179 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyingWalrus]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

CCCCombo Breaker!
Not doing all that quoting all day.

Fair enough. I'm getting tired of it myself, heh.

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.

I don't understand how ME is like COD. At all. I've played CoD3, and that was my last association with the series. From what I recall, CoD has always been an FPS and ME is a TPS ARPG. I always saw ME as having more in common with GoW than any other shooter on the market at the time.

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.

I looked on Youtube for this video earlier, but all there are now are ME2 videos. You can find this early ME1 footage on GameTrailers, though.

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.

If there's one thing I hated about the mission progression in ME2, it's how the Illusive Man would suddenly drop in and tell you, "go here," and you couldn't choose not to. You had to do it THEN. RIGHT AWAY. I didn't like that. I would've preferred it if they made it like just before the IFF mission, laying it out for you but leaving you to get to it whenever you were good and ready to.

No one knows what BioWare was thinking when planet scanning was thought up. I can't imagine anyone finding it fun, and yet, there are its fans out there. I've seen a few posts admitting so.

[finnithe]

TJSolo you and I already discussed the non-shooter bits in both games and I showed that there was roughly a similar number of non combat assignments in both games. Also, Feros, Noveria, Therum, Ilos and the Citadel (at the end) were all heavy on the shooting. ME2 main missions are also action heavy, and the hubs provide just as many sidequests as ME1 hubs did. ME2 also has other sidequests without combat, some of which I named.

[TJSolo]

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

Explore better.

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.

Worlds, plural and the example of a ME2 mission. This looks like you are calling the worlds in ME2 empty and offering that mission as an example, if you meant ME1 then use ME1 to prove the case. As it stands using ME2 to support a case for emptiness can be interpreted the way I took it.

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.

Soldier existing to fight, sorry the ME series is beyond that. Shep is a mini-diplomat and intergalatic incident waiting to happen all in one package.

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

lol@some, pages of some comments. Looks like damn near everything anyone has said against the game you are here to defend, except music and planet scanning.

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

After pages of your ranting and off topic soapboxing. lol.

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

That would be why I attributed this sad and unimaginative conversation to you when is ending my other comment "because of you".  One would commit a logic error when a debate is ongoing, seeing as you admit to not openly hearing opinions you deem " facetious and overwrought" me calling your sad and unimaginative would not be a logic error as this is no debate and just you soapboxing about opinions you don't like and are not hearing objectively.

That is what a red herring does, and it did not. Go check my initial post if you don't believe me. Go on.

Your post was a post complaining about complainers. When quoted you went on a rant which covered several topics. Each of which were seeds from your rants.

[AngryFrozenWater]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

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.

You are stating that wrong. It seems you reserve the rigth to troll and do personal attacks. You do that all over this thread with statements like these:

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Son, I am disappoint. God gave you a brain, and if you don't believe in God, then just try and use the cognitive force in that tissue that bacteria wrought for you in the womb.

To me you are just a troll and not worth any attention. Well, maybe from the moderators. Would be cool if they focused their attention on banning you.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2010 - 08:09 .

[TJSolo]

finnithe wrote...

TJSolo you and I already discussed the non-shooter bits in both games and I showed that there was roughly a similar number of non combat assignments in both games. Also, Feros, Noveria, Therum, Ilos and the Citadel (at the end) were all heavy on the shooting. ME2 main missions are also action heavy, and the hubs provide just as many sidequests as ME1 hubs did. ME2 also has other sidequests without combat, some of which I named.

You showed nothing. However you said there were.
Comparing N7 missions to UNC missions, is proof you are wrong about the non-shooter bits.
Comparing hub missions in both games, is proof you are wrong about the non-shooter bits.
I never said shooting was bad. I said there the non-shooter bits in ME1 were more numerous and that ME2 would have benefited in complexity from non-shooter bits.

[finnithe]

TJSolo wrote...

finnithe wrote...

TJSolo you and I already discussed the non-shooter bits in both games and I showed that there was roughly a similar number of non combat assignments in both games. Also, Feros, Noveria, Therum, Ilos and the Citadel (at the end) were all heavy on the shooting. ME2 main missions are also action heavy, and the hubs provide just as many sidequests as ME1 hubs did. ME2 also has other sidequests without combat, some of which I named.

You showed nothing. However you said there were.
Comparing N7 missions to UNC missions, is proof you are wrong about the non-shooter bits.
Comparing hub missions in both games, is proof you are wrong about the non-shooter bits.
I never said shooting was bad. I said there the non-shooter bits in ME1 were more numerous and that ME2 would have benefited in complexity from non-shooter bits.

finnithe wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

finnithe wrote...
Looking at this page it seems like the amounts are similar, and you should note that some ME2 noncombat missions are a bit more involved, like the Firewalker missions, the loyalty missions I mentioned, Ish's mission (which spans several hubs), while others are just a few short lines (like Citadel: Family Matter in ME1 and Giana Parasini's mission in ME2). The point is, there are non-combat missions in both games, though you're right in that they could be a bit more complicated. 

http://masseffect.wi...iki/Assignments

The term several is only applicable when the count is more than 2.
The 3/5 of the Firewalker missions are not non-combat.
If looking at that page make it seem there are similar amounts then,...
The non-combat missions in ME2 are less involved than ME1; the ME1 missions often have branches and can be failed depending on what you say.
There are only 2 missions that some could consider failing in ME2 depending on what you say. Ish and Samara.
Certain dialogue and actions with Ish can make the mission unable to be completed.
It is possible to fail Samaras mission is your goal is to, can't say here.

There is a lack of dialogue puzzles in ME2. Everything is straight forward and unfailable.

A bit true. Samaras mission could be approached several different ways, especially inside the club itself there are several different actions you can undertake to get her attention, and the end result as you said can be very different. 

Thane's mission you can fail and Ish's mission you can do two ways. http://masseffect.wi..._MSV_Estevanico is a cool mission, and so is N7: Abandoned Research Station. 

I liked how in ME2 the sidequests had their own storylines (see: the one starting in N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter). Still, it would have been nice to have added some dialogue during the missions. Something similar to the tombs of the Sith Lords quests in KOTOR. In my opinion the side quests in that game were much better than the ones in ME1 or ME2. 

Here you said that there are similar amounts of non-combat missions in the two games.

TJSolo wrote...

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.

You just said that there were more non-shooter missions in ME1. Just noting the inconsistency.

Additionally, ME2's non combat missions are relegated to side quests for the most part, so you are right in that they're rare when involving the main quest line. ME2 lacked something like the Parasini/Anoleis saga on Noveria (which was really the only non combat main story mission that stood out for me). 

Personally, I do agree with you about the lack of complexity in ME2's missions. However, I would extend this to ME1 as well. Both games certainly lacked something as extensive as the Sunry trial in KOTOR (anyone remember that, you should). I don't see why there isn't one though, as KOTOR still sold well, and it was on the same platforms.

I think something like Tali's loyalty mission could have been fleshed out a bit more. ME2's missions were still fun, they just could have been something greater.

[TJSolo]

You just said that there were more non-shooter missions in ME1. Just noting the inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency, you said by looking at that page it looks like ME1 and ME2 have similar amounts of non-combat missions.
I replied with ...
Let me be clear that little emoticon has a face of concern with a hint of disbelief.

Modifié par TJSolo, 25 avril 2010 - 08:46 .

[finnithe]

TJSolo wrote...

You just said that there were more non-shooter missions in ME1. Just noting the inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency, you said by looking at that page it looks like ME1 and ME2 have similar amounts of non-combat missions.
I replied with ...
Let me be clear that little emoticon has a face of concern with a hint of disbelief.

I counted them. It's like twenty+ for each game, if you include the really small ones that only lasted a few lines and the ones that you had the option of doing peacefully (I even included ME1's collection missions). 

[bjdbwea]

MajesticJazz wrote...

So I ask the question, what happened to exploration in ME2?

You gave your own answer...

MajesticJazz wrote...

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

That's certainly one reason. Personally, I think the complaints on the forums were more a convenient excuse to cut a lot of things out without any replacement. This certainly saved a lot of development time. Needless to say, I was very disappointed with that too.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 25 avril 2010 - 10:33 .

[SithLordExarKun]

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.

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

^ Exactly. The only thing that ME1's UNC sidequests does better is it having much better integration, other than that it involves storming into the very same bunker hundreds of times killing enemies that charge towards you. It just gets so repetitive and boring after a while and most of the quests aren't very varied(taking the generic base and pointless driving into consideration).

True that ME2's side quests involve alot of shooting, but one mission feels different from another rather than the classical ME1 UNC "storm into this base and kill everyone" for almost every single ME1 side quest.

And lets talk about exploration in ME1, every UNC planet is simply a retexture with some variation in the landscape, there is absolutely nothing to explore in a barren landscape except to run into the very same mine/pirate base. 
In my opinion, while there was not really much to "explore" on ME2 planets, you at the least had to fly the SR2 around the galaxy map(space) into different star systems which may allow you to discover certain N7 missions, to me, that is better exploration than ME1's "point and click" galaxy map and drive around a barren landscape.

[Kirabi]

Exploration is the act of searching or traveling a terrain (including space, see space exploration) for the purpose of discovery of resources or information.



Exploration

1.an act or instance of exploring or investigating; examination.

2.the investigation of unknown regions.



Just two definitions.With that in mind what did find when you explored ME 1?How long did you explore planets in ME1?More than 5 minutes?What made one planet different from the other? Other than planet having a "different skin" is there any real difference.



My only point remains this ME2 has linear path which you see more because Bioware imo cut out the unnecessary spaces from ME1. ME1 has linear path there was more space around but it was empty.ME1 and ME2 both don't have real exploration.



It comes down this for me,When somebody says they miss exploration i want to know what they are taking about because exploration in me1 means you found nothing but virtual dirt.You say miss the feel of large planets/areas from ME1 then i know what you are talking about.I don't need every planet to be filled with life and things but i expect bioware to do a better job of actually having thing do some planets.Then maybe in case of one or two planets that can actually support abundant life have a flesh out world/areas where you can really explore and find something more than virtual dirt.

[SithLordExarKun]

scyphozoa wrote...

ME2 sidemissions were very well designed, but had zero dialogue or story. In every mission you are basically stepping over the corpses of the people who were there before you and then shutting off their distress signal.

^ Yes, while i prefer ME2 side missions(N7), this is one flaw without doubt. Some dialogue and dialouge choices would have been nice.

[Brako Shepard]

lol I knew it wouldn't be long before someone was posting the definition of the word 'Explore'. It's all groovy though.



But seriously. Mass Effect 2 is a huge improvement over the first, and its a shame people are refusing to leave the past and not give Mass Effect 2 the credit it deserves. Don't get me wrong, I am really enjoying playing through the original Mass Effect. But there is a heck of a lot of repatition when compared to Mass Effect 2. But this is probably just a case of one game being more upto date than the other. Wait until Mass Effect 3 is released, and we will no doubt posting how dated and repetative Mass Effect 2 feels to the new release.



Some games can be like movies that you seen when you were a kid. Try them again many years later, and it can actually dampen those fond memories you had so many of. Time and technology while a blessing, can actually ruin alot of good memories when you try going back. It's even worse in the games industry as it progresses so quickly.

[MajesticJazz]

Wow! I really did not believe this thread would take off. Lets keep up the discussion!

[Dick Delaware]

I agree with pretty much everything that FlyingWalrus wrote. He's (I'm pretty sure it's a "he") articulate and lays his points out in a straightforward (well... blunt) manner.

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...

Nobody wants to be railroaded in space.

Speak for yourself. I'd have been fine if the bulk of the UNC missions had been yanked from ME1. Shepard's got no business getting involved in most of that stuff.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AlanC9 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Nobody wants to be railroaded in space.

Speak for yourself. I'd have been fine if the bulk of the UNC missions had been yanked from ME1. Shepard's got no business getting involved in most of that stuff.

Most of them were optional. You didn't have to do those missions. Hackett just asked you to do them. That's all. If you went out exploring the planets you could find others on your own. Very handy if you wanted to level up.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 avril 2010 - 04:26 .

[Vena_86]

Exploration is the one thing that Mass Effect could do better and more interesting then most other games. I doubt that the franchise will ever achieve the shooter intensity of GoW(2) or a looting system as compelling as in Borderlands or the party-depth of Baldurs Gate 2/Dragon Age. The fact that Mass Effect(2) gives you a ship with which you could explore the galaxy gives the franchise an edge over any other game.



This is basicly my biggest problem with Mass Effect and specially ME 2. BioWare tries so hard to do what others are already doing or what they did them selfs in other games instead of focusing more on the unique potential of this franchise.

[AltiusO83]

SithLordExarKun and Brako Shepard, thanks for responding. Wall of text:
 
     But I am very saddened by how hostile many of you are behaving, how so many of you are condemning one of the best damn games out there. You all have a varren up your asses about the exploration in ME2 being "unsatisfying" and "disappointing". Now, I don't know what planet you come from, but here on Earth, Mass Effect was NEVER advertised to be a game that focuses on exploration. Exploration has never been the selling point of the game; cinematics, interactive dialogue, and decision-making have been the central points of the ME series for as long as I can even remember. So why do you expect so much in terms of exploration? You are obviously wanting too much or are confusing Mass Effect with some other game. Exploration has not once been the focus of the game, so there is no logic in expecting so much of it.

      On top of that, you all reference back to ME1's "amazing" exploration. Yet again: just go back and play through both games all over again. You will prove yourselves wrong. I've played ME1 seven times already (over 200 hours) and ME2 four times already (about 200 hours). I know damn well the differences in the exploration in both games by now. Some of Mass Effect's sidequests actually featured dialogue, yes, and the ones that were tied in with your personal history were great, but as I said, they were repetitive in practically every aspect: charge into the bunker/module/mine, kill some **** (possibly pick up something), and get out of there. That was all there was to it.

       ME2's sidequest lack the dialogue and, unfortunately, aren't at all affected by the player's previous choices or background, but they are each unique. There are different enemies, situations, and locations involved in each one. There is no more rushing into the plastic bunker filled with morons shouting "ENEMIES EVERYWHERE" and "I WILL DESTROY YOU"; instead, you battle a wide range of enemies such as geth and mercs in unique landscapes.
        ME1 really did have more to do, I agree; however everything was just so dull and repetitive with the bunkers and the same hilly, barren planets with different textures. ME2's sidequests are not found nor completed by driving around on some bumpy-ass dead planet, but, rather, by actually "exploring" space and searching planets. In addition to that, each sidequest sacrificed dialogue for the sake of variety and uniqueness. If you really see exploration as driving around on a rocky, mountainous planet towards pre-marked locations to infiltrate plastered compounds, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

     Finally, I know a lot of you are crying about the small little "hub worlds" in ME2, namely the Citadel. I was once like you. I felt that Bioware was just slacking off, and I was pissed that the Citadel was so confined and small. Then, after playing through the game more, I realized that there is a justification for it. Whether it was Bioware's intention or not, ME2 makes (or should make) the player fell "disconnected" from the universe. The player is taken back into that familiar, beautiful universe that they have come to cherish, but there is something different; the player feels "disconnected". This "disconnection" is the feeling of being seperated and alone, a result of Shepard's demise. It doesn't make any sense for Shepard to die, be resurrected, and then go bouncing around the galaxy like nothing happened. Half the galaxy doesn't even believe your Shepard is alive anymore, and the few who do keep their distance from you because of you relationship with Cerberus, a pro-human extremist group that is widely hated and despised by Citadel society and the Alliance.
  
    This sense of "disconnection" is conveyed in many ways in ME2. For example, the Citadel is so unsatisfying and small, and it made you miss the old days in ME1. That is EXACTLY the point. It made you think back on how things used to be, just as your Shepard does. You are a dead Spectre working for an extremist black-ops organization -  of course you're not just going to jump back in the game and expect everything to be better. Bioware did a great job at putting you so close to, and yet so far away from, the people and places that you have come to love. You feel Shepard's sorrow and loneliness as Councilor Anderson and Liara are physically an arm's length away, but the emotional bond and trust between them and your Shepard has been damaged by your situation and you feel miles apart. You feel limited by the Citadel's accessibility - your most familiar place in the galaxy is shut out from you. The majority of Council space and the Alliance has given up on you. The Council itself has pushed you away and into the lawless Terminus Systems, caring little about what may happen to you.
   
      All those little missing things and "disappointing" aspects actually contribute to the greater purpose of the game  - to make you feel like you have been shut out and restrained by the majority of the galaxy. So of course you can't go chit-chatting on side missions. Of course you can't go drop by the Citadel and casually stroll around looking for side-quests. To everyone, you are a ghost. A phantom. You are the only remnant of yesterday's problems. If you look into this idea of "disconnection", it should all make more sense.

Modifié par AltiusO83, 25 avril 2010 - 06:25 .

[TJSolo]

finnithe wrote...

I counted them. It's like twenty+ for each game, if you include the really small ones that only lasted a few lines and the ones that you had the option of doing peacefully (I even included ME1's collection missions). 

Well I continue to add to this thread.
I counted and there are 17 non-combat missions. There were 6 or so missions that can only be done by doing a combat mission so they are not included.
Most of the non-combat missions were simple go get x, then bring it do the mission giver. Not much talking needed, no dialogue puzzles, and no non-combat missions which pose the possibility to avoid going on a killing spree.

Even if you do count the missions that can only be done by doing a combat mission the quantity is still larger in ME1
Quality > Quantity? Sure is.
The content of ME1 non-combat missions was stellar. ME1 does not have the visual fidelity of ME2 but the content of the side quests(choices,story, and immersion) shined from their ability for weaving a story. If being graphically awesome is the only measuring stick for side quests in ME2 then they are top notch, the thing is being graphically awesome is not enough.

This is where I fall. I like ME2 but the story telling uses more force to push me along, the game has less open areas leading for a feel that there is less exploration, and the emphasis on improving the combat and graphics seemed to put the need to have a cohesive story on the backburner.