah well... time to disappear again...

[Jenova65]

 You know I have been thinking about this 'everyone can survive the suicide mission', argument for some time and here is my conclusion - Everyone can survive, but not everyone plays that way and some people will fly blind and kill some people and want to live with the consequences of those actions.
Now for BioWare to stick with the concept of actions in game having real consequences to the player, these characters will be dead in 3. So if they have characters who are so weaved into the story of ME3 that killing them would make the game unplayable (like killing Shepard) they have to ensure that the player can't and I mean can't kill
them.
OK, but they could make it clear like they did with Shepard, right? You kill Shepard, you can't import, they could do that, sure, but all of a sudden you are babysitting if you know they have to survive (which spoils the suicide run concept) and second guessing yourself.
Also it makes Kaidan (and Ash and Liara) as important as Shepard, which is daft, Shepard is ME's protagonist.
Not to mention to give us so much info might be a massive spoiler where 3 is concerned!
Anyway that is just my rambling theory on it..............

[syllogi]

Good morning all!



I appreciate ME2 as a fun game, and for what it is -- a cinematic, cover-based third person shooter with a story -- it's really good. It's just *not* an RPG anymore, nor is it a continuation of the story of the character I made in the first game. I can pretend, or make excuses, but I've been too disconnected from the ability to have meaningful choices and consequences in ME2 to really get into it. I can actually finish it, which is more than I can say for a lot of games that are not my style, but I'm not engaged or as enthusiastic as I was while playing ME1.



I did enjoy the characters, although they all needed more dialogue and development, and I can see why other people prefer it. It's just not my style of game, and I wouldn't have picked it up if it weren't a sequel of a game I loved.



As for the lack of Kaidan, I really don't mind going through games without love interests, since for the longest time I was a big detractor of Bioware's love interests for women, and rarely bothered with them. My problems with ME2 are more that because I chose not to get the Paramour achievement, I missed out on tons of dialogue and character development, because none of my teammates want to be "just friends". I hope that friendship paths are a priority in ME3.

[jillyfae]

Jenova65 wrote...

 You know I have been thinking about this 'everyone can survive the suicide mission', argument for some time and here is my conclusion - Everyone can survive, but not everyone plays that way and some people will fly blind and kill some people and want to live with the consequences of those actions.
Now for BioWare to stick with the concept of actions in game having real consequences to the player, these characters will be dead in 3. So if they have characters who are so weaved into the story of ME3 that killing them would make the game unplayable (like killing Shepard) they have to ensure that the player can't and I mean can't kill
them.
OK, but they could make it clear like they did with Shepard, right? You kill Shepard, you can't import, they could do that, sure, but all of a sudden you are babysitting if you know they have to survive (which spoils the suicide run concept) and second guessing yourself.
Also it makes Kaidan (and Ash and Liara) as important as Shepard, which is daft, Shepard is ME's protagonist.
Not to mention to give us so much info might be a massive spoiler where 3 is concerned!
Anyway that is just my rambling theory on it..............

It's a good theory, Jen.  I like the idea behind the suicide mission, and even the conflict with the ME1 LI's, I just don't think it was executed particularly well.  It does provide a great backdrop for 3 though.

[Jenova65]

jillyfae wrote...

Jenova65 wrote...

 You know I have been thinking about this 'everyone can survive the suicide mission', argument for some time and here is my conclusion - Everyone can survive, but not everyone plays that way and some people will fly blind and kill some people and want to live with the consequences of those actions.
Now for BioWare to stick with the concept of actions in game having real consequences to the player, these characters will be dead in 3. So if they have characters who are so weaved into the story of ME3 that killing them would make the game unplayable (like killing Shepard) they have to ensure that the player can't and I mean can't kill
them.
OK, but they could make it clear like they did with Shepard, right? You kill Shepard, you can't import, they could do that, sure, but all of a sudden you are babysitting if you know they have to survive (which spoils the suicide run concept) and second guessing yourself.
Also it makes Kaidan (and Ash and Liara) as important as Shepard, which is daft, Shepard is ME's protagonist.
Not to mention to give us so much info might be a massive spoiler where 3 is concerned!
Anyway that is just my rambling theory on it..............

It's a good theory, Jen.  I like the idea behind the suicide mission, and even the conflict with the ME1 LI's, I just don't think it was executed particularly well.  It does provide a great backdrop for 3 though.

Thanks!  I agree, it was executed quite badly, even if they had put a just a tiny bit of wavering on Kaidan's part on Horizon, something there and then that displayed he really wanted  to go with Shepard. Hell, even if he reached out and touched her face it would give you something  to be faithful to!
ME3 (for faithful players) has the potential to amaze or devastate, I am trusting BioWare, they had better not let me down <_<

[Shenzi]

Morning. 
 
Lots of interesting discussing this morning I see.
 
As far as the suicide mission goes, it just seemed a little too easy to save everyone. For all the hype I expected more than just "do the loyalty missions and then assign people to the correct tasks."

[Jenova65]

Shenzi wrote...

Morning. 
 
Lots of interesting discussing this morning I see.
 
As far as the suicide mission goes, it just seemed a little too easy to save everyone. For all the hype I expected more than just "do the loyalty missions and then assign people to the correct tasks."

It is easy, but you would be surprised at just how many people still manage to mess it up  The times I have said ''You made Grunt team leader????? The clue is in the name, he is a grunt, he does what he is told.......'' *facepalms*

ETA, not to mention how many players do it on purpose to see what happens or because they ''hate that *insert rude word here*'' 

Modifié par Jenova65, 16 juillet 2010 - 12:59 .