[/quote]
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
I got some time, so I’ll try and give some feed back without flaming or otherwise. Apologies in advance for the ensuing text wall.
[/quote]
Spoilsport...
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
1) Was it really that far out that they didn’t believe you? To be honest, I’d be a little more suppressed if they did. Let’s face it, Sheppard doesn’t have any proof that he can actually show to the council. I actually thought it was a little odd how Anderson always blindly believed everything you say about the reapers.
[/quote]
Since a reaper literally was dropped on their heads, yes. See it's not that they don't believe me about the new threat being tied to reapers it's that they don't believe the reapers exist and think it was just a really nice ship Sarren happened to find because he was so pimptastic...
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
2) Dancing to me was a none-issue whether or sucked or not. It probably took 5 seconds to add to the game so I doubt anything was sacrificed to include it.
[/quote]
Yep nothing sacrificed but effort, pride, and depth to roleplay mechanics... Really thought it just didn't make sense to have dancing but no actual dance... In the first one shepard could tear it up yet somehow now he/she dances like those guys on "The Whitest Kids you Know".
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
3) Am I the only one who thinks the dark energy thing is going to be the main plot element for ME3? I didn’t think much of it my 1st play through with the quarians but on my ensuing playthroughs I noticed Liara (I think it was her) says something about an odd number of people being interested in information on dark energy. Collapsing suns seems “reaperesque” and apocalyptic, feel free to call me out if I end up being dead wrong. Main point: wait for ME3, then it will make more sense.
[/quote]
If it ends up being a major plot element I will not play ME3. Plain and simple. They wrote this in like a child would write about global warming. They understand nothing about the science behind the theory and just through it in because it "sounds cool". That is benieth a multi billion dollar company that built its reputation on depth in story telling mechanics and makes absolutley no sense.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
4) I don’t understand how Zaeed is out of place. TIM is looking for the deadliest people in the galaxy, Zaeed is a deadly mofo’ who gets sh*t done. Therefore, TIM send you to find him.
5) See above.
6) See above
[/quote]
I answered about Zaeed, Than and Samara already. They are only tied to the story in the most obvious way and in that respect you could have had the super-high volus on your squad and it would have made just as much sense. The point is the lack of depth to their story arcs at all, when they have no direct tie to Cerberus or Shepard or even the main plot, doesn't make sense from a story telling standpoint. There is no reason for them to exist in the story.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
7) It was certainly unexpected, and maybe I’ll admit a bit random, but my 1st thought when doing that mission certainly wasn’t, “this makes no sense”. The only thing that didn’t really flow was the fact that you arrived on the Purgatory via a badass frigate. The Normandy can probably ruin the day of any prison station. So yeah, it wasn’t a work of art, I agree; but it didn’t irk me that much.
[/quote]
Again it's about what makes sense not what was good and bad about it. Purgatory was a sound concept but they didn't flesh it out in any meaningful way. The fact that the warden tried to abduct shepard and sell him was well... borderline bat**** crazy. That was the point.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
8) Conrad is funny. His lines made me laugh. He is part of what makes the Mass Effect universe unique. Other story arcs from other platforms (TV, movie, literature), often posses random quirky characters who’s only purpose is to lighten the mood or add some comedy. Also, as I said in #2, I don’t think it came down to: “we can add this deep/creative story element, or we can bring back Conrad”. If you don’t like him that’s perfectly cool with me and you can complain about him justly, but the game didn’t suffer because he was added.
[/quote]
Conrad was funny "ONCE" in ME1. There were so many mini arcs in ME1 that could have been cameo'd in ME2 that were SOOOO much better and actually made sense. Conrad should have been given tribute by way of news story like all the other plot elements they ignored to waste production time on him.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
9) This one I largely agree with you on. It’s fine on the 1st play through but on ensuing ones it gets very tedious. I would be happy if they removed it, gave you more money for missions, and then made research cost money instead. Course’ that might make buying stuff from stores seem odd, so I dunno. Bottom line: I dislike planet scanning to; don’t know how to fix it without making research of tech seem dumb. Maybe if they highlighted regions on planets that had resources so you only had to scan within highlighted regions and didn’t have to scan every inch on a nondescript space rock.
10) Largely another none-issue issue for me. It takes very little time out of the game (unlike planet scanning) and doesn’t really hurt your funds that much. Seems obvious that ships need to buy fuel so adding it into the game isn’t that weird for me. Plus, it kinda meshes with flying the Normandy around instead of jumping around like in ME1, which I liked (the flying around in ME2 that is).
[/quote]
The part that doesn't make sense is the collecting of fuel. If we have the technology to scan and collect material from orbit we should be able to at the very least refuel at gas giant worlds where we would actually extract fuel ourselves. Fuel depots felt like they were tacked on without rational purpose by some retarded who wanted to feel like he'd brought something meaningful to the table during a whiteboard meeting.
I really don't like it when stupid people are catered to like this. Sometimes you just gotta grow a quad and let that guy or gal know their idea might make sense to them but it seems awefully stupid to everyone else.
It didn't make any sense at all to have refueling stations. Other than that the fact that we had an expandable limit on fuel yet there are no systems outside of the 500 unit max range (round trip 1000) also destroyed the validity of this concept. There was no reason to have it in game no matter how you try to justify it in theory there is no actual or practical application that validates fuel depots in the game.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
11) Loyalty missions were basically the backbone of the game. I don’t want to be the guy who says: “if you don’t like it, don’t play it”, because that’s a stupid response. However you spend probably 40%+ of ME2 on loyalty missions so I do find it odd that you were able to finish the game without killing yourself out of frustration. The only issue I could have with them is that “we’re trying to save the galaxy and we don’t have time for this sh*t!!!” This was my issue with side quests in ME1. However ME2 sort of fixes that with the way the story is structured. Unlike in ME1, Saren isn’t preparing to end galactic life in one fell swoop. The conflict against the collectors was more like a more drawn-out war, as opposed to a single mission. So it made sense to put your squad mate’s demon’s to rest while you wait for TIM to give you your next strike order.
[/quote]
A good writer would have woven the loyalty missions into the main plot. A good writer would not derail the flow of the story to attend to completely unrelated matters. At the very least a good writer would have forced bridges in the story arcs in either build or resolution. The fact that they didn't tie the loyalty missions into the main story elements suggested they ran out of good ideas and just half assed things together.
In either case it doesn't make any sense to completely derail the story to tack on these loyalty missions. "Oh hey Shepard I realise the entire galaxy and the future of every organic species in it is at stake, but can we go see my sister before we head off to save the galaxy?"
Some of the loyalty missions are the opposite of what makes sense.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
12) Yes it’s different then ME1, and yes I thought the explanation in ME1 for no ammo was pretty cool. However, it adds more complexity to combat which is a good thing. Also, it’s not that out of canon with the story. Weapons overheated in ME1 as well, you just had to wait till they cooled down. Instead, you now just pop in a new thermal clip. Not a big deal for me, and well worth it because it added depth to combat and to the different weapons.
[/quote]
Woah woah woah... Let's step back from the keyboard and think this through. ME2 combat is as far from complex as you can get in a modern game. Adding amo you pick up does nothing but create tedium. Realistic option would have been to take a starting loadout and pick up more "weapons" on the way instead of thermal clips that bug and only give you certain kinds of amo and only if you remember to reload....
It made absolutely no sense based on lore because ME1 clearly fleshed out "Why you don't need ammo anymore for gun" AND because it's not realistic to collect heat sinks for your gun when your guns are highly modified and specialized tools built on completely different technology.
Aside from that WHY TEH FUK do husks drop ammo? (sorry thermal clips...) Doesn't make much sense does it. Hense the point of adding it to the list.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
13) You’re correct, many people hated the mako, it was boring to drive even if you were “good at it”. Also its (the Mako) kind of a dumb concept. Why would you drop yourself in an IFV to go drive around a planet, when you could take a faster shuttle? Also, Hammerhead DLC.
[/quote]
Ground transport vehicle is.... a dumb concept? Really? Remember how they tried to make deploying the Mako realistic by dropping it on the planet using the Normandy? Dumb concept to limit gravity on worlds that would have 1/10 the gravity of earth? Dumb concept to use a wheeled vehicle on planets where the atmosphere might make it impossible to using flying vehicles...?
"Really Captain? Probing Uranus..."
And adding vehicles as downloadable content does nothing for the fact that you have no reason to continue exploring the galaxy past the main story arc. The Mako was a realistic attempt at an exploration tool. That was what made it awesome. The only idiots who had issues with the Mako tried to use it to exploit terrain (climbing vertical ridges) and race across Threshr pits without regard for why there might be such a flat well maintained piece of realestate there....
Really though the main reason it makes no sense is both because ME1 had vehicles and "ALL SHOOTERS WORTH A CRAP" have vehicles and the fact that ME2 doesn't... points to a severe lack of forethought. Even Gear of War (the obvious inspiration for combat changes) has sweet vehicles in it. It doesn;t make any sense whatsoever that ME2 released without fully functional vehicles.
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
14) The only true merc in your squad is Zaeed, who doesn’t give you a ship upgrade. Thane was an elite agent of a sovereign galactic government who’s job involved contact/intelligence networks; it’s not that odd he would have a contact that would have that sort of information. Miranda is a high ranking operative in a powerful organization, she could probably get any information you wanted (within reason), her ability to find specs for a scanner upgrade in far from unbelievable. Jacob’s armor upgrade makes perfect sense; he was a privateer for the Alliance and presumably commanded his own small starship. It would be in his best interests to know about ship upgrades. Tali is God’s gift to ship engineering, so yes, she should be able to upgrade the Normandy. The Thanix cannon is probably being put on all new Turian ships, Garrus is a educated Turian who served on a Turian warship, presumably as some kind of gun operator. He probably knows more than most about ship’s weapons tech. Samara’s upgrade is a bit funky. I don’t have a good reason as to why she would have that sort of intell, so that one I concede to you.
[/quote]
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...
[quote]The_Juggern0tt wrote...
15) Your opinion, you’re entitled to it. I don’t really see it.
[/quote]
That's because yer not looking.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
