10273 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

I prefer the risk to happen in ME3 and all the deaths. ME2 would just be where you gather the final team for battle, and they could all die somewhere in the end...it's stupid to kill them off in the middle of the trilogy, IMO.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Eh... I'm too big a fan of LOST and that is pretty much exactly how they handled things. They just kept killing off characters left and right.



Would have got the sense of drama and dark more if no matter what Garrus dies in ME 2. As he would have been there with you from the beginning. Also would, well to me anyway, would have given me a reason to care about the Reaper threat if my investigations ended up going wrong and lead to the deaths of some of my squad and crew regardless of what I did just because I went into a situation not knowing what to expect.

[jlb524]

I just think deaths should be optional in a game like this. Some would die if their favorite character did

[Onyx Jaguar]

Well I guess I'm just kind of used to my favorite characters getting killed off :/



Reminds me of that thread on the ME 1 sub forum where the person claimed that they stopped playing ME 1 because they only liked the Human characters and they were forced to essentially kill one off.

[jlb524]

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

The Virmire choice in ME1 was okay b/c it still allowed you to make a choice, and no character was guaranteed to die. Sure, I thought it would have been nice to save both Ashley and Kaidan as I love the pair so much, but you're still given the choice as to who dies and no character death is mandatory.

No, it is mandatory...one has to die.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

I wasn't talking about bugs, I was talking about functionality regarding its gameplay-related systems, particularly combat. ME2's systems are less flawed than ME1's, but they're a lot simpler and by-the-books. Bad or not, ME1 plays like nothing else really...

It certainly did feel different, and it felt bad. It was hyped, presented, and controlled entirely like a third-person shooter, but the similarities ended there. It's presentation was aking to putting a microwave on top of a car: pointless. All of it would've been much more enjoyable - and made much more sense - as a traditional top-down Bioware RPG.

And Bioware changed this for ME2: It featured mechanics that fans of third-person shooters more enjoy. This is due largely to things like recoil, accuracy, locational body damage, etc. But the more you tip the scale in a certain fashion, the more a different crowd gets upset.

And thus Bioware's predicament: "Damned if you do..."

Terror_K wrote...

This is true to a certain degree, but Mass Effect is more than this... or at least should be. If that's all it was, it may as well be in the style of Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain as opposed to Mass Effect.

Combat in their games have always had good intentions but never really fell through.
DA: "Old-school" RPG combat with non-sensical 'threat' mechanics, poor physics (i.e. body-blocking doorways is not an viable option) and horrendous balance
ME1: Cover and ability based combat with pointless over-the-shoulder perspective and a forgivable tree system - also largely imbalanced
JE: Light, but slightly interesting, RPG elements with awkward controls
KotOR: Copy-pasted D20 ruleset with forgivable and simple encounters
ME2: Functional third-person gameplay with light RPG elements and little variety

Never has the combat in a Bioware game been good enough to standalone. It's always either been broken, imbalanced, unvaried or uninteresting. It's purpose has always been  to be flashy and fun, they've never created a truly depthful game after BG2 (which in itself is under discussion).

And personally, ANYTHING'S better and more immersive than a series of quicktime events.

[Onyx Jaguar]

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

No, it is mandatory...one has to die.

Yeah, A character death is mandatory, but no specific character death is mandatory.

I'm probably explaining this really poorly.

Well your choices are pretty narrow.

And hell I would have done the Virmire sequence differently as well because I do not like how it is presented as it basically allows you to choose who to off.  I would have made it so that whoever you brought with you on the mission, and who set up the bomb would have died.  So that at least on the first playthrough it would have been more jarring.  

[Onyx Jaguar]

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Well I guess I'm just kind of used to my favorite characters getting killed off :/

Reminds me of that thread on the ME 1 sub forum where the person claimed that they stopped playing ME 1 because they only liked the Human characters and they were forced to essentially kill one off.

I fully expect Liara to be able to die in ME3. I'm not going to particularly like it, but as long as it's completely avoidable and not mandatory in any way then I will tolerate it.

Well I'm not against a mega happy ending because that would probably be the route I am going, but I still think that there should be some forced deaths, even if they would be Virmire-esque.  Preferably, actually, in the way that I said in my previous post regarding how I would have done Virmire. 

In a way someone would die, but it would be setup more like who and were rather than, you have two characters one will die.  I kind of wish that ME 3 ends up kind of like a drawn out version of how the final mission in ME 2 is if that makes any sense.

[tonnactus]

...

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 juin 2010 - 10:34 .

[jlb524]

I do go for mega happy ending....my ME2 crew always survives the suicide mission and I gain their loyalty so they are happy and stuff.

[tonnactus]

implodinggoat wrote...


She'd already been beating down those Asari for a while, so I'd assume their barriers or shields were already down.

There is nothing to assume. The "protection system" is just a dumb gameplay mechanic, nothing more. Its not part of the lore.(Skarr could throw an armored tank like wrex could do it with armatures)

[Onyx Jaguar]

The guilt factor is the major advantage to how it is presented in ME 1. However like many things in both games regarding character interaction I just kind of wish it was expanded upon more.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

I wasn't talking about bugs, I was talking about functionality regarding its gameplay-related systems, particularly combat.

The bugs i listed are combat related bugs.Things that destroy tactics.

ME2's systems are less flawed than ME1's, but they're a lot simpler and by-the-books. Bad or not, ME1 plays like nothing else really. ME2 plays a hell of a lot like any other TPS for the most part. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table. That's not always a bad thing, but one expects a certain amount of depth in an RPG, and ME2 fails to deliver this with its more shooter-oriented approach.

 

Yes,that true. Only exception is the vanguard.
And its not only the extremely weakened tech and biotic powers.
I dont even know why they take weapon talents out of this game.Enemy krogans still have the carnage shot for example.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...



If Shepard can be the best damn soldier in the Systems Alliance why can't he be the strongest biotic too. But then the game would be even easier than ME1. Singularity >>>> Shockwave.

I made some suggestions how to balance biotics and tech powers without making most of them completly uneffective.Bioware just take the most easy way imaginable.

I'm not sure if they originally intended Thane to be an up close and personal type of assassin.

Thats exactly what was intendted.Just watch smudboys video marketing errors of Mass Effect 2. They hyped in the trailer that he is another type of assasin. Someone that wants to look his victims into their eyes before he kills them

[tonnactus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I think that, that is my major problem with the Reaper arc. After the first game we already know their tricks, Saren indoctrinated, Benezia Indoctrinated. We'd have to have an actual willing participant in ME 3 for it to not fall into that trap. Again I'm going to reference Star Control 2 as they had that with the Kohr-Ah, and it worked well, as well as the other aliens that served under the Ur-Quan. As of now we have

Indoctrinated Enemies
AI enemies
and Mindless drone enemies (collectors/husks)

The precedent as of now isn't that good.

At least the merc groups could be connected with the reapers because they gave them advanced technology for some services like the collector did in the first book.Not even this was tried.

[tonnactus]

LesEnfantsTerribles wrote...

Also, the Human Reaper. Just what were their plans? To create another vanguard and attack the Citadel again, something that failed previously?

No.They had a plan b that was never revealed in this game. But after this plan had sucess,they could go back to plan a.(with the human reaper as a replacement for the sovereign) Only this would make sense.

[spacehamsterZH]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
After the first game we already know their tricks

NO MORE MASS EFFECT! WE LEAVE!

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...


Thats exactly what was intendted.Just watch smudboys video marketing errors of Mass Effect 2. They hyped in the trailer that he is another type of assasin. Someone that wants to look his victims into their eyes before he kills them

So he would have been useless addition then. The only reason Kasumi works is because her skill basically bugs the enemies.

[Terror_K]

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

It was rumored that the Takeover by EA squashed the DLC plans for ME 1.  Oddly enough they promised the Same thing in regards to ME 2 with DLC bridging the gap.  If they are true to their words expect ME 2 and its characters to be wrapped up in the DLC.  

Yeah, I'm hoping for this. There are a lot of loose ends that need to be resolved pre-ME3.  I hope they are true their word and the lack of ME1 DLC was due to the takeover.

 

From what I can gather, the reason for the ME1 DLC issues were that the game wasn't really build to properly integrate DLC in the first place, and thus they had problems with integration. For one thing, unlike ME2 the original game wasn't open-ended and had a final point of no return and once it was over it was over. This meant there was no real chance of post-ending DLC without a major overhaul of the existing game due to the whole "final save" thing, and many players were annoyed that they had to revert to old saves or start over to play BDtS or Pinnacle Station. I suspect that ME1 was already well underway before DLC was considered as a serious addition, and thus all the claims and promises couldn't be met because they had already done far too much to properly introduce it. There was also a claim that there was an independent group assigned solely to making DLC, but I suspect said group was either disbanded due to the recession or never existed, since BDtS was done in-house rather early and Pinnacle Station was made by Demiurge Studios instead of BioWare.

ME2 on the other hand is clearly made with DLC in mind, with an open-ended structure and the fact that thus far BioWare have actually managed to deliver on their promises and have given us some fairly ranged DLC thus far. Looking forward to Overlord in the next few days to see how well they pull off the first proper post-ending DLC and if they managed to bring back exploration in a meaningful way (IMO, The Hammerhead failed to bring back the strong points of The Mako in almost every sense... but this one could work).