The Interloper wrote...
Even of those numbers are complete, which I'm pretty sure they aren't, ME2 has sold most of ME1s' numbers, built up over two and a half years, in one fifth of the time.
tonnactus wrote...
It didnt.1,7 million(Mass Effect 2) compared with 2,3 million(MAss Effect)DarthCaine wrote...
It already sold more than ME1 and DAO and the majority prefers ME2 over ME1
DarthCaine wrote...
VGchartz is very unreliable. For one, ME2 lacks the Japan sales. VGchartz doesn't have correct numbers. ME2 has been out for about 6 months. ME1 has been out for 3 years
DarthCaine wrote...
tonnactus wrote...
It didnt.1,7 million(Mass Effect 2) compared with 2,3 million(MAss Effect)DarthCaine wrote...
It already sold more than ME1 and DAO and the majority prefers ME2 over ME1DarthCaine wrote...
VGchartz is very unreliable. For one, ME2 lacks the Japan sales. VGchartz doesn't have correct numbers. ME2 has been out for about 6 months. ME1 has been out for 3 years
So go ahead and teach your children to keep quiet since we live in perfect world where nothing needs improvement. Complaints don't only have a reason they also have a purpose. After all its the complains back in ME1 times that turned arround the franchise. Now there are complains that BioWare has gone too far. That is feedback.Siansonea II wrote...
Geez, every time I see threads like this, I think "why do people have children in the first place?"
I swear, if you won a million dollars, you lot would complain that the money wasn't green enough or something.
AwesomeName wrote...
@Haberman13
Well, you clearly were insulting them - and the intelligence of people who liked the game - so it just strikes me as hypocritical to declare that you're gonna buy their next game regardless (especially when we don't even have any previews). I wouldn't go into a restaurant telling them how crap their cooking is, and then stick my nose up and order all their food - I'd eat elsewhere.
I'll never understand how people will think that ME2 is dumbed down - they clearly put a lot of work into the story, level design, cinematics, gameplay, conversations, models, animations, etc... and made what looks like a much more polished game than ME1. At least in the case of the story or gameplay being more enjoyable - well that's subjective - and only intelligent people will appreciate when things are subjective.
Vena_86 wrote...
So go ahead and teach your children to keep quiet since we live in perfect world where nothing needs improvement. Complaints don't only have a reason they also have a purpose. After all its the complains back in ME1 times that turned arround the franchise. Now there are complains that BioWare has gone too far. That is feedback.Siansonea II wrote...
Geez, every time I see threads like this, I think "why do people have children in the first place?"
I swear, if you won a million dollars, you lot would complain that the money wasn't green enough or something.
haberman13 wrote...
Vena_86 wrote...
So go ahead and teach your children to keep quiet since we live in perfect world where nothing needs improvement. Complaints don't only have a reason they also have a purpose. After all its the complains back in ME1 times that turned arround the franchise. Now there are complains that BioWare has gone too far. That is feedback.Siansonea II wrote...
Geez, every time I see threads like this, I think "why do people have children in the first place?"
I swear, if you won a million dollars, you lot would complain that the money wasn't green enough or something.
Exactly, and to be fair, those who played on the consoles at release had a far different experience than I did a year after release on my PC. So maybe some of the complaints were warranted.
My main "beef" with ME2 is the stripping out of features, and the reason for my continued arguments on this forum are because for some reason people are defending the "dumbing down".
Can anyone truly argue that ME2 wasn't dumbed-down? (sorry, easiest term to describe it)
Guest_AwesomeName_*
haberman13 wrote...
Insult or not, I can obliterate the game analytically, and still buy it without being a hypocrite.
For example I endlessly rip on McDonalds food, but eat there occasionally out of necessity (time constraints, lack of better options, etc.)
Same with ME2-3, I need "food" and they are selling it, albeit a dumbed down hamburger with no toppings; but it is temporarily filling.
That being said, I'm sorry for insulting those who enjoyed ME2.
. Unless you need ME3 for an assignment or something, then surely it is hypocritical? This is a luxury item we're talking about; it's there for entertainment, not sustenance. And if entertainment is all you can get out of a game, then what do you have to gain by buying one you don't think offers that?
AwesomeName wrote...
haberman13 wrote...
Insult or not, I can obliterate the game analytically, and still buy it without being a hypocrite.
For example I endlessly rip on McDonalds food, but eat there occasionally out of necessity (time constraints, lack of better options, etc.)
Same with ME2-3, I need "food" and they are selling it, albeit a dumbed down hamburger with no toppings; but it is temporarily filling.
That being said, I'm sorry for insulting those who enjoyed ME2.
Except food is something you need and computer games aren't
As for dumbing down the game, I would explain that in detail (sorry if you already have in this thread). The only "dumbed down" things I can think of is the lack of adjusting your own gun modifications, not being able to toggle your helmet and some buttons being unified. Otherwise, for the most part, things seem a lot more resolved design wise.
Oh and thanks, apology accepted
Modifié par haberman13, 05 août 2010 - 08:47 .
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Except in both games the best option is to shoot the enemy in the face
The anology would be more like Bioshock, sure you can set up traps. But why? There is no advantage, just shoot the damn guys. Its implementation. That is the issue. If you can make one better than do it, and if you have to sacrifice the distractions then do so.
Modifié par haberman13, 05 août 2010 - 08:53 .
haberman13 wrote...
ME2 is refined. Like checkers is "refined" chess, less options and less strategy.
Some people like checkers, but I would say it is "dumbed down" compared to chess.
The food analogy came from a previous poster, I just expanded the analogy
I don't think it makes me a hypocrite to heavily criticize a game and also plan to play/buy it.
I could get X^1 enjoyment out of ME3 even if they dumbed it down further, but I could get X^5 enjoyment out of it if they stopped "refining" the game and made it a proper RPG with the better ME2 combat system on top.
haberman13 wrote...
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Except in both games the best option is to shoot the enemy in the face
The anology would be more like Bioshock, sure you can set up traps. But why? There is no advantage, just shoot the damn guys. Its implementation. That is the issue. If you can make one better than do it, and if you have to sacrifice the distractions then do so.
That is how you think based on a complex formula of tiered importance.
For me, options like that make the game fun, the outcome "NPC died" is simply the outcome ... not the fun.
Maybe that is the problem, we are becoming too outcome focused, instead of enjoying the game for the fun?
Suddenly ME2 takes on a new light ... catering to the capitalistic bottom line mindset!
Lol.
haberman13 wrote...
AwesomeName wrote...
haberman13 wrote...
Insult or not, I can obliterate the game analytically, and still buy it without being a hypocrite.
For example I endlessly rip on McDonalds food, but eat there occasionally out of necessity (time constraints, lack of better options, etc.)
Same with ME2-3, I need "food" and they are selling it, albeit a dumbed down hamburger with no toppings; but it is temporarily filling.
That being said, I'm sorry for insulting those who enjoyed ME2.
They dont want to make it a proper rpg and so long as bioware has control and not you, they will deliver what they wish, no one says you have to buy ME3 or even play ME2, or in a way that seems to have spoken to all of you; "eat mcdonalds".
Except food is something you need and computer games aren't
As for dumbing down the game, I would explain that in detail (sorry if you already have in this thread). The only "dumbed down" things I can think of is the lack of adjusting your own gun modifications, not being able to toggle your helmet and some buttons being unified. Otherwise, for the most part, things seem a lot more resolved design wise.
Oh and thanks, apology accepted
ME2 is refined. Like checkers is "refined" chess, less options and less strategy.
Some people like checkers, but I would say it is "dumbed down" compared to chess.
The food analogy came from a previous poster, I just expanded the analogy
I don't think it makes me a hypocrite to heavily criticize a game and also plan to play/buy it.
I could get X^1 enjoyment out of ME3 even if they dumbed it down further, but I could get X^5 enjoyment out of it if they stopped "refining" the game and made it a proper RPG with the better ME2 combat system on top.
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
haberman13 wrote...
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Except in both games the best option is to shoot the enemy in the face
The anology would be more like Bioshock, sure you can set up traps. But why? There is no advantage, just shoot the damn guys. Its implementation. That is the issue. If you can make one better than do it, and if you have to sacrifice the distractions then do so.
That is how you think based on a complex formula of tiered importance.
For me, options like that make the game fun, the outcome "NPC died" is simply the outcome ... not the fun.
Maybe that is the problem, we are becoming too outcome focused, instead of enjoying the game for the fun?
Suddenly ME2 takes on a new light ... catering to the capitalistic bottom line mindset!
Lol.
So I suppose Battlecruiser 3000AD is way better than Freespace because you get more options?
The problem with what you define is that for many people much of the gameplay of ME 1 simply was not fun. Only a small number of people found it fun and what was refined to make it more fun was at the expense of extra fluff that was there for just being there.
Not only was it inefficient, some of it was problematic on the game engine.
You want the game, the end product to be the most effective.
ME 2 could have been exactly like ME1, or it could have taken in some of the criticisms of hte first game. It could have stagnated or it could have grown. It could have taken the best aspects of both genre's it was copying, or it could have tried with what was done in the first. They chose to iron out the game rather than leave the splinters on the wood.
Guest_AwesomeName_*
Tyrael02 wrote...
AwesomeName wrote...
They dont want to make it a proper rpg and so long as bioware has control and not you, they will deliver what they wish, no one says you have to buy ME3 or even play ME2, or in a way that seems to have spoken to all of you; "eat mcdonalds".
Except food is something you need and computer games aren't
As for dumbing down the game, I would explain that in detail (sorry if you already have in this thread). The only "dumbed down" things I can think of is the lack of adjusting your own gun modifications, not being able to toggle your helmet and some buttons being unified. Otherwise, for the most part, things seem a lot more resolved design wise.
Oh and thanks, apology accepted
Modifié par AwesomeName, 05 août 2010 - 09:40 .
haberman13 wrote...
Exactly, and to be fair, those who played on the consoles at release had a far different experience than I did a year after release on my PC. So maybe some of the complaints were warranted.
Colonies could be big.Saremei wrote...
ME2's story made sense for there to be less side quests, looting, and exploration. In ME2, you are given the money and intel you need to operate from Cerberus. It is urgent that you get to solving the problem of the disappearing colonies before more are lost.
And what's so wrong with ME2's weapon upgrade system?
the only upgrades that made any real difference were the different ammo
types in ME1, and the ammo powers in ME2 cover that better.
Modifié par tonnactus, 05 août 2010 - 09:41 .
Guest_AwesomeName_*
haberman13 wrote...
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
So I suppose Battlecruiser 3000AD is way better than Freespace because you get more options?
The problem with what you define is that for many people much of the gameplay of ME 1 simply was not fun. Only a small number of people found it fun and what was refined to make it more fun was at the expense of extra fluff that was there for just being there.
Not only was it inefficient, some of it was problematic on the game engine.
You want the game, the end product to be the most effective.
ME 2 could have been exactly like ME1, or it could have taken in some of the criticisms of hte first game. It could have stagnated or it could have grown. It could have taken the best aspects of both genre's it was copying, or it could have tried with what was done in the first. They chose to iron out the game rather than leave the splinters on the wood.
I absolutely agree conceptually, I just disagree with the execution.
Loading screens, removal of gear (effectively), planet scanning, loss of exploration, corridor levels ... and on and on. To much "refining" for my taste. This was spurred on by the ME1-complaint crowd, in an effort to reverse the "strip it dry" trend I'll keep up this argument.
The funny thing is, had they kept almost everything from ME1 but added the ME2 combat system on top they would have had a near perfect game that catered to both crowds. Instead only the "pew pew" crowd seems to actually thoroughly enjoy ME2.
AwesomeName wrote...
each of those side missions are more resolved, design wise, and rather than end with a bit of text, you get a cinematic in the end. Clearly more effort went into these.
Modifié par tonnactus, 05 août 2010 - 09:50 .
Guest_AwesomeName_*
tonnactus wrote...
AwesomeName wrote...
each of those side missions are more resolved, design wise, and rather than end with a bit of text, you get a cinematic in the end. Clearly more effort went into these.
Oh really? There are questgivers for the n7 missions? People shepardt talk to and ask him to help in some cases like admiral hackett? And then a little debriefing after there are done?
Saremei wrote...
ME2's story made sense for there to be less side quests, looting, and exploration. In ME2, you are given the money and intel you need to operate from Cerberus. It is urgent that you get to solving the problem of the disappearing colonies before more are lost.
In ME1, you are in the military and given standard equipment and a ship. Then you become a Spectre, which means you get access to weapons similar to what Cerberus supplies (you know, stuff that won't EVER be replaced.) but you don't get paid. You have to find your armor and make your own money. No one really knows what is going on so exploring and figuring out the extent of the threat is key.
And what's so wrong with ME2's weapon upgrade system? I preferred that to the stupid items stuck in slots of the weapons. Always tended to use the same upgrades for all weapons anyway. Why not just upgrade the entire line of weapons at once as in ME2. the only upgrades that made any real difference were the different ammo types in ME1, and the ammo powers in ME2 cover that better.
Retour en haut