10273 réponses à ce sujet

[A_y0ner_]

One of my major concerns with ME2 was that it lost the life-like experience that ME1 had. It felt more like a game and less like role-playing the life of a real person in real situations. I believe this resulted mostly from the sheer repetitiveness of the game.



For example, the majority of ME2 is recruiting a team. Find a potential team mate, fight a bunch of baddies to reach him or her, recruit them, hear them talk about their problems, fight through a bunch of baddies and eliminate the problem to earn their loyalty.



The problem was that, with the exception of a little variety in some of the missions, the whole concept became too expected, too repetitive, too unauthentic and too unlife-like.



Why does everyone need a loyalty mission? I can understand maybe some of them have real pressing issues they want to get rid of, but everyone? I liked how in ME1 only Garrus and Wrex had personal missions. That, to me, felt authentic.



Oh, what's the matter *insert any teammate's name here*? You have something for me to take care of that will consist of me shooting bad guys from waist high blocks for approximately one hour and will only THEN result in an ending of some interest? What a surprise!



Where's the realness in that? Or immersion?

[Lumikki]

Anyone notice last 150 page there is mostly same few people writing in this thread.

[fchopin]

Lumikki wrote...

Anyone notice last 150 page there is mostly same few people writing in this thread.

If you give me a number then i may believe what you say, or do you like the topic so much that you read all 150 pages?

[Zulu_DFA]

A_y0ner_ wrote...

One of my major concerns with ME2 was that it lost the life-like experience that ME1 had. It felt more like a game and less like role-playing the life of a real person in real situations. I believe this resulted mostly from the sheer repetitiveness of the game.

For example, the majority of ME2 is recruiting a team. Find a potential team mate, fight a bunch of baddies to reach him or her, recruit them, hear them talk about their problems, fight through a bunch of baddies and eliminate the problem to earn their loyalty.

The problem was that, with the exception of a little variety in some of the missions, the whole concept became too expected, too repetitive, too unauthentic and too unlife-like.

Why does everyone need a loyalty mission? I can understand maybe some of them have real pressing issues they want to get rid of, but everyone? I liked how in ME1 only Garrus and Wrex had personal missions. That, to me, felt authentic.

Oh, what's the matter *insert any teammate's name here*? You have something for me to take care of that will consist of me shooting bad guys from waist high blocks for approximately one hour and will only THEN result in an ending of some interest? What a surprise!

Where's the realness in that? Or immersion?

But the shooter gaiiimplay!

[Lusitanum]

iakus wrote...

Situations like The Dirty Dozen, which this game was often compared to?   Or any number of other "hopeless battle/suicide mission" stories?  Good guys typically win, but winning hopeless battles usually has a steep cost to it.

Maybe, but in a game where you're told that your choices actually matter and ending up with a situation where the game just tells you "Hey, did you like this character? You do? Then here's a rocket to the face!" (why did it had to be Garrus? )... it can get frustrating.

I'm not saying that Virmire was bad moment, far from it. Even if it involved the two least likable characters, it still made you feel loss, which is quite rare in a game. But I really don't see how you could pull something like that in the sequel and not have people rolling their ways with a "oh, where have I seen that before <_<". Which would kind of kill both scenes.

iakus wrote...

You must admit, Garrus has an annoying tendency to let personal vendettas cloud his judgement.  Plus he seems to need someone at his sshoulder to remind him that he does not always get to decide who lives and wo dies.

Maybe, but then that's just par for the course in RPGs. Remember the tortured slave girl in Jade Empire? Now that was jarring.

At least Garrus actively wants to kill these people and you either just passively let him do it or actively stop him. It can still feel a bit weird, but the game would just lose a lot without that sort of thing.

iakus wrote...

Kinda weird how that plays out exactly as if you had the wrong tech expert in the first place. 

I'm talking about other points in the game. Stuff that happens along the way.   Like a cut scene at some point where Jack does a biotic slam on a Collector drawing a bead on Miranda.  Grunt wading through a bunch of them to rescue a Tali who's about to be overwhelmed.  Thane pulling Jacob back from a booby trap.  Maybe this is stuff that happens during Hold the Line, but we don't get to see it!  It's all off-screen and hidden numbers.

Believe me, I would love to see those too, especially since the suicide mission already has some of the best moments in the whole game, but since the game is always meant to be seen from Shepard's point of view (with the exception of the attack on the Normandy), that would kind of break the narrative perspective of the game .

iakus wrote...
And I know how much people hate numbers in games

When they are hidden numbers, as you mentioned them, oh yes, we hate them a lot! Playing Blood Bowl was an exercise in frustration until I finally managed to understand what the hell those small calculations meant, and at least I could actually see those.

iakus wrote...

I'm more grateful for the massive amounts of shields it has, even if it does take a while to replenish if you let them get depleted

I still say you should be thankful for the enemies you have to face, or your massive amount of shields would merely buy you a few more seconds before you were blown to smithereens. Because I can imagine the Hammerhead facing the enemies of ME1 and surviving (in fact, we see that in the Hammerhead pack), but I definitely can't say the same for the Mako against some ME2 enemies.

bjdbwea wrote...

Really. Such as? Maybe you should let
NASA know, it might save them millions in development.

Like
I said: helicopters that can deal with alien
atmoshperes. Or something like that. We're talking about a
galaxy that has mastered space travel, NASA aren't the guys to go to
anymore in this sort of thing.

bjdbwea wrote...

Seriously
though, I agree that a hovering vehicle might make more sense in some
situations, but the question remains how that would deal with mountain
climbing. Maybe a combination with wheels? But it doesn't change the
fact that the Hammerhead wasn't very good. Too simple, too unrealistic
(especially the weaponry), too obviously focused on instant non-stop
action, too convenient and linear level design. That's not a good
replacement for the exploration part from ME 1.

Why not? It made exploration in Overload actually enjoyable
to the point where even a Mako-"hater" (don't really like the word, but
you get the point) like me, actually felt compelled to explore the
world around. And it certainly wasn't because the shooting was all that
great.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But the shooter gaiiimplay!

Is that really all you're reduced to now? Repeating the same tired arguments and going for into troll mode?

Come on man, you were the kind of guy with whom one could have an articulate discussion just a few pages back, now all you do is complain about how lush worlds are not sci-fi (you must have hated Ontarom then) and blaming the "Hal0oz" for the stuff you don't like.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
But the shooter gaiiimplay!

Is that really all you're reduced to now? Repeating the same tired arguments and going for into troll mode?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I just can sign every sentence in that post.

 
you must have hated Ontarom then

Why would I? There are prairies, and savannahs, and steppes on a "lush" world I inhabit. OK, I'll admit, a small stream and pools of water would make that canyon better. But I was perfectly OK with most planets being barren. it only added to the realism of the game.

I really think they should have left the planets the way they were. Improve it as much as possible, but not replace it with corridor levels.

Lusitanum wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Really. Such as? Maybe you should let
NASA know, it might save them millions in development.

Like
I said: helicopters that can deal with alien
atmoshperes. Or something like that. We're talking about a
galaxy that has mastered space travel, NASA aren't the guys to go to
anymore in this sort of thing.

Do you realize that on Earth helicopters can't fly higher than 5-6 km above sea level? That's because there is not enough air up there! A hover vehicle is as good for space exploration as a brick. Because the most interesting objects in space are planets with low gravity, and that means no atmoshpere! That's why Hammerhead's turbine and does not make any sense for the "space" combat. But there again, ME2 is a fantasy game, where the heaviest hazardous environment equipment needed is a gas mask, so the Hammerhead does make sense in this fantasy universe.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 04 juillet 2010 - 07:30 .

[Pocketgb]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Why would I? There are prairies, and savannahs, and steppes on a "lush" world I inhabit. OK, I'll admit, a small stream and pools of water would make that canyon better. But I was perfectly OK with most planets being barren. it only added to the realism of the game.

It does indeed. Given that they are classified as 'uncharted' planets they should, realistically, be rather barren.
But that's the problem with keeping 'realism' in mind when developing your game, and it's that its not always associated with 'fun'. A great (and rather extreme, don't take it too seriously) example would be requiring Shepard to go to the bathroom every few hours or so.
Not every player wants to make that tradeoff.

[Il Divo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do you realize that on Earth helicopters can't fly higher than 5-6 km above sea level? That's because there is not enough air up there! A hover vehicle is as good for space exploration as a brick. Because the most interesting objects in space are planets with low gravity, and that means no atmoshpere! That's why Hammerhead's turbine and does not make any sense for the "space" combat. But there again, ME2 is a fantasy game, where the heaviest hazardous environment equipment needed is a gas mask, so the Hammerhead does make sense in this fantasy universe.

I think you're taking his words far too seriously. I doubt he wants exactly a helicoptor to explore uncharted planets with. But his point that the Mako is remarkably underwhelming given the state of technology in Mass Effect is very true. Difficult battles should be a result of enemies with realistic AI, not because half the time I'm battling against my own vehicle's crappy movement controls.

I also find calling Mass Effect 1 "science fiction" a stretch in a world which incorporates teleportation, asari mind melding, and giant sentient plants. Science fiction is usually noted for providing some explnation for its more fantastical elements.

[Orchomene]

Lusitanum wrote...

Or a helicopter that could endure the atmosphere of uncharter planets. Seriously, I can think of modern day vehicles tht would make more sense for exploration than the Mako.

How would you use a helicopter on a planet that has no atmosphere ? Don't forget that if you have to land and use a vehicule on a planet that may have no atmosphere, or a methan atm, ammonia atm, very high or low temperature, radiation expositions, very high velocity winds, you need a very robust vehicule.
There are not a lot of choices and the hammerhead is all but the kind of vehicule you would use in those situations. Or only in a fantasy game, not in a scifi game.

[Zulu_DFA]

Il Divo wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do you realize that on Earth helicopters can't fly higher than 5-6 km above sea level? That's because there is not enough air up there! A hover vehicle is as good for space exploration as a brick. Because the most interesting objects in space are planets with low gravity, and that means no atmoshpere! That's why Hammerhead's turbine and does not make any sense for the "space" combat. But there again, ME2 is a fantasy game, where the heaviest hazardous environment equipment needed is a gas mask, so the Hammerhead does make sense in this fantasy universe.

But his point that the Mako is remarkably underwhelming given the state of technology in Mass Effect is very true.

It's not true. Wheeled and caterpillared vehicles will be in use for another thousand years at least.

I do agree that a flying vehicle would make more sence for SR-2, but it should have been something like the A-61 Mantis gunship. But the Mantis would make the corridor style gameplay even more self-evident. So they crossed the Mako with the Banshee unit from StarCraft 2, replaced the powerful mass accelerator cannon with the ML-77 Rocket Launcher, to give us this plain ugly and nonsensical Hammerhead.

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

Where would you hide as a pirat? Those planets are ideal for this.

Space mostly. I hear it's pretty big.

Orchomene wrote...

There are not a lot of choices and the hammerhead is all
but the kind of vehicule you would use in those situations. Or only in a
fantasy game, not in a scifi game.

Sci-fi game that has 'magic'.

The game even gives you a perfect solution for those problems. MASS EFFECT FIELDS. You can make the craft lighter or heavier as needed. Just add thrusters for more directions than just one and we're set.

[Il Divo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It's not true. Wheeled and caterpillared vehicles will be in use for another thousand years at least.
 

You're also forgetting that the Prothean technology jumped humanity forward at least 150 years and this was before they had established contact with the Asari/Turians. Point holds that the Mako still feels out-dated. It's not just the wheels, it's not the rocket launcher, etc. It's the way everything blended together. This honestly could be the result of controls. If driving the Mako felt more fluid, it'd probably feel less like a piece of junk and more like an all-purpose terrain vehicle.

I do agree that a flying vehicle would make more sence for SR-2, but it should have been something like the A-61 Mantis gunship. But the Mantis would make the corridor style gameplay even more self-evident. So they crossed the Mako with the Banshee unit from StarCraft 2, replaced the powerful mass accelerator cannon with the ML-77 Rocket Launcher, to give us this plain ugly and nonsensical Hammerhead.

It certainly controls better than the Mako and I personally thought it didn't look any worse, simply different. I would've preferred that Bioware take a leaf out of Halo's book as far as vehicular combat was concerned for Mass Effect 1. Perhaps blend the two sequences together so you could use your vehicle as cover. Instead, they attempted their own method which ultimately collapsed.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juillet 2010 - 09:37 .

[Max Legend]

If ME2 is a fantasy game than Roger Zelazny's Lord of light,Frank Herbert's Dune and Alejandro Jodorowsky's The Metabarons belong to the fantasy genre.

[Zulu_DFA]

Il Divo wrote...

If driving the Mako felt more fluid, it'd probably feel less like a piece of junk and more like an all-purpose terrain vehicle. 
[Hammerhead] certainly controls better than the Mako.

It wasn't easy for me to master the Mako controls, but by the end of my first ME1 playthrough, I was quite satisfied with my driving. What Mako really needed was a tutorial level.

And Hammerhead's controls are not better. They are oversimpified. Steering the vehicle with mouse... What? and still this cliff hopping is annoying. If it flies, why the heck can't it fly longer?

Funny thing, they could leave the Mako practically untouched, just extend the time the thrusters could be engaged, and the result would be practically the same.

[Il Divo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It wasn't easy for me to master the Mako controls, but by the end of my first ME1 playthrough, I was quite satisfied with my driving. What Mako really needed was a tutorial level.

And Hammerhead's controls are not better. They are oversimpified. Steering the vehicle with mouse... What? and still this cliff hopping is annoying. If it flies, why the heck can't it fly longer?

I feel like I haven't been entirely clear. The issue wasn't simply 'mastering' the controls; I was able to do that. The problem with the Mako is that it inherently limits your mobility in ways which typical vehicular combat should not.

Having played Halo where the Warthog is a halfway decent vehicle, everything about the Mako feels like a delayed response: turning, hovering, etc. This is doubly so when attempting to scale mountain ranges (my true issue with the Mako). It is not difficult so much as 'frustrating'. I can get past practically any obstacle if I push hard enough, but why I must do so at a snail's pace is beyond me. This is simply bad game design.

[tonnactus]

Lusitanum wrote...

I still say you should be thankful for the enemies you have to face, or your massive amount of shields would merely buy you a few more seconds before you were blown to smithereens. Because I can imagine the Hammerhead facing the enemies of ME1 and surviving (in fact, we see that in the Hammerhead pack), but I definitely can't say the same for the Mako against some ME2 enemies.

Shepardt tries to reach the conduit with the hammerhead....

Boom.Game over in 1 second.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 juillet 2010 - 10:25 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Il Divo wrote...
This is doubly so when attempting to scale mountain ranges (my true issue with the Mako). It is not difficult so much as 'frustrating'. I can get past practically any obstacle if I push hard enough, but why I must do so at a snail's pace is beyond me. This is simply bad game design.

I think the idea was to make players find paths around the mountains, with the use of minimap. There are only three UNC planets actually, out of 20+, where points of interest can only be accessed "the hard way". But I guess it passed by most of the Mako haters.

[Crysis I]

all in all i was quite pleased with mass effect 2,i think this was due to the fact that i deliberately didnt hype myself up for it by reading into all the info about the game prelaunch. i wasnt expecting anything other then the continuation of sheperd's story. i think alot of people go wrong with games by hyping themselves up for it and then when the game comes out there dissapointed with it where they expected so much more.



when metal gear solid 4 came out alot of the fans were gutted by the game but this was due to them constantly reading all the latest previews etc before the game was out. same goes with mass effect 2 i think too many of our fellow forum buddys hyped it up and therefore were dissapointed with the final product. i remember seeing countless threads on the old site with everyone talking about what they want to see and how they think it will end, i think if you all just cut down abit on this then you wouldnt feel so dissapointed. when mass effect 3 comes out it will be exactly the same thing.



mass effect 2 is as good as the original they both have their pros and cons.

[Vena_86]

Il Divo wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It wasn't easy for me to master the Mako controls, but by the end of my first ME1 playthrough, I was quite satisfied with my driving. What Mako really needed was a tutorial level.

And Hammerhead's controls are not better. They are oversimpified. Steering the vehicle with mouse... What? and still this cliff hopping is annoying. If it flies, why the heck can't it fly longer?

I feel like I haven't been entirely clear. The issue wasn't simply 'mastering' the controls; I was able to do that. The problem with the Mako is that it inherently limits your mobility in ways which typical vehicular combat should not.

Having played Halo where the Warthog is a halfway decent vehicle, everything about the Mako feels like a delayed response: turning, hovering, etc. This is doubly so when attempting to scale mountain ranges (my true issue with the Mako). It is not difficult so much as 'frustrating'. I can get past practically any obstacle if I push hard enough, but why I must do so at a snail's pace is beyond me. This is simply bad game design.

IMO its not bad design but bad execution. As you said your self the MAKO is probably alot less annoying with proper controls. As a PC player I can hardly understand all the hate. Yes, it feels like a bathtub filled with water at times. But the stories from console players remain just that for me, stories I never experienced my self. The basic concept actually was interesting, fitting, realistic and brought some gameplay diversity. But the potential was not even half way used and the controls created alot of hate that was directed towards the whole concept for no objective reason.
BioWare have proven that they can improve something which didnt feel quite right before (combat) but what they did with the MAKO was like parents abandoning their autistic child to appear better in public. Instead of making things work and using the potential, it's just bye bye retard.

[Lusitanum]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Why would I? There are prairies, and savannahs, and steppes on a "lush" world I inhabit. OK, I'll admit, a small stream and pools of water would make that canyon better. But I was perfectly OK with most planets being barren. it only added to the realism of the game.

Dude, a barren planet can still be interessting, you don't need lush jungles to make it interesting.

For instance, look at Machinarium. It's a game that runs on Flash in a world where there's scrap and junk all over the place. And it's still a gorgeous world, in its own way, due to the all the little things it has and, even without needing to change its setting, it can always show you something new every time.

The worlds on ME1 on the other hand are all pretty much the same but with a different paint job. Some are red, others are snow white, others are blue but they're all filled with nothing.

Now don't get me wrong, I know many of these are uncharted planets should have nothing on them, but even then you can make them look good and if you can't then don't make most of the game revolve around bouncing about on them.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I really think they should have left the planets the way they were. Improve it as much as possible, but not replace it with corridor levels.

They did that on Overlord. You bashed it because it's lush and has waterfalls.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Do you realize that on Earth helicopters can't fly higher than 5-6 km above sea level? That's because there is not enough air up there! A hover vehicle is as good for space exploration as a brick. Because the most interesting objects in space are planets with low gravity, and that means no atmoshpere! That's why Hammerhead's turbine and does not make any sense for the "space" combat. But there again, ME2 is a fantasy game, where the heaviest hazardous environment equipment needed is a gas mask, so the Hammerhead does make sense in this fantasy universe.

Future technology. Again, if we've mastered FTL space travel, we can get a flying vehicle that can surpass the limitations of our technology. I can alter the weight of my mouse, can't I do the same to a vehicle that's meant for exploration on planets with varying degrees of gravity?

Zulu_DFA wrote...

It wasn't easy for me to master the Mako
controls, but by the end of my first ME1 playthrough, I was quite
satisfied with my driving. What Mako really needed was a tutorial level.

And
Hammerhead's controls are not better. They are oversimpified. Steering
the vehicle with mouse... What? and still this cliff hopping is
annoying. If it flies, why the heck can't it fly longer?

Because it doesn't fly, it just has a booster. If they gave you actual unlimited flight, then there would be no reason for you not to just go wherever you wanted on the planet which would be kind of hard to justify why you couldn't just do that whenever you felt like it.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Funny
thing, they could leave the Mako practically untouched, just extend the
time the thrusters could be engaged, and the result would be practically
the same.

And it would still bounce like crazy at the slightest bump, have a hard time going up a hill and have a funky turret. Thrusters alone wouldn't cut it.

Orchomene wrote...

How would you use a helicopter on a
planet that has no atmosphere ? Don't forget that if you have to land
and use a vehicule on a planet that may have no atmosphere, or a methan
atm, ammonia atm, very high or low temperature, radiation expositions,
very high velocity winds, you need a very robust vehicule.
There are
not a lot of choices and the hammerhead is all but the kind of vehicule
you would use in those situations. Or only in a fantasy game, not in a
scifi game.

Again, use the technology that's thousands of years ahead of ours. Hell, the Hammerhead is already pretty much what we wanted: a vehicle that is able to get to hard to reach places and doesn't control like a drunkard on a unicycle.

tonnactus wrote...

Shepardt tries to reach the conduit
with the hammerhead....

Boom.Game over in 1 second.

If you completely fail to use the thruster that can close the distance between you and the Conduit in less than 10 seconds, then you deserve to die. Darwin mentioned something about this sort of thing... "survival of the one with the brains" or something like that.

Not to mention that you still had the vertical thruster, the rockets that could probably kill those things in the time alloted and still give you time to reach the Conduit and the ability to actually dodge things, instead of just going straight ahead and pray that your enemies didn't beat you up too bad and that the vehicle could keep a steady course through a straight line.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I think the idea was to make players
find paths around the mountains, with the use of minimap. There are only
three UNC planets actually, out of 20+, where points of interest can
only be accessed "the hard way". But I guess it passed by most of the
Mako haters.

Given the ridiculous amount of planets with way too many mountains, you're going way too low with your estimation there.

[Iakus]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

Situations like The Dirty Dozen, which this game was often compared to?   Or any number of other "hopeless battle/suicide mission" stories?  Good guys typically win, but winning hopeless battles usually has a steep cost to it.[/quote]

Maybe, but in a game where you're told that your choices actually matter and ending up with a situation where the game just tells you "Hey, did you like this character? You do? Then here's a rocket to the face!" (why did it had to be Garrus? )... it can get frustrating.

[/quote]

I'm not advocating inevitable death to particular characters.  I'm saying it should be very, very difficult to keep everyone alive.  You should be worried if you send Garrus out to do something.  Did I make the right call?  Is he focused enough?  Are the others with him able to keep him alive?  Wouldn't it be a kick if putting Miranda and Jack in the same group led to somebody's death 'cause they couldn't work together?  maybe a less-than-scrupulous Shepard would be willing to risk a less liked squadmate in order to keep Garrus safe.  Or Tali.  Or Legion.  The suicide Mission could have incorporated so many layers of complexity it could have made up for all of the game's other flaws if it had lived up to its potetial.  Instead it's a slightly longer than normal corridor run.



[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

I'm not saying that Virmire was bad moment, far from it. Even if it involved the two least likable characters, it still made you feel loss, which is quite rare in a game. But I really don't see how you could pull something like that in the sequel and not have people rolling their ways with a "oh, where have I seen that before <_<". Which would kind of kill both scenes.
[/quote]

FIrst, despite you're calling Ashley and Kaiden the "least likable characters" aside (Horizon by itself is the single biggest reason why I simply can't do a fourth playthrough of ME 2) I am glad you liked Virmire.  Even after all the playthroughs I've done, I still get a twinge at that scene.
Next, calling the final mission of the game a "suicide mission" kinda implies a strong potential for loss Not necessarilly inevitable loss, like Virmire, but still...

There are any number of ways characters could be killed without a "Virmire" effect: 

The player could play the part of the specialist, with appropriate fights and minigames.  Failure means someone dies. 

I still believe that "Hold the Line" should have been the "final boss" of the game.  It would be the ultimate test of how well you built your team:  Can They Function Without You?  It could have been a "run out the clock" type of battle with a few specialist tests.thrown in.  Any survivors meet up with Shep later.

There could have been something other than "can do it" and "can't do it" for potential specialists.  There could be "can kinda do it)  not the best, but can do it in a pinch.  Said person could get the job done, but you risk getting the person or someone else killed.

Truth be told, I expected the Suicide Mission to be splitting the entire squad up into 3-4 groups that would be permanently cut off from each other, save via commlinks.  Each group would have its own objectives which you'd have to pick the appropriate specialists for, or find creative ways to accomplish.  Failure in achieving a goal would make the rest of the mission that much harder.  Death is possible if you use the wrong specialist or otherwise screwing up an objective, for either the specialist or someone else.  If it had been that, well,

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

You must admit, Garrus has an annoying tendency to let personal vendettas cloud his judgement.  Plus he seems to need someone at his shoulder to remind him that he does not always get to decide who lives and wo dies.[/quote]

Maybe, but then that's just par for the course in RPGs. Remember the tortured slave girl in Jade Empire? Now that was jarring.


At least Garrus actively wants to kill these people and you either just passively let him do it or actively stop him. It can still feel a bit weird, but the game would just lose a lot without that sort of thing.

[/quote]

Not so much weird as a jarring case of deja'vu

Loyalty quests are cool, but I don't think they were used to their fullest potential.  Garrus, for example should have had someting besides bloody-minded revenge to deal with.  Been there.  Done that. Yeah, I know, ironic given what we're talking about for Virmire and teh suicide mission.  But given that it's entirely possible that Garrus has been "paragoned" in the last game, appropriate in this case.

Funny coincidence, I just installed and started playing JE yesterday after a couple of years..  Haven't reached that quest and don't really recall it, but I just rached Tein's Landing so we'll see if it jogs mymmemory.

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

Kinda weird how that plays out exactly as if you had the wrong tech expert in the first place. 

I'm talking about other points in the game. Stuff that happens along the way.   Like a cut scene at some point where Jack does a biotic slam on a Collector drawing a bead on Miranda.  Grunt wading through a bunch of them to rescue a Tali who's about to be overwhelmed.  Thane pulling Jacob back from a booby trap.  Maybe this is stuff that happens during Hold the Line, but we don't get to see it!  It's all off-screen and hidden numbers.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love to see those too, especially since the suicide mission already has some of the best moments in the whole game, but since the game is always meant to be seen from Shepard's point of view (with the exception of the attack on the Normandy), that would kind of break the narrative perspective of the game .

[/quote]

The suicide mission does have some good scenes.  My favorite is the biotic bubble, watching her gradually buckle under the strain.  Now that's tension!

I'm not so sure it would break the perspective too much.  As you said, it's already happens once.  And there are a couple of other scenes in both games where it happens.  The important thing would be that we would see the results of our choices.  What we get now are simply on/off loylaty flags and hidden numbers.  Actually witnessing the fruits of our labors would at least give the illusion that the mission is more than just another Run 'N Gun.

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...
[quote]iakus wrote...
And I know how much people hate numbers in games[/quote]

When they are hidden numbers, as you mentioned them, oh yes, we hate them a lot! Playing Blood Bowl was an exercise in frustration until I finally managed to understand what the hell those small calculations meant, and at least I could actually see those.
[/quote]

As the saying goes:  "Show, don't tell!"  Hold the Line (among other things in ME 2) completely fails at this.


[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

I'm more grateful for the massive amounts of shields it has, even if it does take a while to replenish if you let them get depleted [/quote]

I still say you should be thankful for the enemies you have to face, or your massive amount of shields would merely buy you a few more seconds before you were blown to smithereens. Because I can imagine the Hammerhead facing the enemies of ME1 and surviving (in fact, we see that in the Hammerhead pack), but I definitely can't say the same for the Mako against some ME2 enemies.

[/quote]

I figure if Shepard can survive a direct hit with a rocket, the Mako should be able to handle at least a few   Iif I do say so myself, I got pretty good at strafing and jumping with the Mako, ducking behind hills and using terrain to my advantage.  I suppose in ME 2 the Mako would be torn to pieces, since those corridors can get mighty narrow

Modifié par iakus, 04 juillet 2010 - 10:52 .

[bjdbwea]

Crysis I wrote...

all in all i was quite pleased with mass effect 2,i think this was due to the fact that i deliberately didnt hype myself up for it by reading into all the info about the game prelaunch. i wasnt expecting anything other then the continuation of sheperd's story. i think alot of people go wrong with games by hyping themselves up for it and then when the game comes out there dissapointed with it where they expected so much more.

I don't think that's entirely correct. I for one never believe the hype. If anything, what I read before release lowered my expectations. Many people just expected a continuation of ME 1, nothing more and nothing less.

I would argue that not even Shepard's story was really continued, certainly not well, it was reset and started anew. A proper continuation wouldn't kill the protagonist and force him into completely new circumstances, it would continue where part 1 ended. Remember, Shepard said at the end of ME 1, "the reapers are still out there and I'm going to find a way to stop them". That's what ME 2 should have been all about.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 juillet 2010 - 10:59 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...


I also find calling Mass Effect 1 "science fiction" a stretch in a world which incorporates teleportation, asari mind melding, and giant sentient plants. Science fiction is usually noted for providing some explnation for its more fantastical elements.

I think "science fantasy" is a more accurate term than "science fiction"  It deals with stuff which, as far as we know, is impossible.  Given that Mass Effect is compared to Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, and so on, it seems to fit the genre.

It certainly doesn't make it any worse (or better) a story.

[Iakus]

Crysis I wrote...

all in all i was quite pleased with mass effect 2,i think this was due to the fact that i deliberately didnt hype myself up for it by reading into all the info about the game prelaunch. i wasnt expecting anything other then the continuation of sheperd's story. i think alot of people go wrong with games by hyping themselves up for it and then when the game comes out there dissapointed with it where they expected so much more.

.

I read very little about ME 2 before it came out.   I heard stuff about "interrupt options"  "recruiting for a suicide mission" where everyone could die.   Something about an assasin named "Thane" and that the old LIs would not be recruitable this time around.  SOunded good but in the end  ME 1 was hype enough for me

I too expected a continuation of Shepard's story.  The problem was we did not get a sequel.  We got an entirely seperate story which anyone could have been the protagonist.  Nothing you accomplished in the first game had much meaning.  Shepard's old life is torn away in everty sense of the word and he's shoved into a new one  again in every possible sense of the word.  All with nary a protest.   IMO, that's not much of a continuation 

[KitsuneRommel]

If Mako had had rear thrusters and lift thrusters for more than 3 seconds it would have been a lot better vehicle.

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...


I also find calling Mass Effect 1 "science fiction" a stretch in a world which incorporates teleportation, asari mind melding, and giant sentient plants. Science fiction is usually noted for providing some explnation for its more fantastical elements.

I think "science fantasy" is a more accurate term than "science fiction"  It deals with stuff which, as far as we know, is impossible.  Given that Mass Effect is compared to Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, and so on, it seems to fit the genre.

It certainly doesn't make it any worse (or better) a story.

Science fantasy makes for much better games/movies than science fiction imo. Hard sci-fi works in books better.