Mass Effect 3: "Lets milk this for every penny" Edition
- Thread starter DarkED
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I should note that I'm not talking specifically about weird "side products" as in this case, but just adding "fluff" to the series that is unnecessary and messes with the "openness" of the game and series and fouls up the plot. Given that, I'm primarily talking about how there were only 6 or so plot missions in ME2 and all the rest of the game was side missions, some of which were incredibly boring (but, to be fair, most weren't). Also the fact that without the side missions your team members die because somehow you need to be loyal to have the will to survive in a combat situation.
On a side note, the way I see it, you don't have "the whole game" if there is content that you don't own. I know this isn't exclusive to Bioware or Mass Effect but the preorder bonuses along with all the "cash in" DLC makes it virtually impossible to "own the whole game" in this case and that is just lame. They are competing with Railworks here on the cost of buying all DLC
Fair enough. I personally liked what they did in ME2 a lot. The idea is that the game is less of a chase sequence and more like The Magnificent Seven (there is only one, simple plot element: the fight, but the movie/game is about getting the team members ready for the fight). There were parts of the final mission that made absolute sense in needing loyalty (and you didn't need absolute loyalty to get all people through the mission--further even with absolute loyalty, you could get people killed) and there were parts that made no sense--but that was a flaw in writing/plotting rather than a problem with the style of plot they chose. The biggest problem with it, of course, is that there is no risk/reward, really. If you take a ton of time setting things up, there is no downside (until you trigger the kidnapping cutscene), while there are tons of rewards if you take all the time in the world. Again, it was flawed in its execution--mostly through its inconsistency--but I far preferred it to the silliness of the first game, which I found way more flawed (I'm chasing you because I think you are two seconds from ending the universe, but first let me stop and find someone's missing sister). I completely understand why other people were less enamored of it though.
As for the DLC: I really don't give a flip, so long as the core game isn't compromised. I don't get pissy at Magic: The Gathering for releasing more and more expansion packs. You can play the game with the basic sets and that's fine. I don't get mad at Munchkin for releasing more and more silly sets, because the game is fine with just the main thing. I recognize that it is a move by the dev/publisher to wring more money from the franchise, but so long as the actual game isn't hurt by this (oh look, this gun looks a little different/I get a slightly more powerful weapon slightly earlier), it is something that people can opt into if they really, really want, but they don't actually need to.
I can see that if it relates to the main plot in some way, in the vein of Inception or Ocean's Eleven. But I guess my point there was that getting team members and completing their loyalty missions was completely incongruous, if not unnecessary.
As far as I know, the only way for everyone to survive was to have completed the loyalty mission for every character. The only difference being the DLC guy.
I preferred the first game. Collecting team members was less "go check out this person and see what they are up to" and more "hey can I help you save the universe?" (and they were along the way) which is much more interesting plot development. And I suppose I should point out the equal silliness of the second game (the Reapers are kidnapping entire human colonies we have to stop them!!! ...let me go find someone's sister and then scan these planets for minerals for hours).
I don't really care about card games. To me this is like selling monopoly without any hotels and you have to buy a booster pack to get the hotels. Sure, the game plays fine without hotels, but hotels change the way the game is played. It's their prerogative to do these things but it still bugs me
The idea behind the loyalty missions, and what I like, is that a leader that is connected to his crew will result in a better, stronger, more unified team. This is the central premise inherent in the Loyalty missions. I think that sometimes this is properly expressed in the game and I think that sometimes it is poorly done. Likewise, The Magnificent Seven is almost entirely devoted to people bonding so that they may pull together to win against overwhelming odds.
What I liked about this over the first game is that in the first, there is very literally a measurable, known time crunch that you are working against. You know that you have to beat Saren before he can end the world. In the second, you know that you need to stop the colonies from being taken over, but you have no idea how to do it. Your only other encounter with the ship killing the colonies resulted in your ship asploding and your own death. Mining missions make sense--because it is directly related to making your ship better. Companion missions make sense (even though some of them, as you have rightly pointed out, are silly--because you need a tight-knit, strong team to overcome the incredible odds. In other words, while it may seem silly to take your time on these missions, due to the huge stakes, the ultimate time period is 1) unknown 2) not for a good while (they are a LARGE number of colonies away from a new reaper)--in other words, much less pressing than trying to outrun someone at that moment.
Like I said, I understand why you prefer the first game, but I think that the second is MUCH more interesting plot/character-wise; even though they certainly dropped the ball in making it all come together as it should have.
You don't have to complete ALL of the loyalty missions, as far as I understand it, so long as they aren't in a position to screw things up. Likewise, putting the wrong person on the wrong job, even if loyal, will result in death (one of my favorite things is that Miranda, despite being a stuck-up bitch talking about how perfect she is, will FAIL in getting everyone through to the end if you have her do the force shield thing--in other words, she protests too much about how perfect she is, and it is because she isn't really that awesome).
As for your monopoly reference: that is a terrible, terrible example. You DO NOT need any of expansions. There is no major component of the game missing. The DLC is along the lines of a slight variation in guns/armor. The use of multiplayer/other games isn't required, it is simply an option (to compare it to ME2, they could have made it that if you played the facebook game, or whatever, you didn't have to do the mining missions to get the necessary metals). It is much more akin to a card game, where the main game is completely accessible, playable and winnable with just the main pack, but if you would like you can choose to accessorize in various ways. I don't need horse armor to play Oblivion, just as I don't need whatever gun you get from such and such expansion pack, but if I want the pretties, I can choose it if I want.
I don't mind that aspect of it I just find it completely unnecessary for telling a story. I've never seen The Magnificent Seven. Most movies and literature have a leader bonding with their team through combat situations, and while, yes, the loyalty missions are combat situations, the only real point of them seems to be to show off a variety of locations instead of tell significant side stories or contribute to the game at all. I enjoyed several of the loyalty missions, I just feel they distracted from the main plot instead of building on it (and the time they spent building it could have been spent expanding the actual plot).
Ehhh... that's pretty weak reasoning.
I still think that is pretty weak. I guess my problem is that more of what the loyalty missions encompass could be incorporated into the plot instead of just (generally) bland side missions. In the first game, this was implied. I don't think it improved in the second game at all and the plot ends up being MUCH weaker.
You might be right if you're exclusively talking about the end of Mass Effect where you are trying to get to The Conduit. However, I don't think that the ultimate time table in either game is any more well known than the other. Shepard clearly doesn't know how long it will be before additional colonies will be attacked, in fact that never even comes up as an issue in the main plot.
If all you care about is character development and plot takes a back seat to that, then the second game is probably better for you. I care about a certain amount of character development, but the overall plot is way more interesting to me. There is value in character development, but I think that aspect of it is way over board in ME2.
I guess you only need 6 loyal people to get the best outcome in the finale. There are several tasks where loyalty just doesn't make sense as a requirement, though.
Still seems fine to me. You don't need hotels to play Monopoly, in fact I've played without them many times. However, they do add to the game and they are things you want to play with from time to time.
Especially because they're all over-the-top psychopaths. The so-called "character development" consists of stuffing every one of those nuts chock-full off crazy issues, super-powers and fanatical motivations. There's not a single person on the team who's a normal guy who's good at what he does! Joker maybe, but he has to have glass bones! Quick, add something crazy, people are getting bored!
And amidst this zany cabinet of weirdos: Shepard, the normal, sensible, slightly more good than evil character I had played in Mass Effect 1. But yeah, so he died and got reconstructed for nefarious purposes and has glowing scars now... come on!
As for the loyalty missions: Assuming I cared for any one of these people, I still wouldn't like how formulaic this was set up. One mission where you have to bail the character out whatever his antics got him into and a handful of "not now, Shepard"s later: one loyalty mission per character? The acquiring mission and the loyalty mission can be as flashy as they like (and they sure made sure they are...), this still comes across as formulaic and boring.
Also: why not have someone's loyalty depend on a couple of key decisions I make and whether they agree with them? Maybe even carry some over from Mass Effect 1? What about my alignment? Shouldn't that matter?
I don't know, maybe things get better later on. I stopped before I even had my whole team assembled, I think. Everything (but the design) felt so poorly thrown together, and it really bugged me that I had no say in whether I wanted to work with Cerberus or not.
I finished Mass Effect 1 though and really liked it. It had its shortcomings too, and with that I mostly mean the horrible empty planets and the "kill everyone in another one of these identical bases and flip a switch when you're done" side missions, but all in all it was interesting throughout.
Not saying Mass Effect 2 was a bad game. Combat was quite alright, the presentation really was amazing. I just didn't care for the characters and the plot.
Kind of like the Transformers movies. I'm sure there are wonderful explanations for why that one big robot does what he does and if you're into it enough you can read enough into to find something to care about, and I'm sure it's all heart-warming and logical in the end, but it's still cars turning into robots in a really shallow, loud movie and I just don't care.
And maybe this is why I hate it so much. At least in ME they didn't pretend like your team had any reason to be loyal other than united purpose. I dunno... I just like how organically the plot in ME thickens. I don't get that same sense or feeling from ME2. Although...
I agree with this except that I DID care for the plot. The first time I played through the game, I skipped a bunch of loyalty missions because I was getting bored and most of my team died in the suicide mission. But like I said in my review, the game is awesome. The problems with it only stand out that much more because they did such a great job making a great game. I wish that it appeared they had put as much effort into the story of ME2.
Somehow I will play ME3 and I just hope they iron out some of the shortcomings of ME2. I guess they have to because, plot-wise, ME2 feels more like Mass Effect 3: Prologue than an actual new story in the ME universe and ME3 has to tie up the storyline.
There isn't really much to say, since I think that we are largely in agreement (Bioware has cool ideas and they largely fuck up on execution), but there is one VERY important thing to note:
Your life is less complete for never having seen The Magnificent Seven. It's a cowboy adaptation of Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai staring Steve McQueen and Yul Brenner and it is fucking awesome.
Your life is less complete for never having seen The Magnificent Seven. It's a cowboy adaptation of Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai staring Steve McQueen and Yul Brenner and it is fucking awesome.
Since you mentioned it, I will definitely find it and watch it. I'm interested to see how it plays out.
Not to mention the terrible hunchback running animation, wtf man. You can't holster your weapons anymore if you're in a combat zone because it takes up 4mb or ram according to Bioware. I'm still really confused about that one.
Oh noes, surely that will waste away the 8 gig I've got.
Not to mention the terrible hunchback running animation, wtf man. You can't holster your weapons anymore if you're in a combat zone because it takes up 4mb or ram according to Bioware. I'm still really confused about that one.
Oh noes, surely that will waste away the 8 gig I've got.
To help clarify Brenon's explanation, the 2-4 MB is very significant on the consoles. Sure, on PC it's not a big deal, but then most people these days have more than 512 MB of RAM. And then to start supporting holstering weapons on PC but not on consoles would be a bit silly.
Not to mention the terrible hunchback running animation, wtf man. You can't holster your weapons anymore if you're in a combat zone because it takes up 4mb or ram according to Bioware. I'm still really confused about that one.
Oh noes, surely that will waste away the 8 gig I've got.
That's literally retarded.
Forgive me if I sound silly, but if the PC can do things you want to do, why not do them for the PC and then scale back down for the consoles?
Doing it the other way around obviously hurts the end product whatever it may be. I mean, those animations really are goofy looking.
