10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KalosCast]

worm_burner wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

ME2 they main story was almost non-existent. There were a few main plot missions split up by loyalty missions. For me, not sure why, but the story missions just didnt seem to live up to the ones in the previous game. I mean nothing compared to the Virmire and Ilos missions (and their cut scenes).

Virmire, while cool looking with cool speeches had that mind-bendingly stupid bit where you had to kill one of your squad-mates because the game didn't let you remember the fact that you had at least two squadmates and several marines on board your ship to help defend Ash/Kaiden while you saved Kaiden/Ash

A minor part in my opinion because I didnt like Ash at all and this was a good chance to get rid of her 

Just because you were happy to push her down the plot hole doesn't negate the plot hole.

[Iakus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

iakus wrote...
Tehh comparison has been made before:  ME
1 felt like chapters in a novel.  ME 2 felt more like short stories in
an anthology.

I wouldn't say the missions in ME2 are that disconnected, but yeah, close enough for a loose analogy I guess. Now the question is, is one inherently "better" than the other? I'd say it's just personal preference.

Actually, yeah.  I would say they were that disconnected "Shepard needs a squaddie" is pretty much the only common thread through all the recruitment/loyalty missions.  Once you have them, the rest of the squad barely acknowledges there's someone new on board (I think only Joker and Kelly Chambers have anything to say about each one)

Different species.  Different planet.   Different circumstances.  Different outlooks.  Think of how much could have been made from that, and wasn't.  The third member of the squad in loyalty missions doesn't even get to make any meaningful comments.

Is one better than the other?  Personally, I prefer novels, big epic stories.  But I can see the appeal of shorter stories.  The big problem here was ME 1, the first in a trilogy, and thus the one that sets the stage, was a novel.  One would expect that a sequel would follow the same format.  Standalone stories that are set in the same universe can do whatever they want of course. 

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Not to mention this point right here can just as easily be made:

Jebel Krong wrote...
so you make the game better by reducing the size of the universe - i.e. everything being connected to *your* mission. nuh-uh, no way would that have been better.

i.e. a cohesive, dramatic narrative doesn't necessarily make for a more believable world. People tend to look for both in their RPGs, so it's always a balancing act.

But imo, a "cohesive, dramatic narrative" makes for a more involving story, a story which one is more willing to suspend disbelief.  Not to mention shed more light on a woefully underused villain group in the Mass Effect universe.  But even if the "size of the universe" was so important, what about the squad itself and its mission?

Think back to other stories, be they books movies, whatever.  Lord of the Rings. Major League, The Magnificent Seven, heck Justice League even.  The cast interacts with each other.  They bond with each other, not just the leader.  They start out separate and mesh into something greater than the sum of their parts.  That's what would get a group of outcasts to perform the impossible.

I suggested that it would have been better to have the squadmates each have some connection to the Collectors or the Reapers to facillitate that effect.  As it is, I really don't see how it could have happened in ME Too.  Shepard sets out to recruit 10 of the biggest baddest-of-the bad types in the galaxy to form a squad.  Well, he got the squadmates, but when did he get the squad?

[cachx]

iakus wrote...
They bond with each other, not just the leader

To be fair, both ME1 and ME2 are similar in that respect. The problem is not really of the writers or the gameplay. It's a technical one. It's just too damn hard to account for who is going to be where and with who at any point in the game. The number of possible permutations and variables is just too high.

The only way to do what you say is to completely script everything, strip choice away and turn ME into Final Fantasy.

[KalosCast]

cachx wrote...

iakus wrote...
They bond with each other, not just the leader

To be fair, both ME1 and ME2 are similar in that respect. The problem is not really of the writers or the gameplay. It's a technical one. It's just too damn hard to account for who is going to be where and with who at any point in the game. The number of possible permutations and variables is just too high.

The only way to do what you say is to completely script everything, strip choice away and turn ME into Final Fantasy.

This is definitely an issue with the game, you have far too many squadmates. I like Legion more in the promotional material than I did in the actual gameplay because he comes in so late and he's just Tali with a hole in his chest and better weapons, plus he kicks off the point of no return. Likewise, Thane doesn't have any use on the Suicide Mission except to bloster your hold the line score (the same issue I have with Zaaed, which makes less sense for the old man because he was a goddamn mercenary commander) and already fulfills actual squadmate roles that your other squadmates fill. Hell, if you have the Kasumi DLC, you have your full complement of specialists before the time you even finish the first recruitment wave. Everybody else is guns, and for all the time, effort and resoruces that it probably took TIM to get ahold of your specialists and then for Shep to make them loyal, you could have probably just hired a few hundred Blue Suns and not even have needed to divide and conquer (and therefore not even need the specialists)

[Gundar3]

KalosCast wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

ME2 they main story was almost non-existent. There were a few main plot missions split up by loyalty missions. For me, not sure why, but the story missions just didnt seem to live up to the ones in the previous game. I mean nothing compared to the Virmire and Ilos missions (and their cut scenes).

Virmire, while cool looking with cool speeches had that mind-bendingly stupid bit where you had to kill one of your squad-mates because the game didn't let you remember the fact that you had at least two squadmates and several marines on board your ship to help defend Ash/Kaiden while you saved Kaiden/Ash

I agree with this.  One of my disappointments that are in both ME1 and 2 is that fact that I dont really feel like a commander.  Espcially when in some cutscenes you actually get to see that you do in fact have some armed men at your disposal that are not party members.  I suppose however, that it was nice to be saluted from time to time in ME2 primarily by Jacob, once by Miranda.

I guess the thing that I would like to be able to do is have on certain missions, most likely plot missions, to ability to deploy some squads of soldiers (even if its just for RP sake) to certain areas for things while Shpard took his usual party of 2 extra for the actual mission.

Imagine a Virmire situation where you send your own soldiers to attack the base head on while you sneak around the side, or vice versa.  If you lost some troops they would be gone for good.  It would allow the player to have a more emotionally engaging moment because of attachment, deliver both action and RP goodness, and having a compelling story point.

I guess in the end, I just want to see my troops taking action rather than just being backround.

[KalosCast]

Gundar3 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

ME2 they main story was almost non-existent. There were a few main plot missions split up by loyalty missions. For me, not sure why, but the story missions just didnt seem to live up to the ones in the previous game. I mean nothing compared to the Virmire and Ilos missions (and their cut scenes).

Virmire, while cool looking with cool speeches had that mind-bendingly stupid bit where you had to kill one of your squad-mates because the game didn't let you remember the fact that you had at least two squadmates and several marines on board your ship to help defend Ash/Kaiden while you saved Kaiden/Ash

I agree with this.  One of my disappointments that are in both ME1 and 2 is that fact that I dont really feel like a commander.  Espcially when in some cutscenes you actually get to see that you do in fact have some armed men at your disposal that are not party members.  I suppose however, that it was nice to be saluted from time to time in ME2 primarily by Jacob, once by Miranda.

I guess the thing that I would like to be able to do is have on certain missions, most likely plot missions, to ability to deploy some squads of soldiers (even if its just for RP sake) to certain areas for things while Shpard took his usual party of 2 extra for the actual mission.

Imagine a Virmire situation where you send your own soldiers to attack the base head on while you sneak around the side, or vice versa.  If you lost some troops they would be gone for good.  It would allow the player to have a more emotionally engaging moment because of attachment, deliver both action and RP goodness, and having a compelling story point.

I guess in the end, I just want to see my troops taking action rather than just being backround.

Yeah, in one of the incredibly few instances where Final Fantasy got game design right, in FFXII (I think, the "real-time" one) if your party gets wiped, the party's worth of people who were hanging out in Limbo rush in as "Plan B" so you can't lose until you have a total misfit wipe.

[AlanC9]

KalosCast wrote...
Virmire, while cool looking with cool speeches had that mind-bendingly stupid bit where you had to kill one of your squad-mates because the game didn't let you remember the fact that you had at least two squadmates and several marines on board your ship to help defend Ash/Kaiden while you saved Kaiden/Ash

Not really. If the engine could handle having all those people in a battle in the first place, you'd just end up facing so much more opposition that you could only win one battle anyway. The Gamemaster always has more forces available than you do.

It'd be nice to actually use everyone, but there's nothing special about Virmire-- might as well say that you forget there are other people on the Normandy every time you leave it. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 juin 2010 - 06:00 .

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

iakus wrote...
They bond with each other, not just the leader

To be fair, both ME1 and ME2 are similar in that respect. The problem is not really of the writers or the gameplay. It's a technical one. It's just too damn hard to account for who is going to be where and with who at any point in the game. The number of possible permutations and variables is just too high.

The only way to do what you say is to completely script everything, strip choice away and turn ME into Final Fantasy.

I must be getting tired because I fogot to add a few extra lines to my post. Thanks for the reminder


To continue:

I know what some people will say "But Mass Effect One didn't have all that bonding stuff, wy should it matter?"

Why, because ME 1 didn't claim to be all about "building a squad for a suicide mission"It's about "The Hunt for Saren".  If The game is going to be centered around building a team (instead of say, "Stop the Collectors" or finding ways to defeat the Reapers) then it should be about building a team and the dialogue, quests, and gameplay should reflect that.  Honestly, if this is the route they really wanted to go, it should have had squad banter and commentary to put Dragon Age to shame.

We should have scenes of them training together, learning their strengths and weaknessese.

There should be moreDdebating, arguing.  More fights should break out, more friendships formed.  Maybe Thane and Samara should share parenting tips while Zaed regales grunt with war stories.

We should have a climactic scene where  Shepardis  captured or incapacitated and the squad has to continue without him.  Who leads now?  How does this affect their chances?  Will TIM still pay them?
 
Mini-suicide missions where you break up the team based on specialies.  Let the player get to know the team better in anticipation for the real ting.

And of course, the suicide mission should have had moments for each and every squaddy to shine.  You go through the trouble to recruit the best of the best.  Let's see them at their best.

Unless, this isn't about team building, but stopping the Collectors.  We could try that route...

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Think back to other stories, be they books movies, whatever.  Lord of the Rings. Major League, The Magnificent Seven, heck Justice League even.  The cast interacts with each other.  They bond with each other, not just the leader.  They start out separate and mesh into something greater than the sum of their parts.  That's what would get a group of outcasts to perform the impossible.

I suggested that it would have been better to have the squadmates each have some connection to the Collectors or the Reapers to facillitate that effect.

I don't see any necessary relation between the effect you want and the cause. Your own examples don't show any such relation. Edit: well, maybe Major League does ... I don't remember it at all.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 juin 2010 - 06:07 .

[KalosCast]

AlanC9 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...
Virmire, while cool looking with cool speeches had that mind-bendingly stupid bit where you had to kill one of your squad-mates because the game didn't let you remember the fact that you had at least two squadmates and several marines on board your ship to help defend Ash/Kaiden while you saved Kaiden/Ash

Not really. If the engine could handle having all those people in a battle in the first place, you'd just end up facing so much more opposition that you could only win one battle anyway. The Gamemaster always has more forces available than you do.

It'd be nice to actually use everyone, but there's nothing special about Virmire-- might as well say that you forget there are other people on the Normandy every time you leave it. 

Way to completely not understand what I'm saying. No matter what, in the Virmire choice, one of your bland buddies does stuff off-screen (mostly being nuked) while the other one... gets saved despite never seeing them onscreen. What I'm saying is, instead of saying "sorry Ash, I'm saving Kaidan" say "Ash, if you activate that bomb I'll shoot you myself. Wrex and Tali (or whoever's on the ship), take the marines and support Ash at the bomb site while I take the heat off Kaiden, we'll all rendesvous at your location"

Wham, bam, sunshine and unicorn farts, everybody lives.

Modifié par KalosCast, 06 juin 2010 - 06:08 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Think back to other stories, be they books movies, whatever.  Lord of the Rings. Major League, The Magnificent Seven, heck Justice League even.  The cast interacts with each other.  They bond with each other, not just the leader.  They start out separate and mesh into something greater than the sum of their parts.  That's what would get a group of outcasts to perform the impossible.

I suggested that it would have been better to have the squadmates each have some connection to the Collectors or the Reapers to facillitate that effect.

I don't see any necessary relation between the effect you want and the cause. Your own examples don't show any such relation. Edit: well, maybe Major League does ... I don't remember it at all.

Probably not being clear:

We see the dquadmates gaining "loyalty" to Shepard via the missions.  But we don't see the squadmates interacting with each other at all.  We don't see if they trust or even like each other.  Most of these poeple don't know each other.  Some are used to working alone, and several clearly do not care for each other's company.  In stories with various personalities like this, we see them get work their differences out over the course of the story. They learn to trust each other and function as a unit or a team.  We do not see this at all here, even though the game is suppsedly all about building a squad for a mission so dangerous it's entirely possible, even likely, that some or all will die.  Would you want to go on a mission like that where there was only one person on the team you really trusted?

The idea that each of them could have a connection to the main storyline via the Collectors or Reapers would have been something that could bind them together more easily "You may not like me, but I hate the Collectors as much as you, and I'm willing to work with you to see them destroyed" That kind of thing.  It would be something at least.

[KitsuneRommel]

KalosCast wrote...

Way to completely not understand what I'm saying. No matter what, in the Virmire choice, one of your bland buddies does stuff off-screen (mostly being nuked) while the other one... gets saved despite never seeing them onscreen. What I'm saying is, instead of saying "sorry Ash, I'm saving Kaidan" say "Ash, if you activate that bomb I'll shoot you myself. Wrex and Tali (or whoever's on the ship), take the marines and support Ash at the bomb site while I take the heat off Kaiden, we'll all rendesvous at your location"

That's true. Both games are major failures when it comes to making you believe you are in command of an entire starship full of people. I always end up playing the whole ME1 (except Pinnacle Station) with the same team.

"Oh hi, Batarian terrorist. Just so you know I have a cloaked starship flying next to this asteroid. Be my guest and leave."

[Tempest]

iakus wrote...



Probably not being clear:

We see the dquadmates gaining "loyalty" to Shepard via the missions.  But we don't see the squadmates interacting with each other at all.  We don't see if they trust or even like each other.  Most of these poeple don't know each other.  Some are used to working alone, and several clearly do not care for each other's company.  In stories with various personalities like this, we see them get work their differences out over the course of the story. They learn to trust each other and function as a unit or a team.  We do not see this at all here, even though the game is suppsedly all about building a squad for a mission so dangerous it's entirely possible, even likely, that some or all will die.  Would you want to go on a mission like that where there was only one person on the team you really trusted?

The idea that each of them could have a connection to the main storyline via the Collectors or Reapers would have been something that could bind them together more easily "You may not like me, but I hate the Collectors as much as you, and I'm willing to work with you to see them destroyed" That kind of thing.  It would be something at least.

I totally agree with this.  We literally have MANY squadies with not only their own "career" choice but have their own views and personalities.  Yet these characters never interact with each other.   We already saw that Grunt hates Turians and doesn't like Salarians.  Yet he is hanging around them ALL the time and doesn't even bat an eyelash.   Jack supposably hates Cerberus, but the only person she hates is Miranda?  Was Jacob never present around Jack?
There is every reason for your squadies to either like or hate each other, but this was never explored.

[KalosCast]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Way to completely not understand what I'm saying. No matter what, in the Virmire choice, one of your bland buddies does stuff off-screen (mostly being nuked) while the other one... gets saved despite never seeing them onscreen. What I'm saying is, instead of saying "sorry Ash, I'm saving Kaidan" say "Ash, if you activate that bomb I'll shoot you myself. Wrex and Tali (or whoever's on the ship), take the marines and support Ash at the bomb site while I take the heat off Kaiden, we'll all rendesvous at your location"

That's true. Both games are major failures when it comes to making you believe you are in command of an entire starship full of people. I always end up playing the whole ME1 (except Pinnacle Station) with the same team.

"Oh hi, Batarian terrorist. Just so you know I have a cloaked starship flying next to this asteroid. Be my guest and leave."

The bombs made that one somewhat understandable, but since you have the only starship capable of cloaking, chance are, he wouldn't even have suspected you were tailing him until you defused the bombs.

[Terror_K]

KennyRogers wrote...

Are you trying to say Mass Effect 1 never spoon-fed you, or took the easy way out to cover up plot holes?

-Why in the holy mother of god does Shepard carry weapons he has no use for? What's the logic?

I dunno. Where's the logic in forcing me to use a weapon I don't want to in ME2? Or the logic in my Vanguard Shepard always carrying an assault rifle and shooting with it in the suicide mission cut scenes?

-Why do only 4 types of weapons exist in the entire universe?

Its not that only four types exist so much as only four types are generally used by the Alliance Military I'd say. Four common types of weapons. Makes mores sense than there only being one or two of each weapon type in existence though.

-How does Shepard manage to suddenly switch the pull of gravity in his location, and walk down the side of the citadel? (Even Wrex, or Tali,two aliens of very different species and technologies are able to come along.) 

Uh... that's not what Shepard did. There was no gravity and Shepard simply engaged the magnetic soles on his/her boots to stay attached to the surface beneath him/her.

-How in the holy mother of god do weapons shoot forever? It's not possible.

According to the lore they don't... its just that your block of ammunition would last such a long time that putting in ammo would be pointless, and unless you're purposefully wasting shots there's no way you'd realistically run out of ammo blocks between missions, even not accounting all the weapons you pick up along the way that you could logically say also contain blocks. Its the same concept in ME2 actually too, its just that they changed how the guns cool themselves.

Mister Mida wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

Me too. I thought it was really awesome that the Reapers were pure machines and that their origin had nothing to do with organic goo being poured in some framework. But when I saw the human Reaper in the Collector Base I was like: 'crap'. Deep down I'm hoping the human Reaper was just a one time thing and that EDI's speculation on Reaper construction are just what she said they were: speculation.

I don't think this is a ret-con, especially given that the main crux of the story over the entire trilogy and the main points were worked out before ME1 was even released. It fits, and if you listen again to some of the comments Saren makes in ME1 (and even some of Sovereigns if you read between the lines) it makes sense and hints at this.

[Mister Mida]

Terror_K wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

Me too. I thought it was really awesome that the Reapers were pure machines and that their origin had nothing to do with organic goo being poured in some framework. But when I saw the human Reaper in the Collector Base I was like: 'crap'. Deep down I'm hoping the human Reaper was just a one time thing and that EDI's speculation on Reaper construction are just what she said they were: speculation.

I don't think this is a ret-con, especially given that the main crux of the story over the entire trilogy and the main points were worked out before ME1 was even released. It fits, and if you listen again to some of the comments Saren makes in ME1 (and even some of Sovereigns if you read between the lines) it makes sense and hints at this.

I don't really care if it's a retcon or not. I'm just saying that in my opinion the image that ME2 gave us about the Reapers as being cyborg warships wasn't as awesome as the image that ME (1) gave us as them being pure machines. Saren's speeches of that the Reapers needed organics could be interpreted as his mind being completely tainted by the indoctrination. And Sovereign's dialogue can be interpreted in any number of ways if you ask me.

[cachx]

iakus wrote...
 Would you want to go on a mission like that where there was only one person on the team you really trusted?

I would like a team with proven professionals, we ain't exactly going for the high school basketball championship.(heck, trusted friend may prove a distraction). I also don't think Grunt is going to learn the meaning of christmas and hug Mordin by the end of the game.

Bioware seems to want Shep to be the glue that holds them all together (the first team separated really fast after the beggining incident).

But you're right, ME2 is lacking in that area, and we could use use more party interactions, and some of your suggestions were very good (my point about technical limitations still stands tho). We have some moments, but they are very limited.

+ Jack vs. Miranda confrontation (jack will also make hostile comments towards her on other places).
+ Legion vs. Tali confrotation
+ Miranda and Jacob have a few exclusive lines between them.
+ Tali and Garrus have a few lines together.
+Tali can play cards with the other engineers.
+ Zaeed and Kasumi will comment on the crew.
+ Mordin will comment on whoever you're romancing.
+ Samara will comment on Jacob and Miranda.
+Grunt can comment on Garrus, and it very "team" in that he doesn't kill him

There are a few more, but very small, and require to take the correct squaddie at the correct time =/

[finnithe]

Terror_K wrote...

KennyRogers wrote...

Are you trying to say Mass Effect 1 never spoon-fed you, or took the easy way out to cover up plot holes?

-Why in the holy mother of god does Shepard carry weapons he has no use for? What's the logic?

I dunno. Where's the logic in forcing me to use a weapon I don't want to in ME2? Or the logic in my Vanguard Shepard always carrying an assault rifle and shooting with it in the suicide mission cut scenes?

-Why do only 4 types of weapons exist in the entire universe?

Its not that only four types exist so much as only four types are generally used by the Alliance Military I'd say. Four common types of weapons. Makes mores sense than there only being one or two of each weapon type in existence though.

-How does Shepard manage to suddenly switch the pull of gravity in his location, and walk down the side of the citadel? (Even Wrex, or Tali,two aliens of very different species and technologies are able to come along.) 

Uh... that's not what Shepard did. There was no gravity and Shepard simply engaged the magnetic soles on his/her boots to stay attached to the surface beneath him/her.

-How in the holy mother of god do weapons shoot forever? It's not possible.

According to the lore they don't... its just that your block of ammunition would last such a long time that putting in ammo would be pointless, and unless you're purposefully wasting shots there's no way you'd realistically run out of ammo blocks between missions, even not accounting all the weapons you pick up along the way that you could logically say also contain blocks. Its the same concept in ME2 actually too, its just that they changed how the guns cool themselves.

Mister Mida wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

Me too. I thought it was really awesome that the Reapers were pure machines and that their origin had nothing to do with organic goo being poured in some framework. But when I saw the human Reaper in the Collector Base I was like: 'crap'. Deep down I'm hoping the human Reaper was just a one time thing and that EDI's speculation on Reaper construction are just what she said they were: speculation.

I don't think this is a ret-con, especially given that the main crux of the story over the entire trilogy and the main points were worked out before ME1 was even released. It fits, and if you listen again to some of the comments Saren makes in ME1 (and even some of Sovereigns if you read between the lines) it makes sense and hints at this.

1. Letting you just depend on the AR or Sniper Rifle or Shotgun wouldn't really make for challenging gameplay would it? I might still use some of my powers, but most of them would end up taking a backseat.

2.This has already been addressed hasn't it? You're right, they did use those magnetic soles we see so often in sci-fi.

3. You're right in this as well. None of the missions in either game is long enough for you to use up that ammunition block, so it would be senseless to have an "ammunition" system. Thermal clips just replace the cooldown mechanic the first game had. Can we agree that we want a hybrid system (of thermal clips and cooldown)? I'd like cooldowns to be longer, with the overheat period lasting an extremely long time. The cooldown would still occur if you had thermal clips, only instead of overheating you eject a thermal clip automatically. The thermal clips could be ejected manually in order to maintain a high rate of fire when needed. This might be hard to balance though. 

4.Thanks Terror_K, I guess some people don't really think of the themes of a game when they're playing it I guess. Do you remember the opening crawl of ME1, describing the Prothean ruin find on Mars? The discovery of Reaper technology, as well as its compatibility with humans would result in an even larger advance, though it could cost us our humanity. The decision to let your race take their own path or take a path laid out for them with traps is more or less the decision you face throughout ME. 

Also, I don't see why some are putting so much focus on how the Adept was a bit weaker than the Soldier, Infiltrator or Vanguard. I was able to play the game on Insanity by making heavy use of anti-protection powers like Warp or AP Ammo. I also died rarely because I would snare groups of enemies using Singularity, juggling it in addition to fire from my Locust or Viper. It's sort of hard to perfectly balance every class anyways. I never fully understood Jade Empire's system, but the past few Bioware games have all had imbalanced classes. The Mages in DA were incredibly overpowered, while the Scoundrel in KOTOR was certainly much more challenging to play than the soldier. Even the Engineer was much harder than the Adept or Vanguard in Mass Effect 1, Even most multiplayer games, with consistent patching fail to achieve perfect balance between the classes. World of Warcraft is a great example. 

[Tempest]

Mister Mida wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
i am worried about the reaper ret-con in me2 to being bio-synthetics rather than proper AIs though.

Me too. I thought it was really awesome that the Reapers were pure machines and that their origin had nothing to do with organic goo being poured in some framework. But when I saw the human Reaper in the Collector Base I was like: 'crap'. Deep down I'm hoping the human Reaper was just a one time thing and that EDI's speculation on Reaper construction are just what she said they were: speculation.

I don't think this is a ret-con, especially given that the main crux of the story over the entire trilogy and the main points were worked out before ME1 was even released. It fits, and if you listen again to some of the comments Saren makes in ME1 (and even some of Sovereigns if you read between the lines) it makes sense and hints at this.

I don't really care if it's a retcon or not. I'm just saying that in my opinion the image that ME2 gave us about the Reapers as being cyborg warships wasn't as awesome as the image that ME (1) gave us as them being pure machines. Saren's speeches of that the Reapers needed organics could be interpreted as his mind being completely tainted by the indoctrination. And Sovereign's dialogue can be interpreted in any number of ways if you ask me.

The way I see it,  organics would be nothing more than food/fuel for Reapers.  "But why not use some kind of domesticated animal instead of humans to save time and resources?"  This is also true, so true.   What can ya say?  Loop Holes?

As for that human reaper....how exactly was it planed to look like when flying through space or the sky?   Just think about that for a sec......

[Revan312]

Mister Mida wrote...

I don't really care if it's a retcon or not. I'm just saying that in my opinion the image that ME2 gave us about the Reapers as being cyborg warships wasn't as awesome as the image that ME (1) gave us as them being pure machines. Saren's speeches of that the Reapers needed organics could be interpreted as his mind being completely tainted by the indoctrination. And Sovereign's dialogue can be interpreted in any number of ways if you ask me.

I completely agree, fully mechanical Reapers imo were far more interesting than these weird organic machine hybrids we were fed in this sequel.  Let alone it opens up a whole other can of worms, which is why?  Why do they even need organics at this stage?  So over however many millions of years of doing this cyclic destruction they still need organic goo paste to reproduce? You'd think they would have "ascended" out of that need and now would just create more of themselves through pure technological production.

Modifié par Revan312, 06 juin 2010 - 07:45 .

[Fraevar]

cachx wrote...

I would like a team with proven professionals, we ain't exactly going for the high school basketball championship.(heck, trusted friend may prove a distraction). I also don't think Grunt is going to learn the meaning of christmas and hug Mordin by the end of the game.

Bioware seems to want Shep to be the glue that holds them all together (the first team separated really fast after the beggining incident).

But you're right, ME2 is lacking in that area, and we could use use more party interactions, and some of your suggestions were very good (my point about technical limitations still stands tho). We have some moments, but they are very limite [snip]

I think you're definately on the right track here, but the problem with the "glue" here is that said glue doesn't really do anything. Shepard, inspite of TIM's little speech really doesn't seem anymore competent than any other soldier. Why? Well because BioWare hasn't done anything to utilize Shepard's special qualities. ME1 revolved around Shepard being thrust into the middle of the confrontation with Sovereign because he/she rushed to pull a squadmember away from the Prothean beacon on Eden Prime, ending up with the beacon data. That whole thing is not mentioned in ME2 at all, so one wonders why it really has to be Shepard. Where's the uniqueness?

The party interactions are a symptom of a greater problem, I think - namely that Shepard doesn't really have a personality. Think about it - Shepard dies at the start of ME2. Then he/she is brought back to life and...then what? Dying doesn't really seem to do anything, and by extension that whole incident just seems cheap. While a total breakdown would be OOC, I really would have liked to see BioWare do something with Shepard's death, like him/her having a need to actually deal with it.

Even Tali and Garrus barely mention it, which is just mind-boggling. These are the people who followed Shepard into the fire and yet all you get is one comment on it. None of them actually live up to the previous friendship by trying to help Shepard out. Would it really be so abnormal to have either Garrus or Tali come to Shepard and ask if she/he is alright?

Shepard being the "glue" means Shepard is static, which I think is borderline wasting the character. Given how much of the lore of the first game was dedicated to making a point about being human, why does Shepard act almost like a robot in ME2? She/he can get angry and annoyed, sure but we never actually see her/him needing to deal with anything of her/his own.

Sorry if this seems like a tangent to go on, but given how much emphasis BioWare put on cinematic values, it's just frustrating to end up with a protagonist that's almost a total robot.

[KitsuneRommel]

KalosCast wrote...

The bombs made that one somewhat understandable, but since you have the only starship capable of cloaking, chance are, he wouldn't even have suspected you were tailing him until you defused the bombs.

Of course I wouldn't really SAY that but since it only takes few minutes to defuse those bombs it makes no sense to sacrifice the hostages unless you know from meta-gaming that he will escape.

2.This has already been addressed hasn't it? You're right, they did use
those magnetic soles we see so often in sci-fi.

For some reason they seemed to be a lot weaker in the future since Shepard had to walk to Joker in the prologue.

[Kalfear]

bjdbwea wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

So Pocket, is there such a thing as too much story and/or character interaction in a game? Is having too much combat in a game ever possible?

I'd also like to extend my question to anybody willing to give their 2 cents.

Too much story? Could be, if it's just uninteresting. Can't say I have encountered that situation any game though. If they have a boring story, it's usually not very long either.

Too much interaction? Impossible.

Too much combat? Easy, many games have it. I wouldn't yet call it too much in ME 2 though, rather too little of the other important things.

Agree, its impossible to have to much story or interaction IN A RPG TITLE!
Now please note, I said a RPG TITLE.
If I bought say Street Fighter, you most definately can have to much story because you playing that to fight fight fight.

Mass Effect 1 and supposably 2 are equal parts RPG and shooter so its impossible for them to have to much story or interaction.
In fact, the more interaction, the better.
ME2 had to little story and way to little interaction. I wrote in my suggestion thread that the proper pacing for ME2 should have allowed me to visit every character after EVERY MISSION and get new communication lines rather then getting "not now im busy" for well over half the game.
When I get a email asking me to pass on good wishes to Garrus and to talk to him to make sure he doesnt blame himself for what happened when he ran his own team, I expect to be able to talk to him about just that, not get "im busy adjusting the weapons, come back later"
When Legion tells me somethinbg that is a huge breakthrough in Geth/Qarian relations, I expect Tali to speak to me about the topic, not ask me if I have a crush on her because im romancing a different character.
List goes on and on with ME2 interaction short comings.

So no, when you have RPG attached to the game discription, you can not have to much story or interaction. More is definately better in this case.

Someone mentioned how the Deep Roads in Dragon Age:Origins felt like filler. I agree to a degree but would also counter that the story and interactiveness and emotional connection is so much stronger in DA:O then it was ME2 that some of that feeling that Deep Roads was padding/filler comes from wanting to finish the current mission to advance the storyline. Learn what was going to happen next.

In ME2, you knew what was going to happen next at all times so there was nothing driving you through the missions unlike ME1 and DA:O. ME2 lacked suspence in the writing and there for the pacing really didnt matter. There was no surprises (beyond Horizon to some extent) so nothing pushing you to finish that mission you were on!

Plus, and I said this before, ME2 missions on general (side missions and loyalty missions) should have been 5 times to 20 times larger. What you got was over so fast it was kinda a let down. Horizon was a decent size mission time wise (first time through) as was the end game mission time and size wise. Other then that, things felt small in scope and over to fast in ME2. In ME1, for better or worse, you had the Mako which dragged out many missions finding the structures and areas needed making those missions at least feel larger then they were (tho all the plot planets were nicely sized in ME1).

[Revan312]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

I think you're definately on the right track here, but the problem with the "glue" here is that said glue doesn't really do anything. Shepard, inspite of TIM's little speech really doesn't seem anymore competent than any other soldier. Why? Well because BioWare hasn't done anything to utilize Shepard's special qualities. ME1 revolved around Shepard being thrust into the middle of the confrontation with Sovereign because he/she rushed to pull a squadmember away from the Prothean beacon on Eden Prime, ending up with the beacon data. That whole thing is not mentioned in ME2 at all, so one wonders why it really has to be Shepard. Where's the uniqueness?

The party interactions are a symptom of a greater problem, I think - namely that Shepard doesn't really have a personality. Think about it - Shepard dies at the start of ME2. Then he/she is brought back to life and...then what? Dying doesn't really seem to do anything, and by extension that whole incident just seems cheap. While a total breakdown would be OOC, I really would have liked to see BioWare do something with Shepard's death, like him/her having a need to actually deal with it.

Even Tali and Garrus barely mention it, which is just mind-boggling. These are the people who followed Shepard into the fire and yet all you get is one comment on it. None of them actually live up to the previous friendship by trying to help Shepard out. Would it really be so abnormal to have either Garrus or Tali come to Shepard and ask if she/he is alright?

Shepard being the "glue" means Shepard is static, which I think is borderline wasting the character. Given how much of the lore of the first game was dedicated to making a point about being human, why does Shepard act almost like a robot in ME2? She/he can get angry and annoyed, sure but we never actually see her/him needing to deal with anything of her/his own.

Sorry if this seems like a tangent to go on, but given how much emphasis BioWare put on cinematic values, it's just frustrating to end up with a protagonist that's almost a total robot.

Let alone the fact that even when people do recognize Shepard it's always people with no stake in the plot like shop keepers on the Citadel etc.  Pretty much nobody else even knows who Shepard is, seemingly, and so why the huge speech about Shepard being a "symbol" by TIM in the beginning?  Even some of your crew are downright hostile towards Shepard (Grunt, Jack, Zaeed) while still others brush you off like so much lint (Liara, Ash/Kaiden, the council). 

Like you said, theres nothing that makes Shepard stand out, either plot wise or through personality. Plus there's the whole Cerberus spending billions of credits to bring him/her back from the dead thing which in hindsight makes zero sense, especially because you and a bunch of derelict mercenaries with daddy issues save the day and defeat the enemy.  I mean couldn't Cerberus have just hired 20 times that many people that were just as competent and more professional to get the job done and still have millions of credits to spare, individuals that were also faaaar more loyal to TIM than the person who essentially destroyed all the Cerberus operations he/she came across and is completely authority defiant?

Modifié par Revan312, 06 juin 2010 - 08:08 .

[HTTP 404]

I would like to see a more to Shepards equivalent to origin story with the survivor, ruthless, war hero, earthborn, colonist, spacer focus in ME3 since it had no mention or side missions for any of them.