10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Some Geth wrote...
So the Mass Effect 2 LIs are a lot like Liara .

Yeah, they are actually, except about 10 times more crap.

Go look for a youtube vid. Even an incomplete set of footage of the Liara romance shows WAY more content than any ME2 romance.

Here is one for you:

There is still plenty of content missing from that romance footage, and already its showing more content than an ME2 romance.

Like this for example:

Thats been padded with excess footage as well.

Face it, while its okay to like the ME2 LIs from a perspective of personal taste, from a content one, they get massacred by the ME1 LIs.

Not surprising really, since ME1 did sometimes have a feeling of quality over quantity in certain aspects.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 18 août 2010 - 10:57 .

[Some Geth]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Some Geth wrote...
So the Mass Effect 2 LIs are a lot like Liara .

Yeah, they are actually, except about 10 times more crap.

Go look for a youtube vid. Even an incomplete set of footage of the Liara romance shows WAY more content than any ME2 romance.

Here is one for you:

There is still plenty of content missing from that romance footage, and already its showing more content than an ME2 romance.

Like this for example:

Thats been padded with excess footage as well.

Face it, while its okay to like the ME2 LIs from a perspective of personal taste, from a content one, they get massacred by the ME1 LIs.

Not surprising really, since ME1 did sometimes have a feeling of quality over quantity in certain aspects.

You know I do have ME1 and I have had Liara as an LI but anyway imo she likes you a bit too fast and you know she is just fanservice like most asari :innocent:.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Some Geth wrote...

You know I do have ME1 and I have had Liara as an LI but anyway imo she likes you a bit too fast and you know she is just fanservice like most asari :innocent:.

Yes, she is fanservice, like the asari, drell, Tali romance, Garrus romance, any romance, shooter oriented nature of ME2 (since its servicing the shooter fans), etc.

Face it, video games are pretty much a business of fanservice. That doesnt mean you cant crtiicise it, but dont act like its an anomaly.

When youve got Casey Hudson saying "if our fans want to have sex with chicken people, well then thats what well do", it should tell you about MEs propensity for fanservice.

[tonnactus]

Halo Quea wrote...

Even though you have a greater view of the Citadel and it's ward arms, it just feels smaller and less grand in appearance.  Many of the Citadel locations in ME2 look like something you'd find in a shopping mall,  the ME1 Citadel looked vast and awe-inspiring.

Not only the new citadel,the other "hubs" are also not more then small shoping malls anyway.Before the game came
out i thought that they would simply reuse the old citadel model and make omega as big as it. And now look at what we got.In some so called "hubs" i got claustrophobia.

[shootist70]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Face it, while its okay to like the ME2 LIs from a perspective of personal taste, from a content one, they get massacred by the ME1 LIs.

Not surprising really, since ME1 did sometimes have a feeling of quality over quantity in certain aspects.

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. ME1 romances seem to have an active interest in Shephard, while ME2 romances just seem to dump a lot of backstory on you followed by a straight proposition, and go something more like 'omg, my life is such a mess...shall we do it now?'

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

tonnactus wrote...


Not only the new citadel,the other "hubs" are also not more then small shoping malls anyway.Before the game came
out i thought that they would simply reuse the old citadel model and make omega as big as it. And now look at what we got.In some so called "hubs" i got claustrophobia.

Yeah, slapping a nice vista view in a shopping mall hub doesnt change the fact that now hubs consist of a few small areas connected together.

ME1 only really had the citadel as a "real" hub, but by ME2s standards, Zhus Hope and Port Hanshen are huge hub worlds.

[Some Geth]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

You know I do have ME1 and I have had Liara as an LI but anyway imo she likes you a bit too fast and you know she is just fanservice like most asari :innocent:.

Yes, she is fanservice, like the asari, drell, Tali romance, Garrus romance, any romance, shooter oriented nature of ME2 (since its servicing the shooter fans), etc.

Face it, video games are pretty much a business of fanservice. That doesnt mean you cant crtiicise it, but dont act like its an anomaly.

When youve got Casey Hudson saying "if our fans want to have sex with chicken people, well then thats what well do", it should tell you about MEs propensity for fanservice.

The only fanservice I like is fanservice from Capcom .

[Terror_K]

Halo Quea wrote...

MrnDvlDg161 wrote...

I'm interested in something.

Who here chose to save the council members during the Reaper fight? 

My
experince was that after the destruction, those who assumed command of
the Citadel and C-Sec turned into this very dark and gloomy place filled
with crime and high tensions. Darker colors in its hall ways.  A sense
of entrapment.  The way you had to go through security to get in with
the homeland security style beauracracy greeting you.

Then there
was the desk Captain, Bailey. They sort of gave him that shady Irish
Cop from the thirties look and mood.   Talking about children getting
sucked into the void from playing in the ventalation shafts, the shady
interrogation rooms, police abuse and the racial tensions between aliens
and humans. I found my self walking around and saying...  Wow... I
helped do this?  Didn't even want to come back to the damn place if not
for the missions you needed to do.

In ME1 it was clean. Lighted
areas.  C-Sec looked like a 5 star hotel instead of a military/police
compound. Place was clean --- sort of like a wealthy botanical garden. 
Even the Wards weren't menacing to walk into for the exception of the
adult pub, in this case ... not so much.

There's
no change to the Citadel if you saved the Council.   Those were design
choices that Bioware made, not anything you did.  Bioware did say that
they were shooting for a darker, edgier game with ME2.

Even
though you have a greater view of the Citadel and it's ward arms, it
just feels smaller and less grand in appearance.  Many of the Citadel
locations in ME2 look like something you'd find in a shopping mall,  the
ME1 Citadel looked vast and awe-inspiring.

I did actually like how some the aliens treated you a lot differently if you'd let The Council die. That was at least something.

Beyond that we're clearly in a different part of The Wards this time around. The Citadel is huge, and because of our status in the first game we were wandering through the more upper class areas. The Wards we were in were the ones closest to The Presidium. In ME2 we were (with exception of Anderson/Udina's office) in something a little more for the average public inhabitants, once again because of our status at the time (i.e. our links with Cerberus). It's somewhat akin to visiting a city twice and the first time visiting the main city centre and the second time visiting some of the outskirts and lesser suburbs.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Before the game came out i thought that they would simply reuse the old citadel model and make omega as big as it.

That's one thing I never understood. I get some of the changes - don't like them, but I see the reasons. But why not reuse some existing assets like the Citadel? Everyone would understand if the location didn't change from one game to another. Only now, with the announcement of the PS 3 version, does it make some sense. They wanted to do everything anew so that the PS 3 gamers aren't at any disadvantage. That's also why no decision from ME 1 could make any meaningful difference in ME 2.

ME 2 is practically the new part 1 of the series. The trilogy has just become a dilogy. <_<

Modifié par bjdbwea, 18 août 2010 - 11:22 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

shootist70 wrote...

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. ME1 romances seem to have an active interest in Shephard, while ME2 romances just seem to dump a lot of backstory on you followed by a straight proposition, and go something more like 'omg, my life is such a mess...shall we do it now?'

Pretty much. The way in which they wont romance unless youve complete their loyalty mission doesnt help either.

In terms of all of Biowares romance, I dont think ME1 LIs were their best to be honest. I still think they had better romance on offer in BG II, where because of the difference in development at that time, they relied more on the writing, and less on being fully voiced and animated.

Still, I think the ME2 LIs were poorly executed. The ME1 LIs were accused of being mere "flings", but I dont know what that would make the ME2 LIs in light of that. Really, I think neither is executed ideally, but the ME1 LIs get the far better side of it. Its obviously because the number of LIs doubled, but I dont think that excuses it, because many people prefer quality over quantity.

I should hope ME3 is on a return to a smaller number of more plot critical squadmates with a more rich variety of content for each character. Ive had a dozen questionably developed characters in ME2 who can all die, and I didnt care for it. I expect better in ME3.

[Terror_K]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Before the game came out i thought that they would simply reuse the old citadel model and make omega as big as it.

That's one thing I never understood. I get some of the changes - don't like them, but I see the reasons. But why not reuse some existing assets like the Citadel? Everyone would understand if the location didn't change from one game to another. Only now, with the announcement of the PS 3 version, does it make some sense. They wanted to do everything anew so that the PS 3 gamers aren't at any disadvantage. That's also why no decision from ME 1 could make any meaningful difference.
ME 2 is practically the new part 1 of the series. The trilogy has just become a dilogy. <_<

If I remember right, the devs said that part of solving issues like the texture pop, framerate problems, loading pauses, and wanting the places to seem more bustling and alive, etc. was making the areas smaller too, so the areas could have high detail and more to them without performance dropping or a need for load pauses and the like.

[shootist70]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Before the game came out i thought that they would simply reuse the old citadel model and make omega as big as it.

That's one thing I never understood. I get some of the changes - don't like them, but I see the reasons. But why not reuse some existing assets like the Citadel? Everyone would understand if the location didn't change from one game to another. Only now, with the announcement of the PS 3 version, does it make some sense. They wanted to do everything anew so that the PS 3 gamers aren't at any disadvantage. That's also why no decision from ME 1 could make any meaningful difference in ME 2.

One thing I noticed about the citadel on a second playthrough of ME1 was just how tedious it is. The whole plot takes too long to get going because of the largely dull stuff you find yourself doing to begin with. The only issue I have with the citadel in ME2 is an aesthetic one - it is basically just a shopping mall, which isn't a fantastic way to portray a vast, ancient city in space.

Modifié par shootist70, 18 août 2010 - 11:33 .

[shootist70]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...


I should hope ME3 is on a return to a smaller number of more plot critical squadmates with a more rich variety of content for each character. Ive had a dozen questionably developed characters in ME2 who can all die, and I didnt care for it. I expect better in ME3.

I agree completely. In fact I posted a thread a couple of weeks back asking for exactly that....but nobody cared. Bah.

http://social.biowar...5/index/3343285

[bjdbwea]

shootist70 wrote...

One thing I noticed about the citadel on a second playthrough was just how tedious it is. The whole plot takes too long to get going because of the largely dull stuff you find yourself doing to begin with.

I disagree completely. But that of course is one major point of difference: I never found anything in ME 1 "tedious" or "dull". Not the quests without shooting, not the conversations, not the need to personally walk on and off the Normandy, not the large areas, not the elevators, not the Mako. Everything added to the immersion factor. Like playing a movie, whereas ME 2 is just a game.

[Some Geth]

bjdbwea wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

One thing I noticed about the citadel on a second playthrough was just how tedious it is. The whole plot takes too long to get going because of the largely dull stuff you find yourself doing to begin with.

I disagree completely. But that of course is one major point of difference: I never found anything in ME 1 "tedious" or "dull". Not the quests without shooting, not the conversations, not the need to personally walk on and off the Normandy, not the large areas, not the elevators, not the Mako. Everything added to the immersion factor. Like playing a movie, whereas ME 2 is just a game.

So ME1 was not a game and ME2 was a game now you can't say ME1 is a better game .

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...



If I remember right, the devs said that part of solving issues like the texture pop, framerate problems, loading pauses, and wanting the places to seem more bustling and alive, etc. was making the areas smaller too, so the areas could have high detail and more to them without performance dropping or a need for load pauses and the like.

"Alive". Characters like leeharax(or how ever that turian mechanic in noveria was called) who wasnt even envolved in quests
and the player could talk to  add more life to the game then more people who just stood around.

[RawDoom]

I think the main reason I have become disappointed with the series is how they are making each game a stand alone game which eventually ties in to the main story so that you don't actually have to play every game. This to me doesn't make sense.



Back when ME1 came out I honestly thought every game would be a true continuation. Thus i thought ME2 would be all about finding a way to defeating the reapers instead we got something that felt like a really long side quest. (ok we did find some cool tech but it didn't seem like that was the point of the game). Quite frankly alot of ME2 feels almost lazy i.e. shepard dies comes back to work for cerberus, how everyone hates shepard so you have to work for Cerberus, the council are still complete idiots and yeh ok they explain why they have to be but let's face it...pretty poor excuse considering you ****ing saved the entire galaxy once already.



I expected too much I admit but god ME2 was shocking (good but not nearly good enough)

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

"Alive". Characters like leeharax(or how ever that turian mechanic in noveria was called) who wasnt even envolved in quests and the player could talk to add more life to the game then more people who just stood around.

And more than people who stood around and repeated their funny (?) conversations over and over like a broken record. What says louder "I am but a game" than this?

Well, maybe "mission completed" screens. <_<

Modifié par bjdbwea, 18 août 2010 - 01:13 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...
Everything added to the immersion factor.

Key point as to why it's going to be impossible to make both 'sides' happy.

bjdbwea wrote...
What says louder "I am but a game" than this?

Being bored.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 août 2010 - 01:16 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

I can't understand why some people are even defending the bad writing of the ME 1 LI appearances. I mean, I get it - you didn't care for those characters, and you like the new ones, which is certainly one reason you like the game as a whole and want to defend it. Fine. But is it so hard to imagine what you would think if your favorite characters were reduced to such a badly written scene in ME 3? Would it still be okay? Please, a little bit of objectivity.

Only LI appearances I thought were bad were Kaidan/Ashley, especially Ashley which has nothing to do with her motivations/reaction but her script. As for your claims of how I would feel if my favorite character 'was reduced' in ME3? Well, I would choose integrity. Thane is one of my favorite characters in Mass Effect 2. I'm killing him off for Mass Effect 3 because I think the story works better that way. I am not so attached to any character, favorite or not, that  I will raise hell over it. The only character I think to keep throughout the series is Shepard himself.

And please demonstrate your objectivity while we're on the topic.

I disagree completely. But that of course is one major point of difference: I never found anything in ME 1 "tedious" or "dull". Not the quests without shooting, not the conversations, not the need to personally walk on and off the Normandy, not the large areas, not the elevators, not the Mako. Everything added to the immersion factor. Like playing a movie, whereas ME 2 is just a game.

Again, you're extrapolating claims which Shootist was not making. He was not complaining about the quests without shooting or conversations. If you don't like conversations, then you shouldn't be playing a Bioware game in the first place. You however are one of the few who found the Mako and large, empty areas to be 'immersive'. If most gamers find them bland and lifeless and it breaks their immersion, explain to me how Bioware wins an instance like this. Who should they be pleasing with regards to environments? Besides, Jade Empire was a much better example of how to create a vibrant city filled with interaction. The Citadel is terrible in comparison, imo.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2010 - 01:59 .

[Whatever42]

RawDoom wrote...

I think the main reason I have become disappointed with the series is how they are making each game a stand alone game which eventually ties in to the main story so that you don't actually have to play every game. This to me doesn't make sense.

Back when ME1 came out I honestly thought every game would be a true continuation. Thus i thought ME2 would be all about finding a way to defeating the reapers instead we got something that felt like a really long side quest. (ok we did find some cool tech but it didn't seem like that was the point of the game). Quite frankly alot of ME2 feels almost lazy i.e. shepard dies comes back to work for cerberus, how everyone hates shepard so you have to work for Cerberus, the council are still complete idiots and yeh ok they explain why they have to be but let's face it...pretty poor excuse considering you ****ing saved the entire galaxy once already.

I expected too much I admit but god ME2 was shocking (good but not nearly good enough)

In LoTR, the steward of Gondor sits around paralyzed, more worried about the machinations of Gandalf than Sauron, the guy encroaching on his kingdom with massive armies. This has absolutely happened in real life as well. Simply look at the Roman Empire and their lethargic reaction to barbarian invaders. If you were a victorious general who gained fame in beating off barbarians, you could easily end up shuffled off because you were politically dangerous.

And we don't know how "useless" ME2 is yet. Bioware continues to insist that ME1 and ME2 actions will have large consequences in ME3. Dire even. Yes, a number of posters are pouting and stating that they think Bioware are liars but if they dislike and distrust the developer that much then I respectfully suggest that they stop playing Bioware games and leave.

So assuming the developers are correct then we have something like TTT. If you finished that book not knowing anything about RotK, you might think that nothing you did there had anything to do with defeating Sauron. Sure, you defeated a flunky but that was a side adventure and did nothing to defeat Sauron. Frodo pretty much wandered around lost all the time, wrapped in his little character drama with Gollum. I mean, that has nothing to do with the story.

Of course, all that had a great deal to do with the end of RotK. The Rohirrim were vital. Golum was vital. But we don't know what ME3 holds yet. How important are your team? What is the effect of what we learned about the Reapers? What is the effect of saving the Rachni or destroying the Genophage cure?

A lot of people, who never read the books but only saw the movies, said RotK made TTT a lot better for them. I really think that's Bioware's challenge here. If they can tie it up well then all our griping here will look stupid. If the haters are right and Bioware fumbles the ball then they can crow then.

[Il Divo]

Well said, Whatever. A very good post.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

A lot of people, who never read the books but only saw the movies, said RotK made TTT a lot better for them. I really think that's Bioware's challenge here. If they can tie it up well then all our griping here will look stupid. If the haters are right and Bioware fumbles the ball then they can crow then.

A crap middle act designed to support the final act is still a crap middle act. The only difference is the writers can fall back on what they do with ME3.

But it doesnt matter what happens to tie this "trilogy" up, ME2 will always be a failure for myself and other people. If you dont like that, I respectfully ask that you go find another thread. People have criticisms, and unless Bioware want to look like cowards and make voicing criticism agains the forum rules, we have every right to post them, and there isnt a thing you can do about it.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

Besides, Jade Empire was a much better example of how to create a vibrant city filled with interaction.

Oh yeah? So why could I run through all passers-by as if they were ghosts? So much for immersion.

But I agree, as far as interaction with random NPCs is concerned, previous BioWare games that did not require a voiced player character had a bit more to offer. But that's no excuse for ME 2 to have even less than ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 18 août 2010 - 02:40 .

[Whatever42]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

A lot of people, who never read the books but only saw the movies, said RotK made TTT a lot better for them. I really think that's Bioware's challenge here. If they can tie it up well then all our griping here will look stupid. If the haters are right and Bioware fumbles the ball then they can crow then.

A crap middle act designed to support the final act is still a crap middle act. The only difference is the writers can fall back on what they do with ME3.

But it doesnt matter what happens to tie this "trilogy" up, ME2 will always be a failure for myself and other people. If you dont like that, I respectfully ask that you go find another thread. People have criticisms, and unless Bioware want to look like cowards and make voicing criticism agains the forum rules, we have every right to post them, and there isnt a thing you can do about it.

Yes, there are thousands of people who loudly denounce Tolkien as crap. As there are thousands of people who denounce all science fiction (space opera) and fantasy as crap. I've took several literature classes in university years ago and I've seen plenty of profs snear at 'escapist' tripe. My suggestion is simply that if you don't like it, don't read it. I tend roll my eyes at the over-written, navel gazing prose that they value so much as well.

And I never said that you couldn't gripe or express an opinion. And I never suggested that you or others leave for doing so. I have expressed criticisms of ME2 and have my own wishlist for ME3.  There is a difference between offering criticism and clearly disliking the developer and their games. If people dislike them so much, which we can see evidenced through name calling and referring to them as liars when they make a clear statement about ME3, why post on their forums or play their games?

It can't be to influence them. Bioware is clearly disregarding the minority opinion, as does Blizzard with the ranters on their boards. Obviously though, I can't tell anyone what to do about anything. These are simply my opinions and observations as well. So rant on.

What I find amusing is that people point to Ashley for being unrealisitic for clearly overreacting and not listening but then post angry, bitter message after message, refusing to listen to anyone else, all claiming that they've loved Bioware for years but now Bioware has betrayed them. Yes, very unrealisitic.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 18 août 2010 - 02:42 .