that kind of screenshot isn't even POSSIBLE in ME2.
You're absolutely right and wonder is a good word to use for it. I still get some sense of wonderment when I play the first game and find myself in that sort of scene. For all its qualities and gameplay improvements the sequel doesn't stop and give me that 'holy shit, this is a space adventure' feeling to marvel at. I think maybe the setting got a bit grimdark and that shine rubbed off.
Yeah, ME1's ending and plot in general were more satisfying, but the suicide mission was awesome in it's own way.
I remember my jaw dropping when Tali took a rocket to the face in my first attempt, I was completely unprepared for her to get killed.
I think what we're missing in Mass Effect is the inability to control who dies. For example, you can choose who dies in ME1 (although on your first play through it isn't spelled out as such) and on ME2 you sort of get to choose who dies by loyalty and your team selections. (with ME2 you even have the choice of them all surviving)
What i'd like to see in ME3 is one of the team dies and you have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's like "bam, dead".. it does a few things, first of all it allows Bioware to actually do a more detailed after death sequence and story rather than a few seconds of a sad face (ME2) or a death that only marginally plays into the plot. (ME1)
And to be honest, I think that death should be Garrus or one of the characters who has been with you from the start through ME1 and ME2.
Now, at this point some of you are probably screaming and planning my death right now. But think about it, of all the characters to die it should be one who would have an affect on the player. Because people are so fond of Garrus is the very reason he has to die to emphasize the danger that your character is in and to move the plot forward.
Whilst you could argue for a love interest like Liara I don't think she holds as close a place in players hearts as Garrus. (just read all the bro-mance stuff)
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
The problem is that in ME2, everything feels -small-. Look at how little of the Citadel you have access to in 2. It feels like you're just going from setpiece to setpiece. Everything feels alot more confined. I'm only on the second round of recruitments and I can feel it.
übergeek on
0
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Yeah, ME1's ending and plot in general were more satisfying, but the suicide mission was awesome in it's own way.
I remember my jaw dropping when Tali took a rocket to the face in my first attempt, I was completely unprepared for her to get killed.
I think what we're missing in Mass Effect is the inability to control who dies. For example, you can choose who dies in ME1 (although on your first play through it isn't spelled out as such) and on ME2 you sort of get to choose who dies by loyalty and your team selections. (with ME2 you even have the choice of them all surviving)
What i'd like to see in ME3 is one of the team dies and you have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's like "bam, dead".. it does a few things, first of all it allows Bioware to actually do a more detailed after death sequence and story rather than a few seconds of a sad face (ME2) or a death that only marginally plays into the plot. (ME1)
And to be honest, I think that death should be Garrus or one of the characters who has been with you from the start through ME1 and ME2.
Now, at this point some of you are probably screaming and planning my death right now. But think about it, of all the characters to die it should be one who would have an affect on the player. Because people are so fond of Garrus is the very reason he has to die to emphasize the danger that your character is in and to move the plot forward.
Whilst you could argue for a love interest like Liara I don't think she holds as close a place in players hearts as Garrus. (just read all the bro-mance stuff)
Yes, I am ready to start screaming at you. You don't have to kill everybody off to show how deep in you are. And the player control is part of what separates ME's narrative from, say, Baldur's Gate's.
It's not realistic, or something, but I rather dislike it when games yoink a character I've been using away from me. Usually because it's a character I've been using as my main backup! Eg, Bastilla or Yoshimo. It makes me rage. It doesn't scare me, it angers me. Anger is an effect, but I'm guessing not one you want pointed at the game, rather than within it.
Yeah, ME1's ending and plot in general were more satisfying, but the suicide mission was awesome in it's own way.
I remember my jaw dropping when Tali took a rocket to the face in my first attempt, I was completely unprepared for her to get killed.
I think what we're missing in Mass Effect is the inability to control who dies. For example, you can choose who dies in ME1 (although on your first play through it isn't spelled out as such) and on ME2 you sort of get to choose who dies by loyalty and your team selections. (with ME2 you even have the choice of them all surviving)
What i'd like to see in ME3 is one of the team dies and you have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's like "bam, dead".. it does a few things, first of all it allows Bioware to actually do a more detailed after death sequence and story rather than a few seconds of a sad face (ME2) or a death that only marginally plays into the plot. (ME1)
And to be honest, I think that death should be Garrus or one of the characters who has been with you from the start through ME1 and ME2.
Now, at this point some of you are probably screaming and planning my death right now. But think about it, of all the characters to die it should be one who would have an affect on the player. Because people are so fond of Garrus is the very reason he has to die to emphasize the danger that your character is in and to move the plot forward.
Whilst you could argue for a love interest like Liara I don't think she holds as close a place in players hearts as Garrus. (just read all the bro-mance stuff)
Yes, I am ready to start screaming at you. You don't have to kill everybody off to show how deep in you are. And the player control is part of what separates ME's narrative from, say, Baldur's Gate's.
It's not realistic, or something, but I rather dislike it when games yoink a character I've been using away from me. Usually because it's a character I've been using as my main backup! Eg, Bastilla or Yoshimo. It makes me rage. It doesn't scare me, it angers me. Anger is an effect, but I'm guessing not one you want pointed at the game, rather than within it.
I'd prefer long removed consequences. Like - if you screw up a few key things, then you've set yourself on a path that leads to something tragic, but you only vaguely feel it coming - like, it's there in the background reminding you that "oh shit thing I should've paid attention to is happening".
Of course in my world this is "destruction of galaxy by Reapers". Strictly coz it would be awesome to play half the game as the losing side of the war.
electricitylikesme on
0
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I'd prefer long removed consequences. Like - if you screw up a few key things, then you've set yourself on a path that leads to something tragic, but you only vaguely feel it coming - like, it's there in the background reminding you that "oh shit thing I should've paid attention to is happening".
Of course in my world this is "destruction of galaxy by Reapers". Strictly coz it would be awesome to play half the game as the losing side of the war.
Executed correctly, that would be great. Execution is, of course, the hard part.
It would be kinda of cool if there were a setup like ME1 where you have both feros and noveria that you need to attend to but depending on which one you choose to do first, things get more complicated and dire at the other.
Instead of just oh nope, everything has been fine here even though you ignored us to do sidequests for 5 hours shepard!
This could also play out in the extended consequences type of thing.
I think I'd like some dangerous situations again, because the reapers are the biggest threat imaginable in ME, but not completely arbitrary from the character's choices (but if so, Tali is the obvious choice). A devil and the deep blue sea scenario like the end of BtDS would be cool so long as it only occurred once, or like the N7 mission with the rocket attack but with more impact.
Will you save South America from orbital bombardment...or Mordin, who's talking even quicker than usual to tell you to leave him?
If you don't save Mordin, you are history's greatest monster.
I'd prefer broader situations than choosing between two individuals (or an individual at all perhaps), but the important part would be to see the consequences - in this case, of choosing a familiar individual over an anonymous mass, so the downside would be reduced military capacity against the reapers and weeping victims/recordings in the style of that quarian on the Alarei, as well as a bitter and judgmental squadmate.
It would be kinda of cool if there were a setup like ME1 where you have both feros and noveria that you need to attend to but depending on which one you choose to do first, things get more complicated and dire at the other.
Instead of just oh nope, everything has been fine here even though you ignored us to do sidequests for 5 hours shepard!
This could also play out in the extended consequences type of thing.
Ace Combat X (I think, whichever one was for the PSP) did this. Depending on the path you took through the missions, the difficulty and parameters of the missions would change. I'm sure there are other games that do something similar, but this is the only one that I've played before. Although I sincerely doubt Bioware would do this, I think it would be neat. Probably a lot of extra work, depending on just how much things change over time. But a "WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN??!" when you land would be pretty humorous.
As a side note, the first time I played through ME1 I went and did side quests for a couple hours after stealing the Normandy. I had no idea that I was setting into motion the endgame after doing the 4 story missions. Fuck saving the galaxy, I've got to go drive around on this barren landscape and kill non-descript mooks in some random building.
Yeah, ME1's ending and plot in general were more satisfying, but the suicide mission was awesome in it's own way.
I remember my jaw dropping when Tali took a rocket to the face in my first attempt, I was completely unprepared for her to get killed.
I think what we're missing in Mass Effect is the inability to control who dies. For example, you can choose who dies in ME1 (although on your first play through it isn't spelled out as such) and on ME2 you sort of get to choose who dies by loyalty and your team selections. (with ME2 you even have the choice of them all surviving)
What i'd like to see in ME3 is one of the team dies and you have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's like "bam, dead".. it does a few things, first of all it allows Bioware to actually do a more detailed after death sequence and story rather than a few seconds of a sad face (ME2) or a death that only marginally plays into the plot. (ME1)
And to be honest, I think that death should be Garrus or one of the characters who has been with you from the start through ME1 and ME2.
Now, at this point some of you are probably screaming and planning my death right now. But think about it, of all the characters to die it should be one who would have an affect on the player. Because people are so fond of Garrus is the very reason he has to die to emphasize the danger that your character is in and to move the plot forward.
Whilst you could argue for a love interest like Liara I don't think she holds as close a place in players hearts as Garrus. (just read all the bro-mance stuff)
Yes, I am ready to start screaming at you. You don't have to kill everybody off to show how deep in you are. And the player control is part of what separates ME's narrative from, say, Baldur's Gate's.
It's not realistic, or something, but I rather dislike it when games yoink a character I've been using away from me. Usually because it's a character I've been using as my main backup! Eg, Bastilla or Yoshimo. It makes me rage. It doesn't scare me, it angers me. Anger is an effect, but I'm guessing not one you want pointed at the game, rather than within it.
I'd prefer long removed consequences. Like - if you screw up a few key things, then you've set yourself on a path that leads to something tragic, but you only vaguely feel it coming - like, it's there in the background reminding you that "oh shit thing I should've paid attention to is happening".
Of course in my world this is "destruction of galaxy by Reapers". Strictly coz it would be awesome to play half the game as the losing side of the war.
If the game is determined to kill someone, I'd rather it not be an arbitrary one-second choice as in ME1 (someone's gotta die, regardless of what you do! Suck it, main character), and the consequence of what you, as the protagonist, do over the course of the game.
If it leads to the death of a more minor, rather than major, character (or no deaths at all), so what? As Orca said, if death is the only way to add weight to the situation for storytelling circumstances, we're shit out of luck. Might as well go kill Anderson (though that is a possibility in ME1 I think), or even Admiral Hackett after a minute-long appearance when you finally meet him. I bet that would elicit a response from players.
Also, Orca, I think -Tal has proven it's impossible to slander him.
Yeah, ME1's ending and plot in general were more satisfying, but the suicide mission was awesome in it's own way.
I remember my jaw dropping when Tali took a rocket to the face in my first attempt, I was completely unprepared for her to get killed.
I think what we're missing in Mass Effect is the inability to control who dies. For example, you can choose who dies in ME1 (although on your first play through it isn't spelled out as such) and on ME2 you sort of get to choose who dies by loyalty and your team selections. (with ME2 you even have the choice of them all surviving)
What i'd like to see in ME3 is one of the team dies and you have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's like "bam, dead".. it does a few things, first of all it allows Bioware to actually do a more detailed after death sequence and story rather than a few seconds of a sad face (ME2) or a death that only marginally plays into the plot. (ME1)
And to be honest, I think that death should be Garrus or one of the characters who has been with you from the start through ME1 and ME2.
Now, at this point some of you are probably screaming and planning my death right now. But think about it, of all the characters to die it should be one who would have an affect on the player. Because people are so fond of Garrus is the very reason he has to die to emphasize the danger that your character is in and to move the plot forward.
Whilst you could argue for a love interest like Liara I don't think she holds as close a place in players hearts as Garrus. (just read all the bro-mance stuff)
Yes, I am ready to start screaming at you. You don't have to kill everybody off to show how deep in you are. And the player control is part of what separates ME's narrative from, say, Baldur's Gate's.
It's not realistic, or something, but I rather dislike it when games yoink a character I've been using away from me. Usually because it's a character I've been using as my main backup! Eg, Bastilla or Yoshimo. It makes me rage. It doesn't scare me, it angers me. Anger is an effect, but I'm guessing not one you want pointed at the game, rather than within it.
I'd prefer long removed consequences. Like - if you screw up a few key things, then you've set yourself on a path that leads to something tragic, but you only vaguely feel it coming - like, it's there in the background reminding you that "oh shit thing I should've paid attention to is happening".
Of course in my world this is "destruction of galaxy by Reapers". Strictly coz it would be awesome to play half the game as the losing side of the war.
If the game is determined to kill someone, I'd rather it not be an arbitrary one-second choice as in ME1 (someone's gotta die, regardless of what you do! Suck it, main character), and the consequence of what you, as the protagonist, do over the course of the game.
If it leads to the death of a more minor, rather than major, character (or no deaths at all), so what? As Orca said, if death is the only way to add weight to the situation for storytelling circumstances, we're shit out of luck. Might as well go kill Anderson (though that is a possibility in ME1 I think), or even Admiral Hackett after a minute-long appearance when you finally meet him. I bet that would elicit a response from players.
Also, Orca, I think -Tal has proven it's impossible to slander him.
If the game is determind to make me choose someone to die then I hope I can choose who I get to choose from. Like instead of a choice of making either kaidan or ashley stay with the nuke on viremire they let me p-ick out of the whole team.
basically I just wanna be able to get definately get rid of certain characters if I can. Im looking at you Jack!
I can also see Bioware having to make us make a choice about Earth, we know the Reapers are very interested in Humans and theres no greater amount of humans anywhere in the galaxy. What better choice could Shepherd be forced to make, (say for the final battle or where to concentrate all the galaxies fleets to take on the Reapers) Earth or one of the alien homeworlds.
GaryO on
0
eeSanGI slice like a goddamn hammer.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
I wish there are many more missions that involve assigning roles to the unused members of your squad. But instead of them dying when you choose badly, it should just spawn extra enemies for you during the mission.
None of this "I have 12 people but we're only taking 2" crap.
eeSanG on
Slice like a god damn hammer. LoL: Rafflesia / BNet: Talonflame#11979
i'd really really hate it if they just killed off a favorite squadmate in ME3 just to make it "emotionally engaging".
it's a plot crutch, pure and simple, to prop up interest if your writing gets stale.
i do rather like the idea of mission order affecting difficulty, though. do X first, Y and Z get harder, and vice versa. allows for increased challenge (like normandy upgrades) without the forced death coin-flip of virmire.
that's another thing that i liked about ME2: everyone has the possibility of dying, but no death is guaranteed. to me, it's infinitely more engaging to work towards saving everyone than knowing ahead of time that "X number of people are going to die". one makes me work harder and be more involved, but the other just makes me want to consult a RNG and move on.
curly haired boy on
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I wish there are many more missions that involve assigning roles to the unused members of your squad. But instead of them dying when you choose badly, it should just spawn extra enemies for you during the mission.
None of this "I have 12 people but we're only taking 2" crap.
Yes! Just once I want to have my whole squad at the same time. Bioware did it for a couple things in Dragon Age, and I really enjoyed it.
How awesome would it be if in Mass Effect 3 every mission was like a Suicide Mission-lite. You still only had two companions with you, but you deployed the rest of your crew in teams to accomplish other objectives. They could even call you on the radio to report their progress and maybe get held down by a battalion of Loki's so you have to bail them out or vice versa...
Dammit now Mass Effect 3 cannot possibly live up to my expectations.
In ME2 every mission dealing with the Collectors should have been a Suicide mission-lite, instead of what we got. It would have been a great way to build up to the main suicide mission.
As for Mass Effect 3? They really need to up the stakes in terms of the possibility of losing squad mates permanently. It needs to be in the vain of the suicide mission where the decisions you make on certain missions will affect who lives and dies, but it needs to be around a hundred times harder than the Suicide Mission.
And really, I think there should be a failure scenario where if you've screwed up enough then the Reapers win.
this is nothing but slander, those fine individuals get a pass
Really? My Tal-lite femshep cerberusfellator was planning on leaving the filthy non-human in his tank to rot.
Grunt exhibits none of the problems I have with krogan
He is aggressive, yet obedient and respectful of Shepard's authority. But he doesn't kiss ass, he's always sincere. He is intelligent and articulate, but not obnoxiously so and never holds it above people. He thinks his problems through very carefully, but is decisive when reaching a conclusion. A true bro.
Grunt exhibits none of the problems I have with krogan
He is aggressive, yet obedient and respectful of Shepard's authority. But he doesn't kiss ass, he's always sincere. He is intelligent and articulate, but not obnoxiously so and never holds it above people. He thinks his problems through very carefully, but is decisive when reaching a conclusion. A true bro.
You do realize his ultimate show of respect will be in demonstrating how well you've taught him by beating you to death, right?
In ME2 every mission dealing with the Collectors should have been a Suicide mission-lite, instead of what we got. It would have been a great way to build up to the main suicide mission.
As for Mass Effect 3? They really need to up the stakes in terms of the possibility of losing squad mates permanently. It needs to be in the vain of the suicide mission where the decisions you make on certain missions will affect who lives and dies, but it needs to be around a hundred times harder than the Suicide Mission.
And really, I think there should be a failure scenario where if you've screwed up enough then the Reapers win.
Also, the game should randomly overheat your console.
And starts shouting curse words at you.
Really just go play a fire emblem game, I'm pretty sure they let you kill off all your own people, since that seems to be a fetish around here.
Astale on
0
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
In ME2 every mission dealing with the Collectors should have been a Suicide mission-lite, instead of what we got. It would have been a great way to build up to the main suicide mission.
As for Mass Effect 3? They really need to up the stakes in terms of the possibility of losing squad mates permanently. It needs to be in the vain of the suicide mission where the decisions you make on certain missions will affect who lives and dies, but it needs to be around a hundred times harder than the Suicide Mission.
And really, I think there should be a failure scenario where if you've screwed up enough then the Reapers win.
Also, the game should randomly overheat your console.
And starts shouting curse words at you.
Really just go play a fire emblem game, I'm pretty sure they let you kill off all your own people, since that seems to be a fetish around here.
Um, it's not really a fetish, it's just that the choices you make in the game should matter, the choices should have an effect... a, massive effect if you will.
Bioware sold the entire Mass Effect series on the premise that your choices would matter, so far the choices really haven't mattered in any ways other than superficial ones, which means ME3 is the last chance they have to make them matter, in addition there should also be a lot of tough choices in ME3 itself and some of those tough choices should deal with how you go about carrying out important missions. They need to take the concept of the suicide mission and expand upon it.
I'm not suggesting that every mission should all have the same possibility for squad members to die, but I do think that Bioware should raise the stakes, I mean, Shepard and company are facing the end of all life in the galaxy, it should be really hard to come out of that unscathed.
Jack just sits in the bottem of the ship the whole game until she gets killed coming through the Omega 4 relay. The only time I've let her live is when I was doing my nobody left behind playthrough.
also i think we're actually going to get less of a "EVERYONE CAN DIE" scenario in ME3. ME2 has been described as the dark middle chapter, and that usually indicates a more optimistic finale. i expect ME3 to be chock full of moments of awesome. consequences, yes, from the first two games. but too often we conflate "consequences" with "negative consequences". ME is a space opera, not a tragedy in three parts.
i don't think even the worst-case scenario in ME3 will have the reapers winning. in ME2 shep could lose everyone and even DIE - but only after completing the mission. anything other than that and you start to venture into "critical mission error" territory. at what point do you tell the player that his or her choice trajectory is going to lead to the obliteration of the galaxy in another 10 hours? it's nice to talk about, sure, but from a developer's perspective it's horrible design. the hardcore fans are really the only ones who would savor a scenario like that without it being fully telegraphed. take DAO's Darkspawn Chronicles, for instance. it's entirely divorced from the main game, plastered with ALTERNATE UNIVERSE signs, and clearly something you have to actively want to experience. put that option in the main game as an alternate ending that creeps up on you? half your playerbase gets burned, BADLY, and tells their friends that your game sucks.
curly haired boy on
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Posts
I think what we're missing in Mass Effect is the inability to control who dies. For example, you can choose who dies in ME1 (although on your first play through it isn't spelled out as such) and on ME2 you sort of get to choose who dies by loyalty and your team selections. (with ME2 you even have the choice of them all surviving)
What i'd like to see in ME3 is one of the team dies and you have absolutely no choice in the matter, it's like "bam, dead".. it does a few things, first of all it allows Bioware to actually do a more detailed after death sequence and story rather than a few seconds of a sad face (ME2) or a death that only marginally plays into the plot. (ME1)
And to be honest, I think that death should be Garrus or one of the characters who has been with you from the start through ME1 and ME2.
Now, at this point some of you are probably screaming and planning my death right now. But think about it, of all the characters to die it should be one who would have an affect on the player. Because people are so fond of Garrus is the very reason he has to die to emphasize the danger that your character is in and to move the plot forward.
Whilst you could argue for a love interest like Liara I don't think she holds as close a place in players hearts as Garrus. (just read all the bro-mance stuff)
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Yes, I am ready to start screaming at you. You don't have to kill everybody off to show how deep in you are. And the player control is part of what separates ME's narrative from, say, Baldur's Gate's.
It's not realistic, or something, but I rather dislike it when games yoink a character I've been using away from me. Usually because it's a character I've been using as my main backup! Eg, Bastilla or Yoshimo. It makes me rage. It doesn't scare me, it angers me. Anger is an effect, but I'm guessing not one you want pointed at the game, rather than within it.
Even Mordin.
Even Grunt.
oh jenkins, you had so much to live for
this is nothing but slander, those fine individuals get a pass
I'd prefer long removed consequences. Like - if you screw up a few key things, then you've set yourself on a path that leads to something tragic, but you only vaguely feel it coming - like, it's there in the background reminding you that "oh shit thing I should've paid attention to is happening".
Of course in my world this is "destruction of galaxy by Reapers". Strictly coz it would be awesome to play half the game as the losing side of the war.
Executed correctly, that would be great. Execution is, of course, the hard part.
Instead of just oh nope, everything has been fine here even though you ignored us to do sidequests for 5 hours shepard!
This could also play out in the extended consequences type of thing.
Will you save South America from orbital bombardment...or Mordin, who's talking even quicker than usual to tell you to leave him?
I'd prefer broader situations than choosing between two individuals (or an individual at all perhaps), but the important part would be to see the consequences - in this case, of choosing a familiar individual over an anonymous mass, so the downside would be reduced military capacity against the reapers and weeping victims/recordings in the style of that quarian on the Alarei, as well as a bitter and judgmental squadmate.
They said SB is the first of the bridging DLC, which means there's at least another. I'm guessing three total.
Ace Combat X (I think, whichever one was for the PSP) did this. Depending on the path you took through the missions, the difficulty and parameters of the missions would change. I'm sure there are other games that do something similar, but this is the only one that I've played before. Although I sincerely doubt Bioware would do this, I think it would be neat. Probably a lot of extra work, depending on just how much things change over time. But a "WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN??!" when you land would be pretty humorous.
As a side note, the first time I played through ME1 I went and did side quests for a couple hours after stealing the Normandy. I had no idea that I was setting into motion the endgame after doing the 4 story missions. Fuck saving the galaxy, I've got to go drive around on this barren landscape and kill non-descript mooks in some random building.
If the game is determined to kill someone, I'd rather it not be an arbitrary one-second choice as in ME1 (someone's gotta die, regardless of what you do! Suck it, main character), and the consequence of what you, as the protagonist, do over the course of the game.
If it leads to the death of a more minor, rather than major, character (or no deaths at all), so what? As Orca said, if death is the only way to add weight to the situation for storytelling circumstances, we're shit out of luck. Might as well go kill Anderson (though that is a possibility in ME1 I think), or even Admiral Hackett after a minute-long appearance when you finally meet him. I bet that would elicit a response from players.
Also, Orca, I think -Tal has proven it's impossible to slander him.
If the game is determind to make me choose someone to die then I hope I can choose who I get to choose from. Like instead of a choice of making either kaidan or ashley stay with the nuke on viremire they let me p-ick out of the whole team.
basically I just wanna be able to get definately get rid of certain characters if I can. Im looking at you Jack!
I can also see Bioware having to make us make a choice about Earth, we know the Reapers are very interested in Humans and theres no greater amount of humans anywhere in the galaxy. What better choice could Shepherd be forced to make, (say for the final battle or where to concentrate all the galaxies fleets to take on the Reapers) Earth or one of the alien homeworlds.
None of this "I have 12 people but we're only taking 2" crap.
Slice like a god damn hammer. LoL: Rafflesia / BNet: Talonflame#11979
Really? My Tal-lite femshep cerberusfellator was planning on leaving the filthy non-human in his tank to rot.
it's a plot crutch, pure and simple, to prop up interest if your writing gets stale.
i do rather like the idea of mission order affecting difficulty, though. do X first, Y and Z get harder, and vice versa. allows for increased challenge (like normandy upgrades) without the forced death coin-flip of virmire.
that's another thing that i liked about ME2: everyone has the possibility of dying, but no death is guaranteed. to me, it's infinitely more engaging to work towards saving everyone than knowing ahead of time that "X number of people are going to die". one makes me work harder and be more involved, but the other just makes me want to consult a RNG and move on.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Yousir, don not understand the sophistication of the being that is a pure krogen
Yes! Just once I want to have my whole squad at the same time. Bioware did it for a couple things in Dragon Age, and I really enjoyed it.
Dammit now Mass Effect 3 cannot possibly live up to my expectations.
As for Mass Effect 3? They really need to up the stakes in terms of the possibility of losing squad mates permanently. It needs to be in the vain of the suicide mission where the decisions you make on certain missions will affect who lives and dies, but it needs to be around a hundred times harder than the Suicide Mission.
And really, I think there should be a failure scenario where if you've screwed up enough then the Reapers win.
Grunt exhibits none of the problems I have with krogan
He is aggressive, yet obedient and respectful of Shepard's authority. But he doesn't kiss ass, he's always sincere. He is intelligent and articulate, but not obnoxiously so and never holds it above people. He thinks his problems through very carefully, but is decisive when reaching a conclusion. A true bro.
You do realize his ultimate show of respect will be in demonstrating how well you've taught him by beating you to death, right?
I like how he introduces himself by trying to kill you, way more badass than Wrex
I look forward to fighting Grunt, I'm sure when I knock him down he won't stay down like a bitch
Also, the game should randomly overheat your console.
And starts shouting curse words at you.
Really just go play a fire emblem game, I'm pretty sure they let you kill off all your own people, since that seems to be a fetish around here.
Um, it's not really a fetish, it's just that the choices you make in the game should matter, the choices should have an effect... a, massive effect if you will.
Bioware sold the entire Mass Effect series on the premise that your choices would matter, so far the choices really haven't mattered in any ways other than superficial ones, which means ME3 is the last chance they have to make them matter, in addition there should also be a lot of tough choices in ME3 itself and some of those tough choices should deal with how you go about carrying out important missions. They need to take the concept of the suicide mission and expand upon it.
I'm not suggesting that every mission should all have the same possibility for squad members to die, but I do think that Bioware should raise the stakes, I mean, Shepard and company are facing the end of all life in the galaxy, it should be really hard to come out of that unscathed.
I don't want him to die. I want him to be a completely broken man at my feet begging for forgiveness because he knew I was right.
Not really his fault. Tal-Lite Shepard is too busy fellating TIM to get off her knees and activate the tank.
and of course
I. AM. KROGEN!
her romance basically consists of "seriously, what the hell could you possibly see in me, stop it"
Jack is supposed to be a psychopath
but she comes across as more of an annoying little girl
Grunt is more psychopathic
-Tal, sometimes you say these things, and I don't know if it's because your father was a batarian but...
any time you're playing on veteran and below
jack is your bestest friend
also i think we're actually going to get less of a "EVERYONE CAN DIE" scenario in ME3. ME2 has been described as the dark middle chapter, and that usually indicates a more optimistic finale. i expect ME3 to be chock full of moments of awesome. consequences, yes, from the first two games. but too often we conflate "consequences" with "negative consequences". ME is a space opera, not a tragedy in three parts.
i don't think even the worst-case scenario in ME3 will have the reapers winning. in ME2 shep could lose everyone and even DIE - but only after completing the mission. anything other than that and you start to venture into "critical mission error" territory. at what point do you tell the player that his or her choice trajectory is going to lead to the obliteration of the galaxy in another 10 hours? it's nice to talk about, sure, but from a developer's perspective it's horrible design. the hardcore fans are really the only ones who would savor a scenario like that without it being fully telegraphed. take DAO's Darkspawn Chronicles, for instance. it's entirely divorced from the main game, plastered with ALTERNATE UNIVERSE signs, and clearly something you have to actively want to experience. put that option in the main game as an alternate ending that creeps up on you? half your playerbase gets burned, BADLY, and tells their friends that your game sucks.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy