693 réponses à ce sujet

[ZennExile]

IbramSkyheart wrote...

Even if I actually agreed with anything you've written, this comment alone would make me discount everything you've said thus far.  Why is it that it's everyone elses imagination forcing them to believe the story makes sense?  That just screams of "everything I say is right, everyone else is wrong.  Well... unless they agree with me, then they're right too."

I came to the same explanation... that you're recruiting complete strangers to go on a suicide mission with very little hope of survival, and very high hope of death.  How would the game make any sense if you'd just picked them up with the collective opinion that they can throw themselves on their swords for him.  The loyalty missions aren't about literally gaining their loyalty so they won't die... it's about gaining their trust... showing them that he'll do everything in his power to keep them alive but if it goes wrong then they died for a just cause, not just taken some random guys word for it.

Oh, and I didn't think it up on my own as you accused others of... it's the feeling I got throughout the game itself.

No one has ever so thoroughly proven my point by attempting to disprove my point, in all my years of being right.   From the bottom of my heart I thank you.

Oh and if I wasn't right could I do this?       ☺

Modifié par ZennExile, 19 février 2010 - 10:07 .

[ZennExile]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Ashkeldir wrote...

I may be mistaken, but I believe the point he was making was that, unlike in ME where the main story arc was the main focus, the side stories in ME2 take up a large portion of the story, and don't add anything to it - they are just filler, to give us something to do.  

Only on the surface are the missions about recruiting a team for the suicide mission. In reality, the story is about Shepard maturing as a figure capable of uniting vastly differing ideoglogies which would never work together in order to face a common threat. The Reapers fear a Galaxy united against them... however that has never happened before because there has never been a leader who could effectively get the races of the Galaxy to ignore their petty squabbles to focus on the larger threat. At the beginning of ME1, Shepard was an adept military commander who definitely had the loyalty of his troops... however Shepard had only led human troops who were united behind a common cause. Shepard becomes a Specter, hunts down Saren, and uncovers the plot of the first one, however there is no real advancement in Shepard's ability to lead or inspire trust in others since all of the people who join Shepard on that mission pretty much just throw themselves at them or are already committed to Shepard's cause. In ME2, Shepard has to convince people who have vastly different priorities to join a "suicide mission", the same kind of "suicide mission" that the Galaxy is going to have to join together to fight the Reapers for. If Shepard cannot earn the trust of these people, than Shep will fail, just as Shep will fail to lead the Galaxy to survival.

The plot of ME2 is not weaker than the first. It's just more internal rather than external, motivated by future dangers rather than present ones, and focused on characterization. ME2 is going to be much more connected to ME3 was than ME1 was to either. The perceived "lack of plot" is mostly because people are not used to this kind of narrative.

What kind of narrative is this again?

[Ashkeldir]

this isnt my name wrote...

Umm thane/samara are tied in because you are recruiting a team, they are the best and have skills you need, therefore it ties in...Idiot.

Hmmm... wonder if this is one of Bioware's newest writing crew?  

[SurfaceBeneath]

ZennExile wrote...
What kind of narrative is this again?

>Implying I would waste time seriously explaining something to a troll

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 19 février 2010 - 10:32 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

ZennExile wrote...
What kind of narrative is this again?

>Implying I would waste time seriously explaining something to a troll

+1

[Ashkeldir]

ZennExile wrote...
They are "known" for "epic" writing not "good" writing, because of previous games like ... ME1.  ME2 deviates heavily from what I would consider epic writing in favor of some dumbed down excuse for writing.  It's almost like 10 different people wrote ten different versions and they just threw darts until the filled up the storyboard.  None of it seem cohesive at all.

That's a big part of why the game doesn't feel finished.  It's just kinda slapped together without regard for the IP's previous lore and doesn't seem like it was even necissary as a story in general.  ME2 could have been a series of news stories in a true sequel and been just as meaningful.  It also could just been added on to ME1 as DLC and been just as meaningful.

Really it's not about being "good" it's about being "great".  Bioware has made great games and earned its reputation.  But they dropped the ball with ME2.  They got comfortable and let the slack turn what coulda been great into "good".  And you know what.  I expect "great" when I see Bioware stamped on anything and so should you.

Now that's what I was trying to say - it's just that I used a lot more words!  

[Ashkeldir]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Ashkeldir wrote...

I may be mistaken, but I believe the point he was making was that, unlike in ME where the main story arc was the main focus, the side stories in ME2 take up a large portion of the story, and don't add anything to it - they are just filler, to give us something to do.  

Only on the surface are the missions about recruiting a team for the suicide mission. In reality, the story is about Shepard maturing as a figure capable of uniting vastly differing ideoglogies which would never work together in order to face a common threat. The Reapers fear a Galaxy united against them... however that has never happened before because there has never been a leader who could effectively get the races of the Galaxy to ignore their petty squabbles to focus on the larger threat. At the beginning of ME1, Shepard was an adept military commander who definitely had the loyalty of his troops... however Shepard had only led human troops who were united behind a common cause. Shepard becomes a Specter, hunts down Saren, and uncovers the plot of the first one, however there is no real advancement in Shepard's ability to lead or inspire trust in others since all of the people who join Shepard on that mission pretty much just throw themselves at them or are already committed to Shepard's cause. In ME2, Shepard has to convince people who have vastly different priorities to join a "suicide mission", the same kind of "suicide mission" that the Galaxy is going to have to join together to fight the Reapers for. If Shepard cannot earn the trust of these people, than Shep will fail, just as Shep will fail to lead the Galaxy to survival.

The plot of ME2 is not weaker than the first. It's just more internal rather than external, motivated by future dangers rather than present ones, and focused on characterization. ME2 is going to be much more connected to ME3 was than ME1 was to either. The perceived "lack of plot" is mostly because people are not used to this kind of narrative.

I disagree.  All he does to 'unite' these people is help them complete their own personal mission - tie up loose ends - before they all have to face the suicide mission.  He didn't make them work together, he made them work for him.  I won't even get into the fact that the squad AI is so poor that I felt like I was alone most of the time, and the only thing I got from having my squad mates on missions was the use of a couple of extra skills like concussive shot, pull, overload, etc.  Might as well have given me bonus skills and I could have just solo'd all the missions... The skill I found to be most important was the combat drone, because, if it was my AI squad mates and myself in the line of fire, I was always the one the bad guys aimed at...

He didn't really unite anyone or anything - he just got them to follow him, which is what he did in ME. I like the way you put it, in that the Reapers fear a united Galaxy, and if Sheperd can't unite the Galaxy, 'we are doomed', but he did that in ME and it didn't avail him anything. In ME2, he didn't unite any of the races, all he did was get a few of the best together and kick the Collectors in the daddy-bags...

As far as the lack of perceived plot, it is because it is lacking in plot.  Yes, I agree, it may make more sense in ME3, but that's a cop out - that's the cheap road, and it isn't in Drew's writing style, nor in Bioware's style. 

I agree that a great novel is likely to compel a reader to read the sequel, but a great novel typically doesn't lack cohesion while attempting to give the reader the motivation to do so. 

I am curious to know the end of the story, but at this point, if ME3 does not include major improvements, I will probably be satisfied with just knowing how it ends, rather than playing the game to find out.

When ME came out, I bragged to all my friends about how awesome it was, how they had made an entire universe, an entire genre based on something that was reasonably feasible, the Mass Effect - and they had Codex explanations to back everything up, they had an amazing storyline to tell their story, and I didn't care so much that the game play wasn't exactly what I had hoped for. I felt immersed in the world, I felt like I was a part of it - they made me feel like I was there, I was Sheperd and I was the one meeting people - and that my choices really mattered - and the whole time, I was the hero of the story - other people who could help me in my mission happened along at opportune times - but the story was player-centric, and that's the whole point of video games, no?

They did more than just drop the ball with ME2, they fumbled and lost possession... (had to make up some cheezy unquote'able quote, just cuz it's late and I should be sleeping!)  

Modifié par Ashkeldir, 19 février 2010 - 10:56 .

[Ashkeldir]

KainrycKarr wrote...
Except that I like ME2's story. It's about seeing it for what it is.

It's about recruiting an elite team. Period. forget the collectors.

Did you read Drew's prequel and sequel books to ME ?  Did you play ME ?

They told a story in the prequel.  They told a story in ME.  They told a story in the sequel.  

Then they made ME2 all about recruiting an elite team...

[Ashkeldir]

Halfheart wrote...
Hmm, a difference in playstyles I'd assume. Played a soldier long range with my sniper and sent my henchmen in close. Adrenaline rush makes headshots no challenge and anything that moved from cover was dead or quickly dead.

Funny but I tried having my henchmen get up close, but they'd always get charged or overpowered/rushed - basically they'd get slaughtered while I tried hanging back and taking shots with my 12 shot sniper rifle (on insanity with an imported ME character) and then it was me against all the bad guys, and no place to hide.  Couldn't even finish the first collector mission because the husks charge, kill Jack and Grunt in no time, and then I'm stuck fighting everything, with no sniper rifle ammo, etc...

I suppose you might be talking about a play through with a higher level character..

[SurfaceBeneath]

Ashkeldir wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Ashkeldir wrote...

I may be mistaken, but I believe the point he was making was that, unlike in ME where the main story arc was the main focus, the side stories in ME2 take up a large portion of the story, and don't add anything to it - they are just filler, to give us something to do.  

Only on the surface are the missions about recruiting a team for the suicide mission. In reality, the story is about Shepard maturing as a figure capable of uniting vastly differing ideoglogies which would never work together in order to face a common threat. The Reapers fear a Galaxy united against them... however that has never happened before because there has never been a leader who could effectively get the races of the Galaxy to ignore their petty squabbles to focus on the larger threat. At the beginning of ME1, Shepard was an adept military commander who definitely had the loyalty of his troops... however Shepard had only led human troops who were united behind a common cause. Shepard becomes a Specter, hunts down Saren, and uncovers the plot of the first one, however there is no real advancement in Shepard's ability to lead or inspire trust in others since all of the people who join Shepard on that mission pretty much just throw themselves at them or are already committed to Shepard's cause. In ME2, Shepard has to convince people who have vastly different priorities to join a "suicide mission", the same kind of "suicide mission" that the Galaxy is going to have to join together to fight the Reapers for. If Shepard cannot earn the trust of these people, than Shep will fail, just as Shep will fail to lead the Galaxy to survival.

The plot of ME2 is not weaker than the first. It's just more internal rather than external, motivated by future dangers rather than present ones, and focused on characterization. ME2 is going to be much more connected to ME3 was than ME1 was to either. The perceived "lack of plot" is mostly because people are not used to this kind of narrative.

I disagree.  All he does to 'unite' these people is help them complete their own personal mission - tie up loose ends - before they all have to face the suicide mission.  He didn't make them work together, he made them work for him.  I won't even get into the fact that the squad AI is so poor that I felt like I was alone most of the time, and the only thing I got from having my squad mates on missions was the use of a couple of extra skills like concussive shot, pull, overload, etc.  Might as well have given me bonus skills and I could have just solo'd all the missions... The skill I found to be most important was the combat drone, because, if it was my AI squad mates and myself in the line of fire, I was always the one the bad guys aimed at...

He didn't really unite anyone or anything - he just got them to follow him, which is what he did in ME. I like the way you put it, in that the Reapers fear a united Galaxy, and if Sheperd can't unite the Galaxy, 'we are doomed', but he did that in ME and it didn't avail him anything. In ME2, he didn't unite any of the races, all he did was get a few of the best together and kick the Collectors in the daddy-bags...

As far as the lack of perceived plot, it is because it is lacking in plot.  Yes, I agree, it may make more sense in ME3, but that's a cop out - that's the cheap road, and it isn't in Drew's writing style, nor in Bioware's style. 

I agree that a great novel is likely to compel a reader to read the sequel, but a great novel typically doesn't lack cohesion while attempting to give the reader the motivation to do so. 

I am curious to know the end of the story, but at this point, if ME3 does not include major improvements, I will probably be satisfied with just knowing how it ends, rather than playing the game to find out.

When ME came out, I bragged to all my friends about how awesome it was, how they had made an entire universe, an entire genre based on something that was reasonably feasible, the Mass Effect - and they had Codex explanations to back everything up, they had an amazing storyline to tell their story, and I didn't care so much that the game play wasn't exactly what I had hoped for. I felt immersed in the world, I felt like I was a part of it - they made me feel like I was there, I was Sheperd and I was the one meeting people - and that my choices really mattered - and the whole time, I was the hero of the story - other people who could help me in my mission happened along at opportune times - but the story was player-centric, and that's the whole point of video games, no?

They did more than just drop the ball with ME2, they fumbled and lost possession... (had to make up some cheezy unquote'able quote, just cuz it's late and I should be sleeping!)  

Errr.... Shep did unite their crew though. Shep got them to unite under their leadership and place their trust in them. The Mass Effect universe is anything but the cozy utopia of Star Trek where all races will decide to happily work with one another... they just plain won't. Not unless there is a strong central figure to place their trust in. Shepard is that figure and ME2 is where Shepard must first take on that real leadership role. As I explained earlier, the people who followed you in ME1 mostly threw themselves at you and trusted you implicitely. No one in ME2 trusts Shepard right away until you do those Loyalty mission. Is that a shallow way to gain their trust? Sure, one could argue that, and I'm not really prepared to argue against it. I was arguing for an actual loyalty system like Dragon Age has where you have to earn their loyalty over the course of a game, but many many people argued against such a system on these very boards and I suppose Bioware wanted to make loyalty a much more binary system. I lament the missed opportunity, but I still get the point they were trying to get across.

The anthological flow of the game also gave the universe a better chance to breath in ME2. In ME1 you were focused on a goal and moved towards it. In ME2, we're left to more freely explore the universe, its nuances, and where humans are in the greater tapestry. The Loyalty missions especially show us the underlying issues that exist in the galaxy. It's definitely not a "stupider" way to go about a narrative, it's just a different way to drive it. I'm not the first to make the comparison that ME1 was Star Wars, while ME2 is Star Trek. Star Wars, for all its flash and bang and narrative drive, never really dwelled all that much on its own universe or really had time for more intellectual development of its characters and world. Star Trek on the other hand, being a television series, took more time to establish less "epic" plots in favor of a much more contemplative tone, with each episode focusing on a particular theme or idea and really fleshing it out. Some people like Star Wars more than Star Trek... some people like Star Trek more than Star Wars. It's not because either is written badly and the other well (they both had their share of bad and good writing), it's that some people want stories with a prominent narrative drive, while others would rather sacrifice some amount of progressive storytelling for a more introspective and pondering approach. They both have their merits and weaknesses.

I understand that the story of ME2 may not have been your cup of tea. But don't make the mistake of assuming this is due to any amount of less quality on the part of the writers or story. It's just a different kind of tea.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 19 février 2010 - 11:15 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Ashkeldir wrote...

Halfheart wrote...
Hmm, a difference in playstyles I'd assume. Played a soldier long range with my sniper and sent my henchmen in close. Adrenaline rush makes headshots no challenge and anything that moved from cover was dead or quickly dead.

Funny but I tried having my henchmen get up close, but they'd always get charged or overpowered/rushed - basically they'd get slaughtered while I tried hanging back and taking shots with my 12 shot sniper rifle (on insanity with an imported ME character) and then it was me against all the bad guys, and no place to hide.  Couldn't even finish the first collector mission because the husks charge, kill Jack and Grunt in no time, and then I'm stuck fighting everything, with no sniper rifle ammo, etc...

I suppose you might be talking about a play through with a higher level character..

I found insanity easy to keep my teammates alive, you just have to spend more time micromanaging them (as it should be). Keep them far back behind you so you can use their abilities with impunity. Usually if you tell them to take cover behind a position, they will stay there for a very long time despite what else you do.

[Ashkeldir]

MattGlenn wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

Why would these people be able to upgrade the Normandy?  Tali I will give you.  Garrus?  No.  Thane?  No.  They aren't scientists they are soldiers.  As Thane would put it, "Tools".  They shouldn't have any clue even how the Normandy functions let alone how to make it better.

There are so many different ways they could have used exploration and research to implement upgrades to the Normandy that it simply doesn't make sense to "half-ass" it using completely unbelievable dialogue options...

They don't know how to upgrade the Normandy, they have knowledge of technology that might be useful. This is explained in game by the fact you can't actually upgrade anything without Mordin who is stated as a genius and stated he has very high level of technical knowledge hence being able to figure out how to solve the swarmer problem. Combine Mordins genius with EDIs knowledge of the ship and suddenly being able to figure out how to incorporate new technology into the ship is quite plausible.

But the point here is that it is another cop out.  They had to meet a deadline and chose to give all the real research ability to Mordin who magically whips up all these upgrades in his lab, behind closed doors, and all you have to do is ask your squad mates for info on the upgrades and painstakingly collect some resources. All this is done with just a bit of information from these people you recruit who happen to have specifically exactly what is needed, to improve your squad and/or the Normandy (lucky for you...  cop out for Bioware)  rather than putting the effort into something more meaningful, something more interesting.  They found an easy way to explain it, and implemented the easy way to get it done.  That doesn't make it any more palatable for those of us who expected better.

Modifié par Ashkeldir, 19 février 2010 - 01:47 .

[Ashkeldir]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Ashkeldir wrote...

Halfheart wrote...
Hmm, a difference in playstyles I'd assume. Played a soldier long range with my sniper and sent my henchmen in close. Adrenaline rush makes headshots no challenge and anything that moved from cover was dead or quickly dead.

Funny but I tried having my henchmen get up close, but they'd always get charged or overpowered/rushed - basically they'd get slaughtered while I tried hanging back and taking shots with my 12 shot sniper rifle (on insanity with an imported ME character) and then it was me against all the bad guys, and no place to hide.  Couldn't even finish the first collector mission because the husks charge, kill Jack and Grunt in no time, and then I'm stuck fighting everything, with no sniper rifle ammo, etc...

I suppose you might be talking about a play through with a higher level character..

I found insanity easy to keep my teammates alive, you just have to spend more time micromanaging them (as it should be). Keep them far back behind you so you can use their abilities with impunity. Usually if you tell them to take cover behind a position, they will stay there for a very long time despite what else you do.

I'm sorry, but, 'as it should be' ??  Seriously?  Give me a tactics rig like in Dragon Age, please!  

In the first collector mission, after you pass the human mechanic who survived the attack, the next area only has two large crates and two walls protecting you, and it faces a large open area beyond it, with multiple spots for baddies to hide.  From their side, they come with two husks, and a Harbinger, as well as several other regular collectors.  As far as micro-managing, it might not be so bad if the AI actually went exactly where I told them to go, but they'll stand on the wrong side of a corner, so they are not in cover, or they stand beside the place I've told them to take cover, and shoot at the wall instead of the enemy, or crouch behind it, but not against it, so they can't shoot anything except the wall, and don't use any powers...  And in that mission, there's nowhere to back up to - and when the husks rush, and the Harbinger is hitting you with a nasty surprise, and his buddies are also pasting you with metal shards, survival at level 11 with no loyal squad mate skills and pathetic gear is not easy, no matter how you slice it.  

I watched Grunt get charged by husks, two of them standing right in front of him, with the AI set to 'use abilities' and he didn't use concussive shot... I watched Jack stand toe to toe with two husks, her shotgun in their faces, and she didn't use her shockwave ability...  I told her to, and she hit the crate with it instead of hitting the husks...

Anyway, I guess we must be playing a different game.  I am willing to bet that I put more hours into ME than anyone else out there, so it isn't like I don't know how to play the game - even if some of the mechanics are different - the AI is pretty much just as dumb as it was back then.

[Ashkeldir]

MattGlenn wrote...

Go read Lord of the Rings again, building the fellowship is almost no different than having files on potential recruits and going and finding them. Basically it is we have to stop in these places and pick up these people who will be useful because they are the best at what they do.

But in LOTR, they joined because they were 'in the right place at the right time'.  'They' didn't have to go look for them.  

The story is the mechanic that tells how those people come to choose to join the fellowship. In ME2, the story has nothing to do with how or why these people join.  They are just some random people - yes, they are the best, but that's only because they wouldn't be worth recruiting if they weren't the best. They could have been anybody - they just happen to fit the bill, because that's what we are told and have to accept it...  It doesn't take great storytelling ability to plop a character in your lap and say 'this gal is the best biotic ever so recruit her'...  And instead of telling a story about how or why she would fit into the group, they make you go get her and then help her out, because TIM gave you a dossier.  

Bioware cop out.

Modifié par Ashkeldir, 19 février 2010 - 11:53 .

[Ashkeldir]

Midnight_Thirty wrote...

I'm just going to address number 12, because the rest of this is basically trolling.

If you would read your codex, you would realize that they are not "ammo" clips. They contain no ammo. They are used to release heat into a capsule to cool weaponry in order to allow more shots fired per minute. Reusable and much more efficient.

Have you noticed how many times you can reload without running out of thermal clips?  

Hold a pistol in your hand, fire one shot, reload, it ejects one heat sink, but you don't lose any extra shots.  So, for the sake of game mechanics, they implemented these things, but for the sake of not upsetting customers, they don't make you lose ammo - because, if your amount of shots was truly limited by the number of heat sinks you had, each heat sink would allow a certain number of shots (effectively equating it to an ammo clip), and ejecting one would reduce your total possible maximum, which it does not.

In other words, if my pistol shows 6 shots loaded and 18 shots in reserve, and then I fire a single shot, and then eject the heat sink to 'reload', it should then show 6 shots in my pistol and 12 in reserve, regardless of the fact that I've only taken one shot, because the heat sink equates to a certain number of shots before overheating. But when I reload, as described above, after one shot, it will show 6 shots loaded and 17 in reserve.

If that wasn't the case, picking up a heat sink wouldn't equate to that number of shots in reserve when you are low on 'ammo'.

What it comes down to is, when we pick up a thermal clip, we are really picking up an ammo clip.  If I have 263 shots in my pistol, I am effectively carrying 263 thermal clips, but the reverse isn't true when I pick up another thermal clip.  The game mechanics don't even support themselves...

To completely destroy the logic behind this mechanic, let me elaborate.  If I have 263 thermal clips (because I would still have 262 shots after ejecting one thermal clip), but I can fire 24 shots with one thermal clip, then I should have a lot more shots...  The math is not logical - not possible - does not fit - period - but it was implemented for the sake of 'game mechanics'... 


Think about it.

Modifié par Ashkeldir, 19 février 2010 - 01:58 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Ashkeldir wrote...
Anyway, I guess we must be playing a different game.  I am willing to bet that I put more hours into ME than anyone else out there, so it isn't like I don't know how to play the game - even if some of the mechanics are different - the AI is pretty much just as dumb as it was back then.

I've honestly never played a game in which team AI was anything other than an oxymoron. The Dragon Age "tactics" system worked great, for that kind of game. But it's impossible to set up those kinds of triggers effectively in an actiony title such as this.

Like I said, keep them in the back. Behind a wall if necessary. They don't need LoS on targets to hit them with powers. I generally give orders once or twice in a fight and they usually live to the end.

[Ashkeldir]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
But it's impossible to set up those kinds of triggers effectively in an actiony title such as this.

'Attack my target' would be easy enough to do...  'Attack the target with the lowest health' would be easy enough to do...  'Target at short range - switch to shotgun' 'Target at medium to long range - switch to assault rifle (or sniper rifle)'  - 'Stop shooting at the wall and turn to face the guy who's bashing your skull in, and maybe shoot him or use a power on him while you're at it' - I suppose that one might be tough, since Bioware has made two games in a row in which the AI hasn't figured out how to get around that - wouldn't make much difference if I told them to do it via a Tactics menu...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Like I said, keep them in the back. Behind a wall if necessary. They don't need LoS on targets to hit them with powers. I generally give orders once or twice in a fight and they usually live to the end.

On that first Collector mission, I did have them behind a wall - there is no place to which we can retreat - the exit (where the mechanic was) is sealed as soon as you open the door - we get rushed by the husks, the Harbinger and at least a couple of his buddies, and we die.  I tried having them stand on the near side, without being in cover (because once the baddies come around the corner, there is no cover anyway) and had both of them with shotguns, and they didn't kill the husks in their faces fast enough - they didn't use powers...  *sigh*  I understand that some micromanagement is required, but this is just ridiculous...

[SurfaceBeneath]

Ashkeldir wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
But it's impossible to set up those kinds of triggers effectively in an actiony title such as this.

'Attack my target' would be easy enough to do...  'Attack the target with the lowest health' would be easy enough to do...  'Target at short range - switch to shotgun' 'Target at medium to long range - switch to assault rifle (or sniper rifle)'  - 'Stop shooting at the wall and turn to face the guy who's bashing your skull in, and maybe shoot him or use a power on him while you're at it' - I suppose that one might be tough, since Bioware has made two games in a row in which the AI hasn't figured out how to get around that - wouldn't make much difference if I told them to do it via a Tactics menu...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
Like I said, keep them in the back. Behind a wall if necessary. They don't need LoS on targets to hit them with powers. I generally give orders once or twice in a fight and they usually live to the end.

On that first Collector mission, I did have them behind a wall - there is no place to which we can retreat - the exit (where the mechanic was) is sealed as soon as you open the door - we get rushed by the husks, the Harbinger and at least a couple of his buddies, and we die.  I tried having them stand on the near side, without being in cover (because once the baddies come around the corner, there is no cover anyway) and had both of them with shotguns, and they didn't kill the husks in their faces fast enough - they didn't use powers...  *sigh*  I understand that some micromanagement is required, but this is just ridiculous...

If you have a target selected and hit the squad button, it will tell them to attack your target. Attacking targets at low health might be a distinct combat disadvantage given the way cover is done. I'll give you that your team mates should be a bit more discerning about what weapons they use at what range. And, like I've said, I have never played a game with AI squad mates where they did not shoot at walls and do generally retarded things like that. You can only program AI so well. I think AI partners actually using powers minimally is a good thing since I can direct them exactly where I want them instead of them just blowing it on stupid crap.

And I thought one of the reasons "hardcore RPGers" didn't like this game was that it wasn't micromanage intensive enough

[Ashkeldir]

Nightwriter wrote...
But when you go out of your way to be an ass unnecessarily suddenly you’re arguing with someone over stuff that doesn’t even matter. You’ve just ticked each other off and it’s not even about the discussion anymore. 

I see it clearly now.

You think he cares about the discussion.

I'm not sure what gave you that impression.  

Perhaps you are merely an eternal optimist, and choose to see the good in everyone, or that everyone has potential, but I am certain that he knows the difference between right and wrong.  He just doesn't give a rat's ass.  Because this thread wasn't about making a point - he knows that making the point is pointless.  He was venting, and laughing, and he's still laughing now.

Save your energy for someone who will appreciate your insights. This one doesn't want nor need them. He is being who he chooses to be right now. And that is his right, whether or not anyone agrees with him (and some obviously do!) 

[ZOMBO6F]

I've been following this thread for savaral hours and am quite amused by it.Thanks for the entertainment.But renember,ME2 is the 2nd installment of a trilogy.Its a departure from ME1 in many ways,gameplay mechanics,a different type of story line(story arc?)etc.There have been many comparisons to Magnficent 7/7 Samurai.inthe movie a good part consists of finding and convincing the best gunmen to work for peanuts to defend the village.In the 7 samurai a part of the story concerns reforming the Samurai to seek thier revenge against the Shoguns councilor.In both stories the individual circumstances are briefly outlined.I believe that ME2 is the setup for ME3.the characters Shep has recruited and whether or not they are loyal will be a big part of the final eposodes big battle.ME1 and ME2 ars both great games.just my 2 cents

[Ashkeldir]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
If you have a target selected and hit the squad button, it will tell them to attack your target. Attacking targets at low health might be a distinct combat disadvantage given the way cover is done. I'll give you that your team mates should be a bit more discerning about what weapons they use at what range. And, like I've said, I have never played a game with AI squad mates where they did not shoot at walls and do generally retarded things like that. You can only program AI so well. I think AI partners actually using powers minimally is a good thing since I can direct them exactly where I want them instead of them just blowing it on stupid crap.

And I thought one of the reasons "hardcore RPGers" didn't like this game was that it wasn't micromanage intensive enough

If you want to see quality team AI, try playing Band of Brothers : Hell's Highway - some awesome squad AI there - they go where you tell them and they fire where you tell them to, and they stay there until you tell them to move, no matter how far away you are (unless there's a cut-scene or the scenario ends, duh)

 I understand that there are things like pointing at a target and telling the AI to 'action' and that makes them attack that target, but this brings us back to breaking what is supposed to be a more fluid combat system.  If your squad mate is behind cover (and it took a lot of backing up and moving forward to get to that position in the first place) and you press that hot key in the middle of a fire fight (the key that would tell your squad mate to move, or to attack your target, etc) and the enemy has moved out of your 'hot zone', then your squad mate will no longer see the target you had available when you meant to issue the order, but will instead move to the spot that your cursor currently occupies (or die trying to get there, which is more likely, because that's where the baddies are, after all..) The only way around it is pausing the game to make sure you do it right - which means the combat system is not fluid - if I have to pause the game to activate something, that is the opposite of fluid combat...

As far as limited power usage, ME had three options for squad power usage, Off, Defensive, All - but ME2 only has on or off... So I either have to micro manage everything they're shooting at, or let them do what they want...  Either way, they don't do enough at the right times - they do sometimes, but not often enough for my liking - but I suppose it's because I expected more from Bioware.

[Ashkeldir]

ZennExile wrote...

TrojanGuy wrote...

The OP doesn't make much sense to me, honestly.

The real question should be "what did you mean by [ insert stuff here]"  then.  Otherwise the OP doesn't understand your post either.

  <---- for a lot of your posts (just saving space by mentioning it once, because I'm taking up so much space already with my many other pointless posts!)

[SurfaceBeneath]

Ashkeldir wrote...

If you want to see quality team AI, try playing Band of Brothers : Hell's Highway - some awesome squad AI there - they go where you tell them and they fire where you tell them to, and they stay there until you tell them to move, no matter how far away you are (unless there's a cut-scene or the scenario ends, duh)

 I understand that there are things like pointing at a target and telling the AI to 'action' and that makes them attack that target, but this brings us back to breaking what is supposed to be a more fluid combat system.  If your squad mate is behind cover (and it took a lot of backing up and moving forward to get to that position in the first place) and you press that hot key in the middle of a fire fight (the key that would tell your squad mate to move, or to attack your target, etc) and the enemy has moved out of your 'hot zone', then your squad mate will no longer see the target you had available when you meant to issue the order, but will instead move to the spot that your cursor currently occupies (or die trying to get there, which is more likely, because that's where the baddies are, after all..) The only way around it is pausing the game to make sure you do it right - which means the combat system is not fluid - if I have to pause the game to activate something, that is the opposite of fluid combat...

As far as limited power usage, ME had three options for squad power usage, Off, Defensive, All - but ME2 only has on or off... So I either have to micro manage everything they're shooting at, or let them do what they want...  Either way, they don't do enough at the right times - they do sometimes, but not often enough for my liking - but I suppose it's because I expected more from Bioware.

Well, I agree it would be nice if the AI was tightened a bit up, it just never ruined my enjoyment of the game much to constantly be telling them where to go and what to do. I suppose it's my Baldur's Gate upbringing that finds it for some reason an acceptible gameplay mechanic to have to pause the game every 2 seconds to initiate another order . It always annoys my friends if they're watching me play DA:O because battles for me take three times as long as they took (though, to be fair, I play on a higher difficulty). I think the AI was at least a little better than in ME1 although with the spammability of powers in ME1, it did a lot to cover for the fact that your teammates were dumb as a sack of bricks.

[CakesOnAPlane]

Conrad would beat you up for saying that.

[Ashkeldir]

ZennExile wrote...
was the stupid intentional too?  

Now that was just mean for no reason (or did I miss the reason? )  

ZennExile wrote...
Yes I believe the game had to have been written by interns otherwise it would have been a deep and complex story like every other Bioware game in the past.

*nod*

ZennExile wrote...
Yes polite people ****** me off because they are fake.

I have to disagree with you here (for what may be the first time in this thread).

I am both polite and genuine. I choose to be polite;  that doesn't make me 'fake'.

But hey, nobody's perfect, so you had no way of knowing.