10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

Eletania, Chaska, Nodacrux.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

Eletania, Chaska, Nodacrux.

Some people probably spent more time on those three planets combined than all the others combined.

[homestyle]

So I just finished ME2. I read the OP, but I'm not going to go through 282 pages of this thread.



I will say that I was disappointed with ME2. They took character development way too far at the detriment of actual story. It felt like 30 hours of DLC and 6 hours of actual meat & potatoes story.

[Zulu_DFA]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

Eletania, Chaska, Nodacrux.

Some people probably spent more time on those three planets combined than all the others combined.

This supports my view: there were 3 hard planets. The rest 20+ were all piece of cake.

[Zulu_DFA]

homestyle wrote...
I will say that I was disappointed with ME2.

Welcome to the club.

[Pocketgb]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This supports my view: there were 3 hard planets. The rest 20+ were all piece of cake.

It only supports that three were harder than the rest, actually.

[Zulu_DFA]

Pocketgb wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This supports my view: there were 3 hard planets. The rest 20+ were all piece of cake.

It only supports that three were harder than the rest, actually.

Actually, MTN Dew Fan said the 3 were harder than ALL the rest.

[Pocketgb]

At least you understood the point, then.

Or so I hope.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juillet 2010 - 09:36 .

[Jigero]

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.

Except your ignoring the fact that every peice of Tech in Mass Effect is fitted with a magical substance "Element Zero" that allows it to ignore the established laws of pysics and gravity.

Also are you that retarded you don't realise the Fiction in Science Fiction stands for "made up"?

Modifié par Jigero, 05 juillet 2010 - 09:37 .

[Terror_K]

Jigero wrote...

Except your ignoring the fact that every peice of Tech in Mass Effect is fitted with a magical substance "Element Zero" that allows it to ignore the established laws of pysics and gravity. 

Also are you that retarded you don't realise the Fiction in Science Fiction stands for "made up"?

Except that eezo was supposed to be the exception to the rule and the devs stated it as such. A few times it was stated that with Mass Effect they intended to make a fairly serious and believable sci-fi, but that like many sci-fi's you get your one piece of "space magic" to use that is the exception to the rule, just to have a little fun with and spice things up a little. Element Zero was this exception. That was pretty much stuck to in ME1, but then things got ridiculous in ME2.

In any sci-fi it can get to the point where elements are so ridiculous the universe loses any credibility or believability. Sure, you can say that it's science fiction, but one has to draw the lines before magical elves come along riding magic space cows through the sun's corona to collect golden coins for the children of The Candy Planet. ME2 just crossed that line that was established in ME1 a little here and there, and turned a fairly believable universe into something farcical for the sake of "being cool" now and then.

[Pocketgb]

I would totally respect the ME franchise as a "sci-fi" if Asaris didn't exist. As is I just respect the franchise itself. Sci-fi or fantasy, shooter or RPG, it's all ME to me!

[KitsuneRommel]

Terror_K wrote...

Except that eezo was supposed to be the exception to the rule and the devs stated it as such.

Eezo already allows for teleportation, fast space travel, artificial gravity, force fields and magic biotics (midi-chlorians anyone?) How would a hovering/flying craft be more 'fantasy' than those?

[Zulu_DFA]

Jigero 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.

Except your ignoring the fact that every peice of Tech in Mass Effect is fitted with a magical substance "Element Zero" that allows it to ignore the established laws of pysics and gravity.

Also are you that retarded you don't realise the Fiction in Science Fiction stands for "made up"?

I am retarded enough to see that the Mantis gunship owns the Hammerhead three times daily as an Eezo-using flying vehicle of the fictional future. The Mantis doesn't have a freaking turbine and a huge LED indicator on its back. It's also better armed and armored. And it can really fly, instead of hopping cliffs like freaking Mario Brother and (LOL!) freezing in the cold wind. In fact, the Mantis is the flying Mako. With only one disadvantage: you can't play Mantis in the corridor levels of ME2.

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that eezo was supposed to be the exception to the rule and the devs stated it as such.

Eezo already allows for teleportation, fast space travel, artificial gravity, force fields and magic biotics (midi-chlorians anyone?) How would a hovering/flying craft be more 'fantasy' than those?

Because the Eezo "magic" is strong enough to remove the element of hovering completely. Hovering does not make sense in low pressure environments that are very frequent in space.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 05 juillet 2010 - 10:20 .

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Vena_86 wrote...

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.

[/quote]

Here's the thing: combat wasn't that great, it was kind of shallow but you put with it in order to play the game. The Mako sections made people stop playing the game halfway through it!  If Bioware made ME2 with vehicle sections in it, most people who hated them in the first game wouldn't even give it a try, no matter how much they'd improved them. They'd just put it over to the side and not play the game at all.

There's a difference between "not that good" and "I'm playing this piece of crap anymore". That's why those two aspects of the game got different treatments.

[quote]iakus wrote...

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]

Yeah, I see your point, but then there has to be a limit to how hard you can make these  things. Lord knows I was pissed off when the game killed Garrus for me and I had to repeat about 30 minutes of playtime (about 15 of them comprised of UNSKIPPABLE CUTSCENES! Seriously Bioware, cut those out!) just to give it another shot. And my plan seemed sound: I didn't know what opposition the tech specialist might face through or outside the vents, so I sent someone that was both good at tech and an expert in combat. The result: the game just says "Ha ha! Wrong choice!" and kills him.

I hated that. I got pissed at the game for the rest of the day. I resented it and it completely killed any joy I would have gotten out of completing the game. That 's the last thing you want to do in a videogame, especially after you've invested so much of your time on these characters.

[quote]iakus wrote...

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.[/quote]

Small side-note: I think I could have only cared less about who I left behind if they replaced Kaidan with Liara, but I digress.

Like I said, it's a good scene, and it can make you feel loss, but it's just that most of the way people chose seems to incredibly cold, which is never a good sign when you have to make a choice between two characters.

The most common I've seen is the "dumping ground" reasoning. "I hate [this character] so that's who gets left behind." Others, like Alex Shaw of The Digital Cowboys was based on gameplay choices ("My Shepard was a Soldier, Ashley was a Soldier. Didn't need two Soldiers.... so I went back for Kaidan.")

Me? I was horrified because it messed my achievements:P. When I saw the "complete most of the game with [this] character", I just decided to do it with the characters I had used the longest (i.e., since the beginning) and then the game just decides to make me choose between one of them and my first thought was "Hey, then how do I get the achievement now!" I still chose Ashley due to the romance sub-plot, and I thought that was the most logic decision for my Shepard, and I felt sorry for leaving Kaidan, but it still says a lot about the characters when my achievements were the first thing to pop into my mind when I had to make that choice.

[quote]iakus wrote...

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. 

[...]

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]

Maybe, but as I've said before, if you kill a character because it's part of the plot (Virmire or a certain female character in a certain well-know JRPG... ) then you can accept that as part of the plot, just feel sorry and that just bolsters your resolve to beat the bad guy. ME1 was the only game where in the end I just said "screw the side-missions, for once once I'm not going to complete them all, and I'm going after Saren now to make him pay for what he's done!"

On the other hand, killing Garrus in ME2 just felt like a dick move of the game itself and I wasn't angry at whoever shot that rocket but at the developers of the game. And that's never a good sign.

[quote]iakus wrote...

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.[/quote]

And it's entirely possible that he hasn't been "paragoned" too, but the game can't make two completely distinct missions out of those possibilites. Besides, I don't care how "paragoned" (weird word... ) Garrus might be, I'd still be incredibly pissed if my closest friends had been killed by someone who betrayed my trust.

Not to mention, Dr. Saleon wasn't the same thing. It wasn't "bloody-minded revenge", it was a mix of wanting to do justice by his own hands where he felt that the system failed and also kind of personal satisfaction out of trying to compensate for something in which he felt he had failed. Not really the same thing, even if they can be similar in structure .

[quote]iakus wrote...

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]

Here's the basics: you find the tortured girl and then you can choose between two options if you decided to set her free (you can still sell her, if you're feeling like a heartless bastard:lol:):

• Just let her go and she keeps being an innocent, caring girl that just wants to go back to her normal life and help the other imprisioned slaves;
• Force her to "fight for her own freedom", upon which she immediately kills her captor with her own hands and becomes this ruthless, hardened person who has "learned her lesson well!" and would break your arm in four different places if you so much as tried to flirt with her. I mean, I'm the main character there and I still feel like taking a few steps away from the crazy woman.

Your character always seems to be as charismatic as freaking Hitler in these games! Unless you have to make a persuade check, because then you need to have boosted the right skills.

[quote]iakus wrote...

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]

The only reason why perspective is broken in that scene is because of the alternative: how bad would it be as a narrative element if you just got back to the Normandy and were told "The Collectors just came in and took everyone! It was horrible! Oh, and also, I gave EDI access to all the ships systems."

You mention "show, don't tell" later on, and this is when it's the perfect example of the expression: use it so it doesn't look like the director/programmers were just lazy and didn't feel like putting in the effort of showing you something important and just had a character go "OMG! Stuff happened!". It's not meant to be a way of seeing cool stuff that can be left implied and has no vital importance on the main plot.

[quote]iakus wrote...

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

Again, that's not what "show, don't tell" is about. I would have loved to see more cool stuff and the bits of teamwork in ME2 really are shines. I still haven't gotten tired of seeing the final run at the end of the game :happy: (even if I didn't give two craps about it the first time because all I could think was "did somebody else die because you decided I made a bad choice". Yes, I was still pissed at losing Garrus, having to load a previous save and doing everything over again). But it still doesn't make it vital to the plot, so there's no reason to break the mold.

Bioware have said over and over again: "yes, we could give you direct control over your squadmates. Yes, we could give you cameras in their helmets and let you see what they see. But we've always wanted you to see the world through Shepard's eyes through the whole game." And some people might not like that, but that's what happens in any kind of narrative choice. Some people don't like stories that start in the middle and flashback to the past to explain the current situation, some people don't like it when the story is told through the narration of an "spectator" to the events, some people don't like too many characters, some people don't like too few characters... but we still see stories told in a variety of ways. This is one of them, and unless there's a very good reason (like the Collector's attack), you can understand why they'd stick to it.

[quote]iakus wrote...
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 [/quote]

How good are you avoiding turret gunfire with the Mako? I keep repeating myself: you're just facing enemies that either attack you with strong attack that are easy to dodge or very, very weak attacks from gunfire that barely make a dent on your shields. You never had to face a mix of the two with the Mako, and that's the only thing that's kept us alive through the whole game.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

Given the ridiculous amount of planets with way
too many mountains, you're going way too low with your estimation
there.
[/quote]
Eletania, Chaska, Nodacrux.[/quote]

At the top of my head: half the planets of the Armstrong cluster (where you fight the Geth invasion) and whatever planet Toombs is in. I'm currently replaying ME1 and, surprisingly, when the time came to leave the Citadel and get into a Mako section I just remembered that never really did play all the much of Beyond the Sword (Civilization IV expansion)... so I'll just do that... I'll come back, ME1, I promise. I just need to... gather up my strengths by playing something that's actually fun and mentally challenging, before I get into the mind-numbing frustration of fighting with the vehicle I'm driving just to get from point A to point B

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

With only one disadvantage: you can't
play Mantis in the corridor levels of ME2.[/quote]

Overlord.
Overlord. Overlod.

There, are you going to keep ignoring it now? Because your "corridor levels" argument has grown
beyond stale at this point.

[Pocketgb]

Wait, why are we comparing the Mako to the Hammerhead again?

[Zulu_DFA]

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

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.

Eletania, Chaska, Nodacrux.

At the top of my head: half the planets of the Armstrong cluster (where you fight the Geth invasion) and whatever planet Toombs is in.

Sorry, never had any problems there. Minimap, plus a little Mako driving skill is all you need. Just don't push straigh to your intended point. Try to work out an easy way.

Lusitanum wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

With only one disadvantage: you can't
play Mantis in the corridor levels of ME2.

Overlord.
Overlord. Overlod.

There, are you going to keep ignoring it now? Because your "corridor levels" argument has grown
beyond stale at this point.

Haven't played Overlord, and have no intention to. Unless... can you fly a Mantis there?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 05 juillet 2010 - 10:42 .

[Pocketgb]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Sorry, never had any problems there. Minimap, plus a little Mako driving skill is all you need. Just don't push straigh to your intended point. Try to work out an easy way.

No, going straight works just fine. That thing pretty much climbs slopes at 89 degrees. There are very minor exceptions, of course, but still far and few between.

Still incredibly monotonous and boring, though. Every time I'm planet scanning I remember the Mako: Instead of going out in a hazardous environment for a VERY bumpy ride, I'm chilling in space, keeping it real, probing like no tomorrow while downing some space soda.

[Zulu_DFA]

Pocketgb wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Sorry, never had any problems there. Minimap, plus a little Mako driving skill is all you need. Just don't push straigh to your intended point. Try to work out an easy way.

No, going straight works just fine. That thing pretty much climbs slopes at 89 degrees. There are very minor exceptions, of course, but still far and few between.

Still incredibly monotonous and boring, though. Every time I'm planet scanning I remember the Mako: Instead of going out in a hazardous environment for a VERY bumpy ride, I'm chilling in space, keeping it real, probing like no tomorrow while downing some space soda.

Probing gas giants, right. You know what was the most intriguing thing for me, when I got familiar with this new "exploration" system? Would they put an N7 mission on a gas giant. They didn't. Suppose I must really praise them for that. 

BTW, in ME1 you didn't have to mine minerals.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 05 juillet 2010 - 11:05 .

[Pocketgb]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Probing gas giants, right...

Pocketgb wrote...

I REMEMBER THE MAKO

Dude I'd rename e-zo to 'the force' if it meant getting rid of that thing, and I can definitely stand a few 'scientific mix-ups' in a series that from the get-go has been scientifically ridiculous from the start.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

BTW, in ME1 you didn't have to mine minerals.

In both games you don't have to do anything. This is a futile 'argument'.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juillet 2010 - 11:11 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Because the Eezo "magic" is strong enough to remove the element of hovering completely. Hovering does not make sense in low pressure environments that are very frequent in space.

Or wheels in planets where rough terrain is very frequent.

[Koborover]

I've quit ME2 for some time now. Although I still intend to finish my first playthough some day, the emphasis on squad member missions just didn't hold my attention. I play Mass Effect (and BioWare games in general) for the engaging storyline, and for me ME2 falls short here. Shepard is too occupied with doing errands for people instead of focusing on the big threat, where it should be the other way around (ME1).

[Zulu_DFA]

Pocketgb wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

BTW, in ME1 you didn't have to mine minerals.

In both games you don't have to do anything. This is a futile 'argument'.

In ME1 there wasn't such a function at all. Mining resources is a feature of strategy games. Only the strategy games are built and balanced around this feature, and players have to choose where to commit the available resources and have to try to increase the speed of resource extraction as much as possible. In ME2 it was just a pointless test of patience and ability to withstand the overwhelming drowse.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 05 juillet 2010 - 11:28 .

[Pocketgb]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In ME1 there wasn't such a function at all. Mining resources is a feature of strategy games. Only the strategy games are built and balanced around this feature, and players have to choose where to commit the available resources and have to try to increase the speed of resource extraction as much as possible.

What you said is "In ME1 you don't have to mine minerals". That's true: You don't have to mine minerals in ME2 either. In both games you can if you want to, but the consequences in the sequel have the abilitiy to be more grevious if ignored.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

In ME2 it was just a pointless test of patience and ability to withstand the overwhelming drowse.

Now you're beginning to understand how some felt about the Mako

Modifié par Pocketgb, 05 juillet 2010 - 11:39 .

[Zulu_DFA]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Because the Eezo "magic" is strong enough to remove the element of hovering completely. Hovering does not make sense in low pressure environments that are very frequent in space.

Or wheels in planets where rough terrain is very frequent.

Ever heard of Mars rovers? Moon buggies?

Anyway, a wheeled vehicle may or may not rove. A hovercraft cannot hover. It's a simple choice. A flying vehicle would trump it all, but it's not an option due to gameplay issues.

Mantis > Mako > Hammerhead. Mako wins. Hammerhead sucks (From the in-game perspective, of course.)

[Pocketgb]

Kodiak > all!