I can understand in the abstract, but feel that it falls flat and doesn't manage those things.Ghengis John said:I think there were several reasons for the structuring of the last DLC. One, nobody else could be involved with the destruction of that thing and thereby stand trial with Shepard. Two, it gave us a chance to see that Shepard does not simply rely on his team-mates. (A charge some people were leveling on the team-building aspect of ME2) On his own Shepard is quite capable. Three: It heightened the sense of danger for Shepard.Traigus said:The last
DLC was ehh... No friends... for no really good reason. Too much of a lead-in for ME 3, not enough people.
Characters = value in Mass Effect...
Saving the universe... ehhh not so much.
-T
-
1. is true, but usually ignored. Shep has trucked a team inside a reaper before, why wouldn't he again? He brings his team all over the place, what is one more suicide mission?
2. The AI in ME 2 isn't very good. Who is this being proven to? us? We carry all the combat weight all the time anyway.
(I still don't understand the RPG convention of only bringing 2 friends along while leaving 7 bad-ass people on the ship. They are trying to win a war aren't they (I'll admit the end of ME2 dealt with this pretty well, while not addressing it all through the rest of the game. I'll give them credit for scripting the team something to do at the end rather than sit on the ship.))
3. I can't buy this one. Not really, sorry. Getting killed is getting killed. Shep specializes in not getting killed in impossible situations. The fights weren't as nasty as some of the traps in the main game, so no real sense of heightened danger for me.
I really think the last DLC wasn't up to the quality of the others. But as Mr. Funk said, when the worst they come up with is better than nearly everything else...
it was ok, but I thought the others were exceptional (with the exception of the tank one, which was merely ok as well.)
-TJW