312 réponses à ce sujet

[MassAffected]

Some Geth wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I would be more sympathetic, but when you start saying that ME 2 isn't a sequel its hard for me to take you seriously.

I wouldn't say it wasn't a sequel, it was just a crappy sequel.

For Liara 

ZING!!!

[Onyx Jaguar]

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I would be more sympathetic, but when you start saying that ME 2 isn't a sequel its hard for me to take you seriously.

I wouldn't say it wasn't a sequel, it was just a crappy sequel.

I've seen nozy argue otherwise and you state that in this thread and in the Liara thread.

[jlb524]

Some Geth wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I would be more sympathetic, but when you start saying that ME 2 isn't a sequel its hard for me to take you seriously.

I wouldn't say it wasn't a sequel, it was just a crappy sequel.

For Liara 

Yes, and while we're at it...

for Ashley, for Kaidan, for Wrex, for any other meaningful character in ME1.  For the main Reaper plot.  For galactic politics.

[Onyx Jaguar]

considering the reapers are the focus of the plot in me1 and me2?



Your thoughts intrigue me

[jlb524]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I would be more sympathetic, but when you start saying that ME 2 isn't a sequel its hard for me to take you seriously.

I wouldn't say it wasn't a sequel, it was just a crappy sequel.

I've seen nozy argue otherwise and you state that in this thread and in the Liara thread.

It's a sequel in name and in the fact that it follows Shepard.  Technically it's a sequel.  When I say it's not a sequel in the Liara thread what I have in mind is it's quality as an actual sequel.  I'll make sure to say 'technically I think it's a 'sequel' in the loosest sense of the word' before I bash it as not being a 'real' sequel from a quality perspective.

[jlb524]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

considering the reapers are the focus of the plot in me1 and me2?

Your thoughts intrigue me

The focus of ME2's plot is to recruit people and fix their personal problems.  Someone mentions something about a Reaper now and then.

[Onyx Jaguar]

define quality

[Onyx Jaguar]

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

considering the reapers are the focus of the plot in me1 and me2?

Your thoughts intrigue me

The focus of ME2's plot is to recruit people and fix their personal problems.  Someone mentions something about a Reaper now and then.

ME 1 has 4 story missions + Ilos and the Citadel, Eden Prime, ME 2 has 4 story missions (actually more counting the first couple).  More missions in ME 2 talk about Reapers than ME 1.

Technially you fight inside one and you fight one in ME 2 as well.  THere are three reapers in ME 2 and one in ME 1.  Did you want to be constanlty fighting reapers in ME 2?

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 11 mars 2010 - 01:08 .

[DarthRevan4life]

Really the 2nd game is crappy? Why just because Liara/Ashley/Kaiden aren't in it? Why is it I get the impression if part 2 was the first game people would complain that Miranda or Jack weren't in the next one. I get the attachement, but I don't get is calling a game "crappy" because some people aren't in it.



Let's face facts, if your going into part 3 with an already set mindset on how you expect the game you're going to be disappointed.

[Onyx Jaguar]

ME 1: Eden Prime, Citadel *Feros, *Liara recruitment, *Noveria, ++Virmire, ++Ilos, ++Citadel
ME 2: Cerberus base, Freedoms progress, ++Horizon, ++Reaper IFF, ++ Collectors Ship, ++Omega 4 Relay

Reaper IFF and CS need to be switched around.  Its like you are complaining about Bioware bending to the heat it got for its side missions and way to make the game longer.  If you play ME 1 and ME 2 in a similar way they'd be about the same length, except everyone would die in ME 2.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 11 mars 2010 - 01:13 .

[epoch_]

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I would be more sympathetic, but when you start saying that ME 2 isn't a sequel its hard for me to take you seriously.

I wouldn't say it wasn't a sequel, it was just a crappy sequel.

That's taking it a bit too far. Yes, its terrible what they did with the ME1 love interests, and the story was focused almost soley on character development, but It's honestly more fun to play.

[jlb524]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

define quality

For the sequel of a trilogy...well for one thing, the characters that were most important to the protagonist shouldn't be dropped.  Second, the plot should continue on smoothly from one installment to another and not have a reset in the middle.   I feel ME2 is a reset in order to appeal to new players because:

1)  They removed old characters and replaced them.
2) All that trouble convincing the Council of the Reaper threat?  Reset...they don't believe you anymore.
3)  All the trouble becoming humanities first Spectre?  Reset...doesn't even matter as you're forced to work with Cerberus.

I think the original Star Wars did a good job, if you want an example of quality.  

If Empire Strikes Back was ME2, Han, Leia, and Chewie would've been side-lined for new people, leaving only C3PO and R2D2 remaining from New Hope.  The main mission would've been to blow up a Storm Trooper base.  References to the Empire would've been made of course, but only in passing here and there.

[Starscream723]

Just build 2 new characters for ME3, or make 2 new characters playable anyway. It could even be the Elcor and Volus diplomats from the embassy in ME1 for all I care. The point is, two new squaddies.

This in addition to Virmire Survivor, Liara, (maybe Wrex) and all the ME2 squad.

That way, EVERYONE (even with the worst possible import) will have Ash/Kaid, Liara, the 2 newbies, plus the 2 that survived ME2. That's 6 squaddies, which is enough for a worst-case scenario import to still be playable.

Then other imported games can also have the others to choose from, if they survived. If I had 6 ME2 survivors, well, this bumps my total to choose from up to 10. If they all survived, hey, it's a party in the hangar deck. The default game for new players can have them all surviving, or simply whoever Bioware feels like keeping for their default Shep. It's not like most of them are crucial to the plot... they just need a line or two of dialogue each for each major plot incident. If we keep the story focussed on the Reaper threat, and not taking on personal business for each character, there's no reason mission content should depend on squadmate availability.

Modifié par Starscream723, 11 mars 2010 - 01:24 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

define quality

For the sequel of a trilogy...well for one thing, the characters that were most important to the protagonist shouldn't be dropped.  Second, the plot should continue on smoothly from one installment to another and not have a reset in the middle.   I feel ME2 is a reset in order to appeal to new players because:

1)  They removed old characters and replaced them.
2) All that trouble convincing the Council of the Reaper threat?  Reset...they don't believe you anymore.
3)  All the trouble becoming humanities first Spectre?  Reset...doesn't even matter as you're forced to work with Cerberus.

I think the original Star Wars did a good job, if you want an example of quality.  

If Empire Strikes Back was ME2, Han, Leia, and Chewie would've been side-lined for new people, leaving only C3PO and R2D2 remaining from New Hope.  The main mission would've been to blow up a Storm Trooper base.  References to the Empire would've been made of course, but only in passing here and there.

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Also the Empire Strikes Back did separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters eyes.

[jlb524]

epoch_ wrote...

That's taking it a bit too far. Yes, its terrible what they did with the ME1 love interests, and the story was focused almost soley on character development, but It's honestly more fun to play.

Are you confusing gameplay with the story?  I have no problem with the gameplay changes they've made.  The story is lacking and just doesn't feel like a sequel to me.  I feel like I'm just playing a brand new character and nothing I did in ME1 really matters.  I wish they would have just killed Shepard off at the end of ME1 and had you just start out as a new character.  I'd probably like the game more.

[MassAffected]

The Star Wars analogy is very flawed. ME is Shepard's story and we follow Shepard. SW: ESB had branching story lines for different main characters. Luke had his story, Hand and Leia and Chewie had theirs. They don't even see each other again until the climactic escape from Cloud City. Really folks this is getting silly.

[MassEffect762]

@ OP

They can they really can, thing is and this is the cold hard truth, no spin, no B.S.

It's going to cost(money/time), how much don't know. Will they commit, don't know.

[jlb524]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Yes, lazy...and lazy leads to bad storytelling.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Empire Strikes Back did
separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as
Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters
eyes.

Separated, yes, but they were still there and they still played a big role.  They also reunited at some point. 

The ME2 reunions were 'Hi!    Bye!' and that's it.

As I've said before, I would've been fine with them making the ME1 characters cameos
if these cameos were executed properly and they were actually important to the story.  They felt 'tacked on' just to throw us a bone.  Even Han/Leia were still important to the plot even though they were separated from Luke for a time.

Modifié par jlb524, 11 mars 2010 - 01:27 .

[MassAffected]

Damn Onyx you beat me to it.

[Druss99]

jlb524 wrote...

2) All that trouble convincing the Council of the Reaper threat?  Reset...they don't believe you anymore.

Play ME again. They never did believe you.

[Onyx Jaguar]

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Yes, lazy...and lazy leads to bad storytelling.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Empire Strikes Back did
separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as
Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters
eyes.

Separated, yes, but they were still there and they still played a big role.  They also reunited at some point. 

The ME2 reunions were 'Hi!    Bye!' and that's it.

As I've said before, I would've been fine with them making the ME1 characters cameos
if these cameos were executed properly and they were actually important to the story.  They felt 'tacked on' just to throw us a bone.  Even Han/Leia were still important to the plot even though they were separated from Luke for a time.

While I don't disagree that they had crappy cameos, they also were "suppose" to be up to something (Liara/Alliance Soldier/Wrex).  In theory Liara and the Alliance soldier are suppose to be important to the plot, however in regards to Liara they did it in a different medium which doesn't work for me but because of the focus on Shepard you have the problem of being focused in plot devices or spreading the plot devices.  ME 1 tended to spread while ME 2 tends to focus.  The most important one in the story (of actually playing ME 2) is the Alliance soldier but they have the smallest cameo, while Liara (important in buildup but like I said different medium they should have told it in game) and Wrex were more substancial but less integral to the plot.  Wrex has the best cameo, the alliance soldier has the worst and Liara's is quite frankly the strangest but in the direction of the plot that the PC follows, which is in essence gaining intel on the Collectors then using the Relay to see whats on the other side of it its hard to see where the characters would properly fit in if they do make an appearance.

As a story sequel it fits, as a character sequel it does not.  But because the focus is always on the PC and has been in the first game and in the second, party member characters have been used to flesh out the universe which for the most part is what they were used in ME 2.  With the exception of Garrus since he was just kind of there in ME 1 and was no doubt brought over because it was easy.  That is partly why Wrex's cameo works and the others fail, because they add nothing to the game even though they are suppose to add to the plot.  

[Clover Rider]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Yes, lazy...and lazy leads to bad storytelling.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Empire Strikes Back did
separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as
Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters
eyes.

Separated, yes, but they were still there and they still played a big role.  They also reunited at some point. 

The ME2 reunions were 'Hi!    Bye!' and that's it.

As I've said before, I would've been fine with them making the ME1 characters cameos
if these cameos were executed properly and they were actually important to the story.  They felt 'tacked on' just to throw us a bone.  Even Han/Leia were still important to the plot even though they were separated from Luke for a time.

While I don't disagree that they had crappy cameos, they also were "suppose" to be up to something (Liara/Alliance Soldier/Wrex).  In theory Liara and the Alliance soldier are suppose to be important to the plot, however in regards to Liara they did it in a different medium which doesn't work for me but because of the focus on Shepard you have the problem of being focused in plot devices or spreading the plot devices.  ME 1 tended to spread while ME 2 tends to focus.  The most important one in the story (of actually playing ME 2) is the Alliance soldier but they have the smallest cameo, while Liara (important in buildup but like I said different medium they should have told it in game) and Wrex were more substancial but less integral to the plot.  Wrex has the best cameo, the alliance soldier has the worst and Liara's is quite frankly the strangest but in the direction of the plot that the PC follows, which is in essence gaining intel on the Collectors then using the Relay to see whats on the other side of it its hard to see where the characters would properly fit in if they do make an appearance.

As a story sequel it fits, as a character sequel it does not.  But because the focus is always on the PC and has been in the first game and in the second, party member characters have been used to flesh out the universe which for the most part is what they were used in ME 2.  With the exception of Garrus since he was just kind of there in ME 1 and was no doubt brought over because it was easy.  That is partly why Wrex's cameo works and the others fail, because they add nothing to the game even though they are suppose to add to the plot.  

Looks like you get it man now I wonder if Liara fans get it 

[MassAffected]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Yes, lazy...and lazy leads to bad storytelling.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Empire Strikes Back did
separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as
Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters
eyes.

Separated, yes, but they were still there and they still played a big role.  They also reunited at some point. 

The ME2 reunions were 'Hi!    Bye!' and that's it.

As I've said before, I would've been fine with them making the ME1 characters cameos
if these cameos were executed properly and they were actually important to the story.  They felt 'tacked on' just to throw us a bone.  Even Han/Leia were still important to the plot even though they were separated from Luke for a time.

While I don't disagree that they had crappy cameos, they also were "suppose" to be up to something (Liara/Alliance Soldier/Wrex).  In theory Liara and the Alliance soldier are suppose to be important to the plot, however in regards to Liara they did it in a different medium which doesn't work for me but because of the focus on Shepard you have the problem of being focused in plot devices or spreading the plot devices.  ME 1 tended to spread while ME 2 tends to focus.  The most important one in the story (of actually playing ME 2) is the Alliance soldier but they have the smallest cameo, while Liara (important in buildup but like I said different medium they should have told it in game) and Wrex were more substancial but less integral to the plot.  Wrex has the best cameo, the alliance soldier has the worst and Liara's is quite frankly the strangest but in the direction of the plot that the PC follows, which is in essence gaining intel on the Collectors then using the Relay to see whats on the other side of it its hard to see where the characters would properly fit in if they do make an appearance.

As a story sequel it fits, as a character sequel it does not.  But because the focus is always on the PC and has been in the first game and in the second, party member characters have been used to flesh out the universe which for the most part is what they were used in ME 2.  With the exception of Garrus since he was just kind of there in ME 1 and was no doubt brought over because it was easy.  That is partly why Wrex's cameo works and the others fail, because they add nothing to the game even though they are suppose to add to the plot.  

This right here ladies and gents.

[MassAffected]

Some Geth wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Yes, lazy...and lazy leads to bad storytelling.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Empire Strikes Back did
separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as
Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters
eyes.

Separated, yes, but they were still there and they still played a big role.  They also reunited at some point. 

The ME2 reunions were 'Hi!    Bye!' and that's it.

As I've said before, I would've been fine with them making the ME1 characters cameos
if these cameos were executed properly and they were actually important to the story.  They felt 'tacked on' just to throw us a bone.  Even Han/Leia were still important to the plot even though they were separated from Luke for a time.

While I don't disagree that they had crappy cameos, they also were "suppose" to be up to something (Liara/Alliance Soldier/Wrex).  In theory Liara and the Alliance soldier are suppose to be important to the plot, however in regards to Liara they did it in a different medium which doesn't work for me but because of the focus on Shepard you have the problem of being focused in plot devices or spreading the plot devices.  ME 1 tended to spread while ME 2 tends to focus.  The most important one in the story (of actually playing ME 2) is the Alliance soldier but they have the smallest cameo, while Liara (important in buildup but like I said different medium they should have told it in game) and Wrex were more substancial but less integral to the plot.  Wrex has the best cameo, the alliance soldier has the worst and Liara's is quite frankly the strangest but in the direction of the plot that the PC follows, which is in essence gaining intel on the Collectors then using the Relay to see whats on the other side of it its hard to see where the characters would properly fit in if they do make an appearance.

As a story sequel it fits, as a character sequel it does not.  But because the focus is always on the PC and has been in the first game and in the second, party member characters have been used to flesh out the universe which for the most part is what they were used in ME 2.  With the exception of Garrus since he was just kind of there in ME 1 and was no doubt brought over because it was easy.  That is partly why Wrex's cameo works and the others fail, because they add nothing to the game even though they are suppose to add to the plot.  

Looks like you get it man now I wonder if Liara fans get it 

No, no they do not.

[Clover Rider]

MassAffected wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

2 and 3 were laziness on bioware's part because the writers at Bioware thought apparently that most people let the council die.  They thought wrong and their solution was stuipd.

Yes, lazy...and lazy leads to bad storytelling.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also the Empire Strikes Back did
separate the characters, in ME 2 however you are always playing as
Shepard (luke) so you only see what is cgoing on through that characters
eyes.

Separated, yes, but they were still there and they still played a big role.  They also reunited at some point. 

The ME2 reunions were 'Hi!    Bye!' and that's it.

As I've said before, I would've been fine with them making the ME1 characters cameos
if these cameos were executed properly and they were actually important to the story.  They felt 'tacked on' just to throw us a bone.  Even Han/Leia were still important to the plot even though they were separated from Luke for a time.

While I don't disagree that they had crappy cameos, they also were "suppose" to be up to something (Liara/Alliance Soldier/Wrex).  In theory Liara and the Alliance soldier are suppose to be important to the plot, however in regards to Liara they did it in a different medium which doesn't work for me but because of the focus on Shepard you have the problem of being focused in plot devices or spreading the plot devices.  ME 1 tended to spread while ME 2 tends to focus.  The most important one in the story (of actually playing ME 2) is the Alliance soldier but they have the smallest cameo, while Liara (important in buildup but like I said different medium they should have told it in game) and Wrex were more substancial but less integral to the plot.  Wrex has the best cameo, the alliance soldier has the worst and Liara's is quite frankly the strangest but in the direction of the plot that the PC follows, which is in essence gaining intel on the Collectors then using the Relay to see whats on the other side of it its hard to see where the characters would properly fit in if they do make an appearance.

As a story sequel it fits, as a character sequel it does not.  But because the focus is always on the PC and has been in the first game and in the second, party member characters have been used to flesh out the universe which for the most part is what they were used in ME 2.  With the exception of Garrus since he was just kind of there in ME 1 and was no doubt brought over because it was easy.  That is partly why Wrex's cameo works and the others fail, because they add nothing to the game even though they are suppose to add to the plot.  

Looks like you get it man now I wonder if Liara fans get it 

No, no they do not.

Oh well I know pokemon get it I think???