887 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

There are threads about the game in general, and whatever disappointment we might have with it. Shouldn't this thread be about the article?

I think these statements are very questionable, because with all due respect, there is not much truth to them. Especially because all the features he mentioned as being important, were done better in previous BioWare games and seem to have in fact taken the backseat in ME 2. I think they should act less like politicians in their interviews. Not many people like to be taken for fools.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 août 2010 - 09:29 .

[joriandrake]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If managing an inventory makes you smart, then maybe I should use my 3 full BG2 playthroughs on my resume.

Yes... because of course the inventory was the only thing lost in ME2. And wanting more customisation, depth and options in a game is the wrong way to go.

Sarcasm Level Up


I myself wouldn't mind to be able to costumize not just the character but also the Normandy, perhaps even to be able to rename it, I never liked the name.

[sevach]

I agree and disagree with this statement at the same time...



Yes, they should be focusing on history and good gameplay instead of a bunch of numbers, it's a hybrid action/rpg not a pure rpg afterall.



But i wouldn't say that Mass Effect 2 had a great story, or great roleplaying, if anything the story is step back compared to Mass Effect 1...



And weapons customization... don't even get me started...

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

There are threads about the game in general, and whatever disappointment we might have with it. Shouldn't this thread be about the article?

Agreed. That's why I responded to Terror_K's bigger post in this thread here.

[joriandrake]

sevach wrote...

I agree and disagree with this statement at the same time...

Yes, they should be focusing on history and good gameplay instead of a bunch of numbers, it's a hybrid action/rpg not a pure rpg afterall.

But i wouldn't say that Mass Effect 2 had a great story, or great roleplaying, if anything the story is step back compared to Mass Effect 1...

And weapons customization... don't even get me started...

weapons were simply done better in ME1

[Lumikki]

joriandrake wrote...

sevach wrote...

I agree and disagree with this statement at the same time...

Yes, they should be focusing on history and good gameplay instead of a bunch of numbers, it's a hybrid action/rpg not a pure rpg afterall.

But i wouldn't say that Mass Effect 2 had a great story, or great roleplaying, if anything the story is step back compared to Mass Effect 1...

And weapons customization... don't even get me started...

weapons were simply done better in ME1

I assume you mean weapon customation. Not actually weapon use in combat.

Because ME1 weapons in combat was joke. There was only one weapon you needed, specter pistol.  In ME2 weapons are alot more different and usefull, as player not using one weapon to every situation. When I played infiltrator in ME1 I never used anything else than pistol. Because I did not need to. It was the über weapon.

How ever, weapon customation was alot better in ME1. In ME2 weapon customation is way too generic and lacks of induvidualism options and details.

In general Casey Hudson is in right track. It's not the about amount of inventory junk and stat numbers what makes game good. They just distract player from what really matters, what is playing and enjoying good story. Items are tools and player need different kind of tools with different function, what also feels different, not same tools with small attribute change or different name.

Not sure if I say this right, but with weapons or any other items, it's not about replacing them with better items, because that will lead obsolite and junk items. Better way is to have different kind of items, what has they unique function, then allow improve those items. This means player doesn't need to replace items with better ones, but improve items what player allready have and make choise what items players want to use. It's about items feeling different and giving possibilities. Not about drowning player under to huge amount of junk, to find best item.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 août 2010 - 10:26 .

[Jebel Krong]

bjdbwea wrote...

In Mass Effect 2 we focused on what we love about RPGs: An awesome sense of exploration,

Really? And here I thought all exploration had been cut out in ME 2, in favor of convenient and completeley linear levels.

intense combat,

Perhaps. If you call repetitive cover-shoot-cover-shoot sequences "intense".

a deep and non-linear story that's affected by your actions,

And here I thought most of your choices were reduced to emails, and not even saving or sacrificing the council made any difference. Deep and non-linear too? Hmm... wait, I get it! Someone has to have made a mistake! He is the only one who actually played ME 2 - they released the wrong game to the public! Of course!

and rich customisation of your armour, weapons and appearance...

Right. That's why we're stuck with one kind of armor and a few DLC armors, as well as a handful of weapons that can't be modded anymore. That's also why we have to use mods to equip the numerous armors and clothes that are in the game, but normally unusable.

bjdbwea: STFU and keep it in the "disappointment" thread..... that first post of yours is so full of FAIL, but the biggest crime is it being on the 1st page of what should have been a thread about the article, not your illusions... personally i enjoyed exploring all the new environments in both games, as well as the dynamic and tactically-rich specifically-designed battlefields, combined with completely re-done combat mechanics that actually worked etc.

me3 will be awesome if they keep doing what they've done for both games so far and don't rush it out too early.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 05 août 2010 - 11:28 .

[zazei]

Well criticizing them for claiming ME2 had a "An awesome sense of exploration" isn't wrong in a thread about a interview when they do just that. Especially since ME2 had no exploration to speak of.

Modifié par zazei, 05 août 2010 - 11:59 .

[Burdokva]

Lumikki wrote...

I assume you mean weapon customation. Not actually weapon use in combat.

(...)

Not sure if I say this right, but with weapons or any other items, it's not about replacing them with better items, because that will lead obsolite and junk items. Better way is to have different kind of items, what has they unique function, then allow improve those items. This means player doesn't need to replace items with better ones, but improve items what player allready have and make choise what items players want to use. It's about items feeling different and giving possibilities. Not about drowning player under to huge amount of junk, to find best item.

Personally, I preferred the skill-determined lethality of weapons. Just pointing the mouse at the target to achieve a hit is not challenging, at all. From my shooter background and the tens of shooters I've played, I just can't understand how people don't grow bored out if it. It's the exact same mechanic repeated in each game. Mass Effect I liked because it was a complex RPG shooter, and the shooter sections were dependent just as much on  planning out your skill tree as actual triggers skills.


As for customization, yes, it is horribly bland (to the point of being non-existent) in Mass Effect 2. It's perfectly fine if you don't like the system in the original, but I don't see where they get their claims about complexity or customization when pure shooters such as BioShock and Dead Space had a far more interesting weapon upgrade mechanic. Incidentally, both also have an inventory mechanic and people not only don't hate it, they like it (Dead Space's is even integrated smoothly into the action sequences).

Inventory is itself not bad, but instead of taking the complaints about the cluttered and hard to navigate (both on Xbox and PC) inventory menus and refining them, BioWare took the easy route and completely scrapped the inventory. Completely. In an action RPG... one that has less complexity now than even some of the high-profile shooters. 

How's that not dumbing down the gameplay?

Modifié par Burdokva, 05 août 2010 - 12:09 .

[Pattonesque]

Burdokva wrote...

Personally, I preferred the skill-determined lethality of weapons. Just pointing the mouse at the target to achieve a hit is not challenging, at all. From my shooter background and the tens of shooters I've played, I just can't understand how people don't grow bored out if it. It's the exact same mechanic repeated in each game. Mass Effect I liked because it was a complex RPG shooter, and the shooter sections were dependent just as much on  planning out your skill tree as actual triggers skills.

This seems like a very strange point of view. Are you saying that you enjoyed the possibility that you could line up a headshot, pull the trigger, and straight-up miss because some number crunched in the background said your skill wasn't high enough? I'm not sure how this is better than simply having your aim determine whether you hit or not.

[Whatever42]

Because dumbing down implies that it took more intelligence to play the original version. It did not. It simply took more patience. There was no extra complexity, just extra clutter.



As far as weapon customization, ME2 had far more variation than ME1. I had an SMG that did more damage up close but lacked accuracy. I had an SMG that was deadly accurate but did less damage. They looked and felt different. In ME, the guns were different colors and had different names but there was nothing much different about them.



I had a heavy weapon that fired nukes. I had a heavy weapon that fired a laser. I had a heavy weapon that fired guided missiles.



I had a sniper rifle that was single shot. I had a repeating sniper rifled. I had triple shot sniper rifle.



You just don't get this variation in ME1.



And ME1 was a complex RPG shooter? You mean stats based? There was zero complexity and planning in that system. Those skill trees were lame.



I get that some people didn't get the hardcore DA: ME that they craved. But some people's efforts to try to convince the rest of us that ME2 was "bad" is really silly. You complain about incredibly minor elements like its the end of the world and then make very, very thin arguments to defend it.



Its glad news to me that Bioware is ignoring the Fan Dumb (I like that term) and their weird, fake elitism.

[Terror_K]

Because in ME1 you could actually put mods in your weapons. In ME2 the weapons come as-is and you can't change them. There's an upgrade system, but it's meaningless, linear and too easy to just fully-upgrade everything without any trade-offs. It's not customisation because every player ends up with all the same stuff at the end with no variations. All weapons are inevitable gimmes on the same damn path every time, and the same goes for the upgrades. The whole point of customisation is to make something unique to you... not just have the same thing as every single other player out there. The only part of ME2 that has this aspect is the armour colouring and your Shepard's face (the latter of which was also in ME1).

[Whatever42]

Fair enough, Terror_K. In ME1, I simply put the same mods on my weapons and left it at that. I do understand that people might have valued the mechanic differently.

AndI understand the desire to be able to personalize in an RPG. I share it. I also understand that for many people, RPG means "world of warcraft" like stats obsesssion. I've been involved in discussions about whether this weapon or that weapon has better dps verus burst damage. I fully understand the nerdish obsession with building a dps calculator so you can mix and match equipment for maximum effectiveness - to decide whether the armor piercing on this weapon is better than the +dex on that weapon.

ME has never been that game. Even ME1 did a very poor job of it. In WoW, I can carefully examine the stats of my weapons, and the appearance, and the play style and make a choice that reflects how I want to play and look. And to me this is important, because often I don't make the most effective choice but I want to look different but I also don't want to gimp myself in PvP or Raiding.

But ME1 didn't do this. The weapons were bland. The armor was usually pretty ugly. I either wore onyx to keep my original shep outfit or the spectre gear. I always just upgraded to the guns with the best stats because they all looked and felt alike. The mods were plug in and upgrade when new ones come out. They added no personalization for me and no real sense of a change in gameplay (well, I loved frictionless because I'm a chronic overheater). They just meant one more thing to manage but I got zero satisfaction from it.

I'll agree that I would like more personalization in the armor. I would also like better facial customization. And if they threw in more weapons, I would be thrilled.

But as I have said far too many times (yes, I know I am becoming tiresome), its one thing to say that you wish Bioware would provide more personalization options. Its another thing to claim the game is bad because it doesn't have precisely what you want from it. It's simply not YOUR favorite game. And, to my point of view anyway, its ludicrous to point to ME1 as a game that did it right.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 05 août 2010 - 01:32 .

[Burdokva]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Because dumbing down implies that it took more intelligence to play the original version. It did not. It simply took more patience. There was no extra complexity, just extra clutter.

As far as weapon customization, ME2 had far more variation than ME1. I had an SMG that did more damage up close but lacked accuracy. I had an SMG that was deadly accurate but did less damage. They looked and felt different. In ME, the guns were different colors and had different names but there was nothing much different about them.

I had a heavy weapon that fired nukes. I had a heavy weapon that fired a laser. I had a heavy weapon that fired guided missiles.

I had a sniper rifle that was single shot. I had a repeating sniper rifled. I had triple shot sniper rifle.

You just don't get this variation in ME1.

And ME1 was a complex RPG shooter? You mean stats based? There was zero complexity and planning in that system. Those skill trees were lame.

I get that some people didn't get the hardcore DA: ME that they craved. But some people's efforts to try to convince the rest of us that ME2 was "bad" is really silly. You complain about incredibly minor elements like its the end of the world and then make very, very thin arguments to defend it.

Its glad news to me that Bioware is ignoring the Fan Dumb (I like that term) and their weird, fake elitism.

You term seems to perfectly describe you, if you missed the complexity of Mass Effect's weapons. There was no need for different sniper rifles, because the mods made it - a sniper with 2x Scram Rails IXs and High Explosive ammo was very different from one with a Kinetic Coil and two good heat dampeners (sorry, forget the exact names). A fully skilled sniper behaved very differently from a untrained one. A pistol with marksman skill behaved differently than one without.

Whatever666343431431654324 you know you have a very warped logic? So, I can not express in detail my opinion of the game because it's not to MY taste and I should simply be quiet, yet you can express your gripes with Mass Effect (1) because it doesn't fit YOUR taste? Bravo, sir! Egoism at its best.

Modifié par Burdokva, 05 août 2010 - 01:59 .

[Halo Quea]

Deflagratio wrote...

No game is perfect, though quality is not really subject to opinion, content preference is. That said, I wish so much wasn't cut from Mass Effect 1 to make room for things in Mass Effect 2.

Good things that were removed because of repetition include:

-> Loot spam

-> Inventory system

I still don't understand why Bioware didn't move the Inventory System to the Normandy.  

From the Normandy everything could be neatly organized and broken down without the tedium of having it on the fly in the player's GUI.    Everything that is looted/collected would go straight to the Normandy instead of being carried around by Shepard.

In the Cargo Hold where Zaeed is located, the Normandy has a trash compactor.   If you think about it, anything from salavaged MECHS to armor and weapons could have been broken down there.  Instead of Omni Gel, any overstock in the inventory could be converted into things that your Shepard actually needs, like thermal clips, power cells, recycled materials for research upgrades etc

Simple solution. 

[Mendelevosa]

DarthCaine wrote...

ME1 gave the illusion of having many weapons and armor, and people still fall for it. In reality, there was only 3 different armors while the rest were reskins. As for the weapons, there was 2 models of each type and they all fired the same (unlike in ME2), and the others were just reskins with a bunch of roman numerals to make you think they're different

^This.
Plus, it seems that some people here believe that quantity=quality. Quantity DOES NOT determine the quality of something. In ME1, the quantity of armor and weapons was high, but the quality of the inventory was low, due to most of the items being reskins of each other. ME2 may have less weapons and armor, but at least each armor set and weapon have very noticable differences from each other.

Modifié par Mendelevosa, 05 août 2010 - 02:48 .

[WilliamShatner]

Mendelevosa wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

ME1 gave the illusion of having many weapons and armor, and people still fall for it. In reality, there was only 3 different armors while the rest were reskins. As for the weapons, there was 2 models of each type and they all fired the same (unlike in ME2), and the others were just reskins with a bunch of roman numerals to make you think they're different

^This.
Plus, it seems that some people here believe that quantity=quality. ME2 may have less weapons and armor, but at least each armor set and weapon have very noticable differences from each other.

That's a non-arguement.  All visual media is an illusion.

[ztonkin]

Yeah, but how many of those 1000 variations are actually important? "Oh, you stopped that kid from signing on with the mercs to kill Archangel, so he has a cameo in the ME3." Yeah, whatever. But, now that they don't have to worry about a ME4, they could have many many different outcomes for the story. So I look forward to seeing every single one.

[Whatever42]

[

Burdokva wrote...
You term seems to perfectly describe you, if you missed the complexity of Mass Effect's weapons. There was no need for different sniper rifles, because the mods made it - a sniper with 2x Scram Rails IXs and High Explosive ammo was very different from one with a Kinetic Coil and two good heat dampeners (sorry, forget the exact names). A fully skilled sniper behaved very differently from a untrained one. A pistol with marksman skill behaved differently than one without.

Whatever666343431431654324 you know you have a very warped logic? So, I can not express in detail my opinion of the game because it's not to MY taste and I should simply be quiet, yet you can express your gripes with Mass Effect (1) because it doesn't fit YOUR taste? Bravo, sir! Egoism at its best.

Oh, I appreciate that I had to train to be a sniper to be a sniper. And if I did that then I couldn't use a shotgun or some other weapon.  Generally, though, I didn't use weapons that I wasn't trained in. No point.  And, yes,  high explosive ammo did have a gameplay difference but considering that it locked up your weapon (frictionless doesn't help against +500% overheat), I never really used it. Especially considering that you only really had a couple weapons you were trained in.

But, again, I appreciate that a few people may have nerded out about the weapons mod. For me, they were bleh.

And I only pick on ME1 because people keep contrasting it to ME2. I very much enjoyed ME1 but holding it up as a shining symbol of traditional RPG elements is more than silly. ME1 was a cool game in spite of the badly implemented RPG elements.

If people instead of saying "ME2 sucks because its not ME1!!!!!" said "I think we should have more weapon personalization options" then we could have a civil convesation without bashing anything or anyone. Because lets face it, there was always zero change Bioware was going backwards so loudly demanding it was pointless.

[Vena_86]

Mendelevosa wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

ME1 gave the illusion of having many weapons and armor, and people still fall for it. In reality, there was only 3 different armors while the rest were reskins. As for the weapons, there was 2 models of each type and they all fired the same (unlike in ME2), and the others were just reskins with a bunch of roman numerals to make you think they're different

^This.
Plus, it seems that some people here believe that quantity=quality. Quantity DOES NOT determine the quality of something. In ME1, the quantity of armor and weapons was high, but the quality of the inventory was low, due to most of the items being reskins of each other. ME2 may have less weapons and armor, but at least each armor set and weapon have very noticable differences from each other.

Noone says ME1s item systems are good. Pretty much everyone admits that they are flawed. ME2 just removed so much that in the end there is the same ammount of quality but far less quantity so that in comparison it appears like more quality. And a reskin of a weapon or armor can still make it appear different, specially when there are visible stats that go along with it.
When it comes to customization ME2 is hands down one of the weakes RPGs of the last years, and armor colouring, while a good feature, can not save it.
And like it was said already, even many shooters have better systems than ME2 (and ME1), which just makes the failure more obvious.
Mr. Hudson should check out some other games other than thew copied GoW.

Modifié par Vena_86, 05 août 2010 - 03:24 .

[Fhaileas]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

They said they aren't going to reinvent it. They didn't say they weren't going to improve it. Wasn't one of the main goals for ME3 richer RPG elements, according to Christina Norman?

With all due respect to Christina Norman, I personally think she did a terrible job in her role as lead game designer. They should bring back Preston Watamaniuk!

Elaboration is good

Okey dokey! Summarizing ME2 gameplay compared to ME1: Ammo system? Dumbed down. Inventory? Dumbed down. Health system? Dumbed down. Controls? Dumbed down. Journal? Dumbed down. Choices? Dumbed down. Character progression? Dumbed down.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 05 août 2010 - 03:26 .

[joriandrake]

Fhaileas wrote...

KainrycKarr wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

They said they aren't going to reinvent it. They didn't say they weren't going to improve it. Wasn't one of the main goals for ME3 richer RPG elements, according to Christina Norman?

With all due respect to Christina Norman, I personally think she did a terrible job in her role as lead game designer. They should bring back Preston Watamaniuk!

Elaboration is good

Okey dokey! Summarizing ME2 gameplay compared to ME1: Ammo system? Dumbed down. Inventory? Dumbed down. Health system? Dumbed down. Controls? Dumbed down. Journal? Dumbed down. Choices? Dumbed down. Character progression? Dumbed down.

you forgot equipment, especially companion equipment

[Onyx Jaguar]

The controls were dumbed down? Now I am impressed

[theelementslayer]

Fhaileas wrote...

Okey dokey! Summarizing ME2 gameplay compared to ME1: Ammo system? Dumbed down. Inventory? Dumbed down. Health system? Dumbed down. Controls? Dumbed down. Journal? Dumbed down. Choices? Dumbed down. Character progression? Dumbed down.

Alright I have to ask. How was the journal dumbed down in any way? And how was the ammo system dumbed down. Sure you didnt have 200 different ammos that did the same thing but Im you really didnt need anything besides one for organics and one for synthetics.

Controls? Just because they are better means they are dumbed down. Wow you guys will pick at everything. Please tell me how they are "dumbed down". I felt they were more easily accessible (PC) when you didnt have to pause the game to tell your squad where to go.

Choices? Really? I think the choices in ME2 were harder because of what they revolved around. The genophage? Garrus' move towards vigilante? Samaras child? Jacks past. Sure not as much on a grand scale but still.

Character progression wasnt dumbed down at all, just streamlined. It made you think about what you wanted. In ME1 really I need a 1% increase to damage? It was more tedious.

Health system was alot better IMO, it kept the action going and instead of just waiting for 10 minutes to allow your helath to regen and your cooldown to end it kept you in the action.

[tonnactus]

A game for rental then.