2501 réponses à ce sujet

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

fortunesque wrote...

Assuming that ME1 LI fans that didn't like the second game do because their favorite character was cameoed is extremely short-sighted.

Dont deprive them of their strawman! Its easier to ignore the fact that there is discontent over ME2 being a dumbed down shooter that way!

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

fortunesque wrote...

Assuming that ME1 LI fans that didn't like the second game do because their favorite character was cameoed is extremely short-sighted.

Dont deprive them of their strawman! Its easier to ignore the fact that there is discontent over ME2 being a dumbed down shooter that way!

I'm personally interested in seeing how many of the current ME2 lovers are going to be pissed off when Tali and Garrus are given crappy cameos. Because, let's face it, they're potentially dead and giving them any large role is a waste of resources, especially if they're given squad-mate roles (which they won't be for just that reason).

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I'm personally interested in seeing how many of the current ME2 lovers are going to be pissed off when Tali and Garrus are given crappy cameos. Because, let's face it, they're potentially dead and giving them any large role is a waste of resources, especially if they're given squad-mate roles (which they won't be for just that reason).

Dont be ridiculous! Tali and Garrus are renowned fan favourites! Their role in ME2 and romance proves this! It had nothing to do with them being the easiest to carry over! Theyll be squadmates in ME3, or millions of Bioware fans will boycott and Bioware will go out of business!

As opposed to taking whatever new squadmates comprise the bulk or entirety of the new squad.....

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 14 mai 2010 - 09:21 .

[jlb524]

Honestly, I still had high hopes for ME2 even after I had heard that Liara and some others would be cameoed. I still came to the forums and talked excitedly about the game and speculated about the plot and Shepard's role in it and the other characters' role. The game failed to meet those other expectations I had, as the storyline was awful and Shepard acted like a robot the entire time. All the loyalty missions, strung together, are tedious and boring and distract from the main 'plot' (which was not hard to do as it was terribly weak).

[fortunesque]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

fortunesque wrote...

Assuming that ME1 LI fans that didn't like the second game do because their favorite character was cameoed is extremely short-sighted.

Dont deprive them of their strawman! Its easier to ignore the fact that there is discontent over ME2 being a dumbed down shooter that way!

But! But!

Okay, they're right. I was mad that Kaidan wasn't in ME2 and that's why I didn't like it.

It had nothing to do with the fact that I had to rely on weapons for my 'mage' class character or that the rpg with shooter elements was turned into a shooter with rpg elements. Or the fact that there was 30% more dialogue spread out over double the amount of squadmates and a plethora of new and possibly returning npcs. Nor did it have anything to do with the fact that everything was episodic or the fact that I felt exponentially less immersion.

Why do I have to be so wrong, Dink?

[Clover Rider]

I love that I am not a fanboy I am just Some Geth and that makes me happy.

[MrNose]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
And I've counted for all the "warping" in ME1. It's all done realistically with a mode of transportation. ME2 simply has a magic B button. ME1 had a lot more freedom. ME2 is on rails. That's an issue. ME2 is disjointed, sloppy, and jarring where ME1 was smooth.

The difference here is as significant as the difference between elevator loading screens and loading screens when you're taking an elevator.  I don't get into an elevator in ME2, see a loading screen, end up somewhere else, and then assume that I "magically teleported there".  I can figure out that I probably used said elevator to get there.  In ME1 it showed me taking the elevator, but in both cases I actually took it.

The "return" button is the same issue.  I can assume quite reasonably that I walked or took a vehicle back to the Normandy, and in fact if you decline to push the "F" or "B" button on a mission you can just walk back, at least any time I've tried to do so.

I take issue with your assertion that ME2 is disjointed and jarring, particularly since you say that ME2 is on rails.  Is it on rails, or is it disjointed?  Those aren't exactly criticisms that meld together.  You know what's disjointed?  Being told that you're in a race against time and then being rewarded for doing a bunch of sidemissions.  To me the manner of  pacing in ME2 was done felt much more natural.  I never felt like the plot was telling me "go here now!"  While the gameplay was rewarding me for running errands.  The plot clearly endorsed the running of errands. 

I can only assume that by disjointed vs. smooth you're referring to ME1's missions all being about Saren while ME2's missions were mostly character based.  I can sympathize with the frustrations with that, but at the same time, I understand the value of character based plotlines just as much as story-based plotlines.  My main gripe here is that I don't feel that enough emphasis was put on developing the characters outside of their loyalty missions, which hurt their development somewhat.

Ultimately, I can't agree with your assertion about ME2 not feeling like an RPG.  ME1's customization system was unbalanced and its equipment system was broken.  I agree that ME2 went too far in the other direction (with regards to equipment, not powers), but I don't necessarily consider it to be straight negative.  IMO people forget just how much your squadmates were pigeonholed in ME1...  You only had a few and they had a three-bar aptitude system which limited them far too much.  The expansion to twelve teammates with a wide variety of techniques deserves to be seen as a huge customization feature, because that's what it is. 

[Ecael]

[quote]Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

[quote]Ecael wrote...

And the items are all named numerals I through X, and Shepard can apparently carry 150 of them before having to omni-gel them. Again, you're playing a shooter, not a menu management game (of course, you're managing menus of weapons which you then use to shoot things).

Lots of "warping" in Mass Effect 1 as well. You're simply ignoring it.[/quote]

In ME1 I was playing an RPG. In ME2 I was playing a shooter. That's the problem and the heart of my debate. I don't care if Shepard can carry 150 guns in her inventory, that's no better than magic weapon lockers that just happen to have models of all the guns you've found so far. In both games the system is unrealistic, but in ME1 I at least had control over it. ME2 simply got rid of it without making it better.

And I've counted for all the "warping" in ME1. It's all done realistically with a mode of transportation. ME2 simply has a magic B button. ME1 had a lot more freedom. ME2 is on rails. That's an issue. ME2 is disjointed, sloppy, and jarring where ME1 was smooth.[/quote]
-Try going through Mass Effect 1 without attacking anyone.

-Loading screens are not realistic or contribute to "immersion", regardless of the game. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

-So you're saying Mass Effect 2 is on rails (as if Mass Effect 1 wasn't linear?) and then saying that it was disjointed, sloppy and jarring?

[quote][quote]Then don't go to McDonalds? There are many restaurants out there, and you could even cook your own game meal if you wanted to.[/quote]

LMAO , oyu completely missed my point. XD
You just threw back the exact same argument you used before only using my counter-example.

Again, I liked ME1. I want to finish the trilogy. Telling me "not to play it" is not an argument that counters my point. It's a deflection. I'm here in the hopes that BioWare won't make ME3 as bad as ME2. I'm voicing my opinion and debating my reasons.

If I used your logic I would simply tell you "If you don't like my reasons for not liking ME2 then don't read my posts!! :o" But that would be stupid, as it accomplishes nothing. I think people here are just whining about hearing any negativity. People complaining about actual features is much better imo than all these people who are randomly saying "OMG this sounds awesome!!" despite the fact that they've done this 5+ times already.[/quote]
You say that as if the only thing that can be done on this forum is complain. Trust me, people can do a lot more than that.

[quote][quote]I can't write people off as a Mass Effect fangirl or fanboy when we're arguing on a BioWare Mass Effect forum.

I can, however, tell people that their opinion of the entire game itself is biased because their favorite character didn't make it. BioWare could spend 20 years working on Mass Effect 2 and fill the retail box with winning lottery tickets and people would still say "But [insert character here] is not in this game! What the hell, BioWare?".

Also, the reasons that hostiles have for attacking you in both games are extremely superficial aside from Saren, the Collector General, and the Reapers.[/quote]

My favorite character is Kelly. How does this support your argument with me? You aren't arguing with "the Liara fanbase" here. You're arguing with me. None of this passage of yours is applicable to me other than the last line about reasons for attacking.
And I will say to that: Cops fighting you because you killed their comrades or are interfering with their profiteering is better than "hijacked robot". I never said ME1 enemies had super-awesome reasons for fighting you; I said that hijacked robots are not compelling.[/quote]
In that case, since the games are that much similar (and the team is the same), you're not biased - you're just overly critical of anything novel. You could become a game critic, but then you'd be disagreeing with practically everyone who's rated this game higher than Mass Effect 1.

And no, those reasons for hostiles are not better. Especially when both games have the combat lines repeated over and over again ("I WILL DESTROY YOU!" to "LET'S DO THIS, ECLIPSE!").

[quote][quote]That's the problem, you imagine. You're adding content with your mind that was never there to begin with.

How does Mako return to the Normandy? LOADING ()
How does the Citadel Rapid Transit travel? LOADING ()
How does the Normandy travel between systems in the same Nebula? LOADING ()
How does the shuttle in Noveria get you back to the Normandy? LOADING ()

Immersion-breaking, indeed. Or you can dismiss the screens in both games are simply enjoy Mass Effect for what it is.[/quote]

I'm not adding content; I'm making logical deductions. I'm in a vehicle with jets and I was dropped off by a spaceship. I don't need to specifically see the transportation because the transportation is implied. In ME2 there aren't those implications. There aren't any details. You're just standing in Mordin's clinic with a big pop-up saying PRESS B!! And even if you want to explore the area some more you're prohibited from doing so. You're forced into warping and you're forced to see the MISSION COMPLETE & OMG U GOT 2000 IRIDIUM!!! screen. It's jarring, immersion-breaking, and there are absolutely zero in-game implications of how you're warping.

And honestly, traveling on a ship through a relay, or ina  car across the Citadel, or in the Mako to the Normandy, or in a shuttle across Noveria is much better than warping from an encolsed office space. It's about presentation.[/quote]
That doesn't eliminate the fact that there are LOADING SCREENS in both games to make up for lack of cutscenes or traveling. Even the Mass Effect 2 LOADING SCREENS showed you how the Hammerhead or Shuttle got to the Normandy, while Mass Effect 1 did no such thing.

[quote][quote]And I'll continue to point out that these games are much more similar than you think.

Is there unfair criticism between the two games? Yes. But the difference is this: if any of the people defending Mass Effect 2 really thought Mass Effect 1 sucked that much, then we wouldn't have ever bought Mass Effect 2 the first place to compare the two.[/quote]

I never said the games are super-dramatically different. But they are clearly different, and many of those differences are disliked by me and many others. Again you seem to miss the point.[/quote]
No, they're very much similar. And the same team is going to make Mass Effect 3 (targeted for the XBox 360 and its control system), so expect the next game to be a tad more like Mass Effect 2, if there are any differences worth pointing out.

[quote]darknoon5 wrote...
I dunno. Romances are important to me, as they let you get to know the character better and more in-depth. And just about every BioWare game I've played has romances. They wouldn't be the same witout them.[/quote]
[quote]fortunesque wrote...
People are oversimplifying the reasons why people don't like ME2 half as much as they enjoyed ME1. It's not just the poor treatment of the ME1 LIs that has people saying they didn't like ME2. It's a part of it, sure, but it isn't a large part of it. There are other reasons as well.[/quote]
The problem is, romances have the significance equivalent of short side missions with a couple lines of dialogue, but have overarching complex consequences that carry over (and are not worth dealing with to the writers). BioWare does not know how to write a perfect romance or define love for people, and neither do most game or movie writers these days.

At the same time, there are tens of thousands of written and spoken dialogue in BioWare games, none of them actually related to romance. People do not give enough credit to BioWare's legion of writers and voice actors.

Again, if people want to play a game solely based on romance, download translated versions of Japan's visual novels (Otome games for girls, Bishoujo games for boys, that is!) or learn Kasumi's language and import those games yourself. Every single line of spoken dialogue in those games are purposefully geared toward romance.

Japanese RPGs (not visual novels) are similarly terrible and cliche with romances, so buying those wouldn't really help.

[quote]Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
[quote]fortunesque wrote...
Assuming that ME1 LI fans that didn't like the second game do because their favorite character was cameoed is extremely short-sighted.
[/quote]
Dont deprive them of their strawman! Its easier to ignore the fact that there is discontent over ME2 being a dumbed down shooter that way![/quote]
And here I thought you said you'd leave after your post. You really are like Shisk. In that case, this still applies:

Modifié par Ecael, 14 mai 2010 - 09:37 .

[Rive Caedo]

jlb524 wrote...
All the loyalty missions, strung together, are tedious and boring and distract from the main 'plot' (which was not hard to do as it was terribly weak).

I think this is a fine argument since you're not saying "unlike ME1".

If you do say "unlike ME1"... that's silly. ME1 had a rather generic sci-fi plot too.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Ecael wrote...
*Desperate pic spam*

Counter pic spam!

Shouldnt you be playing your favourite game?

[Mystranna Kelteel]

MrNose wrote...

The difference here is as significant as the difference between elevator loading screens and loading screens when you're taking an elevator.  I don't get into an elevator in ME2, see a loading screen, end up somewhere else, and then assume that I "magically teleported there".  I can figure out that I probably used said elevator to get there.  In ME1 it showed me taking the elevator, but in both cases I actually took it.

The "return" button is the same issue.  I can assume quite reasonably that I walked or took a vehicle back to the Normandy, and in fact if you decline to push the "F" or "B" button on a mission you can just walk back, at least any time I've tried to do so.

I take issue with your assertion that ME2 is disjointed and jarring, particularly since you say that ME2 is on rails.  Is it on rails, or is it disjointed?  Those aren't exactly criticisms that meld together.  You know what's disjointed?  Being told that you're in a race against time and then being rewarded for doing a bunch of sidemissions.  To me the manner of  pacing in ME2 was done felt much more natural.  I never felt like the plot was telling me "go here now!"  While the gameplay was rewarding me for running errands.  The plot clearly endorsed the running of errands. 

I can only assume that by disjointed vs. smooth you're referring to ME1's missions all being about Saren while ME2's missions were mostly character based.  I can sympathize with the frustrations with that, but at the same time, I understand the value of character based plotlines just as much as story-based plotlines.  My main gripe here is that I don't feel that enough emphasis was put on developing the characters outside of their loyalty missions, which hurt their development somewhat.

Ultimately, I can't agree with your assertion about ME2 not feeling like an RPG.  ME1's customization system was unbalanced and its equipment system was broken.  I agree that ME2 went too far in the other direction (with regards to equipment, not powers), but I don't necessarily consider it to be straight negative.  IMO people forget just how much your squadmates were pigeonholed in ME1...  You only had a few and they had a three-bar aptitude system which limited them far too much.  The expansion to twelve teammates with a wide variety of techniques deserves to be seen as a huge customization feature, because that's what it is. 

- And how many times in ME2 is the elevator the only warp point? The elevators in ME2 are about the only warp points to which I can give logical credit.

- ME2 is both on rails and disjointed. The missions are all on rails, and that makes the entire experience extremely disjointed. In ME1 I could go to Noveria, take care of the Anoleis quest, then leave and go get Liara, then do Feros, then go back and finish Noveria. In ME2 I'm forced to see everything through in a mission until it's done, and then I'm forced back onto the Normandy and can never return to those mission areas. Same with the N7 missions. Once you land you ahve to finish it or reload a different save, and once you're done you can't go back. It's jarring.

- Both games have the "race against time" thing in the background while you go off and do side quests, so you can't say ME2 is better in that regards. The only difference is that ME2 lets you do missions after the credits. And at that point doing the sidequests is extremely unrewarding, especially when the entire galaxy doesn't even recognize the fact that the mission's over. That's even more jarring and immersion-breaking.

- The ME2 crew being "varied" is part of the problem. There are so many GD squadmates that they're forced to only have like 2-3 abilities. Yeah, it may force you to use more strategy (which it really doesn't because the game can be beaten no problem with any combination), but they become pretty useless. That's especially true when all these people can die. 85% of ME2's story surrounds the squad. And they can ALL die!
That's ridiculous. All it does is prove how much time you're wasting. These people obviously can't be important to the trilogy because they're all dead! And we knew the Collector A plot from the get-go. The "story" in ME2 is horrible! Not that the ME1 story was awesome; it was pretty generic, but it was told in a much better, much smoother way.

[Clover Rider]

All the ME1 fanboys/girls need to play some Pokemon that is all.

[Barquiel]

Rive Caedo wrote...

jlb524 wrote...
All the loyalty missions, strung together, are tedious and boring and distract from the main 'plot' (which was not hard to do as it was terribly weak).

I think this is a fine argument since you're not saying "unlike ME1".

If you do say "unlike ME1"... that's silly. ME1 had a rather generic sci-fi plot too.

I think every game (or movie,...) has a plot that has been used before^_^

The ME2 story wasn't bad up to (and through) Horizon.
then...
We got a (more or less interesting) collection of mini-stories.

[leeboi2]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I'm personally interested in seeing how many of the current ME2 lovers are going to be pissed off when Tali and Garrus are given crappy cameos. Because, let's face it, they're potentially dead and giving them any large role is a waste of resources, especially if they're given squad-mate roles (which they won't be for just that reason).

Dont be ridiculous! Tali and Garrus are renowned fan favourites! Their role in ME2 and romance proves this! It had nothing to do with them being the easiest to carry over! Theyll be squadmates in ME3, or millions of Bioware fans will boycott and Bioware will go out of business!

As opposed to taking whatever new squadmates comprise the bulk or entirety of the new squad.....

Lol...I rather enjoyed watching Tali get dissintegrated, I wouldn't upgrade the shields just so I could watch it (Y)

[Clover Rider]

Shavon wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

All the ME1 fanboys/girls need to play some Pokemon that is all.

No offense, but that seems like it would be ME2 fanbois who are more suited for a game like that . . .  if they can figure out the game, that is, lol.

ME2 fanboys/girls don't know what Pokemon is and the ME1 fanboys/girls suck at the game 

[fortunesque]

Some Geth wrote...

Shavon wrote...

Some
Geth wrote...

All the ME1 fanboys/girls need to play some
Pokemon that is all.

No offense, but that seems like it
would be ME2 fanbois who are more suited for a game like that . . .  if
they can figure out the game, that is, lol.

ME2 fanboys/girls
don't know what Pokemon is and the ME1 fanboys/girls suck at the game [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

ME2 Fanboys/girls probably don't know what Pokemon is because they were born way too late to play the original. This would make them about 13-16 years old.

So, I guess you're right. Good call.

Modifié par fortunesque, 14 mai 2010 - 09:53 .

[Ecael]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Ecael wrote...
*Desperate pic spam*

Counter pic spam!

Shouldnt you be playing your favourite game?

Shouldn't you be playing yours? Wait a second, they're made by the same company WITH THE SAME NAME!

You

And if Mass Effect ISN'T your favorite game, then why are you even posting on this forum?

Of course, your opinion is irrelevant and useless because I'm arguing ON BioWare's side, and not against it. Unless you really think that your opinion is more important than the opinions of the people who get paid to make money off the game (EA), the people who get paid to make the game (BioWare) and the people who get paid to review the game (every critic that helped give this game a 96+ score).

In that case, you fail regardless of what you say.

Modifié par Ecael, 14 mai 2010 - 09:53 .

[Sledge454]

Ecael wrote...

Beautiful

[Clover Rider]

fortunesque wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Shavon wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

All the ME1 fanboys/girls need to play some Pokemon that is all.

No offense, but that seems like it would be ME2 fanbois who are more suited for a game like that . . .  if they can figure out the game, that is, lol.

ME2 fanboys/girls don't know what Pokemon is and the ME1 fanboys/girls suck at the game 

Some Geth wrote...

Shavon wrote...

Some
Geth wrote...

All the ME1 fanboys/girls need to play some
Pokemon that is all.

No offense, but that seems like it
would be ME2 fanbois who are more suited for a game like that . . .  if
they can figure out the game, that is, lol.

ME2 fanboys/girls
don't know what Pokemon is and the ME1 fanboys/girls suck at the game [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

ME2
Fanboys/girls probably don't know what Pokemon is because they were
born way too late to play the original. This would make them about 13-16
years old.

So, I guess you're right. Good call.

Hell fanboys/girls of  ME1 to me from the posts I see are 13-16 too :happy:

[fortunesque]

[quote]Some Geth wrote...

[/quote]Hell fanboys/girls of  ME1 to me from the posts I see are 13-16 too :happy:[/quote]

Based on what criteria? That they're displeased with ME2? That the don't agree with people that absolutely loved it and think it's so much better than ME1?

[Clover Rider]

[quote]fortunesque wrote...

[quote]Some Geth wrote...

[/quote]Hell fanboys/girls of  ME1 to me from the posts I see are 13-16 too :happy:[/quote]

Based on what criteria? That they're displeased with ME2? That the don't agree with people that absolutely loved it and think it's so much better than ME1?

[/quote]Well kids do not shut up about what they hate 

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Ecael wrote...
*Desperate gibberings of the Bioware-Defence-Force*

Im sorry about the pic spam comment, I imagine it cut deep.

Unlike your fabricated suggestion that Im a "pestilence" on these boards (I hardly frequent it anymore, and even then its the Liara thread, very rarely), I noticed you pic spam an awful lot.

Maybe you get a kick out of posting your little image based witticisms. I didnt mean to knock it. Clearly you put some time and effort into making these elaborate little picture based jibes.

I think Mass Effect 2 was a crushing disappointment, and a game that really sucked quite badly, and that this DLC doesnt change that. Shock horror, I did it again.

The fact that criticising ME2 on these boards always leads to a bunch of angry ME2 fanboys trying to defend it (by bashing ME1 no less) is honestly extremely telling.

[Mister Mida]

LMAO, you guys are hilarious. I really need to get some more popcorn.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 14 mai 2010 - 10:11 .