179 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

sammcl wrote...

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.

It isn't just about a realistic portrayal of space for me. Of course the world design of ME1 could and should have been improved upon. The extent ME2 took it making everything an immediate drop to a 3min mission is not an improvement of the worlds or exploration aspects of ME1. Exploring in ME1 you could find the things you mention and strange animals, extra gear, prothean tech, geth, and other tales ancillary to my immersion. Then again I don't need to justify exploring in terms of rewards, journey > destination.

[FlyingWalrus]

TJSolo wrote...

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.

You were talking about Cerberus' history. I'm talking about Cerberus' history.

In ME1: Cerberus was a scientific wing of the Alliance Military that went rogue to perform its own illegal research.

In ME2: Cerberus was a privately funded para-military shadow organization with a pro-human agenda.

What? These are two entirely different things. It's a retcon, through and through. Both stories were given to you without a shadow of a doubt from reliable sources.

I imagine that the Sole Survivor story simply wasn't accounted for in development.

Lastly, that wasn't true exploration.

-The bunkers were marked on your map with an '!'.
-The follow up mission, Hades' Dogs, clearly stated what cluster and system the planet the next bunker was on was in.
-That, too, had an exclamation mark showing where the bunker was.

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.

If you expected this game to be like Oblivion, I think you're playing the wrong game series. None of BioWare's games are close to Oblivion, or even Morrowind for that matter.

Lastly, I am also intrigued as to why this Matriarch Dilinaga's writings were so important as to be collected. They didn't really add anything nor were you rewarded in a worthwhile fashion for collecting them. Some Asari history would've been nice. Hell, we got more of that from Samara than from the Matriarch's writings.

[EAWare_amirite]

"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."



Hmmm the OP opened with statements calling ME1s uncharted worlds irritating at times and saying ME2 lacked exploration with a more linear feel.

The OP didn't bash GOW. He just came to the general point we are on about GOW and that is ME2 was made to copy GOW mechanics, thus appealing to players that like GOW mechanics. No bashing, insulting, or complaining because of it, just an observation.



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

The game is not a party though. That sentence is a little weird if you don't know what definitions I am mean.



"My point being, stop making much ado about nothing and make a valid criticism besides decrying the game for using similar mechanics to GoW."

The OP mentioned GOW passing. It has being you and I blowing up the GOW issue. The point of contention being your tirade on it. The topic most people have been sticking to is just about exploration, the intended topic.

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

My reasoning stands for me.

[FlyingWalrus]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

Hmmm the OP opened with statements calling ME1s uncharted worlds irritating at times and saying ME2 lacked exploration with a more linear feel.

My point also is that ME1 was no more open. The corridor was simply larger, but you were almost always guided to a goal. There was no alternate route to take to it, there was no other direction between forward and back. The only choices you really had were in resolving certain situations, like with the ExoGeni personnel on Feros.

The OP didn't bash GOW. He just came to the general point we are on about GOW and that is ME2 was made to copy GOW mechanics, thus appealing to players that like GOW mechanics. No bashing, insulting, or complaining because of it, just an observation.

I'm not saying he did. However, the comparison is a basis for the tired and disingenuous claim that it dumbs the game down. If anything, it actually made the game more challenging and brought thought back into the equation during combat. It's because of this complaint that nitwits like haberman13 fan their self-righteous furor against ME2.

Seriously, haberman13's post on this thread is the textbook definition of "ruined FOREVER!" If you don't call that crying and complaining, I don't know what you do. Just check this out:

If you like GoW that is fine, if you like GoW and didn't like ME1 you helped ruined ME2!

Then he goes on to further state that the music, etc. was better in ME1 as though it were unequivocal fact. This goes back to our talk about opinions, and the reason I don't argue about the music as opposed to the gameplay is because that is more of a taste thing. I personally enjoy the music in both games equally; the soundtrack from the first game would not have suited the situations in the second, and vice-versa. Note that the main theme remains the same.

The game is not a party though. That sentence is a little weird if you don't know what definitions I am mean.

Perhaps it's better said that there is no better research than from the source material itself.

The OP mentioned GOW passing. It has being you and I blowing up the GOW issue. The point of contention being your tirade on it. The topic most people have been sticking to is just about exploration, the intended topic.

I've mentioned why I fired against this statement in this post already.

My reasoning stands for me.

Fair enough. We'll just agree to disagree. At least you're not like haberman13:

haberman13 says...

I agree with your synopsis OP, detractors are likely consoletards

Charming.

[TJSolo]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

You were talking about Cerberus' history. I'm talking about Cerberus' history.

In ME1: Cerberus was a scientific wing of the Alliance Military that went rogue to perform its own illegal research.

In ME2: Cerberus was a privately funded para-military shadow organization with a pro-human agenda.

Being called a former part of the alliance that went rogue is not mutually exclusive from being an organization that now has private funding. You were given a vague history of Cerberus in ME1 and a more current status in ME2.

Lastly, that wasn't true exploration.

Marking a map makes it untrue exploration? I don't need you to qualify it as "true" exploration. It was exploration and more exploration then what is offered in ME2.

If you expected this game to be like Oblivion, I think you're playing the wrong game series. None of BioWare's games are close to Oblivion, or even Morrowind for that matter.

Why do you feel the need to be contrary at every thing. The answer was to Gunnys question and hypothetical, which caused me to think about Oblivion nothing to do with my actual expectations of Bioware.

[EAWare_amirite]

"My point also is that ME1 was no more open. The corridor was simply larger, but you were almost always guided to a goal. "

Well having a lot of larger corridors does me it has more of an open feel. The guidance I am experiencing in ME1, yes I am playing it for the first time now, is looser than the guidance in ME2. Which leads to a more open feel. I do wish I had a gaming PC in which to further free me from the guidance in ME2, that would actually correct the issue.

"I'm not saying he did. However, the comparison is a basis for the tired and disingenuous claim that it dumbs the game down. "

You are misstating the OP when your ranting is meant for another poster.

"Then he goes on to further state that the music, etc. was better in ME1 as though it were unequivocal fact. This goes back to our talk about opinions, and the reason I don't argue about the music as opposed to the gameplay is because that is more of a taste thing."

It is all taste, not liking GOW mechanics included.

"Perhaps it's better said that there is no better research than from the source material itself."

Research is all the same even if done by someone. The source material is for proving the information is true. If I doubt a research paper or article I go to the cited source, I don't do the article over for myself.

[MassEffect762]

Pew Pew Pew + Hey lets make a quick buck off the success of ME1.



That's what happened imo.

[cachx]

And here was I thinking that riding around the galaxy in ME2 searching for N7 missions and Eezo was considered exploring. I have been living a lie u_u

[Darkhour]

I liked that the mako planets and spaceship assignments had a different feel than the main storyline missions. I was a good thing to have that break inbetween. Gave more weight to the storyline missions. But ME really didn't have much in terms of overall storyline. It had short stories. The storyline was simply "reapers the organic version of the geth." More of a revelation than a story.

In ME2 its one level after the other and they all feel exactly alike, even the side missions. It's not so noticable the first playthrough, but after the initial new game feel wears off it just doesn't have the same replayablity of ME. Even after I beat it the first time I knew then that playing it again right away wouldn't be a good idea. So I always play ME first before playing ME2. I just finished my third ME2 playthrough today and didn't even feel like completing all the sidequests. I've played ME at least 10 times doing everything and it's never got to a point where I just wanted to rap things up and get it over with.

Alot of time I'll play ME2 and have to stop and wait a few hours becuase it feels "pushy" and monotonous. I'd get burned out going through the motions as there is nothing different to fill a gap between the levels. And they are levels, more akin to old school games like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sonic the Hedgehog or Contra, not worlds. They took GoW gameplay, but it wasn't done quite as well. I think gears felt more viceral. I don't know. Maybe because GOw felt like I was a member of a team and ME2 felt like I was THE MAN accompanied by a bunch of clowns and the enemy AI knew it. Seriously, why is the enemy AI better than the squad AI?

I'm not expecting much from ME3. I think Bioware's good days are behind them. Not syaing ME2 sucked, but it wasn't the same quality and it was obviously rushed out the door without polish. Rather it's EA's fault or not doesn't really matter.

[Zinoviy]

The angst in this thread hurts my soul.

[FlyingWalrus]

TJSolo wrote...

Being called a former part of the alliance that went rogue is not mutually exclusive from being an organization that now has private funding. You were given a vague history of Cerberus in ME1 and a more current status in ME2.

Perhaps and perhaps not. I know that Cerberus didn't have this anti-alien, pro-humanity reputation that it does in ME2. 'Vague history' I think is an excuse for 'not thought through the whole way.' Really, Cerberus feels like an afterthought in ME1. They're just the faceless, motiveless bads out there to excuse the rampant killing-offs of a few bases full of dummies.

Marking a map makes it untrue exploration? I don't need you to qualify it as "true" exploration. It was exploration and more exploration then what is offered in ME2.

Did you find anything besides more silt?

To wit, as I said to EA, it was a larger corridor. You could deviate to either side if you wished, but you were only going to be greeted by the same emptiness that sees you if you decide to snoop around in that trench during Miranda's loyalty mission.

It was superfluous. It was false. I don't blame them for cutting out it. Step for step, there's more to do in between your arrival and your destination in the average ME2 mission. Garrus' loyalty mission comes to mind.

Either way, it apparently wasn't worth keeping in the game. Not as it was, anyhow. The fact that BioWare bothered making the Hammerhead may be some indication that they have plans to include these planetside sandboxes once again, but we'll see.

Why do you feel the need to be contrary at every thing. The answer was to Gunnys question and hypothetical, which caused me to think about Oblivion nothing to do with my actual expectations of Bioware.

For the same reason that you're apparently contrary to everything that ME2 did differently?

I'm doubtless that the complaining would've been running high about ME2's graphics if they were left the same as ME1's. You seem to be trying to argue that no one would really care.

[sammcl]

Edit: In response to Darkhour's post

Heh, I have the opposite experience, I played ME1 doing everything twice, once for renegade, once for paragon, i played 3 more times following and while I still visited the side mission planets, i didn't collect any salvage, minerals or turian, league of one, matriarch bits. I wanted to get through that crap as quickly as possible and just get back to the main story. Many of the side missions were great though, I picked sole survivor as my background so the Toombs mission felt really cool. I still felt like it was a real chore having to drive to the objective and clear out the carbon copy room of bad guys just to get to the character interaction.

ME2 on the other hand, I have also played 5 times and while it was disappointing that its side missions did not carry as much emotional weight, it didn't feel like a chore to get to them. The main story missions in ME2 also feel much more replayable to me than the ME1 missions, I felt like the combat changes really helped with this. Don't get me wrong, I loved both games but if I were forced to choose one of the two to play and replay, it would be ME2. Despite a weaker main story, the gameplay is just improved so much over ME1 and when replaying a game you already know the story, the gameplay carries much more weight.

Modifié par sammcl, 25 avril 2010 - 05:56 .

[AltiusO83]

You know, I have felt for a long time that ME2 is lacking in sidequests compared to ME1, but I've recently realized that's not exactly true.

In ME1, almost all sidequests had you going into some repeated bunker, module, or abandoned mine; there was a lot to do, but there was little variety in terms of mission structure and location. Sidequests were also almost always given to you by some person standing there waiting for you or from a terminal.

In ME2, there are indeed fewer sidequests, but they are far more enjoyable in my opinion. There isn't a single repeated landscape in any of the sidequests, and they each have their own little story. Many of them have you doing something slightly different each time, too. You just actually have to invest some effort in finding the sidequests. Half of the galaxy doesn't even know you're still alive, so who's going to be waiting to give you a quest? It only makes sense that you have to go out and find them on your own.

Mass Effect seemed so great to me 2 years ago, but I've just done 3 complete playthroughs in the past month and a half (now 7 playthroughs total), and I realize now how much it really fails in comparison to ME2. That whole sense of customization and freedom that I, as well as most players, felt in ME1 was actually a little disappointing. The sidequests are shallow and repetitive, and I've realized that half the dialogue choices you make in ME1 either don't even garner any respective Paragon/Renegade points or result in the same line as the other two options.

Though you may feel that ME2 is falling behind ME1 in terms of side missions, all you need to do is go back and play through both games over again, 100%. Then you will see that ME2 has arguably better sidequests than ME1

Modifié par AltiusO83, 25 avril 2010 - 05:54 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Well
having a lot of larger corridors does me it has more of an open feel.
The guidance I am experiencing in ME1, yes I am playing it for the
first time now, is looser than the guidance in ME2. Which leads to a
more open feel. I do wish I had a gaming PC in which to further free me
from the guidance in ME2, that would actually correct the issue.

After a few playthroughs, one starts to see through the smoke and mirrors. That's what I've been talking about with ME1. Once you realize that this openness is artificial and pointless, it becomes more of a chore and an annoyance.

You are misstating the OP when your ranting is meant for another poster.

I did not misstate him when he's the one who opened the door to that argument for this thread.

It is all taste, not liking GOW mechanics included.

No it isn't. ME1 uses virtually the same concept. ME2 is just a tune up of that. How can you not like ME2's mechanics and prefer ME1's mechanics? It can't be considered a downgrade in the least.

Research
is all the same even if done by someone. The source material is for
proving the information is true. If I doubt a research paper or article
I go to the cited source, I don't do the article over for myself.

No it isn't. Two people can come up with completely different research. This is why collegiate papers, with very few exceptions, require you to have many sources. That's what cross-referencing is.

The only way to get something that hasn't been filtered is to get it from the source itself, original research. And that happens to be the game itself in this case. This point isn't really worth arguing.

[Morey89]

Could it be that it's just that ME2's sidequests, ie: loyalty missions for example, are of a higher quality than the main story itself? While on ME1 the main story was actually kick ass compared to fighting the colectors, in my opinion....

Thinking about it, that might be a reason for my gripes with ME2.

EDIT: this is in response to AltiusO83 post, which rang true to me.

Modifié par Morey89, 25 avril 2010 - 06:04 .

[TJSolo]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Did you find anything besides more silt?

Yes.

To wit, as I said to EA, it was a larger corridor. You could deviate to either side if you wished, but you were only going to be greeted by the same emptiness that sees you if you decide to snoop around in that trench during Miranda's loyalty mission.

That hollowness is indicitive of ME2.

It was superfluous. It was false. I don't blame them for cutting out it. Step for step, there's more to do in between your arrival and your destination in the average ME2 mission. Garrus' loyalty mission comes to mind.

Superfluous and video games go hand in hand. Cutting down to only the basics such as shooting and action creates the feeling the game is lacking and not as varied. Such a sad and unimaginative soul.

Either way, it apparently wasn't worth keeping in the game. Not as it was, anyhow. The fact that BioWare bothered making the Hammerhead may be some indication that they have plans to include these planetside sandboxes once again, but we'll see.

What is in ME2 is not because it is perfect. ME2 is the product of Bioware being too focused on proving they can do shooter combat, little else.
It is not in ME2 but does not mean it was not worth keeping.

For the same reason that you're apparently contrary to everything that ME2 did differently?

You have a reading problem and seem to like adding words people never said.  My comments about what I think ME2 improved are around, but this topic is about exploration an aspect I think ME2 came up short on.
So why would I want to detract with off topic sentiment? 

I'm doubtless that the complaining would've been running high about ME2's graphics if they were left the same as ME1's. You seem to be trying to argue that no one would really care.

Not my words and another completely random topic not fitting for this thread. You have a knack for ad hominems, red herrings and slippery slope errors. Problems like that would happen less if you didn't try so hard to be contrary, dense, with selective amnesia.

[Darkhour]

sammcl wrote...

Edit: In response to Darkhour's post

Heh, I have the opposite experience, I played ME1 doing everything twice, once for renegade, once for paragon, i played 3 more times following and while I still visited the side mission planets, i didn't collect any salvage, minerals or turian, league of one, matriarch bits. I wanted to get through that crap as quickly as possible and just get back to the main story. Many of the side missions were great though, I picked sole survivor as my background so the Toombs mission felt really cool. I still felt like it was a real chore having to drive to the objective and clear out the carbon copy room of bad guys just to get to the character interaction.

ME2 on the other hand, I have also played 5 times and while it was disappointing that its side missions did not carry as much emotional weight, it didn't feel like a chore to get to them. The main story missions in ME2 also feel much more replayable to me than the ME1 missions, I felt like the combat changes really helped with this. Don't get me wrong, I loved both games but if I were forced to choose one of the two to play and replay, it would be ME2. Despite a weaker main story, the gameplay is just improved so much over ME1 and when replaying a game you already know the story, the gameplay carries much more weight.

For me it's how a game makes me feel. Can I identify with this character and the situation? The idea of hopping from planet to planet shooting up everyone everywhere I go back to back just breaks the immersion. I guess I just need those calm spots/change in pace so that it feels like there is some travel time from one place to the next or that there is more to the ME universe. But I acknowledge that this is my personal preference. For others constant "pew-pew" is good enough. Come to think of it even when playing pure shooters I typically only play one level per night. I never just blast through them.

I'll probably play it on veteran or something next time to see if I can recapture that new game feel. ME2 is alot easier than ME on normal once you get the hang of it and maybe that's why I lose interest. Say what you will about those prefab bunkers in ME, but I miss fighting in open areas and not pushing through a narrow corridor with no possibility of being flanked. With ME2 it always feels like I'm on this side and they're on that side. ME2 is still enjoyable though. 

[Brako Shepard]

AltiusO83 wrote...

You know, I have felt for a long time that ME2 is lacking in sidequests compared to ME1, but I've recently realized that's not exactly true.

In ME1, almost all sidequests had you going into some repeated bunker, module, or abandoned mine; there was a lot to do, but there was little variety in terms of mission structure and location. Sidequests were also almost always given to you by some person standing there waiting for you or from a terminal.

I have noticed this myself, Altius.

Two days ago I went back to the orignal Mass Effect game, as all those groovy memories of the game came flooding back. I also wanted to create a Shepard with a different background etc. This is when I noticed thatthe original Mass Effect was so much more repatative, and wow do I miss the improved combat system of Mass Effect 2.

I also wanted to see if the team had more to say than they do in Mass Effect 2, as this was another thing that everyone has been saying has been dubbed down in Mass Effect 2. It doesn't seem to be that different in terms of new things you can say to your crew in Mass Effect, its just you can keep asking them the same thing over and over.

The side missions are also way to similar to each other, another thing which I think was improved for Mass Effect 2. Yes there are certainly fewer in Mass Effect 2, but the qaulity of them is a lot better. Something I hope to see for a DLC pack, is shed load more N7 missions for Mass Effect 2.

Even the team back-up is much better in Mass Effect 2, to be honest with you...I don't think people are giving Mass Effect 2 enough credit, or BioWare the respect they deserve. As I said in previous posts. Mass Effect will never be the RPG we all would love it to be, that ideal has been and gone. But that doesn't stop the Mass Effect series being some of the best games to ever be created.

I think we were letting our memories of Mass Effect, get in the way of allowing us to truly see the potential and improvements Mass Effect 2 has given us.

[EAWare_amirite]

"After a few playthroughs, one starts to see through the smoke and mirrors. That's what I've been talking about with ME1. Once you realize that this openness is artificial and pointless, it becomes more of a chore and an annoyance."

It is all 1s and 0s, all illusion. ME1 just happened to portray the illusion of freedom better.

"I did not misstate him when he's the one who opened the door to that argument for this thread."

You clearly did. You said the op was complaining and whining about ME2 being a GOW clone. When anyone can read the thread and see the OP only mentions GOW in one line, which goes "You can tell how Bioware really trimmed down the game to core combat mechanics to appeal to that Gears of War type player." This statement is supported by the fact Bioware admits to using GOW to model ME2s shooter mechanics on. The OP was making an observation which rings true if you read information from Bioware. That line was said in passing and not even the topic of the thread.

It is all taste, not liking GOW mechanics included.

No it isn't. ME1 uses virtually the same concept. ME2 is just a tune up of that. How can you not like ME2's mechanics and prefer ME1's mechanics? It can't be considered a downgrade in the least.

Keeping the quote chain here. Liking anything whether it be music, candy, or game mechanics boils down to preference. Liking GOW is a preference any game that chooses to change their mechanics to more closely mirror GOW would be subject to people that don't necessarily like GOW, thus not seeing it as much of an upgrade.

Preference.

No it isn't. Two people can come up with completely different research. This is why collegiate papers, with very few exceptions, require you to have many sources. That's what cross-referencing is.

I can read a persons research without having to go do said research on my own. Outside of the college environment that is the point of research papers. One person or a small team of people does a paper and provides it to a larger group so that they gain knowledge from reading the paper and not having to do the research.

Contrary nonsensical arguments.

[Nightfish103]

For me, there is definetly not enough exploring in ME2. Bioware trimmed the game down so much that it feels like it's nothing but tube levels. I honestly cannot recall missions where I even had the option of deviating from the path that was chosen for me. It's like they tried so very hard to streamline the game that you never have to walk on the same patch of ground twice that this aspect of the game died. Or was put down on purpose, I guess.

What really drives this point home for me are the firewalker missions. They're just ridiculous. What was supposed to bring exploring into ME2 just brought a little bit of mario cart in even more linear levels.

Personally I believe they did this to appeal more to the typical console players. Yea, I know it's cliche and doesn't do every individual justice, but in general console playes and PC players just look for different degrees of depth in their games.

As is, I get a lot less replay value out of ME2 than I got out of any other Bioware game except for DA: Awakenings. I am confident I didn't miss anything in ME2, becaues I was pretty much forced to go everywhere in the first place.And it's definetly not just remembering things too fondly.

After my initial ME2 playthrough I replayed ME1 and still got a lot more enjoyment out of it than I got out of ME2. Sure, the first ME1 playthrough is also the best, simply because the main story actually has a few twists in it, something ME2 seriously lacks. And while *of course* ME1 limits you in where you can go and where you cannot go, it didn't feel as opressive to me. What helps is that I am never actually forced to go on any mission *right now* with no choice.

I'm not saying ME1 did exploration perfectly. It didn't do the stats and gear side of RPGs perfectly either, but it did all of that better than ME2.

Modifié par Nightfish103, 25 avril 2010 - 06:48 .

[FlyingWalrus]

TJSolo wrote...

Yes.

I bet it was unrefined omni-gel, then.

That hollowness is indicitive of ME2.

It's more indicative of your accusation of the sort. ME2 is hardly hollow, unless you consider ME1 and its same seek-and-destroy sidequest played over several times on a slightly different planet variety.

Superfluous and video games go hand in hand. Cutting down to only the basics such as shooting and action creates the feeling the game is lacking and not as varied. Such a sad and unimaginative soul.

Funny how you're calling me sad and unimaginitive when it is you who wants a vast, wide open space to bounce around in a moon buggy simply to have it there. In case you didn't notice, there's a lot more dialogue in this game than there was in the last, too. It's not all shooting and action. Jack and Samara's loyalty missions are good examples of this. Even though there's apparently less square footage to cover, there's more within that space.

What is in ME2 is not because it is perfect. ME2 is the product of Bioware being too focused on proving they can do shooter combat, little else.

It is not in ME2 but does not mean it was not worth keeping.

What is in ME2 is what they needed to keep. That doesn't mean it's going to be perfect and flawless. No game is without its wrinkles.

It's worth including, but not in the form it was in.

You have a reading problem and seem to like adding words people never said.  My comments about what I think ME2 improved are around, but this topic is about exploration an aspect I think ME2 came up short on.
So why would I want to detract with off topic sentiment?

Not in this thread, but your name pops up quite often in other complaint threads that I simply read and roll my eyes at. Your main grief with ME2 seems to be that it was too focused on action and exposition. Hence, your signature. Very memorable, by the way, and definitely worth a chuckle. However, I find most of your complaints hyperbolic for reasons I've already stated. There are diplomatic objectives in ME2, too, you know.

Not my words and another completely random topic not fitting for this thread. You have a knack for ad hominems, red herrings and slippery slope errors. Problems like that would happen less if you didn't try so hard to be contrary, dense, with selective amnesia.

Whatever, man. You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem before you go accusing a "sad and unimaginative soul" of it. All the same, I'm discussing exploration as well. I'm saying that it's not as grand and magnificent a thing as some of the nostalgics are making it out to be. I thought a red herring was a diversion. I'm not entrely sure you know what all this means. The GoW alikeness discussion is relevant because the OP brought it up in his post.

It's not like I prefer planet scanning, you know.

[FlyingWalrus]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

It is all 1s and 0s, all illusion. ME1 just happened to portray the illusion of freedom better.

More semantics. This is completely irrelevant to our discussion and you know it.

You clearly did. You said the op was complaining and whining about ME2 being a GOW clone. When anyone can read the thread and see the OP only mentions GOW in one line, which goes "You can tell how Bioware really trimmed down the game to core combat mechanics to appeal to that Gears of War type player." This statement is supported by the fact Bioware admits to using GOW to model ME2s shooter mechanics on. The OP was making an observation which rings true if you read information from Bioware. That line was said in passing and not even the topic of the thread.

Alright, bro. Let's see just how hard I raged on the OP. This is taken directly from my first post on this thread, on the second page:

Lastly, I don't see what this bull**** about how ME2's gameplay design
team focused on making a good shooter aspect that could stand on its
own without being dependent on stat-heavy RPG-side elements being a bad
thing is about. Is there some logical explanation for this line of
thought? Mass Effect was planned from the beginning to have a lot of
shooting in it, being that you're playing a goddamn Space Marine in the
middle of a violent survival struggle and all. You'd think it would
come across to people as basic sense that BioWare would WANT to have a
good shooter engine in place for its gameplay, but that notion seems to
be buried under the composting layers of biased, "ruined forever!" CRAP
in these buzzword-flingers' brains. God forbid they try to take
something away from some of the genre-makers in the industry in an
effort to improve their own product.

Right. I don't see mention of the OP anywhere there. Just of the people who deride the decision to design the real-time gameplay mechanics to work independently of a stat-based mechanic. Mass Effect was always going to be an action-based game, from the very beginning. There is FOOTAGE of it from E3 back in 2006 on gametrailers.com, if you don't believe me.

Keeping the quote chain here. Liking anything whether it be music, candy, or game mechanics boils down to preference. Liking GOW is a preference any game that chooses to change their mechanics to more closely mirror GOW would be subject to people that don't necessarily like GOW, thus not seeing it as much of an upgrade.

Preference.

But even ME1 was a lot like GoW, so the complaints now make little sense. You can't call it a preference issue because it's not as though ME1 was working on a vastly different system.

I can read a persons research without having to go do said research on my own. Outside of the college environment that is the point of research papers. One person or a small team of people does a paper and provides it to a larger group so that they gain knowledge from reading the paper and not having to do the research.

Good grief. Didn't I say this wasn't worth arguing over? I was saying I'd rather do original research myself instead of taking someone else's word for it.

[TJSolo]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
I bet it was unrefined omni-gel, then.

Nope.

It's more indicative of your accusation of the sort. ME2 is hardly hollow, unless you consider ME1 and its same seek-and-destroy sidequest played over several times on a slightly different planet variety.

You used the word emptiness to describe a situation in ME2 and the overall illusion you try to enforce about ME games.
I agreed but used the synonym hollow, now you are being contrary.

Funny how you're calling me sad and unimaginitive when it is you who wants a vast, wide open space to bounce around in a moon buggy simply to have it there. In case you didn't notice, there's a lot more dialogue in this game than there was in the last, too. It's not all shooting and action. Jack and Samara's loyalty missions are good examples of this. Even though there's apparently less square footage to cover, there's more within that space.

There is a larger mix of non-shooting missions in ME1. The non-shooter bits in ME2 being rare particularly when involving the main quest line. There is actually a net loss in dialogue, 30% more dialogue but 50% more characters.

What is in ME2 is what they needed to keep. That doesn't mean it's going to be perfect and flawless. No game is without its wrinkles.

It's worth including, but not in the form it was in.

Then admittedly people are commenting about the game aspects they view as wrinkles.

Not in this thread, but your name pops up quite often in other complaint threads that I simply read and roll my eyes at. Your main grief with ME2 seems to be that it was too focused on action and exposition. Hence, your signature. Very memorable, by the way, and definitely worth a chuckle. However, I find most of your complaints hyperbolic for reasons I've already stated. There are diplomatic objectives in ME2, too, you know.

The comments I have in other threads are on topic and not part of this thread. If you want to discuss the my gripes in their whole then you need to have Bioware in your name and take it to PMs.
If I can interpret you "read and roll me eyes" as you being displeased with my opinions in other threads, fine. Address those threads and topics instead of trying to rant about every notion I may or may not have put out there.

Whatever, man. You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem before you go accusing a "sad and unimaginative soul" of it. All the same, I'm discussing exploration as well. I'm saying that it's not as grand and magnificent a thing as some of the nostalgics are making it out to be. I thought a red herring was a diversion. I'm not entrely sure you know what all this means. The GoW alikeness discussion is relevant because the OP brought it up in his post.

This discussion is sad and unimaginative when the discussion could be about exploration it is deteriorated largely into random off track comments because of you. The off track comments and arguments nobody here is making would be the red herrings you try to bring up.

[EAWare_amirite]

CCCCombo Breaker!

Not doing all that quoting all day.

ME1 was more like COD, seeing the treatment of cover was dynamic and relative to your position. Even so it does not play like a conventional shooter, which is a good thing.

There is a youtube vid of ME1 showing Shepard before having a canon appearance with Garrus and Ashley. The gameplay even lets you switch characters, it looked more like COD cover again as the narrator(Casey Hudson) seemed to call the cover position based. Of course I have not stated my doubts of MEs intention to be an action-rpg. So this topic coming up feels out of place.



Back on topic. As I mention earlier in this thread, I am doing a play through of ME1 now. This is my first time and it feels less "pushy", to borrow from another poster. The Mako and planets really do shed a different light on the galaxy giving me as a player something else to do outside of the main story.

I am not sure why planet exploration was scrapped for planet scanning. Planet scanning is nowhere near the level of player involvement planet exploration is.

[FlyingWalrus]

TJSolo wrote...

Nope.

See, that's all I found, and these are the planets I've combed over many times since 2007.

You used the word emptiness to describe a situation in ME2 and the overall illusion you try to enforce about ME games. I agreed but used the synonym hollow, now you are being contrary.

Wrong. I said that the worlds you could explore were as empty as that trench in that mission. You could look around, but there was nothing there.

I don't know what illusion of ME games you're accusing me of holding. If anything, I'm trying to dispel illusions here.

There is a larger mix of non-shooting missions in ME1. The non-shooter bits in ME2 being rare particularly when involving the main quest line. There is actually a net loss in dialogue, 30% more dialogue but 50% more characters.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that. It shouldn't come as a surprise that there are few diplomatic missions anyhow. You're playing a soldier. Soldiers exist to fight. Shepard is a little unique in that regard, but don't forget that ME2 also takes place in a more hostile, lawless area of the galaxy. Violence is going to come around a lot quicker in the Terminus Systems.

Then admittedly people are commenting about the game aspects they view as wrinkles.

And that's fine. I reserve the right to see some of these comments as facetious and overwrought.

The comments I have in other threads are on topic and not part of this thread. If you want to discuss the my gripes in their whole then you need to have Bioware in your name and take it to PMs.

If I can interpret you "read and roll me eyes" as you being displeased with my opinions in other threads, fine. Address those threads and topics instead of trying to rant about every notion I may or may not have put out there.

Like I said, facetious and overwrought. You're not the only one. That's all I'll say on this matter.

This discussion is sad and unimaginative when the discussion could be about exploration it is deteriorated largely into random off track comments because of you. The off track comments and arguments nobody here is making would be the red herrings you try to bring up.

No. You didn't call the discussion sad and unimaginative. You called me sad and unimaginative. That, sir, is an ad hominem.

My comments were in regards to comments other posters on this thread had made before. Since they brought it up for discussion, it is completely within the bounds of the topic. It's not as if I started posting lolcats and started telling people to stop talking about exploration. I've discussed that topic from my very first post on this thread. Any other side comments I've made were in regards to the discussion and not meant to detract from the main topic. That is what a red herring does, and it did not. Go check my initial post if you don't believe me. Go on.