Please don't read this quoted post, FuLLBLeeD is a terrible poster that makes terrible posts and they need to stop.
Read this quoted post.
Please don't read this quoted post, FuLLBLeeD is a terrible poster that makes terrible posts and they need to stop.
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
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.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).
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.you didn't need absolute loyalty to get all people through the mission
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).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 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 meAs 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.
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.
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).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.
Ehhh... that's pretty weak reasoning.Mining missions make sense--because it is directly related to making your ship better.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.As for your monopoly reference: that is a terrible, terrible example.
Please don't read this quoted post, FuLLBLeeD is a terrible poster that makes terrible posts and they need to stop.
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!There is value in character development, but I think that aspect of it is way over board in ME2.
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...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 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.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.
LOL... but it's so true. The face animations too are really bad.[M]http://youtu.be/Gayz4s82LHs[/M]
Since you mentioned it, I will definitely find it and watch it. I'm interested to see how it plays out.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.
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.LOL... but it's so true. The face animations too are really bad.
Oh noes, surely that will waste away the 8 gig I've got.Brenon Holmes wrote...
It's a runtime memory cost, not a disk space issue. You need those anims for the non-combat areas... so they're going to be on disk regardless.
In order to support exploration in the combat areas, you'd need to have all the anims loaded in memory... so that would be things like the 8-way walks, runs, incline anims, idles, idle twitches, male/female variant overrides, eye noise... etc.
All in all (iirc) it came out to around 2-4MB, which is relatively significant. Also, as you've guessed, yes - I'm referring to the main game (as well as the demo).
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.
[M]http://youtu.be/Gayz4s82LHs[/M]
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?And then to start supporting holstering weapons on PC but not on consoles would be a bit silly.
[M]http://youtu.be/Gayz4s82LHs[/M]