10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

nelly21 wrote...

I wouldn't say your decisions meant squat. The decisions shaped the sort of galaxy your Shepard steps into in ME 2. My paragon Shepard was a hero and humanity is exalted throughout his playthrough. My renegade is disliked and questioned while humanity is hated in his playthrough. The galaxy is pretty different depending on what choices you made in ME 1. And remember, we don't know the full extent of any of our choices from either game. Remember, there's still a third game coming. But did your choices not effect who was loyal and who wasn't? Did they not effect whether Tali is exiled in her mission?

I think the majority of people's frustration come from wanting immediate gratification. Nobody seems willing to wait until ME 3 to see the full extent of our choices.

Just going from memory here, but I seem to recall that the only difference between the paragon and renegade endings from ME 1 in ME 2 is:

Whether one shop in the Citadel will sell to you

How a couple of asari travelers on the Citadel treat you

Whether the Council will speak with you or not (not that that's a big deal "Ah yes, Reapers")

What questions Khalisah al-Jilani asks you (one way or another, she tries to smear you, so again no biggie)

Oh and a whole slew of emails

Who was loyal and who wasn't was a binary question.  As long as you do the quest and don't actively sabotage it, you're pretty much guaranteed the loyalty switch will be in the "on" position.  There's a couple of exceptions, like Zaed and Tali'sloyalty missions, but even then you can paragon/renegade your way through a third option easily enough.

I count exactly three coices that might, might have some effect on ME 3.  Tali, Mordin, and Legion's loyalty missions outcomes might have some effect in ME 3.  But then again, I expected the Hades' Dogs quest  and UNC: Dead Scientists in ME1 to have an effect in ME 2.  Shows what I know. 

I know there's still a third game left, while the first game felt like you could solve the problems your way, ME 2 felt like youre being funneled through a chute towards a predetermined outcome.  I have no idea if my choices will have any real effect in ME 3, except maybe an angry email from TIM

And here's the real sticking point about how little your coices matter.  the new Councilor Anderson's last words in ME 1:

 "Shepard's right.  Humanity is ready to do its part. United with the rest of the Council, we have the strength to overcome any challenge!  When the Reapers come, we must stand side-by-side!  We must fight against them as one, and together, we will drive them back into dark space!"


Umm, not so much...

[nelly21]

But it is a different galaxy. Let me put it this way. What would you have done to make the choices mean more? We don't realize how much variation there is in this story. The choices are superficial perhaps, but they do change the environment. I think people simply wanted the choices to make an immediate impact on gameplay. The question is how?



ME 1 was just as straight tracked as ME 2. Both games funnel you in a specific direction because both games are ultimately telling you the same story.

[tonnactus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
The cipher and the location of the mu relay were vaguely plot connected?

They're both basically tacked-on plot exposition at the end that give the Feros and Noveria another excuse to exist in the game aside from the fact that you're being told (mostly via text iirc) that you're going there to investigate what Saren's been up to. Most of what happens during the two missions has very little to do with Saren and Sovereign and what there is in the way of a connection to the main plot is just a few seconds of exposition.

You get not only the cipher from shiala.But also some knowledge about Saren,Benezia and the abbilities of the sovereign and the indictrination.When talking later with benezia you could even mentioned what shiala told you about indoctrination.And if those things only needs a "few seconds" i just ask why they were not implemented in the second game?? Because the story of the game would be so much better with "these few seconds".
And the story had great villains.Not only saren,benezia and the sovereign were god too.Shepardt talked with them.
Talking with bosses/subbosses was also a thing that didnt exists in Mass Effect.Why not talking with wasea to give you the name of ship morinth escape instead just another merc wave slaughter? (that wasnt a job she liked anyway,so a deal could be possible)

[spacehamsterZH]

tonnactus wrote...
You get not only the cipher from shiala.But also some knowledge about Saren,Benezia and the abbilities of the sovereign and the indictrination.When talking later with benezia you could even mentioned what shiala told you about indoctrination.And if those things only needs a "few seconds" i just ask why they were not implemented in the second game?? Because the story of the game would be so much better with "these few seconds".

Again, my point was that amount of screentime doesn't necessarily equal quality. The writing in ME2 is generally actually much better at condensing things without making them lose their weight (the dialogue in ME1, conversely, often seems needlessly plodding, not at MGS levels, but getting there sometimes), but yeah, it fails to do this, and yeah, it's a small touch that makes a big difference in terms of plot cohesion.

And I really hope we'll get a few chances to talk our way out of firefights again in ME3. Totally agreed.

[smudboy]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
You get not only the cipher from shiala.But also some knowledge about Saren,Benezia and the abbilities of the sovereign and the indictrination.When talking later with benezia you could even mentioned what shiala told you about indoctrination.And if those things only needs a "few seconds" i just ask why they were not implemented in the second game?? Because the story of the game would be so much better with "these few seconds".

Again, my point was that amount of screentime doesn't necessarily equal quality. The writing in ME2 is generally actually much better at condensing things without making them lose their weight (the dialogue in ME1, conversely, often seems needlessly plodding, not at MGS levels, but getting there sometimes), but yeah, it fails to do this, and yeah, it's a small touch that makes a big difference in terms of plot cohesion.

And I really hope we'll get a few chances to talk our way out of firefights again in ME3. Totally agreed.

I think tonnactus was referring to flags or triggers, that influence future conversations/events.  Alpha Protocol has a huge number of these, the narrative being a Choose Your Own Adventure story.  ME2?  Just a handful, usually based on your import, and the obvious non-conversational ones for the Suicide Mission.

Although I agree that brevity is a good sign of things being well written, it also requires clarity: something ME2 didn't have.  This is a fundamental flaw with fantasy and sci-fi genre's, and worse in space opera, because we need almost constant exposition before the "real" storytelling takes place.  The main plot elements have to be clear for this to be effective (antagonist, protgaonist, support characters, MacGuffins, tech, etc.) along with plot progression that exemplifies that (i.e. why the characters are doing this instead of that, for the MacGuffin/because of tech, etc.)  Throw in 12 other side stories that don't relate to each other or the main plot, and yeah, questions and problems will pop up.

[tonnactus]

nelly21 wrote...


The only class that caused me a problem on Insanity was Engineer. Every other class was a cake walk. The reason is that your skill was irrelevant. After five or six points in your weapon of choice, you almost had to look completely away from your target to miss. ME 2 brings player skill into the equation and the result is much better fire fights

This is joke,right? Spammable bullet time,the time slow down for the infiltrator and cloak  doesnt make it hard to make headshots(and accurate weapons right from the start). Enemies even rarely change their position or flank except the geth. For the other classes : Drone stun and singularity did a nice job to hold enemies out of cover ,make them harmless and easy to shoot.In addition to heavy damage powers like incinerate and warp to save some ammo.

There is to much ammo in the game anyway even on insanity so its more an annoyance then something that adds strategy to the game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juin 2010 - 09:55 .

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

And here's the real sticking point about how little your coices matter.  the new Councilor Anderson's last words in ME 1:

 "Shepard's right.  Humanity is ready to do its part. United with the rest of the Council, we have the strength to overcome any challenge!  When the Reapers come, we must stand side-by-side!  We must fight against them as one, and together, we will drive them back into dark space!"

The best possibility to make your actions matter in Mass Effect 2 were the thane mission with nassana dantius.Completly wasted for an amazing dumb cutscene (only the kasumi stunt was worser and completly moronic). And they not even take the time to include him to explain who hired him and why.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juin 2010 - 09:56 .

[javierabegazo]

tonnactus wrote...

nelly21 wrote...


The only class that caused me a problem on Insanity was Engineer. Every other class was a cake walk. The reason is that your skill was irrelevant. After five or six points in your weapon of choice, you almost had to look completely away from your target to miss. ME 2 brings player skill into the equation and the result is much better fire fights

This is joke,right? Spammable bullet time,the time slow down for the infiltrator and cloak  doesnt make it hard to make headshots.Enemies even rarely change their position or flank except the geth. For the other classes : Drone stun and singularity did a nice job to hold enemies out of cover ,make them harmless and easy to shoot.In addition to heavy damage powers like incinerate and warp to save some ammo.

There is to much ammo in the game anyway even on insanity so its more an annoyance then something that adds strategy to the game.

The point is, is that the game is balanced in that the Enemies can be just as deadly as you if you don't play the game smart. In ME1 alot of the time it was perfectly easy to stand out in the open. In addition to that, the ENEMIES would rarely take cover, often just trotting out to their deaths. When their shields were down they wouldn't take cover to recharge, they'd just stand there.

Even on Normal, you can still die if you stay out in the open for more than 5 secs when there's atleast 3 enemies

[Lumikki]

smudboy wrote...

Throw in 12 other side stories that don't relate to each other or the main plot, and yeah, questions and problems will pop up.

If you are refering here in ME2 loyalty missions, I had no questions why loyalty missions where done. And they where story connected. How ever, what was inside these loyalty missions was not story related. But existen as doing the mission was story related. How ever, only few missions in both Mass Effects where directly focusing to story. I think this is why so many have problems, because they did not get the story and why they Shepard did something. I can only think that they did not pay attention what was happening in story.

I have also listen this BS talk about how missions was not story releated. There was handfull missions in both Mass Effect games what where directly story related as carrying the story forward.. Most of the missions, like 80% missions has nothing to do main story in both games.

Both Mass Effect had good story. How ever, in opinion storytelling was better in ME1. Mostly what I have seen here in this forum, people bash ME2 story for two reason. Players where disapointed that ME2 story  did not continue the ME1 story and because storytelling wasn't so good, like example plot holes.  Both games had plot holes and even serious ones, but in ME2 they where more easy to notice.

[tonnactus]

javierabegazo wrote...

The point is, is that the game is balanced in that the Enemies can be just as deadly as you if you don't play the game smart.

Play smart in Mass Effect 2: Dont went out of cover when you are in the red venes( some of the most dumb things included in this game) and wait when shields recharging again.

In ME1 alot of the time it was perfectly easy to stand out in the open. In addition to that, the ENEMIES would rarely take cover, often just trotting out to their deaths.

Both,shepardts team and the enemies have better defensive abilities then.Geth use shield boost and the geth barrier,organics use shield boost and immunity(snipers use first aid),biotics have shields and barrier.
So that they dont take cover everytime make some sense.
Oh,i forget,there was also armor in Mass Effect.(percentage based damage reduction)

Only bosses/elites in Mass Effect 2  could recharge their barriers and shields.But this seems to have a long cooldown time,so this happen rarely and only if the player waits to long.There are some enemies who dont take cover,like krogans and shotgunners.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juin 2010 - 10:13 .

[spacehamsterZH]

javierabegazo wrote...
Even on Normal, you can still die if you stay out in the open for more than 5 secs when there's atleast 3 enemies

Yeah, but see, taking cover is for dumb console shooter fans. In smart games (i.e. real RPGs), you just stand there and spam powers because that's how it worked back when RPGs were all turn-based and therefore better.

</sarcasm>

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

I have also listen this BS talk about how missions was not story releated. There was handfull missions in both Mass Effect games what where directly story related as carrying the story forward.. Most of the missions, like 80% missions has nothing to do main story in both games.

In Mass Effect,they were optional side missions.In Mass Effect too the so called "loyality"  quests are only optional if you okay with it that half of your squad got killed in the last mission(and the you need to recruit 8 squadmates before the collector ship got triggered).And all missions have upgrades you couldnt get in an other way then doing them.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...


Play smart in Mass Effect 2: Dont went out of cover when you are in the red venes( some of the most dumb things included in this game) and wait when shields recharging again.

Who does this "play smart" rule make any different in ME1?

I mean, if you are smart and stay in cover and wait shields, it works in both games. Only real difference here is that in ME1 you did not need the cover, because you where SUPERMAN. Maybe this isn't fair way to say it, because I also sometimes did used cover in ME1 too, but I did not really need it. What makes hole combat like rushing towards enemy guns balazing and kill them as fast as possible.

[javierabegazo]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I have also listen this BS talk about how missions was not story releated. There was handfull missions in both Mass Effect games what where directly story related as carrying the story forward.. Most of the missions, like 80% missions has nothing to do main story in both games.

In Mass Effect,they were optional side missions.In Mass Effect too the so called "loyality"  quests are only optional if you okay with it that half of your squad got killed in the last mission(and the you need to recruit 8 squadmates before the collector ship got triggered).And all missions have upgrades you couldnt get in an other way then doing them.

It's supposed to be a suicide mission. Do you think it should be easy, and considered Canon that all your squadmates who went to the suicide mission should come out alive?

Should you get rewarded for skipping game content? Ofcourse there were upgrades only obtainable by doing other missions.  I don't think there is a game where you can obtain all the best items and upgrades solely with money or by skipping over half the missions

[Mir5]

Three things:
-The gene thing. That includes the reapers' obsession on humanity and the human genetic variance bs. It just wasn't believable. Genetics do matter, but I think the subject is treated like some kind of magic force in this series. Also, humans are a bit too special over every other race in this Mass2.
-Most choices don't matter. Or are too extreme. You are either are a sadistic sociopath, neurotic moralist, or something more reasonable, but if you choose latter, then you screw up because not acting like a lunatic in Mass Effect is a sign of weak-mindedness.
-Shepard is so great. She is (or he). But in ME it's like bloody Jesus Christ Rock Star The Sun. Everybody knows her/him. Yet, when the story demands it, (s)he will go unrecognized.

Honorabble mention:
-The main story of Mass2 makes no sense, or has no stucture. It was basically: "Aaah, these recruitment and loyality missions are very good. Uh-huh, Collectors are bad, I'm sure they work for reapers. Harvest humans. Mmmhmmm, I bet they need their brains or something for a giant boss, lol. Okay, I don't hate you, but I surely am going to put you down, Martin Sheen, once I get the chance. So they ALL go to that shuttle? Well, something bad is sure going to happen now! As I said. Mmmhmmm, through the Omega 4, this is awesome. Epicepicepic. Hands shaking, kill collectors, okay, whatever, just don't kill my favourites. NO STAY INSIDE THE BUBBLE. Phew. Heart bumping. This is awesome, so now it's propably time for the big revelatioand a giant robot made of human essence. *insert 4 months of traumatized flashbacks of the line"it's not just any kind of reaper"*

Modifié par Mir5, 22 juin 2010 - 10:27 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I have also listen this BS talk about how missions was not story releated. There was handfull missions in both Mass Effect games what where directly story related as carrying the story forward.. Most of the missions, like 80% missions has nothing to do main story in both games.

In Mass Effect,they were optional side missions.In Mass Effect too the so called "loyality"  quests are only optional if you okay with it that half of your squad got killed in the last mission(and the you need to recruit 8 squadmates before the collector ship got triggered).And all missions have upgrades you couldnt get in an other way then doing them.

So now you say the missions been not story related is fine, but because you where forced to do few of them they sucks?

Let see , you need like 5 recruits and maybe 4 loyalty missios to get everyone alive from last missions. Of course we know why it's done, because last missions was suicide multi-team mission. Oh are you saying it's bad thing too?

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 juin 2010 - 10:27 .

[tonnactus]

spacehamsterZH wrote...


Yeah, but see, taking cover is for dumb console shooter fans.

At least the cover should be natural cover and not presented in a way that you see it and immediatly know that a fight is going to happen.Also, why advanced shields systems couldnt absorb more then just a 1-2 seconds of weapon fire?? Was this "dumb" in Mass Effect?

[javierabegazo]

tonnactus wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...


Yeah, but see, taking cover is for dumb console shooter fans.

At least the cover should be natural cover and not presented in a way that you see it and immediatly know that a fight is going to happen.Also, why advanced shields systems couldnt absorb more then just a 1-2 seconds of weapon fire?? Was this "dumb" in Mass Effect?

First off, lets not base Insanity damage as the discussion, because a HARD difficulty is inserted into a game for gamers who are LOOKING for a challenge, i.e. making things more difficult (realistic?)

On Normal, Shepard's shields last around 4-5 seconds when getting pelted by constant fire from 3 enemies, each of them wielding assault rifles that are made to penetrate and kill Enemies who are wearing armor and kinetic shielding.


Sure cover should have been implemented in a more organic way, but that's really just nitpicking.

[smudboy]

Lumikki wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Throw in 12 other side stories that don't relate to each other or the main plot, and yeah, questions and problems will pop up.

If you are refering here in ME2 loyalty missions, I had no questions why loyalty missions where done. And they where story connected. How ever, what was inside these loyalty missions was not story related. But existen as doing the mission was story related. How ever, only few missions in both Mass Effects where directly focusing to story. I think this is why so many have problems, because they did not get the story and why they Shepard did something. I can only think that they did not pay attention what was happening in story.

I have also listen this BS talk about how missions was not story releated. There was handfull missions in both Mass Effect games what where directly story related as carrying the story forward.. Most of the missions, like 80% missions has nothing to do main story in both games.

Both Mass Effect had good story. How ever, in opinion storytelling was better in ME1. Mostly what I have seen here in this forum, people bash ME2 story for two reason. Players where disapointed that ME2 story  did not continue the ME1 story and because storytelling wasn't so good, like example plot holes.  Both games had plot holes and even serious ones, but in ME2 they where more easy to notice.

So the loyalty missions are story related...
...but what's in the loyalty missions are not.

Ah?  I guess you can say that the theme is about dealing with peoples personal issues, but how you do that has nothing to do with loyalty, per se?  Maybe since the plot mostly involves going on loyalty missions?  Ah there we go.  That makes sense.

I don't directly bash ME2's story; it's there, don't get me wrong.  It's like going on a guided tour of a building, but only the support structure of a building: it's standing, but none of the walls, doors, hallways are built yet.  Just a penhouse here, a bathroom there, a garage there, a bunch of furnishings there, etc.  All those individual rooms look great, but it's just disconnected from everything else.  The structure stands, but with no connection between anything in it.

The plot holes in ME2 cause what I refer to as "plot collapse." The sheer number of small and large ones break immersion.  There are holes in ME1, but nothing of obvious severity (I could be wrong, it's been a while.)

And yes, the fact that ME2 has a 2 in the title does beg the question.  Which hasn't been answered, nor will.

[tonnactus]

javierabegazo wrote...

Should you get rewarded for skipping game content? Ofcourse there were upgrades only obtainable by doing other missions.  I don't think there is a game where you can obtain all the best items and upgrades solely with money or by skipping over half the missions

Mass Effect? Doing only the main missions still allowed it to get spectre weapons and a good set of armor.

[Iakus]

nelly21 wrote...

But it is a different galaxy. Let me put it this way. What would you have done to make the choices mean more? We don't realize how much variation there is in this story. The choices are superficial perhaps, but they do change the environment. I think people simply wanted the choices to make an immediate impact on gameplay. The question is how?

ME 1 was just as straight tracked as ME 2. Both games funnel you in a specific direction because both games are ultimately telling you the same story.

What would I have done?  For one thing, some of the recruitment and loyalty missions would have been different. 

For example:

You paragoned Garrus in ME 1:  Garrus goes on to become a Spectre.  HE's taken it on himself to investigate the missing colonies in the Terminus Systems with his own squad.  The Collectors hired a bunch of mercs to silence him.

Renegade option:  Garrus goes off and become a vigilante.  Plays out pretty much as it does in ME 2.

Doesn't even require much more than some dialogue changes.

Another example, one that would require more changes:

Samara was a senior officer on the Destiny Ascension.  If you saved the Council, she is still serving onboard.  You have to go aboard the ship (perhaps as part of a tour) when some crisis happens.  A Terra Firma terrorist attack, some kind of malfunction, or whatever.  Shep and squad save the day, and end up on the Ascension's bridge being personally thanked by the captain for your actions.  Samara is given leave to go on detached duty to help you in your current mission.

Council died:  Samara was one of the few survivors from the geth attack.  Now embittered towards the human-led Council she has resigned her commision and has taken up the ways of a justicar.  She is much more hostile towards Shepard on first meeting, perhaps giving Shep some conversation options explaning the motivations for letting the Council die.

this would also likely lead to a difference in the loyalty mission and her backstory, but at least it provides more connection between ME 1 and ME 2

Thane's loyalty mission.  Depending on who you helped in ME 1 (Dr Michel, Jorban/Jaleed, Emily Wong, the Consort, etc) these others may be willing to give you information in tracking down Kolyat.  It neednt' be much, just something other than an email to remind us that ME 1 did in fact take place.

The trick to an rpg is, even if you do have to follow a track, you have to make it seem like it's the player's choice.  Someting they would do on their own anyway.  ME 2 the story is rammed down your throat.  Do as TIM says or the galaxy is doomed.  You have to recruit these twelve people.  Trust us they're the best.  No one else will do. 

[tonnactus]

Mir5 wrote...

Three things:
-The gene thing. That includes the reapers' obsession on humanity and the human genetic variance bs. It just wasn't believable. Genetics do matter, but I think the subject is treated like some kind of magic force in this series. Also, humans are a bit too special over every other race in this Mass2.
*

Yes,i really dont know.Is it so hard to make sci fi without the humans are special nonsense?

[tonnactus]

javierabegazo wrote...

First off, lets not base Insanity damage as the discussion, because a HARD difficulty is inserted into a game for gamers who are LOOKING for a challenge, i.e. making things more difficult (realistic?)

On Normal, Shepard's shields last around 4-5 seconds when getting pelted by constant fire from 3 enemies, each of them wielding assault rifles that are made to penetrate and kill Enemies who are wearing armor and kinetic shielding.

Realistic? It would be realistic or at least equal when each merc has the some amount of protection like shepardt.Thats only true for the troopers.Krogans,vanguards and commandos have a a lot more protection then shepardt and barely use cover(krogans didnt do that even once in the game)

Sorry but insanity in Mass Effect 2 is all but realistic.

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 juin 2010 - 10:55 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

So now you say the missions been not story related is fine, but because you where forced to do few of them they sucks?

I just wrote they are not optional but still not plot related.

[tonnactus]

iakus wrote...

Thane's loyalty mission. 

Thanes recruitment was the easist possibility imaginable.If you did nassana dantius the favor in the first game,you could just contact her and offer to stop the assasin.