StarDestroyer.Net BBS

adam_grif wrote:

reactionsalarian.gif

Wow, his facial expression is really well animated. I'm actually quite impressed.

Sephirius wrote:

Lol yeah, it's been making the rounds on the Bioware forums since it was made.

Even been calls for making him a love interest, because apparently some people don't understand how development schedules work.

Well, put 20 down on it today.


Time will tell...

So I'm watching this thing on SciFi (their new name can eat a dick) and shit... I totally want to play this game. I think I may cave on the preorder.

The game looks great and supposedly there really are consequences to actions this time... supposedly. The characters have me rolling my eyes a bit though, since they are pretty damn cliche.

Huge massive goddam spoilers!
Spoiler

Havok wrote:The game looks great and supposedly there really are consequences to actions this time... supposedly. The characters have me rolling my eyes a bit though, since they are pretty damn cliche.

Yeah, I don't exactly know what happened to Bioware, but their ability to sell a game has massively increased. Compare the launch trailer to ... basically everything they've ever done and it's absolute leaps and bounds ahead in terms of presentation. It's well-directed, well-editted, exciting, polished, fluid etc. I think back to the Dragon Age: Origins trailer and it has literally nothing on ME2. Of course, trailers can be misleading, but unless Bioware outsourced to some sort of cinematic genius it's pretty clear they've come pretty far.

Whether the game actually holds up in practice isn't so clear. I will admit that I'm actually quite excited for ME2; combat looks a lot tighter (even if the shift to a conventional reload mechanic for the guns is a step backwards), powers look more interesting, classes are better differentiated, customisation has been considerably expanded, equipment management for your squad has been streamlined and you can safely take a hands off approach ... any number of these things could be broken of course, but it mostly seems like it's leaps and bounds ahead of Mass Effect. Of coruse, we're left with the plot, which is something which isn't possible to judge at this point. Normally I would automatically expect silliness (it's Bioware), but on the other hand, Dragon Age was actually quite impressively plotted, and the actual decisions to be made actually had outcomes which made them feel meaningful and actual toss-ups (I particularly like the dwarf succession choice, where the slimy backstabbing cunt is the best choice, but he's still a slimy backstabbing cunt), so maybe it will be less trite than Mass Effect. Stark and I had a short exchange some time ago about the difference in tone; I think he's right in thinking that there's a pretty fine line between 'dark' and 'extreeeeeeme'. I'm not entirely convinced that Bioware has fallen on the right side of that line, but then again the first game mostly fell on the wrong side of the interesting/stupid line, and some of us played it five times.

Ford Prefect wrote: Yeah, I don't exactly know what happened to Bioware, but their ability to sell a game has massively increased.

They were bought by EA?

Havok wrote: The game looks great and supposedly there really are consequences to actions this time... supposedly.

I wouldn't hold my breath. There's no way in hell anything will be truly different about the Mass Effect story until right at the end of the trilogy. Otherwise, characters will fill in for dead characters, the same interstellar politics will be going on, etc etc. The lead gameplay designer, Christina Norman, confirmed that if Shepard dies at the end of Mass 2, you simply can't import that save to Mass 3.

Which is basically giving the finger to everybody who thought Mass 3 would continue on without Shepard

If s/he dies, you either have to load a save where Shepard lived, or start without loading a save from 2, and you'll get a Shepard with a canon back story, who survived.

In 2, the decision to save or kill the council has zero gameplay impact. Despite human colonies going completely missing, the council is unwilling to aide you, and fucking Cerberus has to step in and do something about it. We've had a line of dialogue from Jacob to the effect of "We thought the new council would get stuff done, but it's the same old politics!" (not those words exactly, but close)

It boils down to this: Bioware doesn't want to make more than one game, but it still wants to give you the illusion of having a story impact when really you have none at all. Notice how none of the squad mates in Mass 2 could die in Mass 1? That's because they didn't want to write a whole game's worth of Companion dialogue for characters who might be dead.

And your blaming them for this? Holy shit man, you clearly have absolutely no idea how much work and how much money goes into making one character in a game like this. The fact that they have all those sidequests revolving around the old characters, the fact that they are bringing in something like a hundred decisions from the first game to effect the second; what the fuck are you expecting? It sounds like you want them to make the game they just made twice to account for one decision at the end of the game. How the fuck is that supposed to work?

open_sketchbook wrote:And your blaming them for this? Holy shit man, you clearly have absolutely no idea how much work and how much money goes into making one character in a game like this. The fact that they have all those sidequests revolving around the old characters, the fact that they are bringing in something like a hundred decisions from the first game to effect the second; what the fuck are you expecting? It sounds like you want them to make the game they just made twice to account for one decision at the end of the game. How the fuck is that supposed to work?

It is possible to make choices have an effect without rewriting the whole game. And by "effect" I mean more than a fleeting mention in the dialogue.

It's not just the cost of writing the extra content, it's the burden on the testers (testing man hours increases exponentially with the number of independent branches) and the extra development risk (more complexity always means more risk, and game studios hate taking on extra risk).

Ford Prefect wrote:

Havok wrote:The game looks great and supposedly there really are consequences to actions this time... supposedly. The characters have me rolling my eyes a bit though, since they are pretty damn cliche.

Yeah, I don't exactly know what happened to Bioware, but their ability to sell a game has massively increased. Compare the launch trailer to ... basically everything they've ever done and it's absolute leaps and bounds ahead in terms of presentation. It's well-directed, well-editted, exciting, polished, fluid etc. I think back to the Dragon Age: Origins trailer and it has literally nothing on ME2. Of course, trailers can be misleading, but unless Bioware outsourced to some sort of cinematic genius it's pretty clear they've come pretty far.

Whether the game actually holds up in practice isn't so clear. I will admit that I'm actually quite excited for ME2; combat looks a lot tighter (even if the shift to a conventional reload mechanic for the guns is a step backwards), powers look more interesting, classes are better differentiated, customisation has been considerably expanded, equipment management for your squad has been streamlined and you can safely take a hands off approach ... any number of these things could be broken of course, but it mostly seems like it's leaps and bounds ahead of Mass Effect. Of coruse, we're left with the plot, which is something which isn't possible to judge at this point. Normally I would automatically expect silliness (it's Bioware), but on the other hand, Dragon Age was actually quite impressively plotted, and the actual decisions to be made actually had outcomes which made them feel meaningful and actual toss-ups (I particularly like the dwarf succession choice, where the slimy backstabbing cunt is the best choice, but he's still a slimy backstabbing cunt), so maybe it will be less trite than Mass Effect. Stark and I had a short exchange some time ago about the difference in tone; I think he's right in thinking that there's a pretty fine line between 'dark' and 'extreeeeeeme'. I'm not entirely convinced that Bioware has fallen on the right side of that line, but then again the first game mostly fell on the wrong side of the interesting/stupid line, and some of us played it five times.

The ammo/heat sink thing might not be a step back if they handle it properly. Is it going to be that you have to swap out sinks to bring down the heat or will it dissipate over time ala the first game? Because in ME it got pretty damn frustrating if your weapon over heated, so I like the option to toss out a heat sink but at the same time, I don't want to be blowing through hundreds of them, so the option to just let it cool would also be nice.

I'm assuming that you will be carrying a limited number of them, mind you. If not, then there goes my natural tendency to conserve ammo and I'll just be hosing guys down left and right. Just like at the end of ME, with the max mods.

As I understand it you absolutely have to use heat sinks or your weapon is useless.
Apparently it's just universal ammo, only they don't call it universal ammo because that's a dirty word or something.

Well they backed themselves into a hole with that codex entry stating something like "ammo is a simple block of metal that contains enough for an entire mission".

Yeah it is pretty fucking stupid. The whole point was that you didn't need to carry ammo, but now you need to carry heat sinks. Might as well just be ammo.

The only way to pull it off properly is if it is an option. If you want to use up inventory space with extra heat sinks, for when you have to lay down enormous amounts of fire that the cool downs make prohibitively dangerous, that is fine, but you can always not use them and just wait for the cool down the old way too.

I also think this was covered about 1 million pages ago.

Yeah, thats what I was trying to get at but you said it clearer.

I also have to admit, that I am looking forward to even more graphic nudity and sex scenes.

As am I. I don't care if the plot sucks donkey balls, I'm determined to enjoy this game.

open_sketchbook wrote:And your blaming them for this?

Yes, I'm blaming them for hyping up their game as being one in which your choices will have a significant impact on things. It can only lead to disappointment. They certainly know they can't deliver, so why promise?

Yeah it is pretty fucking stupid. The whole point was that you didn't need to carry ammo, but now you need to carry heat sinks. Might as well just be ammo.

The hilarious part is that the devs insist it's not an ammo mechanic in all of the interviews. When they first announced it, I thought it was a hybrid - like you could optionally eject a heatsink, or you could just wait to cool down. But no, there is no passive cooling at all, you HAVE to eject heatsinks. Ammo in everything but name.

I wonder how they're going to explain this in the canon. Did the whole galaxy undergo a sudden and total doctrinal change? Maybe there was like a massive, universal failure on all guns and they had to all be replaced or something...


EDIT:


Reviews so far, from ME Forums (links added):

Games(tm) - 10/10 - http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.h ... ght=Review

CD-Action (Polish) - 10/10 - http://themindchannel.blogspot.com/2010 ... -1010.html

X360 Magazine (UK) - 5/5 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... asseffect2

NOW Gamer 9.8 - http://xbox-360.nowgamer.com/reviews/xb ... s-effect-2

IGN - 9.6 - http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/106/1063044p1.html

OXM - 9.5 - http://www.n4g.com/News-455413.aspx

GamesAktuel (German) - 91% - http://www.picbutler.de/bild/111171/foto2c0le4.jpg

PC Gamer (UK) - 90% - http://themindchannel.blogspot.com/2010 ... ect-2.html

Xbox World - 90% - http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=232013

Xbox Gamer - 9/10 - http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.h ... ght=Review

ZAP 2 it - no score (positive review) - http://www.zap2it.com/news/zap-game-mas ... 4261.story

adam_grif wrote:

open_sketchbook wrote:And your blaming them for this?

Yes, I'm blaming them for hyping up their game as being one in which your choices will have a significant impact on things. It can only lead to disappointment. They certainly know they can't deliver, so why promise?

You, earlier wrote:Notice how none of the squad mates in Mass 2 could die in Mass 1? That's because they didn't want to write a whole game's worth of Companion dialogue for characters who might be dead.

You've gone from "I don't think your decisions have a meaningful effect on the course of the game" to "They should make it possible to eliminate the squad metagame by having your supporting cast die forever just because they rolled a 1 on their dodge check."

adam_grif wrote:

Games(tm) - 10/10 - http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.h ... ght=Review

CD-Action (Polish) - 10/10 - http://themindchannel.blogspot.com/2010 ... -1010.html

X360 Magazine (UK) - 5/5 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... asseffect2

NOW Gamer 9.8 - http://xbox-360.nowgamer.com/reviews/xb ... s-effect-2

IGN - 9.6 - http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/106/1063044p1.html

OXM - 9.5 - http://www.n4g.com/News-455413.aspx

GamesAktuel (German) - 91% - http://www.picbutler.de/bild/111171/foto2c0le4.jpg

PC Gamer (UK) - 90% - http://themindchannel.blogspot.com/2010 ... ect-2.html

Xbox World - 90% - http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=232013

Xbox Gamer - 9/10 - http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.h ... ght=Review

ZAP 2 it - no score (positive review) - http://www.zap2it.com/news/zap-game-mas ... 4261.story

I don't follow game press, is it typical for a game to get high reviews?

GuppyShark wrote:

adam_grif wrote:

open_sketchbook wrote:And your blaming them for this?

Yes, I'm blaming them for hyping up their game as being one in which your choices will have a significant impact on things. It can only lead to disappointment. They certainly know they can't deliver, so why promise?

You, earlier wrote:Notice how none of the squad mates in Mass 2 could die in Mass 1? That's because they didn't want to write a whole game's worth of Companion dialogue for characters who might be dead.

You've gone from "I don't think your decisions have a meaningful effect on the course of the game" to "They should make it possible to eliminate the squad metagame by having your supporting cast die forever just because they rolled a 1 on their dodge check."

Erm no, I was pointing out examples to support my case that nothing would ever truly change until the ending.

Kpl Kendall wrote:I don't follow game press, is it typical for a game to get high reviews?

In video-game review land, 7 / 10 is "not worth your time", 7.5-8.0 is Average score, anything above 9.0 means "creme of the crop". So far the average for ME is 94%. It will change as more reviews come out, of course.

adam_grif wrote:Erm no, I was pointing out examples to support my case that nothing would ever truly change until the ending.

The example you cited is inane, disposable squad members would not have added to the game in any way.

Nobody is challenging your assertion that the broad arc of the game will remain consistent. Bioware's patented "Introduction -> Three areas to complete in any order -> Ending" RPG storyline will doubtless make its appearance once more.

However, decisions you make in game will effect the path you take to get there.

For example,
Spoiler

GuppyShark, adam_grif is talking about plot-based character deaths. There were a few occasions in Mass Effect where your dialogue choices determined whether a character in your party lived or died; this has nothing to do with combat losses. He's saying that this lessens consequences because whether the character lived or died only has a minor at best impact on the sequel despite being one of the bigger choices in the entire game.