164 réponses à ce sujet

[Milician]

Hmmm...lets see.

Great RPG+Rubbish Shooting= ME 1

Great RPG+Great Shooting= ME 2

Is it really that bad to take out what simply didn't work? Yeah, I enjoyed the mako, even some of the armor variety. But do I blame them for taking quite possibly the two most confusing parts out of the game? Of course not.

The fact that I can play an amazingly polished shooter with amazing RPG/conversation gameplay together is brilliant. Yeah, Bioware strayed away from the norm for their history. But did it really come out that bad?

[Terror_K]

Milician wrote...

Great RPG+Rubbish Shooting= ME 1

Weak RPG+Great Shooting= ME 2

Fixed.

[Sleepicub09]

Terror_K wrote...

Milician wrote...

Great RPG+Rubbish Shooting= ME 1

Weak RPG+Great Shooting= ME 2

Fixed.

actually you broke it even more

[Terror_K]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Milician wrote...

Great RPG+Rubbish Shooting= ME 1

Weak RPG+Great Shooting= ME 2

Fixed.

actually you broke it even more

That wasn't me... it was the Mass Effect 2 devs. 

[Bio_mooch_1]

I agree with the OP views to a certain extent.

Some time ago I posted a topic/ review about my concerns about ME2, and how I do not beleive it has lived upto ME1.

Regressions of gameplay:

• ME2 has far fewer RPG elements to it.
  
  
• The side quests are very linear (very little, to no exploration required)
  
  
• Main storyline enviroments very linear (ME1 seem's to hide this element of gameplay.)
  
  
• Weapon cooldown system was replaced (ME1 codex explained the technology.)
  
  
• Seemed to be fewer conversation options and generally less interactions throughout the gameplay.
  
  
• Distinct lack of council involvment (it is explained in-game, why they are not involved.)
  
  
• For me, no major decisions were made during gameplay (everyone survived, including crew.)
  
  
• At no point did I feel as thought the galaxy was on the brink of destruction.
  
  
• A half constructed human as the final BoSs, please.

   

Progressions of gameplay:

• Planet scanning to access certain side quests.
  
  
• Different/ unique enviroments for side quests.
  
  
• Squadmates Garrus and Tali return for action.
  
  
• The fuel and probe system are steps forward for introduing a greater role for the normandy .
  
  
• An upgradable Normandy allowed for resource collection to be useful.
  
  
• Storyline still has me interested (althought not nearly as much ME1 did for ME2)
  
  
• Conversation action/ interruptions.

ME2 is good. However, I feel, when compared to the ME1, ME2 it does not live up to expectations.



 

Modifié par Bio_mooch_1, 08 avril 2010 - 12:07 .

[hawat333]

kelmar6821 wrote...

seriously

It was all them in Me1, but they took alot of ques from fans and Me2 seemed to be rubbish in comparison.

Go back to doing it your way for ME3, Bioware. Because ultimate, I want to play game designed by bioware, not a horde of talimancers.

sorry for the double topic and originally blank OP

Agreed. Actually, the interspecies romances destroyed part of the lore. They were never explained, how they work, they changed the universe, and ruined one of the three basic principles of high sci-fi: Alien species are alien.
It's blaspemy, herecy upon sci-fi and ME1, actually, in a way, it's like denying one of the robotic laws in Asimov. Never works out well.
They simply don't make sense. And the alien characters suddenly become human characters with different skins.

Shepard will die of it anyways, as he can't eat food 'designed' for turians or quarians, I'm pretty sure he can't exchange body liquids either.

[Ray Joel Oh]

hawat333 wrote...
Agreed. Actually, the interspecies romances destroyed part of the lore. They were never explained, how they work, they changed the universe, and ruined one of the three basic principles of high sci-fi: Alien species are alien.
It's blaspemy, herecy upon sci-fi and ME1, actually, in a way, it's like denying one of the robotic laws in Asimov. Never works out well.
They simply don't make sense. And the alien characters suddenly become human characters with different skins.

Shepard will die of it anyways, as he can't eat food 'designed' for turians or quarians, I'm pretty sure he can't exchange body liquids either.

BOO THIS MAN.

BOOOOOOOOO.

[royceclemens]

::sigh::

The story in Mass Effect was ass.  I hate to be the guy that says it, but it's true.  It clung to tropes and archetypes like barnacles to a fishing boat, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself, but BioWare's insistence on flinging their newfangled conversation wheel at us, combined with their lack of confidence that it would sell enough copies to warrant Mass Effect 2 and trying to keep it as stand-alone as humanly possible yielded a ton of ugly results in regards to pacing, not the least of which are...

-Matriarch Benezia.  "I just got Sovereign out of my head and the success of your mission depends on me!  Quick, let me give you a twenty minute lecture on how you can lose a mass relay!"

-Sovereign giving a bad guy speech for no other reason than the plot required it.  If I'm supposed to be afraid of the Reapers, then they shouldn't talk so damned much.  But because the storytelling was so deficient, they couldn't find a way to shoehorn the Sovereign-is-a-Reaper revelation anywhere else, hence five plodding, completely out-of-character minutes of conversation.

-Saren.  "I have you at my mercy Shepard!  But Reaper indoctrination overrides the necessity to point a gun at you and pulling the trigger to end your life.  'What's "Reaper Indoctrination," you ask?  Well I'm not doing anything for the next fifteen minutes, let me explain it to you..."

-Saren, doing the same damn thing again an hour and a half later.

-Vigil.  Just VIGIL.  I get to Ilos, I'm on Saren's trail and I am stopped and FORCED to listen to a poorly conceived holographic deus-ex-machina conduct a symposium on hyperbaric sleep and how space beetles will wind up killing all organic life, in order to get a data file and finally do what I've been trying to do for the last twenty hours.  It ground the climax of the game to a screeching halt.  And that conversation can go on forever while Saren, apparently, is trapped in flux just waiting for you.  Biomooch complains that he never felt that galaxy was in danger?  Then what the hell do you call this?

If you want to point to a game that clings religiously and poorly to a three-act structure and claim that it has the "better story," then by all means, don't let me stop you.  But I'd rather curl up with a Canterbury Tales-style collection of vignettes with a slender overarching narrative like Mass Effect 2 than an ambitious novel whose back third is more infested with repeated and spectacular pant-crappings than Taco Bell night at a retirement home.

[hawat333]

hawat333 wrote...

kelmar6821 wrote...

seriously

It was all them in Me1, but they took alot of ques from fans and Me2 seemed to be rubbish in comparison.

Go back to doing it your way for ME3, Bioware. Because ultimate, I want to play game designed by bioware, not a horde of talimancers.

sorry for the double topic and originally blank OP

Agreed. Actually, the interspecies romances destroyed part of the lore. They were never explained, how they work, they changed the universe, and ruined one of the three basic principles of high sci-fi: Alien species are alien.
It's blaspemy, herecy upon sci-fi and ME1, actually, in a way, it's like denying one of the robotic laws in Asimov. Never works out well.
They simply don't make sense. And the alien characters suddenly become human characters with different skins.

Shepard will die of it anyways, as he can't eat food 'designed' for turians or quarians, I'm pretty sure he can't exchange body liquids either.

Well, when it comes to certain gameplay elements, it's a good thing to issue or consider some changes. When it comes to the lore itself, I'd better leave it to an experienced writer than have a 15-year-old change the 'verse for drooling alien 'buttsecks'. You get it? I hope you do.

(Hm, this is what happens when you click on quote instead of edit)

Modifié par hawat333, 03 avril 2010 - 11:08 .

[Ray Joel Oh]

Feh, snip.

Modifié par Ray Joel Oh, 03 avril 2010 - 12:18 .

[Erinlana]

i dont get why people are having issues with me1 or even 2 , there are small issues i agree but the storyline was somthing i haven't encountered before  playing rpg games & i am very picky person when it comes to rpg games and how they are structured ..

or am i just being captain obvious O_O ! =(

Modifié par Erinlana, 03 avril 2010 - 11:20 .

[Pandemonic IX]

There is not knowing what Bioware has stored for ME3 Terror_K, will they make it only to please certain people with certain fanbases and ruining the game in the process, or give us all that grand middle finger to show every fan out there that they're in control and will develop their game as they desire and might even come up with a decent sequel that surpasses previous games in the series? Either way we can't help it, but to wait and see what they will do with their game.

[smudboy]

royceclemens wrote...

::sigh::

The story in Mass Effect was ass.  I hate to be the guy that says it, but it's true.  It clung to tropes and archetypes like barnacles to a fishing boat, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself, but BioWare's insistence on flinging their newfangled conversation wheel at us, combined with their lack of confidence that it would sell enough copies to warrant Mass Effect 2 and trying to keep it as stand-alone as humanly possible yielded a ton of ugly results in regards to pacing, not the least of which are...

Using stereotypes isn't bad, or a formula or structure for plot.  The problem is whether it is told clearly, and well.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/973813/1

"Every story has already been told. Once you've read Anna Karenina,
Bleak House, The Sound and the Fury, To Kill a Mockingbird and A
Wrinkle in Time, you understand that there is really no reason to ever
write another novel. Except that each writer brings to the table, if
she will let herself, something that no one else in the history of time
has ever had."
—

Anna Quindlen

-Matriarch Benezia.  "I just got Sovereign out of my head and the success of your mission depends on me!  Quick, let me give you a twenty minute lecture on how you can lose a mass relay!"

She spoke for less than 5 minutes and gives believable plot discourse.  Compared to Harbinger, or anyone else in ME2, she's a goddamned prophet.

-Sovereign giving a bad guy speech for no other reason than the plot required it.  If I'm supposed to be afraid of the Reapers, then they shouldn't talk so damned much.  But because the storytelling was so deficient, they couldn't find a way to shoehorn the Sovereign-is-a-Reaper revelation anywhere else, hence five plodding, completely out-of-character minutes of conversation.

Sovereign again, speaks for less than 5 minutes.  Nothing wrong with talking/getting to know our main opposing force: why not from a primary source?  Sovereign's the "vanguard of your destruction."  You've been dodging him the entire game, and finally you meet.

So your problem is the reveal that that big ship is Sovereign, which is a Reaper, talks to you, is completely out of character?  Since we don't even (can we?) understand a Reaper's motives, how is it out of character?  In the same way Sovereign talked to Saren?  So you'd rather we not talk to Sovereign?

-Saren.  "I have you at my mercy Shepard!  But Reaper indoctrination overrides the necessity to point a gun at you and pulling the trigger to end your life.  'What's "Reaper Indoctrination," you ask?  Well I'm not doing anything for the next fifteen minutes, let me explain it to you..."

I've yet to see what's wrong with any exposition from our main antagonist, especially when they're revealing plot.  What, would you rather read about it in a codex entry, maybe a side character?  Would you rather his motives be completely mysterious and illogical, or not know of them at all, or what the Reapers and their methods are all about?

We learn about Saren's and Sovereign's motives, and argue with his belief that he's not merely a tool/pawn of Sovereign because of his indocrination.  Whether the conflict is physical or social, especially with our main antagonist, it's still necessary to have.  In fact, I'd prefer more social over physical (within a limit, of course.)

-Saren, doing the same damn thing again an hour and a half later.

Good.

-Vigil.  Just VIGIL.  I get to Ilos, I'm on Saren's trail and I am stopped and FORCED to listen to a poorly conceived holographic deus-ex-machina conduct a symposium on hyperbaric sleep and how space beetles will wind up killing all organic life, in order to get a data file and finally do what I've been trying to do for the last twenty hours.  It ground the climax of the game to a screeching halt.  And that conversation can go on forever while Saren, apparently, is trapped in flux just waiting for you.  Biomooch complains that he never felt that galaxy was in danger?  Then what the hell do you call this?

That's a VI, not a deus ex machina device (although I guess you can describe a VI in that context.)  Vigil was a great storytelling device, via talking timecapsule.  Sure, pacing is an issue when you're "racing for the conduit", but at that point we need info on what's going on/how this is going to work (the data file is indeed a plot device.)  I'm quite sure you don't have to go through every dialog discussion.  But to find out what hapened to the Protheans, what the Conduit is, by listening to the recorded intentions of a 50k year old dead race that planned out a number of survival contingency plans, on the sheer hope that you might come along?  This brings home the scope of what you're doing, what happened, and provides pathos.

This turned the climax into something more than simply a physical race for an unknown: it clearly explained what was at stake, and made you feel like a hero.

If you want to point to a game that clings religiously and poorly to a three-act structure and claim that it has the "better story," then by all means, don't let me stop you.  But I'd rather curl up with a Canterbury Tales-style collection of vignettes with a slender overarching narrative like Mass Effect 2 than an ambitious novel whose back third is more infested with repeated and spectacular pant-crappings than Taco Bell night at a retirement home.

I'm all for short, punchy stories with great writing.  ME2 is not one of them.

[Sleepicub09]

smudboy wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

::sigh::

The story in Mass Effect was ass.  I hate to be the guy that says it, but it's true.  It clung to tropes and archetypes like barnacles to a fishing boat, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself, but BioWare's insistence on flinging their newfangled conversation wheel at us, combined with their lack of confidence that it would sell enough copies to warrant Mass Effect 2 and trying to keep it as stand-alone as humanly possible yielded a ton of ugly results in regards to pacing, not the least of which are...

Using stereotypes isn't bad, or a formula or structure for plot.  The problem is whether it is told clearly, and well.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/973813/1

"Every story has already been told. Once you've read Anna Karenina,
Bleak House, The Sound and the Fury, To Kill a Mockingbird and A
Wrinkle in Time, you understand that there is really no reason to ever
write another novel. Except that each writer brings to the table, if
she will let herself, something that no one else in the history of time
has ever had."
—

Anna Quindlen

-Matriarch Benezia.  "I just got Sovereign out of my head and the success of your mission depends on me!  Quick, let me give you a twenty minute lecture on how you can lose a mass relay!"

She spoke for less than 5 minutes and gives believable plot discourse.  Compared to Harbinger, or anyone else in ME2, she's a goddamned prophet.

-Sovereign giving a bad guy speech for no other reason than the plot required it.  If I'm supposed to be afraid of the Reapers, then they shouldn't talk so damned much.  But because the storytelling was so deficient, they couldn't find a way to shoehorn the Sovereign-is-a-Reaper revelation anywhere else, hence five plodding, completely out-of-character minutes of conversation.

Sovereign again, speaks for less than 5 minutes.  Nothing wrong with talking/getting to know our main opposing force: why not from a primary source?  Sovereign's the "vanguard of your destruction."  You've been dodging him the entire game, and finally you meet.

So your problem is the reveal that that big ship is Sovereign, which is a Reaper, talks to you, is completely out of character?  Since we don't even (can we?) understand a Reaper's motives, how is it out of character?  In the same way Sovereign talked to Saren?  So you'd rather we not talk to Sovereign?

-Saren.  "I have you at my mercy Shepard!  But Reaper indoctrination overrides the necessity to point a gun at you and pulling the trigger to end your life.  'What's "Reaper Indoctrination," you ask?  Well I'm not doing anything for the next fifteen minutes, let me explain it to you..."

I've yet to see what's wrong with any exposition from our main antagonist, especially when they're revealing plot.  What, would you rather read about it in a codex entry, maybe a side character?  Would you rather his motives be completely mysterious and illogical, or not know of them at all, or what the Reapers and their methods are all about?

We learn about Saren's and Sovereign's motives, and argue with his belief that he's not merely a tool/pawn of Sovereign because of his indocrination.  Whether the conflict is physical or social, especially with our main antagonist, it's still necessary to have.  In fact, I'd prefer more social over physical (within a limit, of course.)

-Saren, doing the same damn thing again an hour and a half later.

Good.

-Vigil.  Just VIGIL.  I get to Ilos, I'm on Saren's trail and I am stopped and FORCED to listen to a poorly conceived holographic deus-ex-machina conduct a symposium on hyperbaric sleep and how space beetles will wind up killing all organic life, in order to get a data file and finally do what I've been trying to do for the last twenty hours.  It ground the climax of the game to a screeching halt.  And that conversation can go on forever while Saren, apparently, is trapped in flux just waiting for you.  Biomooch complains that he never felt that galaxy was in danger?  Then what the hell do you call this?

That's a VI, not a deus ex machina device (although I guess you can describe a VI in that context.)  Vigil was a great storytelling device, via talking timecapsule.  Sure, pacing is an issue when you're "racing for the conduit", but at that point we need info on what's going on/how this is going to work (the data file is indeed a plot device.)  I'm quite sure you don't have to go through every dialog discussion.  But to find out what hapened to the Protheans, what the Conduit is, by listening to the recorded intentions of a 50k year old dead race that planned out a number of survival contingency plans, on the sheer hope that you might come along?  This brings home the scope of what you're doing, what happened, and provides pathos.

This turned the climax into something more than simply a physical race for an unknown: it clearly explained what was at stake, and made you feel like a hero.

If you want to point to a game that clings religiously and poorly to a three-act structure and claim that it has the "better story," then by all means, don't let me stop you.  But I'd rather curl up with a Canterbury Tales-style collection of vignettes with a slender overarching narrative like Mass Effect 2 than an ambitious novel whose back third is more infested with repeated and spectacular pant-crappings than Taco Bell night at a retirement home.

I'm all for short, punchy stories with great writing.  ME2 is not one of them.

you gave the pro's of ME1 but no cons of ME2 instead you pointed out ME1's writing and just said ME2 didn't have that without saying why or how you critique badly.

Modifié par Sleepicub09, 03 avril 2010 - 01:17 .

[smudboy]

Sleepicub09 wrote...
you gave the pro's of ME1 but no cons of ME2 instead you pointed out ME1's writing and just said ME2 didn't have that without saying why or how you critique badly.

smudboy fail.  Whereas others might have bad grammar, you sir are a master at stream of consciousness, zero punctuation and avoiding the shift key.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...

1. Sovereign again, speaks for less than 5 minutes.  Nothing wrong with talking/getting to know our main opposing force: why not from a primary source?  Sovereign's the "vanguard of your destruction."  You've been dodging him the entire game, and finally you meet.

2. So your problem is the reveal that that big ship is Sovereign, which is a Reaper, talks to you, is completely out of character?  Since we don't even (can we?) understand a Reaper's motives, how is it out of character?  In the same way Sovereign talked to Saren?  So you'd rather we not talk to Sovereign?

I really don't feel like writing a 5 page essay at the moment, so I'll keep my focus narrowed.

1. There is a problem when you consider the nature of Sovereign: an ancient machine claiming that organics are absolutely worthless/dispensable. Hell, during your 5 minute conversation with Sovereign he repeatedly stresses the point that organics are worthless, beings of emotion in comparison to the cold hard logic of machines. So for a construct which claims that organics are below its notice, I really would like to understand why it even bothered to take the time to converse with you (as a worthless organic) or why it even allows itself to associate with organics (Saren/Krogan).

2. Yes, I can easily see why someone would have preferred not speaking with Sovereign. The Reapers are supposedly a race of beings that exterminate all organic life for their own twisted purposes, yet one is willing to have a nice calm discussion with Commander Shepard instead of proceeding to eliminate him? Explain this, if you'd be so kind. And no meta-gaming. In other words, you have to use the internal logic of the ME universe- referencing plot structures on why it's better to converse with the main antagonist does not work for the purposes of this discussion. But you already knew that, didn't you? ; )

[Cascadus]

ME2 is good. Great, in fact. But there's some kind of reason why I found myself replaying ME1 far more than ME2. ME1 had the superior story and more RPG elements. Sure, the menus were clunky and a tad unintuitive but those are the kinds of problems that can be streamlined and fixed. Not entirely removed. I don't see ME1 or ME2 being superior to the other, they excel in some areas and fail in others.

And I don't get 'hurr durr i hope they ruin the game for talimancers'... for no other reason other than your dislike of them. Huh. Why are you so bothered by the fact that there's the presence of an ENTIRELY optional romance encounter? Because of her fans? Last time I checked, BioWare didn't insert them into their games. Grow up, no one's demanding Samara get pissed on because some people don't like her.

[Internet Kraken]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...



The Reapers are supposedly a race of beings that exterminate all organic life for their own twisted purposes, yet one is willing to have a nice calm discussion with Commander Shepard instead of proceeding to eliminate him? Explain this, if you'd be so kind. And no meta-gaming. In other words, you have to use the internal logic of the ME universe- referencing plot structures on why it's better to converse with the main antagonist does not work for the purposes of this discussion. But you already knew that, didn't you? ; )

That's easy to explain. The Reaper's are egotistical and full of hubris, as shown by Harbinger and Sovereign's gloating.

[Cascadus]

They probably feel like they're a little justified, considering their whole plan of extincting sentient life over and over again has continually succeeded.
And honestly, I kind of don't mind it. Sovereign had some of the best lines in the game.
"You exist because we allow it. You will end because we demand it."
Gave me chills.

Modifié par Cascadus, 03 avril 2010 - 04:11 .

[Ecael]

Terror_K wrote...

Milician wrote...

Shooting = ME 1

Shooting = ME 2

Broken.

Fixed.

[vinak]

ME1 was a fun game. good story. I must have played it 10 times.



ME2 is just lacking. I can't will myself to play it a second time.



Ass pull plot points... Sheperd dieing...just to be revived....just felt like an excuse to replace the Normandy, reset your skills and levels and strip you of all the things you did in ME1. council basically blows you off despite the obvious truth of the situation literally blowing up in there Fing faces.

then we're forced to work with Cerberus. This is completely implausible.

they ruin a good portion of the characters from ME1. I can't tell you how many times the community asked to continue romantic plot lines into the sequel. but I guess they chose to intentionally lock out all possibility of that.

playstyle is just frustrating. I did not want to play a god damn shooter when I purchased ME2 Nor did I want to scan ****ing planets.. more asd pull story to force in the ammo clip.



Just too much crap muddling the waters in ME2 to make it a memorable.

[Vanguard Alpha]

There are only 2 dominant issues, imo, with Mass Effect 2

The lack of Role Playing in this RPG (inventory, ME1 relationships, Citadel, Recognition, Cerebus as a whole etc...)
..and planet scanning.

[Cra1n]

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

Because your fan opinion is more important than our fan opinion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lololololololol
Biowares "way" is listening to fans and adjusting the game ******.
OP you are a fan and this post is an opinion. So you are just arguing against yourself. Lawl.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Internet Kraken wrote...

That's easy to explain. The Reaper's are egotistical and full of hubris, as shown by Harbinger and Sovereign's gloating.

The two bolded words are the problem. These have a sense of emotion attached to them. The Reapers constantly note themselves as relying on "cold, hard logic" and being above petty organic emotions. I would like to re-emphasize logic. That is to say their actions are not fueled by any other drive such as anger, joy, etc. The key question is: what purpose does telling Shepard about the Reapers' existence serve? Is it logical?" If the answer is "to gloat", that does not seem to be a response fueled by logic. The point is we're answering this from a very human perspective by saying they are egotistical when they claim they are above such things.

The Geth in ME2 I thought did a much better job of truly demonstrating how a machine should think. Legion was one of my favorite characters and he did not betray almost any emotions, in my opinion. I'm not saying that I didn't love Sovereign/ the huge Reaper spoiler. The dialogue was beautifully executed. But that doesn't change the fact that there are issues.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 03 avril 2010 - 07:05 .

[tonnactus]

Valmy wrote...

kelmar6821 wrote...
It was all them in Me1, but they took alot of ques from fans and Me2 seemed to be rubbish in comparison.

Yeah games with easily broken and poorly balanced combat mechanics as well as generic, boring, and repetitive content taking up over half the game makes everything better.

T
he content is still repetetive.
And Mass Effect 2 didnt have any unique bossfights like the first one.Remember,the thorian,matriarch benezia?
All combat is the same and boring.Nothing new.
Only grunts ritus is a exception.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 avril 2010 - 08:47 .