154 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePatriot101]

Nikitn wrote...

Yeah I'm just trying 2 start a discussion. No need 2 throw flames fails at me.

And no, they removed the lead writer. The story was dumbed down.

So?  What if he was removed?  What did he contribute?  Did he write the whole story himself in ME1?  Was he fired?  Was he transferred?

You can't really prove any point just stating that the lead writer was in ME1 but not ME2.

Who knows, maybe he was GOOD for ME1's story but ME2 needed a different touch.

[Schneidend]

Nikitn wrote...

Yeah I'm just trying 2 start a discussion. No need 2 throw flames fails at me.

And no, they removed the lead writer. The story was dumbed down.

No, it wasn't. It's just character-driven instead of event-driven. Take a literature class or something. Or, just, I dunno, READ LITERATURE.

[Nikitn]

I'm sorry, but in ME1 the story was about saving the galaxy. Building a team was the side story. In ME2 it was vice-versa. Can you see something wrong in this? Hell, what was the final result if we see this in a big picture? Production stopped of a large reaper?

If we see things in a grand scale, whatever shepard did in ME2 is pretty insignificant.

Modifié par Nikitn, 25 février 2010 - 07:25 .

[ThePatriot101]

ME2 wasn't really about saving the galaxy. ME2 was fighting a powerful enemy and a threat (which is just like ME1).

Besides, you repeat the "Saving the Galaxy" cliche too much you're bound to create a bland series.

Modifié par ThePatriot101, 25 février 2010 - 07:30 .

[Nikitn]

Yup, you have a point thepatriot101. My bad, ME2's "main story" (which was in reality a side story, the building of "the team" was the main story in ME2) is really just a side story in the bigger picture. Run around, explore, kill some bad guys, get some companions and stop the collectors from abducting a bunch of small colonies.

in ME1 the entire galaxy was saved from a reaper invasion. I felt that the ending of ME1 was the best and most intelligent one I've ever seen in a videogame. Especially the lore surrounding Illios and that VI there.

Modifié par Nikitn, 25 février 2010 - 07:31 .

[ImperialOperative]

Nikitn wrote...

I felt that the ending of ME1 was the best and most intelligent one I've ever seen in a videogame. Especially the lore surrounding Illios and that VI there.

So you've played maybe 5 games in your life, great.

[ThePatriot101]

Certainly not pointless to Shepard when tens of thousands of humans are being abducted by aliens working with the Reapers.


Or what?  You'd rather wait for the Reapers to show up or are ya going to do something about it?

Modifié par ThePatriot101, 25 février 2010 - 07:33 .

[Schneidend]

Nikitn wrote...

I'm sorry, but in ME1 the story was about saving the galaxy. Building a team was the side story. In ME2 it was vice-versa. Can you see something wrong in this?

In ME1 you were a Spectre, the commanding officer of two of your squadmates, saved the lives of two more of your squadmates, and are helping a fifth bring down a disgrace to his entire race. Wrex is just along for the ride because he's a badass, and therefore he's the only one whose trust you have to earn. Building a team wasn't a side-story in ME1, it wasn't any kind of story. Your companions were handed to you on a platter and you were on the right side of the law.

That wouldn't make sense for a black ops situation like ME2. You can't recruit a bunch of dangerous mercenaries for a suicide mission and have them work together perfectly without plenty of preparation. The ME1 story was about discovering the ancient evil, so character development is generally going to take a backseat to the big, epic journey. ME2, on the other hand, is about getting closure and preparing oneself for almost certain death, both for Shepard and the squad, in order to strike a retaliatory blow against the ancient evil. You're asking for Mass Effect 2 to be like the Lord of the Rings trilogy after Frodo's already dropped the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. You already know the reapers are out there and constitute a threat. The big journey of discovery's over. Now it's time to kill cybernetic Lovecraftian battleship gods and their hapless minions.

[rabbitchannel]

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

What is the point? No matter how good your arguments are, no matter how eloquent and persuasive you can be, you can't reason with people like the OP. In this case I agree that a succinct, "Suck it up and STFU" is the best response. 

[newcomplex]

Yes it is true. When you are operating three gameplay studios and one of them no longer needs a valuable human resource, instead of transferring them, you just fire them despite the amazing work they have done the the past.



TRU STORY.

[newcomplex]

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

Appeal to popularity is a argument when we are talking about
consumer/corperate relationships.    Retard.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 février 2010 - 07:57 .

[withateethuh]

Ignoring the troll, I think the team made a lot of great improvements in writing and dialogue, as well as the actos and the facial animators. Its still in the uncanny valley, but its a major step forward.

[TJSolo]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Nikitn wrote...

Yeah I'm just trying 2 start a discussion. No need 2 throw flames fails at me.

And no, they removed the lead writer. The story was dumbed down.

So?  What if he was removed?  What did he contribute?  Did he write the whole story himself in ME1?  Was he fired?  Was he transferred?

You can't really prove any point just stating that the lead writer was in ME1 but not ME2.

Who knows, maybe he was GOOD for ME1's story but ME2 needed a different touch.

Wasn't he leading a different project at the time of ME2s production?
I would have to search for the information again...So yea the lead writer for ME2 was not the same one for ME1.

[Inarai]

TJSolo wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Nikitn wrote...

Yeah I'm just trying 2 start a discussion. No need 2 throw flames fails at me.

And no, they removed the lead writer. The story was dumbed down.

So?  What if he was removed?  What did he contribute?  Did he write the whole story himself in ME1?  Was he fired?  Was he transferred?

You can't really prove any point just stating that the lead writer was in ME1 but not ME2.

Who knows, maybe he was GOOD for ME1's story but ME2 needed a different touch.

Wasn't he leading a different project at the time of ME2s production?
I would have to search for the information again...So yea the lead writer for ME2 was not the same one for ME1.

Did DA:O, two novels on it, and I think they moved him to TOR now?

[WrexKroganKing]

You realise Drew wrote Ascension, which clearly sets things up for Mass Effect 2.

[varrikh]

Folks, I'll be Cpt. Obvious and announce that I've seen 3 whining threads about ME2 by Nikitn so far. A damn nice troll, just to add my 2 cents.

ME2 plot is real nice but hell, what do you expect from a game which is a sequel to one of the greatest "I'M GONNA SAVE THE GALAXY !"s in the whole damn video games industry?

[ThePatriot101]

Ah ha, he wasn't booted.



Drew Karpyshyn was on the writing staff, but wasn't the LEAD writer.



Here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1891010/

[Inarai]

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

Appeal to popularity is a argument when we are talking about consumer/corperate relationships.    Retard.   

Which isn't the question at hand.  The question isn't "how many like it", but "how good is it".  Qualitative, rather than quantitative.  Absolute dreck without any quality can still be highly popular.

[ImperialOperative]

PilotJoe wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Certainly not pointless to Shepard when tens of thousands of humans are being abducted by aliens working with the Reapers.


Or what?  You'd rather wait for the Reapers to show up or are ya going to do something about it?

His point is that saving 10,000,000,000,000  lives > saving 10,000 lives. 

He's got a point.

No, he doesn't.   If the Collectors managed to finish their project, any attempts by Shepard to stop the Reapers would have been futile.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you don't save any of the abducted colonists.  They're already turned to mush when you get to the base (you can save your crew if you get there in time).

[Nikitn]

Schneidend wrote...

Nikitn wrote...

I'm sorry, but in ME1 the story was about saving the galaxy. Building a team was the side story. In ME2 it was vice-versa. Can you see something wrong in this?

In ME1 you were a Spectre, the commanding officer of two of your squadmates, saved the lives of two more of your squadmates, and are helping a fifth bring down a disgrace to his entire race. Wrex is just along for the ride because he's a badass, and therefore he's the only one whose trust you have to earn. Building a team wasn't a side-story in ME1, it wasn't any kind of story. Your companions were handed to you on a platter and you were on the right side of the law.

That wouldn't make sense for a black ops situation like ME2. You can't recruit a bunch of dangerous mercenaries for a suicide mission and have them work together perfectly without plenty of preparation. The ME1 story was about discovering the ancient evil, so character development is generally going to take a backseat to the big, epic journey. ME2, on the other hand, is about getting closure and preparing oneself for almost certain death, both for Shepard and the squad, in order to strike a retaliatory blow against the ancient evil. You're asking for Mass Effect 2 to be like the Lord of the Rings trilogy after Frodo's already dropped the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. You already know the reapers are out there and constitute a threat. The big journey of discovery's over. Now it's time to kill cybernetic Lovecraftian battleship gods and their hapless minions.

Your argument isn't actually as dumb as I expected. I will answer:

I believe that you are right. It does make seance in making and doing some serious charector recruiting for the kind of background there was in ME2 (going on a suicide mission). Though we must keep in mind that the actions, and indeed results in ME2 were pretty insignificant if we compare it to ME1.

Another thing which I believe is good in ME1 story: The story slowly, but surely revealed itself. First it was saren and the geth who were the bad guys. Then we had 2 find out what they were doing. First off the story led us to galactical domination, but later it turned out to be something far more exciting.

In ME2 the most interesting lore thing I found was the derelict reaper (though where the hell did those hundreds of husks come from? A small research team?), including Legion. It actually revealed some interesting stuff about the Geth.

[ImperialOperative]

Inarai wrote...

Did DA:O, two novels on it, and I think they moved him to TOR now?

DAO lead writer (+novels) is David Gaider.

[newcomplex]

Inarai wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Your opinion is in the minority. Suck it up.

Oh, hey, and appeal to popularity!  Do I need to explain why that's not an argument?

Or that the game isn't 90% shooting unless you skip everything else you possibly can?

Or that the game's plot is all about building your team, and preparing for the toughest mission of your life - either of them?

Or that the plot is very good at being that?  Or that the characters are very good for driving that?  Or that the game's structure is clearly and blatantly built around that?

I mean, really?  Do I?

Appeal to popularity is a argument when we are talking about consumer/corperate relationships.    Retard.   

Which isn't the question at hand.  The question isn't "how many like it", but "how good is it".  Qualitative, rather than quantitative.  Absolute dreck without any quality can still be highly popular.

"Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e.,ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.In some domains, however, it is popularity, rather than other strengths, that makes an action desirable."-wikipedia.

Bioware is a corperation, which is essentially a democracy, with each consumer being a voter.    In this case, what is "better" simply is fucking irrelevent (and subjective, and thus, inprovable).     What matters (and is provable) is what is popular, and the current formula is.    I think it isn't as shallow as the troll OP claims, but I don't even need to debate that point of contention, due to Argumentum Ad populum working in a proper, non fallacious capacity.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 février 2010 - 07:57 .

[Nikitn]

ImperialOperative wrote...

PilotJoe wrote...

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Certainly not pointless to Shepard when tens of thousands of humans are being abducted by aliens working with the Reapers.


Or what?  You'd rather wait for the Reapers to show up or are ya going to do something about it?

His point is that saving 10,000,000,000,000  lives > saving 10,000 lives. 

He's got a point.

No, he doesn't.   If the Collectors managed to finish their project, any attempts by Shepard to stop the Reapers would have been futile.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, you don't save any of the abducted colonists.  They're already turned to mush when you get to the base (you can save your crew if you get there in time).

Hmm, strange. I thought there were many thousands of reapers, and that the human reaper was just a random attempt at creating another one..

Interesting.

[ThePatriot101]

Nikitn wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Nikitn wrote...

I'm sorry, but in ME1 the story was about saving the galaxy. Building a team was the side story. In ME2 it was vice-versa. Can you see something wrong in this?

In ME1 you were a Spectre, the commanding officer of two of your squadmates, saved the lives of two more of your squadmates, and are helping a fifth bring down a disgrace to his entire race. Wrex is just along for the ride because he's a badass, and therefore he's the only one whose trust you have to earn. Building a team wasn't a side-story in ME1, it wasn't any kind of story. Your companions were handed to you on a platter and you were on the right side of the law.

That wouldn't make sense for a black ops situation like ME2. You can't recruit a bunch of dangerous mercenaries for a suicide mission and have them work together perfectly without plenty of preparation. The ME1 story was about discovering the ancient evil, so character development is generally going to take a backseat to the big, epic journey. ME2, on the other hand, is about getting closure and preparing oneself for almost certain death, both for Shepard and the squad, in order to strike a retaliatory blow against the ancient evil. You're asking for Mass Effect 2 to be like the Lord of the Rings trilogy after Frodo's already dropped the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. You already know the reapers are out there and constitute a threat. The big journey of discovery's over. Now it's time to kill cybernetic Lovecraftian battleship gods and their hapless minions.

Your argument isn't actually as dumb as I expected. I will answer:

I believe that you are right. It does make seance in making and doing some serious charector recruiting for the kind of background there was in ME2 (going on a suicide mission). Though we must keep in mind that the actions, and indeed results in ME2 were pretty insignificant if we compare it to ME1.

Another thing which I believe is good in ME1 story: The story slowly, but surely revealed itself. First it was saren and the geth who were the bad guys. Then we had 2 find out what they were doing. First off the story led us to galactical domination, but later it turned out to be something far more exciting.

In ME2 the most interesting lore thing I found was the derelict reaper (though where the hell did those hundreds of husks come from? A small research team?), including Legion. It actually revealed some interesting stuff about the Geth.

And that the Reapers already had something of a beachhead not only through Sovereign but also through the Collectors.  You technically were fighting the Reapers, even if you were fighting their lackeys.  What difference does it make?