10273 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

No, I'm under the impression you think combat is just as important as story and there's such a thing as TOO MUCH dialogue/character interaction, cutscenes, and overall plot. Can you really say I'm way off base there?

Yeah, I can. And I think in an Action RPG combat is just as important as story.

[Ariella]

Dudeman315 wrote...

But in both ME1 and DAO you know your goals--find out more about the prothean vision, find the conduit and confront Saren--, DAO--use treaties for support, stop the blight-- Clear goals that make sense not recruit people to "boldly go where no man has gone before" and stop a mysterious threat that no one really knows anything about nor what to expect on the other side an armada, a base, planet, multiples of any of that, a series of relays to dark space? Just because there are plot twist changes the goal doesn't eliminate that you reasonable could plan for these events.

No one knew what the conduit was either, and extremely little about the Protheans (why you recruit Liara in the first place). And no one knew how extreme the circumstances really were until the very end. In ME2 you get evidence pretty early on that the Collectors and the Reapers are connected, so can better appreciate the threat.

Thing is, I completely understood what the goal of ME2 was from the first meeting with TIM: stop the Collectors. In fact, the Collectors were more of a threat in some ways than Saren was. One of the motivations for stopping Saren was fear he'd attack human colonies beyond Eden Prime. That's just what the Collectors have done, and more sucessfully. The mystery of course is Why, but it's pretty obvious from the beginning they have to be stopped.

As for the Squad differences... ME1 is a pick up group. Completely thrown together by chance. Hell, talk to Garris about the difference between what was done in ME1 and ME2, and he does a pretty good job of breaking it down.

[Ariella]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

In DAO, at one point Sten confronts you and asks what your plan is. Even in game your character doesn't know what his/her plan is. And (I don't really want to do this because I love DAO) why are gathering the treaties? You don't even know how you're going to defeat the Darkspawn, why do you need an army?

In ME1, you don't even know what the conduit is. You're not even totally sure the Reapers exist. And why do you need anyone to come with you? You've always got your crew.

And remember that most of the crew of the Normandy think that going to Ilos is probably a suicide mission, they just don't make as big a deal out of it.

DAO plot aside, a large part of what you're doing in ME 1 is finding out what the Conduit is.  And Shepard at least is sure Reapers exist (or something that fits their description) thanks to the visions from the Prothean beacon. 

Going to Ilos was a last-ditch effort, once the Council and Udina tried to shut you down,  if you die, all you did was deny the Reapers the pleasure of killing you

Actually, Shepard, in the beginning thinks the synthetics may be geth (when Anderson asks about the vision). Shepard doesn't have a real idea of a name until Tali, and even then it's really foggy. The true threat of the reapers doesn't come out until near the end of Virmire.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, I can. And I think in an Action RPG combat is just as important as story.

So say if there's a DLC that's released. Dialogue DLC. 2 hours of nothing but chattin' with your LI for example. Would you download it? Not just to say you played it, but would you/could you actually enjoy 2 hours straight of a game without your thumb getting twitchy for shooting and *that word*?

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 25 mai 2010 - 10:58 .

[Ariella]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, I can. And I think in an Action RPG combat is just as important as story.

So say if there's a DLC that's released. Dialogue DLC. 2 hours of nothing but chattin' with your LI for example. Would you download it? Not just to say you played it, but would you/could you actually enjoy 2 hours straight of a game without your thumb getting twitchy for shooting and *that word*?

Hellz yah... especially if it meant I could have a conversation with Kaiden. Hell, I'd love a DLC wheree you get to reunite with your alliance survivor to do something more along the lines of a James Bond type mission where the shmoozing and the con games are as much or more a part of the game as the action.

[Arwyl]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

So I'm replaying ME1 for the first time in quite a bit, and something occurs to me... this complaint about how it seems like in ME2 you're going around running errands and helping your squadmates deal with their personal issues while the main plot isn't being advanced just seems even more silly now that I'm knee-deep in ME1 and able to draw a more immediate comparison.

I'll say this right off the bat - yes, the main quest missions in ME1 are better. But there's how many of these? Not counting Liara's rescue, which is really just a tunnel shooter mission, there's Feros, Noveria, Virmire and the endgame, and that's it. I'm half tempted to replay the game doing only these missions and clock myself, I'm guessing I'd come in at 12 hours at the most. The rest of the game's play time is spent doing things like listening to a Turian general whining about how the hooker he's in love with won't run away with him while the galaxy might be wiped out any second. Seriously, the side quests have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Reaper threat, and they take up at least as much time as the main quests, the rest being inventory management and running around between vendors.

The turian general, his hooker and the rest of the galaxy are blissfully unaware of the threat of the Reapers, so life for them consists of little things. Their problems, though they may seem frivolous to you in the light of the imminent destruction of all life as we know it, are all-important to them. I think that's realistic. Whether you want to make time to help them or not is up to you. Not helping them will not endanger your mission and the destiny of the galaxy in any way.

In contrast, the self-centered divas that I'm sent to recruit in ME 2 are well aware of the larger scheme of things, or are they? Hmmm... Maybe we should have had regular briefings with the entire team, like in ME 1. Maybe that would have helped them focus. I would have helped them with their issues anyway, even more gladly, if I hadn't felt I was being manipulated into doing so.

And then there's the complaint about the immersion breakers in ME2... apparently a mission complete screen completely ruins the experience for some people, but being told (as opposed to actually seeing it happen) my character has just inserted an Asari trinket into a Prothean artifact, followed by three full screens of text recounting a hallucination that apparently feels like it lasts months... that's somehow acceptable.

No, that was cheap. A cutscene telling that story would have been infinitely better. The only reason I wasn't too bothered about that particular bit is because it was reminiscent of the old text adventures, you know, like back in the 80's, and the earlier adventure/RPGs like Betrayal at Krondor. (Yes, I've been playing games for that long .) You just get used to things being done in a certain way, so they don't shock you or break immersion for you because they're familiar, and because they bring back happy childhood memories . But you're right, it's not acceptable in an otherwise very realistic and immersive game with a strong cinematic nature, certainly not in 2010.

Modifié par Arwyl, 25 mai 2010 - 12:50 .

[spacehamsterZH]

bjdbwea wrote...

You did that exactly as long and as much as you wanted to. Just want to go through the main story? Could always do that. It's beyond me why people demand an RPG to be linear for everyone, just because all your shooters are linear too. ME 1 allowed you to be play it completely linear if that's your desire. It also allowed people to do side missions - missions that indeed have nothing to do with the main story, that's why they're called side missions. This is called freedom.

I find your posts fascinating. You really have missing the point down to an art form.

Let's try this again, because I'm kind of the one who started this week's version of this debate.

One of the more common complaints about ME2 is that the game largely consists of side missions that do nothing to advance the plot, and instead of saving the galaxy, you're running around helping people "solve their daddy issues" or whatever unenlightened generalization you want to come up with for some of the best writing in videogames. However, and this is a point you and many others seem to find completely impossible to grasp, the loyalty quests are completely optional. They're not needed to finish the game. You can just do the recruitment missions and the main missions and end up with most of your squad dying. If you only do that, you have a roughly ten hour, mostly linear game.

Mass Effect 1 is exactly the same, except the sidequests are even more disconnected from the main plot. Thus, the complaint that the loyalty missions are a weakness of ME2 that ME1 doesn't have is null and void. Both games have about the same sidequest to main quest ratio, ME2 has better sidequests, ME1 has better main quests. So if anything, you'd expect the dumb, dumb shooter fans to prefer ME1 because if played purely as a linear game, it's superior to ME2. But according to you, everyone who prefers ME2 is a dumb, dumb shooter fan who only likes linear games and doesn't understand the concept of sidequests, so, uh, yeah. You sort out that conundrum, I don't make dumb generalizations like that based on my own false sense of superiority, so I'm afraid I can't help you with that. (Hint: you're wrong. Start from that and work your way backwards.)

The real problem with ME2 is that there's so little linearity and so much freedom in how to approach things that it ends up feeling a bit disjointed, even though the overall plot logic mirrors the mission structure.

[Icinix]

spacehamsterZH wrote...
The real problem with ME2 is that there's so little linearity and so much freedom in how to approach things that it ends up feeling a bit disjointed, even though the overall plot logic mirrors the mission structure.

Hmm.  I haven't backtracked through the other posts, but this is an interesting take.

Do believe they did feel disjointed though, just not for too much freedom, but not enough.  More like selecting levels in the Animus than an open world that allowed freedom of choice.

[Lumikki]

ME2 loyal missions from RPG perspective was done, because every squad members thinked that going to pass omega relay was one way only. Means, they expected to die in that mission. This of course caused squad members wanting closer for they personal issues before dead, so that they could consenrate better for they jobs, as what's needs to be done.

Do you need to do every loyalty missions, of course not.
Do you need to require every squad members, of course not.

If anyone wanted to just consenrate ME2's main story, it was possible.

I think minimum requirement in ME2 is 2-4 loyalty missions and 4-5 dossiers (after Jacob and Miranda). Never tested it, but that's what I think.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 mai 2010 - 12:18 .

[Arwyl]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

One of the more common complaints about ME2 is that the game largely consists of side missions that do nothing to advance the plot, and instead of saving the galaxy, you're running around helping people "solve their daddy issues" or whatever unenlightened generalization you want to come up with for some of the best writing in videogames.

The stories of the loyalty missions, even of the recruiting missions (well, maybe not Thane, but think Garrus or Samara, for instance) were very well written. I loved them in themselves. I only wish some more effort had gone into linking them to each other and integrating them into the flow of the story, so you'd get a sense of flow from them, instead of having stand-alone missions following one and the same obvious pattern for each character.

However, and this is a point you and many others seem to find completely impossible to grasp, the loyalty quests are completely optional. They're not needed to finish the game. You can just do the recruitment missions and the main missions and end up with most of your squad dying. If you only do that, you have a roughly ten hour, mostly linear game.

But if you do that, and I'm talking from the point of view of Commander Shepard now, so from within the story, you know that you're risking the integrity and success of your mission, which is none less than saving the galaxy and all of its advanced life forms.  You just can't afford not doing those quests!

In ME 1, your mission is not endangered if you decide not to save the asari consort's reputation or not to clean out a particular pirate base. From within the story, these are truly optional.

Mass Effect 1 is exactly the same, except the sidequests are even more disconnected from the main plot. Thus, the complaint that the loyalty missions are a weakness of ME2 that ME1 doesn't have is null and void. Both games have about the same sidequest to main quest ratio, ME2 has better sidequests, ME1 has better main quests.

I wouldn't call the loyalty missions "side quests". The N7 missions, sure; but the loyalty missions are pretty much main quests from my point of view.

The real problem with ME2 is that there's so little linearity and so much freedom in how to approach things that it ends up feeling a bit disjointed, even though the overall plot logic mirrors the mission structure.

I really think it would have felt less disjointed if more brilliant writing had been done "between" the missions, to link and integrate them and make the whole flow more naturally. That would have done a lot for me.

[Zulu_DFA]

Arwyl wrote...

I wouldn't call the loyalty missions "side quests". The N7 missions, sure; but the loyalty missions are pretty much main quests from my point of view.

Mordin's, Tali's, Legion's and by a stretch Kasumi's and Thane's are importand Galaxy-wise. Other loyalty quests are personal matters, with less impact on the Galaxy then many of N7 missions.

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 because it felt episodic and like I could just play a hour or two a day without forgetting some key detail or not having any closure to a plot thread. It had natural "stopping points" throughout.



Of course I played ME2 for 24 hours straight from start to finish, so I didn't experience it that way. But on replays I found it much easier to get back into ME2 than the original.

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

You know, just out of curiousity, where there any threads like these when Mass Effect (1) came out? Where people there expressing their opinions about wether it was too much of an Shooter/RPG? Sorry if I went off topic here.

(Add brackets to the ends)

img]http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5319/caela3a.jpg[/img
img]http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/828/caela3b.jpg[/img

There weren't as many people because there was nothing else with which to compare Mass Effect 1.

What does that banner thing have to with my question?

People are less likely to nitpick a game they just bought, especially when there's nothing similar to compare it.

With Mass Effect 2, many of the aspects people complain about are also present in Mass Effect 1, yet they point out these flaws believing that they never existed in Mass Effect 1.

It's like watching Transformers 1 and 2 and then complaining that 2 had too many robots or too many explosions.

[spacehamsterZH]

Arwyl wrote...
The stories of the loyalty missions, even of the recruiting missions (well, maybe not Thane, but think Garrus or Samara, for instance) were very well written. I loved them in themselves. I only wish some more effort had gone into linking them to each other and integrating them into the flow of the story, so you'd get a sense of flow from them, instead of having stand-alone missions following one and the same obvious pattern for each character.

Yeah, I agree. After I posted elsewhere that I think we would feel more invested in the characters if there just weren't so damn many of them, I asked myself which ones I'd remove and it's really hard because they're all well developed, but frankly, some of these characters and their backstories seem... wasted on this game. Take Kasumi, for example. She's a great character, but did she really need to be in this game?

But if you do that, and I'm talking from the point of view of Commander Shepard now, so from within the story, you know that you're risking the integrity and success of your mission, which is none less than saving the galaxy and all of its advanced life forms.  You just can't afford not doing those quests!

Well, yeah. But that's what I meant when I said there's more of a logical reason in terms of the story for these missions to be there. Purely from a gameplay perspective, i.e., what you have to do to get to the end of the game, they're optional. But the story very much says that you should do them. Although I'd argue that a true renegade Shepard would just flip all these whiny divas the bird and throw them to the wolves.

[finnithe]

Darth Drago wrote...

finnithe wrote...

The mistake you are making is discounting every biotic as a spell-chucker, aka a squishie or glass cannon. Jack, Jacob, Legion and Garrus are hybrid characters. Jack and Jacob, despite being biotics, are soldiers. Bioware also has practice some gameplay and story separation obviously, as I'm sure Thane is proficient with technology as well as biotics, as an assassin would have to be. Jacob, as an Alliance soldier/Corsair, obviously has a variety of types of combat/arms training. Jack is shown to be a much deadlier biotic in cutscenes than she is in the game. Just going by their "game" representations is flawed, as Bioware has to balance their in-game representations to ensure that combat is challenging.

-First off, a full soldier is someone I consider to be able to use an assault rifle, (the main weapon of any soldier) as their main form of attack. Only Grunt, Garrus (to some extent) and Zaeed fill this role.
-Next, Jack is in no way a soldier, period. She is a heavy biotic who can use a shotgun in addition to a pistol, unlike Samara/Morinth who can use assault rifles.
-Jacob is also no soldier he is a vanguard. He is only proficient in pistols and shot guns.
-Thane is not proficient in tech skills at all. His powers/skills are Throw, Warp, Shredder Ammo and Drell Assassin (which only helps health and weapon damage). He should have had a tech skill I will agree on that.
-A hybrid in this game would be only Mordin  Samara and Morinth. Everyone else can be practically broken down into the classes in the game.

If I had to classify them based on their powers (roughly):
Vanguard: Jacob
Sentinel: Miranda, Thane
Soldier: Grunt, Zaeed and Garrus (more so than another class)
Infiltrator: Kasumi
Engineer: Tali and Legion
Adept: Jack
Hybrid like: Mordin, Samara and Morinth.

I don't think you read my post. I said that their ingame representations are made less powerful to make the game balanced and challenging. Thus, judging the party members based on their in-game representations is flawed. Similarly, cut scene Shepard uses AR's because real Shepard would obviously have training in it.

EDIT: Why do the party members have to be affected by the Collectors. Most people who see the Collectors don't exactly come back. It'd be a bit convenient to find a bunch of people with a stake in the fight. 

Modifié par finnithe, 25 mai 2010 - 02:15 .

[Arwyl]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

 Although I'd argue that a true renegade Shepard would just flip all these whiny divas the bird and throw them to the wolves.

LOL  Even my paragon Shepard felt tempted to do so at times!

Modifié par Arwyl, 25 mai 2010 - 02:53 .

[Arwyl]

Why ME 2 felt disappointing to me, Part 3.
 
I started this series of posts a couple of days ago to try to figure out why, to me, ME 2 hadn’t been the deeply immersive experience that ME had been. Why, in that sense, it had been a disappointment. I think the main reasons boil down to a few things:
 
1-       The ever present, obvious and predictable structure of the game.
2-       The linear structure of the levels and the sense of limitation.
3-      The lack of true continuity with ME.
4-      Intrinsic story elements that I found less compelling than in ME.
5-      The more cartoonesque, comic-like, overall feeling of ME 2.
 
The structure of the game. In a sense, ME was more linear than ME 2, in the way that certain missions could be acquired only after completing other missions and that events succeeded each other and often had a connection in terms of cause and effect. However, I never felt that the storyline was limiting my freedom because it was well written: it had a logical, natural flow to it. And, most importantly, it did tell a story, and a good one at that. The true nature of the threat you were facing did not become fully evident until you had spoken to Vigil on Ilos, just before the final battle. Until then, you had been second-guessing and searching for clues, chasing a graspable, “human-sized” enemy only to find out that the real threat was something much, much larger, almost beyond comprehension. And the way to that realization was full of surprising plot twists.
 
Admittedly, you start ME 2 knowing who the real enemy is, so the job of telling an equally compelling story is much harder to pull off. But does that mean that the challenge should be avoided altogether? The Reapers were noticeably absent from ME 2, but I’ll go into this deeper when I touch on the topic of the lack of continuity.
 
My point being that ME 2 does not really tell a story. We are presented with a new enemy: the Collectors. We are told from the start that they’re connected to the Reapers and that fighting them on their base is probably going to result in a suicide mission. The only thing that is left in the dark until the end is why they are abducting humans, which the end doesn’t make very clear either. What’s so special about humans? Why does a race of sentient machines that wipes out all advanced organic life from the galaxy every 50 000 years now show such a sudden and exclusive interest in humans? But this too is better left for another topic.
 
ME 2 does not really tell a story. ME 2 is more like a cookbook, a roadmap, a DIY manual. Here are the ingredients and that’s the finished dish, and here’s how you cook it. You start at A and you’re going to B: these are the possible routes that will bring you there. These are your building materials and this is how you go about making the best possible cupboard. You can also make a less nice cupboard or a less tasty dish by skipping some of the steps. But if you want the best possible outcome, we’ll tell you exactly how.
 
It’s that omnipresent structure of the game that breaks the tension for me. I know where I’m going and I know what steps I need to take to get there. Moreover, by counting the number of slots in my squad screen, I know how many steps I’ll need to take to reach the desired result. These steps also follow an easily recognizable pattern: wash vegetable, chop vegetable, move to the next vegetable. There are no surprises along the way. Even the most important discovery of the game – that I need an IFF device to go through the Omega 4 relay in one piece – is not something that I discover but something that the game, through the demiurgic figures of EDI and the Illusive Man, hands over to me. I don’t need to figure out anything myself. The game has figured it all out for me and drawn me the roadmap. All I need to do is passively follow the instructions. I’m not the one saving the galaxy with my decisions and actions; the Illusive Man is. I’m just a tool in his hands, following his instructions. But this belongs on the list of intrinsic story elements that caused me to feel less involved, at an emotional level, with the events unfolding in the game, and I’ll expand on it later.
 
The loyalty missions (and some of the recruitment missions) were brilliantly written stories which did tell stories and managed to get me emotionally involved. But at the end of each of them it was back to the DIY structure: okay, fastened screw 3 in slot c, check, now what?
 
For me, the structure of the game killed the sense of being involved in something larger than life, something that was unfolding in the universe and that I had to prevent at all costs. There just wasn’t anything unfolding and forcing me to act, to decide. The clear-cut structure of the game had killed the epic feeling.

[Tempest]

I do not understand the complaints about the loyalty missions. They were great and fleshed out nicely to make the squadies more organic. The only problem I got from ME2 about the loyalty missions was that...it was all we got. No continues fights or praise of Cerberus depending on what your "moral" was. No building more of Shepard's character (This is barely game #2, why do we lack character development half ways through the trilogy?) No real investigation about what the collectors are. (TIM seems to be the one doing all this, but we get very little to no info on what he has so far. Remember he is the one telling us that he is the one gathering information and that shepard is to just focus on member recruitment. I don't really blame him, I blame the story.) Well those are my personal pet peeves.

[finnithe]

Arwyl wrote...

Why ME 2 felt disappointing to me, Part 3.
 
I started this series of posts a couple of days ago to try to figure out why, to me, ME 2 hadn’t been the deeply immersive experience that ME had been. Why, in that sense, it had been a disappointment. I think the main reasons boil down to a few things:
 
1-       The ever present, obvious and predictable structure of the game.
2-       The linear structure of the levels and the sense of limitation.
3-      The lack of true continuity with ME.
4-      Intrinsic story elements that I found less compelling than in ME.
5-      The more cartoonesque, comic-like, overall feeling of ME 2.
 
The structure of the game. In a sense, ME was more linear than ME 2, in the way that certain missions could be acquired only after completing other missions and that events succeeded each other and often had a connection in terms of cause and effect. However, I never felt that the storyline was limiting my freedom because it was well written: it had a logical, natural flow to it. And, most importantly, it did tell a story, and a good one at that. The true nature of the threat you were facing did not become fully evident until you had spoken to Vigil on Ilos, just before the final battle. Until then, you had been second-guessing and searching for clues, chasing a graspable, “human-sized” enemy only to find out that the real threat was something much, much larger, almost beyond comprehension. And the way to that realization was full of surprising plot twists.
 
Admittedly, you start ME 2 knowing who the real enemy is, so the job of telling an equally compelling story is much harder to pull off. But does that mean that the challenge should be avoided altogether? The Reapers were noticeably absent from ME 2, but I’ll go into this deeper when I touch on the topic of the lack of continuity.
 
My point being that ME 2 does not really tell a story. We are presented with a new enemy: the Collectors. We are told from the start that they’re connected to the Reapers and that fighting them on their base is probably going to result in a suicide mission. The only thing that is left in the dark until the end is why they are abducting humans, which the end doesn’t make very clear either. What’s so special about humans? Why does a race of sentient machines that wipes out all advanced organic life from the galaxy every 50 000 years now show such a sudden and exclusive interest in humans? But this too is better left for another topic.
 
.

]

I don't know if you realized this, but it's obvious what the Reaper's plans for the humans are considering the endboss. Even Mordin makes some comments about humans' genetic diversity being a possible factor for the Reapers' interest.

The real threat in ME2 doesn't lie in the Collectors, but what the Reapers will do to the humans and how the Collectors represent a race warped by their influence. It just plays on the theme of self-determination and freedom that Legion says all races should follow. In Mass Effect you are trying to save your race from being destroyed, while in Mass Effect 2, you are trying to save your race from something much worse; you are saving them from being enslaved. 

[Lumikki]

Darth Drago wrote...

If I had to classify them based on their powers (roughly):
Vanguard: Jacob
Sentinel: Miranda, Thane
Soldier: Grunt, Zaeed and Garrus (more so than another class)
Infiltrator: Kasumi
Engineer: Tali and Legion
Adept: Jack
Hybrid like: Mordin, Samara and Morinth.

Soldier: Asley, Grunt, Zaeed
Vanguard: Jacob, Thane, Jack
Infiltrator: Garrus, Kasumi
Engineer: Tali, Mordin, Legion
Adept: Kaidan, Wrex, Liara, Samara, Mortinth
Sentinel: Miranda

This is based they powers what they have. Assuming, that Overload is technical power and all "ammo" powers are combat abilities, not technical or bionic powers.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 mai 2010 - 05:01 .

[Iakus]

Arwyl wrote...


The way in which you recruited the characters in ME 1 was also a lot less obvious and it was nicely woven into the plot, as opposed to the plot being "go and recruit those characters" like in ME 2. To acquire Tali's, Garrus's and Wrex's personal quests in ME 1 you just talked to them because you felt like talking to them, and then they'd casually bring it up. And if you went to talk to them later they wouldn't tell you "I'm not saying anything else until you help me with my stuff". In ME 2, I felt pushed all the time. Kelly would push me to go talk to the characters; the characters would push me to go do their missions, the missions would appear as huge labels on the galaxy map... Reminders everywhere of what I was supposed to do, almost as if the developers thought that I would forget otherwise. I resented that. I prefered the care and effort that was put in ME 1 to integrate things, link quests, hide the obvious and make the story and the sequence of events flow more naturally, while at the same time giving me the illusion of free will, which I never had in ME 2.

I completely understand.  It's like the game doesn't expect you to remember to, you know, play the game and has to nudge you in the right direction.

[Mister Mida]

Lumikki wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

If I had to classify them based on their powers (roughly):
Vanguard: Jacob
Sentinel: Miranda, Thane
Soldier: Grunt, Zaeed and Garrus (more so than another class)
Infiltrator: Kasumi
Engineer: Tali and Legion
Adept: Jack
Hybrid like: Mordin, Samara and Morinth.

Soldier: Asley, Grunt, Zaeed
Vanguard: Jacob, Thane, Jack
Infiltrator: Garrus, Kasumi
Engineer: Tali, Mordin, Legion
Adept: Kaidan, Wrex, Liara, Samara, Mortinth
Sentinel: Miranda

This is based they powers what they have. Assuming, that Overload is technical power and all "ammo" powers are combat abilities, not technical or bionic powers.

Kaidan is a Sentinel.

[Lumikki]

Mister Mida wrote...

Kaidan is a Sentinel.

What's Kaidan's technical power?
I mean he need one to be Sentinel.

PS: I did not count general powers from ME1, like electronic, decryption, medicine and so on, because they don't even exist in ME2.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 mai 2010 - 05:17 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Lumikki wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Kaidan is a Sentinel.

What's Kaidan's technical power?
I mean he need one to be Sentinel.

Electronics and decryption, and it clearly says Sentinel in his profile.

[Mister Mida]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Kaidan is a Sentinel.

What's Kaidan's technical power?
I mean he need one to be Sentinel.

Electronics and decryption, and it clearly says Sentinel in his profile.

*nods*
EDIT: just because these powers don't exist in ME2 doesn't make Kaidan any less a Sentinel.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 25 mai 2010 - 05:29 .