10273 réponses à ce sujet

[haberman13]

Rogue Unit wrote...

ME2 was the greatest game ever! It was perfect in every way and if you don't like that you can go **** yourself. :happy:

You have awful taste.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

The number of talents available is still far smaller then in the first
game.

I've been acknowledging that - repeatedly. But in response to that I've been saying this:

tonnactus wrote...

More Intervals " to switch them out"? Not inbetween mission anyway...

Definitely not between missions, but the mission layout in ME2 is far different from ME1. If you want things exactly how they were with ME1 than no, you want find the same kind of depth. But if you want variety and a lot of options you'll still get what you want.

haberman13 wrote...

You have awful taste.

Less douche, more substances!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 31 juillet 2010 - 06:04 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Definitely not between missions, but the mission layout in ME2 is far different from ME1. If you want things exactly how they were with ME1 than no, you want find the same kind of depth. But if you want variety and a lot of options you'll still get what you want.

Not in the case of the enemies at least...

"Asari commandos"=warp spammers.
Krogan bosses=warp spammers
Enemy engineers= incinerate spammers and sometimes a drone

Oh,harbinger use some form of singularity that could force the player out of cover.Did i forget something?

Enemy Krogans become obviously dumber In MAss Effect 2.They dont use assault rifles anymore but shotguns at all ranges.Its the same with the "asari commandos".

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Not in the case of the enemies at least...

Which have nothing to do what we were talking about. You must have trouble actually focusing on a topic.

Now if you want to talk about enemies you can pick up from exactly where we left off forty pages ago, if you'd like.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 31 juillet 2010 - 09:12 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...



Which have nothing to do what we were talking about..

I prefer variety without switching squadmates out.Offers more options in mission where i couldnt change squadmember
in the middle of the mission/fight.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...I'm not saying there couldn't have been a training montage, but we certainly didn't need anything of this sort in Mass Effect. We didn't see, for example, Wrex and Tali bonding over a gun fight. Elevator conversations were nice, but don't really say anything for how these random mercenaries would come together at all. I'd say they should easily have been killed on Ilos, facing an army of Geth, since they had little battle-training together. Mass Effect 2 was much the same. We had our advanced team of specialists capable of taking on the world. They each know how to perform their job exceptionally well, no more no less. [/quote]

Mass Effect 1 was more about the plot.  It was a more "typical" rpg.  Squadmates were more like henchman.  Well-written henchman, perhaps, but still, they are not the "Stars of the show"  Mass Effect 2 tried something different by making the squadmates the center of the story.  With the spotlight on them, they need more charactarizaton than you normally get in your standard rpg.  What we have are a bunch of specialists on a team, but these specialists tend to work alone.  The only proof we get to them being able to work together is counting the survivors at the end.

Jack is violent and mentally unstable, plus has an axe to grind against Cerberus
Grunt is a thug who only respects Shepard
Legion is a geth, unlikely tyo be trusted by anyone, especially Tali
Thane is a stealthy assassin used to working alone
Samara is a "lone crusader" unused to dealing with non-asari.
Zaed has a reputation for getting his teammates killed

[quote]This is kinda funny, as I was actually going to use Episode IV to make my own point. I wouldn't say (for example) that Episode IV has 'loose ends'. There's material to keep the story going, but it ties off fairly nicely. Compare this to Episode V which implies a) Luke returning to Yoda for training and the rescue of Han Solo. Mass Effect does the same as Episode IV (which is a problem). We need breadcrumbs to follow if we do as you say (get info on the Reapers in ME2), not a one-liner about how they are "coming", we already know that. From a continuity standpoint, Mass Effect did a terrible job of telling us what to expect besides 'possible reaper involvement' for Mass Effect 2. So Mass Effect 2 did deal with the only element which Mass Effect 1 implied (the Reaper threat).   [/quote]

I should have used quotes when I said "loose end"  The Death Star is destroyed, thanks are given by those in charge, but the EMpire is still out there.  Luke needs to learn to be a Jedi to stop them.  Episode V managed to continue the overall story and tell a new one at the same time.  Mass Effect 2 simply took the events of Mass Effect 1 and pushed them aside.

[quote]Like I said, it could go a whole bunch of ways. I would certainly enjoy your example as a plot-line for Mass Effect 2. But I'm saying Mass Effect 1 should have "led" into this. Perhaps a post-Citadel scene, where we see Shepard and Liara/crew talk about potential Reaper connections. Maybe they refer to those ruins which you discuss. Mass Effect 1 cuts itself off, as it stands. [/quote]

By this logic, Episode IV should have ended with the Rebels pulling up stakes and heading fro Hoth, rather than the awards ceremony.

[quote]I personally enjoyed the Collectors more than the Geth. This was a race that had not been seen "beyond the veil" in 300 years and now they're cropping up everywhere? Main quest, side quests, etc. The limited 3-mission encounter for the Collectors gave them a more "myserious" sensation in my opinion.  [/quote]

An opinion I do not share.  The Collectors are somehow interested in Shepard, but only try to catch him once (okay twice if you include the IFF incident).  They're not scary, just bug-eyed aliens.  They're not this omnipresent threat they are made out to be.  If they had turned out to be indoctrinated Blue Suns, would it have significantly changed the story?

[quote]I don't consider Mass Effect 2 to be non-sensical as much as 'simple'. We're used to Bioware giving us long epic plots, hours of exposition on every detail of the world. Mass Effect 2 gives us a "bare bones" scenario plot and expands other aspects of the universe. It's certainly not Bioware's best, but it was solid enough that I wanted to see the ending through. I liked the ending spoiler, if not the boss fight itself. It's also important to consider that you'll never get as much information the second time around as the first.[/quote]

There's simple, then there's simplistic.  Shepard's "change of employment" came not as a result of a choice or circumstance (unless that circumstance is "death")  There's no big mystery about what's happening to the colonies, the evidence drops in Shepard's lap in the first mission.  There's no investigation being done; you're preparing for a mission without even knowing what the parameters of the mission are.  The story isn't a plot so much as a framework to explain why you're running around shooting people.


[quote]It certainly is contrived, but then contrivances are Bioware's watch-word. Just look at Mass Effect. Shepard follows 4 (entirely unrelated) plot leads all of which conveniently provide him one necessary element in order to reach Ilos. He didn't 'know' what he was looking for and on a mere whim managed to locate everything. [/quote]

 "He started it" doesn't cut it as an arguement, but in this case...

Liara is Benezia's daughter and may know something (turns out she's a Prothean expert, which may be seen as a contrivance, maybe)  The others, well, the geth are invading for the first time in 300 yeears.  And the geth follow Saren.  Is it a big surprise that in investigating the geth, you're finding stuff of use to Saren, and therefore to Shepard?

[quote] Well, Jacob does tell Mordin that they had samples available for him to study which could easily be related to Veetor's research. And Mordin is a genius, so I can see it working. But regardless, it didn't bother me too much. At least, no more than Ashley killing Wrex or Saren killing Nihlus when their shields should have easily held back those gun shots. [/quote]

We don't know what information was on Veetor's omnitool (TIM didn't see fit to tell us)  Second, if Cerberus is messing around with Collector tech, my Shepard would have quit then and there.  There's too many examples of Cerberus toying with aliens and alien tech only to have things go haywire.  Third, Mordin's a genius but no genius can amke something from nothing.  Finally "He started it!"
 
[quote]Well, when Illusive Man says "data mine" the Collector Ship, I thought it was pretty clear. We knew they had something beyond the relay and this confirmed it. It seemed very reasonable that a Collector Ship would have information on the Colletor homeworld stored within. 

Now EDI is an AI, whose abilities were laid out fairly clear from the start (even on Horizon) so I still wouldn't call it "Dea Ex Machina". She's an AI fitted with advanced hacking protocols based on Reaper technology. [/quote]

I don't mind them getting info on the Collector base.  In fact, I think they should have gotten it a lot sooner.  It would have made recruitment make a lot more sense.  The problem is how easily they got it.

EDI is based on Reaper hardware with a few Reaper cyberwarfare algorithms thrown in.  I doubt even Cerberus is crazy enough to try and make an AI out of Reaper software.  As Joker put it "So if she starts calling herself 'the vanguard of our destruction' I call shotgun on the first lifeboat"  Most likely she is based on human softwre with elements of alien tech pirated by Cerberus.  Salaraian or quarian maybe. So I could  buy EDI being able to defend the Normandy from a Reaper hacking attempt, but to easily initiate one against the COllectors? 

[quote]
And I would agree if someone commented on the odd nature of this spectacle. No one says "Hey dude, why do you have a crew full of aliens if you're a Spectre?". We know Spectres sometimes take on missions with other Spectres. That Commander Shepard does not do so, but takes an Alliance Crew, imo, is a very odd "call to arms". It's amost as if Bioware thought we would ignore it because we were used to the ship + crew arrangement from past games. But that doesn't make it any less odd for an organization known for operating solo to have Shepard working with 20+ crew members at all times. [/quote]

To be fair, Nihlus was the first Spectre to use the Normandy on a mission

Rear Admiral Mikhailovich: "Krogan?  Asari?  Turians?  What are you thinking Commander?  You can't allow alien nationals free access to Alliance equipment!" (Ashley has similar concerns)

Khalisah al-Jilani: "Do you think it was appropriate to hand Earth's most advanced warship over to the Citadel?"

Captain Anderson: "She's fast, quiet, and you know the crew.  It's the perfect ship for a Spectre"

Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting the "alone or small gorups" line?  By Alliance estimates, there's less than 100 Spectres.  It makes sense they don't congregate much.  But I'd think they'd requisition aid from non-SPectres all the time.

[quote]Haha, yes, in a sense. Even when Grunt goes to Tuchanka, I believe he calls Shepard his 'battlemaster'. Grunt is essentially a baby Canderous. Both are looking for purpose, etc. Shepard is able to offer him that purpose. [/quote]

Except apparantly not until Grunt joins Clan Urdnot.

[quote]As a justicar, even more than catching Morinth, Samara must always follow her code. She cannot (for example)break her word once it is given. It is by this code that she is able to live with herself. She really was caught between a rock and a hard place.

a) Slaughter the population of Illium, possibly locating the name of the Ship while being chased by innocent guards. This would weigh heavily on Samara's conscience, might result in her death, and might not turn up the name of her ship.

Allow Shepard to find the name of the ship. If he does so successfully, she has her lead, Illium's innocents are spared, she may potentially track Morinth, and she can combat the Collectors (which is something a Justicar would do).

If plan B does not work, she can always revert to plan A if Shepard was unsuccessful. The only difference is that in scenario A Samara comes dangerously close to violating her code, while in scenario B she's living up to it as a Justicar. Innocents vs. Collector victims is the question. I could see either way happening, to be honest. [/quote]

Actually her code would be what compels her to break out of the jail.  Her code allows her to cooperate with the authorities, but she could not delay her search by more than a day.  Her code guides everything she does, which is why she seems cold and ruthless at times.

I can see her joining up on the mission against the Collectors.  What I can't see is her leaving the business of Morinth unfinished beofre going.  Morinth is the entire reason she became a justicar.  If she dies, Morinth goes on killing for centuries, growing more and more powerful


[quote]I definitely think we should have had the option to 'scrap' party members, much like in Dragon Age. This could create further scenarios in which Shepard dies because the player was too reckless. I don't however find Zaeed's motivations (money) to be unreasonable, given what he has already survived. It's clear that Cerberus has offered an extremely large sum for his services. [/quote]

An ideal situation I could see would be if there were 16 characters availble, but only eight spots on the squad (numbers used as an example and subject to change)  Tim gives you the dossiers and says "pick who you think you'll need and can work with" Prefereably after getting the info on the Collector base so you have at least a few clues as to what you'll need.

[quote]Mass Effect: Unlike Kotor, where the Council at least provides a false explanation for sending you alone (Jedi Masters attract attention), Mass Effect doesn't even make the effort.  Why Shepard? Why send the newest Spectre to track down the Council's best agent? Why alone? Why no 'Spectre mentor' to guide him who perhaps understands Saren? No one speculates on the odd nature of events. No one asks what Saren's motivations are. We get a short speel from Anderson about a human-genocide. In all 3 games I listed, we see a perception-changing event. In Mass Effect, the effect is less pronounced however, because we were not given a firm 'lead' in the first place. [/quote]

Why Shepard?  Because Udina, Anderson, and Shepard all insist.  Saren is an embaressment to the Council.  Given any other option, they'd just revoke his Spectre status and let him rot in the Traverse.  But he went and slaughtered a human colony and the humans won't let that go.  "Fine send the human.  Saren's teeth are pulled.  How much damage could either of them do? " is their line of thinking 

Shepard becoming a Spectre was a political move, not a practical one.  As Shepard puts it in his paragon response "You won't have to send a fleet to the traverse, and the Ambassador gets his human Spectre.  Everybody's happy"  It's not deception, or bad intel you're battling here, but political apathy, which is addressed many times over the course of the game.

Saren's motives are murky, but there's plenty of reasons to go after him anyway, as your squadmates could attest.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

I prefer variety without switching squadmates out.Offers more options in mission where i couldnt change squadmember
in the middle of the mission/fight.

And now ME2 has shorter missions in length, but more missions in quantity. While you're not given a clear idea of what you'll go up against you can connect the dots and better prepare for what you're going up against.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 31 juillet 2010 - 11:00 .

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...
While you're not given a clear idea of what you'll go up against

What? Blue Suns activity/signal...

There are not many real suprises in the game.

[MassEffect762]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
While you're not given a clear idea of what you'll go up against

What? Blue Suns activity/signal...

There are not many real suprises in the game.

I have to agree there, predictable as sunrise and sunset. The suicide mission was the biggest let down in that regard.

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
While you're not given a clear idea of what you'll go up against

What? Blue Suns activity/signal...

There are not many real suprises in the game.

First, should've rephrased that to 'not always'.

Second, are you trying to highlight that ME2 is "obvious" with its encounters?

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

Second, are you trying to highlight that ME2 is "obvious" with its encounters?

Yes,most of the time.If someone scan a planet and there is a mission,the game told not only that there is just merc activity. Its blue suns activity,blood pack or eclipse.  Or you hear some geth "voices".

[Pocketgb]

Thirdly, are you attempting to highlight that ME1 is not?

[Tazzmission]

me 1 and me 2 are there own type of stand alone games. i love both and yes both have there pros and cons.

[SithLordExarKun]

Pocketgb wrote...

Thirdly, are you attempting to highlight that ME1 is not?

Of course he is, why do you even waste your time interacting with this monkey? He thinks and argues that Kaiden is as hardened up as Jack because "h3 w3nt tHru t3h s@m3 t!ng!!!!" when this was not the case.

[Xeranx]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Thirdly, are you attempting to highlight that ME1 is not?

Of course he is, why do you even waste your time interacting with this monkey? He thinks and argues that Kaiden is as hardened up as Jack because "h3 w3nt tHru t3h s@m3 t!ng!!!!" when this was not the case.

I'm guessing Tonnactus started with you here, right?  He resorted to name-calling so you had to respond in kind.  I've pointed it out to you before, but you don't seem to get it.  Once it worked in your favor, but you have since called into question your supposed innocence.  You baited someone earlier in this thread and then confirmed it when someone responded.  You continue to destroy any ability you may have to state that you're being misunderstood in your posts.  I'm sure you'll say you don't care, but maybe you didn't realize that for a number of pages most posts that offered nothing but the possibility of fostering a confrontation with others have been ignored.  

Considering how you seem to value the ability to makes posts in a thread that you seem to feel will not amount to anything, I think that with the way you've been responding you're close to crossing a line.  I know that posting on a message board isn't important in the grand scheme of things, but I thought I'd let you know.

[Jebel Krong]

iakus wrote...

EDI is based on Reaper hardware with a few Reaper cyberwarfare algorithms thrown in.  I doubt even Cerberus is crazy enough to try and make an AI out of Reaper software.  As Joker put it "So if she starts calling herself 'the vanguard of our destruction' I call shotgun on the first lifeboat"  Most likely she is based on human softwre with elements of alien tech pirated by Cerberus.  Salaraian or quarian maybe. So I could  buy EDI being able to defend the Normandy from a Reaper hacking attempt, but to easily initiate one against the COllectors?  

nuh-uh: EDI contains reaper hardware, but is otherwise a standard AI. they don't define exactly how big Ais are, but you can see her location once you've recruited Legion. the cyberwarfare algorithms are obviously reaper-based, but it is not defined whether they are part of the hardware, or just copied from sovereign's own.

iakus wrote...
Why Shepard?  Because Udina, Anderson, and Shepard all insist.  Saren is an embaressment to the Council.  Given any other option, they'd just revoke his Spectre status and let him rot in the Traverse.  But he went and slaughtered a human colony and the humans won't let that go.  "Fine send the human.  Saren's teeth are pulled.  How much damage could either of them do? " is their line of thinking 

Shepard becoming a Spectre was a political move, not a practical one.  As Shepard puts it in his paragon response "You won't have to send a fleet to the traverse, and the Ambassador gets his human Spectre.  Everybody's happy"  It's not deception, or bad intel you're battling here, but political apathy, which is addressed many times over the course of the game.

whilst i agree with that reasoning, choosing the neutral response also highlights another, actually practical, reason: sending one agent, who has proved he can follow-through on something, and now a spectre as well, is less openly hostile than sending a fleet in to the Terminus Systems, but no less effective (and as it turns out that ends up being correct). the apathy is still there (damage confinement), but, like retaining your spectre status in me2, at least the council have done something. they wouldn't have let Saren escape forever ("rot in the terminus" as you put it), but wouldn't have had the same urgency in pursuing him.

[SithLordExarKun]

Xeranx wrote...

I'm guessing Tonnactus started with you here, right?  He resorted to name-calling so you had to respond in kind.  I've pointed it out to you before, but you don't seem to get it.  Once it worked in your favor, but you have since called into question your supposed innocence.  You baited someone earlier in this thread and then confirmed it when someone responded.  You continue to destroy any ability you may have to state that you're being misunderstood in your posts.  I'm sure you'll say you don't care, but maybe you didn't realize that for a number of pages most posts that offered nothing but the possibility of fostering a confrontation with others have been ignored.  

To be honest,  i just felt like rattling his cage this time round, i never said i was entirely innocent, there are times when i delibrately bait certain members into attacking me(like that terror_k guy who was "smart" enough to grab the bait and lose a flame war twice) because i get very annoyed with their elitism. This may be a small matter, but at the end of the day i chuckle amusingly because this is just an internet board and its funny to see people snap and get deranged over the stupidest things. And then there are other times(which happen about 65% of the time) where i get attacked first and then i retaliate.

Xeranx wrote...
Considering how you seem to value the ability to makes posts in a thread that you seem to feel will not amount to anything, I think that with the way you've been responding you're close to crossing a line.  I know that posting on a message board isn't important in the grand scheme of things, but I thought I'd let you know.

You know then i would say i sincerely appreciate it if you genuinely were trying to let me know. At least while i didnt attack you in anyway, you were able to respond civily without getting into roid rage like some members i fought with and then threatened to kill me.

[HeatClipNotFound]

Well the only thing I didn't like was the changes to how ammunition was acquired, Heat Clips? From a system that allowed a soldier to camp a single position for hours without the need to reload? REALLY? No, in the future, they'd just make better heat sinks. Or atleast would have both versions of weapons available.

Mass Effect's 2 sniping is way more fun than 1's.

But yeah, if my weapon is capable of shaving off 1000 rounds, I want that one, not the 9 round substitute.

Other than that, I couldn't really see the difference.... Maybe I missed something? Graphics and Audio are better in Number 2. Story is still great, but the lack of the Mako blows. We used to be able to explore the planets we landed on, what happened to that feeling? Now I understand why BioWare did what they did in a way, but exploration is fun.

At this point, in a Trilogy, it doesnt matter really. But perhaps 3 could combine both again? Maybe even add a flying player controlled version of a Mako. I know the engine can support it, the Mako had jet boosters in one!!! Dont try to hide it BioWare, you can do anything. Except, Baldurs Gate number one, still out does Neverwinter Nights, all of them.


I think Miranda is hot, and the actress voicing her, I just thought I'd add that. But Legion is sexier. I wish I was Legion irl....

[bjdbwea]

HeatClipNotFound wrote...

Mass Effect's 2 sniping is way more fun than 1's.

Why? Because it's unrealistically easy?

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

HeatClipNotFound wrote...

Mass Effect's 2 sniping is way more fun than 1's.

Why? Because it's unrealistically easy?

How many people have to say that ME2 weapon combat was better than ME1, before you belieave that others liked ME2 combat better. Just because you are FAN of ME1, doesn't mean everyone else is.

Yeah, in my opinion ME2 weapon based combat was WAY better than ME1.

[HeatClipNotFound]

bjdbwea wrote...

HeatClipNotFound wrote...

Mass Effect's 2 sniping is way more fun than 1's.

Why? Because it's unrealistically easy?

No, because when I popped someone in the head they had blood spray and their heads would shake like they've been popped in the head.

As for ease of sniping, I couldnt tell the difference since all I did in number 1 was snipe mostly. And in number 2 ALL I did was snipe. Sometimes I'd use shotguns and pistols. But then I discovered how awesome the SMG can be. I do miss all my ammo combinations though.

By the way, you're speaking to someone who mastered the ability of blind sniping in ME 1. I mean, its one hell of a reticule but its totally possible and very useful. Hahahahahaa!!!!

[HeatClipNotFound]

bjdbwea wrote...

HeatClipNotFound wrote...

Mass Effect's 2 sniping is way more fun than 1's.

Why? Because it's unrealistically easy?

Oh I just wanted to add something... I'm sure you realize through the whole time through playing Mass Effect 2.

Shepard is a cyborg.

Right?

I mean he/she is going to handle weapons differently after being a cyborg. Recoil control would go way up for one. Ease of handling weaponry. Things like that. So, unrealistic? Yeah, but then again we don't have cyborgs yet either. Although we do have artificial limbs that can hold and fire weapons. Haven't seen the test data for those. I'm sure google could yield results if I care.

Don't care THAT much... kind feeling sick nao...

[Il Divo]

[quote]iakus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was more about the plot.  It was a more "typical" rpg.  Squadmates were more like henchman.  Well-written henchman, perhaps, but still, they are not the "Stars of the show"  Mass Effect 2 tried something different by making the squadmates the center of the story.  With the spotlight on them, they need more charactarizaton than you normally get in your standard rpg.  What we have are a bunch of specialists on a team, but these specialists tend to work alone.  The only proof we get to them being able to work together is counting the survivors at the end. [/quote]

Perhaps, but I still think there is an important distinction to make in your logic. We don't need to see the specialists 'work together' so to speak, as much as interact. Most Bioware games don't involve your characters talking to each other all the time, yet they seem to get along fine in combat. So no, I don't think we need proof that they can work together. When I bring Mission and HK-47 onto the Star Forge, people don't start dying left and right because they've never conversed. What I would simply like is to simply see what my squad-mates think of each other, etc, in the manner of Dragon Age. We get a little in the manner of Jacob-Miranda/recruitment missions, but more would have been great.

[quote]
I should have used quotes when I said "loose end"  The Death Star is destroyed, thanks are given by those in charge, but the EMpire is still out there.  Luke needs to learn to be a Jedi to stop them.  Episode V managed to continue the overall story and tell a new one at the same time.  Mass Effect 2 simply took the events of Mass Effect 1 and pushed them aside. [/quote]

How did Mass Effect 2 'push' Mass Effect aside? You earlier made the point "Discover the enemy, learn about the enemy, fight the enemy". What is your basis for this assertion? When I beat Mass Effect, two things were made clear. 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard's going to stop them. That's it. In Mass Effect 2, 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard is trying to find a way to stop them. Full stop. That was all Mass Effect implied and that was what we got.

There was no "Save Han Solo" or "Return to Dagobah" implied by Mass Effect 1. Mass Effect 2 did not guarantee anything Mass Effect 1 did not promise. If so, demonstrate for me what made you certain Mass Effect 2 would be "learn about the enemy" instead of "fight the enemy part 1" or "build an armada against the enemy".

[quote]
By this logic, Episode IV should have ended with the Rebels pulling up stakes and heading fro Hoth, rather than the awards ceremony. [/quote]

In the "Hate on the Plot" thread, I believe you made the point that Mass Effect nowhere implied the existence of the Collectors in Mass Effect 2. So clearly, you did take issue with Mass Effect not implying Mass Effect 2. Did Episode IV imply Luke's training with Yoda or the rebels being on the run? New elements were introduced in both stories. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But your assertion of "learn from the enemy" still has no logical basis, beyond conjecture.

[quote]
An opinion I do not share.  The Collectors are somehow interested in Shepard, but only try to catch him once (okay twice if you include the IFF incident).  They're not scary, just bug-eyed aliens.  They're not this omnipresent threat they are made out to be.  If they had turned out to be indoctrinated Blue Suns, would it have significantly changed the story? [/quote]

Closer to 5.

1) Murdering Shepard at the start of Mass Effect 2.
2) Liara explains that she saved your body from the Collectors.
3) Attacking your LI on Horizon in order to draw your attention.
4) Collector Ship mission.
5) Reaper IFF incident.

What made the Prothean revelation interesting was not necessaily that it changed the parameters of the mission, but that it implied another consequence of Shepard failing. "This could be you" is the indication given. Extinction might seem more frightening, but the Collectors are something I can look in the face and understand. I also don't think this aspect of the story is finished. Why, for example,were the Collectors operating on one of their own? The Reapers would already have had all relevant information on Prothean DNA. I suspect that there's more at work in the Human-Prothean connection, much like the Human-Forerunner relationship in Halo.

[quote]
There's simple, then there's simplistic.  Shepard's "change of employment" came not as a result of a choice or circumstance (unless that circumstance is "death")  There's no big mystery about what's happening to the colonies, the evidence drops in Shepard's lap in the first mission.  There's no investigation being done; you're preparing for a mission without even knowing what the parameters of the mission are.  [/quote]

I think the mystery died when Bioware told us that human colonies are disappearing and that we'd be fighting the Collectors, much like Sovereign's revelation in Mass Effect.

I'd also like to point out that Shepard's new employment was a result of circumstance. Most Bioware games 'railroad' the player into working with a certain organization. This is not uncommon and was done by Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 took an interesting approach. 1) The Council back-pedaled on the Reaper menace. 2) Cerberus however does support you. 3) They are willing to give you the equipment, resources, and intel so you can stop this threat, the Collectors, which you now have a double motivation for (tied to the Reapers + murdered Shepard). Cerberus does not make you murder innocent children, burn any villages, etc. The first controversial order you are given (preserving the base), Shepard has the option to tell TIM to shove it.

[quote]
 "He started it" doesn't cut it as an arguement, but in this case... [/quote]

Actually, you'll find it does count as a valid argument. If you affirm:

a) Mass Effect has a good plot
 Mass Effect 2 has a bad plot.
c) Therefore, Mass Effect has a better plot than Mass Effect 2.

As a result, any reference you make to Mass Effect 2's mistakes I can then point out a "similar mistake" in Mass Effect 1. If I successfully do so, logically you must either

a) raise Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 1's level with respect to that point.
 lower Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2's level with respect to that point.

So while I cannot make an argument that 'Mass Effect 2 is good' using this, I can attempt to force you into one of these two possibilities by making a successful comparison.

[quote]
Liara is Benezia's daughter and may know something (turns out she's a Prothean expert, which may be seen as a contrivance, maybe)  The others, well, the geth are invading for the first time in 300 yeears.  And the geth follow Saren.  Is it a big surprise that in investigating the geth, you're finding stuff of use to Saren, and therefore to Shepard? [/quote]

So Shepard is a Spectre, free to employ "any means" to achieve his objective. Objective: Track down Saren. What we do not know. So, to do this, we should have a series of leads, right? Some logical basis to track our organic prey. And I can easily imagine several different, more logical conclusions than 'Geth'.

1) Saren's files. To find my enemy, I should learn about my enemy (as you said with the Reapers). Saren's files were classified as a Spectre, so I should learn all I can about how my prey operates. And no, he is "ruthless" doesn't quite cut it.
2) Shadow Broker. We know Saren is tied to Benezia. We should use the Shadowbroker as a resource to find any info on either of them. Especially since the Shadowbroker has a personal motivation to stop Saren.
3) Tali's Geth lead. Here, we meet your requirement (tracking the Geth) and one we know that is *actually* related to Saren. The Geth patrol makes much more sense than Noveria.
4) Fist. We knew that Saren employed him as an agent. Find out how they got into contact with each other.
5) Send a different Spectre entirely. In fact, send your second-best Spectre. If Saren was the Council's best agent, I don't want to entrust a shiny new baby Spectre with this kind of responsibility. Send another either with or in place of Shepard who is intimately familiar with how a Spectre conducts himself.
6) Set a trap for Saren. Why simply 'revoke his status'? We want to catch this guy. So why make an open declaration that he is an outlaw? Lead him into a trap, perhaps offering him the opportunity to execute Shepard personally.

Shepard is a Spectre, as I said. Supposedly he should have "free reign" in how he performs his mission. With an investigation, I start with the most logical source. With these Geth investigations, we have no idea 1) if they are absolutely tied to Saren, 2) if they will turn up any relevant information, 3) we don't even know what we are looking for at this time. So it doesn't make much sense that we are starting with this. But lo and behold! The Council homes in on exactly 4 leads, each providing exactly 1 critical element in order to reach Ilos. I would say this is as contrived, if not more, then Shepard on Freedom's Progress. At least there, the Illusive Man already has a clue that the Collectors are behind this.

[quote]
We don't know what information was on Veetor's omnitool (TIM didn't see fit to tell us)  Second, if Cerberus is messing around with Collector tech, my Shepard would have quit then and there.  There's too many examples of Cerberus toying with aliens and alien tech only to have things go haywire.  Third, Mordin's a genius but no genius can amke something from nothing.  Finally "He started it!" [/quote]
 
If Mordin can engineer a plague-cure from scratch against a group as advanced as the Collectors, I can easily see him creating a seeker.

[quote]
EDI is based on Reaper hardware with a few Reaper cyberwarfare algorithms thrown in.  I doubt even Cerberus is crazy enough to try and make an AI out of Reaper software.  As Joker put it "So if she starts calling herself 'the vanguard of our destruction' I call shotgun on the first lifeboat"  Most likely she is based on human softwre with elements of alien tech pirated by Cerberus.  Salaraian or quarian maybe. So I could  buy EDI being able to defend the Normandy from a Reaper hacking attempt, but to easily initiate one against the COllectors? [/quote]

Uh-uh. So you can't buy EDI (based on Reaper tech) being able to hack the Collectors, but you have no probem with the Normandy's stealth systems (not even based on Reaper tech) working against Sovereign?

[quote]
Rear Admiral Mikhailovich: "Krogan?  Asari?  Turians?  What are you thinking Commander?  You can't allow alien nationals free access to Alliance equipment!" (Ashley has similar concerns)

Khalisah al-Jilani: "Do you think it was appropriate to hand Earth's most advanced warship over to the Citadel?"

Captain Anderson: "She's fast, quiet, and you know the crew.  It's the perfect ship for a Spectre" [/quote]

Okay, so what do these three examples say about Shepard as a "Spectre". The first two are merely racist sentiments (which don't have any relevance to Shepard as a Spectre). They couldn't care less about how many people you work with, if they're all human. Anderson, while useful, also serves as an odd conclusion. Why is this the 'perfect ship' for a Spectre? From all you've heard about them, do Spectres really operate like this? If so, there probably would be better intel on how many Spectres actually exist.
 
[quote]
Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting the "alone or small gorups" line?  By Alliance estimates, there's less than 100 Spectres.  It makes sense they don't congregate much.  But I'd think they'd requisition aid from non-SPectres all the time. [/quote]

'Requisition aid' is one thing. Shepard finding out that he needs a Prothean Expert, so he is forced to drag Liara with him on his search makes sense. But that's quite different from a fully staffed ship. Spectres operate alone, on most occassions. Why Ashley? Why Kaidan? Why Garrus/Wrex? Certainly, people comment on your aliens and make controversial statements. This was just the Bioware 'call to arms' with little thought behind as Shepard's status went. Besides Liara, once I became a Spectre, what use were any of them to me? I don't care that Garrus wants to stop Saren, that Ashley wants to prove herself, etc. I want people who are critical to mission success.

[quote]
Except apparantly not until Grunt joins Clan Urdnot. [/quote]

At which point, Shepard's 'purpose' is no longer enough. Grunt is a krogan who, despite his genetic perfection, has absolutely no understanding of his people.

[quote]
Actually her code would be what compels her to break out of the jail.  Her code allows her to cooperate with the authorities, but she could not delay her search by more than a day.  Her code guides everything she does, which is why she seems cold and ruthless at times. [/quote]

This is not entirely true. Her code "requires", not allows that she cooperate with the authorities. What you also forget is that there is some subjectivity in her code, odd as it may seem. On the Normandy, Samara uses the example where if she must kill a man, she would not want to know he's a dedicated father. No question about it, the code may 'allow' her to harm innocents, but to say that it requires such things (as the Nihlus examples tells us) is very untenable. Samara was in a difficult position and did not want to resort to that, therefore she made a deal with Shepard where she could continue her search at a later time. The best plan? No. But "possibly dead" fighting Collectors is more noble than possibly dead fighting civilians.


[quote]
Why Shepard?  Because Udina, Anderson, and Shepard all insist.  Saren is an embaressment to the Council.  Given any other option, they'd just revoke his Spectre status and let him rot in the Traverse.  But he went and slaughtered a human colony and the humans won't let that go.  "Fine send the human.  Saren's teeth are pulled.  How much damage could either of them do? " is their line of thinking [/quote]

So let them insist. The humans insist on many things throughout Mass Effect. The Council knows that he is up to something through his interaction with the Geth, his massive warship, involvement with Benezia, and search for the Conduit. This obviously has bigger implications than just humanity if Saren is working with the Geth. So this isn't just a human concern.

[quote]
Saren's motives are murky, but there's plenty of reasons to go after him anyway, as your squadmates could attest.[/quote]

If there is plenty of reason to go after him, then this contradicts your assertion that the Council would simply let him rot in space.

Edit: Dear God, these responses are reaching essay-level.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 août 2010 - 01:49 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

How did Mass Effect 2 'push' Mass Effect aside? You earlier made the point "Discover the enemy, learn about the enemy, fight the enemy". What is your basis for this assertion? When I beat Mass Effect, two things were made clear. 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard's going to stop them. That's it. In Mass Effect 2, 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard is trying to find a way to stop them. Full stop. That was all Mass Effect implied and that was what we got. 

Have to comment on this...

ME2 pushed ME1 aside massively... I suspect mostly because BioWare wanted each game to also stand on its own rather than be the proper trilogy as it was originally stated. ME2 isn't so much The Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope as it is Aliens to Alien, or Temple of Doom to Raiders. Aside from the Reaper stuff that's at the core of the matter most of the stuff that seemed important or was linked to in ME1 is swept under the rug and/or pushed into the background.

For instance, becoming a Spectre was set up as a very defining moment in the original game. Not just a Spectre, but the first human one. It was a landmark in the first game and was presented as such, and felt very much crucial and significant. In ME2 its completely pushed aside, treated as something completely insignificant and glossed over (hell... you don't even need to be reinstated as one). It's almost as if the first game gave you a sapphire and then the second one came along and said, "no, that's just blue glass" and told you to move on. The same goes with The Council, whose fate ends up having no real significant effect on anything it turns out, as well as The Alliance. These were the two major organisations in the original game, and now --like the Spectre factor-- they're just pushed into the background entirely. Even Anderson and Udina are relegated to tiny cameo roles.

With the exception of the Reapers, all the most significant things in ME1 are just no longer that significant at all in ME2. It doesn't feel like part of the same story at all, just merely a different story set in the same universe. If you're going compare Mass Effect to Star Wars it's more like (quality aside) ME1 was "The Phantom Menace" and that ME2 was "The Empire Strikes Back"

Modifié par Terror_K, 02 août 2010 - 02:10 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

How did Mass Effect 2 'push' Mass Effect aside? You earlier made the point "Discover the enemy, learn about the enemy, fight the enemy". What is your basis for this assertion? When I beat Mass Effect, two things were made clear. 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard's going to stop them. That's it. In Mass Effect 2, 1) The Reapers still exist. 2) Shepard is trying to find a way to stop them. Full stop. That was all Mass Effect implied and that was what we got. 

Have to comment on this...

ME2 pushed ME1 aside massively... I suspect mostly because BioWare wanted each game to also stand on its own rather than be the proper trilogy as it was originally stated. ME2 isn't so much The Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope as it is Aliens to Alien, or Temple of Doom to Raiders. Aside from the Reaper stuff that's at the core of the matter most of the stuff that seemed important or was linked to in ME1 is swept under the rug and/or pushed into the background.

For instance, becoming a Spectre was set up as a very defining moment in the original game. Not just a Spectre, but the first human one. It was a landmark in the first game and was presented as such, and felt very much crucial and significant. In ME2 its completely pushed aside, treated as something completely insignificant and glossed over (hell... you don't even need to be reinstated as one). It's almost as if the first game gave you a sapphire and then the second one came along and said, "no, that's just blue glass" and told you to move on. The same goes with The Council, whose fate ends up having no real significant effect on anything it turns out, as well as The Alliance. These were the two major organisations in the original game, and now --like the Spectre factor-- they're just pushed into the background entirely. Even Anderson and Udina are relegated to tiny cameo roles.

With the exception of the Reapers, all the most significant things in ME1 are just no longer that significant at all in ME2. It doesn't feel like part of the same story at all, just merely a different story set in the same universe. If you're going compare Mass Effect to Star Wars it's more like (quality aside) ME1 was "The Phantom Menace" and that ME2 was "The Empire Strikes Back"

i agree with you there - it was disappointing how little being a spectre mattered, after me1. given the way me2 ended, they could easily have made reinstatement a completely canon thing and integral part of the game (whether the council were listening to you again or not).