10273 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

IoCaster wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...


"The fact that none of Shepard's qualities/reasons why Cerberus brought Shepard back are even used in the story is what makes it tellingly absurd." One of his qualities told by Illusive Man is his charisma. That is shown in the game at even gathering effed'up people like Jack, Samara or Grunt, the player as Shepard can manage to gather their trust.

k thx bai.

How is this evident in the game?

Tali and Garrus are colleagues from ME and it makes sense that they're willing to join the team.

1. Jacob - Worked for Cerberus before Shepard is brought on the scene. Don't need to recruit.

2. Miranda - Career Cerberus operative and doesn't really trust Shepard initially. Don't need to recruit.

3. Grunt - Tank bred and recently hatched. How would he have any idea who Shepard is?

4. Jack - Doesn't care about Shepard and only joins the team to get access to Cerberus files.

5. Mordin - A retired Salarian operative that joins the team because Shepard makes a deal to kill some Vorcha and cure the plague.

6. Samara - Joins the team because Shepard gets her the information about Morinth.

7. Thane - He's the only one that I can recall, other than Miranda or Jacob, that makes any reference to Shepards history and reputation.

8. Zaeed - A hired mercenary.

9. Kasumi - A hired mercenary. She refers to herself as a fan, so a case can be made that she was personally influenced by Shepards 'charisma'.

10. Legion - Not sure what to make of a creepy Geth stalker and what might possibly motivate it.

I'm not sure how 'charisma' and 'natural leadership ability' actually plays such a large role in recruiting the majority of these characters. If you don't do their loyalty missions, all of that 'charisma' and 'leadership ability' doesn't seem to matter anyway.

They all gain your trust later in loyalty missions.
And Legion joined you since you fought Heretic Geth and killed their "god".

Modifié par Mesina2, 02 juin 2010 - 11:21 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Mesina2 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

A paper,scissors,rock system to remove "protections".

What?

rapid fire weaponry/overload beats shields.

Incinerate/warp and high
velocity rounds beat armour

Warp beats barrier

scissors cut paper

rocks break scissors

paper covers rock

Its all very dumbed down, and with the rest of combat mostly being taken up by popping out of cover and easily shooting enemies in the head, arguably very tedious and boring.

[CroGamer002]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

A paper,scissors,rock system to remove "protections".

What?

rapid fire weaponry/overload beats shields.

Incinerate/warp and high
velocity rounds beat armour

Warp beats barrier

scissors cut paper

rocks break scissors

paper covers rock

Its all very dumbed down, and with the rest of combat mostly being taken up by popping out of cover and easily shooting enemies in the head, arguably very tedious and boring.

How about you play game on Hardcore?

[kalle90]

Darth Drago wrote...

Gundar3 wrote...
its getting to the point that if each of the games are so completely stand alone that the plots have a hard time linking, why bother calling it a trilogy?

A: All of the the Mass Effect titles standalone. The beginning of Mass Effect 2 is really meant to let players experience Mass Effect for the first time. We really want to look at Mass Effect 3 as a standalone title where the ending is going to feel satisfying.”

These comments make the future quite grim IMO. It's good newcomers are welcomed but I always thought ME was build entirely on story and consequenses. Making stories (and gameplay choices with them) seperate isn't the best way to handle things.

So basically we can expect ME3 to change the gameplay heavily again and the story gets a fresh start again with new squadmates etc? So what exactly seperates this trilogy from the future spinoff games? Shepard? A person who has thousands of variations

Games like Halos, Splinter Cells and such might be light on their stories but playing them in a row atleast gives me a sense of progression.

[Ecael]

IoCaster wrote...
Being killed and resurrected in some ridiculously contrived and stupid plot so that I can be forced to bend over for TIM/Cerberus is a monumental crapfest. 

If you enjoyed that obnoxiously idiotic story progression then I'm truly happy for you. Although it begs the question, what the hell are you doing in a thread dedicated to discussing player disappointment with ME2?

Are you seriously so narcissistic and impressed with your own powers of persuasion that you believe that you can convince people to see things as you do? Is it actually possible that you believe we're all too stupid to recognize what a wonderful story and plot ME2 have and that you'll set us straight?

What's really narcissistic are the people complaining about the game as if they can somehow magically change the main plot of Mass Effect 2. Even Mass Effect 3's main storyline was most likely planned out well before Mass Effect 2 was ever released, so I don't see the usefulness in whining about it.

The goal isn't to force people to like the game, but to show them just how similar the two are - as in, if you didn't like one game, you really don't have the right to like the other. People keep talking about Mass Effect 2 trying to target a larger audience, but the entire premise of the Mass Effect trilogy has been to do that.

• When BioWare decided to make Mass Effect 1 combat based on third-person shooting with lots of weapons and non-stop shooting, did you think they were targeting an RPG audience and not making it more 'immediate'?
• When BioWare decided to include ground vehicle combat (in the Mako) for lots of 'splosions, did you think they were targeting an RPG crowd?
• When BioWare decided to include sex scenes in Mass Effect 1 for FOX News to conveniently advertise report on the controversy, did you think they were really targeting an older audience or a younger one?
• When BioWare decided to leave planets in Mass Effect 1 barren and empty with a map giving you a linear path from the Mako to the single base/facility, did you think they really wanted people to explore?

Mass Effect 1 and 2 have always targeted the shooter crowd, trying to get them to play a hybrid RPG so that they will consider playing other BioWare games.

The only disappointment I have with Mass Effect in general are the people who don't realize just how similar they are in concept (they even have the same writers from Mass Effect 1), and the only thing that's been "dumbed down" are the repetitive arguments that all use the same talking points and phrases - even though the complaints can be said of both Mass Effect 1/2.

Neither are perfect, but people are making Mass Effect 1 to be some "perfect" game that doesn't actually exist in reality. If people compared both games to RPGs outside of BioWare, they'd see very quickly that neither are really "true RPGs" at all.

Modifié par Ecael, 02 juin 2010 - 11:38 .

[Lumikki]

smudboy wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

If You don't know why Shepard was choosen, maybe you should play the game intro again, it was told first, when TIM and Miranda talked.

While beating a dead horse, the various reasons why Shepard was chosen do not make Shepard integral to the plot, unless those reasons are proven in the plot.  The reasons (within relative and limited scope, are fine, all before Shepard becomes a corpse, and only before 2 years go by), grant Shepard's existence within the story.  I've argued this ad nauseum in comparison to ME1 (regarding Chosen Status and Plot Integrity.)

So, why was Shepard choosen to be Scepter. Did all those reason just disappear in ME2?

Cerberus also has bad reputation in galaxy, they needed someone who is not just great leader and can inspire others to follow, but would actually be accepted even when be with cerberus. Because Shepards past accomplishment, they know what Shapard can do. It's about charismatic and fame, short of front face for cause. Also it's about Shepard get the job done. It's about when Shepard stands next to you, it's attitude, voice and fearless leadership, what makes you trust him/her.  Natural leader, it's not easy to find that kind person.

You have so negative attitude that you can't even see what's front of you. Oh yes, the ME2 plot is full of holes, I even agree that and you think it's suck. That's fine, it isn't really that good writing, but give me break. You let that to affect everyting.

Why TIM did bring Shepard back from dead, wasn't there any other option. Good question. How ever, that has nothign to do why Shepard was choosen. I ques TIM did not know any other who could get job done and Shepard did get the job done.

Modifié par Lumikki, 02 juin 2010 - 12:07 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Mesina2 wrote...

How about you play game on Hardcore?

How bout I play the game on insanity, like I did already, and prove that that describes ME2s combat TO THE LETTER.

Its about "precision shooter combat and debuffs, and following the debuffs a quick use of physics power overkill - or to save time, a headshot".

[Mister Mida]

Ecael wrote...

The goal isn't to force people to like the game, but to show them just how similar the two are.

No intention to get caught in the cross fire over here but just a small statement. Just because you think ME (1) and ME2 are similar, doesn't mean that other people, among them an amount who come here to criticize either ME (1) or ME2 have the same opinion. Because if they did feel they were similar they wouldn't come to here to speak their mind about how much different they are.

[CroGamer002]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

How about you play game on Hardcore?

How bout I play the game on insanity, like I did already, and prove that that describes ME2s combat TO THE LETTER.

Its about "precision shooter combat and debuffs, and following the debuffs a quick use of physics power overkill - or to save time, a headshot".

I usualy get owned on Insanity by dogs and charging enemies with shotguns( Blue Suns Turians-weak-, Geth Hunters-hard- and Krogans-insane-) while their allies are covering them from range.
Don't tell me you don't.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Mesina2 wrote...

I usualy get owned on Insanity by dogs and charging enemies with shotguns( Blue Suns Turians-weak-, Geth Hunters-hard- and Krogans-insane-) while their allies are covering them from range.
Don't tell me you don't.

I got owned on insanity by the sheer gulf in toughness between my character, and the enemies that are spamming me.

I step out of cover for three seconds, Im dead. My enemies can advance on me while Im forced to cower behind cover, while I have to chip away at their defenses.

Thats ME2 on insanity: enemy spam with vastly superior defenses.

Even my biotics are nigh useless against an enemy with "armour" rating (logic fail FTL)

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 02 juin 2010 - 11:58 .

[Ecael]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

The goal isn't to force people to like the game, but to show them just how similar the two are.

No intention to get caught in the cross fire over here but just a small statement. Just because you think ME (1) and ME2 are similar, doesn't mean that other people, among them an amount who come here to criticize either ME (1) or ME2 have the same opinion. Because if they did feel they were similar they wouldn't come to here to speak their mind about how much different they are.

Nostalgia.

If Mass Effect 1 had a predecessor (Mass Effect 0?), there would be the same number of people complaining about Mass Effect 1 and its focus on shooting, 'splosions and decentralized plot regardless of what Mass Effect 0 is or was.

Modifié par Ecael, 02 juin 2010 - 12:00 .

[CroGamer002]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

I usualy get owned on Insanity by dogs and charging enemies with shotguns( Blue Suns Turians-weak-, Geth Hunters-hard- and Krogans-insane-) while their allies are covering them from range.
Don't tell me you don't.

I got owned on insanity by the sheer gulf in toughness between my character, and the enemies that are spamming me.

I step out of cover for three seconds, Im dead. My enemies can advance on my behind cover while I have to chip away at their defenses.

Thats ME2 on insanity: enemy spam with vastly superior defenses.

Even my biotics are nigh useless against an enemy with "armour" rating (logic fail FTL)

Then why is then ME2 dumbed?
Noly fun I found in ME2 is on Hardcore difficulty( Vetran and lower are too easy while Insanity is just insane).

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Ecael wrote...

Nostalgia.

If Mass Effect 1 had a predecessor (Mass Effect 0?), there would be the same number of people complaining about Mass Effect 1 and it's focus on shooting, 'splosions and decentralized plot regardless of what Mass Effect 0 is.

Thats absolute garbage. The difference in structure between both games is plain for anyone to see.

Mass Effect 1 followed a kind of KOTOR styled structure, and the game unfolded like a mystery.

Mass Effect 2 followed a series of disconnected missions, most entirely dominated by shooter combat in one off, shooting gallery locations.

There are CLEAR and VISIBLE differences between the games, and they are ones not everyone has to agree with.

Cover your eyes and say "THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME IN THE END!" if you want, but it doesnt change the fact that there are those of us who see the diffecence, and dont like it.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 02 juin 2010 - 12:05 .

[CroGamer002]

Ecael wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Ecael wrote...

The goal isn't to force people to like the game, but to show them just how similar the two are.

No intention to get caught in the cross fire over here but just a small statement. Just because you think ME (1) and ME2 are similar, doesn't mean that other people, among them an amount who come here to criticize either ME (1) or ME2 have the same opinion. Because if they did feel they were similar they wouldn't come to here to speak their mind about how much different they are.

Nostalgia.

If Mass Effect 1 had a predecessor (Mass Effect 0?), there would be the same number of people complaining about Mass Effect 1 and its focus on shooting, 'splosions and decentralized plot regardless of what Mass Effect 0 is or was.

And Mass Effect -1 nostaligic fans would complain about something about Mass Effect 0.

Geez, this reminds me on those classic Nintendo fanboys we have on Youtube.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Mesina2 wrote...

Then why is then ME2 dumbed?
Noly fun I found in ME2 is on Hardcore difficulty( Vetran and lower are too easy while Insanity is just insane).

Because that same simplistic "rock paper scissors/BOOM headshot" gameplay permeats nearly the entire game. Well over 60% of my gameplay experience in Mass Effect 2 was traversing shooting gallery stages littered with waist high walls and ending with a mission complete screen.

I think Mass Effect 2 by comparison to Mass Effect 1 has been cut to pieces and made into "shooter levels".

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 02 juin 2010 - 12:06 .

[CroGamer002]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Nostalgia.

If Mass Effect 1 had a predecessor (Mass Effect 0?), there would be the same number of people complaining about Mass Effect 1 and it's focus on shooting, 'splosions and decentralized plot regardless of what Mass Effect 0 is.

Thats absolute garbage. The difference in structure between both games is plain for anyone to see.

Mass Effect 1 followed a kind of KOTOR styled structure, and the game unfolded like a mystery.

Mass Effect 2 followed a series of disconnected missions, most entirely dominated by shooter combat in off, shooting gallery locations.

There are CLEAR and VISIBLE differences between the games, and they are ones not everyone has to agree with.

Cover you eyes and say "THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME IN THE END!" if you want, but it doesnt change the fact that there are those of us who see the diffecence, and dont like it.

People who say that games are same should shoot them self.
They are lot of diffrences.
But to me they are equaly great.
ME1 has epic story and good gameplay while ME2 really, really great gameplay and good story.

[CroGamer002]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Then why is then ME2 dumbed?
Noly fun I found in ME2 is on Hardcore difficulty( Vetran and lower are too easy while Insanity is just insane).

Because that same simplictic "rock paper scissors/BOOM headshot" gameplay permeats nearly the entire game. Well over 60% of my gameplay experience in Mass Effect 2 was travesing shooting gallery stages littere with waist high walls and completed with a mission complete screen.

I think Mass Effect 2 by comparison to Mass Effect 1 has been cut to pieces and made into "shooter levels".

If I don't have sniper I don't aim on head except for mechs since they are easy and heavy mechs have big KABOOM with headshot.
For others I don't have much time to react and aim for head without andrenaline rush( wich only Soldier has I think).

[2pac Shakur]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

How about you play game on Hardcore?

How bout I play the game on insanity, like I did already, and prove that that describes ME2s combat TO THE LETTER.

Its about "precision shooter combat and debuffs, and following the debuffs a quick use of physics power overkill - or to save time, a headshot".

playing infiltrator does not count as playing insanity

Helen Keller could play insanity with infiltrator on her first run

[CroGamer002]

2pac Shakur wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

How about you play game on Hardcore?

How bout I play the game on insanity, like I did already, and prove that that describes ME2s combat TO THE LETTER.

Its about "precision shooter combat and debuffs, and following the debuffs a quick use of physics power overkill - or to save time, a headshot".

playing infiltrator does not count as playing insanity

Helen Keller could play insanity with infiltrator on her first run

Who is she?

[IoCaster]

Jebel Krong wrote...

loCaster - one wonders why you ever bought any bioware game, tbh. to dismiss most character so summarily obviously means you didn't give them (or the game) a chance after forming your own negative preconceptions. i'd say there is probably at least one character that most people dislike, but no more than that, and they are much more fleshed out and real than in me1.

I buy and play BioWare games because I enjoy them. It's entirely possible that I like them for different reasons that someone else might. In the case of ME2, I like the combat and the setting/level design. As far as the characters go, they don't mean anything to me. If you look at it from a writing perspective, the characters are basically shallow caricatures of a typical daytime soap cast with hero powers. Although the ME cast wasn't any deeper or consequential, the expanded roster in ME2 really bogged the game down for me. I recruited them, did their loyalty mission and explored their dialogue. Ultimately, the daytime soap opera level drama of their personal stories didn't interest me. With the exception of Tali-treason, Samara-Morinth and Legion-heretics, most of the rest of the cast bored me. I actively despised Miranda, didn't like Thane and didn't need Grunt.

Jebel Krong wrote...
as for the story structure, it's similar to me1's - the story plot follows a similar arc, with the addition of the loyalty quests to further flesh things out. a lot of BW's games have a very similar narrative construction, i see no real difference between mass effect series and KOTOR, in that regard.

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing credits.

Obviously, there's some variation in the order of when you decide to do a particular recruitment or loyalty mission and whether you bother to do any N7 quests, but that's ME2 for you. I went into the game wanting to find some way of defeating the Reapers, but kept getting sidetracked by recruit-loyalty missions for characters that I couldn't care less about. In the end, I went through the Omega-4 relay, killed the baby Reaper and...that's it. I still don't have a plan to defeat the Reapers. Heck, I don't even know who I'll be working for or what resources I'll have available in ME3 to enable me to defeat the Reapers.

EDIT: Typo

Modifié par IoCaster, 02 juin 2010 - 12:41 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Mesina2 wrote...

If I don't have sniper I don't aim on head except for mechs since they are easy and heavy mechs have big KABOOM with headshot.
For others I don't have much time to react and aim for head without andrenaline rush( wich only Soldier has I think).

I have no problem with people being able to play Mass Effect 2 in the manner of a shooter. I could clearly see the heavy TPS style of ME1 (its blatantly obvious). However, I was satisfied enough with my sentinel powers, and how the game looked and moved (I wasnt forced into cover, I could instead develop shields and barriers to protect me out of cover, and neither was a shooter gameplay weapon forced into my hands, unlike ME2).

For ME3, I dont want to feel like the game is forcing me to play it like a cover based TPS, and I dont want to be exploring the gameworld and feeling like almost everywhere is specifically tailored to be a shooter gameplay combat course. Places like Omega, Illium, the Citadel and Tuchanka only served as minor "crossroads" to yet more shooter courses.

Thats how I felt in ME2, and its why I came away from the game feeling like it was nothing more than if anything a pet project of "can we make a good third person shooter". Thats somewhat backed up by Christina Normans presentation.

Other areas of the game let me down too, with there being little in the way of overall plot, and most of it being (well written in most cases I admit) singular recruitment and loyalty missions for characters whom all can die in any variation (in what I think massively restricts their presence in ME3).

I spent most of my time in ME2 doing shooter missions for what appear to be expendable characters. Those are some of the key reasons why Im disappointed with Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 02 juin 2010 - 12:18 .

[Lumikki]

Ecael wrote...

The only disappointment I have with Mass Effect in general are the people who don't realize just how similar they are in concept (they even have the same writers from Mass Effect 1), and the only thing that's been "dumbed down" are the repetitive arguments that all use the same talking points and phrases - even though the complaints can be said of both Mass Effect 1/2.

Yeah, this is also what I have wonder, who people can be so blind that they can't see how similar those games really are. I mean there is differences, but base consept is very similar.

[CroGamer002]

IoCaster wrote...


The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing crdits.

Obviously, there's some variation in the order of when you decide to do a particular recruitment or loyalty mission and whether you bother to do any N7 quests, but that's ME2 for you. I went into the game wanting to find some way of defeating the Reapers, but kept getting sidetracked by recruit-loyalty missions for characters that I couldn't care less about. In the end, I went through the Omega-4 relay, killed the baby Reaper and...that's it. I still don't have a plan to defeat the Reapers. Heck, I don't even know who I'll be working for or what resources I'll have available in ME3 to enable me to defeat the Reapers.

The structure of ME1: Eden Prime, Expose Saren on Citadel, Become Spectre, Get Liara, Stop Benezia on Noveria, Save Feros, Blow up Saren's base on Virmire, Stop Saren on Ilium, Stop Saren and Sovereing on Citadel.

Not much here ether then.

Modifié par Mesina2, 02 juin 2010 - 12:24 .

[Icinix]

Lumikki wrote...

Ecael wrote...

The only disappointment I have with Mass Effect in general are the people who don't realize just how similar they are in concept (they even have the same writers from Mass Effect 1), and the only thing that's been "dumbed down" are the repetitive arguments that all use the same talking points and phrases - even though the complaints can be said of both Mass Effect 1/2.

Yeah, this is also what I have wonder, who people can be so blind that they can't see how similar those games really are. I mean there is differences, but base consept is very similar.

Not that I would say it or use it, but the same argument could be said of the reverse.

Why can't people see how different they are? The weapon upgrades, character skillset progression and so on.

Like I said, I'm not saying it, but I think 'perception' in this regard is not an argument that can be used.

To avoid any potential agression

MASS EFFECT 1 and 2 RULES FOREVER!!!!

[Lumikki]

IoCaster wrote...

The structure of ME2 was basically - FP, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Horizon, recruit, recruit, recruit, loyalty, loyalty, Collector Ship, loyalty loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, loyalty, IFF, suicide mission, closing crdits.
 

The structure of ME1 was basically - EP, citidel, recruit, recruit, recruit, recruit, Feros, Noveria, Virmine, Ilos, citidel.

Now in both ME1 and ME2 you don't have to do all those missions and can even do few of them different order.