10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Dudeman315]

It does when it is unnecessary and you where being lied to. He betrayed my trust he is worth less than gum on the bottom of a dead fish at that point, nothing he says can be trusted and yes he tried to kill me before I could stop the reapers. So, yeah I take betrayal kinda personal especially when the fate of the galaxy is on the line and he's trying to kill the only person he thinks can stop it.

If he would have said it might be a trap, then maybe I could forgive it but not telling me was the break point.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 14 mai 2010 - 11:32 .

[Dick Delaware]

But it was necessary. The Collectors are very careful and are gone as soon as somebody gets a whiff of them, so telling you was a no-go because it's very possible they would have tried to listen in on Cerberus' communications considering they had already stopped them at Horizon and gotten information on them at Freedom's Progress. It doesn't make sense for him to try to kill you after he saved your life. Yeah, he obviously didn't bring you back out of altruism, but it doesn't mean he's actively trying to end your life either. He needs to stop the Reapers as much as anybody else does. It's not like he's trying to kill you for the lulz.

Shepard's job is to put himself in situations where he risks his life, this is just par for the course. So yeah, I don't understand why you see it as such a personal betrayal. TIM was smart for doing what he did, it was the best option available.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 14 mai 2010 - 11:50 .

[McMaze]

I think people tend to blind out the weakpoints of games they like and are in general idealizing their favorite game. Mass Effect 1 was certainly a very good game with a very strong story and a thrilling atmosphere but it also had many weakpoints, which were corrected by the developers in ME 2 and I'm not only talking about gameplay flaws. I won't go into detail here but I'm referring to character interaction, emotionally attaching sidecharacters, character progression and innovative side missions which were all done better in ME 2 than in ME 1.



All in all I like both game and can't decide which one is better. My hope is that ME 3 overtrumps its predecessors and that Bioware creates a game where we can enjoy the good aspects both of ME 1 and ME 2.

[uberdowzen]

I'd like to revisit something that was brought up earlier, the amount of crew dialogue in comparison to ME1. I was in the camp that there is the same amount of dialogue, but spread out over 10 rather than 6 companions. Having gotten quite far into ME2, I'm not totally sure that's correct. If you're just counting the conversations that occur when Kelly Chambers tells you about them there are less, but there are many more conversations besides those. I think of anything there may actually be more conversations in ME2 than in ME1.

[SoapyIllusions]

Everyone seems to be upset about the story in the game. What I feel at least is that the story IS the squad mates. The Collectors have little to nothing to do with the overall plot and it's why the whole game is mainly focused on recruiting and gaining the loyalty of these individuals in the universe.



A good story doesn't always need to focus on an overarching narrative drive with a clear antagonist and protagonist. Films have long since realised this and some of the most compelling films ever made have focused entirely on character driven plots, where the characters themselves are the main focus of the story line.



I cared greatly for my squad mates in ME2, far more than I did in the original Mass Effect, and it's because Bioware's story telling focus for ME2 was on them, and not on an antagonist. It's why I found Mass Effect 2 to be a more engaging experience than the original Mass Effect.

[Lumikki]

Oh, I just remember something what I did not like in ME2.

When You come to Normady and explore it, there is alot of places where you can't go, because you don't have the squad member yet. I did not like this. Just because soem squad member isn't yet in you team, it should stop access to Normany rooms. It looks like easy way to get done. Players free ability look around is important too. Don't create unnecassary limits, when it's not really needed. It's like You where too lazy to make two setup, one with empty room and one with squad member in it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 mai 2010 - 11:50 .

[tonnactus]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...


Two things. Firstly, I got the feeling that this was in the original mass effect, it's just now there is a system that shows what is going on. Secondly, it's a challenge, it makes you think about what you're doing.

[quote]
What challenge??Shooting protection away and/or bring defense stripper teammates? In the actual system most biotics arent crowd control,just some finishers when enemies loose their protection.Only singularity works,and not even this did it in all cases(robo dogs and varren are immun against singularity when harbringer and scions are not)
This doesnt make sense and doesnt improve the gameplay in any way.

[quote]


Maybe it doesn't work on synthetic enemies? I don't know I didn't really use singularity that much as an adept.

[quote]
I works on lokimechs and nearly all geth including the hunters and destroyers.

[quote]
Good gameplay have to made sense,you know.And arent the collectors and the reapers the main threat in this game??[/quote]

I agree, and for the most part it does.

[quote]
That singularity stops a harbinger drone but not fenris mechs or varren doesnt make any sense. That geth primes use revenant machine guns also doesnt make sense.Wasnt were enough time to design them a unique gun??

[quote]


It doesn't have to go by rank. Maybe the Hunters (they're the stealthy ones that cloak right?) have some kind of device to make tech drones not work on them.

[/quote]
But geth primes,who boost the damage of the whole geth squad dont have them???


[quote]
Still doesn't explain why adepts etc can't have a short range weapon. Also it's not really short range (like the shotgun) it's just not that accurate.

[quote]
But not as their main weapon.(most enemies have shields or barriers)


[quote]
The last part.(the upload)


I didn't notice any AI problems there.

[/quote]

Really?That geth hunters dont advance to your position,just walking left and right?

Just take jacobs loyality mission.The heavy mech doesnt come out of the door so the player could finish him comfortably off.How is this different from the armatures on the ferros highway?

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I did one of the Geth Incursion quests last night where you come out of a science bunker and get ambushed by Geth snipers and rocket troops.

In this case it is better to walk around the building out of the line of side of the geth and to advise your squad to follow you.
If you did it on foot.You could also sprint to the mako and finish the enemies of this way.

[tonnactus]

Dick Delaware wrote...

"Mass murder" or not, whatever. The point is that only having XP per kill opens the door for exploits with areas that have unlimited XP

The endless wave of enemies like in the side mission with the loki  mechs or with the heastrom drones is bad gamedesign anyway.All places have to have a defined number of enemies.Fore challenge,just place them at different places.Far Cry (the first game) could do this in year 2005.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Oh, right. Well the ME1 style of Kaidan saying "Commander, I've tracked the signal to a star system in this cluster." has been changed to ME2 style of EDI saying the same thing.

Kaidan has some special dialog with l2 biotics...
Wrex:Another failed experiment with the rachni.Humans didnt learn anything.
There are dozens of different pieces of dialogs in side missions.A lot of unique lines for each squadmember.

[Dudeman315]

SoapyIllusions wrote...

Everyone seems to be upset about the story in the game. What I feel at least is that the story IS the squad mates. The Collectors have little to nothing to do with the overall plot and it's why the whole game is mainly focused on recruiting and gaining the loyalty of these individuals in the universe.

A good story doesn't always need to focus on an overarching narrative drive with a clear antagonist and protagonist. Films have long since realised this and some of the most compelling films ever made have focused entirely on character driven plots, where the characters themselves are the main focus of the story line.

I cared greatly for my squad mates in ME2, far more than I did in the original Mass Effect, and it's because Bioware's story telling focus for ME2 was on them, and not on an antagonist. It's why I found Mass Effect 2 to be a more engaging experience than the original Mass Effect.

Name me a movie that did this without having a soild link between the characters or mainly focused on one charcter.  If the character missions had had one minute more of dialog that linked them into some over all narrative then I might be willing to give them something there.  Each charcter's mission felt like DLC, like it could be tacked on anywhere.  Without an overarching narrative you don't have a story you have stories.

[tonnactus]

[quote]Xpheyel wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

The fact that I find an Avenger IV in a crate in a play through and buy a Banshee III in some other playthrough is not even remotely interesting or exciting to me because both guns are crap I'm going to replace as soon as the rng smiles on me next. Spectre weapons are the only interesting ones in the entire game and that is solely because they're completely OP with respect to their listed tier and the level you can buy them at.

So in one game I go:
Avenger I
Banshee III
Avenger V
Tsunami VII
HWMA VII
[/quote]
Wrong.First for example,rosenkov weapons and armor are better then the ones from the alliance and most other supliers,even if their number was lower.You decide how you mode your weapon,in which order.Not like in the  game now, that the headshot upgrade for the snipper requires some damage upgrades and the armor piecring.(complete nonsense)

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


For a long time I thought you could choose not to take any of the aliens from the citadel with you. Then I spoke with Ashley about the aliens on the ship and apparently I had no choice. Udina ordered me to take Tali with us. Udina? Ordering a spectre?

You were not a spectre in that moment...

[Vena_86]

McMaze wrote...

I think people tend to blind out the weakpoints of games they like and are in general idealizing their favorite game. Mass Effect 1 was certainly a very good game with a very strong story and a thrilling atmosphere but it also had many weakpoints, which were corrected by the developers in ME 2 and I'm not only talking about gameplay flaws. I won't go into detail here but I'm referring to character interaction, emotionally attaching sidecharacters, character progression and innovative side missions which were all done better in ME 2 than in ME 1.

All in all I like both game and can't decide which one is better. My hope is that ME 3 overtrumps its predecessors and that Bioware creates a game where we can enjoy the good aspects both of ME 1 and ME 2.

Well, I think people are too lazy to use their imagination and are only able to compare what ME1 had and what ME2 had. ME2 did not correct any flaws, it removed them with the precision of a carpet-bombardment.
Most of ME2s improvements could have been made without sacrificing atmosphear, depth and freedom.
Every second game these days has intense shooter action with heavy scripting. Mass Effect 2 is now just one of them. Previously the Mass Effect franchise had something to offer which was quite unique, exploring the galaxy. It did this imperfecty, but here I was hoping for BioWare to improve that which makes Mass Effect matter and not just be another game. Instead they did the opposite: They almost removed the "explore the galaxy" aspect and focused the whole game on shooter action like so many other freakin games already do.

Its like using a violin as a baseball bat. Sure the "majority" thinks its cool but it is a complete waste of potential.

Modifié par Vena_86, 15 mai 2010 - 02:46 .

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

I did one of the Geth Incursion quests last night where you come out of a science bunker and get ambushed by Geth snipers and rocket troops.

In this case it is better to walk around the building out of the line of side of the geth and to advise your squad to follow you.
If you did it on foot.You could also sprint to the mako and finish the enemies of this way.

Of course I could use the mako but that's almost like using cheats. Sadly I don't remember if the geth had the whole circular building surrounded.

You were not a spectre in that moment...

But when they gave me the ship...

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Of course I could use the mako but that's almost like using cheats. Sadly I don't remember if the geth had the whole circular building surrounded.

You were not a spectre in that moment...

But when they gave me the ship...

But at least in this time you decide what missions you do in which order...

[Dudeman315]

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Of course I could use the mako but that's almost like using cheats. Sadly I don't remember if the geth had the whole circular building surrounded.

You were not a spectre in that moment...

But when they gave me the ship...

But at least in this time you decide what missions you do in which order...

huh? You chose mission order in both games--and have it forced on you in both games! I can't recruit Tali before Garrus in ME2 cause I can't choose that mission yet.  Same with Virmire and Ilos in ME1.
Can do first 3 planets in any order in ME1 and can recruit first 4 people in any order in ME2.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 15 mai 2010 - 03:55 .

[Dick Delaware]

uberdowzen wrote...

I'd like to revisit something that was brought up earlier, the amount of crew dialogue in comparison to ME1. I was in the camp that there is the same amount of dialogue, but spread out over 10 rather than 6 companions. Having gotten quite far into ME2, I'm not totally sure that's correct. If you're just counting the conversations that occur when Kelly Chambers tells you about them there are less, but there are many more conversations besides those. I think of anything there may actually be more conversations in ME2 than in ME1.

I feel the same way. I'm positive that there was more squaddie dialogue than ME1, but less than a game like Dragon Age. Nevertheless, I found the best of the ME2 companions more interesting than any of DA:O's.

[Iakus]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Name me a movie that did this without having a soild link between the characters or mainly focused on one charcter.  If the character missions had had one minute more of dialog that linked them into some over all narrative then I might be willing to give them something there.  Each charcter's mission felt like DLC, like it could be tacked on anywhere.  Without an overarching narrative you don't have a story you have stories.

I have often found myself thinking of ME2 as "Mass Effect:  Tales of the Sword Coast"

[KitsuneRommel]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Name me a movie that did this without having a soild link between the characters or mainly focused on one charcter.  If the character missions had had one minute more of dialog that linked them into some over all narrative then I might be willing to give them something there.  Each charcter's mission felt like DLC, like it could be tacked on anywhere.  Without an overarching narrative you don't have a story you have stories.

There are lots of short story/episode style movies like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108122/ .

[SoapyIllusions]

Dudeman315 wrote...
Name me a movie that did this without having a soild link between the characters or mainly focused on one charcter.  If the character missions had had one minute more of dialog that linked them into some over all narrative then I might be willing to give them something there.  Each charcter's mission felt like DLC, like it could be tacked on anywhere.  Without an overarching narrative you don't have a story you have stories.

Quite a lot of romantic comedies such as Love, Actually, Paris Je t'aime are based around a theme and have multiple characters, allowing the film makers to explore the theme extensively over the course of the film.

There are, of course, many themes represented in Mass Effect 2 whether they may be the dangers of artificial intelligence, parental issues, trust, duty, loyalty, social anxiety and unrest and so on and I feel that each and every character within the narrative built upon these themes in some way. Sure the stories aren't interconnected per say, but they all help to build towards a better understanding of the universe of Mass Effect and why you should be giving a damn to saving the galaxy in the first place. Mass Effect's story was childishly simplistic to be honest; a slow start that built up to a dramatic final encounter, with one or two really exciting main story occurrences.

ME2 was full of intense moment to moment sequences, with the dramatic opening and exciting squad recruitment and loyalty missions. An overwhelming sense of danger, threat and anxiety could be felt through every mission which made you feel terribly attached towards your squad mates. How can these loyalty missions feel like DLC when all of them help build towards a unifying whole?

Sure you can have preferences over the different narrative approaches in ME1 and ME2 but I find it very difficult to believe that you could call either of them bad story telling.

[tonnactus]

[quote]SoapyIllusions wrote...

[quoteSure the stories aren't interconnected per say, but they all help to build towards a better understanding of the universe of Mass Effect and why you should be giving a damn to saving the galaxy in the first place.
[/quote]

What?

Talis Mission.I agree.Legions,Grunts and Mordins too.
Everything else?Mostly boring everyday problems in a science fiction robe.Garrus?Revenge.What did this horible boring mission adds to the Mass Effect Universe?Its the same with Thane,Mirandas etc.
Nothing special and interesting except samara(but ardat yakshi are selden and a niche problem).

I dont play sci fi games for an daily soap experience.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mai 2010 - 06:39 .

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

I dont play sci fi games for an daily soap experience.

I can understand that but if you look at (especially older ones) sci-fi series like Star Trek: TOS they weren't about ancient evils hell bent on destroying the world. Today people expect series like Battlestar Galactica. Though Babylon 5 managed to have all that and a 5 year long story arc.

You can have action games with deep character interaction and social commentary just like you can have strategy games with simple hollywood style plots.

[bjdbwea]

Vena_86 wrote...

Its like using a violin as a baseball bat. Sure the "majority" thinks its cool but it is a complete waste of potential.

Good comparison, and unfortunately very fitting.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 15 mai 2010 - 06:52 .

[Dudeman315]

I meant recruitment and loyalty mission per character felt like DLC. Unifying whole? Does Jacob's or Miranda's dad save or destroy the suicide mission, or Grunt, or Tali, or have an effect on someone other than those characters? There is no unifying whole plotline--just a collector one and several character ones that never really interact--Yes the characters go on the suicide mission but nothing about their loyalty mission or recruitment effects it. If the narrative would have been woven there may have been a unifying whole but there wasn't. Just several unrelated stories about people who's contributions tie into the main(Collector) plot on only the most basic levels.

Yeah yeah all those themes are explored in the same depth as reading the back cover of a book about those subjects. Love actually was horrid an over here we don't get a lot of advertising/watch foreign films here so I can't really comment on it.



Slow start that builds up to a dramatic encounter followed by a resolution is how we build stories here in the US, in fact 12 years of school(pre-college) teach us to dissect stories this way. Then again I'm not one for artsy movies, hated american beauty, thought donny darko was just ok, etc.