86 réponses à ce sujet

[Mister Mida]

I appreciate all the responses so far. It gives me some insight into what other people around here think. But I need to remind some people that this is not a topic to discuss how objective reviewers review games. I don't mind if you express your opinion about it but try to stick on topic.

Forget the ratings other people gave it and the opinions other people had about it. Just tell me/us/whoever that reads this thread what you - *points at you* - think.

And Repellerar, if you think this thread is pointless, why bother to post here? I'm not twisting your arm or forcing you in any other way to post.

[Wusword77]

Mass Effect 2 is awsome simply because there really isn't much out there like it.  If they came out with games like Mass Effect 1 or 2 on the same basis they come out with FPS games no one would care much about it.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Nothing.



It takes ME1, removes a shed load of stuff, dumbs down even more, creates bland, expendable and boring characters, and has one of the, if not the worst plots Bioware have ever created. Also 90% of the gameworld is just made up of shooting galleries.



Its basically just mass appeal trash that certain people can convince themselves isnt mass appeal trash.

[wizardryforever]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Nothing.

It takes ME1, removes a shed load of stuff, dumbs down even more, creates bland, expendable and boring characters, and has one of the, if not the worst plots Bioware have ever created. Also 90% of the gameworld is just made up of shooting galleries.

Its basically just mass appeal trash that certain people can convince themselves isnt mass appeal trash.

I see you are one of those people that won't be swayed by hard numbers and objective facts when comparing the two games, and instead choose to see things in the past with rose-tinted glasses.  This allows you to gloss over most of the flawed gameplay in the first game and write it off as insignificant, while at the same time condemning the second game for doing the same. ie shooter galleries.  And companies like Bioware must walk a fine line between mass appeal and niche appeal.  Since mass appeal obviously sells more, that helps bring in the profit.  While niche appeal facilitates loyal buyers, such buyers can be fickle (just look at your post).

Anyway, I think part of the reason ME2 got such a good score is that the reviewers are taking it for what it is, a RPG/Shooter hybrid (or a Shooter/RPG hybrid, if you prefer).  This means that you have to take it in context.  In order to be a decent RPG you need to have a story in which the player character interacts with the game world in ways that change the outcome of the game depending on what role the character plays (hence role-playing).  In a decent shooter, you need to have challenging enemies with decent AI, a variety of weapons and auxilliary powers, and balanced difficulty.  And of course shoot stuff.  Since Mass effect and Mass effect 2 are hybrids, they will need to devote resources to developing both aspects, which waters down each aspect a bit.  Game reviewers realize this limitation and rate according to how well those aspects are brought together.  People with a low opinion of the game greatly favor one aspect (typically RPGs, at least on these forums), meaning any development of any other aspect hurts the game and the rating they would give it.  Of course everything is subjective, and the best reviewers realize this and try to stick to facts as much as possible.

Just my opinion, if anyone cares.

[Loerwyn]

Because ME2 took the great things about ME1 (Jen Hale , Garrus, the setting, the music, Joker, "true" RPG elements in a shooter, etc) and fixed a lot of bad things with it. The cover system is much better, the graphics are much nicer, combat feels a lot better, you have easier control over your squad mates etc.

Yeah, there's a bunch of flaws that stick out (or seemingly do so), but no game is perfect.

[Malanek]

I think it was because the gameplay and pacing were great. It was balanced with a good level of challenge and extreme replayability. Although the main story was very brief, the subplots of each individual mission were very good. It expanded and added a lot of depth to the game world introduced in ME1. Dialogue was so-so (lower than other bioware games) but not many games even have it. It was also cinematically strong. I think it deserved all those top ratings.

[MonkeyKaboom]

The short answer?  Because it is the best game yet to attempt the cross genre RPG/Shooter hybrid.  It is the new standard for what it set out to do.

Going into details:
First and foremost the combat mechanics are light years ahead of its predecessor.  This is for a number of reasons.  The challenge in shooters is brought into the combat.  Where some people mistakenly claim that the combat is "dumbed down," in reality it is much more complicated.  Personally, I enjoy the challenge of attempting (often multiple times) to work my way through the various fights.  The cover system is much better.  And enemy AI is a vast emprovement over the first game.  Maybe I'm a masochist, but dying repeatedly in a certain encounter, while frustrating, is rewarding.  So long as its not a matter of sheer luck but rather a well developed AI and in turn a well throught plan to overcome the enemy.  Finally beating the fight is its own reward in the challenge overcome.  Its not at the same level as some strictly FPS games, but its enough to keep the fight interesting.

Additionally, its the FPS additions that enhance the RPG elements in combat.  The new system actually allows the class design to be fleshed out, class distinction being a significantly RPG element.  Vanguard in ME1 was nothing more than Adept with a shotgun.  There was absolutely no difference in the way the two classes played out in terms of actual game mechanics.  It was boring.  In ME2, classes are unique.  There are balancing issues sure.  But something as simple as Charge, it shapes the Vanguard into its own identity.  That would not be possible without the fleshed out FPS combat design.

The story could be better, but honestly its no different than any previous RPG in elements.  Assemble a team to beat an overwhelming enemy, same repeated theme in just about any RPG.  While some feel the plot was weak, I think the theme was nice.  You are now "in charge" of a team in an organization that had previously been one of your greatest enemies.  Now you have to go through the game with this organization and attempt to face your greater challenges while at the same time not sacrificing yourself.  Granted that makes the most impact probably if you are paragon Shep.  But it is something.  It probably could have been done a bit better, but it was still fun.

Then the small stuff that annoyed me was cut out.  The redundant inventory being stripped was a good move.  The Mako was lame and needed to go.  Though I wish they would have implemented some sort of vehicle combat into existing levels.  That would have meshed well with the faster paced action in ME2.  And the game in general just feels edgier.  Even paragon Shep has some attitude in ME2.  This is intergalactic war not the boyscouts.

So I guess, better gameplay keeps things interesting.  Better class development improves replayability for me.  More developed characters, even if the amount is redundant.  The RPG elements are still there, even if they aren't as standout as other RPG's.  But the sacrifice is more than worth it for the added elements of a more challenging combat system and better gameplay/replay.  The only thing I wish they would really get rid of is the stupid scanner. 

Modifié par MonkeyKaboom, 20 juillet 2010 - 09:22 .

[tonnactus]

piemanz wrote...

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

I don't get why ME2 is so hated. In my opinion Gameplay>everything else and that's were it excels.

ME2 hated? ,i dont think so.Yes theres a very vocal minority present on these forums that dislike it or hate the changes from ME1 but genrally speaking ME2 is one of the most succesful games ever.

Most sucessfull? Where? It still have to pass the sales numbers of the first game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 20 juillet 2010 - 09:23 .

[tonnactus]

Darth Drago wrote...


Let me ask this, was ME2 really this perfect of a game?
 

Its not even 10 in a technical aspect. Just regarding such things like the squad ammo bug ,the shield upgrade bug and problems with powers like charge.

[tonnactus]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...
 Vanguard in ME1 was nothing more than Adept with a shotgun. 

Wrong. Adrenaline burst alone made the vanguard experience a completly different thing compared with the adept. Especially at the beginning of the game. Then someone have to take specialisations into account shepardt got after the luna mission.

[bjdbwea]

Barquiel wrote...

I would give ME2 a rating somewhere between 7,5 - 8

I love the Mass Effect universe, but
- the plot is weak
- the characters felt disconnected from the plot. Every squadmate had his/her 15 minutes of fame...that's not character-driven.
- no exploration, no inventory, no party-banter
The ME1 inventory system was flawed, but the removal of the inventory system is not the perfect solution (= 10) for an action RPG.
MAKO: the same
ME1 had elevators (better than nothing), Dragon Age had party banters...ME2? nothing

This.

Besides, no game should possibly get 10/10 or 100/100. Such reviews can only be hype and little substance, and are therefore usually not worth reading. Few magazines or sites are credible these days.

[Jigero]

bjdbwea wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

I would give ME2 a rating somewhere between 7,5 - 8

I love the Mass Effect universe, but
- the plot is weak
- the characters felt disconnected from the plot. Every squadmate had his/her 15 minutes of fame...that's not character-driven.
- no exploration, no inventory, no party-banter
The ME1 inventory system was flawed, but the removal of the inventory system is not the perfect solution (= 10) for an action RPG.
MAKO: the same
ME1 had elevators (better than nothing), Dragon Age had party banters...ME2? nothing

This.

Besides, no game should possibly get 10/10 or 100/100. Such reviews can only be hype and little substance, and are therefore usually not worth reading. Few magazines or sites are credible these days.

Wow your logic is flawed, why bother having a scale of 1-10 if no game is is possible of getting a 10. A perfect score means it's highly recomendable and most gamers will find it enjoyable. a Perfect score doesn't mean the game it self is perfect.

[bjdbwea]

That makes little sense. 10/10 = Perfect. 10/10 = Can not be better. There is no other interpretation. Have you ever played a game that could not be better in one regard or another?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:26 .

[wizardryforever]

bjdbwea wrote...

That makes little sense. 10/10 = Perfect. 10/10 = Can not be better. There is no other interpretation. Have you ever played a game that could not be better in one regard or another?

I think the logic is that since no game can be perfect, perfection is not what a 10/10 means.  As in, since perfection is unattainable, it ranks beyond the scope of traditional ranking, like an 11/10.  A 10/10 means that it is as close to perfect as it is conceivable to get without actually being perfect.  10/10 is somewhat suspicious, but I don't think it automatically means that the review is unreliable.  I'd read the review and make my own judgement on its credibility.

[kraidy1117]

tonnactus wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

I don't get why ME2 is so hated. In my opinion Gameplay>everything else and that's were it excels.

ME2 hated? ,i dont think so.Yes theres a very vocal minority present on these forums that dislike it or hate the changes from ME1 but genrally speaking ME2 is one of the most succesful games ever.

Most sucessfull? Where? It still have to pass the sales numbers of the first game.

ME came out two years ago, ME2 is selling better then ME. The only reason why ME2 has not beat ME yet is because it took ME two years to reach it's sale number, ME2 did better then ME in it's first month and is still selling well, it was a succesful.

[bjdbwea]

This still makes not much sense. Once you admit that the game isn't perfect, you have to give it a 9/10, or maybe 9.3/10 or 9.4/10. Only that is serious journalism.

(Not that I'd give ME 2 such a high number. It would be a 7/10 or so.)

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 juillet 2010 - 11:58 .

[kraidy1117]

bjdbwea wrote...

This still makes not much sense. Once you admit that the game isn't perfect, you have to give it a 9/10, or maybe 9.3/10. Only that is serious journalism.

ME2 is a 9.5 at best, not a 10/10. There is only like three games I would consider 10/10 and those come from Nintendo.

My ratings for both games are.

ME=9.0
ME2=9.5

[homestyle]

cuz it be the bomb, cuz.

[PWENER]

What makes MASS EFFECT great is not the gameplay, the graphics or how many guns I can have with me at the same time, no. What makes MASS EFFECT great is the magical storyline, the magnificent characters, the mindbending events and the great jokes that Seth Green makes as Joker. That's what makes MASS EFFECT great.

[tonnactus]

kraidy1117 wrote...

ME came out two years ago, ME2 is selling better then ME. The only reason why ME2 has not beat ME yet is because it took ME two years to reach it's sale number, ME2 did better then ME in it's first month and is still selling well, it was a succesful.

Where?
http://www.vgchartz....me.php?id=28815

Thats is far away from still selling well.

That the sequel sell better then the first game in the first month isnt suprising because a lot people preordered it because of the first.

[wizardryforever]

bjdbwea wrote...

This still makes not much sense. Once you admit that the game isn't perfect, you have to give it a 9/10, or maybe 9.3/10 or 9.4/10. Only that is serious journalism.

(Not that I'd give ME 2 such a high number. It would be a 7/10 or so.)

I'm not sure if you understood me.  If perfection is unattainable, it is not part of the ranking system.  If 10/10 meant a game was perfect, and no game is perfect, then no game would be 10/10, making the "out of 10" part pointless, since no game can actually reach 10.  If the highest you're willing to rank a game is 9.5, then it would be 9.5/9.5, see?  So 10/10 does not equal perfect, unless the person who made the ranking system was an idiot.

I don't know if I agree with ME2 being 10/10, but it warrants at least 9/10.

[kraidy1117]

tonnactus wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

ME came out two years ago, ME2 is selling better then ME. The only reason why ME2 has not beat ME yet is because it took ME two years to reach it's sale number, ME2 did better then ME in it's first month and is still selling well, it was a succesful.

Where?
http://www.vgchartz....me.php?id=28815

Thats is far away from still selling well.

That the sequel sell better then the first game in the first month isnt suprising because a lot people preordered it because of the first.

ME has sold  2.24m in 2 years.
ME2 has sold 1.83m in around seven months.

It is doing better then ME by far.

Modifié par kraidy1117, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:21 .

[bjdbwea]

wizardryforever wrote...

I'm not sure if you understood me.  If perfection is unattainable, it is not part of the ranking system.  If 10/10 meant a game was perfect, and no game is perfect, then no game would be 10/10, making the "out of 10" part pointless, since no game can actually reach 10.  If the highest you're willing to rank a game is 9.5, then it would be 9.5/9.5, see?  So 10/10 does not equal perfect, unless the person who made the ranking system was an idiot.

I would actually be willing to rate a game 10/10, so it's not pointless. But of course, it would have to be a perfect game. Likewise, if the scale goes up to 9.5, only a perfect game can achieve a 9.5. A merely great game would have to be at 9.1/9.5 or so.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that 10/10 equals perfection in every common understanding. That's certainly how the publishers would like to have it seen too, but responsible reviewers should not go for that.

If they still have any interest in being responsible and neutral, which often seems doubtful of course.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 juillet 2010 - 12:32 .

[Siansonea]

Mass Effect is great to me because:



• customizable protaganist that is voiced in cutscenes rather than silent like in other games.

• compelling non-player characters that can be interacted with in a variety of ways.

• interesting setting and environments.

• fun storyline (especially in the first game)

• very good graphics, and a 'realistic' approach to the graphics (rather than an exaggerated aesthetic like Gears of War)

• challenging but not impossibly difficult combat/game mechanics.

• cinematic feel.

• great music.

• very good voice acting and casting.

[LiquidGrape]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

[...] creates bland, expendable and boring characters ...]

That's a rather superficial way of describing such a large cast.
Granted, I didn't go into explicit detail myself; but since I'm given the opportunity I'd argue that Jack is by far Mass Effect's most intricately crafted character on both a pscyhological and visual level, Mordin and Samara wonderful examples of moral ambiguity, and Kasumi a welcome addition of fun and pluckiness.