10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yes they were, they were the entire focus of hte main plot. the loyalty missions were side quests. If they offend you, don't do them.

The Collectors were written to symbolize the Reapers since the Geth and Krogan fell apart.  We you even paying attention to ME 2? 

The Collectors only show up for three missions, and all we learn about them is thier genetic origins.  How are we suposed to take them seriously as villains?  If they had been the "main focus" of the plot, hey could have been an incredibly deep, tragic villain group.  We could have learned so much about them and the reapers. 

More about indoctrination and its long-term effects

Reaper cybernetics. Or heck, Reapers in general.

Galactic history, previous cullings, especially the last one with the Protheans.

The Collector Ship misson was, imo, the best quest in the whole frakking game.  It's the one time Shepard gets to actually study Collectors, learn something about them, and where we get even the tiniest glimpse into their inner workings.  One lousy quest.  Their should have been ten more dropping tidbits about hem.  Something to make them seem scary, creepy, menacing, pitiable, something, 

Instead we fight every merc outfit in the galaxy doing recruitment/loyalty quests.  

 Instead we get the ubiquitous Bug-Eyed Aliens with zero personality, who appear just long enough on screen to remind us that, yes there is a point to all this, kinda.

This is a big part of the problem with ME 2.  It had so much ambition:  a cool villain group, colorful cast of characters, a previous game's decisions to import.  It promised so much that in trying to cover it all, it failed to really do anything with any of it..  Except provide lots and lots of mercs to kill.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The mercs played differently. You had 3 different merc groups, I refuse to fault a developer for providing a variety to the general combat. The only thing missing was Sniper Units.

The Collectors should have been in more missions.  But I do not quite see fighting merc groups or the GEth as a hindrance. 

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 17 juin 2010 - 04:24 .

[Iakus]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Dialog was about even.  Language was a bit more...juvenile though.  Character developement, could have been a lot better.  There was good material to explore.  Unfortunately the "story" was so spread out among the dozen squadmates they all just get lost in the shuffle.  Their stories just ended up being on/off switches for loyalty.

I'd argue that the dialog in the second one was better, and that character development was MUCH better.  In the first one, you had a few dialog options, then a generic mission (for Tali/Garrus/Wrex) or the option of a romance.  At least the loyalty missions in ME2 had a story and had interaction.

It just boils down to preference.  I preferred the characters and dialog (and basically everything outside of the main primary mission) of the second game, some feel the same way about the first.

Te loyalty missions did provide interaction, between Shepard and the person who's loyaty misson it is.  But what about the third character?  They almost always have little to nothing to say.  Given the personality types Shepasrad ends up recruiting, that's odd to the point of being bizzare.

I maintain that if building the team was supposed to be the thrust of the game, then that should have been the emphasis; building a team.  Teams don't just trust their leader, they trust each other.  Yet we see very little interaction between the squad members.  We get two arguements, little dialogue, no idea how most of them think of each other.  If Shepard were to get injured and have to stay back for a mission,  who'd take over?  Miranda?  Would Jack or Zaed follow her?  Garrus?  How would Grunt take that?  Would Samara feel comfortable working alongside Thane? Would she trust him to help her "hold the line"?  Miranda and Tali both trust Shepard, but do they trust each other?

Building the team could have been a far richer experience.  I know Bioware could have done it, if they had really had their hearts in it.  Instead we get some mildly entertaining backstories, some hit-and-miss loyalty missions (almost all based on killing some group of mercs or other)  And some decent conversations which, quite frankly, can't carry the whole game.

[Iakus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The mercs played differently. You had 3 different merc groups, I refuse to fault a developer for providing a variety to the general combat. The only thing missing was Sniper Units.

The Collectors should have been in more missions.  But I do not quite see fighting merc groups or the GEth as a hindrance. 

Fighting mercs is fine.  For some quests.  Fighting geth is fine.  For some missions.  But when we're fighting mercs over and over again when the Collectors are the real threat, something's wrong.  I mean, come ME 3, I'm expecting there's gonna be a real shortage of trained combatants to recruit because Shepard has killed every merc in the Terminus Systems.


And saying the Collectors should have been in more missions is putting it mildly.

[Onyx Jaguar]

You've got the recruitment missions.



In Mordin's you fight the Blue Suns and Vorcha

Archangel's you fight Blue Suns, Eclipse and Blood Pack

The Quarian you fight the Geth

the Justicar's you fight a variance of the Eclipse

The Assassin's you fight the Eclipse

Subject Zero you fight the Blue Suns

The Warlord you fight the Blue Suns



In the main game you fight

Mission 1: Mechs

Mission 2: Mechs

Mission 3: Collector's

Mission 4: Collector's

Mission 5: Husk based units

Mission 6: Collector's



The Blue Suns are over represented and the Collector's are under represented.



And I purposely left out the Loyalty missions purely because like it or not, they are side quests. They are optional. The only time you have to do them are in Zaeed's and Kasumi's where in one you fight the Blue Suns and the other Eclipse

[Iakus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You've got the recruitment missions.

In Mordin's you fight the Blue Suns and Vorcha
Archangel's you fight Blue Suns, Eclipse and Blood Pack
The Quarian you fight the Geth
the Justicar's you fight a variance of the Eclipse
The Assassin's you fight the Eclipse
Subject Zero you fight the Blue Suns
The Warlord you fight the Blue Suns

In the main game you fight
Mission 1: Mechs
Mission 2: Mechs
Mission 3: Collector's
Mission 4: Collector's
Mission 5: Husk based units
Mission 6: Collector's

The Blue Suns are over represented and the Collector's are under represented.

And I purposely left out the Loyalty missions purely because like it or not, they are side quests. They are optional. The only time you have to do them are in Zaeed's and Kasumi's where in one you fight the Blue Suns and the other Eclipse

And yet the Collectors are the "main villain"? 

I question not including any of the loyalty missions in this, given that if you're not gonna get at least half the squad  killed in the end you need to do at least a couple of them.  But suffice it to say, none of them feature the Collectors.

At any rate, you see the frustration some (like me) feel at fighting everyone except the Collectors?  That the main villain in the game has less screen time, less personality, less pressence than these ired thugs?  You'd think there would at least be some twist in the end where it turns out all three merc groups have been on retainer for the Collectors to kidnap/kill Shep

[Gonzox84]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yes they were, they were the entire focus of hte main plot. the loyalty missions were side quests. If they offend you, don't do them.

The Collectors were written to symbolize the Reapers since the Geth and Krogan fell apart.  We you even paying attention to ME 2? 

No need to be so cynical about it.  But still, side quests or not, they had a more primary function than just breaking up the story.  They were there to give depth to each character and showcase not only their own respective reasons for fighting, but to give their character's history and, no pun intended, character.

Also remember that Bioware stated that they always intended on this being a trilogy.  If you make the second game without story preparation for the final (and supposedly biggest) chapter of the series then the player won't really give a damn about their plight.  Instead, it would have been the same story three times in a row, just with enhanced graphics and gameplay formula.  Without this game focusing on something else, then all three games would have had this kind of formula:

Fight bad guys, something about reapers, fight reaper, kill reaper.

Not to say that the second game didn't follow that same formula to some degree, but at least it took it's time to build up a reason for you to care without becoming stagnant.  Could you imagine playing this game knowing full well the whole story before you started playing it?  It would have been just like old school Contra - Start stage, keep shooting and kill without any real reason, kill boss, repeat for 8-10 stages, complete game without giving a damn knowing full well that any sense of accomplishment would be very short lived.

Modifié par Gonzox84, 17 juin 2010 - 05:07 .

[Iakus]

Gonzox84 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yes they were, they were the entire focus of hte main plot. the loyalty missions were side quests. If they offend you, don't do them.

The Collectors were written to symbolize the Reapers since the Geth and Krogan fell apart.  We you even paying attention to ME 2? 

No need to be so cynical about it.  But still, side quests or not, they had a more primary function than just breaking up the story.  They were there to give depth to each character and showcase not only their own respective reasons for fighting, but to give their character's history and, no pun intended, character.

Also remember that Bioware stated that they always intended on this being a trilogy.  If you make the second game without story preparation for the final (and supposedly biggest) chapter of the series then the player won't really give a damn about their plight.  Instead, it would have been the same story three times in a row, just with enhanced graphics and gameplay formula.  Without this game focusing on something else, then all three games would have had this kind of formula:

Fight bad guys, something about reapers, fight reaper, kill reaper.

Not to say that the second game didn't follow that same formula to some degree, but at least it took it's time to build up a reason for you to care without becoming stagnant.  Could you imagine playing this game knowing full well the whole story before you started playing it?  It would have been just like old school Contra - Start stage, keep shooting and kill without any real reason, kill boss, repeat for 8-10 stages, complete game without giving a damn knowing full well that any sense of accomplishment would be very short lived.

Forgot to add one more point to the formula:

Get killed at start of next by that game's bad guys and start over from scratch 

But what are the odds that'll happen twice?

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...

And yet the Collectors are the "main villain"? 

I question not including any of the loyalty missions in this, given that if you're not gonna get at least half the squad  killed in the end you need to do at least a couple of them.  But suffice it to say, none of them feature the Collectors.

At any rate, you see the frustration some (like me) feel at fighting everyone except the Collectors?  That the main villain in the game has less screen time, less personality, less pressence than these ired thugs?  You'd think there would at least be some twist in the end where it turns out all three merc groups have been on retainer for the Collectors to kidnap/kill Shep

What Bioware was attempting to do was craft the Collector's to be a very eerie, stealthy, sudden, and threatening presence. In the game your encounters with them are rather infrequent, but when you *do* run into them it's a pretty nasty fight. This can help strengthen what Bioware was attempting to portray the Collector's as: a shark in murky waters. It's hard to make out where they are or when they'll strike, but you know that when they act out and do something that they're going to cause a lot of damage. What should be discussed is if Bioware succeeded in their vision for the Collectors.

While I personally found them overall intriguing, it is a bit of a turn-off to see such a stereotyped sort of villian (alien insects!!!) come into the fray. However, their actual history (which shouldn't be spoiled here, since it's a very awesome moment in the game) strengthens the appeal.

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...

And yet the Collectors are the "main villain"? 

I question not including any of the loyalty missions in this, given that if you're not gonna get at least half the squad  killed in the end you need to do at least a couple of them.  But suffice it to say, none of them feature the Collectors.

At any rate, you see the frustration some (like me) feel at fighting everyone except the Collectors?  That the main villain in the game has less screen time, less personality, less pressence than these ired thugs?  You'd think there would at least be some twist in the end where it turns out all three merc groups have been on retainer for the Collectors to kidnap/kill Shep

What Bioware was attempting to do was craft the Collector's to be a very eerie, stealthy, sudden, and threatening presence. In the game your encounters with them are rather infrequent, but when you *do* run into them it's a pretty nasty fight. This can help strengthen what Bioware was attempting to portray the Collector's as: a shark in murky waters. It's hard to make out where they are or when they'll strike, but you know that when they act out and do something that they're going to cause a lot of damage. What should be discussed is if Bioware succeeded in their vision for the Collectors.

While I personally found them overall intriguing, it is a bit of a turn-off to see such a stereotyped sort of villian (alien insects!!!) come into the fray. However, their actual history (which shouldn't be spoiled here, since it's a very awesome moment in the game) strengthens the appeal.

That may have been thier intent, put bluntly, they failed.  If they were not a stealthy, threatening presence.  They were hardly a presence at all! There should have been a good six to ten  more missons (or more) devoted to investigating them and foiling their plans.  As you learn just how advanced they are, how long they've been operating, how impacable they can be, mixed with more Collector attacks, then you might have had a spookier enemy.  Heck, toss in a semilucid conversation with Harbringer for good measure.  Or even the Collector General.  Then that final revelation would have really put things in perspective:  "I've been fighting WHAT!?"

I agree that they were intriguing.  At first.  Their history, when you finally learn that one tidbit, put a whole new spin on them.  Something that should have been explored in far greater depth.  They could have been a truly epic group.  An enemy you could pity even as you destroy them. 

instead: BEMs, and rarely seen BEMs too

[Onyx Jaguar]

I would say they should have had one more mission. 6 to ten is a ridiculous amount imo and would make the Collectors seem like road runner to your coyote.

EDIT:  Also on a another point, that I brought up previously in this thread.  I just finished a playthrough where I only did 3 loyalty missions in total (Zaeed's, Kasumi's and the Sniper Engineer ) and I made it out with 8 out of the 12 squadmembers alive.  

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 17 juin 2010 - 09:12 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

Its hard to gauge at the moment, especially Casey Hudson's recent interview. On one hand we have Casey saying that he has no regrets and thought everything in ME2 was done well, yet on the other he also says there are things they'll do differently now and he acknowledges that some fans wanted richer RPG elements, but then goes on to say there is limited time and resources and changes can't be too drastic. He also says that they listen to player feedback and how the players play something and want to play it and adjust accordingly, but... yeah.

FlyingWalrus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

The game is a lot closer to their original vision for Mass Effect than ME1 was. This can be seen by the early ME trailers.

I disagree with pretty much of your entire reply, but it's not worth repeating why.

Good. Saves me the trouble of repeating why you'd be wrong, if your disagreement wasn't a matter of opinion.

This particular notion is funny though. Good one.

Wait... you weren't serious, were you?

I am serious. Mass Effect was always intended to have fast-paced combat with RPG mechanics supporting and adding depth to the kind of abilities you could use in combat. Like I've said, the lack of talents in Mass Effect 2 was somewhat disappointing, but the improvement of the actual controls and variance in environments, along with the fact that the dialogue, intimate character development, and story were mostly intact, made up for it.

Walrus, you do recall Bioware saying they wanted Mass Effect to be an experience and not "another game", right? ME1 was an experience, ME2 was a heavy TPS with very little stats to influence combat and just happened to have some dialogue choices.

[Mx_CN3]

This is weird...it's almost as if we all have different visions of a perfect Mass Effect game.

[Kaylord]

Orchomene wrote...

At least about my feelings, you are wrong. I didn't feel ME1 was a very good game. But at least it had some story whereas ME2 is just an accumulation of quests. An action/adventure game with a scenario of the level of command & conquer.
TIM : "Shepard, go there, kill the enemies and report."
Shepard : "Sir, yes sir !"

How wrong. TIM states everytime: It is your decision. Shepard chooses to collaborate on his own rules. The only influence is on the last decision, and even there Shepard can do what she pleases.
 
It is just cheesy that the Alliance´s reaction to Shepard´s reappearance is not taken into account at all. I would have liked to choose working for the Alliance with few resources and lots of bureaucracy or for Cerberus with lots resources and free reign on all missions. And a bit more surprises in the mission structure instead of having to go to 10 team-collector missions in a row.

[Iakus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I would say they should have had one more mission. 6 to ten is a ridiculous amount imo and would make the Collectors seem like road runner to your coyote.

EDIT:  Also on a another point, that I brought up previously in this thread.  I just finished a playthrough where I only did 3 loyalty missions in total (Zaeed's, Kasumi's and the Sniper Engineer ) and I made it out with 8 out of the 12 squadmembers alive.  

Not six to ten missions fighting the Collectors.  Six to ten missions investigating them and  fighting the Collectors.  Others have had dealings withthe Collectors in the past.  FInd them and interrogate them.  Or hack their computers.  Find tech for Mordin to study.  Find other colonies like Freedom's Progress and see if the Alliance or Cerberus missed anything.  Building them up into this mysterious, implacable foe until Horizon becomes an "Oh, ****!" moment.  Not "Huh, the Collectors are attacking.  Better save the colony."   Post Horizon should have a couple more encounters with the Collectors, hopefully where you learn more about them and make you more determined than ever to stop them.  

 Fighting Collectors should be a unique experience, not just another merc band to deal with,

[Orchomene]

Kaylord wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

At least about my feelings, you are wrong. I didn't feel ME1 was a very good game. But at least it had some story whereas ME2 is just an accumulation of quests. An action/adventure game with a scenario of the level of command & conquer.
TIM : "Shepard, go there, kill the enemies and report."
Shepard : "Sir, yes sir !"

How wrong. TIM states everytime: It is your decision. Shepard chooses to collaborate on his own rules. The only influence is on the last decision, and even there Shepard can do what she pleases.
 
It is just cheesy that the Alliance´s reaction to Shepard´s reappearance is not taken into account at all. I would have liked to choose working for the Alliance with few resources and lots of bureaucracy or for Cerberus with lots resources and free reign on all missions. And a bit more surprises in the mission structure instead of having to go to 10 team-collector missions in a row.

False choices.
TIM : "Shepard, go there, kill the enemies and report. Or do nothing if you want."
Shepard : "Ok, I'd rather do nothing, thus."
TIM : "Wait ! You really should do it nonetheless, it's important"
Shepard : "Ok, then. I think I should then do it. Anyway, I don't have anything else to do, so..."
TIM : "Good, don't forget to report."

[bjdbwea]

Orchomene wrote...

False choices.
TIM : "Shepard, go there, kill the enemies and report. Or do nothing if you want."
Shepard : "Ok, I'd rather do nothing, thus."
TIM : "Wait ! You really should do it nonetheless, it's important"
Shepard : "Ok, then. I think I should then do it. Anyway, I don't have anything else to do, so..."
TIM : "Good, don't forget to report."

To be fair, if you want to tell a good story, you have to enforce some developments, for example missions the player has to do. Freedom and exploration are great (and both severely missing in ME 2), but a good main story needs some linearity. Not saying the ME 2 main story is good, it isn't, but that's at least the theory. Even the Bethesda games do this by making important NPCs invulnerable.

That said, I totally agree that ME 2 lacks choices. Especially during the missions. During the side quests obviously, which are not only very dumb, but also completely linear. But also during the main story missions.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 17 juin 2010 - 02:34 .

[tonnactus]

Kaylord wrote...

How wrong. TIM states everytime: It is your decision..

So i obviously miss the opportunity to quit to work with them right at the beginning...:happy:

[tonnactus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Those open worlds were the easy way out, 

No,most planets in the galaxy would exactly look like they did in the first game.Barren and lifeless. Maybee bioware thought that science fiction fans would now that,but they were obviously wrong.

[tonnactus]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

I'd say it cut about 10 or 20 hours of disintegrating items into omnigel, so yeah, it is an improvement from what we had.

Fixing the inventory would be extremly easy.No random loot forced on the player and players only take the weapon armor they want. Like in oblivion.

[tonnactus]

Thajocoth wrote...

I also liked that you weren't overwhelmed by upgrade options when you leveled up in ME2. In the first one, you spend all your points over many levels on the same thing to get good at that thing, not really gaining much... But here, you feel like you're gaining more as you go.
.

Explain please what you "gain" with leveling.There are exactly two option: Bigger range or more damage.Thats it.Not much to gain,the difference between area and heavy overload are 40 points in damage.So everyone would take area for the chance to hit more then one enemy with it. What do you gain in MAss Effect,explained by the example of throw:
Basic Throw:
Cannon fodder.
Advanced: Asari commandos,krogan battlemasters and geth destroyers.

Master throw:Work on geth armatures.

You really gain more possibilites instead of little more duration,damage or range.

With Mass Effect throw,you couldnt throw "protected enemies even at level 4.

[tonnactus]

Mx_CN3 wrote...
  At least the loyalty missions in ME2 had a story and had interaction.

At least wrexs mission was a real loyality mission in the sense of the word and not a lame game mechanic that improves the chances of squadmates to survive in the end mission.

[tonnactus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The mercs played differently. You had 3 different merc groups, I refuse to fault a developer for providing a variety to the general combat. The only thing missing was Sniper Units.

I also miss real biotic enemies. Only some warp spammers exist...
And the "techs"? Incinerate and drone. Thats it. Not very much variety...

[Darth Drago]

iakus wrote...

Te loyalty missions did provide interaction, between Shepard and the person who's loyaty misson it is. But what about the third character? They almost always have little to nothing to say. Given the personality types Shepasrad ends up recruiting, that's odd to the point of being bizzare.

I maintain that if building the team was supposed to be the thrust of the game, then that should have been the emphasis; building a team. Teams don't just trust their leader, they trust each other. Yet we see very little interaction between the squad members. We get two arguements, little dialogue, no idea how most of them think of each other. If Shepard were to get injured and have to stay back for a mission, who'd take over? Miranda? Would Jack or Zaed follow her? Garrus? How would Grunt take that? Would Samara feel comfortable working alongside Thane? Would she trust him to help her "hold the line"? Miranda and Tali both trust Shepard, but do they trust each other?

Building the team could have been a far richer experience. I know Bioware could have done it, if they had really had their hearts in it. Instead we get some mildly entertaining backstories, some hit-and-miss loyalty missions (almost all based on killing some group of mercs or other) And some decent conversations which, quite frankly, can't carry the whole game.

-Totally agree on that. The so called “odd person out” in all loyalty missions were nothing but a joke and a waste of time.

I expected to hear Miranda say something about Cerberus on Jack’s loyalty mission but not a peep. Did Garrus say anything on Tali’s? Considering their history you would think so but again nothing. How about Samara on Jacob’s? Tali on Legion’s? Lets not forget Samara’s and Thane’s loyalty mission where the third person doesn’t say a word at all and it only gets worse since they don’t do anything as well in those missions.

The only original line I caught was with Jack on on Miranda’s loyalty mission. A whole single line.

The worst part is that most of these lines that they say are practically exactly the same ones used over and over regardless of who you take. Its like the writers just didn’t give a crap to go that extra mile to do anything out of the norm. In fact its likely they probably don’t from what I’ve seen in Mass Effect 2, its story downloads, in Dragon Age Awakenings and the DAO story downloads.

Oh look more mechs and mercs to kill. Seriously is that the best they could come up with to be used over and over to the point its boring as hell to play the game? Everywhere you go you ran into them. “Oh its just Sheppard again. He/she has killed dozens of our merc group without breaking a sweat. Rumor has it the he/she also died a few years ago. Oh well, everyone attack anyways.”


Oh in regards to the loyalty missions. They are not side quests. They are listed under your main quests. Its true however that you don’t have to do them. Considering that you get reminded more than once to make sure your team is focused on the mission with no distractions and the fact that they are tied in to the final battle you almost do need to do them.

[cachx]

Darth Drago wrote...
The worst part is that most of these lines that they say are practically exactly the same ones used over and over regardless of who you take. Its like the writers just didn’t give a crap to go that extra mile to do anything out of the norm. 

Dunno if the list is complete, but go check here.

Every squadmate will have a couple of quips per mission. I know where you are coming from, as you want more "team bonding". However that is very difficult if not impossible due to time/budget/technical constraints (wich most gamers ignore to get moar moar moar! of whatever they like best).
As I said before, the only way to get that is to 100% railroad everything, forego choices and consequences and do a Final Fantasy-esque game. I would rather have ME2 faults and all, thank you.

Oh and since most people ignored the link (due to allergy to truth, probably) I posted earlier here's a little part:

Casey Hudson wrote...
Mass Effect 2 has an untraditional structure, "building the team" as your narrative thrust rather than just being relegated to the first act like in many games. Was there a worry that people wouldn't get it or would be waiting for the "real game" to start?

We knew it was a risk and something different. You're right, the story of Mass Effect 2 is very much about how you get ready for a mission by building a team and understanding who they are, and about learning the magnitude of what you're facing. The funny thing is that people will say "other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there." But that is the story. In other
media, you find stories that are about so many different kinds of things, different structures. In movies you find there are stories about how someone gathers a team and makes them well equipped and well trained.

Part of what's great about a role playing game is that you have the choice of going off and doing other side stories, but that can be a problem, and that was one of the pieces of feedback we had about Mass Effect 1, that because the core story had so much intensity and pressure around it, when you would go off and do a side mission, it didn't have that kind of intensity and it wasn't directly linked as part of the story. That's where that Dirty Dozen team building structure addressed a lot of that on a fundamental level. If much of what you're doing in the game is recruiting a team and making them loyal to you and getting them equipped, then you have lots of missions, but every one of them will change whether or not someone's loyal to you in the end, or if they're even there or not. So something like helping Miranda find her sister, which is more emotional, kind of atouchy-feely story, ties back into this suicide mission in a way that makes sense because her mind is clear and she's totally loyal to you.