105 réponses à ce sujet

[MassEffect762]

@ Spectre 117



Haha. Just saying there's more than one way to go about things.



I know I'd harvest data that way if I worked for bioware.

[wrexingcrew]

Ecael wrote...
So what changes do you believe made it deviate towards the "Gears clones"?

Well, I'll start by quoting myself from the first page of the thread:

"There are plenty of people who use the Gears comparison as an insult. I'm not one of them. I think the first Gears was an incredibly effective third-person shooter - lots of fun, satisfying mechanics, pretty decent atmosphere (with admittedly thin characters and story). The second was overstuffed, but that's irrelevant to the discussion here. The use of Unreal means ME is going to get Gears comparisons, and the shift toward the shooter end of the spectrum for ME2 makes those comparisons even more likely. I think as far as so-called "Gears clones" go, ME2 is actually very effective mechanically. It's not as good, but few games would be. I have a bigger issue with the level design. Parts of ME2 felt like sloppy reproductions of levels Gears did, and did better. The most egregious example was Jack's loyalty mission, which was written very thoughtfully but implemented from a level design standpoint like a poor copy of the factory from the first Gears."

But specifically about the ME1-ME2 shift from "game that happens to use the Unreal Engine" to "game that more clearly aspires to be like Gears mechnically"?

1) The shift in level design to emphasize cover. Clearly much more important in ME2 than in ME1. The cover system was also refined/improved, but that may just have been an iterative improvement that would have happened anyway.

2) Combat/gunplay. Ammo, health regen, reddening screen to indicate declining health, and a heavier/more present feel to the firing. The last point is sort of difficult to describe - I think Tim Rogers captures it best when he talks about 'friction' in games - but clearly the 'feel' of firing/shooting something in Mass Effect 2 is familiar to anyone that's played Gears of War. Much more so than in Mass Effect 1. The removal of in-combat inventory changes and substantial overall simplification of inventory.

3)Specific instances of level design, as I mention in my self-quote above, as well as the overall approach to level design - much more linear/corridor-based.

4) The color palette/aesthetic. Mass Effect 1 owned a substantial debt to the utopic(sometimes dystopic) science-fiction TV and film of the 60s and 70s. Locations like the Citadel felt like Star Trek or Logan's Run or THX-1138. Even Feros and Noveria were much more TOS - bright, functional. Mass Effect 2 placed much more of an emphasis on duller colors and "grittier" locations - Tuchanka is an obvious example, but even Illium and the Zakera Ward felt/looked like a muted version of Bladerunner (which is not at all a bad thing, just different).

Again, none of these things is objectively bad, and I'm not sure they're bad collectively. As I said initially, I quite like Gears. If Mass Effect 3 retains that approach/feel to combat but manages to reincorporate the less obviously linear feel of Mass Effect 1, I'll be happy.

[Some Geth]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You know whats better than the ME series?

Tetris

Yup.

[Spectre 117]

MassEffect762 wrote...

@ Spectre 117

Haha. Just saying there's more than one way to go about things.

I know I'd harvest data that way if I worked for bioware.

Yeah,hey wait a minute what if those who "dislike the game "are actually bioware employees faking it O_O i mean it happened once at last years e3 when ea made a "protest"against dantes inferno :l

[WilliamShatner]

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Something that is merely good or mediocre that squanders huge potential like ME2 is hated a lot more than bad games that had none.

Vague words like "elements", "aspects", "feel", "roots" and now "potential".

There's nothing vague about it.  The Mass Effect trilogy had the potential to be the greatest space opera of our time.  Then it hit the reset button 5 minutes into part two.

Care to explain how Shepard rose in ranks on the Alliance and ended up on the very ship he/she would be captain of? Or should you just dismiss that part and go straight to the "Let's consider Shepard to be a Spectre"?

My crew is gone.
My team is gone.
My relationship is gone.
How I treated Garrus/Tali doesn't matter.  They act the same to you regardless bar one or two lines.
My position within the alliance is gone.
My spectre status is gone.
The respect I gained with the council is gone.
The evidence of the reapers  I had is gone.

During ME2:

I gain command of a ship.  Did that in ME.
Recruit a team. Did that in ME.
Obtain spectre status (purely lipservice here).  Did that in ME.
Delayed the reaper invasion. Did that in ME.
At the end of ME2 I am no closer to defeating the reapers than I was at the end of Mass Effect.

It hit the reset button when it was announced as a standalone game and
not an expansion. I'm not sure why you find that so disappointing.

Sorry but when at the beginning of the series when BioWare proclaims the game to be the series of a continous epic saga spanning three games, I am more than entitled to feel completely let down when the second game essentially remakes the first and gives us a monster of the week Shepard episode.

Well there you are.  Go ahead and post an opposition to every sentence I wrote.  I'm going to sleep now, so I'll be sure to read it tomorrow.

[Ecael]

wrexingcrew wrote...

The most egregious example was Jack's loyalty mission, which was written very thoughtfully but implemented from a level design standpoint like a poor copy of the factory from the first Gears."

That level was definitely more focused on resolving Jack's issues than shooting up the whole place, however. It was designed as such because it was meant to be run-down.

But specifically about the ME1-ME2 shift from "game that happens to use the Unreal Engine" to "game that more clearly aspires to be like Gears mechnically"?

Almost every other game that uses the Unreal Engine is a shooter, and the ones that aren't are multiplayer PvP-focused MMORPGs. By using the Unreal Engine in the first place, BioWare knew that the Mass Effect trilogy would be similar to those games.

1) The shift in level design to emphasize cover. Clearly much more important in ME2 than in ME1. The cover system was also refined/improved, but that may just have been an iterative improvement that would have happened anyway.

All the missions in Mass Effect 1 are stacked with crates or random blocks/rocks jutting out of the ground. The generic two-floor facility is one clear example of this, but Noveria, Feros, Virmire, Therum and the Citadel are no different.

Thus, both Mass Effect 1 and 2 are shooters in that regard.

2) Combat/gunplay. Ammo, health regen, reddening screen to indicate declining health, and a heavier/more present feel to the firing. The last point is sort of difficult to describe - I think Tim Rogers captures it best when he talks about 'friction' in games - but clearly the 'feel' of firing/shooting something in Mass Effect 2 is familiar to anyone that's played Gears of War. Much more so than in Mass Effect 1. The removal of in-combat inventory changes and substantial overall simplification of inventory.

Because there are far fewer of the same gun to choose from, Mass Effect 2 is more of a shooter? Or is it the fact that a gun can't be modded to fire non-stop now that makes Mass Effect 2 more of a shooter?

Shield regeneration replaced having to hit Shield Boost every time it was up, and health regeneration replaced medi-gels (or replaced spamming Immunity, that is). Ammo is used in both games, for the same purpose - to increase damage against a certain kind of enemy or defense.

The reddening screen is an annoyance - I agree with you there - but so is the Critical Mission Failure screen, which to anyone who's attached to immersion should say is immersion-breaking for both games.

3)Specific instances of level design, as I mention in my self-quote above, as well as the overall approach to level design - much more linear/corridor-based.

The only open-air combat you had was with the Mako, which controls and fires exactly like the Warthog from Halo 2 (which, coincidentally, also has the same amount of voiced dialogue as Mass Effect 1). Also, exploring with the Mako on a mountainous empty square was only slightly more fun than 'exploring' an empty sphere to scan for minerals. Places like Ilos were a giant linear corridor leading up to the Conduit.

Even if you chose not to explore, the route from drop-off point to entrance was very much a chosen path for you - especially since it was always marked on your map.

4) The color palette/aesthetic. Mass Effect 1 owned a substantial debt to the utopic(sometimes dystopic) science-fiction TV and film of the 60s and 70s. Locations like the Citadel felt like Star Trek or Logan's Run or THX-1138. Even Feros and Noveria were much more TOS - bright, functional. Mass Effect 2 placed much more of an emphasis on duller colors and "grittier" locations - Tuchanka is an obvious example, but even Illium and the Zakera Ward felt/looked like a muted version of Bladerunner (which is not at all a bad thing, just different).

There was much more emphasis placed on making the hub worlds more detailed and more distinct from each other.

The hub world of Feros was basically a freighter placed on top of grey slate - very reminiscent of Tuchanka, except that Tuchanka has many more interesting characters with the krogan. All in all, the Citadel was downsized in Mass Effect 2 in order to place just as much focus on the characterization and detail of the other hub worlds.

Again, none of these things is objectively bad, and I'm not sure they're bad collectively. As I said initially, I quite like Gears. If Mass Effect 3 retains that approach/feel to combat but manages to reincorporate the less obviously linear feel of Mass Effect 1, I'll be happy.

I still don't see where either game was not linear. You started with three main mission choices in Mass Effect 1, and once you completed two one more opened up. After that, you're forced back to the Citadel and the rest of the game plays out like anyone else with their hands on the game. All the missions will end exactly the same way, and the only difference being that some of your squadmates may end up dead.

The same applies to Mass Effect 2 as well, with both missions and mission structure.

[Ecael]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Something that is merely good or mediocre that squanders huge potential like ME2 is hated a lot more than bad games that had none.

Vague words like "elements", "aspects", "feel", "roots" and now "potential".

There's nothing vague about it.  The Mass Effect trilogy had the potential to be the greatest space opera of our time.  Then it hit the reset button 5 minutes into part two.

Care to explain how Shepard rose in ranks on the Alliance and ended up on the very ship he/she would be captain of? Or should you just dismiss that part and go straight to the "Let's consider Shepard to be a Spectre"?

My crew is gone.
My team is gone.
My relationship is gone.
How I treated Garrus/Tali doesn't matter.  They act the same to you regardless bar one or two lines.
My position within the alliance is gone.
My spectre status is gone.
The respect I gained with the council is gone.
The evidence of the reapers  I had is gone.

During ME2:

I gain command of a ship.  Did that in ME.
Recruit a team. Did that in ME.
Obtain spectre status (purely lipservice here).  Did that in ME.
Delayed the reaper invasion. Did that in ME.
At the end of ME2 I am no closer to defeating the reapers than I was at the end of Mass Effect.

It hit the reset button when it was announced as a standalone game and
not an expansion. I'm not sure why you find that so disappointing.

Sorry but when at the beginning of the series when BioWare proclaims the game to be the series of a continous epic saga spanning three games, I am more than entitled to feel completely let down when the second game essentially remakes the first and gives us a monster of the week Shepard episode.

Well there you are.  Go ahead and post an opposition to every sentence I wrote.  I'm going to sleep now, so I'll be sure to read it tomorrow.

Here's the opposition to every sentence you wrote - it's, in fact, a sentence that you wrote.

Did that in ME.

BioWare gave you Mass Effect again, yet people argue that it's so different because it's the same?

People are completely unaware of what they want these days...

[NICKjnp]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

You know whats better than the ME series?

Tetris

You know what is better than both of those?

Tetris Effect

You know what trumps all?

Pong

[MassEffect762]

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Something that is merely good or mediocre that squanders huge potential like ME2 is hated a lot more than bad games that had none.

Vague words like "elements", "aspects", "feel", "roots" and now "potential".

There's nothing vague about it.  The Mass Effect trilogy had the potential to be the greatest space opera of our time.  Then it hit the reset button 5 minutes into part two.

Care to explain how Shepard rose in ranks on the Alliance and ended up on the very ship he/she would be captain of? Or should you just dismiss that part and go straight to the "Let's consider Shepard to be a Spectre"?

My crew is gone.
My team is gone.
My relationship is gone.
How I treated Garrus/Tali doesn't matter.  They act the same to you regardless bar one or two lines.
My position within the alliance is gone.
My spectre status is gone.
The respect I gained with the council is gone.
The evidence of the reapers  I had is gone.

During ME2:

I gain command of a ship.  Did that in ME.
Recruit a team. Did that in ME.
Obtain spectre status (purely lipservice here).  Did that in ME.
Delayed the reaper invasion. Did that in ME.
At the end of ME2 I am no closer to defeating the reapers than I was at the end of Mass Effect.

It hit the reset button when it was announced as a standalone game and
not an expansion. I'm not sure why you find that so disappointing.

Sorry but when at the beginning of the series when BioWare proclaims the game to be the series of a continous epic saga spanning three games, I am more than entitled to feel completely let down when the second game essentially remakes the first and gives us a monster of the week Shepard episode.

Well there you are.  Go ahead and post an opposition to every sentence I wrote.  I'm going to sleep now, so I'll be sure to read it tomorrow.

Here's the opposition to every sentence you wrote - it's, in fact, a sentence that you wrote.

Did that in ME.

BioWare gave you Mass Effect again, yet people argue that it's so different because it's the same?

People are completely unaware of what they want these days...

And you're fine with that?

You can do the same action twice, doesn't mean you did it exactly as before. It's the little things, they go a long way.

Do you think bioware did the best they could?

Modifié par MassEffect762, 09 juillet 2010 - 04:03 .

[wrexingcrew]

Ecael wrote...
That level was definitely more focused on resolving Jack's issues than shooting up the whole place, however. It was designed as such because it was meant to be run-down.

If you've played the first Gears, you know the level I'm talking about - it was incredibly reminiscent of that level, right down to the rain falling on the roof as the squad touches down in ME2.

Almost every other game that uses the Unreal Engine is a shooter, and the ones that aren't are multiplayer PvP-focused MMORPGs. By using the Unreal Engine in the first place, BioWare knew that the Mass Effect trilogy would be similar to those games.

You're moving the goalposts as you go here. First you asked in what ways Mass Effect 2 more closely resembled Gears, now you're talking about shooters generally. The Unreal Engine is going to lead to superficial similarities, as I acknowledged in my phrasing - the difference is between making a game that looks/plays like an Unreal game (Mass Effect 1) and making a game that looks/plays specifically like Gears (Mass Effect 2). Again, I don't think looking or playing like Gears is automatically a bad thing. I like Gears.

All the missions in Mass Effect 1 are stacked with crates or random blocks/rocks jutting out of the ground. The generic two-floor facility is one clear example of this, but Noveria, Feros, Virmire, Therum and the Citadel are no different.

Thus, both Mass Effect 1 and 2 are shooters in that regard.

I think you're too used to arguing with people that claim ME1 was an RPG and ME2 was a shooter. That's not what I'm saying. I don't particularly care what genre a game is - I play and enjoy a number of shooters. I used to play quite a bit of multiplayer Halo 3, and now play BC2. ME1 was at most a hybrid shooter/RPG, and was probably a shooter with significant RPG elements. I loved it. ME2 is a dialogue-intensive shooter. I liked it, but was disappointed by some pretty specific additions and omissions - not by its adherence or lack thereof to some rigid concept of genre.
To me, the level design in ME2 was clearly implemented with cover as more of a priority. I wish I could find a link, and I'll understand you not taking my word for, but I remember Christina or one of the devs talking before ME2's release about how much moreof a priority they made cover in levels during development.

Because there are far fewer of the same gun to choose from, Mass Effect 2 is more of a shooter? Or is it the fact that a gun can't be modded to fire non-stop now that makes Mass Effect 2 more of a shooter?

I'm still not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm arguing that ME2 was more of a shooter. It's just clearly aiming to be more like Gears, while the first game was after something more like Far Cry 2 or, maybe, Deus Ex (in a general sense, clearly not specifically). But since you've brought it up, what shooters do you play that permit non-stop firing without reloading? Taking offensive action without a "reload" mechanism sounds much more like an RPG than a shooter to me. And generally weapon choice is a bitmore significant in RPGs than in shooters. Again, though, that's not the point I'm after.

Shield regeneration replaced having to hit Shield Boost every time it was up, and health regeneration replaced medi-gels (or replaced spamming Immunity, that is). Ammo is used in both games, for the same purpose - to increase damage against a certain kind of enemy or defense.

Oh come on - ammo was there to introduce a reloading mechanic that wasn't there in the first game, and make it more like a specific kind of conventional shooter. Let's not be disingenuous. Health regen also moves the series from one design philosophy to another. I don't see how "this is different in kind, but is still a replacement" means "it's not different." If you were arguing qualitatively, I would understand making this points. Again, I'm not saying these are inherently bad design choices.

The reddening screen is an annoyance - I agree with you there - but so is the Critical Mission Failure screen, which to anyone who's attached to immersion should say is immersion-breaking for both games.

Yep, but again, one is much more obviously indebted to the Gears approach than the other.

Also, exploring with the Mako on a mountainous empty square was only slightly more fun than 'exploring' an empty sphere to scan for minerals.

That's your subjective judgment, and you're entitled to it. It's a pretty clear difference in design philosophy, though, which is my general point (you indicated you disagreed).

Even if you chose not to explore, the route from drop-off point to entrance was very much a chosen path for you - especially since it was always marked on your map.

The second game had significantly more of the classic "corridor" feel to it than the first - although you're right, no one would mistake the first game for a sandbox game in most of its main story mission. One of the differences, though, was that - as on Noveria or Feros - you frequently could backtrack and accomplish secondary objectives (or side quests) in ME1. It wasn't unlimited or in every location, but it was common even while in the midst of a specific main-arc "mission." In ME2, you were continuously funneled through a specific path, often with the way back blocked behind you. You were also regularly forced to accept missions. Again, not necessarily better or worse, but clearly different.

Modifié par wrexingcrew, 09 juillet 2010 - 04:11 .

[Mx_CN3]

The effect you're describing, OP, happens with every game that has rather significant changes mid series. Mass Effect is not the first and certainly not the last.

Example: anyone that played World of Warcraft from vanilla and through all the expansions (and visited their forums) can tell you of the incessant bickering over which version was better, and everyone thought their opinion was the correct one.

Also, see my signature. I felt the exact same way when I first came to these forums, having decided that ME2 was on par or better than Ocarina of Time (my favorite game of 12 years).

[yummysoap]

I like the gameplay changes and the darkened atmosphere. I don't like the story, but I will always maintain that ME2s main purpose was to develop team characters for ME3, and so I forgive it to some extent on that level. The team development and personal stories behind squadmates was enough for me to consider that the main story, with the whole Collector thing as an annoying background, and for what it was I thought it was fantastic.



If ME3 has a lacklustre story, however...

[KalosCast]

It's the middle child of a trilogy. No real beginning or end, and they revamped the combat so you actually had to pay attention to the game. Basically, they changed it so now it sucks.

[theelementslayer]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Ecael wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

Something that is merely good or mediocre that squanders huge potential like ME2 is hated a lot more than bad games that had none.

Vague words like "elements", "aspects", "feel", "roots" and now "potential".

There's nothing vague about it.  The Mass Effect trilogy had the potential to be the greatest space opera of our time.  Then it hit the reset button 5 minutes into part two.

Care to explain how Shepard rose in ranks on the Alliance and ended up on the very ship he/she would be captain of? Or should you just dismiss that part and go straight to the "Let's consider Shepard to be a Spectre"?

My crew is gone.
My team is gone.
My relationship is gone.
How I treated Garrus/Tali doesn't matter.  They act the same to you regardless bar one or two lines.
My position within the alliance is gone.
My spectre status is gone.
The respect I gained with the council is gone.
The evidence of the reapers  I had is gone.

During ME2:

I gain command of a ship.  Did that in ME.
Recruit a team. Did that in ME.
Obtain spectre status (purely lipservice here).  Did that in ME.
Delayed the reaper invasion. Did that in ME.
At the end of ME2 I am no closer to defeating the reapers than I was at the end of Mass Effect.

It hit the reset button when it was announced as a standalone game and
not an expansion. I'm not sure why you find that so disappointing.

Sorry but when at the beginning of the series when BioWare proclaims the game to be the series of a continous epic saga spanning three games, I am more than entitled to feel completely let down when the second game essentially remakes the first and gives us a monster of the week Shepard episode.

Well there you are.  Go ahead and post an opposition to every sentence I wrote.  I'm going to sleep now, so I'll be sure to read it tomorrow.

Its like it was meant to be a sequel, who  wudda thought. hmm let me go through a different seqel I know and see if they follow the trend.

Call of Duty MW1
-Found baddies
-shot baddies
-saved the world from nueclear destruction

MW2
-Found baddies
-shot baddies
-Saved the United states from destruction

Its like a sequel is meant to be kinda like the other, weird....

[Massadonious1]

It's less of a RPG, or not a RPG at all. That means it's automatically bad and was ultimately made for teh stupidz.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 09 juillet 2010 - 05:55 .

[1490]

The biggest arguments I keep seeing about why "Mass Effect 2 sucks" are:

1. The plot sucks;

The plot isn't completely original and outstanding, but I thought it was still engaging.  I guess there just wasn't enough drama and twists for most people.  Personally I think if you want deep, heartfealt human drama and dramatic twists, you should go watch soap operas and M. Night Shyamalan movies, not expect it from video games.

2. The game has been changed too much from the first;

Though I liked ME 1's RPG-geared system, I also like ME 2's shooter-geared system.  I'm glad they are different because that makes playing the second game a whole new experience, not just a rehash of the same game.  Most of the people who complain about the game system changing were the same ones b*tching about the ME 1 expansions "being the same old thing."  Make up your mind people, or just don't play: that would be easier.

3. I lost everything I gained in ME 1 and had to start from scratch;

Would it really be fun to start ME 2 at level 60 from ME 1 with all your tier X items?  Personally, I got tired of playing with "cheat codes" by the time I was 9: what's the point of playing a game if you are already advanced to the max and invincible to begin with?  Starting the characters back out at low level is necessary.  The same goes for taking away Shepard's support from ME1  What fun would it be if the Council said "Oh sure Shepard, we got your back: we'll send our entire fleet to go kill the Collector Base right now!" End of game, 1 hour in: real fun.

Furthermore, I really don't understand why the people who hate this game "so much" have taken the time to create a login and post about how they hate the game.  I'm pretty sure anyone here who enjoys the game and isn't a complete moron isn't going to suddenly decide they don't want to play it anymore because someone convinced them on the forum.  Of course I think criticism is completely-appropriate: it's good to analyze the pros and cons of anything rather than pretend it's perfect, and that is the basis of many valuable debates.  But to go on the forums and proclaim "I hate ME2, the plot sucks," or  pitching whatever generalized, ill-supported claim is stupid and pointless.  If you hate the game so f***ing much because it doesn't stack up to your A+ expectations, sell the game, buy another game you like more, and quit wasting your time on the ME forums b*tching about a game you don't even play anymore.

[TheGreatD17]

The game was released in January too, some of the dissenters have been complaining here for over four months. I can understand being disappointed and having it bother you for a couple weeks, but no video game, no matter how disappointing you may find it, warrants such tireless criticism. And don't get me wrong, the game isn't perfect, but a lot of what has been brought up is silly. Both games are classified action RPGs; anyone who complains about a focus on combat over more tradition RPG elements should only be mad at themselves for expecting anything different. There is still plenty of role-playing to be done in ME2 and the gameplay was massively improved. ME1 felt like no shooter should, so it's not a bad thing for the fighting to suddenly feel a bit like Gears of War, those are top-notch shooters. And the story argument is a bit confusing since you're still playing out the same story as the first game. This story is this odyssey of sorts of Shepard, it's just broken up into three parts for obvious reasons. The middle section of his story functions like many other part 2s do, with mild plot advancement and a greater influence on characters. The Empire Strikes Back comparison is especially apt. The general consensus is that it's the best Star Wars movie, but what happens in that movie? Han gets frozen and Luke loses a hand while learning who his dad is. It's darker and thinner on plot than its predecessor and doesn't work nearly as well as a stand-alone product, but the craft is noticeably better in part two. Just like Mass Effect.

[Spornicus]

So people hate ME2 because it's so different, or do they hate it because it's just the same game? Who knows, because the haters sure don't.



People give vague answers like "bad plot" and "bad gameplay" but to them a "bad plot" is one that doesn't have you banging you ME1 LI every five minutes, and "bad gameplay" means the combat plays like a shooter. Yet, didn't ME1 use a shooter combat system that was cover-based? The worst part about ME1 was how glitchy the cover system could be, and ME2 seemed to fix that.



And if you hate the "plotholes," you shouldn't play videogames, watch movies, or even read books, because you'll spend the entire time looking for mistakes and not ENJOYING IT.

[Jebel Krong]

haters gonna hate....

people hate me2 because of what changed. they also hate it because of what didn't changed. in short: people are incredibly stupid, and don't know what they want.

i loved it and so did the millions of other people that bought it, and i'm sure BW is more than happy with the critical and commercial reception that reinforces the positives of all the changes they made.

i'm sure me3 will have exactly the same divisions amongst the audience.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 09 juillet 2010 - 08:54 .

[Tazzmission]

Lizardviking wrote...

Some oldschool RPG fans disaproves of the new gameplay.

Some other people (like me) simply hate the poor story that ME2 offers.

the only gripe i had with the story really was the collectors didnt feel threatning enough. as far as the new crew and there stories go ......to me i loved it and i thought that alone was what topped me1. all in all both games felt the same 2 me and i love both games

[Raizo]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

The story and some gameplay changes.

For the record, I love ME2 ( my game of the year so far ) and I prefer it to ME1 but MTN Dew Fanatic said it best. If you played and enjoyed ME1 then you can't help but wonder/criticise ME2 for some the gameplay changes. The story doesn't really advance all that much from ME1 either, it could have been better done.

For every 2 steps that ME2 takes forward it also seems to take a step backward as well.

[Christmas Ape]

Because Mass Effect ended on a high note, then they kicked you in the junk and took your hat. Everybody came into Act 2 feeling buoyant, settled into their seats, and got jarred by a sudden key change.



You end the game with a hell of a reputation, you almost single-handedly dragged humanity into the galactic spotlight, and you and your ship full of BFFs have been through absolute hell, proved yourselves to each other, and averted the end of civilization. You're a legend.



Then BAM! Mass Effect 2. Say goodbye to all of that, but your obituary is beautiful - if premature. Your new allies aren't Space United Nations, they're Space Ultranationalists, and it's only your reputation that keeps you from being a wanted criminal - you must have a reason. You're tossed under the bus of political expediency by the Powers That Be with an implicit "don't call us, we'll call you". Your team is scattered to the four winds, and the intervening two years have changed them. You'll need new people; new people willing to die.



Sudden key change, major to minor.



You're not on detached and illustrious service with humanity's military, you're running errands for their dirty secret. The story picks up speed, shoving a problem in your face a few times instead of having it wait for you, and shifts focus from the investigation to the investigators. You're staring down a suicide mission and sharpening your team for it - it's as much about them as it is about you or the enemy.



Sudden key change, major to minor.



Most importantly, however, is that this time nobody expects to come back. Mass Effect had a sense through almost the entirety of it (at least until 4 plot worlds are done), especially in conversation with your squad, that victory was inevitable. Just a matter of time before you find the enemy and bring him down. Mass Effect 2 is entirely in opposition to this; you're going to have to throw yourself into unknown hell to even take your shot, let alone go home.



Sudden key change. Jarring. Effective if you get swept up in the new movement, something you sit bitterly chewing on the whole night if you don't.





Everything else is complaining a game straddling two genres didn't slavishly devote itself to the cruft of one of its parent genres but instead tightened its focus on the other, being unable to tell one metallic endoskeleton from another, wanting the middle act of a trilogy to explain everything, or being unfamiliar with the more horrific theoretical transhuman outcomes.

But I think a lot of it is, in fact, "But...but...I won Mass Effect! I'm the hero! BAD THINGS DON'T HAPPEN TO ME!"

[Cra5y Pineapple]

I like ME2 better that 1. You aren't just shooting through enemies to get to the dialouge anymore since the gameplay is actually GOOD. I've always wanted a Shooter with RPG elements (Not Borderlands, went way too far RPG to the point in which it took a whole magazine to unrealistically kill someone).

There was actually some decent character development that you didn't have to take out time to talk to characters to know about. It was more dramatic, it felt like you were all gonna die, you got SCARED. ME1 was too bright, to glorfying. I think of ME2 like Halo: Combat Evolved. Mysterious, dark, and fearful. I think of ME1 like Halo 3, bright and cheery. And I prefered Halo 1 like the most of us.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 09 juillet 2010 - 10:11 .

[Tazzmission]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

I like ME2 better that 1. You aren't just shooting through enemies to get to the dialouge anymore since the gameplay is actually GOOD.

I've always wanted a Shooter with RPG elements (Not Borderlands, went way too far RPG to the point in which it took a whole magazine to unrealistically kill someone).

story wise me1 is the best hands down but what i really liked about mass effect 2 was the deep moments you can have with the crew and i think thats where the empire strikes back comment comes in. if you look at me1 i didnt get that deep emotion feel but it did have the better story and villain threat, thats what me2 failed at with the collectors