10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

The Collecters were engineered to operate outside an indoctrination field, to be remotely directed without ever having been inside a field. Consciousness instead the indoctrination field, especially inside the Reaper hive mind, would be expected to contribute differently.



And there are plenty of facts to support humans consciouness being incorporated into the Reapers - we can see from Collector deal with O'Keer that the technology to imprint memories is clearly there. I do understand your argument that even if this was true then then the field was keeping them in line that it would destroy them as individuals so that they could not rebel. That's possible. I'll cling to my little theory regardless though.



While I agree that there is no evidence to support it, since we have no idea what kind of physical transformation would occur with the humans. We also really don't know if humans interact differently to long term indoctrination - there is something genetically different about humans that makes them candidates for ascension.



But my original point was that even if my theory is wrong (I could be trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole), I think there are obvious clues being dropped everywhere, that Bioware has put some thought into the ending, and I bet that the kind of pieces that I'm talking about will fit in somewhere. That is consistant with past Bioware games and I really haven't seen anything to convince me that we won't see that here as well.

[tonnactus]

kalle90 wrote...
 On some playthroughs I wanted to tell council to go to hell, but no such luck.

You not even had to talk to them most of the time after shepardt became a spectre.Everytime joker asked if you want
to speak with them just say no.Thats it.But you dont have such freedom of choice with the illusive man.The player not even have the choice to tell the smoking junkie that he should wait until i want to talk with him.The galaxy map is just deactivated. Those things make shepardt to a dumb slave of tim that railroad him through main missions.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The Collecters were engineered to operate outside an indoctrination field,

They were damaged by indoctrination and it doesnt seem to be logical to damage your slaves on purpose just
to use cybernetics then to repair the damage when they could control the indoctrinition process perfectly.The collectors would be immune then.But they arent.So it seems that either not even the reapers could control the indoctrination technology perfectly or its just impossible to use it without damage to the individuals. So conclusion,even minds in the reapers would be damaged.

And there are plenty of facts to support humans consciouness being incorporated into the Reapers - we can see from Collector deal with O'Keer that the technology to imprint memories is clearly there.

Memories,information,yes. Minds i doubt it.

Modifié par tonnactus, 28 août 2010 - 06:57 .

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...
Is that sarcasm supposed to replace arguments?  

Why not? It seems to have worked for you the past hundred or so pages.

Shepard did not have the emotion of a brick wall in ME 1, but indeed in ME 2 it often feels like it.

He's a brick wall. Meer delivers his lines with all the emotion of Keanu Reeves. That is to say: there's none to be had. Excluding the locker scene (where his stoicism actually works), the romance with Ashley is entirely one sided. Shepard is a block, a block that you use to interact with the world. To copy one of your own responses:

I think it's nice that you want to defend the game no matter what, but I think it's best that you come to accept that even in Mass Effect, Commander Shepard has all the emotion of a stone statue.

And I don't need to see the exact response to anticipate what kind of answer Shepard will give.

I'm glad you're so skilled at guessing responses. Often times, I choose a response and Shepard will give a line that is unfitting or in a tone contradictory to the intended statement.

By the way, I do not find the voice acting weak. Not even in ME 2.

It's pretty terrible. Hale sounds like she's trying too hard while Meer sounds like he's not trying hard enough. There's a reason why people have complained about the voice acting: it sucks, especially in comparison to the rest of the cast, or even other games out there. Glados from Portal delivers her lines with more spirit, and she's a machine.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 août 2010 - 08:33 .

[Pocketgb]

Il Divo wrote...
I'm glad you're so skilled at guessing responses. Often times, I choose a response and Shepard will give a line that is unfitting or in a tone contradictory to the intended statement.

Ex. Sha'ira.

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...
Is that sarcasm supposed to replace arguments?  

Why not? It seems to have worked for you the past hundred or so pages.

Shepard did not have the emotion of a brick wall in ME 1, but indeed in ME 2 it often feels like it.

He's a brick wall. Meer delivers his lines with all the emotion of Keanu Reeves. That is to say: there's none to be had. Excluding the locker scene (where his stoicism actually works), the romance with Ashley is entirely one sided. Shepard is a block, a block that you use to interact with the world. To copy one of your own responses:

I think it's nice that you want to defend the game no matter what, but I think it's best that you come to accept that even in Mass Effect, Commander Shepard has all the emotion of a stone statue.

And I don't need to see the exact response to anticipate what kind of answer Shepard will give.

I'm glad you're so skilled at guessing responses. Often times, I choose a response and Shepard will give a line that is unfitting or in a tone contradictory to the intended statement.

By the way, I do not find the voice acting weak. Not even in ME 2.

It's pretty terrible. Hale sounds like she's trying too hard while Meer sounds like he's not trying hard enough. There's a reason why people have complained about the voice acting: it sucks, especially in comparison to the rest of the cast, or even other games out there. Glados from Portal delivers her lines with more spirit, and she's a machine.

I've been reading your posts without responsing for quite a while now; Yet I can't understand you. You're well aware of the flaws the game has as well as the categories they fall in, yet you defend the game as a whole. Every time I play any part of the game without trying to spott flaws consciously one pops up and ruins everything. The problem is the flaws the game has aren't one-time errors but consistens mistakes. Shephards personality, the shallowness of the combat, the empty Normandy, never moving peestrians on planets etc. etc. How can you overlook these flaws? Sure, a game doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to balance the flaws it has with something, and the graphics aren't enough for me in this case So, what's left? The story isn't bad at all, but ruined by the game not taking itself seriously. So, is stopping the collectors urgent or not? The game tells you so, sure, but you can complete every missions you want before you do so, and be it just an assignment you stumblet across while being bored to death by scanning planets. The only point where the game tell's you to hurry is the suicide mission, but you probably won't as you learned how "urgent" these missions really are.
The dialogue system is good in concept, but executed not good enough to warrant all the flaws either; The paragon/renegade system only makes you choose one side since you know you'll need a high enough score sometime in the game. It doesn't affect how others react to you, only your facial scars. But wait, you've got the Med Bay upgrade, leaving only the score. The transition between dialogue-continuing and investigation-choices just sucks balls, as in, there is none. It doesn't matter whether you just asked, Shephard will always ask his questions the same way as if the conversation just started.

[Pocketgb]

Are you talking about ME2 or both games? Because quite a bit of that applies to the series as a whole thus far.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

It's pretty terrible. Hale sounds like she's trying too hard while Meer sounds like he's not trying hard enough. There's a reason why people have complained about the voice acting: it sucks, especially in comparison to the rest of the cast, or even other games out there. Glados from Portal delivers her lines with more spirit, and she's a machine.

What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

I agree. The voice acting was very good in both games. It's the writing that perhaps doesn't allow the voice actors to show their full potential in ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 août 2010 - 06:25 .

[KainrycKarr]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

It's pretty terrible. Hale sounds like she's trying too hard while Meer sounds like he's not trying hard enough. There's a reason why people have complained about the voice acting: it sucks, especially in comparison to the rest of the cast, or even other games out there. Glados from Portal delivers her lines with more spirit, and she's a machine.

What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

Actually I agree. Hale totally sounds like she's force-injecting masculinity and badassery into her voice, and it sounds silly to me.

[Xeranx]

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

I agree. The voice acting was very good in both games. It's the writing that perhaps doesn't allow the voice actors to show their full potential in ME 2.

I would argue that it's the voice direction that limits the voice actor's potential.  I'm playing through ME again and I'm noticing that Hale does have some forced dialogue, but it's more subtle than we see in ME2 regarding romance.  Overall though, female Shepard sounds like a woman comfortable in her own skin.  She can be a myriad of things: tough, tender, scathing, cordial, etc.

In ME2 however, dialogue like the really forced "I'll take it" is so jarring that sometimes I wish I could go to the options menu and turn down just Shepard's volume.  The manliness that seems to come out from her mouth bothers me because it makes me think whoever directed and/or wanted Hale directed that way doesn't think a woman in the military can just be a woman in the military.  Mind you, I'm male and I don't consider myself a feminist.

[bjdbwea]

Xeranx wrote...

I would argue that it's the voice direction that limits the voice actor's potential.

You have a point. The worst example of this would be the awful way female Shepard talks to Jacob. It's probably not the voice actor who's responsible for that, but the direction. But that's closely related to the writing, as usually the writers give directions on how to speak any important sentence.

As for the difference between ME 1 and ME 2: I agree. But in my opinion, that's because much more effort was put into the writing for ME 1. It just feels more natural, and of course Shepard has more possibilities to express emotions. In ME 2, Shepard was much more reduced to the usual awesome! action! hero. If the developers told the voice actors to put more emphasis on that, what can they do?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 août 2010 - 07:44 .

[Solaris Paradox]

I did notice that Shepard's range of possible emotions was more limited this time around. Kind of annoying when you come at it from a full-Paragon run in ME1, but not jarring enough to really kill the experience.



But speaking of lines like "I'll take it," that's just in-game stock dialogue for ya. That stuff has a tendency to sound forced simply because it isn't actual story dialogue. It has no real emotional context or motivation, so it tends to lack emotion. That isn't a problem with Mass Effect 2, just a common, garden-variety issue that pops up in all kinds of games.

[Ch40sFox]

bjdbwea wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I would argue that it's the voice direction that limits the voice actor's potential.

You have a point. The worst example of this would be the awful way female Shepard talks to Jacob. It's probably not the voice actor who's responsible for that, but the direction. But that's closely related to the writing, as usually the writers give directions on how to speak any important sentence.

As for the difference between ME 1 and ME 2: I agree. But in my opinion, that's because much more effort was put into the writing for ME 1. It just feels more natural, and of course Shepard has more possibilities to express emotions. In ME 2, Shepard was much more reduced to the usual awesome! action! hero. If the developers told the voice actors to put more emphasis on that, what can they do?

There were so many subtle things they got right with the first... The first really sticks with you for some reason, maybe it was just the sheer scale of the game back then that stuck with you.

There are so many things wrong with ME2, and it saddens me, because it could have been done SOOOOOOOOOOO much better.... but I have a feeling had EA not bought Bioware, then this board would be a quite different tone...... maybe, maybe not, its hard to tell.

Im not sure whether Bioware rushed it to get it out quickly, or whether they let Mass Effects success go to their head and decided to take a Pokemon approach to the series.

Making a game that "innovates" the series, but doesnt really add anything to it at all.

[bjdbwea]

Ch40sFox wrote...

There were so many subtle things they got right with the first... The first really sticks with you for some reason, maybe it was just the sheer scale of the game back then that stuck with you.

There are so many things wrong with ME2, and it saddens me, because it could have been done SOOOOOOOOOOO much better.... but I have a feeling had EA not bought Bioware, then this board would be a quite different tone...... maybe, maybe not, its hard to tell.

Yeah, I agree. And it's not nostalgia. I've played through ME 1 several times after ME 2 was released, and ME 1 really is that much better.

[Lumikki]

In general I think every Biowares game has one design problem. It's all about forced team member recuirements. Example of forced "companions".

In ME1, Liara, Kaidan, Asley, (Tali?).
In ME2, Miranda, Jacob, Mordin, Jack, Grunt, Garrus.
In Kotor 1, Bastila, Carth, Canderous, Mission, Zaalbar, T3-M4, Jolee.
In DAO, Alistair, Morrigan, Oghren, (Wynne?).

Now some of these "companions" can have big role in story, but some of them doesn't, but still they are forced to take as "companions". When we can actually choose our own "companions". Also way too much of Biowares games is about recruit companions or solve they personal issues. All what I do is run around to big "universe" in recruit "companions" what comes along when I meet them. What if player doesn't want that "companion". Do we actually get the choise?

Sometimes we do, but sometimes we don't. Don't make assumption that players likes every companion. It's good to have many choises, but to take them or not should be players choise. It's fine to have story related temporary companions, but make them permament by force, isn't that good.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 août 2010 - 01:32 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...
 Also way too much of Biowares games is about recruit companions or solve they personal issues.

To much? Most of them in the first game are on board right after the citadel and where are no issues that have to be solved.

[Il Divo]

I've been reading your posts without responsing for quite a while now; Yet I can't understand you. You're well aware of the flaws the game has as well as the categories they fall in, yet you defend the game as a whole. Every time I play any part of the game without trying to spott flaws consciously one pops up and ruins everything. The problem is the flaws the game has aren't one-time errors but consistens mistakes. Shephards personality, the shallowness of the combat, the empty Normandy, never moving peestrians on planets etc. etc. How can you overlook these flaws?

Well, to start, I would say your flaws are just as much warranted with Mass Effect. Shepard's personality really is a rock, the combat's fairly basic though a bit more thoughtful in Mass Effect, and I would say the Normandy feels more 'real' this time since your command crew does talk to each other. But let me home in on the core of your post.

I'm going to use the example of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. That game is literally filled with all sorts of flaws. The combat is absolutely terrible, the framerates can be choppy, the game forces you to walk everywhere or your character becomes exhausted, and it would take days to count the sheer number of glitches. Yet, it's still one of my favorites of all time because I feel that a game can be more than the sum of its parts. Rather than point out a glitch and say that Morrowind now can't be a perfect score, I measure that glitch's impact on my enjoyment of the overall experience. I don't really notice Morrowind's flaws in game because they're encompassed by its other accomplishments such as the ability to explore a living, breathing world, a great story, and an incredible amount of freedom. I don't notice the flaws so much when I'm playing the game, but that doesn't impact my ability to acknowledge they are there. The Mass Effect series lacks any real emotion from Shepard, yet it's something I put up with because on the whole they are enjoyabl. I can still acknowledge that they have quite a few flaws.

Sure, a game doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to balance the flaws it has with something, and the graphics aren't enough for me in this case So, what's left? The story isn't bad at all, but ruined by the game not taking itself seriously. So, is stopping the collectors urgent or not? The game tells you so, sure, but you can complete every missions you want before you do so, and be it just an assignment you stumblet across while being bored to death by scanning planets. The only point where the game tell's you to hurry is the suicide mission, but you probably won't as you learned how "urgent" these missions really are.

I'd say they are demonstrated to be pretty urgent since before the Suicide Mission everytime the Illusive Man contacts you, you are immediately pressed into another mission (excluding the IFF).

I'd also say your complaint applies much more to Mass Effect than Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect's goal is 'Stop Saren' which is made to be pretty urgent. Saren is not hanging out in Terminus, he's looking for the Conduit which we believe spells doom for everyone. This should take priority and we should probably not have time for side quests (though this is something all RPGs often do unfortunately). Mass Effect 2 is somewhat better in this regard because Shepard does not have an immediate threat. Boring as it may be, planet scanning is more justified if I'm waiting for the Collectors to show themselves than if I know where Ilos is located and just want to hang around.

The dialogue system is good in concept, but executed not good enough to warrant all the flaws either; The paragon/renegade system only makes you choose one side since you know you'll need a high enough score sometime in the game. It doesn't affect how others react to you, only your facial scars. But wait, you've got the Med Bay upgrade, leaving only the score. The transition between dialogue-continuing and investigation-choices just sucks balls, as in, there is none. It doesn't matter whether you just asked, Shephard will always ask his questions the same way as if the conversation just started.

Well, this has always been a Bioware issue throughougt most of their games. It would be better if they devised a better integration for questions, but it's not a priority on my list. Regardless, this does not involve just Mass Effect 2. 

Terror_K wrote...
 What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

From some of the comments I've seen, I would say Meer takes more than "a bit of flak" for his voicework. Hale certainly is better (This is Bastila after all), it doesn't mean her work in Mass Effect is spectacular. KainrycKarr probably said it best: it sounds like she's forcing the role rather than letting it flow naturally. Although, I suppose we could make a new thread and see what others generally have to say. I haven't seen a thread devoted to the voice-acting in quite a while.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 août 2010 - 02:24 .

[sagefic]

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

I agree. The voice acting was very good in both games. It's the writing that perhaps doesn't allow the voice actors to show their full potential in ME 2.

i agree - i think the VA is stellar all around. there are a few momentary glitches (notably the entire femshep/jacob convo line), but on the whole, they are awesome. BW chose their actors very well.

[SXOSXO]

Has anyone seen this review?: http://www.escapistm...1-Mass-Effect-2



Frankly I think he nailed all the problems with ME2 on the head.

[shootist70]

SXOSXO wrote...

Has anyone seen this review?: http://www.escapistm...1-Mass-Effect-2

Frankly I think he nailed all the problems with ME2 on the head.

Good review. Very funny too.

[Sidney]

sagequeen wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

What boards have you been on? While Meer admittedly takes a bit of flak, Jennifer Hale is almost universally praised for her work, and deservedly so, IMO.

I agree. The voice acting was very good in both games. It's the writing that perhaps doesn't allow the voice actors to show their full potential in ME 2.

i agree - i think the VA is stellar all around. there are a few momentary glitches (notably the entire femshep/jacob convo line), but on the whole, they are awesome. BW chose their actors very well.

The VA doesn't bother me as a much as the body language. If I see Shep fold his arms one more time I'll lose it. I'm not sure they they worked with the actors on gestures and body language but whoever controlled that side of things is where the let down occured for me more often than not.

[Sidney]

Il Divo wrote...

I'd also say your complaint applies much more to Mass Effect than Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect's goal is 'Stop Saren' which is made to be pretty urgent. Saren is not hanging out in Terminus, he's looking for the Conduit which we believe spells doom for everyone. This should take priority and we should probably not have time for side quests (though this is something all RPGs often do unfortunately). Mass Effect 2 is somewhat better in this regard because Shepard does not have an immediate threat. Boring as it may be, planet scanning is more justified if I'm waiting for the Collectors to show themselves than if I know where Ilos is located and just want to hang around.

Time works better in ME2 than in any other "non-linear" game I can think of since they all suffer the problem you describe. You are in a race to stop the gates to Oblivion, Arch-Demon, Reapers, find your dad but yet you have all kinds of time to screw around doing 100% meaningless quests. ME2's unorthodox story mode works well with this issue because, as you said, messing around with "unimportant stuff" works if you've basically got nothing better to do.

[Sidney]

bjdbwea wrote...

I also like that the levels are all hand crafted and unique this time. But, they are as a result too small, offer no exploration, are completely linear and filled with way too little actual content.

Too small? As opposed to the endless one room outposts in ME1 or the what 2-3 room mines? Really?  I'm also not all that concerned about smallish levels. After playing DAO again I realzied what a horrible grind the Deep Roads are. They're long but awfully repetitive. I'd rather have a shorter and more intense experience than slogging through room after room of the same old same old baddies mowing them down. I'm sure in some doesn't exist on this plane RPG that doesn't exist that doesn't happen but in the real world long dungeons are grindfests. That's not quality content most of that is basically cut n' paste work. Plus, if you want long is the Omega mission to get Mordin actually any shorter than Feros?

As for linear, please. Go all the way back to BG or FO if you want but most dungeons don't have 4 different routes through them. Even the Roads are much as they seem to go one forever are basiclaly a straightline. ME1 certainly was just as linear as ME2. I think what makes people feel "linear" is that in the future walls are straight whereas the deep roads is a linear path but with curved halls and rooms.

Modifié par Sidney, 29 août 2010 - 05:58 .

[bjdbwea]

Sidney wrote...

Too small? As opposed to the endless one room outposts in ME1 or the what 2-3 room mines? Really?

Yes.

Sidney wrote...

Plus, if you want long is the Omega mission to get Mordin actually any shorter than Feros?

Yes.

Sidney wrote...

ME1 certainly was just as linear as ME2.

No.

Sidney wrote...

I think what makes people feel "linear" is that in the future walls are straight whereas the deep roads is a linear path but with curved halls and rooms.

No. What makes people think that ME 2 is linear is its complete linearity within the missions. In the Deep Roads, there's optional things to find, alternative routes, comments from the companions, even banter between the companions, a merchant, plus you can always leave and come back later. Nothing of that exists in ME 2. And yes, it did in ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 août 2010 - 06:42 .