10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Mister Mida]

finnithe wrote...
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.

You know, I keep reading this passage of your post and the more I read it, the less it makes sense to me. When in ME1 did they discover Reaper technology? When in ME1 was it discovered that Reaper technology was highly compatible with humans? And that thing about a race choosing his own path rather than following one that someone else set out for them. Are you referring to Saren's desire to working with the Reapers instead of fighting them, or are you referring to the heretics asking the Reapers for a future (you know, something that's only reveiled in ME2)?

If there was a moment in ME1 where it was clear that the Reapers were cyborgs, please point that one out to me.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 06 juin 2010 - 08:16 .

[Kalfear]

Revan312 wrote...

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?

That was my issue with ME2 story as well.

I basically declared war on Cerberus in ME1 and I counted them as a enemy I dont mind saying!

So having my hands tied and being forced to work for them pissed me off story wise.

So Cerberus saves me, I still dont see why the Alliance or Council (as im a specter) wouldnt support me and refund me once im alive again if I swear allegiance to them again, why do I have to work as a pawn for Cerberus.

This was a HUGE plot hole that made no sence and really ruined alot of the impact as a storyline in ME2.

I never really got in the rythem of being a cerberus agent as I dont play renegade or evil in my games and my goody Sheppard simply would not allow himself to be railroaded into working for Cerberus.

I mean first thing I would have done is spent a day or two removing bugs and such and I certainly wouldnt allow Miranda to second guess me by submitting reports about me to Cerberus.

Simple fact is, the good Sheppard wouldnt work for Cerberus. Really no other way to say it.

I tried to ignore it when I played my 1 play through but it was always hanging over me ruining immersiveness and continuity of story/plot line.

PS: I can beleibve my ME1 crew leaving the alliance, that made sence but joining Cerberus (mainly Joker) so he can fly, I dont buy that as Joker knew what they did in ME1 as he sent the reports.

Modifié par Kalfear, 06 juin 2010 - 08:18 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Revan312 wrote...

Like you said, theres nothing that makes Shepard stand out, either plot wise or through personality.

You know anyone else who has killed thousands of Geth, Rachni, Batarians, Pirates, etc and saved the galaxy from extinction?

[Terror_K]

I have to say, I've been playing Alpha Protocol over the last few days and while it does admittedly have some flaws, there's a lot the Mass Effect team could learn from it too. I actually feel it does a better job at being an RPG than Mass Effect 2 does, even if overall its probably not as good a game. The combat is a bit messy, with shocking AI and some downright awful bits, but it does admittedly have some layers to it ME2 lacks, such as stealth combat, blind-firing, aiming for longer to increase accuracy, etc. and does feel more like real-time RPG combat for it much like Deus Ex and Fallout 3 did. I actually found the mini-games better in AP too, simply because I could actually fail them now and then and doing so had consequences beyond simply locking me out. The levels are less linear and allow multiple routes and methods of accomplishing them, and allow some non-combat alternatives. On the dialogue side of things it also had several really hard choices with direct consequences that were actually pretty tough, and I feel it actually beat both games out here overall (i.e. saving a possible love interest or a group of people, saving rapidly deleting data on either mass riots or an assassination attempt, siding with one evil over another, etc.). On top of it all, it has a more solid RPG backing than ME2, with multiple weapons, decent weapons modding and overall has decent skill upgrades that let you progress visibly without it being too much. Not sure how linear the weapons are and all... haven't done multiple playthroughs yet. Its got a decent influence system too, whereby individual comments even effect people rather than simply defining events (closer to DAO's approval/disapproval system basically). It may not quite pull it all off, but it does a better job than ME2 did in a lot of individual aspects, if not overall.

[Kalfear]

Terror, you know my likes, would I like Alpha Protocol?



I gotta admit, ME2 bummed me out so badly I havent been playing games (still have DA:O Awakenings to install and play) but saw a commercial yesterday for AP and it looked interesting (plus I liked what Obsidian did with KotOR so them making it is not a down side at all)

[Terror_K]

Mister Mida wrote...

If there was a moment in ME1 where it was clear that the Reapers were cyborgs, please point that one out to me.

What about when Saren was talking about what the Reapers did to him and was going on about it being the real future of organic races and how doing so has the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither, etc.?

[Kalfear]

Mister Mida wrote...

finnithe wrote...
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.

You know, I keep reading this passage of your post and the more I read it, the less it makes sense to me. When in ME1 did they discover Reaper technology? When in ME1 was it discovered that Reaper technology was highly compatible with humans? And that thing about a race choosing his own path rather than following one that someone else set out for them. Are you referring to Saren's desire to working with the Reapers instead of fighting them, or are you referring to the heretics asking the Reapers for a future (you know, something that's only reveiled in ME2)?

If there was a moment in ME1 where it was clear that the Reapers were cyborgs, please point that one out to me.

When Sheppard speaks to Soverien on Virmire its pretty clear Reapers are Cyborg/machines.

[KitsuneRommel]

Kalfear wrote...

So Cerberus saves me, I still dont see why the Alliance or Council (as im a specter) wouldnt support me and refund me once im alive again if I swear allegiance to them again, why do I have to work as a pawn for Cerberus.

When did the Council support you in ME1? You had to get your own gear, your own ship and they've been second guessing everything you do. Even your so called Spectre powers didn't help you get forward in Noveria. Besides they made it perfectly clear that they would not send ships into the Terminus Systems.

Alliance on the other hand...

[Mister Mida]

Terror_K wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

If there was a moment in ME1 where it was clear that the Reapers were cyborgs, please point that one out to me.

What about when Saren was talking about what the Reapers did to him and was going on about it being the real future of organic races and how doing so has the benefits of both and the weaknesses of neither, etc.?

That's one way to interpret it, but you can also interpret it as like I said in a previous post that the indoctrination's effect in Saren had become so strong at that moment that he truly believed that the Reapers were serving a greater good.

But to be honest, all the information that we have on the Reapers right now doesn't give us anything close of a clear picture as to what they are, who made them or where they are coming from. So I'm gonna wait until after I've played ME3 to draw any final conclusions.

[Fraevar]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Like you said, theres nothing that makes Shepard stand out, either plot wise or through personality.

You know anyone else who has killed thousands of Geth, Rachni, Batarians, Pirates, etc and saved the galaxy from extinction?

I think Revan's point was that someone else *could* do this. If BioWare doesn't explore Shepard as a person, then he/she becomes interchangable, since there's nothing that defines him/her. If that's the case then any old soldier in the N7 program with the rank of Commander will do, in theory.

[Terror_K]

Kalfear wrote...

Terror, you know my likes, would I like Alpha Protocol?

I gotta admit, ME2 bummed me out so badly I havent been playing games (still have DA:O Awakenings to install and play) but saw a commercial yesterday for AP and it looked interesting (plus I liked what Obsidian did with KotOR so them making it is not a down side at all)

You... may. My general assessment (thus far) is that its got a good thing going for it, but never quite pulls off its potential. Like many Obsidian titles, its buggy as hell. The combat wavers between "more fun than ME2 and almost up there with Deus Ex" and "impossibly frustrating" constantly, averaging somewhere in the middle.

Customisation of your character is more limited than I hoped (not only can you only be male, but you can't even really change his face beyond skin complexion, hair and accessories) and there are no real companions or squadmates.

The characters aren't as good or interesting as Mass Effect's, though the writing is fairly solid (I'd say fans of the Bourne novels will enjoy it) and there is kind of a sense of modern James Bond in there.

Those who thought Mass Effect's dialogue wheel choices were too vague will probably not like AP, since its entirely based on a general style of responding. Dialogue is also timed, which is good for flow, but means one can't sit there forever making a choice.

I personally like it: it adds tension and flow to the scene, but it may put others off. Its definitely more of an RPG than ME2 is. There's less dialogue than in ME overall, as it tends to me mostly relegated to before and after a mission and is rarely in the middle, though some missions are entirely dialogue based, they're usually rather short.

Oh, and if people thought the romances in ME2 were tame compared to ME1, AP's ones are almost non-existent (generally just some suggestive dialogue and a fade to black).

I'd say try before you buy personally, to anybody. I don't think its as mediocre as many official reviews say, but its not brilliant either. Its decent, but it doesn't quite realise its full potential, even if it gives it a damn good go of it in some areas.

[KitsuneRommel]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

I think Revan's point was that someone else *could* do this. If BioWare doesn't explore Shepard as a person, then he/she becomes interchangable, since there's nothing that defines him/her. If that's the case then any old soldier in the N7 program with the rank of Commander will do, in theory.

But Shepard has never been presented as 'just' an N7. Like Saren was never 'just' a Spectre. Even the prologue of ME1 presents Shepard as some sort of Messiah.

[Revan312]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Like you said, theres nothing that makes Shepard stand out, either plot wise or through personality.

You know anyone else who has killed thousands of Geth, Rachni, Batarians, Pirates, etc and saved the galaxy from extinction?

If I remember correctly you and your squad killed all those creepy crawlies/robots/mercenaries and saved the galaxy.   Plus the fact that Shepard was pretty much just following orders and at times seemed completely inept at making decisions. "Go here Shepard, do this Shepard, kill those Shepard" At best Shepard is a killing machine robot that drones through missions giving orders that were handed down to him/her.

And even if you consider that Shepard was the main influence on any of that, what is really amazing about Shepard, tell me because I'd like to know.  Is it the paper thin character development and/or backstory or the monotonous way he/she gives orders.  There is zero spark to this protagonist and thus zero importance besides the always repeated "your important, your a symbol" lines being thrown around ad nausium.

Modifié par Revan312, 06 juin 2010 - 08:36 .

[Kalfear]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

So Cerberus saves me, I still dont see why the Alliance or Council (as im a specter) wouldnt support me and refund me once im alive again if I swear allegiance to them again, why do I have to work as a pawn for Cerberus.

When did the Council support you in ME1? You had to get your own gear, your own ship and they've been second guessing everything you do. Even your so called Spectre powers didn't help you get forward in Noveria. Besides they made it perfectly clear that they would not send ships into the Terminus Systems.

Alliance on the other hand...

Well depends how you look at it.

I always read it and took it as the council outfitted us.
yeah the game mechanic in ME1 made us get credits but they were so common that we could buy anything we wanted. It wasnt till we were specters that we had access to the good stuff though.
In the books it definately sounded more like council funded Specters.
Your right specters suppose to get their own ship but we have a ship in ME2 thanks to TIM. Just remove the cerberus crew and bugs like I said.
And yes, they didnt support us militarily but the whole idea of the specters is for them to be problem solvers on their own.
Besides I dont see TIM sending a army of mercs with us to battle the collecters at Horizon or their ship (either time)

[KitsuneRommel]

Revan312 wrote...

And even if you consider that Shepard was the main influence on any of that, what is really amazing about Shepard, tell me because I'd like to know.  Is it the paper thin character development and/or backstory or the monotonous way he/she gives orders.  There is zero spark to this protagonist and thus zero importance besides the always repeated "your important, your a symbol" lines being thrown around ad nausium.

Mass Effect writers have watched too much Matrix?

[Vena_86]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

So Cerberus saves me, I still dont see why the Alliance or Council (as im a specter) wouldnt support me and refund me once im alive again if I swear allegiance to them again, why do I have to work as a pawn for Cerberus.

When did the Council support you in ME1? You had to get your own gear, your own ship and they've been second guessing everything you do. Even your so called Spectre powers didn't help you get forward in Noveria. Besides they made it perfectly clear that they would not send ships into the Terminus Systems.

Alliance on the other hand...

The council made you a spectre, which unlocked high tier items and opened doors story wise. They would even make you a spectre when you were beeing a total d*ck. They gave you information on where to investigate. You only had a ship and a crew because they made you a spectre.
Without the councils support Sheppard would have been nothing but an Alliance Marine.
But atleast the council has valid reasons to toss out the spectre status. Cerebus on the other hand has no real reason to reanimate a human corpse. With the same money more and better people could have been hired and equipped.

Modifié par Vena_86, 06 juin 2010 - 08:43 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Kalfear wrote...

In the books it definately sounded more like council funded Specters.

As it should have been.

"Spectres are not trained, but chosen. Individuals forged in the fire of service and battle - those whose actions elevate themselves above the rank and file. Here's your Boy Scout badge. Go get Saren."

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 06 juin 2010 - 08:47 .

[GodofTheForge]

here's my opinion on Mass Effect 2:



Graphics: excellent. the unreal engine is put to work in ways I had never even thought possible. there are some occasional texture issues, but these are very rare and do not get in the way of the visual delights that the game has to offer



animation: fantastic. the motion capture performed by the actors adds an incredible realism to the characters and it shows better on their faces than anywhere else. it does feel a bit stiff and repetitive at times, but well-executed all the same



soundtrack: wonderful. the music really seems to burst into colorful flames when the situation calls for it, and become cool as ice when needed. the one thing that sticks out: there are no Faunts songs in this game.



gameplay: good. the streamlined, simplified combat system is a definite improvement over the clunkier, more uncomfortable system from the first game. the weapons are far more badass and varied. this helps to add to the already high replay value since you sometimes want to see an enemy get the living f**k blown out of them all over again. only a few things get in the way of the combat being tremendous, and they include small issues such as sluggish reflex time, difficulty aiming, and others among the like.



overall, the game is great. to be honest, the only three things that seriously pissed me off about it are this: mining (oh, god! how that was atrocious), unskippable cutscenes, and limited character customization. even with all this, I cannot help but give Mass Effect 2 a 10/10. well done, Bioware. please don't f**k up Mass Effect 3

[Fraevar]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

But Shepard has never been presented as 'just' an N7. Like Saren was never 'just' a Spectre. Even the prologue of ME1 presents Shepard as some sort of Messiah.

Yes, but the actual characterization of Shepard doesn't live up to that. If Shepard is some sort of Messiah, then she/he needs a deeply rooted motivation for taking on that role, other than simply: "Oh, it's a mission, let's go!", right? Plus, if she/he has taken that role, it's all the more reason why being dead should be given much more importance in ME2 since it could/should serve as a brutal reminder of Shepard's own mortality. That is why I think Shepard is almost wasted, because without personally having to sort through some issues her/himself then the character completely stagnates and becomes interchangeable. Any old blockhead will do for the poster-child, in other words. And I just think that is such a waste of a potentially really interesting and layered character.

Revan312 wrote...

If I remember correctly you and your
squad killed all those creepy crawlies/robots/mercenaries and saved the
galaxy.   Plus the fact that Shepard was pretty much just following
orders and at times seemed completely inept at making decisions. "Go
here Shepard, do this Shepard, kill those Shepard" At best Shepard is a
killing machine robot that drones through missions giving orders that
were handed down to him/her.

And even if you consider that
Shepard was the main influence on any of that, what is really
amazing about Shepard, tell me because I'd like to know.  Is it the
paper thin character development and/or backstory or the monotonous way
he/she gives orders.  There is zero spark to this protagonist and thus
zero importance besides the always repeated "your important, your a
symbol" lines being thrown around ad nausium.

EDIT: Revan321 beat me to it here. Spot on. There was so much potential here to really create an iconic protagonist with real depth and BioWare just wasted it by skirting all of Shepard's personal stuff.

Modifié par Delerius_Jedi, 06 juin 2010 - 08:51 .

[Kalfear]

GodofTheForge wrote...

here's my opinion on Mass Effect 2:

...

overall, the game is great. to be honest, the only three things that seriously pissed me off about it are this: mining (oh, god! how that was atrocious), unskippable cutscenes, and limited character customization. even with all this, I cannot help but give Mass Effect 2 a 10/10. well done, Bioware. please don't f**k up Mass Effect 3

As stated many times before, shooter players will like this game.

LOL, cant skip the story fast enough (bold part of hi ststment)  for this person!

10/10, what a surprise

Modifié par Kalfear, 06 juin 2010 - 08:51 .

[Terror_K]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

Yes, but the actual characterization of Shepard doesn't live up to that. If Shepard is some sort of Messiah, then she/he needs a deeply rooted motivation for taking on that role, other than simply: "Oh, it's a mission, let's go!", right? Plus, if she/he has taken that role, it's all the more reason why being dead should be given much more importance in ME2 since it could/should serve as a brutal reminder of Shepard's own mortality. That is why I think Shepard is almost wasted, because without personally having to sort through some issues her/himself then the character completely stagnates and becomes interchangeable. Any old blockhead will do for the poster-child, in other words. And I just think that is such a waste of a potentially really interesting and layered character.

The problem is is that if you give Shepard too much characterisation and too much personality and to many personal issues you end up overdefining a character who is largely supposed to be defined by the player. There are already people who complain that Shepard already says and does things they personally don't think their Shepard should, particularly in ME2 regarding the whole Cerberus thing, and if you give the character even more on top of that you're going to have a bunch of people complaining that their Shepard is being defined in a manner that doesn't suit their vision of him/her. Shepard isn't shallow, you, the player, are simply supposed to fill in the blanks yourself. You get to a little in the game, such as moments where characters ask you how you dealt with your past issues such as Akuze, or when Ashley asks you how you can make choices like choosing her over Kaidan on Virmire and how you dealt with stuff like that, and even when Miranda and Jacob first grill you enroute to Minuteman. But if you're not careful and allow the player a lot of choice in these moments, you run the risk of defining Shepard too much.

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 juin 2010 - 08:56 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Kalfear wrote...

As stated many times before, shooter players will like this game.

LOL, cant skip the story fast enough (bold part of hi ststment)  for this person!

10/10, what a surprise

Obviously only shooter fans complained about the 10 minute unskippable prologue. *facepalm*

No, wait. It was everyone else who actually customize their characters.

[Kalfear]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

As stated many times before, shooter players will like this game.

LOL, cant skip the story fast enough (bold part of hi ststment)  for this person!

10/10, what a surprise

Obviously only shooter fans complained about the 10 minute unskippable prologue. *facepalm*

No, wait. It was everyone else who actually customize their characters.

Dont hurt your face

he complained about MULTIPLE CUTSCEENS (hense the plural he use "cutsceenS')

So sorry but reads as he wants to skip all the cutsceens, not just the prologue!

Why do you people want to argue every little thing? Read what he said!

He basically complained about any activity that wasnt shooting related!

[Fraevar]

Terror_K wrote...

The problem is is that if you give Shepard too much characterisation and too much personality and to many personal issues you end up overdefining a character who is largely supposed to be defined by the player. There are already people who complain that Shepard already says and does things they personally don't think their Shepard should, particularly in ME2 regarding the whole Cerberus thing, and if you give the character even more on top of that you're going to have a bunch of people complaining that their Shepard is being defined in a manner that doesn't suit their vision of him/her. Shepard isn't shallow, you, the player, are simply supposed to fill in the blanks yourself. You get to a little in the game, such as moments where characters ask you how you dealt with your past issues such as Akuze, or when Ashley asks you how you can make choices like choosing her over Kaidan on Virmire and how you dealt with stuff like that, and even when Miranda and Jacob first grill you enroute to Minuteman. But if you're not careful and allow the player a lot of choice in these moments, you run the risk of defining Shepard too much.

True but BioWare are barely allowing any control of Shepard as it is. The only thing the player gets to define about Shepard is the moral compass - Nice, Neutral, Baby-Eating-Monster, so I'd argue that we're already there and that's what's ultimately holding back the character. I think that us being required to fill in the blanks simply doesn't gel with the cinematic feel of the Mass Effect games because it results in Shepard seeming nerfed in terms of personality when compared to those around him/her. So it's not a question of taking away the moral-compass director's chair that players are currently getting, it's more a matter of giving greater impact when we select one of those directions. A scene where Shepard has Tali or Garrus come up and ask if they're alright could still easily be handled within the current ME morality system.

In DA:O your protagonist doesn't talk at all, and I have no problem in filling in the
rest myself, the entire game is built around that. Yet the PC has to deal with many issues related to both themselves and others. More to the point, the player is not always in control of when they have to make a decision that critically affects the party as a confrontation might wait when you get back to camp. In ME2 there are *two* such instances - Legion/Tali and Miranda/Jack. That's it.

Modifié par Delerius_Jedi, 06 juin 2010 - 09:05 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Kalfear wrote...

he complained about MULTIPLE CUTSCEENS (hense the plural he use "cutsceenS')

So sorry but reads as he wants to skip all the cutsceens, not just the prologue!

That's what the prologue was. Multiple cutscenes with a playable part in the middle. I guess we have to ask him to elaborate.