Jebel Krong wrote...
on-ship banter after (and before) some of the later missions, the repercussions of jacob's loyalty mission, you miss all those conversations?
Yes, oh really. No, I'm not objective, I also have my taste of game styles, but I don't dislike ME1 or ME2. What makes me more objective than someone who does have dislike. That's also fact.bjdbwea wrote...
Lumikki wrote...
These where the two major problems in ME2, all other complains are minor detail stuff. Some of them are even totally based players own taste of game style.
Oh, really. Whereas your opinion is the objective measurement. Of course.
Jebel Krong wrote...
Orchomene wrote...
Jebel Krong wrote...
again: huh?so on noveria you could ask about benezia, but Illium you couldn't ask about samara/thane? Omega was all about the reapers: they were behind the plague, remember?
Asking about Samara and Thane is not asking about the main mission which is not recruiting people but stoping the collectors. About the plague, it was so well explained that it came from the reapers that I forgot about it.
Of course you can say I'm biased since I don't like ME2 as a game nor as a story. I've lost interest at the story about half way in the game because I didn't find any interest in it. Thus, nothing was really memorable to me in the game and since I also don't think there is any replayability in the game but just trying another class to see how it plays ( and I don't like how the game is played, thus I don't really want to try again), there is no way I remember a lot of tthe overall story. ME1 was ok, ME2 doesn't give me the desire to see how the story will end.
recruiting samara and thane for the suicide mission was part of the main game, it's just as valid as asking about benezia, who was only saren's 2nd. but that's ok, mature storytelling isn't for everyone.... and the me2 defenders are supposed to be the "no attention-span, immediacy-needing shooter-crowd" :innocent:
IoCaster wrote...
Jebel Krong wrote...
Orchomene wrote...
Jebel Krong wrote...
again: huh?
Asking about Samara and Thane is not asking about the main mission which is not recruiting people but stoping the collectors. About the plague, it was so well explained that it came from the reapers that I forgot about it.
Of course you can say I'm biased since I don't like ME2 as a game nor as a story. I've lost interest at the story about half way in the game because I didn't find any interest in it. Thus, nothing was really memorable to me in the game and since I also don't think there is any replayability in the game but just trying another class to see how it plays ( and I don't like how the game is played, thus I don't really want to try again), there is no way I remember a lot of tthe overall story. ME1 was ok, ME2 doesn't give me the desire to see how the story will end.
recruiting samara and thane for the suicide mission was part of the main game, it's just as valid as asking about benezia, who was only saren's 2nd. but that's ok, mature storytelling isn't for everyone.... and the me2 defenders are supposed to be the "no attention-span, immediacy-needing shooter-crowd" :innocent:
I don't even bother to recruit Thane or Samara most of the time. They're not essential to the plot or the mission. By direct contrast, you have to get the Mu relay information from Benezia to proceed in ME.
A better comparison would be Mordin, Grunt, Jack and Garrus which you are required to recruit just to trigger the Horizon mission and advance the game. Mordin provides the seeker swarm countermeasure and is essential to the plot.
Garrus provides the Thanix Cannon and Jack will do the biotic bubble, but neither are absolutely necessary and you can successfully conclude the game without them. Grunt stays in his tank since I don't need him for anything. *shrug*
Modifié par tonnactus, 03 juin 2010 - 03:49 .
tonnactus wrote...
No one is actually special except Mordin who was needed for the seeker swarms.Why shepardt wasted so much time by recruiting all those people?
Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juin 2010 - 04:00 .
Lumikki wrote...
Yes, oh really. No, I'm not objective, I also have my taste of game styles, but I don't dislike ME1 or ME2. What makes me more objective than someone who does have dislike. That's also fact.bjdbwea wrote...
Lumikki wrote...
These where the two major problems in ME2, all other complains are minor detail stuff. Some of them are even totally based players own taste of game style.
Oh, really. Whereas your opinion is the objective measurement. Of course.
Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 03 juin 2010 - 04:04 .
Lumikki wrote...
tonnactus wrote...
No one is actually special except Mordin who was needed for the seeker swarms.Why shepardt wasted so much time by recruiting all those people?
Read this
It also had to do with how many people you need in end mission. Because nature of multible teams.
Base is that when you have two stuff, ME1 and ME2. If You feel differently about them you get biased. It's not about liking or hating, it's about you have to feel same about both. Hate both or like both or be neutral both. If You like one and hate other, you aren't anymore so objective. It's part of human nature.IoCaster wrote...
Lumikki wrote...
Yes, oh really. No, I'm not objective, I also have my taste of game styles, but I don't dislike ME1 or ME2. What makes me more objective than someone who does have dislike. That's also fact.bjdbwea wrote...
Lumikki wrote...
These where the two major problems in ME2, all other complains are minor detail stuff. Some of them are even totally based players own taste of game style.
Oh, really. Whereas your opinion is the objective measurement. Of course.
I'm curious about your notion of being more objective because you like the game. That's a peculiar definition of objectivity and even more strange that you also consider it to be a "fact". Can you explain how that's supposed to make sense because there doesn't seem to be any logical basis for it.
tonnactus wrote...
No one is actually special except Mordin who was needed for the seeker swarms.Why shepardt wasted so much time by recruiting all those people?
You don't know, that was the point, get ready for anyting, because it was one way trip. Yes, I agree story telling was not so good.WilliamShatner wrote...
Lumikki wrote...
tonnactus wrote...
No one is actually special except Mordin who was needed for the seeker swarms.Why shepardt wasted so much time by recruiting all those people?
Read this
It also had to do with how many people you need in end mission. Because nature of multible teams.
Put how the hell was anyone supposed to know what was needed when you actually go through the Omega-4 relay? It's a pretty big co-incidence that everyone has a special skill that can be used in that final mission. There is no PRE-EXISITING information to even give you a start pointing of what you would need in a team to complete the misison.
It's all meta-gaming and lame writing.
Lumikki wrote...
Base is that when you have two stuff, ME1 and ME2. If You feel differently about them you get biased. It's not about liking or hating, it's about you have to feel same about both. Hate both or like both or be neutral both. If You like one and hate other, you aren't anymore so objective. It's part of human nature.IoCaster wrote...
I'm curious about your notion of being more objective because you like the game. That's a peculiar definition of objectivity and even more strange that you also consider it to be a "fact". Can you explain how that's supposed to make sense because there doesn't seem to be any logical basis for it.
Yeah, I agree. It should not affect logical way thinking anything, but human has emotions and feeling and they affect they objectiviness. Like when someone falls loveIoCaster wrote...
Lumikki wrote...
Base is that when you have two stuff, ME1 and ME2. If You feel differently about them you get biased. It's not about liking or hating, it's about you have to feel same about both. Hate both or like both or be neutral both. If You like one and hate other, you aren't anymore so objective. It's part of human nature.IoCaster wrote...
I'm curious about your notion of being more objective because you like the game. That's a peculiar definition of objectivity and even more strange that you also consider it to be a "fact". Can you explain how that's supposed to make sense because there doesn't seem to be any logical basis for it.
That still doesn't make any logical sense. Whether you like the game or dislike it is a subjective thing. There's nothing factual about your claim of objectivity.
or get angry 
, they don't seem to be so objecive anymore to things they love or hate. Worst possible situation is when you love one and hate other and then asked to make objective comparing.
Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juin 2010 - 04:41 .
Modifié par bjdbwea, 03 juin 2010 - 04:49 .
Lumikki wrote...
IoCaster wrote...
That still doesn't make any logical sense. Whether you like the game or dislike it is a subjective thing. There's nothing factual about your claim of objectivity.
Yeah, I agree. It should not affect logical way thinking anything, but human has emotions and feeling and they affect they objectiveness. Like when someone falls love
If someone dislike both ME1 and ME2 they are objective to compare, butOrchomene wrote...
Well, in your logic, since I dislike both ME games, I'm objective ? Yet, I feel strongly subjective for the reason that I played the game and felt emotions. Some felt excitment, other were bored. In all cases, it's a matter of taste, thus highly subjective.
You don't need them, but they may improve you change to survey.You can like or dislike the story and the plot of ME2. Yet, the mission called "suicide mission" is mainly going to some unknown place to face some unknown danger. Thus, it requires some preparation. It is thus logical to hire a scientist that may find information about the collector species. You also need some people that can fight and a good pilot. You can add a tech since collectors are known to have high technological knowledge. All of this is very logical. But then, why do you need : an assassin, a justicar, a biotic specialist ?
You did not like the story, fine, but that was the story. I do agree, how story was told wasn't good, alot of plot holes. It's like some players did not get why recruiment was done or loyalty missions. I did not have that problem at all. Now, I did not like doing all the loyalty missions, some of them where little stupid, but I did understand why squad members wanted them do be done.On the other hand, what is necessary in this kind of operations seem to be : a plan, a return possibility and of course some intelligence. In the sense of spying. All in all, recruting only six characters seem sufficient and replacing all the other recruitment missions and loyalty missions by some intelligency missions would have made certainly a more solid story.
Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juin 2010 - 04:52 .
Of course.Shepardt to joker:"get close and finish them off".PetrySilva wrote...
Of course. Shepard is an idiot.
Quoted for truth.Ecael wrote...
The squadmates do talk about practically everything else when you talk to them on the Normandy yourself.bjdbwea wrote...
It's not opinionated, it's the truth. You can't deny that in the ME 1 main story missions you have lots of interaction between the shooting. And you have lots of different actors during the cutscenes before and after the missions. You do not have that in ME 2. You can argue all day how you like that better, but facts are facts.
Apart from the number, which may or may not be true: Nonsense. Not even if you count the companions, who don't have much to say about the missions, if at all.
And before you start saying your opinion is fact, I counted the number of personal dialogue/romance lines (and listened to them) myself.
Normandy Personal Dialogue (1-on-1) Rankings:
Ashley* - 458
Kaidan* - 420
Tali** - 387
Garrus** - 316
Thane - 298
Jacob - 286
Jack - 250
Mordin - 245
Legion - 220
Miranda - 218
Liara - 208
Samara - 203
Wrex - 155
Grunt - 132
Kasumi - 117
Zaeed - 83
Morinth - 43
(*Includes same-sex romance dialogue)
(**ME1/ME2 personal dialogue combined - Tali (ME2) - 233, Tali (ME1) - 154, Garrus (ME2) - 146, Garrus - 170 (ME1))
Mesina2 wrote...
Darth Drago wrote...
-You mean I should accept that as an explanation that it’s just a game mechanic? That the basic lore of the game can be changed just to suit the developers need to add some lame ammo system. Not a chance.Mesina2 wrote...
Or just say screw Codex and say it's just diffrent game mechanic.
Its just like the way George Lucas screwed up the Force from going “as an energy field created by all living things, that surrounds and penetrates living beings and binds the galaxy together.” to midi-chlorians. Or if Peter Parker gets injected with a some genetic goo instead of getting bit by a radioactive spider to become Spider Man in the reboot of the film or a new comic series.
Force is part of Star Wars story, so with Spiderman.
Termal Clips aren't part of Mass Effect story.
Pacing? You really want to go down that road?Jebel Krong wrote...
Darth Drago wrote...
-I get to level 10 by doing all the Citadel quests you can do when you first get there. I cant remember now what level you are when you first arrive anymore though, 6? Just go to the Council to become a Spectre as your last thing to do. Even doing it this way I still have Scan the Keeper’s, Rita’s Sister and Presidium Prophet to do. The last 2 require (for best results) a higher charm/intimidate skill to do.
It’s a shame that in ME2 there just are not that many side quests like those you got on the Citadel in the first game. To much focus on comabt missions I guess.
In ME1:
The Citadel had 21 to do on it or ones that take you off the station (not including your background ones), Feros had 5, Noveria had 3 and there are 2 for Virmire but I don’t think you can actually call them side quests. Thats 31 (32 if you count your background quest) to do.
in ME2:
Normandy 3, Omega 6, Citadel 3, Tuchanka 3 and 9 on Illium (2 of those require an import Shepard to get). Thats 24 in total
1. it's called pacing. 4+ hours doing pointless sidequests on the citadel before the actual game got going was not it. and it meant there wasn't anything much to do when you came back later (only a couple more).
2. not punishing players who don't want to explore every side-quest/nook and cranny for maximum xp is fine by me - it drives you into the story more, increasing immersion, rather than worrying about how much xp you will get for doing things. (i'd like to point out that i am of the obsessive type that would explore everywhere and do everything anyway).
-To what end? There is nothing to do on these so called hub worlds anymore. Even looking at the sites are boring after your first play through when the levels are so small and uninspiring.Jebel Krong wrote...
…btw you can still play most of me2 like that - you can wander the hub-worlds as much as you like...
Modifié par Darth Drago, 03 juin 2010 - 09:01 .
Ecael wrote...
One way Alpha Protocol is not better than Mass Effect 2:Orchomene wrote...
fidgit.com/archives/2010/06/11_ways_alpha_protocol_is_bett.php
fidgit.com/archives/2010/01/ten_things_gone_terribly_wrong.php
Alpha Protocol 66.76%
Mass Effect 2 95.74%
Lumikki wrote...
You don't know, that was the point, get ready for anyting, because it was one way trip. Yes, I agree story telling was not so good.
Lumikki wrote...
Yes, oh really. No, I'm not objective, I also have my taste of game styles, but I don't dislike ME1 or ME2. What makes me more objective than someone who does have dislike. That's also fact.
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Both games have shooting, yes, but just because both games have shooting doesn't mean they're bobbsey twins.
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Unlike in ME1, most of the "development" occurred on the battlefield. There was hardly any separation from getting to know your squad and headshots. No relaxation, no breathers.
Shockwave81 wrote...
Now I'm not being nostalgic here, merely stating a few differences that I believe made ME1 more 'interactive' and 'customisable' as far as player choices go (I will elaborate and probably deviate from this, but thoughts will pop into my head as I progress...)
1: Shepard's interactions with the Council on the SR1. Players could choose whether or not to take a holo-call in almost every single instance. The game did not force players to speak to the powers-that-be, before railroading them into the next main story mission.
2: Players could choose the order in which they would visit each main world.
3: Many (if not most) side quests encouraged players to consider the consequences of their actions (irrespective of a potential carry-over to ME2) see: Toombes, Tali's data, Helena Blake, Major Kyle etc.
Now, some might argue that ME2 railroaded players into the main story missions because it would have adversely affected the pacing if players were allowed to fly around scanning planets and completing side quests while the events on Horizon were taking place, but I beg to differ.
Using Virmire as an example, the Council gives you a tip that a certain someone may be on the planet - however they also go as far as telling you that they don't want to become involved in the 'specifics' of Spectre activity, but only want you to be aware of all of your options (love those little interactions in case you didn't notice).
I didn't rush off to Virmire as a result of this information - I dithered about on numerous uncharted worlds, mucked around talking to my squad mates etc. When I finally DID visit Virmire (on every playthrough), I never felt as though I was 'late for tea' - a tribute to the game's design as far as I'm concerned.
As I briefly mentioned earlier, while there was a general itinerary to follow (Therum->Feros/Noveria->Virmire in my case), players could choose the order in which they would visit each world AND this was actually factored into the game as evidenced by the debriefings in the SR1 comms room.
The fact that this is not possible in ME2, by virtue of the fact that the Collectors can't be in two places at once for certain reasons, is indicative (again, my opinion only) of a weaker story (in terms of the main villains) and pacing. Assuming players gather every team mate, there is almost no connection between the order you build your team, and how the story pans out.
Your squad-mates are kept so entirely separate from one another (on and off the SR2), that it robbed ME2 of the potential for a sense of team spirit that could have made the game even better.
If the main story of ME2 had of been all about TIM's manipulations (and Shepard's reactions to these) as opposed to building an uber team to fight the Collectors, then I'd be inclined to think more highly of ME2, especially in terms of foreshadowing for ME3 anyway - which remains to be seen.
I won't bother talking about the side quests - that's been done to death.
Bla bla bla. I'm actually getting bored of visiting the forums now. Guess I'll just stay away until new DLC is announced or something.
Palidine_0225 wrote...
Put simply I buy Bioware games for the story not some ground breaking gameplay. I buy Valve, id Software, and Epic if I want to see some new earth-shattering combat in a game.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
