179 réponses à ce sujet

[Morey89]

Sanunes wrote...

There are a few things that I didn't like about ME1 and a few that I don't like about ME2. I understand when people are talking about how they missed driving around planets, but for me after four to five planets I found that every planet felt pretty much the same, slightly different hill structure and being a different colour but that was the only real difference.

I personally feel the compactness of ME2 comes from how linear the story is, unlike ME1 you could go almost anywhere before working on the story missions, but in ME2 you complete three recruitments and then are forced to do a story based mission. For me that kills replayabilty, for thats what made ME1 fun for me is taking different party members on the different missions, but in ME2 I pretty much have the exact same squad every mission.

The Citadel felt small, but I also felt that was because Shepard decided that being in Citadel space was a bad thing and something to avoid doing.

I don't care to scan planets for resources every playthrough and would have liked a "bonus power" that allowed me to choose to bring all my upgrades from a previous game through instead of a loyality power, but thats another thread.

I have to say i completly agree with this, after thinking on it, i guess my disapointment on ME2 was more on how linear the story was and how it sometimes railroads you into a quest even if you don't want to, which i guess reflected on my view on ME2 as beeing less "explorable". Having to be forced to do a mission after a set number of recruitments without a possible choice of postponing it really was a downer for me.

As far as the Obliviong ranting, i actually liked roaming around in that game from time to time, although a few ruins and forts did look alike and had nothing interesting in them, the opposite was true with a number of them also containing wierd cults or otherwise things you didn't really expect. The silliest thing on that game, for me, would be characters with the same voice actor talking to eachother, which happened more frequently than i liked.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Sanunes wrote...

There are a few things that I didn't like about ME1 and a few that I don't like about ME2. I understand when people are talking about how they missed driving around planets, but for me after four to five planets I found that every planet felt pretty much the same, slightly different hill structure and being a different colour but that was the only real difference.

I personally feel the compactness of ME2 comes from how linear the story is, unlike ME1 you could go almost anywhere before working on the story missions, but in ME2 you complete three recruitments and then are forced to do a story based mission. For me that kills replayabilty, for thats what made ME1 fun for me is taking different party members on the different missions, but in ME2 I pretty much have the exact same squad every mission.

The Citadel felt small, but I also felt that was because Shepard decided that being in Citadel space was a bad thing and something to avoid doing.

I don't care to scan planets for resources every playthrough and would have liked a "bonus power" that allowed me to choose to bring all my upgrades from a previous game through instead of a loyality power, but thats another thread.

You can blame the xbox for that linearity. 2DVD structure ruined the open world feel the game would have. Actually, if you have the PC version there's a mod to counter measure it.

But IMO, this way it keeps a better structure for the narrative. You're doing the recruitment and TIM is getting intel on the collectors. At some point he will ask you to do something to make the story of "stop the collectors" moving forward. This way you don't keep yourself away from the main plot and fighting the collectors too much. But I wanted to recruit Legion way before being close to the end of the game. Damn the 360! ¬¬

[FlyingWalrus]

As I mentioned before, this game series was designed from the very beginning with a shooter aspect as a means to resolve combat, so heaven forbid that BioWare looks to one of the greats of recent third-person shooter games for inspiration on how to pull off that mechanic well.

The OP's crying on that regard of this game is unjustified. It's a case of "ruined forever"; things aren't automatically a bad thing because you don't like it. Furthermore, the idea that he has a right to complain about it is also a delusion. BioWare makes its product and you either choose to support it or choose not to. That's as much of a "right" as anyone here has in regards to the game, no more.

[EAWare_amirite]

Shooting to resolve combat is one thing, copying the plethora of cover based shooters is another.

Just because a game uses guns does not mean it should, need, or has to follow the road already traveled. I will be shocked if Bethsda somehow doubts their effectivness of portraying their style of combat in FO and start copying GOW.



Also: "Ive not seen anyone whine(cry). Having an opinion is not whining. It seems like anytime someone has a differing opinion on here others call it whining or complaining. Get a dictionary and learn what your words mean. Thanx." -a tired forum poster

From the moment we all made accounts here we all shared equal rights and equal voices on this forum. There is the justification you so desperately search for.

[FlyingWalrus]

"Plethora"? There's Ghost Recon, Gears of War, annnnnnnd... that's all that comes to mind. A "plethora" is a large amount amount of things; two is not a large amount. Gears of War was praised for its slower, more tactical approach to shooting games because of its consideration to cover-based mechanics.

From the START, Mass Effect had a similar mechanic. They planned to make it that way all along, similarities be damned. It was just comparatively poorly executed in the end. That's one of the things they received the most criticism about, so, oh noes, they went to work on that aspect! It just so happens that they go ahead and look at a certain shooter that did receive a lot of the reception they were probably looking for. Those criminals.

Oh yes, yes it is whining and complaining. Complaining that Mass Effect has been "dumbed down" and turned into a "Gears of War" clone is an idiotic criticism, if it can be called that. The combat was fine-tuned and tightened up to better serve its purpose, and the reward for it is "WAAAAH IT'S NOT THE SAME WAAAAAH IT'S TOO MUCH LIEK GEARZ OF WAARRR WAAAAH AMMO IS TOO LIMITED EVEN THOUGH ENEMIES DROP CLIPS AND THOSE CLIPS RESTORE THE RESERVOIRS OF EVERY GUN IN MY INVENTORY!!!"

Wanting exploration is fine. Baseless ****ing about something that got a much-needed overhaul, like combat, is not. Crying about it being "too much" like another game (which it isn't, by the way) is not justified. The OP, however, has failed to realize that almost all 'exploration' in ME1 was not worth doing. One needs to account for the nature of the game: as a soldier on a mission, Shepard doesn't have time to be dicking around on remote planets unless he has a reason to be there.

You are entitled to voice a well-informed opinion, just like I am entitled to excoriate you when it is not. And I'm saying, for this, it's not.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 24 avril 2010 - 11:48 .

[Morey89]

There's a bit of cover shooters out there actually, from Kill.Switch to the Rainbow Six series or even S.W.A.T. perhaps.



All in all i guess all i can do is hope they top the story part of the game in ME3, as far as combat goes in ME2 i actually enjoyed it from my part. Even playing as an adept - Sending someone flying across the map never gets old.

[FlyingWalrus]

Yeah, but those games that you mentioned are vastly different from the ones I mentioned. I was naming the ones that mostly resembled ME's system. Plus, if Rainbow Six is like it was when I played it, there's a lot of planning that makes it more like a tactical shooter than the actiony combat that cover shooters are made for.

BioWare will always focus on the story. It's their trade, so I'm not worried much about that.

[EAWare_amirite]

""Plethora"? There's Ghost Recon, Gears of War, annnnnnnd... that's all that comes to mind. A "plethora" is a large amount amount of things; two is not a large amount. Gears of War was praised for its slower, more tactical approach to shooting games because of its consideration to cover-based mechanics."

So am I supposed to ignore the 5 or so Ghost Recons along with all the other Tom Clancy TPSs? What about the Army of Two? Since Ghost Recon is limited I supposed I best not mention both GOWs.

"From the START, Mass Effect had a similar mechanic. They planned to make it that way all along, similarities be damned"

Having the intentions to use guns is not equivalent to copying GOWs mechanics. Shooters that have dynamic cover are much closer to what ME1 was then GOW.

"Oh yes, yes it is whining and complaining."

Sorry again, speaking opinions you disagree with; not whining or complaining. Please act more mature and refrain from such childlike antics and accusations.

Calling ME2 a clone of GOW is accurate seeing as BW setout and said they copied GOW.

"Baseless ****ing about something that got a much-needed overhaul, like combat, is not."

If you have to edit your commments it is likely you are being childish and insulting.

"The OP, however, has failed to realize that almost all 'exploration' in ME1 was not worth doing."

Entirely untrue as several of exploration related quests are the some of the hooks Bioware are claiming as being what helped them draw fans into the game.

"One needs to account for the nature of the game: as a soldier on a mission, Shepard doesn't have time to be dicking around on remote planets unless he has a reason to be there."

Welcome to real world story telling. No matter how pressing an issue is the hero/protagonist has time to slow down and experience the world around them. This is a way to show the viewer/gamer what the hero is actually fighting for.

None of what you are claiming is true most of it is only accurate if all that matters in a game is the amount of action that can be crammed onto a disc. The issues others talk about are outside of your small realm of appreciation.

[EAWare_amirite]

"BioWare will always focus on the story. It's their trade, so I'm not worried much about that."

This was their failure in ME2. If you read the prezi from Christina Norman.

[FlyingWalrus]

I like how you're trying to condescend to me while all the time either ignoring or dodging my points for a vaporous ad hominem.

EAWare_amirite wrote...

So am I supposed to ignore the 5 or so Ghost Recons along with all the other Tom Clancy TPSs? What about the Army of Two? Since Ghost Recon is limited I supposed I best not mention both GOWs.

Did I suggest you ignore them? There are currently only two Ghost Recons for the X360 and, now that you mention it, Army of Two and its sequel. So that, with Gears of War and its sequel, is six games? I'm tempted to just count the series within themselves because their mechanics have changed very little within the respective series. I would have mentioned the recent Resident Evil games as well, except you don't get a cover system in that at all.

Having the intentions to use guns is not equivalent to copying GOWs mechanics. Shooters that have dynamic cover are much closer to what ME1 was then GOW.

They had not only the intention of using guns but the intention of using a system akin to GOW's mechanics. I suppose you would have rather had them emulate Unreal Tournament instead? Gee, when you get right down to it, shooters that are trying to stay close to a line of realism when it comes to urban combat military tactics, there isn't much choice outside of cover shooters.

Sorry again, speaking opinions you disagree with; not whining or complaining. Please act more mature and refrain from such childlike antics and accusations.

It's not an opinion I disagree with so much as it's wrong. There's another poster there that says the music was better in ME1. I respectfully disagree. That, like I said, is a subjective element. Saying that ME2's gameplay is somehow worse is not an opinion and is not entitled to be treated like one. Please shut the hell up with your patronization and let me conduct myself, I am responsible enough to handle the dissemination of my thoughts without preaching from a faceless handle on the Internet, thanks.

Calling ME2 a clone of GOW is accurate seeing as BW setout and said they copied GOW.

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that's not a bad thing. If you're going to make a better mouse trap, learn from the best. If you're setting out to make a shooter engine, learn from the best.

If you have to edit your commments it is likely you are being childish and insulting.

I didn't edit my comments, silly. The forum did it for me. I'm sure you're smart enough to intuit what word was behind the censors. I can handle coarse language without being insulted. Apparently, you can't.

Entirely untrue as several of exploration related quests are the some of the hooks Bioware are claiming as being what helped them draw fans into the game.

What BioWare says and what is actually the case are two different things.

Those exploration quests. Name them.

Welcome to real world story telling. No matter how pressing an issue is the hero/protagonist has time to slow down and experience the world around them. This is a way to show the viewer/gamer what the hero is actually fighting for.

I'm fighting for a bunch of featureless rocks? Well, **** the Council then. I'm back to Eclipse to get wasted.

None of what you are claiming is tr--

No. Stop trying. Everything I've said is true. Stop trying, unless you can prove me wrong.

[Darth Drago]

There was a lot more exploration in ME1.

- In ME1 when you landed on one of the many UNC mission planets the door opened for exploration. Every time you went out of your way to track down something on your mini-map that was exploration. There were quite a lot of things that didn’t show up on your map of the planet your on. Finding them required exploration. Finding 8 of the 9 (or is it 10?) thresher maws required exploration. Finding the unique things like the Shifty Cow, that unique skull, the Prothian sites including the one that uses your trinket from the Consort all require exploring to find.

-In ME2 all that is gone. When you do find a N7 mission you are either dropped on the doorstep of the location you need to go or a short distance away. In the later case you are on a very linear route to get to your destination and consisted of no exploration at all. Being forced to walk down a corridor to get someplace is not exploration. The only element of exploration comes from doing the probing of planets to get minerals for your upgrades, something that is more or less required for your main quest.

[javierabegazo]

Alright children, remember your manners.

[FlyingWalrus]

But that's not worthwhile exploration. Exploration is supposed to make you want to go off the unbeaten path. All it made me, and a lot of other people, want to do was hurry up, get the goods, kill the pirates, and claim my reward. Why? Because there wasn't anything interesting about it. Two or three playthroughs in, many people wised up and thought, "this is bull****." Especially with other games that shall not be named out there on the market. All the "exploration" was was a commute from point A to point B.

By the way, all the compounds on which your targets were holed up in were both marked on the map AND the only ones in that 1x1 km area of the planet.

The only missions that required actual exploring was the one on that planet with all the Pyjaks on it. Your destination was neither marked or specified. It's the same one on which that mysterious monument is on.

[EAWare_amirite]

"They had not only the intention of using guns but the intention of using a system akin to GOW's mechanics. I suppose you would have rather had them emulate Unreal Tournament instead? Gee, when you get right down to it, shooters that are trying to stay close to a line of realism when it comes to urban combat military tactics, there isn't much choice outside of cover shooters."

Realism? Urban combat? Where do you think you live Iran, Afghanistan, or the middle of Brazil fighting guerillas? Let me give you a little insight, going flush to cover like GOW will get you maimed or killed in the real world.



"It's not an opinion I disagree with so much as it's wrong."

Opinions are not privy to being right or wrong. Calling an opinion wrong is a reflection of not being objective and shows a lack of understanding.



"I didn't edit my comments, silly. The forum did it for me. I'm sure you're smart enough to intuit what word was behind the censors. I can handle coarse language without being insulted. Apparently, you can't."

Needless to say if you are violating the rules of the forum and not able to use acceptable words to explain yourself, it is another indicator why having a mature discussion with you is not feasible.

"What BioWare says and what is actually the case are two different things."

I don't need to there is a wiki devoted to the ME series, look it up for yourself. Why not enjoy the information from a neutral party in this discussion. So you don't feel the need to blindly demean it.



"I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that's not a bad thing. If you're going to make a better mouse trap, learn from the best. If you're setting out to make a shooter engine, learn from the best."

Best or not, a clone is a clone no matter the stock. Best is subjective as I prefer Half life and CoD in terms of shooters.

"No. Stop trying. Everything I've said is true. Stop trying, unless you can prove me wrong."

If you want to quote you should learn to read the entire sentence as the rest of my statement explains my stance of the relative "truths" you are spouting.

[Urazz]

Blk_Mage_Ctype wrote...

While I HATED ME1's Inventory System and overjoyed to see the removal of that broken piece of garbage.

Some exploration with the Hammerhead would've been nice.
Hopefully they'll make some Expansion Packs in the future that use it.

I agree.  Having a bit of exploration with the hammerhead would've been cool.

Hell, the ME1 exploration type missions would be alot more tolerable with the hammerhead's maneuverability.  It has targeting issues but I think it's a big improvement over the mako in getting around.  Of course the various enemy bases would have to change to look different than the same bland look they all had in ME1 (no matter what enemy you were facing).

[TJSolo]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

But that's not worthwhile exploration. Exploration is supposed to make you want to go off the unbeaten path. All it made me, and a lot of other people, want to do was hurry up, get the goods, kill the pirates, and claim my reward. Why? Because there wasn't anything interesting about it. Two or three playthroughs in, many people wised up and thought, "this is bull****." Especially with other games that shall not be named out there on the market. All the "exploration" was was a commute from point A to point B.
By the way, all the compounds on which your targets were holed up in were both marked on the map AND the only ones in that 1x1 km area of the planet.
The only missions that required actual exploring was the one on that planet with all the Pyjaks on it. Your destination was neither marked or specified. It's the same one on which that mysterious monument is on.

Funny if it wasn't for the extra exploration in ME1 a lot of the history about Cerberus wouldn't be known and working with them would be less of an issue.
I can look at GibbedSaveEditor and see about 10 or more checks from exploration that you would call "not worthwhile".
The 1x1km area of a planet was explained in game; attention, immersion, and whatnot.
Before you claim something is an only or singluar it would be best if you checked your facts. To prove your only exploration wrong I can just bring up the mission where you hook up the Mako to power some turrets as neither do the alliance base or the rachni cave immediately appear on the map until found.

[FlyingWalrus]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

Realism? Urban combat? Where do you think you live Iran, Afghanistan, or the middle of Brazil fighting guerillas? Let me give you a little insight, going flush to cover like GOW will get you maimed or killed in the real world.

It's actually more akin to SWAT tactics, but note how I said "not stray far." This being a fictional work meant to be entertaining, liberties were obviously taken.

Opinions are not privy to being right or wrong. Calling an opinion wrong is a reflection of not being objective and shows a lack of understanding.

Yes. But I'm not calling an opinion wrong. I'm calling an idea that you and the complainers are trying to pass off as an opinion wrong when it doesn't meet the criteria. It's not an opinion. It doesn't get that gray area privilege. I already explained myself. Learn to parse.

Needless to say if you are violating the rules of the forum and not able to use acceptable words to explain yourself, it is another indicator why having a mature discussion with you is not feasible.

Needless to say, the filter is there to take care of it. Look past the language to the idea underneath and stop attempting to gain some evanescent moral high ground by calling me "immature."

I don't need to there is a wiki devoted to the ME series, look it up for yourself. Why not enjoy the information from a neutral party in this discussion. So you don't feel the need to blindly demean it.

I don't need to go to a Wiki when I'm on my seventh playthrough of the game. A Wiki can be vandalized. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Best or not, a clone is a clone no matter the stock. Best is subjective as I prefer Half life and CoD in terms of shooters.

And I'm not saying it's NOT a clone. There is this impression that you can read, but it's not meshing with what I'm actually seeing here.

Again, semantics. You missed my point in lieu of them. I'm not a Gears of War fan myself, but I can see why BioWare would have taken after Epic in designing the combat engine for ME2. It works.

If you want to quote you should learn to read the entire sentence as the rest of my statement explains my stance of the relative "truths" you are spouting.

Note the hyphens. I cut off your drivel in that quote seeing how it made no sense in lieu of your under-evidenced soapboxing. Funny how some of my post is missing from your quotes. Omission is verification.

[FlyingWalrus]

TJSolo wrote...

Funny if it wasn't for the extra exploration in ME1 a lot of the history about Cerberus wouldn't be known and working with them would be less of an issue.
I can look at GibbedSaveEditor and see about 10 or more checks from exploration that you would call "not worthwhile".
The 1x1km area of a planet was explained in game; attention, immersion, and whatnot.
Before you claim something is an only or singluar it would be best if you checked your facts. To prove your only exploration wrong I can just bring up the mission where you hook up the Mako to power some turrets as neither do the alliance base or the rachni cave immediately appear on the map until found.

I rescinded a bit of that argument with the quest about finding that... something. A Pyjak took it and ran into an excavation site with it and you had to get it.

Too bad a lot of that Cerberus history wound up being retconned.

In ME1, Cerberus was a faction of the Alliance military that went rogue in order to perform illegal experiments. In ME2, it turns out that Cerberus was always a para-military shadow organization with a pro-human agenda.

Basically, a lot of it was pointless in the end. That, and you were led to the Cerberus organization, you didn't stumble across them. First you did the Missing Marines quest, then Admiral Kahoku would tell you about Cerberus, then you would follow his lead. And the trail just went on from there. So yeah, not really exploring. Just following objectives.

What my exploration did reveal was one of those bunkers on some planet whose name I can't remember with a door that didn't function. It was late in the game, I'd already done every quest on my list, nothing came to mind relating it, and I'd never been on that planet before then in that game. I eventually concluded that it was for something BioWare never followed through with.

[Gunny5821]

javierabegazo wrote...

I agree with most of your assessments but I hate seeing this

"You can tell how Bioware really trimmed down the game to core combat mechanics to appeal to that Gears of War type player."

And keep in mind that all the games you've mentioned that were more 'expansive' were of a considerably less fidelity in terms of graphics and modeling

A lot of you say you disagree with this statement about the graphics, but I dare say, get your heads out of the sand!  If the graphics were of any less quality you would have heard an uproar of the greatest of magnitudes!  Now a day, everyone wants it all to look and feel "real" and the closer we get the better the praise, the farther we drift and the complaints come roaring in!  So it has to be a delicate balance.  Could BioWare made it different?  Lets use this as an example:

A.  BioWare creates a great garphics game with ultimate RPG feel.  Worlds and the game are huge in the missions are truly exploration.  The cost = $75.00 - $99.99.  Now I ask you, how many would have paid that price to get what you want?  Dare I say very very few, and so the game doesn't make the money it cost to make it and all because they gave you what you wanted.

B.  BioWare gives you what got at the price you got it.  People are generally very happy with it, but of course nothing is perfect and so they get the complaints, heck someone, somewhere, would even complain about A, besides the price tag.

So before you all start down the graphics path, just picture the above!  Which one would you choose, honestly?

Modifié par Gunny5821, 25 avril 2010 - 03:02 .

[EAWare_amirite]

"I'm calling an idea that you and the complainers are trying to pass off as an opinion wrong when it doesn't meet the criteria."

If this is just a bunch of people tossing out ideas. Then ideas are not wrong or right. There are notions like opinions, preferences, ideas that are exempt from being wrong or right. At least until the point someone tries to pass them off as fact, violating an individuals rights, or violates the given rules of a situation.



"Needless to say, the filter is there to take care of it. Look past the language to the idea underneath and stop attempting to gain some evanescent moral high ground by calling me "immature.""

Letting a program block your swears is not the same as a person coming up with a way to converse without needed a portion of their statements be left out and up to the imagination of the reader. I for one try to word my comments and would hate it if people thought I typed **** instead of ****. Obligatory statement; that was a joke.



"I don't need to go to a Wiki when I'm on my seventh playthrough of the game. A Wiki can be vandalized. The burden of proof is on YOU."

Talk about logical fallacy. Everything on the Internet is subject to tampering. Ubisoft can be witness to that. Whether it could be tampered with does not automatically make said information false. The examples with explanations are there, provided from a neutral party.

"And I'm not saying it's NOT a clone. There is this impression that you can read, but it's not meshing with what I'm actually seeing here."

Your point being a complaint about complainers complaining about ME2 being too similar to GOW. Seeing as GOW does not have 100% penetration and popularity among shooter fans then naturally replicating GOW would not be a 100% success. As my shooters of choice are COD and HL, of course some people that don't like the GOW system would see it as a negative.



"Note the hyphens. I cut off your drivel in that quote seeing how it made no sense in lieu of your under-evidenced soapboxing. Funny how some of my post is missing from your quotes. Omission is verification."

The rest of that statement you excluded clarified what I meant.

[TJSolo]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
I rescinded a bit of that argument with the quest about finding that... something. A Pyjak took it and ran into an excavation site with it and you had to get it.

Too bad a lot of that Cerberus history wound up being retconned.

In ME1, Cerberus was a faction of the Alliance military that went rogue in order to perform illegal experiments. In ME2, it turns out that Cerberus was always a para-military shadow organization with a pro-human agenda.

Basically, a lot of it was pointless in the end. That, and you were led to the Cerberus organization, you didn't stumble across them. First you did the Missing Marines quest, then Admiral Kahoku would tell you about Cerberus, then you would follow his lead. And the trail just went on from there. So yeah, not really exploring. Just following objectives.

What my exploration did reveal was one of those bunkers on some planet whose name I can't remember with a door that didn't function. It was late in the game, I'd already done every quest on my list, nothing came to mind relating it, and I'd never been on that planet before then in that game. I eventually concluded that it was for something BioWare never followed through with.

I am not seeing how ME2 retconned the involvement Cerberus had with Rachni(Yes there are a couple missions you find via exploring) or Kouhaku(the entire end of the mission is exploring to find more bunkers). The retcon if you can call it that is how one of the Shep origins ignores the involvement of Cerberus in ME2.
The information about Cerberus being rogue vs a shadow org. is hardly a retcon it is more like sheding light on a situation that wasn't clear before.

So before you all start down the graphics path, just picture the above!  Which one would you choose, honestly?

A. or a company striving for A which in the end produces a game close to Oblivion for the MSRP of 59.99.
The option have B with emphasis on graphics over gameplay, story, and immersion just puts me back wanting to option A.

Modifié par TJSolo, 25 avril 2010 - 03:20 .

[Morey89]

Last i heard game prices arn't THAT related to game prices, looking at Crysis1 & 2 when they came out for example, so i doubt you'd be buying a game (at least for the pc, that's my platform keep in mind) for 100€ any time soon solely for the graphics of it.



On the whole GoW subject it's beggining to be silly by now. Some people see a resemblance because of the cover mechanic and combat, other will see it's not entirely the same game and shouldn't be judged so rash because of one mechanic that's been used in games before. Just agree to disagree, as they're both valid opinions as far as i can see.



As far as i'm concerned i agree that exploration in ME1 was far from perfect, ie. dead worlds, not much relevance in most of it, etc... , which doesn't mean that ME3 couldn't implement said system, on a smaller scale maybe, while at the same time taking the chance to fill that smaller space with more content such as worthwhile lore or sidequests for > those of us who like such things <, while at the same time keeping the more fast paced combat that is seen now in ME2 and which i have to admit am also a fan of. And since i'm on a wishing spree here i'll just shout out once more for a better story with few plotholes in it



Anyway, reading it back i realize it's incredibly hard to do all that, but wishing never hurt anyone anyway... at least i hope not.

[sammcl]

TJSolo wrote...

Funny if it wasn't for the extra exploration in ME1 a lot of the history about Cerberus wouldn't be known and working with them would be less of an issue.
I can look at GibbedSaveEditor and see about 10 or more checks from exploration that you would call "not worthwhile".
The 1x1km area of a planet was explained in game; attention, immersion, and whatnot.
Before you claim something is an only or singluar it would be best if you checked your facts. To prove your only exploration wrong I can just bring up the mission where you hook up the Mako to power some turrets as neither do the alliance base or the rachni cave immediately appear on the map until found.

There were a couple of missions that required exploration of the galaxy to find, but rarely did you have to explore the planet's surface to complete a mission. Exploration of the galaxy was continued in ME2 through scanning for anomalies, when most people think of exploration they think of branching paths in missions or finding something you don't know you're looking for on the planet's surface. While visiting star systems and scanning for anomalies could technically be called exploration, there's really nothing to it, it's more like a checklist.

While I agree the missions you could find that you weren't lead to through decryption on a main story mission were good and improved the game overall, that's not really what people have in mind when talking about exploration. You seem to care about realistic portrayal of space, I'd guess the majority of people would rather see some variation between planets. Sure there would be a couple of barren worlds but there should also be overgrown jungles like Pragia and Ocean worlds like Virmire. Even the worlds that weren't meant to be barren were barren, they were green but there was still no plant life, no water, it was incredibly disappointing.

As for unmarked things to find on your map (I dunno if you posted about this, but someone did) Yeah, you could find an odd skull, Matriarch Dilinaga's writings, Turian and League of One medallions. But that's it, they didn't tell you anything, how does it make sense to find the matriarch's writings and not be able to read them? O_o There was a skull we're told was odd, but we can't later find out why it's odd, it may as well have been a rock.

ME2 kept the best bits about exploring, finding anomalies on the galaxy map and ditched all the pointless exp/resource grind garbage, I think it's a better game for it. It can be argued that the ME2 side missions weren't as satisfying as the ME1 side missions but that's not the point of the thread.

[FlyingWalrus]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

If this is just a bunch of people tossing out ideas. Then ideas are not wrong or right. There are notions like opinions, preferences, ideas that are exempt from being wrong or right. At least until the point someone tries to pass them off as fact, violating an individuals rights, or violates the given rules of a situation.

It's not though. It opens with the OP complaining about a lack of exploration that was never really there. Not in any substantive fashion, anyhow. He went further on to level the tired bashing statement of how Mass Effect had been turned into Gears of War when ME1 played like a more convoluted Gears of War itself. Basically, why complain now? All that was removed was the excess fat and it has resulted in an engine that better conveys the feeling of being in the midst of combat.

Letting a program block your swears is not the same as a person coming up with a way to converse without needed a portion of their statements be left out and up to the imagination of the reader. I for one try to word my comments and would hate it if people thought I typed **** instead of ****. Obligatory statement; that was a joke.

I think it's clear from my vocabulary and sentence structure that I have no trouble coming up with 'better ways' to communicate my points. It's a matter of word choice, and I believe strong and not too polite word choices fit my blunt prosecution better. Sorry?

Talk about logical fallacy. Everything on the Internet is subject to tampering. Ubisoft can be witness to that. Whether it could be tampered with does not automatically make said information false. The examples with explanations are there, provided from a neutral party.

Yeah. You want to talk about logical fallacies? There's no more neutral party than the game itself.

Your point being a complaint about complainers complaining about ME2 being too similar to GOW. Seeing as GOW does not have 100% penetration and popularity among shooter fans then naturally replicating GOW would not be a 100% success. As my shooters of choice are COD and HL, of course some people that don't like the GOW system would see it as a negative.

My point being, stop making much ado about nothing and make a valid criticism besides decrying the game for using similar mechanics to GoW. Of course it won't mesh with all shooter fans. But BioWare apparently felt that it would fit their game perfectly, so who are you to deny that? Especially when, like I've said multiple times now, it's not much different from what they already had? That you prefer CoD and HL over GoW? Fine. That's your preference and I can understand that. If so, why bother playing Mass Effect when the first one's combat was a lot like ME2 but slower and less robust?

The rest of that statement you excluded clarified what I meant.

Oh, I read it. I just didn't think it was valid.