2501 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecael]

Barquiel wrote...

Ecael wrote...

You'll notice that people who defend ME2 in comparison to ME1 can't and won't call the other side fanboys/fangirls of Mass Effect or BioWare, because they're both Mass Effect games made by BioWare. Thus, it's extremely ironic to accuse someone of this on a BioWare forum, especially if you've posted there for years.

That wasn't my point, I think.

Let's say someone prefers ME1, because...
- a lack of "RPG elements" in ME2 (exploration, inventory)
- his/her favorite character gets assassinated (not Nassana)
- a better story in ME1
- better side missions in ME1
etc.
It's 2 and 3 for me and I was just surprised that I am "wrong".

I don't know what the fanboy discussion has to do with it. ME2 isn't exactly Dink's favorite Bioware game, I think everyone here knows it^_^
He's one side of the spectrum, "darknoon" and "Sir Ulrich"  (and his choice of words wasn't better) the other side.

-There wasn't any exploration in Mass Effect 1 - in fact, it's just as linear as Mass Effect 2. There simply isn't as much empty space as there was in Mass Effect 1. The inventory system became a huge mess after a while, but I wouldn't be surprised (or disappointed) if it came back in some simplified form for Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 2 did a good job at not having the player stare at a menu screen micromanaging items for every squadmate. Games like Final Fantasy, on the other hand, still haven't learned that RPGs aren't defined by the number of menu options.

-If game preference is dependent on a favorite character, then it's not really game preference - it's character preference. The only two entities in the Mass Effect universe that matter are:

1. Shepard
2. The Reapers

Everyone else could and should die (including the second thing on that list), and it still wouldn't affect the main plot in the end.

-Mass Effect 1 was much easier to work with for the writers because of two things:

1. It was designed as a standalone game with a standalone plot
2. The consequences of Shepard's actions don't have to be dealt with at all

Mass Effect 2, being the second game in the trilogy, doesn't get the luxury of either of those. Your actions in Mass Effect 1 had no bearing on the game itself, being a game of choices and no consequences. The writers pushed all the plot flags to matter in Mass Effect 3, because that game is all consequences.

As for the word "standalone", Mass Effect 1 has a standalone plot: Even if BioWare decided never to return to the Mass Effect universe, the plot would hold itself up by having a central villain that you dispose of by the end of the game. It is also not reliant on any game before it to purchase. Mass Effect 2 had to be designed as a standalone game (so it wouldn't be an expansion pack of sorts) but the plot had to be continued into the next game - and therefore can't be standalone.

As a result, a "fringe threat" was introduced to have Shepard recruit as many characters as possible. Why? Perhaps to get character recruitment out of the way so the main focus in Mass Effect 3 can be the Reapers and not walking around the Citadel picking up strangers (Mass Effect 1) or walking around planets picking up strangers (Mass Effect 2). Looking at it that way, Mass Effect 2 is a good lead-in to Mass Effect 3.

-The quality of side missions in Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 is disputable, but I'd still prefer Mass Effect 2 for the sole reason that at least each mission looks different. I've played both ME1 and ME2 7 times over and it's hard to keep track of which side quests I've done in ME1 because everything is either:

1. The same exact freighter
2. The same exact science facility
3. The same exact two-floor warehouse
4. The same exact mine

Mass Effect 2's side missions have barely any dialogue, but it's still "Cerberus is telling you to go here" as opposed to "Admiral Hackett is telling you to go here". The DLC will continuously improve Mass Effect 2 with more varied side missions, however.

In conclusion, I don't understand all the negativity towards BioWare when a lot of the core elements of Mass Effect were actually preserved for the sake of the trilogy. I thought Mass Effect 1 was the greatest single-player game I've ever played until I played Mass Effect 2.

Complaining about how BioWare can't do their jobs correctly (side note: BioWare had 12 writers working on Mass Effect 2!) doesn't get the argument anywhere.

...I should go.

jlb524 wrote...

ME2 and ME1 have many differences, besides the role of a certain blue squad mate. However, preferring ME2 to ME1 seems to make you a loyal BW and ME fan. Preferring ME1 to ME2 seems to make you a butthurt whiner who's just upset Liara isn't in the game.

Makes tons of sense.

The exclusion of one character for a major role in a sequel shouldn't have to sour the entire experience - unless that character is Commander Shepard.

Modifié par Ecael, 14 mai 2010 - 06:49 .

[ramdog7]

jade empire and KOTOR had little exploration as well

[Mystranna Kelteel]

So, everyone who doesn't like ME2's theme is a troll now? XD

Well, excuse me for not liking micro-missions with a damned "Mission Complete!!" screen that insults my intelligence. Do I really need to be reminded what the mission was about or how much iridium I picked up along the way? What am I, 5?
I miss the times when I could land on a planet, do something small, and leave with the possibility of returning. Say what you will about the repetitiveness of the ME1 UNC missions, but at least there was freedom in exploration. Same with most of the plot missions. There was very little of this "Woops, mission's done, let's warp back to the Normandy because people couldn't possibly want to explore."

But more to the point, let's talk about UNC: Geth Incursions, I mean UNC: Rogue VI, I mean the N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter to N7: Abandoned Research Facility to N7: Hahne Kedar Facility chain, I mean stopping Saren, GAH! Sorry, Overlord. Yeah, that's what they're calling it this time.
It sounds SO MUCH MORE FUN THAN ALL THOSE OTHER TIMES WE DID THIS!! 
This is gonna totally RAWK! There's gonna be conversations! Maybe. But we know there's gonna be shooting! OMG I LOVE SHOOTING!! Especially shooting mindless robots who are only there because they're programmed to be there! Now that's compelling gameplay! Shooting animated scrap metal with the sole intention of getting to their leader and stopping him. Now that's fun. And I can't wait for the mission complete screen to pop and tell me how much iridium I picked up, what weapons I found, and how much money I nabbed because It's all so confusing going around tapping the A button so much. :happy:

Then I can magically warp back to the Normandy, go to my cabin, and press A on my new nick-nack decoration that will probably emit a garble of tech language for a second. Gonna be good times, I swear.

*insert snarky ME2 screenshot meme here*

[jlb524]

Ecael wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

ME2 and ME1 have many differences, besides the role of a certain blue squad mate. However, preferring ME2 to ME1 seems to make you a loyal BW and ME fan. Preferring ME1 to ME2 seems to make you a butthurt whiner who's just upset Liara isn't in the game.

Makes tons of sense.

The exclusion of one character for a major role in a sequel shouldn't have to sour the entire experience - unless that character is Commander Shepard.

When did I say that?

[Ecael]

jlb524 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

ME2 and ME1 have many differences, besides the role of a certain blue squad mate. However, preferring ME2 to ME1 seems to make you a loyal BW and ME fan. Preferring ME1 to ME2 seems to make you a butthurt whiner who's just upset Liara isn't in the game.

Makes tons of sense.

The exclusion of one character for a major role in a sequel shouldn't have to sour the entire experience - unless that character is Commander Shepard.

When did I say that?

I'm not referring to you specifically (although you did bring it up), but what I meant was just because one's favorite character isn't in Mass Effect 2 doesn't mean that every other aspect of the game should be criticized.

[ThisIsMadness91]

I cannot say I do not enjoy ME2 at all. On the contrary, there are lots of things in it I like. But I still prefer ME1, and not just because Liara was a primary character in it. There are parts of ME2 that make it better than ME1, and parts that make it worse.

On topic, while I'm still not excited about Overlord, I will still buy it and check it out, at least. I just hope that I don't get called a troll/disloyal fan if I decide I don't like it.

Modifié par ThisIsMadness91, 14 mai 2010 - 06:58 .

[jlb524]

Ecael wrote...

I'm not referring to you specifically (although you did bring it up), but what I meant was just because one's favorite character isn't in Mass Effect 2 doesn't mean that every other aspect of the game should be criticized.

So, shouldn't ME2 be criticized then?  You presume everyone that prefers ME1 to ME2 does so only b/c their fave ME1 character isn't in the game.  There are people that criticize it and do not necessarily care one way or the other for any of the ME1 characters.  There are people that criticize it and do have a favorite character from ME1 (that's not Tali or Garrus)...why assume they criticize it for that reason alone?

[morrie23]

Ecael wrote...

The exclusion of one character for a major role in a sequel shouldn't have to sour the entire experience - unless that character is Commander Shepard.

Some would say Shepard was excluded, replaced with a doppelganger with the emotional range of a baked potato.

[Ecael]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

So, everyone who doesn't like ME2's theme is a troll now? XD

Well, excuse me for not liking micro-missions with a damned "Mission Complete!!" screen that insults my intelligence. Do I really need to be reminded what the mission was about or how much iridium I picked up along the way? What am I, 5?
I miss the times when I could land on a planet, do something small, and leave with the possibility of returning. Say what you will about the repetitiveness of the ME1 UNC missions, but at least there was freedom in exploration. Same with most of the plot missions. There was very little of this "Woops, mission's done, let's warp back to the Normandy because people couldn't possibly want to explore."

There was only the illusion of exploration. As I mentioned, Mass Effect 1 used the same four prefabricated buildings and a variable terrain generator for every single side planet. Only the sky looked drastically different on some of the planets.

The mission complete screen is there to prevent you from having to run back the same way you came from (this is not exploration either, because Shepard already went through it the first time!). Otherwise, Mass Effect 1 was just a straight line from the Mako drop off point to the mission objective.

But more to the point, let's talk about UNC: Geth Incursions, I mean UNC: Rogue VI, I mean the N7: Wrecked Merchant Freighter to N7: Abandoned Research Facility to N7: Hahne Kedar Facility chain, I mean stopping Saren, GAH! Sorry, Overlord. Yeah, that's what they're calling it this time.

It's difficult to compare a DLC that hasn't been released yet.

It sounds SO MUCH MORE FUN THAN ALL THOSE OTHER TIMES WE DID THIS!! 
This is gonna totally RAWK! There's gonna be conversations! Maybe. But we know there's gonna be shooting! OMG I LOVE SHOOTING!! Especially shooting mindless robots who are only there because they're programmed to be there! Now that's compelling gameplay! Shooting animated scrap metal with the sole intention of getting to their leader and stopping him. Now that's fun.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are based on dialogue and shooting people who don't have much reason to be there? Why do people need to keep informing others of this?

And I can't wait for the mission complete screen to pop and tell me how much iridium I picked up, what weapons I found, and how much money I nabbed because It's all so confusing going around tapping the A button so much. :happy:

And I can't wait for the inventory screen to pop up telling me that I need to omni-gel again because I'm reaching the 150 item limit. The information is there to help you, not to insult you.

Then I can magically warp back to the Normandy, go to my cabin, and press A on my new nick-nack decoration that will probably emit a garble of tech language for a second. Gonna be good times, I swear.

If you're really complaining about things like this, then you're not playing the wrong game, you're playing the wrong trilogy.

*insert snarky ME2 screenshot meme here*

[Ecael]

jlb524 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

I'm not referring to you specifically (although you did bring it up), but what I meant was just because one's favorite character isn't in Mass Effect 2 doesn't mean that every other aspect of the game should be criticized.

So, shouldn't ME2 be criticized then?  You presume everyone that prefers ME1 to ME2 does so only b/c their fave ME1 character isn't in the game.  There are people that criticize it and do not necessarily care one way or the other for any of the ME1 characters.  There are people that criticize it and do have a favorite character from ME1 (that's not Tali or Garrus)...why assume they criticize it for that reason alone?

Well, it doesn't really help when a lot of the people who criticize the Mass Effect 2 have Liara avatars and signatures, does it?

:happy:

[jlb524]

Ecael wrote...

Well, it doesn't really help when a lot of the people who criticize the Mass Effect 2 have Liara avatars and signatures, does it?

:happy:

And?  You don't like Liara fans or something?  Lots of people without Liara avatars/sigs criticize the game as well.

[Barquiel]

jlb524 wrote...

So, shouldn't ME2 be criticized then?

NO!

Liara avatar ...your opinion is invalid
sorry

[Jack Package]

I don't get it why everyone compares the two games when one is criticised! Person A says: "I prefer the story of ME 1, the story in ME 2 sucks." Then person B jumps is and replies: "But the gameplay in ME 1 was stupid, and the sidemission were much better and so on bla bla blah...". What's the point with these replies?! Does it make the story of ME2 better?? No. It is of no importance at all how good the gameplay of ME1 was when the story of ME 2 is considered. (Except person A explicitly draws a comparison of the games as a whole with all the aspects).

Edit: Overlord, sounds interesting, if it's 8$ then it should cost about 1,20€, a good price. Well IF I got a working computer up to then I'll get it.

Modifié par Jack Package, 14 mai 2010 - 07:32 .

[jlb524]

Barquiel wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

So, shouldn't ME2 be criticized then?

NO!

Liara avatar ...your opinion is invalid
sorry

Wait, you don't have a Liara avatar and you do criticize the game...me haz a confusion!

[Ecael]

IndianaChrisN7 wrote...

 One of the big criticisms I see of ME2 is that the story is inferior to ME1's. What? There was nothing special about ME1's story. It featured the same exact fetch quest that featured in KOTOR: go to different planets to pick up a piece of information that leads you to the lost planet of the extinct race and their ancient technology.

And to add to that, Bioware uses the same exact device twice to give you the information: an ancient alien species that communicates through asari and that has the special piece of information you need (thorian and rachni). They didn't have the energy to think of something else I guess.

Add to that a villain that most critics complained wasn't present enough to feel threatening, half of your squadmates being walking codexes (Tali, Liara), and hackneyed emotional choice (oh noes have to choose between 2 squadmates for no good reason), and this love of ME1's story makes no sense to me.

To be fair, Mass Effect 1 did a great job at introducing players to an extremely expansive universe (which is the opposite of what, say, Avatar the movie did). The effect is lost with Mass Effect 2 because it's operating with the same character and the same overarching villain to stop.

As for romances, I never took any of the romances in Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 2 seriously because they're essentially minor side missions with annoying consequences. You hardly gain any useful dialogue in romancing a squadmate (only a few small cutscenes) in comparison to just talking to them and avoiding the romance. All the "romance" is also done on the Normandy itself, as well.

The romances are detrimental to the main plot, because the consequences of not romancing/romancing/cheating on the romance forced BioWare to push Liara's, Kaidan's and Ashley's roles into Mass Effect 3 to prevent the consequences from becoming too complex when carried over into the next game. The sheer amount of possibilities that would occur if any of those three were present on the Normandy with all those other possible love interests would create a logistical nightmare for the consequences in Mass Effect 3.

In other words, if Liara/Kaidan/Ashley weren't romanceable, it would be very easy to include them as squadmates in Mass Effect 2 AND have them survive regardless of the suicide mission.

jlb524 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Well, it doesn't really help when a lot of the people who criticize the Mass Effect 2 have Liara avatars and signatures, does it?
{smilie}

And? You don't like Liara fans or something? Lots of people without Liara avatars/sigs criticize the game as well.

They probably have Ashley or Kaidan signatures then.

Being that partial toward a specific character will introduce bias when comparing both games. I couldn't care less about what happens to any of the characters except Shepard and the Reapers in both games as long as BioWare writes in a good reason for what happens to them.

Sure, how those three specific characters were treated in ME2 isn't the best way, but you should at least try to understand why they did it.

[fortunesque]

My viewpoint on the dlc:



1. Side-missions with subplots like this should have been in the game to begin with.

2. I am sick of working for Cerberus; I certainly don't want to help them.

3. It involves the firewalker which has armor that is less than or equal to a hospital dressing gown.

4. It looks like more of the same "explozins and crates and tps action!!!1!!!!ONE!!!!!" that's been in ME2.



Therefore, I'm not getting the dlc.

[Ecael]

jlb524 wrote...

Wait, you don't have a Liara avatar and you do criticize the game...me haz a confusion!

...More Asari?

[AwesomestMatt]

jlb524 wrote...

So, shouldn't ME2 be criticized then?  You presume everyone that prefers ME1 to ME2 does so only b/c their fave ME1 character isn't in the game.  There are people that criticize it and do not necessarily care one way or the other for any of the ME1 characters.  There are people that criticize it and do have a favorite character from ME1 (that's not Tali or Garrus)...why assume they criticize it for that reason alone?

While there is nothing wrong with criticizing ME2, I believe this topic is a more appropriate location for said criticism.

[jlb524]

Ecael wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Wait, you don't have a Liara avatar and you do criticize the game...me haz a confusion!

...More Asari?

Shiala =/= Liara.

Rana =/= Liara.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Ecael wrote...
There was only the illusion of exploration. As I mentioned, Mass Effect 1 used the same four prefabricated buildings and a variable terrain generator for every single side planet. Only the sky looked drastically different on some of the planets.

The mission complete screen is there to prevent you from having to run back the same way you came from (this is not exploration either, because Shepard already went through it the first time!). Otherwise, Mass Effect 1 was just a straight line from the Mako drop off point to the mission objective.

I'm not talking about unique terrain. I'm talking about exploring it. In ME1 I can land on a UNC planet, farm for minerals for a bit or scrounge up some new equipment, and then leave. Then I can return and do the planet's quest and leave again. Then I could return whenever I wanted. That's exploration. ME2 just warps you into the mission and magically warps you back out when you're done. That's not exploration. That's shooting gallery busy-work, that breaks immersion. And the mission complete screen is only there to further break the immersion. If this was an RPG you wouldn't want to break immersion, but it's a shooter. ME1 was an RPG.

It's difficult to compare a DLC that hasn't been released yet.

I'm comparing the basic plot, which Chris spelled out in detail. Renegade VI taking over robots and trying to spread? Yeah, we've done that many, many times. I highly, highly doubt this will be any more compelling a story than all the other ones. ME2 is not big on twisting storylines. We're given the A plot from the get-go and the rest of the game is busy work collecting squaddies (who are worthless because they can all die).

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are based on dialogue and shooting people who don't have much reason to be there? Why do people need to keep informing others of this?

I never said ME1 wasn't like this. I'm saying shooting an endless onslaught of robots is busy-work. There's no plot-based excitement there. That's a little different when you're fighting living things. You can wonder as to why they're fighting you, and in ME1 you even had instances where you could convince people not to. You can sort of do that in ME2, but it doesn't feel authentic. Convincing random batarians A, B, and C not to shoot you (when no reason is given as to why they'd want to shoot you) is a little different than talking to a Noveria cop being paid under the table, for example. That kind of confrontation is exceedingly rare in ME2.

And I can't wait for the inventory screen to pop up telling me that I need to omni-gel again because I'm reaching the 150 item limit. The information is there to help you, not to insult you.

I think the mission complete screen has no reason to be there. At all. I just spent like 4 minutes doing this mission; I know what I picked up... It's insulting. Honestly, I think it's only there to mask all the warping you do between missions. You don't have to walk back to the Normandy or to a transportation vehicle after these missions. It's jarring and it saps immersion.

If you're really complaining about things like this, then you're not playing the wrong game, you're playing the wrong trilogy.

I had no real complaints with ME1, so why am I playing the wrong trilogy? These things were much less jarring and immersion-sapping in ME1 than in ME2. ME2 is just a giant busy-work game.

[Tali_gram]

Yay ! but i cant DL it as i dont have XBL and cant get XBL so is there way to do a Box version

pleas , pleas , pleas (repeat the last line 33 times !)

[Jack Package]

Ecael wrote...

*snip*

They probably have Ashley or Kaidan signatures then.

Being that partial toward a specific character will introduce bias when comparing both games. I couldn't care less about what happens to any of the characters except Shepard and the Reapers in both games as long as BioWare writes in a good reason for what happens to them.

Sure, how those three specific characters were treated in ME2 isn't the best way, but you should at least try to understand why they did it.

In the case of Liara this was missed, which is the reason that Liara fans are that annoyed, Ecael.

[Barquiel]

jlb524 wrote...

Ecael wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Wait, you don't have a Liara avatar and you do criticize the game...me haz a confusion!

...More Asari?

Shiala =/= Liara.

Rana =/= Liara.

Rana and Shiala fans are haters as well, damn!
My disguise didn't work

[jlb524]

Barquiel wrote...

Rana and Shiala fans are haters as well, damn!
My disguise didn't work

Well, all asari are the same, I guess.

You humans are all racist!!