CatatonicMan wrote...
The biggest issue with ME2 as far as I can see actually doesn't stem from the game itself, but rather from the fact that it is a sequel.
ME2 works perfectly fine as a game. It's mechanics are functional, it's experience is fun and memorable, and it is generally well executed on the whole. It has it's flaws like all games, but they aren't generally critical or game breaking. Some liked it, and some didn't - just like every other game.
ME1 also worked perfectly fine: functional mechanics, fun, good experience, well executed, with some irritating but not game breaking flaws. Again, it was liked by some and disliked by others.
The problems arise because ME2 is a direct sequel from ME1. ME2 is quite a different game than ME1; they are similar in the basic premise, but differ massively in the implementation. Unfortunately, this means that anyone who bought ME2 thinking that it would be ME1+1 (like most direct sequels) was going to find a game that was quite different that what they anticipated. It is fairly obvious to me that unless a player enjoyed the changes, they would be out for the blood of the one who messed up the game.
The same thing would have happened if ME2 had come first.
The issue is not one of mechanics, but instead of performing radical changes to a direct sequel.
I'm catabuca, and this is my favourite post on the internet.
It's difficult to view either game solely on their own merits, because they exist in a narrative relationship with one another. I recently played Alpha Protocol, but didn't find myself comparing it to ME (no more than I was asked to, since it was marketed as similar to the ME franchise in terms of being action/rpg, and only in the way I would compare Mass Effect to Assassin's Creed, with regard to which I enjoyed playing the most, for example) simply because it isn't part of that franchise. I can't play ME1 or 2 with the same detatchment because they are part of the same narrative, the same story, which is being delivered in 3 episodes.
I believe ME1 and 2 work at their best as stand-alone games, both having excellent qualities and both having some flaws. I rate ME1's story and immersion as better than ME2, I rate ME2's combat (in terms of cover and aiming) as better than ME1. I prefer the range of talents and depth of armor/weapon customisation or modding in ME1, but I found the inventory system bloated and badly implemented. I prefer the way I can curve powers and not have to wade through inventories in ME2, but I dislike the way the game is chopped up even more so than ME1 by its end of level screens, and by being dropped into combat levels (with their crates-means-combat layout) and whisked out of them again. At the same time, I enjoyed the more expansive main missions in ME1, where the missions were made of up several aspects like talking to people, doing smaller missions, then some combat, but, conversely, I disliked how each uncharted world was essentially the same. I like how ME2 had varied side assignments, but I disliked how short or inconsequential most of them seemed.
See, I'm comparing the two games. They work best as two stand-alone games, and the problem lies in the fact that we aren't playing them as two stand-alone games. They are parts one and two of a trilogy which are continuing the same story. The Mass Effect trilogy was marketed to fans at the beginning essentially along the lines of a three act play. It wasn't described as a stand-alone game (ME), which may have its universe extended by the creation of another stand-alone game or games in the future (ME2 and ME3). The former is how a lot of people view the current trilogy, and that's why they will compare the games to a far greater level than they would compare say Mass Effect to Alpha Protocol, or GTAIII to GTAIV.
This isn't all as cut and dried as some make out: if you criticise aspects of ME2, it doesn't mean you hate it, and it doesn't mean you idolise all aspects of ME1. Likewise, if you say ME2 is a better game than ME1, I'd wager the reason a lot of people picked up ME2 in the first place was because they played and enjoyed ME1, while at the same time recognising its faults. Overall, I prefer ME1 because I prefer its story and the way it immerses me in the universe. It is possible for me to hold that opinion while disliking ME1's inventory bloat, while finding the texture glitches mildly irritating, while getting tired of the same merc bases on the uncharted worlds, and while liking the improved combat mechanics in ME2. It's possible for me to recognise and enjoy the great improvements BW made in ME2 to graphics, combat, and so on, while at the same time preferring how ME1 felt emotionally as I played it. It's not either/or, it's not black/white.
------
*ahem* I realise this post does little to discuss the inventory, which was the point of this thread. fwiw, as I briefly stated above, amidst the rest of my rambling, I disliked the bloat of ME1's inventory system, and how you had to micro-manage it and spend so much time piffling around. At the same time, I wish BW had retained a little more customisation potential in ME2, in terms of mods to weapons (I'm reasonably happy with the way my armor is modular in ME2), and I wish my squad wore armor - that is one of the biggest oversights of the whole game imo.
And in reply to the point about carrying hundreds of pieces of gear around with you being unrealistic (I agree it's unrealistic, but it's something that doesn't break immersion for me, since it's something I'm comfortable with in terms of suspension of disbelief, just not in terms of bloat), I think you're on dodgy ground using realism as an argument against it since I find it pretty unrealistic that there would be weapons lockers at strategic places around combat levels where I could access all the weapons on my ship.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
