10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

We conclude this because we see no other ship, even defending the Collector base, and that we are not toldthat the ship is assigned to track Shepard.  I think this is a difference in interpreting that the same ship keeps turning up is "not a coincidence"

On the Collector Ship, we are told EDI has multiple EM signatures from the Collectors. What does this say? She knows that there are multiple vessels in operation. If we accept that there are multiple ships and that this single ship is following Commander Shepard, then we can conclude that it's on some kind of "Shepard" duty, as evidenced by Shepard's own comments.

No other ships on patrol?  No other ships dropping off cargo?  No other ships refueling, or just docked there waiting for a mission?

I'm not claiming I know exactly how many ships the Collectors have under their command. It could be three, it could be five. Hell, it could be two. Or even, just one as you said. I can't say for certain how many there are (much like how I can't conclude how many Reapers have existed). They could be on any number of assignments while this is going on. Perhaps they lie in wait for their next target. Perhaps they go back to base, remove their cargo, refuel, then depart. It's hard to say when we aren't given a definite time frame on events.

Yes.  If the same ship keeps turning over and over and no other Collector ships are neither seen nor reported.  Plus it's taken to the point that the exact same ship is the last line of defense of the Collector base, it goes from ludicrous theory to reasonable (if contrived) conclusion.

 The fact that EDI tells us she has in her databanks EM signatures for multiple collector ships is a clear indicator that they exist, regardless of whether you see them or not. We only see one Reaper in Mass Effect. By this logic, shouldn't we conclude that Sovereign is the only Reaper at that time?

I'm not necessarilly saying they'd send the fleet in (though Udina and Anderson used to demand that sort of thing, remember)  But they'd at least investigate.  Send Spectres, STG, C-Sec agents.  Hire mercenaries, use other intelligence-gathering services, whatever human agency replaced Cerberus when they went rogue.  Investigate, but keep a low profile.  Just because Shepard has to run down corridors shooting everything that moves, doesn't mean everyone in the Mass Effect universe is stuck with that job

Yes, they demanded the fleet when Humanity had little to no power in how affairs are carried out. That was the importance of that request; it would have symbolized the Council bowing to human wishes.

By Mass Effect 2, humanity has either seized power or become a part of galactic affairs. They've just dealt with an entire Geth fleet. Anderson himself tells us that by this point rebuilding has not beeyn easy. We're even shown on Horizon just how hostile most colonists are to Alliance interference of any kind. At this point, I don't think the Alliance is 100% concerned about a few colonies when they've just taken the seat of galactic power. Hell, I'd be focused on cementing my authority in known space. I couldn't care less what's going on in the Terminus Systems until I get internal affairs squared away.  

I think you misunderstand me.  I'm saying that once the disappearing colonies start drawing attention (as was already starting to happen), the Collectors should swoop in with as many ships as they have, grab as many colonies as possible, and disappear behind the Omega-4 Relay.  That is, if they have more than one ship.

But what attention has been drawn up until this point? The Council/Alliance have not made a big deal of these disappearing human colonies. Sure, they think Cerberus might be behind these disappearances, but that's it. Illusive Man tells us that they have bigger problems to deal with. The extent of their 'involvement' has been sending Ashley/Kaidan into the Terminus Systems under the pretense of an Alliance out-reach program so they are not willing to make it a big deal. Where is the massive attention at this point which you are referring to?

There's contrived as incorporating odd coincidences into the plot.  I admit it's a staple in many rpgs, but as long as the game remains internally consistent, I'm (usually) content to let it go.  But then when it flies in the face of logic and continuity, I have a problem.  SHepard surviving the Prothean beacon falls in the first column, the Lazarus Project in the second.

It depends what you consider consistent. We're told that Cerberus using state of the art technology, great resources, and the best scientific minds was able to ressurect Shepard. From this and other comments made, we can conclude that resurrection is a relatively new aspect. In a world populated by giant talking plants, space zombies, and telekinetic space bugs, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a little longer to account for resurrection.

btw, that's the "Call to Adventure"?  unless you're referring to the general start of an rpg.

The main focus, if you will. In Star Wars, it's Luke running off with Obi-Wan. In Jade Empire, it's your master being captured by Death's Hand. In Mass Effect, it's becoming a Spectre and following Saren. It's the springboard, essentially.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 07:34 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Well, the dialogue and story elements in ME1's sidequests aren't something to scoff at. ME2 could have used some of that in the N7 missions. This being said, it makes up for the N7 missions' lack of this both by making its action missions more complex and by having those nifty Loyalty Missions (yes, these count as sidequests--sidequests which you are strongly encouraged to complete, mind you, but sidequests nonetheless). ME1's sidequests are undermined by the obscene aura of laziness that only the blatant recycling of a small handful of very basic level environments can emit. Hell, even the goddang Bring Down the Sky DLC used the dreaded Four-Room Warehouse no less than three times, albeit with more crates and the like. It's hard to immerse yourself in the intrigues of the mysterious Cerberus organization when all you're doing is revisiting the same basic labratory building with a few minor alterations, different enemies to shoot, and a few new text blurbs for story purposes. That moonbuggying over mountains to each of these locations got old after so many planets of it didn't help matters much.

But it depends what I'm scoffing at. I agree that spoken voice overs do make the game more atmospheric. So do npcs. So do elevator conversations, decontamination, etc. But where does 'depth' come into the picture precisely? I agree that Mass Effect's side quests have a better presentation than most of Mass Effect 2's, assuming we are excluding the loyalty missions. But depth is something that transcends the surface level in some way. It might trigger a thought or an emotion. Is UNC: Geth Incursions really deeper because I have a spoken npc telling me what I need to do instead of a journal entry, or something? This is what I don't understand.

Edit: I also love your analysis of the recycled textures. Just thought I should mention that since you spend a good amount of time discussing it.

To me, what adds depth is not just what you have to do, but why you're doing it.  The game should provide you with a reason, outside of loot and xp to do something.  ME 1 didn't have too much of this wiith their side missions, but there are exceptions.   For example, the UNC: Missing Marines mission that leads to Admiral Kahoku uncovering Cerberus.  Yeah the Cerberus labs are the same room reused over and over, but I was on a rescue mission and didn't have time to bother with the decor.  These people feed humans to thresher maws!

And in the end, when you've avenged the admiral and gathered the data, you have a choice:  pay Kahoku's debts to the Shadow Broker, knowing this could hurt the Alliance but the Shadow Broker will owe you a favor, or send the data to the Alliance, where it will likely just end up shelved.  A real moral quandary which I really wish was addressed in ME 2, given I spent several minutes staring at the screen trying to decide what to do about it.

My favorite side mission, I Remember Me, has no combat, but the story behind it is incredibly sad.  A girl who had been enslaved by batarians for years was freed by Alliance soldiers, but she' s so distraught she wants to die!  This girl was from Mindoir, like colonist Shepard, and this could have very well been Shep's fate too.   It just tugs at the heartstrings.  The quest is simple, but the desire to see it through has me choosing colonist as a background over and over.

ME 2 most of the side quests, while very pretty, weren't exactly inspiring.  "Huh, an anomoly.  Looks like pirates/geth/merc base.  Maybe I should take a look"

[Iakus]

bjdbwea wrote...

I would like if Shepard woke up in ME 3 and learned that everything from ME 2 was just a bad dream. He'd still have his old crew, ship and status, and everyone would have a good laugh at the ridiculous "explanation" for the Reaper and Collector motives that Shepard came up with in that silly dream. "Like straight out of a terribly written video game", they would say.

You know, I could live with that.

I wonder if How It Should Have Ended does video games?

[MrnDvlDg161]

I'll put up the peace flag on my end.



Bio Ware, you took us this far... there's some good things about it, bad things about it, but over all --- yall did a nice job in bringing two games that provided some good hours of entertainment and I hope at the end of the day that you pick up on a few things and give us a quality 3rd addition.



Your not going to be please everyone, just do what you do and let see what you come up with.



ME1 and 2 are good games.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

To me, what adds depth is not just what you have to do, but why you're doing it.  The game should provide you with a reason, outside of loot and xp to do something.  ME 1 didn't have too much of this wiith their side missions, but there are exceptions.   For example, the UNC: Missing Marines mission that leads to Admiral Kahoku uncovering Cerberus.  Yeah the Cerberus labs are the same room reused over and over, but I was on a rescue mission and didn't have time to bother with the decor.  These people feed humans to thresher maws!

The problem here though is the 'why' is usually straight forward. Your definition is hardly wrong, just different from my own. When I think depth, I imagine that the game is able to make me put more thought into the experience than simply "Kill things, collect moneyz". Killing the Rachni Queen was a decision I really had to think on. Watching Garrus kill Sidonis struck me as such a cold pivotal moment for Garrus. When I think 'depth', it's something I need to pause to contemplate or think on intellectually, emotionally, or morally.

And I think this is a great example of how two people can have the same experiences and come to wildly different conclusions. Except for Kahoku's death, the missions were relatively straight forward. It didn't matter that these people feed humans to thresher maws, because the quest itself felt so bland and lifeless. This did not feel like a terrible black ops organization run wild. It takes more than a journal entry and a few lines of dialogue for me to feel emotion. I think this is the exact problem with using the same reused textures repeatedly. The experience becomes diluted eventually. The fact that all I received upon finding Kahoku's body was a paragraph of text is a perfect example of this.  

My favorite side mission, I Remember Me, has no combat, but the story behind it is incredibly sad.  A girl who had been enslaved by batarians for years was freed by Alliance soldiers, but she' s so distraught she wants to die!  This girl was from Mindoir, like colonist Shepard, and this could have very well been Shep's fate too.   It just tugs at the heartstrings.  The quest is simple, but the desire to see it through has me choosing colonist as a background over and over.

Another example of how we can come to radically different conclusions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this of course. But that mission was the exact reason why I never chose colonist beyond my first playthrough. I didn't find it heart-wrenching. Regardless, what you are describing is exactly what I mean when I ask for 'depth'. In this instance, we just happened to have different emotional responses.  

ME 2 most of the side quests, while very pretty, weren't exactly inspiring.  "Huh, an anomoly.  Looks like pirates/geth/merc base.  Maybe I should take a look"

This depends. I for example consider loyalty missions to be side quests. I know others don't. If I'm considering them as side quests, I would say Mass Effect 2's 12 loyalty missions are far deeper than Mass Effect's. If I'm not considering them, I'd say Mass Effect's side quests are a little deeper than Mass Effect 2's, but not substantially. They both kinda suck in that instance, imo.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 08:04 .

[Il Divo]

MrnDvlDg161 wrote...

I'll put up the peace flag on my end.

Bio Ware, you took us this far... there's some good things about it, bad things about it, but over all --- yall did a nice job in bringing two games that provided some good hours of entertainment and I hope at the end of the day that you pick up on a few things and give us a quality 3rd addition.

Your not going to be please everyone, just do what you do and let see what you come up with.

ME1 and 2 are good games.

No need for a peace flag. We're just having a calm discussion. I love Iakus' posts. They let me strengthen, change, or otherwise reconsider my own views in ways I hadn't thought of.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 08:06 .

[bjdbwea]

MhorRioghain wrote...

Since a number of ME2 fans are paraphrasing EDI's conjectures in rationalizing not only the Reapers' motivations but also altering the perspective gleaned from Soverign's revelations to fit the plot developments of the sequel, I found this post on a website quoting an Ex-Bioware writer who was in charge of writing EDI's dialogue:

I had written harder science into EDI's dialogue there. The Reapers were using nanotech disassemblers to perform "destructive analysis" on humans, with the intent of learning how to build a Reaper body that could upload their minds intact. Once this was complete, humans throughout the galaxy would be rounded up to have their personalities and memories forcibly uploaded into the Reaper's memory banks. (You can still hear some suggestions of this in the background chatter during Legion's acquisition mission, which I wrote.) There was nothing about Reapers being techno-organic or partly built out of human corpses -- they were pure tech.

It seems all that was cut out or rewritten after I left. What can ya do. /shrug

Here's the post: 

http://forums.anandt...93&postcount=13

However, the posts seem to have been removed from the forum that sourced the quote above.

While I don't put much stock into such postings on the internet, it would fit into the puzzle. I have long suspected that ME 2 is very different from what was originally intended. Not only regarding gameplay, but especially regarding the story. I think even most of the people who did enjoy or even prefer ME 2 have admitted that ME 1 had a (much) better story. I suspect the writers were forced to rewrite the story significantly. Be it because it was too "complicated" for the target audience, be it to be able to in fact tell a completely new story so that PS 3 gamers wouldn't be at any disadvantage, be it for time constraints, be it for whatever other crude reasoning.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 août 2010 - 08:16 .

[Il Divo]

Yes, because uploading human minds into a computer is so much harder for the human mind to understand than machine-organic hybrids.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...

We conclude this because we see no other ship, even defending the Collector base, and that we are not toldthat the ship is assigned to track Shepard.  I think this is a difference in interpreting that the same ship keeps turning up is "not a coincidence" [/quote]

On the Collector Ship, we are told EDI has multiple EM signatures from the Collectors. What does this say? She knows that there are multiple vessels in operation. If we accept that there are multiple ships and that this single ship is following Commander Shepard, then we can conclude that it's on some kind of "Shepard" duty, as evidenced by Shepard's own comments. [/quote]

GIven all the evidence we have in the rest of the game it indicates taht either A) EDI has some very old records of other Collector ships or EDI is mistaken and the ships are not Collector ships but perhaps ships with Collectror tech or something else entirely or C) A piece of dialogue was left in that should have been cut

[quote]
[quote]
No other ships on patrol?  No other ships dropping off cargo?  No other ships refueling, or just docked there waiting for a mission? [/quote]

I'm not claiming I know exactly how many ships the Collectors have under their command. It could be three, it could be five. Hell, it could be two. Or even, just one as you said. I can't say for certain how many there are (much like how I can't conclude how many Reapers have existed). They could be on any number of assignments while this is going on. Perhaps they lie in wait for their next target. Perhaps they go back to base, remove their cargo, refuel, then depart. It's hard to say when we aren't given a definite time frame on events. [/quote]

Given that TIM thinks clearing the base of all the remaining Collectors will solve everything for him, he doesn't seem to worried about other Collectors showing up and not being too happy about  human squatters .

[quote]
[quote]
Yes.  If the same ship keeps turning over and over and no other Collector ships are either seen nor reported.  Plus it's taken to the point that the exact same ship is the last line of defense of the Collector base, it goes from ludicrous theory to reasonable (if contrived) conclusion. [/quote]

 The fact that EDI tells us she has in her databanks EM signatures for multiple collector ships is a clear indicator that they exist, regardless of whether you see them or not. We only see one Reaper in Mass Effect. By this logic, shouldn't we conclude that Sovereign is the only Reaper at that time?
[/quote]
[/quote]

We only see one Reaper but we hear straight from Sovereign's mouth (speaker?) that there are more.  This is further confirmed by Vigil (at least that there were many Reapers in the last culling).  Sure they might be mistaken/lying, but given that Sovereign's ultimate plan for the CItadel was to summon more out of dark space, it's reasonable to assume that he was telling the truth.  Does the Collector ship send out a distress signal calling for reinforcements during the battle at the COllector base?  Not that I can recall

[quote]
I'm not necessarilly saying they'd send the fleet in (though Udina and Anderson used to demand that sort of thing, remember)  But they'd at least investigate.  Send Spectres, STG, C-Sec agents.  Hire mercenaries, use other intelligence-gathering services, whatever human agency replaced Cerberus when they went rogue.  Investigate, but keep a low profile.  Just because Shepard has to run down corridors shooting everything that moves, doesn't mean everyone in the Mass Effect universe is stuck with that job [/quote]

Yes, they demanded the fleet when Humanity had little to no power in how affairs are carried out. That was the importance of that request; it would have symbolized the Council bowing to human wishes.

By Mass Effect 2, humanity has either seized power or become a part of galactic affairs. They've just dealt with an entire Geth fleet. Anderson himself tells us that by this point rebuilding has not beeyn easy. We're even shown on Horizon just how hostile most colonists are to Alliance interference of any kind. At this point, I don't think the Alliance is 100% concerned about a few colonies when they've just taken the seat of galactic power. Hell, I'd be focused on cementing my authority in known space. I couldn't care less what's going on in the Terminus Systems until I get internal affairs squared away.  [/quote]

So, demanding something when you are in no position to exert actual authority is a symbol of power?  I truly do not understand politics.

At any rate, this is why I said quiet, stealthy investigation would be more useful than a fleet.  Human colonies are disappearing in the Terminus Systems.  Who's to say it's going to stay that way?  What if it's the geth again?  Or something worse?  Knowledge is power and all.

[quote]
[quote]
There's contrived as incorporating odd coincidences into the plot.  I admit it's a staple in many rpgs, but as long as the game remains internally consistent, I'm (usually) content to let it go.  But then when it flies in the face of logic and continuity, I have a problem.  Shepard surviving the Prothean beacon falls in the first column, the Lazarus Project in the second. [/quote]

It depends what you consider consistent. We're told that Cerberus using state of the art technology, great resources, and the best scientific minds was able to ressurect Shepard. From this and other comments made, we can conclude that resurrection is a relatively new aspect. In a world populated by giant talking plants, space zombies, and telekinetic space bugs, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a little longer to account for resurrection.
[/quote]

Revival after a few minutes, perhaps hours.  Under ideal circumstances maybe days.  But years?  And given how thoroughly dead Shep was?  Uh uh.  By this logic, if the Council dies in ME 1, they could have just ressurected them.  It would be expensive, sure, but this is the Council!  And the Citadel surely has more resources and better scientific minds than a terrorist organization! 

[quote]
[quote]
btw, that's the "Call to Adventure"?  unless you're referring to the general start of an rpg.[/quote]

The main focus, if you will. In Star Wars, it's Luke running off with Obi-Wan. In Jade Empire, it's your master being captured by Death's Hand. In Mass Effect, it's becoming a Spectre and following Saren. It's the springboard, essentially. [/quote]


Eh depends on how well it's done.  I mean, an adventure has to start somewhere, right?  Personally I have a problem with the adventure starting with the resurection of the hero.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

While I don't put much stock into such postings on the internet, it would fit into the puzzle. I have long suspected that ME 2 is very different from what was originally intended. Not only regarding gameplay, but especially regarding the story. I think even most of the people who did enjoy or even prefer ME 2 have admitted that ME 1 had a (much) better story. I suspect the writers were forced to rewrite the story significantly. Be it because it was too "complicated" for the target audience, be it to be able to in fact tell a completely new story so that PS 3 gamers wouldn't be at any disadvantage, be it for time constraints, be it for whatever other crude reasoning.

The reproduction theme is already known form movies like "Alien".Uploading human minds into a machine is maybee complicated or "strange","impossible". But i just hope that they took that out to have something new to reveal in MAss Effect 3 rather then use  the dumb assupmtion of edi that reapers harvest the galaxy every 50000 years just for reproduction needs.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

The problem here though is the 'why' is usually straight forward. Your definition is hardly wrong, just different from my own. When I think depth, I imagine that the game is able to make me put more thought into the experience than simply "Kill things, collect moneyz". Killing the Rachni Queen was a decision I really had to think on. Watching Garrus kill Sidonis struck me as such a cold pivotal moment for Garrus. When I think 'depth', it's something I need to pause to contemplate or think on intellectually, emotionally, or morally. [/quote]

Kill the rachni queen or release her?  It's not an arbitrary decision (at least, I hope not)  you have to consider the repercussions.

Kill Sidonis?  Why?  Because he deserves it?  Because it will give Garrus closure?  Because you like killing?  Unfortunately, much of ME 2 lacks this, or rather, the "why" is rather nebulous.


[quote]
And I think this is a great example of how two people can have the same experiences and come to wildly different conclusions. Except for Kahoku's death, the missions were relatively straight forward. It didn't matter that these people feed humans to thresher maws, because the quest itself felt so bland and lifeless. This did not feel like a terrible black ops organization run wild. It takes more than a journal entry and a few lines of dialogue for me to feel emotion. I think this is the exact problem with using the same reused textures repeatedly. The experience becomes diluted eventually. The fact that all I received upon finding Kahoku's body was a paragraph of text is a perfect example of this.  [/quote]

It's been my philosophy for a long time that rpgs are not about the graphics.  Otherwise gems like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment would have fallen by the wayside long ago.  More than a text box would have been nice, but hey, it beats an email

[quote]
[quote]
My favorite side mission, I Remember Me, has no combat, but the story behind it is incredibly sad.  A girl who had been enslaved by batarians for years was freed by Alliance soldiers, but she' s so distraught she wants to die!  This girl was from Mindoir, like colonist Shepard, and this could have very well been Shep's fate too.   It just tugs at the heartstrings.  The quest is simple, but the desire to see it through has me choosing colonist as a background over and over. [/quote]

Another example of how we can come to radically different conclusions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this of course. But that mission was the exact reason why I never chose colonist beyond my first playthrough. I didn't find it heart-wrenching. Regardless, what you are describing is exactly what I mean when I ask for 'depth'. In this instance, we just happened to have different emotional responses.  [/quote]

Bah, anyone who doesn't get a lump in their throat doing that mission has no soul

[quote]
ME 2 most of the side quests, while very pretty, weren't exactly inspiring.  "Huh, an anomoly.  Looks like pirates/geth/merc base.  Maybe I should take a look"[/quote]

This depends. I for example consider loyalty missions to be side quests. I know others don't. If I'm considering them as side quests, I would say Mass Effect 2's 12 loyalty missions are far deeper than Mass Effect's. If I'm not considering them, I'd say Mass Effect's side quests are a little deeper than Mass Effect 2's, but not substantially. They both kinda suck in that instance, imo.  [/quote]

In any other game I would consider them side missions.  And pretty good ones for the most part.  However, they are classified as main missions in the journal.  It's a pity that they have no real effect on the game though.  Just the "don't kill me" flag in the Suicide mission.  No changed attitude, little extra dialogue, etc.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

The reproduction theme is already known form movies like "Alien".Uploading human minds into a machine is maybee complicated or "strange","impossible". But i just hope that they took that out to have something new to reveal in MAss Effect 3 rather then use  the dumb assupmtion of edi that reapers harvest the galaxy every 50000 years just for reproduction needs.

But the aliens reproduce very differently in that movie. It's very disgusting too, but it makes at least a little more sense. To be honest, that uploading of minds sound a little strange too. It's probably not what a good writer would use either.

The problem is, BioWare wrote themselves into a corner: They came up with that idea of an incredibly powerful and advanced species, the Reapers, who are coming and destroying life in the whole galaxy every 50.000 years. That makes for a very good and interesting plot for a while, as we witnessed in ME 1. But the problem is - sooner or later you have to elaborate on it, and tell us more about this species, and let us know about their motives. You could of course just leave it in the dark until the very end - as Sovereign said, we just can't understand it - but that wouldn't really fly either, the audience wants to know.

So they had to come up with something, anything. And they did. The problem is, it's something very stupid and very laughable, and it wasn't even presented and explained properly. BioWare was always renowned for their abilities in story telling, but this was a major failure. As I said, the best would probably be to just forget about it ("it was just a bad dream"), and try again. But if they don't, and it seems so far they're even unable to admit their failure, then it's still not too late to put the plot on a better track again in the next game. But this requires that for ME 3, writing and story this time get the attention and effort they need, and if the team finds itself unable to do so, BioWare should ask Mr. Karpyshyn do have a bigger role in the writing for ME 3 again.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 août 2010 - 08:52 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Kill the rachni queen or release her?  It's not an arbitrary decision (at least, I hope not)  you have to consider the repercussions.

Kill Sidonis?  Why?  Because he deserves it?  Because it will give Garrus closure?  Because you like killing?  Unfortunately, much of ME 2 lacks this, or rather, the "why" is rather nebulous.

Depth: intellectual, moral, or emotional. At least that's how I look at it. It can be any combination of one or more. The Rachni example happens to touch on moral and emotional. I found the Sidonis situation to be quite emotional and to a lesser extent moral. The conversation you can have with Garrus right before the 'hit' is one of my favorite instances in Mass Effect 2 because it explores how far Garrus has fallen.

It's been my philosophy for a long time that rpgs are not about the graphics.  Otherwise gems like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment would have fallen by the wayside long ago.  More than a text box would have been nice, but hey, it beats an email

And it's a great philosophy. I follow it as well, except when the game tells me it's introducing an innovative cinematic style. Then all arguments of graphics/cut-scenes being unimportant go right out the window. Baldur's Gate/Planescape can get away with this because they were limited technologically and don't make the same claims Mass Effect does. In this case, a paragraph of text hardly seems fitting, simply lazy especially in comparison to the long epic cut scenes we receive on Virmire or any main quest mission. It's a sign of just how little effort really was really put in developing Mass Effect's side quests that this was the final result. In this instance, I don't really consider a paragraph of text any better than an e-mail.

Bah, anyone who doesn't get a lump in their throat doing that mission has no soul  

Yep.

In any other game I would consider them side missions.  And pretty good ones for the most part.  However, they are classified as main missions in the journal.  It's a pity that they have no real effect on the game though.  Just the "don't kill me" flag in the Suicide mission.  No changed attitude, little extra dialogue, etc.

Which is the issue I'm having. Sure, the game calls them 'missions'. But in context, would you call Wrex's family armor a 'mission'? It fulfills the same function in the sense that it determines whether a character lives or dies, yet that is considered an assignment and none of the loyalty missions are really 'essential'. I'm even thinking if perhaps they should be placed in their own category, much like how Elder Scrolls games follow the main quest, faction quest, miscellaneous quest structure.

Like I said, if loyalty mission= side quest, then Mass Effect 2 wins.

If loyalty mission=main quest, Mass Effect wins. I must think on this more.

And I'll post a reply to your first response soon enough. You're especially quick today.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2010 - 09:02 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...


But the aliens reproduce very differently in that movie. It's very disgusting too, but it makes at least a little more sense. To be honest, that uploading of minds sound a little strange too. It's probably not what a good writer would use either.

It was used in the first game.The thorian basicly uploaded the minds,culture and language of the protheans by eating
them(then,shiala got it and give that essence of the race to shepart). Somehow i think that the thorian is related to the reapers somehow.(similarities like indoctrination)

I dont think its strange. Just look at "Solaris" from stanislaw lem.An intelligent ocean is far more "strange" then most other things i watched in movies and read in books.

Modifié par tonnactus, 20 août 2010 - 08:57 .

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

bjdbwea wrote...

So they had to come up with something, anything. And they did. The problem is, it's something very stupid and very laughable, and it wasn't even presented and explained properly. BioWare was always renowned for their abilities in story telling, but this was a major failure. As I said, the best would probably be to just forget about it ("it was just a bad dream"), and try again. But if they don't, and it seems so far they're even unable to admit their failure, then it's still not too late to put the plot on a better track again in the next game. But this requires that for ME 3, writing and story this time get the attention and effort they need, and if the team finds itself unable to do so, BioWare should ask Mr. Karpyshyn do have a bigger role in the writing for ME 3 again.

Im sure when ME3 rolls around theyll be more than willing to tell everyone of their desire to improve on ME2s plot. Sadly though, I think it will be more about flogging ME3 as opposed to genuinely feeling they let themselves down in ME2.

I would love to see some holding up of the hands and admitting that ME2 was a weaker story than before, perhaps because of what they felt they should do for ME3. I doubt it will though. Sure, ME2 had some good writing, but just because Samara, Mordin, Kasumi, Tali and Legion had well written loyalty missions that dont impact anything but themselves doesnt excuse anything. That they crafted 15 minutes or so worth of storytelling to cram into an hour long mission mostly involving combat becomes meaningless pretty fast.

And I have to say, I too have noticed some of even the most die hard proponents for ME2s gameplay shift acknowledge it came with a price which was a crap story compared to the first game.

[Pocketgb]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
First off, already knew what happened to the protheans in ME1. Just because vigil didnt mention the collectors by name or give an exact description doesnt mean he didnt exactly outline what happened: they became the reapers mindless servants.

During the annihilation of the galaxy, yes. The Reapers used indoctrinated servants as spies. The implications of the Collector's being the you-know-what weren't terribly obvious, though.

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
Now maybe Im just in denial, but Im hoping in ME3 we learn that the reapers motives arent quite so.... godawful and insanely stupid .

How exactly is that 'insanely stupid'? This is just starting to sound baseless.

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
Yeah, you set up this great mystery of systematic galactic extinction, only to turn this great enemy into some sort of borg ripoff?

I don't think anything's been completely 'original' in years.

[Epic777]

tonnactus wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

While I don't put much stock into such postings on the internet, it would fit into the puzzle. I have long suspected that ME 2 is very different from what was originally intended. Not only regarding gameplay, but especially regarding the story. I think even most of the people who did enjoy or even prefer ME 2 have admitted that ME 1 had a (much) better story. I suspect the writers were forced to rewrite the story significantly. Be it because it was too "complicated" for the target audience, be it to be able to in fact tell a completely new story so that PS 3 gamers wouldn't be at any disadvantage, be it for time constraints, be it for whatever other crude reasoning.

The reproduction theme is already known form movies like "Alien".Uploading human minds into a machine is maybee complicated or "strange","impossible". But i just hope that they took that out to have something new to reveal in MAss Effect 3 rather then use  the dumb assupmtion of edi that reapers harvest the galaxy every 50000 years just for reproduction needs.

I hope conspiracy theories don't start flying, games go through many incarnations before finally settling, the first ideas for bioshock were very different from the final game. With me2 there is no smoking gun, if it was changed drastically it was before any new code was written. If there was you would find lots (think kotor II) of of old code, unused voices etc.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Pocketgb wrote...

During the annihilation of the galaxy, yes. The Reapers used indoctrinated servants as spies. The implications of the Collector's being the you-know-what weren't terribly obvious, though.

They were none existent, because the collectors probably hadnt been asspulled at that point.

However, the collectors in essence were described word for word. Organic reaper automatons completely under their sway. All ME2 did was expand that concept to genetic domination and alteration as well as mental.

Pocketgb wrote...
How exactly is that 'insanely stupid'? This is just starting to sound baseless.

No, youre right, being left with the brief description of "people paste makes reapers go alive" is pefectly acceptable.

Seriously, at best ME2 left the specifics of how human genetic material can create consciousness for a giant construct in the form of a human skeleton for ME3. That still means it sucks in ME2, its just ME3 has to take up the responsibility of something ME2 should have done.

Pocketgb wrote...
I don't think anything's been completely 'original' in years.

Yeah. originality sometimes becomes a rare treat, but thats no excuse for shoddy work. Neither is it the fact that its the second act, and they supposedly are never as good as the first and final acts.

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 20 août 2010 - 09:19 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Why you need numbers to play game?

Because roleplaying not only means to decide how a character act in dialogues,but also which abilities they use in
fights and conversations.Characterbuilding is a important part in rpgs,and without that,its not an rpg but something
like heavy rain.

We have argued this same argument before. So, I just disagree. Roleplaying is taking role and it doesn't require ANY numbers. Character build doesn't require player to see any numbers.

[Darth Drago]

In regards to the Collector ship discussion I’ve skimmed through…

I’m leaning on a lack of paying to details as the reason why we never see another Collector ship. From writers and the rest of the game development staff. Its not the first time in ME2 something didn’t match up in this game or was messed up due to lack of editing.

From what EDI comments about Collector signatures we can make that leap of faith and common sense tells us that the Collectors have more than a single ship. Why wouldn’t they? They cant exactly park that one we saw anywhere without it getting spotted and recognized like the Cerberus logo right? Keep in mind that everyone seems to know about the Collectors galaxy wide as well. How can they be so well known if they just have a single ship? We don’t even know how many Collectors there were either and considering their origin its fair to guess that there are a lot more out there than we ever saw.

Was EDI’s comment just poorly written dialog like Jack’s comment about the dead varen in her loyalty mission “who shot that varen?” (or something thats close enough to that) when she says it there are 2 dead varen on the ground which should have had her saying “who shot those varen?”.

Or was EDI’s line based on something that never was developed in the game or cut out? Maybe in the original “plan” we ran into more Collectors like we did the Geth from ME1. This would be the preferred excuse for me since it would have actually meant that they were something more than a mild distraction like they are in the game now.

My large problem with that Collector ship is just how does Shepard think they can use that single ship to harvest all the humans on Earth? It has over 11 billion people on it going by the Mass Effect Wiki (never looked at it in the game). That ship is no way that large and using the single ship idea it would take decades to fully harvest the Earth. Could it even harvest a single large city like New York. LA, London, Tokyo or Paris? Would the rest of the Earth just sit around and wait their turn? Their bugs wouldn’t be able to stun the entire planet long enough for a full harvest as well. We saw how it only lasts for a limited duration before wearing off. This invasion of Earth concept alone would require dozens of ships at the least giving more fuel to the idea that the Collectors must have had more ships in their fleet.

Unfortunately these issues are likely due to lack of details by the game developers and writers, with it being more signs of bad editing as well in this game.

[Solaris Paradox]

Darth Drago wrote...

Keep in mind that everyone seems to know about the Collectors galaxy wide as well. How can they be so well known if they just have a single ship? We don’t even know how many Collectors there were either and considering their origin its fair to guess that there are a lot more out there than we ever saw.

This would be a decent argument to use if it weren't for that "They're seen so rarely most think they're a myth" thing.

[Fhaileas]

Il Divo wrote...

Yes, because uploading human minds into a computer is so much harder for the human mind to understand than machine-organic hybrids.

Any species (be that biological or artificial) should be considered insane and retarded (by a broad set of standards) the moment it attempts to make a mech-like avatar creation for itself all while harvesting a biological material from random biological specimens from around the galaxy.

First and foremost, it is extremely inefficient, expensive and not very secretive. After all you will be kidnapping and killing a lot of specimens, traveling around the galaxy in easily recognizable ship, attacking foreign points of interest, all while possessing perfect cloning technology (able to create and raise a perfect Krogan within a week), ample time, good base of operation and limitless resources. Why?

Terror? You were doing just fine so far, Sovereign truly delivered some terror and “his” “little” operation caused tons of damage and destabilization on a Galactic scale... all while blaming it on Geth.

War? You want to wage war on biological species? Nuke their planets, introduce viral agents into the population... tactics like that are just fine if your intention is to actually wipe them out.

Control? You have the power of indoctrination and a species of Collectors that you can “remotely control” with little to no margin of error.

I honestly cannot see the point to any of their actions apart from that of creating a second rate story line for a sequel which is a considerable disappointment considering the potential that the original Mass Effect had... and still does. This isn’t Star Wars without the actual Star Wars license, where the bad guys are evil for the sake of being evil and providing the villain for the story. This is art, after all Bioware have flogged this line over and over before, stating that they see their games as art and it is how they approach their design. Well I suppose drawings on a popcorn cup sold at McDonalds could be considered as an art by a 3 years old (if they were the target audience).

Of course one could present a counter argument by stating that “we are not supposed to understand how the Reapers think, reason and operate”. Unfortunately it is a flawed argument. Let me assure you that if a dog chases a cat out of the window from the 8th floor and falls to its death while doing so, there is no greater purpose or thinking process in here... just stupidity. One can design a powerful, secretive yet difficult to understand species without falling back on retarded ideas riddled with plot holes (just read Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War).

The Reapers have devolved from intergalactic terror (in ME1) to a bad game play and plot excuse (in ME2)... and one has to wonder who is it that we have to thank for it. Considering that the same writer was responsible for both story lines, it makes me wonder if we will get the Reaper plush toy with a CE of ME3 just to prove my point. Reapers are like Borg, when Borg was first introduced in The Next Generation, they were The Galactic Terror, one ship taking out entire fleets, destroying worlds... then they grew in numbers and devolved to a nuisance in The Voyager... now, no one takes them seriously... unless of course the story calls for it.

If Sovereign was the standard by which one could measure The Reaper then Harbinger must be the defunct, blue screening version of its species.

[Solaris Paradox]

tonnactus wrote...

The time between each reaper cycle is 50000 years.
And waiting for populations growing after each cycle in a natural way is far slower then to crop them.
Take a sample of 10000 parts,let them grow by 1 percent 10000 years.You get a digit with 46 numbers,far enough just for reproduction needs.
That show that reproduction couldnt by the reason for the reaper cycle that happen every 50000 years.
All that would be necessary is to take some thousands of a suitiable race and crop them like pigs and cows.
years alone

You make it sound as if the fact that the Reapers have already waited over fifty thousand years since the last cycle has no impact on what course of action they would choose.

Look, you're presenting an option which would take mass amounts of time, mass amounts of resources, and let's not forget, would require a lot of space and rather specific facilities to pull off. The alternative is faster, cleaner, and more direct. Now, even with their fifty-thousand-year cycle, it's never occured to these Reapers that they can just clone a whole bunch of [insert species here] and do their thing without having to routinely swoop down and cause havoc. They had a relatively easy, clear-cut method by which their goals could be met. Hell, if they ever drew too much attention, they could just stop kidnapping people for a while and start up again when it seemed like their enemies had let their guard down. You suggest a time-consuming, expensive, tedious process over the quick-and-obvious method because it's safer. What you don't seem to realize is that the quick-and-obvious method was more than safe enough for Collector purposes in the first place. The combination of safety behind the Omega 4 Relay and the Council's unwillingness to provoke a conflict with the Terminus Systems provided more than enough protection for the direct route to work, and if the direct route appears plenty workable, why would you instead opt for a method that would take fifteen times as long, a hundred times as much space, and a good fifty times as many resources?

[bjdbwea]

Fhaileas wrote...

If Sovereign was the standard by which one could measure The Reaper then Harbinger must be the defunct, blue screening version of its species.

Ah, there you gave the developers a brilliant and convenient explanation for scrapping that awful plot from ME 2 and starting a proper one in ME 3: Harbinger was actually a mad reaper. The creation of a human reaper was just the idiotic idea of a defunct AI. It has nothing at all to do with the real motives and goals of the reapers. This also conveniently explains why it repeats the same sentences over and over. Hey BioWare, take notes!

[ArchDemonXIII]

bjdbwea wrote...

 I think even most of the people who did enjoy or even prefer ME 2 have admitted that ME 1 had a (much) better story. I suspect the writers were forced to rewrite the story significantly. Be it because it was too "complicated" for the target audience, be it to be able to in fact tell a completely new story so that PS 3 gamers wouldn't be at any disadvantage, be it for time constraints, be it for whatever other crude reasoning.

 Matter of opinion. While I'll admit that ME1 had the better story, I thought ME2's story was fine until the baby reaper appeared. Not only is the reapers using "lesser races" as pawns in keeping with lore, the fact that the protheans actually were kept as pawns puts a whole new spin on your conversation with Saren on Virmire ( he was right about there being a place for powerful pawns). In fact it even justifies Saren's motivations even more ( whether you agree with his conclusion is another matter entirely, but now he wasn't simply deluded).

 What impacted ME2's story was the lack of interaction between crew. I think the biggest culprit for that was the jigsaw puzzle nature of ME2. If it had been more linear in regards to picking up squadmates, they could have  more easily had dialogue to cover it. As it is, the number of permutations makes it unwieldy. It's easy to say that it's just some extra voicework, but voice actors cost money and it's not coming out of our pocket, it's coming out of the budget EA gives them. Let's face it, this is nothing new. In ME1, if you saved Liara's recruitment long enough, you got what amounted to a throwaway couple of lines that were never mentioned again.

 As for the Collector ship, who's to say there weren't more docked at the Collector base? Yea, there was only one sent out, but that's all it took to deal with the Normandy the first time, and after it gets sent out, from their perspective, it didn't look like another was necessary. The fact it was the same ship is because the masses want closure. If you didn't get to confront that ship, more people than complain about a possible gap in logic would be upset that they didn't get to go after it. It was supposed to be an audience cheer moment.

Modifié par ArchDemonXIII, 21 août 2010 - 12:20 .