465 réponses à ce sujet

[SuperZombieChow]

klossen4 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

how have you played me3??

It's a matter of narrative projection. At the end of ME2's main storyarc your character ends right back where he/she was, plus a very small amount of information on the Reapers and the option to blow up or keep a base. The Reapers have not progressed their plot, and are "looking for another way". Everything in the main storyline gets used up by the end of the game, so that the story returns to square one. It's episodic instead of epic.

Modifié par SuperZombieChow, 26 février 2010 - 03:57 .

[Marilynn-22]

ExtremeOne wrote...

I wish the cry babies would shut up and accept the changes

Indeed

[kraidy1117]

"Entire humsn colonies on many worlds are vanishing. As Commander Shepard, you must assemble the galaxy's deadliest team to save mankind against impossible odds"

Thats the point of the same, right on the back of the case and in the plot summary. Don't like it? PLay ME with it's broken gameplay.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 26 février 2010 - 04:09 .

[FlintlockJazz]

SuperZombieChow wrote...

klossen4 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

how have you played me3??

It's a matter of narrative projection. At the end of ME2's main storyarc your character ends right back where he/she was, plus a very small amount of information on the Reapers and the option to blow up or keep a base. The Reapers have not progressed their plot, and are "looking for another way". Everything in the main storyline gets used up by the end of the game, so that the story returns to square one. It's episodic instead of epic.

Except that you have now built up a team, taken a stance with or against Cerberus, discovered that reapers can be made from a giant blender, learnt that the reapers can repurpose whole species and built up your tea...ah feck it I can't be arsed anymore.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 26 février 2010 - 04:30 .

[SuperZombieChow]

Ok, no disrespect intended but did you guys read my posts?



The game was a triumph. I LOVED the changes to the combat system. I can barely play ME1 anymore because of how slowly the combat moves in comparison. The squad missions were interesting and the character development was superb. I've rarely felt this vindicated in the purchase of a new game. Worth every penny. I've said as much several times through the thread.



But the MAIN storyarc, the one that is supposed to be the major motivating factor of the game, was dissapointingly circular. FlintlockJazz, everything you mentioned comes out during the squad based missions (or in ME1, don't tell me you hadn't figured out between Husks and the Rachnii that the Reapers repurpose entire species). The only part of that list that came form the main storyline is that reapers are Bio-mechanical, and not just artificial constructs.



The fact that the game is excellent doesn't mean that mistakes were not made. I don't care if the Collector threat is only 5 missions long, with the rest of the game being squad based. But make those 5 missions matter by the end of the game. The Collectors smacked of a storyline with a great Point A, a team excited to get to point C, and only a vague idea of some political/social options the player needed to make at Point B. The options are interesting, but the Collectors fumbled their chance at being an impressive foe. Instead of worrying about the Reaper threat, the way I did at the end of ME1, I was left with the impression that the Reapers were almost inept, a menace easily returned to square one by the infallible Commander Shepard. I have every confidence the main storyline is going to be absolutely awesome in ME3, but the Collector threat is the kind of novice, circular filler created by authors who have a superb start, are excited to get to the grand finale, but cant quite manage to keep up momentum in the interim between the two.



TL;DR: Game great. Combat great. Side missions/squad missions great. Collector storyline returns to square one at the end, and is a rather basic mistake for the clearly talented writers at Bioware to make.

[kraidy1117]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

SuperZombieChow wrote...

klossen4 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

how have you played me3??

It's a matter of narrative projection. At the end of ME2's main storyarc your character ends right back where he/she was, plus a very small amount of information on the Reapers and the option to blow up or keep a base. The Reapers have not progressed their plot, and are "looking for another way". Everything in the main storyline gets used up by the end of the game, so that the story returns to square one. It's episodic instead of epic.

Except that you have now built up a team, taken a stance with or against Cerberus, discovered that reapers can be made from a giant blender, learnt that the reapers can repurpose whole species and built up your tea...ah feck it I can't be arsed anymore.

Don't bother flint, some people are too stuborn like a chained varren. It's like the ones who keep on yelling plotholes, even if they are explained they still call it a plothole.

[CmdrFenix83]

Wolverfrog wrote...

I wouldn't mind the missions to have more relation to the main objective. Going through the Omega 4 Relay felt surreal and out of touch with the rest of the game. Going to Illos felt completely and utterly fluid and epic.

Only if you skipped the 12-13hours of sidequests in ME1.  The 'Race Against Time' held little meaning if you were busy driving around some barren wasteland artifact hunting.

[Moogliepie]

SuperZombieChow wrote...

Ok, no disrespect intended but did you guys read my posts?

The game was a triumph. I LOVED the changes to the combat system. I can barely play ME1 anymore because of how slowly the combat moves in comparison. The squad missions were interesting and the character development was superb. I've rarely felt this vindicated in the purchase of a new game. Worth every penny. I've said as much several times through the thread.

But the MAIN storyarc, the one that is supposed to be the major motivating factor of the game, was dissapointingly circular. FlintlockJazz, everything you mentioned comes out during the squad based missions (or in ME1, don't tell me you hadn't figured out between Husks and the Rachnii that the Reapers repurpose entire species). The only part of that list that came form the main storyline is that reapers are Bio-mechanical, and not just artificial constructs.

The fact that the game is excellent doesn't mean that mistakes were not made. I don't care if the Collector threat is only 5 missions long, with the rest of the game being squad based. But make those 5 missions matter by the end of the game. The Collectors smacked of a storyline with a great Point A, a team excited to get to point C, and only a vague idea of some political/social options the player needed to make at Point B. The options are interesting, but the Collectors fumbled their chance at being an impressive foe. Instead of worrying about the Reaper threat, the way I did at the end of ME1, I was left with the impression that the Reapers were almost inept, a menace easily returned to square one by the infallible Commander Shepard. I have every confidence the main storyline is going to be absolutely awesome in ME3, but the Collector threat is the kind of novice, circular filler created by authors who have a superb start, are excited to get to the grand finale, but cant quite manage to keep up momentum in the interim between the two.

TL;DR: Game great. Combat great. Side missions/squad missions great. Collector storyline returns to square one at the end, and is a rather basic mistake for the clearly talented writers at Bioware to make.

I can agree that the Collecters were kind of a convenient, disposable antagonist. But, I also think that the real antagonist here is TIM, you just aren't sure about him yet. If this story were primarily about the Collectors, there would be no need to kill Shepard at the beginning, nor would there be a need to work for Cerberus. They could have your pursuit of the Collectors and your gathering of a team be a continuation of your Spectre duties. Cerberus' role is huge. 

[Habelo]

me2 didnt fail. ME1 was the best game of all time, it is kinda hard to keep up with that. It really felt like me2 was a buildup for me3 though.

DA- now that is something with high EA hands in it. really fail.

Modifié par Habelo, 26 février 2010 - 05:11 .

[SuperZombieChow]

Moogliepie wrote...

I can agree that the Collecters were kind of a convenient, disposable antagonist. But, I also think that the real antagonist here is TIM, you just aren't sure about him yet. If this story were primarily about the Collectors, there would be no need to kill Shepard at the beginning, nor would there be a need to work for Cerberus. They could have your pursuit of the Collectors and your gathering of a team be a continuation of your Spectre duties. Cerberus' role is huge. 

The bolded section is my whole complaint. Somehow I'm being misconstrued as saying the game was terrible, or that bioware have severely dissapointed me and I'll never buy another one of their games and... RAGE!

It's not like that at all. MY objection (I don't pretend to speak for everyone, much less the OP) is that the Collectors were an obvious macguffin. They existed solely to get the character out there recruiting teammates and making decisions like reprogramming the heretics or curing the genophage. At the end of the game there is very little attempt to make what the collectors were doing matter. They show up, act scary for a few missions, then die conveniently without managing to get the reapers any closer to the milky way. If the game had been EXACTLY the same, but at the end you get some information showing that the collectors were a distraction, the reapers playing into Shepard's zeal at making sure they never arrive and leading him on a merry chase across the galaxy while they furthered their real plan (or some other such mention that while shepard fought the collectors, the Reaper storyline progressed, collectors managed to finish their project, etc.), I wouldn't have a single objection.

EDIT SINCE I OUGHT TO ADDRESS YOUR WHOLE POST INSTEAD OF CHERRY PICKING WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT:

TIM clearly has more to do with the series, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out he ends up being the real enemy of ME3. If so though, they really ought to have foreshadowed it a bit more so that ME2 can stand more on its own, instead of requiring ME3 to bring the story together. If the Collectors were a distraction (by TIM or the Reapers) then it should have started to become clear at the end of the game. Shepard should get an inkling that something else is going on, and a vague clue as to what it is. It adds to the dramatic tension leading up to the epic finale that will be ME3.

Modifié par SuperZombieChow, 26 février 2010 - 05:23 .

[Krogan Face]

SuperZombieChow wrote...

Moogliepie wrote...

I can agree that the Collecters were kind of a convenient, disposable antagonist. But, I also think that the real antagonist here is TIM, you just aren't sure about him yet. If this story were primarily about the Collectors, there would be no need to kill Shepard at the beginning, nor would there be a need to work for Cerberus. They could have your pursuit of the Collectors and your gathering of a team be a continuation of your Spectre duties. Cerberus' role is huge. 

The bolded section is my whole complaint. Somehow I'm being misconstrued as saying the game was terrible, or that bioware have severely dissapointed me and I'll never buy another one of their games and... RAGE!

It's not like that at all. MY objection (I don't pretend to speak for everyone, much less the OP) is that the Collectors were an obvious macguffin. They existed solely to get the character out there recruiting teammates and making decisions like reprogramming the heretics or curing the genophage. At the end of the game there is very little attempt to make what the collectors were doing matter. They show up, act scary for a few missions, then die conveniently without managing to get the reapers any closer to the milky way. If the game had been EXACTLY the same, but at the end you get some information showing that the collectors were a distraction, the reapers playing into Shepard's zeal at making sure they never arrive and leading him on a merry chase across the galaxy while they furthered their real plan (or some other such mention that while shepard fought the collectors, the Reaper storyline progressed, collectors managed to finish their project, etc.), I wouldn't have a single objection.

  Ya Ya! what he said  ^

[Daeion]

Krogan Face wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Krogan Face wrote...
   We humans sent of the voyager 1 into space in 1977 an since then its about 10.5 billion miles away from the sun near the edge of our solar system.  If we were to pretend this was our mass relay in dark space then we would first notice we didnt have to go along for the ride, the reapers could have sent the dark space relay remotely taken thousands or hundreds of thousands of yrs traveling at FTL speeds, and even if we "the reapers" did happen to pull the mass relay "voyager 1" along with us we would hardly consider it a reasonable distance and travel time.

Are we able to actually control the Voyager 1?  You're assuming that the reapers can control something that is howmany light years away and park it where they want and that there is no onsite set up needed.  Like I said, I'm not saying FTL is the easiest way for them to come in, I'm just saying it's an option.

 yes we can control voyager 1, and im not assumeing much,  the reapers are advanced machines with incredible computing powers.  Theyd have no problem controling the relay remotley , just as voyager 1 is still responsive to our PRIMATIVE comands  on earth.  Also they  wouldnt even have to control the relay just calculate and preprogram all of the manuvers and when the relay should stop moveing.   

Stop posting just to get the last word, if u dont have a real response then move on.

 Just because the reapers have a relay in dark space dosent mean FTL speeds are a viable or even possible means for them to get to and from there.   Theres no reason to even think reapers ever have made the journey to or from dark space useing FTL, they all probally just started going through to dark space after they confirmed the relay was in position.  They could have simply sent a relay to dark space remotely takeing thousands of yrs, wich is what? like a day in reaper life maybe.  And once they had this safe haven they could build numbers and have an army of reapers ready to repaet this cycle over and over again.

Also I never disagred with your point about alternative mass relays to get to the galaxy, id like to think the reapers have hundreds of contingency plans and that is one of them.

Interesting, I didn't know that we still controlled voyager, I thought we were simply just receiving it's signal.  So are you then argueing that the reapers just sent all the mass relays out across the galaxy and that there was no on site activation required?  Wouldn't you think that they would have wanted to scout ahead of time before just sending a relay somewhere?  Do we know har far into dark space they are?  For all we know they could only be 1 days worth of travel via FTL into dark space.  You are saying that they reapers are advanced enough to remotely control, position, and activate a relay that is how many light years away but they can't have developed FTL drives that are more advanced then what are used in the ME Galaxy? 

To me there's every reason to believe that at some point at least a handful of reapers had to make the journey into dark space to pick a hibernation spot and bring a mass relay with them while at the same time other reapers were moving relays across the galaxy establishing the relay network.  To me it's like Stargate, at some point someone had to make the journey to pick suitable locations and set up the devices.

I'm not posting just to get the last word, I'm trying to have a discussion, seems more like you need to have the last word since you just had to bring this up again...

[DaddyFoxDerek]

Love ME2. I repeat:

BobbyTheI wrote...
I wish the "true fans" would stop making these threads speaking for the rest of us. 

[Daeion]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

SuperZombieChow wrote...

It's a matter of narrative projection. At the end of ME2's main storyarc your character ends right back where he/she was, plus a very small amount of information on the Reapers and the option to blow up or keep a base. The Reapers have not progressed their plot, and are "looking for another way". Everything in the main storyline gets used up by the end of the game, so that the story returns to square one. It's episodic instead of epic.

Except that you have now built up a team, taken a stance with or against Cerberus, discovered that reapers can be made from a giant blender, learnt that the reapers can repurpose whole species and built up your tea...ah feck it I can't be arsed anymore.

You mean my team that could all die except for two of them and I still live?  That team?

[Daeion]

SuperZombieChow wrote...
The game was a triumph. I LOVED the changes to the combat system. I can barely play ME1 anymore because of how slowly the combat moves in comparison. 

I just need to ask because I see this a lot but how was the combat in ME slower then in ME2?  In ME I could keep moving while fighting from area to area and I didn't always know where a fight was going to happen because bioware didn't have to provide a bunch of low level barriers for cover.  In ME2 I spend half my time sitting behind cover waiting for shields and health to recharge.  Don't get me wrong, I love that I can actually head shot targets now, I just don't see how the combat is faster.

[Daeion]

Moogliepie wrote...

SuperZombieChow wrote...

Ok, no disrespect intended but did you guys read my posts?

The game was a triumph. I LOVED the changes to the combat system. I can barely play ME1 anymore because of how slowly the combat moves in comparison. The squad missions were interesting and the character development was superb. I've rarely felt this vindicated in the purchase of a new game. Worth every penny. I've said as much several times through the thread.

But the MAIN storyarc, the one that is supposed to be the major motivating factor of the game, was dissapointingly circular. FlintlockJazz, everything you mentioned comes out during the squad based missions (or in ME1, don't tell me you hadn't figured out between Husks and the Rachnii that the Reapers repurpose entire species). The only part of that list that came form the main storyline is that reapers are Bio-mechanical, and not just artificial constructs.

The fact that the game is excellent doesn't mean that mistakes were not made. I don't care if the Collector threat is only 5 missions long, with the rest of the game being squad based. But make those 5 missions matter by the end of the game. The Collectors smacked of a storyline with a great Point A, a team excited to get to point C, and only a vague idea of some political/social options the player needed to make at Point B. The options are interesting, but the Collectors fumbled their chance at being an impressive foe. Instead of worrying about the Reaper threat, the way I did at the end of ME1, I was left with the impression that the Reapers were almost inept, a menace easily returned to square one by the infallible Commander Shepard. I have every confidence the main storyline is going to be absolutely awesome in ME3, but the Collector threat is the kind of novice, circular filler created by authors who have a superb start, are excited to get to the grand finale, but cant quite manage to keep up momentum in the interim between the two.

TL;DR: Game great. Combat great. Side missions/squad missions great. Collector storyline returns to square one at the end, and is a rather basic mistake for the clearly talented writers at Bioware to make.

I can agree that the Collecters were kind of a convenient, disposable antagonist. But, I also think that the real antagonist here is TIM, you just aren't sure about him yet. If this story were primarily about the Collectors, there would be no need to kill Shepard at the beginning, nor would there be a need to work for Cerberus. They could have your pursuit of the Collectors and your gathering of a team be a continuation of your Spectre duties. Cerberus' role is huge. 

The council won't look into the disapearing colonies so it really wouldn't be a continuation of your Specter duties.  It makes sense to involve Cerberus because this is a human issue and who better to attack it then a human focused group?

[SuperZombieChow]

Daeion wrote...

SuperZombieChow wrote...
The game was a triumph. I LOVED the changes to the combat system. I can barely play ME1 anymore because of how slowly the combat moves in comparison. 

I just need to ask because I see this a lot but how was the combat in ME slower then in ME2?  In ME I could keep moving while fighting from area to area and I didn't always know where a fight was going to happen because bioware didn't have to provide a bunch of low level barriers for cover.  In ME2 I spend half my time sitting behind cover waiting for shields and health to recharge.  Don't get me wrong, I love that I can actually head shot targets now, I just don't see how the combat is faster.

For me it's the ability to keybind several moves (5 counting teammates) at once, and streamlining the power system into a few really useful powers rather then six or seven moderately useful ones. Bringing up the power wheel and cueing up powers was mandatory in ME1, but certain builds can get away with avoiding this in ME2. My Vanguard, for instance, didn't touch the power wheel aside from activating Incendiary Ammo at the start of each mission on his various weapons.

I also like the "click A to jump into cover" mechanic. It feels a bit more deliberate then ME1's "walk up to cover while crouching". I had a bad habit of getting caught out of cover for a few seconds too long on ME1 because in the heat of battle I forgot to crouch, now if I storm up to it I jump into it.

Mostly they're personal preference things. I've tended to be less patient with pause and attack style combat lately. It's actually ruined the final fantasy series for me. 

Modifié par SuperZombieChow, 26 février 2010 - 06:58 .

[Daeion]

SuperZombieChow wrote...

Daeion wrote...

SuperZombieChow wrote...
The game was a triumph. I LOVED the changes to the combat system. I can barely play ME1 anymore because of how slowly the combat moves in comparison. 

I just need to ask because I see this a lot but how was the combat in ME slower then in ME2?  In ME I could keep moving while fighting from area to area and I didn't always know where a fight was going to happen because bioware didn't have to provide a bunch of low level barriers for cover.  In ME2 I spend half my time sitting behind cover waiting for shields and health to recharge.  Don't get me wrong, I love that I can actually head shot targets now, I just don't see how the combat is faster.

For me it's the ability to keybind several moves (5 counting teammates) at once, and streamlining the power system into a few really useful powers rather then six or seven moderately useful ones. Bringing up the power wheel and cueing up powers was mandatory in ME1, but certain builds can get away with avoiding this in ME2. My Vanguard, for instance, didn't touch the power wheel aside from activating Incendiary Ammo at the start of each mission on his various weapons.

I also like the "click A to jump into cover" mechanic. It feels a bit more deliberate then ME1's "walk up to cover while crouching". I had a bad habit of getting caught out of cover for a few seconds too long on ME1 because in the heat of battle I forgot to crouch, now if I storm up to it I jump into it.

Mostly they're personal preference things. I've tended to be less patient with pause and attack style combat lately. It's actually ruined the final fantasy series for me.

Ah yes, I see what you mean with the power wheel, I only touched the xbox version for about an hour before I said this is lame and went back to my keybinds for the PC version.

[Krogan Face]

Daeion wrote...

Krogan Face wrote...

Daeion wrote...

Krogan Face wrote...
   We humans sent of the voyager 1 into space in 1977 an since then its about 10.5 billion miles away from the sun near the edge of our solar system.  If we were to pretend this was our mass relay in dark space then we would first notice we didnt have to go along for the ride, the reapers could have sent the dark space relay remotely taken thousands or hundreds of thousands of yrs traveling at FTL speeds, and even if we "the reapers" did happen to pull the mass relay "voyager 1" along with us we would hardly consider it a reasonable distance and travel time.

Are we able to actually control the Voyager 1?  You're assuming that the reapers can control something that is howmany light years away and park it where they want and that there is no onsite set up needed.  Like I said, I'm not saying FTL is the easiest way for them to come in, I'm just saying it's an option.

 yes we can control voyager 1, and im not assumeing much,  the reapers are advanced machines with incredible computing powers.  Theyd have no problem controling the relay remotley , just as voyager 1 is still responsive to our PRIMATIVE comands  on earth.  Also they  wouldnt even have to control the relay just calculate and preprogram all of the manuvers and when the relay should stop moveing.   

Stop posting just to get the last word, if u dont have a real response then move on.

 Just because the reapers have a relay in dark space dosent mean FTL speeds are a viable or even possible means for them to get to and from there.   Theres no reason to even think reapers ever have made the journey to or from dark space useing FTL, they all probally just started going through to dark space after they confirmed the relay was in position.  They could have simply sent a relay to dark space remotely takeing thousands of yrs, wich is what? like a day in reaper life maybe.  And once they had this safe haven they could build numbers and have an army of reapers ready to repaet this cycle over and over again.

Also I never disagred with your point about alternative mass relays to get to the galaxy, id like to think the reapers have hundreds of contingency plans and that is one of them.

Interesting, I didn't know that we still controlled voyager, I thought we were simply just receiving it's signal.  So are you then argueing that the reapers just sent all the mass relays out across the galaxy and that there was no on site activation required?  Wouldn't you think that they would have wanted to scout ahead of time before just sending a relay somewhere?  Do we know har far into dark space they are?  For all we know they could only be 1 days worth of travel via FTL into dark space.  You are saying that they reapers are advanced enough to remotely control, position, and activate a relay that is how many light years away but they can't have developed FTL drives that are more advanced then what are used in the ME Galaxy? 

To me there's every reason to believe that at some point at least a handful of reapers had to make the journey into dark space to pick a hibernation spot and bring a mass relay with them while at the same time other reapers were moving relays across the galaxy establishing the relay network.  To me it's like Stargate, at some point someone had to make the journey to pick suitable locations and set up the devices.

I'm not posting just to get the last word, I'm trying to have a discussion, seems more like you need to have the last word since you just had to bring this up again...

 First off i ment no offence to u im just bored. 

  That being said u cant seriously belive that the reapers toed all the mass relays into place through out the galaxy as well as the one in dark space, its just to inefficient.  Yes to your second question mostly, im sure the reapers had a semi large area that they occupied before the time of the relays being active, but u seem to be under estimating the distances involved and saying they are more advanced who knows how fast there FTL is, thats a desperate attempt sorry... Also controlling something at a far of distance isnt that amazing like i said with Voyager 1. And why cant the relay have a sensor system that sends back data to the reapers why do u think they had to go to every location to establish a relay thats just silly. Granted even sending data back to the reapers form a trvalling relay could take a while using light speed data streams but after one relay is set up it cuts this travel time drastically its a slow process but it gets faster with each working relay thats into place.  Not sure if theres any refference to anything like sub space in the ME universe but that could also speed up data streams, again not sure about that.  
    Anyway all thats required is to preprograming cordinates or send data streams to the relay thats all thats  required its just what humans do only ramped up and on mega techno steroids. Howerver saying there FTL drives could be amazinglly advanced dosent hold up, how much more advanced? Like mass relay advanced point to point instantly, what if human FTL is 1billion times slower and just as inefficient than Mass relay travel and what Reaper FTL is 1million times slower.  Not to mention reapers are not specialized, they are sapient and have many functions, sending a mass relay out to a destination has only 2 get there and then work as a relay, its a more simple device and dosent waste energy through all the other functioons that reapers have.
   The early reapers may have had a range that simply didnt allow them to grow in numbers and thus u have the whole relay system  that may have taken 100,000 yrs to fully establish but theyve got the time right, and dormant reapers and the cycle of reaping and all that can comense.   Also since the citadel relay conects wit hthe dark space relay and seems to be special in that reguard, then its resonable to assume that the gap between theese 2 relays in greater than any other relay gap. So the citadel relay may have access to far greater resources and power than regular relays maybe the citidel its self amplifies the relay so it can make the jump to and from dark space possible, so it dosent seem like there very close to our galaxy to me.  I think there was a cut scene somewere in there that actually showed the reapers in dark space looking into the galaxy, it looked deep into dark space, but im not sure the distance or if im even remembering the scene corectlly.

Modifié par Krogan Face, 26 février 2010 - 09:09 .

[sedrikhcain]

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

Actually, in most cases, the second part of any trilogy is far more character driven than story driven. You spend a lot of time introducing characters and establishing storylines in the first one. In part two, you expand the audience's understanding of character and and depth to the plot, rather than advancing it a great deal.

Even The Holy Trilogy -- Star Wars  -- follows this format.

[BattleVisor]

These characters of ME2 will probably have to go being Zaeed, Samara, Jack, Thane (unless they find a cure), because they all said they will leave anyways after the mission.

Jacob is going to be axed, due to his unpopularity and hopefully replaced by badass alliance marine soldier.

And lastly I hope Miranda f***ks off. Only good thing about that swollen headed **** was her ass.

So ME3 squad, fingers crossed will be

Ashely/Kaiden, Garrus, Tali, Liara, Grunt/Wrex, Legion, New human male, Mordin and hopefully they find a cure for Thane or introduce one new character.

So that makes it around 8/9 squad members, which is very reasonable.

I dont want to spend 90% of the game creating a new team, or Im just going to return my copy. And discourage all my friends from buying it ME3.

Modifié par BattleVisor, 27 février 2010 - 01:15 .

[Daeion]

sedrikhcain wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

Actually, in most cases, the second part of any trilogy is far more character driven than story driven. You spend a lot of time introducing characters and establishing storylines in the first one. In part two, you expand the audience's understanding of character and and depth to the plot, rather than advancing it a great deal.

Even The Holy Trilogy -- Star Wars  -- follows this format.

Yeah but Star Wars didn't introduce an entirely new cast like of characters like ME2 did.

[Daeion]

BattleVisor wrote...

These characters of ME2 will probably have to go being Zaeed, Samara, Jack, Thane (unless they find a cure), because they all said they will leave anyways after the mission.

Jacob is going to be axed, due to his unpopularity (a given since he is DLC) and hopefully replace by badass alliance marine soldier.

And lastly I hope Miranda f***ks off. Only good thing about that swollen headed **** was her ass.

So ME3 squad, fingers crossed will be

Ashely/Kaiden, Garrus, Tali, Liara, Grunt/Wrex, Legion, New human male, Mordin and hopefully they find a cure for Thane or introduce one new character.

So that makes it around 8/9 squad members, which is very reasonable.

I dont want to spend 90% of the game creating a new team, or Im just going to return my copy. And discourage all my friends from buying it ME3.

Wait wait, Jacob is DLC?

[sedrikhcain]

Daeion wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

Actually, in most cases, the second part of any trilogy is far more character driven than story driven. You spend a lot of time introducing characters and establishing storylines in the first one. In part two, you expand the audience's understanding of character and and depth to the plot, rather than advancing it a great deal.

Even The Holy Trilogy -- Star Wars  -- follows this format.

Yeah but Star Wars didn't introduce an entirely new cast like of characters like ME2 did.

No, it didn't. Wasn't impying  that it did. Just noting that, even in trilogies pretty much universally lauded, character development typically trumps plot development in the second leg. 

[ZennExile]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Daeion wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

I understand where you're coming from, but personally I rather enjoyed the short stories.  They allowed the writers to try out vastly different styles within the same game, from the serial killer hunting in Samara's to the ethical dilemma of Mordin's tale.  Most games these days are built around a central plot, so Bioware's approach was quite refreshing for me.  Then again, I enjoy the idea of cruising around seeking my own adventures Firefly style. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png

So they should sacrifice the main plot for side missions?  Pathetic.

They could've applied that quality and creativity to the main plot, but they didn't.

They screwed it up big time, and all arguments point to "side missions are the plot" crap.  ME2 isn't even a bridge to ME3.  It's completely avoidable.

Actually, in most cases, the second part of any trilogy is far more character driven than story driven. You spend a lot of time introducing characters and establishing storylines in the first one. In part two, you expand the audience's understanding of character and and depth to the plot, rather than advancing it a great deal.

Even The Holy Trilogy -- Star Wars  -- follows this format.

Yeah but Star Wars didn't introduce an entirely new cast like of characters like ME2 did.

No, it didn't. Wasn't impying  that it did. Just noting that, even in trilogies pretty much universally lauded, character development typically trumps plot development in the second leg. 

These comparisons have nothing to do with "REPLACING" plot development with character development.  In some unique cases, yes the character development is more important, but in ME2 character development completely replaces plot development and that's the porblem.

Deluding the problem with nonsense doesn't change this key bit of information.