10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

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.

Okey choise for purpose of story Yes. How ever, was it needed, I would say No. Why?

Because my Shepard could have handled 5 times more enemies that I had in my path. So, why the hell there was even two teams in first place. Hole Virmine did not have enough enemies to stop my Shepard. So, hole split to team was unneccassary.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 juin 2010 - 01:16 .

[bjdbwea]

jlb524 wrote...

I would have preferred no deaths in ME2...no suicide mission and no Shepard dying. I would have liked it to start shortly after ME1 with Shepard maintaining the old crew, and then building the team as they go along investigating the Reapers and various abnormalities caused by them.

Thus, people who didn't like the old crew would still get new characters (and romance options)....people who liked the old crew would still have them. The characters you pick up could be useful to the plot (like Miranda for her Cerberus connection) or just hired muscle (like Jack or Thane).

No one dies in the game and all are still with Shepard in ME3.

Exactly. This would have been the most obvious and logical way. Even from the developer's perspective: It is obvious enough they had to work under time constraints. What better way to save time then, than to keep working with existing assets - characters, enemies, level designs (Normandy, Citadel), vehicle? A simple continuation, a simple second part of a trilogy, would have made it a much better game, and it would have saved development time. And it would also have made their work for ME 3 easier.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 juin 2010 - 02:46 .

[Tempest]

Here is something that has been bugging me. Let us say that the "Human" reaper somehow became complete in either the collector base or some other undiscovered location. What are we supposed to feel when we see that "thing" flying in the sky. What would it even look like flying in the sky?  Would it even be intimidating in space battles?   I half see it flying like old school super-man honestly.

Modifié par Tempest, 13 juin 2010 - 02:56 .

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I would have preferred no deaths in ME2...no suicide mission and no Shepard dying. I would have liked it to start shortly after ME1 with Shepard maintaining the old crew, and then building the team as they go along investigating the Reapers and various abnormalities caused by them.

Thus, people who didn't like the old crew would still get new characters (and romance options)....people who liked the old crew would still have them. The characters you pick up could be useful to the plot (like Miranda for her Cerberus connection) or just hired muscle (like Jack or Thane).

No one dies in the game and all are still with Shepard in ME3.

Exactly. This would have been the most obvious and logical way. Even from the developer's perspective: It is obvious enough they had to work under time constraints. What better way to save time then, than to keep working with existing assets - characters, enemies, level designs (Normandy, Citadel), vehicle? A simple continuation, a simple second part of a trilogy, would have made it a much better game, and it would have saved development time. And it would also have made their work for ME 3 easier.

It's certainly not something new to BioWare.
http://en.wikipedia....e_party_members

[AlanC9]

Of course, BG2 just did a handwave for certain characters not being dead, like Edwin, Xzar, and Montaron. There's a high probability that Edwin is dead if you did the canon thing and rescued Dynaheir.

[harazal]

The story of shepard is the story of mass effect. Shepard did what he had to do in Mass Effect 1, but he needed to be taken apart and rebuilt in order to compete with the threat that was coming. In much the same way, the mass effect game had to be taken away, taken apart and rebuilt into something suitable for current generation gaming.

Its odd to see the type of criticisms that i have seen laid down on ME2, and the worship of ME1. ME1 made no sense. Nazara was coming for the citidel. In any sensible story, ME1 would in fact have been an FPS. There was no room for any rpg elements in it. Shepard didn't have time to waste on planets, exploring the outer rim, or mining. He literally needed to have been on Saren's fotsteps, quickly moving from Noveria, Feros, Virmire and ilos, with no gaps, no stops. Thats the only course that made sense. There was a clock ticking. Shepard didnt have time to stop. I won't even get into the absurdity of the alliance just giving shep the normandy.

As for the crew, they were automatons. There was no emotional engagement with them. Yes, i liked them, as many did, but was i liking them because they were cool archetypes, or because they were involved in my story? Lets be honest here, they impacted on sheps story in no meaningful way. I'm sure people will try and disagree, but in ME2, the characters had function. If i didnt recruit Mordin, i couldn't progress. If i didn't recruit tali, i'd have no shields for the end. With the exception of Grunt and Legion, everyone else needed to be there.

Whats really confusing about all the criticism, is that ME2 lends itself better to being an RPG, than ME1. There would be scope for shepard to go off and explore. The characters mean something, whatever you think of them.

In every way that counts, ME2 improved on ME1. I think people often fear change, but some of the comments, some of the hyperbole around ME2 is laughable. Its comic book guy sadness. I loved ME1, but ME2 puts it in the shade. More than that, the sales figures for ME2 were very impressive, for what is, at heart, an RPG.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of the game, but some people need to be honest. No game is perfect, every game a developer makes is a step towards perfection. Some steps are bigger than others. ME2 wasa  giant step forward. There are still things to fix. Dialogue options need fine tuning, and the morality system is archiac.

But if look at ME2 vs ME1, they improved the graphics engine, they improved combat, they improved inventory, they improved the story mechanics (even if you don't like the story per se, the mechanics of the story make a lot more sense), and despite my earlier comment, they did improve dialogue options, but they do require more work. They made me care about my ship, and my crew, and from time to time, they really did give me a choice which i had to think about.

As is often the way forums, people spend more time griping than thanking. I doubt bioware listens to it. They know what works, and only the most die hard fanatic could have a problem with ME2. Its reviews were excellent, tis figures were excellent, and i for one am glad that a franchise has been secured.

[Lumikki]

I find it also so funny how people criticisms ME2 and worship ME1.



I don't mean actual good feedback what many player has been given, but criticisms based what some player wanted to happen in ME2, but when it did not happen they whine about it. Like someone did not want the story be about micky mouse, they wanted it to be about donald duck.

[StodgyFrost98]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

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.

The problem with Lost is that there were some things that were confusing and left unanwered.

[spacehamsterZH]

Lumikki wrote...
 Like someone did not want the story be about micky mouse, they wanted it to be about donald duck.

Bahahahahaha. You always have the best analogies.

[Iakus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Basically the main story is kind of railroaded

Opens up: You die
You get brought back to life by cerberus
build a team, fight the collectors

I think the only difference in mine is

You are sent to the Terminus for investigattions
an Incident happens, your face gets badly burnt (hell at least make it logical if you want to go that route and let you rebuild)
Council disavows. Cerberus mysteriously contacts you, Council or Alliance tells you to play along.

You then invistigate the Terminus, get into trouble. Recruit people who know the Terminus and people who have knowledge of what you are seeking (hell you could even keep the Collectors, just keep them as mysterious enemies that stay in the background and cause trouble).

Investigate a couple of Reaper landings, the Derelict craft. Pinpoint a superstructure. Investigate superstructure. End it the same way as ME 2 however this would give you the chance to stay with Cerberus and betray the Council/Alliance or keep your word and report back to the Council/Alliance

IMO building a team to take on a threat doesn't work if the teamates you pick up don't really make sense as a team. Recruiting knowledgeable people on the area would make more sense.

You know, in very broad terms, that's kinda what I expected ME 2 to actually be.

Opportunities lost. 

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

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.

No.They have to intend another,more fitting talent to kasumi then. She is obviously the better assasin(could walk easily and undetected into a party of guarded criminals) but is called a thief.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

I don't mean actual good feedback what many player has been given, but criticisms based what some player wanted to happen in ME2, but when it did not happen they whine about it.

And...? You got what you wanted in ME 2, so you praise it. Your point? Oh right, there was none.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 juin 2010 - 06:49 .

[tonnactus]

harazal wrote...

Its odd to see the type of criticisms that i have seen laid down on ME2, and the worship of ME1. ME1 made no sense. Nazara was coming for the citidel. In any sensible story, ME1 would in fact have been an FPS. There was no room for any rpg elements in it. Shepard didn't have time to waste on planets, exploring the outer rim, or mining. He literally needed to have been on Saren's fotsteps, quickly moving from Noveria, Feros, Virmire and ilos, with no gaps, no stops. Thats the only course that made sense.

Wrong.Its not that saren could put the needed informations just right out of his nose and could organize attacks immediatly.He also need time. The story was written in a way that shepardt dont have to hurry.

As for the crew, they were automatons. There was no emotional engagement with them.

Really? Kaidans childhood was also hard when not as hard as that of suject zero.Wrex was a tragical figure.Tried to save his race but failed in the first game. So i really dont know what you mean.

If i didnt recruit Mordin, i couldn't progress.

The same was true with tali,who gives the evidence that saren betrayed the coucil.And liara with their protean knowledge.And with ashley who guide shepardt through eden prime.Or Saren/Wrex,who told you that a quarian with valuable information exists. Just play this game again because its seems you forgot a lot of the essential points.

If i didn't recruit tali, i'd have no shields for the end.

Does it matter? Without shields just someone of your team die.

More than that, the sales figures for ME2 were very impressive, for what is, at heart, an RPG.

Really? 1,7 million isnt that impressive.Even for an rpg.Especially for an sequel where a lot fans preordered it.

 They made me care about my ship, and my crew, and from time to time, they really did give me a choice which i had to think about.

I not care about my crew because the so called loyality mission are not that what they are supposed to be.Things that build up loyality to shepardt. The amount of renegade/paragon points solve the conflict between subject zero and miranda, not if you made their loyality missions or not. Lame. Its funny that only Mass Effect had a real loyality mission with wrex that allow it to solve the situation on Virmire in a peacefull way without to have 8 paragon/renegade points.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I don't mean actual good feedback what many player has been given, but criticisms based what some player wanted to happen in ME2, but when it did not happen they whine about it.

And...? You got what you wanted in ME 2, so you praise it. Your point? Oh right, there was none.

Have I praise ME2 more than ME1?
Have I slammed ME1 more than ME2?

So, you just keep missing the point. I mean, different between actual feedback about the game and whining about personal disapoinments based players own expectation.

[bjdbwea]

Funny "argument" you got there. Of course people have expectations, especially if there was a previous game in the series. Of course they're disappointed if the expectations aren't met. Thanks for stating the obvious.



Oh, and yes, voicing the reasons for disappointment = feedback.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Funny "argument" you got there. Of course people have expectations, especially if there was a previous game in the series. Of course they're disappointed if the expectations aren't met...

Exactly, just like ME1.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Funny "argument" you got there. Of course people have expectations, especially if there was a previous game in the series. Of course they're disappointed if the expectations aren't met. Thanks for stating the obvious.

Oh, and yes, voicing the reasons for disappointment = feedback.

I agree saying reasons for disapoinment can be feedback, but also it can be whining, if the reason is just based players own expectations.

Example:

I was disapointed how many plot holes the ME2 story had, the story just did not feel right. (Reasonable feedback)

I was disapointed, because ME2 story was not about reapers war, because I don't give a **** about Collectors, so the ME2 story sucks. (This is whining, based players own expectations).

Difference here is, the complaing about something what is part of the game, and complaing something what player wanted to be part of the game. Meaning the disapoinment in first case is real based game it self, in other cases player it self created the disapoinment  by his/her own expectations.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 juin 2010 - 08:16 .

[bjdbwea]

What are you even talking about? You expected a proper story without plot holes. Didn't get that, so you're disappointed. Based on your own expectations. What's the difference? Answer: There is none. Only the attempt to justify your own opinion as being "reasonable", and discredit those you disagree with it. But whatever floats your boat, it's nothing new on these forums and in this thread after all.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

What are you even talking about? You expected a proper story without plot holes. Didn't get that, so you're disappointed.

Hi.

bjdbwea wrote...

What's the difference? Answer: There is none. Only the attempt to justify your own opinion as being "reasonable", and discredit those you disagree with it.

Hence why this thread has lasted so long. There are very few people in this thread that don't suck, myself excluded.

Wait a tick, I mostly thought this was in response to my previous post. My bad.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 juin 2010 - 08:00 .

[FieryDove]

bjdbwea wrote...

What are you even talking about? You expected a proper story without plot holes. Didn't get that, so you're disappointed. Based on your own expectations. What's the difference? Answer: There is none. Only the attempt to justify your own opinion as being "reasonable", and discredit those you disagree with it. But whatever floats your boat, it's nothing new on these forums and in this thread after all.

They should just change the thread title... "Dissappointment with ME2? Don't post it here. "

[spacehamsterZH]

bjdbwea wrote...
Oh, and yes, voicing the reasons for disappointment = feedback.

And applicable suggestions for improvement and coherent arguments that make sense = constructive feedback.

See what I did there?

Of course "boo hoo, I wanted to smooch Liara some more, this game SUX OMG" is a form of feedback in the broadest sense, it just doesn't help anyone. And neither does complaining about problems that both games have and then somehow arguing these problems are the reason ME1 is superior to ME2.

Sigh.

[MassEffect762]

Whining or Constructive feedback it's not like most you folks give two cents about the opinion being given. Everybody has an opinion. Keep fighting the "minority" opinion if it burns so much and keep climbing up hill if you disagree.

This is about one side trying to preserve what they have with the other trying to see it go back in some degree. Simple as that.

Biowares opinion/feedback and clarity of direction/marketing on the matter for ME3 is the only thing that matters in the end. Hope you're listening Bioware. <_<

Modifié par MassEffect762, 13 juin 2010 - 09:58 .

[7a7ec]

Mass Effect could have been one of the greatest franchises in gaming history but then came Mass Effect 2 .... Its an OK game but lacks any proper story (the little thing that made ME 1 such a superb game).