179 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

AltiusO83 wrote...

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.

The game was advertised that you play going to world to world making decisions that would have a ripple effect. Going world to world sure as hell sounded like some kind of situation where exploration would play a role, large or not. Bioware during the making of the game and after launch never downplayed the interest they had with designing and implementing planets to be explored.  There is no single focus, it is a multi-layer creation of smaller foci in order to provide variance and depth to the product.

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.

Entirely subjective. I play ME1 a few times in the week  and others have mentioned that they still play ME1 as well, going back to play it is something already done. I have yet to prove myself "wrong" for prefering the way exploring was executed in the first game.
You want to bring up the argument of repition in video games? The go to mission, kill some stuff, leave mission formula is no more and no less followed in ME1 and ME2.  ME2 did not excel away from the formula in anyway.

 

     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.

What game are you playing. I am playing a game that has spawned memes such as "THIS WILL HURT YOU", "You will feel pain Shepard", and " I know you feel this, Shepard". ME2 is not the exception in repetion and original shouting. ME2 has mercs, bots, and bugs as fodder for Shepards gunsights, pretty much the same list from ME1. Also pre-fabs are meant to be similar to each other, if you doubt it  pay more attention to the pre-fabs on Horizon and Freedoms Progress. The bunkers are pre-fabs as well, Biowares take on the universe is that pre-fabs are cheap, modular, and similar in order to aid humanities rush to colonize.

 

     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.

ME1 has vehicle exploration while ME2 does not is what this says. All the other comments are just used to salt the fact ME1 as a feature ME2 is lacking. There are players that liked the Mako and there are players that liked(to an extent) the planets. There are even players that liked both. In terms of exploration driving around a hilly, rocky terrian only to enter compounds that have similar interiors is fun depending on the person, ask any archaeologist digging around China or Egypt.

    

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.

Saying people are crying on this matter pretty much shows the direction you intend to take the conversation. It also shows your mentality.

[AltiusO83]

TJSolo
Haha wow. I don't even know why I try to debate on forums anymore. This entire matter is subjective in the first place, and all Internet arguments are the same: the ignorant angry kid (me) slaps up something and the wise, intelligent veteran with the vocabulary skills (you) comes up and prawns him with diction and slander. I'll just leave you to stick around and offensively shove your opinion in other people's faces while I go talk elsewhere on the forums. And just one more thing:

In terms of exploration driving around a hilly, rocky terrian only to enter compounds that have similar interiors is fun depending on the person, ask any archaeologist digging around China or Egypt.

Archaeologists have nothing to do with anything. The majority of the structures in the game I was talking about are recently made artificial compounds and whatnot. I don't see what an archaeologist has to do with that or how it justifies why every single building or mine looks almost exactly the same on every uncharted world. But whatever.

[Kirabi]

I think this going to be my last post in this thread.

Mass Effect 1= 50 room house,with 5 rooms that are furnished
Mass Effect 2= 5 room house with 5 rooms that are furnished

Mass effect 1 has more rooms but those rooms really matter if they are nothing in them?

Modifié par Kirabi, 25 avril 2010 - 07:52 .

[TJSolo]

AltiusO83 wrote...
TJSolo
Haha wow. I don't even know why
I try to debate on forums anymore. This entire matter is subjective in
the first place, and all Internet arguments are the same: the ignorant
angry kid (me) slaps up something and the wise, intelligent veteran
with the vocabulary skills (you) comes up and prawns him with diction
and slander. I'll just leave you to stick around and offensively shove
your opinion in other people's faces while I go talk elsewhere on the
forums. And just one more thing:

Slander where? You using the word "crying" to describe others peoples opinion does show you mentality. It is not slandereous for me to mention it.
My opinions differ from you so they are offensive. Noted.

Archaeologists
have nothing to do with anything. The majority of the structures in
the game I was talking about are recently made artificial compounds and
whatnot. I don't see what an archaeologist has to do with that or how
it justifies why every single building or mine looks almost exactly the
same on every uncharted world. But whatever.

As I said, I value choices, story, and content over the visual cosemetic. This does not mean I want to play a visually subpar game that has rich story. 
I only
agreed with what others have said, using my own words. ME2 has awesome
graphics and there are unique visual feels to most side quests, but
they lack the depth of story and choices.

Modifié par TJSolo, 25 avril 2010 - 08:01 .

[yoda23]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Come to think of it, did ME2 have any true exploration elements to it?

As irritating as it was at times, ME1's Uncharted worlds did a great job of making the galaxy seem big and beyond our scopre with a sense of "There is still much to explore" going on. In ME2, the "uncharted worlds" were just linear combat mission levels with NO exploration to them. Even the Hammerhead missions were just linear maps.

Scanning the star systems for minerals wasnt very explorative because we didn't really EXPLORE anything.

Then there are the hub worlds which are very small and cramped compared to ME1. Example:

In Mass Effect 1's Noveria, it served as a hub and mission post. There was commerce as I can buy and SELL (What happened to being able to sell your unwanted items like ME1?). There was the little Analeas(sp?) investigation going on which could have been handled multiple ways. Then there was the actual Mission to peak 15 started off with nice vehicle combat, then eventually on foot.

In Mass Effect 1's Feros, we started off in the colony where there was commerce, side missions, then eventually the main mission which once again, had a great balance of foot/vehicle combat.

Feros/Ilos, again, nice balance between vehicle and foot combat. By the time you leave these planets, of course you didnt see the whole planet, but you left with the sense that you saw a lot.

ME2's Hub/Mission worlds are not the same. You can tell how Bioware really trimmed down the game to core combat mechanics to appeal to that Gears of War type player. When I left the Citadel, Omega, Illium, Tuchanka(sp?) I had this feeling of (That was it?)

It is sad when Taris of KOTOR1 and Nar Shadar of KOTOR2 felt more expansive than Illium in ME2. Even Dantooine and the Golden City place in Jade Empire had a nice feel of depth and exploration.

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

+1 - I too am very disappointed by the lack of exploration in ME2 vs ME1. BIOEA dumbed down this aspect of the game way, WAY, too much. I think you are also correct regarding commerce, there really is none in ME2. The lack of depth is quite disappointing to say the least. Once I have completed these linear missions 2 or 3 times there really is no reason to revisit the game any longer. I replayed ME1 late last year and thoroughly enjoyed it after ~10 or so play-throughs. With ME2, not so much...

[KotOREffecT]

AltiusO83 wrote...


     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.

 
You just basically summoned up the whole darker feeling that ME 2 conveyed. In a sense, ME 2 really is the dark second act. Esp with that scene on Horizon, with Ash. But afterwards, you do get a letter of hope, and at the end, you look at your Ash pic before you embark on the suicide mission, very fitting I thought.

And it did feel like everybody you once knew or cared for, like Anderson, tryed to push you away. Which works out perfectly for someone like TIM, who can now get a better hold on Shep and introduce him to the Cerberus ways of handling business.

[finnithe]

Can we at least agree that the side quests in ME2 should be more like KOTOR's? Something like Sunry's trial maybe or the Genoharadan quests?

[Brako Shepard]

Personally I thought the N7 missions in Mass Effect 2 were much better than the original.



Whilst the original did have some great N7 style missions. They were all too identical. Mass Effect improved upon them by adding a different location and look for each mission. Some were amazing, some could have done with a bit more thrown in. But overall I think they were a better advancment over the previous Mass Effect.

[EAWare_amirite]

The difference and improvement in the n7 missions were mostly visual. ME1 still has better integration and content in the UNC missions.

I can agree ME2s sidequests would benefit from a little KOTOR but then again I think ME1s sidequests were closer to KOTOR.

[KotOREffecT]

finnithe wrote...

Can we at least agree that the side quests in ME2 should be more like KOTOR's? Something like Sunry's trial maybe or the Genoharadan quests?

KotOR had the best sidequests hands down.

[KitsuneRommel]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

"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.

Quite funny considering how often people curse in the game (especially Jack). Shouldn't you be complaining about having those removed?

[MajesticJazz]

Brako Shepard wrote...

Personally I thought the N7 missions in Mass Effect 2 were much better than the original.

Whilst the original did have some great N7 style missions. They were all too identical. Mass Effect improved upon them by adding a different location and look for each mission. Some were amazing, some could have done with a bit more thrown in. But overall I think they were a better advancment over the previous Mass Effect.

The only thing that are great about ME2 N7 missions is the enviornment. In the ME2 N7 missions, no location is the exact same versus ME1 UNC's missions where all the locations were like a copy and paste job.

However, the ME1 UNC missions did a better job of presenting a story with dialog and characters. Think of the Helena Blake or Major Kyle missions. Yes the enviornments were boring but there was a story behind the missions and a sense of accomplishment after you completed them. It was also always great to chat with Admiral Hackett after the missions and to exchange dialog with him, that was great. THIS was missing from ME2's N7 missions where the enviornments were unique, but there were really no dialog, no characters....just enter a base and kill everyone.

Also there were a lot of missions that dealt with stuff going on within the ME universe. In ME2, it is all about killing mercs (Blue Suns, Blood Pack, or even Mechs).

It was clear that they wanted this game to appeal to the Halo/Gears of War shooter fan instead of the Baulder's Gate/KOTOR RPG fan.

[OneDrunkMonk]

I'm glad exploration was essentially cut down in ME2. Your mission is not to casually explore the universe for diverse fauna, hot alien chicks and loot. Shepard has taken the task of saving all sentient life from the Reaper invasion. There is no time to go on a general exploration of the galaxy for kicks n giggles. ME1 lost focus with an attempt of exploration (Turian insignias...Whoop-tee-doo). ME2 kept things on track.

[finnithe]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

Personally I thought the N7 missions in Mass Effect 2 were much better than the original.

Whilst the original did have some great N7 style missions. They were all too identical. Mass Effect improved upon them by adding a different location and look for each mission. Some were amazing, some could have done with a bit more thrown in. But overall I think they were a better advancment over the previous Mass Effect.

Perhaps they were better, they weren't really that good. Most of the side quests were resolved by shooting through a few rooms, and then reading a text message to complete the mission, or one paragon/renegade decision to finish it. I like the Major Kyle mission though.

The only thing that are great about ME2 N7 missions is the enviornment. In the ME2 N7 missions, no location is the exact same versus ME1 UNC's missions where all the locations were like a copy and paste job.

However, the ME1 UNC missions did a better job of presenting a story with dialog and characters. Think of the Helena Blake or Major Kyle missions. Yes the enviornments were boring but there was a story behind the missions and a sense of accomplishment after you completed them. It was also always great to chat with Admiral Hackett after the missions and to exchange dialog with him, that was great. THIS was missing from ME2's N7 missions where the enviornments were unique, but there were really no dialog, no characters....just enter a base and kill everyone.

Also there were a lot of missions that dealt with stuff going on within the ME universe. In ME2, it is all about killing mercs (Blue Suns, Blood Pack, or even Mechs).

It was clear that they wanted this game to appeal to the Halo/Gears of War shooter fan instead of the Baulder's Gate/KOTOR RPG fan.

[ShakeZoohla]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

I'm glad exploration was essentially cut down in ME2. Your mission is not to casually explore the universe for diverse fauna, hot alien chicks and loot. Shepard has taken the task of saving all sentient life from the Reaper invasion. There is no time to go on a general exploration of the galaxy for kicks n giggles. ME1 lost focus with an attempt of exploration (Turian insignias...Whoop-tee-doo). ME2 kept things on track.

I fail to see how ME2 is more on track.  There are still side-missions completely unrelated to the Reapers.  ME2 just replaces euphoric exploration with shooting waves upon waves of screaming mercs.

[FlyingWalrus]

TJSolo wrote...

Explore better.

Sorry, your point is nonexistent. There's nothing out there but unrefined omni-gel, unrewarding MacGuffins, and the odd Thresher Maw. The first time I played ME1, I systematically covered each planet's surface top-to-bottom, left-to-right. You can't explore any better than that.

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.

Wrong again. Maybe if you had taken the time to parse that statement instead of go for the red herring yourself, you would realize that I am comparing the emptiness in the roving worlds with the emptiness in ME2's worlds. I'm saying neither is really richer than the other; ME2 just cuts out the illusion, and, frankly, I can deal with the honesty of that, and prefer it.

FlyingWalrus says...

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 here is another red herring, since you're so fond of the term. I left my original quote in just to show the audience what I mean. The point that I articulated in this, that you so chose to ignore, is that this chapter of the whole story doesn't take place in the relative safety of Citadel Space and the Attican Traverse that ME1 took place in. You're mingling with Batarians and criminal gangs; diplomacy is almost certainly not an option. Note that I did say that Shepard was "a little unique" in the regard that he's not only a fighting man (or woman), but he can use other means to resolve a tense situation. He can't really do that unless he's given the chance by the people he's confronting, though!

Unless you're one of those people who thinks we can negotiate with terrorists.

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.

I came in here to disagree. Some things are subjective, others are not. Saying that you prefer ME1's engine (I forget which version of UE it was) to ME2's is like saying you prefer Windows ME to Windows 7. Okay, man, that's your preference, but don't try to say that the old one was better.

I'm saying that the combat mechanics are much better in ME2 because they are. It's not significantly different from ME1; rather, it's like an extra layer of polish. Weapon accuracy is linked to the weapon itself now. Firing the gun and meleeing are now separate commands. How many of you out there who play Vanguards, in ME1, wished for that to be the case?

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

Only responses to others, my friend.

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.

Wrong again. I admitted to the opposite, actually. What I insist on doing is disagreeing with erroneous statements. One of your stances is that ME2 sacrificed "substance" for "pew pew pew." I'm inclined to agree, to a point, but the way you present your arguments, you make it seem like that's all there is in ME2. Tali, Jack's, Garrus', and Thane's loyalty missions all had some mixture of violent and non-violent activities. Actually, Thane's had no required violence whatsoever!

It's arguments like that that I take issue with: blatantly misrepresentation. Hyperbolic complaining. I'm only singling you out because you're the one I'm responding to at this instance, so don't take it personally.

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.

My post was an indictment on what I feel are unfounded complaints, in addition to my dissent towards said complaints. In summary, those who feel that exploration was taken out of ME2 entirely must realize that there was never that much exploration in ME1 to begin with. You had a destination before you landed most of the time, and if you landed on some worlds before you had received a mission objective, there would be nothing there. It's a large corridor that you can revisit as many times as you wish.

As some have already brought up, the fact that you directly guide the Normandy around the planets, stars and clusters in the galaxy now replaces the planetside mechanic somewhat. Whichever one of those you prefer is, of course, your taste. I thought it was annoying, personally; credits are actually valuable because they are limited in ME2, and I'd rather not drop them on replenishing the SR-2's deuterium supply.

To suggest that graphics and action took precedence over story is perhaps the biggest logical fallacy one can make. You must realize that no one person is going to have much overlap with another aspect of the game. Gameplay, story, world design, and the like are all managed by separate teams. What the graphics design or gameplay team did had absolutely no bearing on what the scenario makers or storywriters did.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 26 avril 2010 - 01:03 .

[FlyingWalrus]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

[quote]FlyingWalrus wrote...

[quote]Then admittedly people are commenting about the game aspects they view as wrinkles.[/quote]
And that's fine. I reserve the right to see some of these comments as facetious and overwrought.[/quote]
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:

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote][/quote]
Haha. I'm sorry, but I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. Last I checked, wording my arguments strongly isn't against the rules of this forum. I'm afraid you'll just have to grow thicker skin.

I thought the, "Son, I am disappoint," was an obvious giveaway to the jocular nature of the words that come after that, but sometimes I give BioWare fans too much credit.

[Dick Delaware]

ShakeZoohla wrote...
I fail to see how ME2 is more on track.  There are still side-missions completely unrelated to the Reapers.  ME2 just replaces euphoric exploration with shooting waves upon waves of screaming mercs.

I felt many things while exloring in ME1 - euphoria was not one of them. You were shooting waves of screaming mercs in ME1 as well, but here at least you don't get a ten minute commute to copy-and-paste bunker #523.

It's more on-track in that the sidequests of ME2 take up less of your time and are more things that you can do "on your way", so to speak. That is, they can be solved within the hub that they're located.

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...
The game was advertised that you play going to world to world making decisions that would have a ripple effect. Going world to world sure as hell sounded like some kind of situation where exploration would play a role, large or not.

Does it? I didn't see any reason to assume that. 

[sammcl]

Arguing which side missions are better, N7 or UNC is pretty pointless. Both are flawed, UNC had better stories and integration into the ME world, but the combat was repetitive. N7 has weak stories communicated through datapads or the anomaly blurb before landing, but the combat was always unique. Neither is good and which is "best" is going to depend on how heavily people weigh combat against story for side missions.

Some people will like that the story has no real connection to the main story because they truly feel like side missions now, something you can really ignore. Even though the ME1 missions were technically side missions, the dialogue seemed to hint that it was something we would see consequences for in ME2. I don't think we're going to see consequences for shutting down an infected production line or numerous merc bases. Perhaps the cerberus intel and missile launch mission will have consequences in ME3, the others, not so much. Then again, some people would prefer side missions to still have consequences carried over to ME3.

I'm one for keeping the unique combat environments but adding story elements and dialogue like ME1's missions. Unfortunately if ME3 is indeed the last in this story arc, there's not really going to be any long term consequences for side missions in ME3 because there's no game to carry them over to. Even so, I'd like to see stronger story elements in ME3 side missions

Edit: Oh, yeah, don't read too much into advertising, while "travel from world to world..." can imply exploration it's technically true, we do do travel from world to world. Ads are there to sell the game not to accurately represent it, while there are laws against misrepresentation in advertising, there are loopholes like this, the same way all these anti aging products make your skin "feel younger" rather than "look younger." If you want to know what a game's really like, read reviews, while they can be opinionated they're much more reliable than advertising. It's quite possible the advertising department at bioware hasn't even played ME2 from start to finish.

Modifié par sammcl, 26 avril 2010 - 02:51 .

[TJSolo]

[quote]FlyingWalrus wrote...

Sorry, your point is nonexistent. There's nothing out there but unrefined omni-gel, unrewarding MacGuffins, and the odd Thresher Maw. The first time I played ME1, I systematically covered each planet's surface top-to-bottom, left-to-right. You can't explore any better than that.[/quote]
I explored better.
I found more.
[quote]
Wrong again. Maybe if you had taken the time to parse that statement instead of go for the red herring yourself, you would realize that I am comparing the emptiness in the roving worlds with the emptiness in ME2's worlds. I'm saying neither is really richer than the other; ME2 just cuts out the illusion, and, frankly, I can deal with the honesty of that, and prefer it.[/quote]
You were not clear in your statement as to which game you meant and then went to prove you point by using an example of emptiness from ME2. You poorly explained it, leading to misinterpretation.
The honesty you prefer is more reflective of prior generation games. The industry is on the path of adding more types of depth into the general game beyond the basic concept of combat.

[quote][quote][quote]FlyingWalrus says...
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
And here is another red herring, since you're so fond of the term. I left my original quote in just to show the audience what I mean. The point that I articulated in this, that you so chose to ignore, is that this chapter of the whole story doesn't take place in the relative safety of Citadel Space and the Attican Traverse that ME1 took place in. You're mingling with Batarians and criminal gangs; diplomacy is almost certainly not an option. Note that I did say that Shepard was "a little unique" in the regard that he's not only a fighting man (or woman), but he can use other means to resolve a tense situation. He can't really do that unless he's given the chance by the people he's confronting, though![/quote]
Red herring about the point Shepard is part diplomat and an intergalatic incident waiting to happen? No, actually the overall view of Shepard was taken from a conversation Shepard has after returning to the Citadel in ME2. Long story short, Shepard is more than a soldier and does more than shoot things.

[quote]Unless you're one of those people who thinks we can negotiate with terrorists. [/quote]
Depends if you really played ME1 or not.

[quote]I came in here to disagree. Some things are subjective, others are not. Saying that you prefer ME1's engine (I forget which version of UE it was) to ME2's is like saying you prefer Windows ME to Windows 7. Okay, man, that's your preference, but don't try to say that the old one was better.[/quote]
More like preferring XP to Vista seeing the age gap between the OSs and games were 3 years not 10 like your bad comparision or ME to Win7.
Yet then again the word is preference, which may or may not be based purely on technical fact but just personal opinion.

[quote]I'm saying that the combat mechanics are much better in ME2 because they are. It's not significantly different from ME1; rather, it's like an extra layer of polish. Weapon accuracy is linked to the weapon itself now. Firing the gun and meleeing are now separate commands. How many of you out there who play Vanguards, in ME1, wished for that to be the case?[/quote]
You can say the mechanics are much better but it is still an opinion and varies from person to person.


[quote]Wrong again. I admitted to the opposite, actually. What I insist on doing is disagreeing with erroneous statements. One of your stances is that ME2 sacrificed "substance" for "pew pew pew." I'm inclined to agree, to a point, but the way you present your arguments, you make it seem like that's all there is in ME2. Tali, Jack's, Garrus', and Thane's loyalty missions all had some mixture of violent and non-violent activities. Actually, Thane's had no required violence whatsoever![/quote]
What is your obsession with trying to prove opinions wrong. You will never be able to do it, FYI.
You can fail at stating things I have not stating more please. I have not now or ever stated that ME2 does not have any non-violent missions. Making up a false comment and then defeating it, bravo.

[quote]It's arguments like that that I take issue with: blatantly misrepresentation. Hyperbolic complaining. I'm only singling you out because you're the one I'm responding to at this instance, so don't take it personally.[/quote]
What argument? You mean the one you made up out of thin air just to defeat, Don Quijote.


[quote]To suggest that graphics and action took precedence over story is perhaps the biggest logical fallacy one can make. You must realize that no one person is going to have much overlap with another aspect of the game. Gameplay, story, world design, and the like are all managed by separate teams. What the graphics design or gameplay team did had absolutely no bearing on what the scenario makers or storywriters did.
[/quote]
Not a fallacy, observation. That ME2 improved on the graphics and dedicated more time than usual on revamping the combat(read Christina Normans prezi) and that other elements are not as strong as before. You can say they are all different teams but what one team did effected another team.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
The game was advertised that you play going to world to world making decisions that would have a ripple effect. Going world to world sure as hell sounded like some kind of situation where exploration would play a role, large or not.

Does it? I didn't see any reason to assume that. 

Not an assumption about exploration. The talk about ME1 was always around freedom of choices and exploration combined with consequences.



One of the oldest vids I could find. While some of what Casey Hudson says did not make it into the game, exploration and travel are still ideas you will in find other talks with Casey Hudson.

Modifié par TJSolo, 26 avril 2010 - 03:11 .

[ShakeZoohla]

Dick Delaware wrote...

ShakeZoohla wrote...
I fail to see how ME2 is more on track.  There are still side-missions completely unrelated to the Reapers.  ME2 just replaces euphoric exploration with shooting waves upon waves of screaming mercs.

I felt many things while exloring in ME1 - euphoria was not one of them. You were shooting waves of screaming mercs in ME1 as well, but here at least you don't get a ten minute commute to copy-and-paste bunker #523.

It's more on-track in that the sidequests of ME2 take up less of your time and are more things that you can do "on your way", so to speak. That is, they can be solved within the hub that they're located.

Side missions being able to be solved within the hub that they are located is kind of the antithesis of exploration.  Removing the process of actually driving to the mission just makes the galaxy map seem more like a fancy level-select menu, and less like a part of your ship.  It disconnects the experience.

[ShakeZoohla]

TJSolo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
The game was advertised that you play going to world to world making decisions that would have a ripple effect. Going world to world sure as hell sounded like some kind of situation where exploration would play a role, large or not.

Does it? I didn't see any reason to assume that. 

Not an assumption about exploration. The talk about ME1 was always around freedom of choices and exploration combined with consequences.



One of the oldest vids I could find. While some of what Casey Hudson says did not make it into the game, exploration and travel are still ideas you will in find other talks with Casey Hudson.

Im pretty sure it says something like "explore uncharted worlds" on the back of the game case.

[Icinix]

My exploration just discovered Kaidan's picture on Anderson's desk.



Fifth playthrough and I only just found it. Crazy.



I keep finding little things throughout the game that could be related to each other. Allowing all kinds of little conspiracy theories throughout the Mass Effect universe. It's great. However...



It's the seamless nature and feel of the first Mass Effect 1 I think is lacking. That seamless feeling came from the ability to explore and go pretty much anywhere.

Mass Effect 2 gives you compartmentalised locations, separated by loading screens. Although those segments are very well done, it loses that open feeling. I believe that if Mass Effect 2 didn't segregate all of those locations, and allowed seamless transitions if would feel much bigger.



Something like the hotlabs from ME1 is a good example of the seamless level exploration. There were so many rooms to go into, you could double back and places changed from conversation / exploration areas to combat areas, with the occasional NPCs there as well, involved in the combat.

Recruitment / Loyalty missions in ME2 however, move forward and keep going. Like an IKEA store, you just follow the arrows until the end. They are beautifully done and awesome fun, but are closer to a level in Doom than feeling like part of a living breathing world.