887 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

HotU had a better story than ME 2. The OC and SoU not so much, admittedly. But in ME 2 it sometimes feels as if they didn't even try.

[MassEffect762]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

"We plan out the larger plot points of the story from one game to the next, but it would be impossible to plan it all in advance,"

Wait, what? They havent planned out the story yet? They are just making it up along the way? wtf is this ****?

I thought the exact same thing, makes me feel they aren't ready for this. (Grandiose Finale/Trilogy)

I hope bioware can atleast nail the story.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

HotU had a better story than ME 2. The OC and SoU not so much, admittedly. But in ME 2 it sometimes feels as if they didn't even try.

I couldn't even make it to HotU. That's how bad of a single player experience I find Neverwinter Nights to be. Playing it is in many ways an exercise in futility.

[ScotGaymer]

Okay I guess I am the only person who prefers ME2 gameplay over ME1. Lol.



I am not disagreeing that they dumbed it down too much; but even dumbed down it was more balanced than ME1. More realistic too.



ME1 could easily get over complicated and boring. Grinding from one uninteresting planet to another in that horrible horrible Mako thing. Eugh. Okay the levels in ME2 do get a bit linear and repetitive; but its better than randomly pregenerated maps like in ME1.

I am glad they got rid of the inventory, it was broken the way it was. If they couldnt fix it then removing it was the best way.



The combat in ME1 - ive never found even from the beginning on the harder difficulties it very difficult at all.

The only times I died was when i was positively swarmed with enemies in a small space, like when the VI on Luna goes rogue and u need to deal with swarms of assault bots. Even Saren was easy to squash.

It didnt take a lot of thought or tactics to win. At least in ME2 you have to think about what ur doing, even if they are artificially forcing you to do it.

[ThePatriot101]

Good to see Bioware isn't bending over and taking it from the ranting minority. I liked ME1 and loved ME2 and I'd much prefer they kept the gameplay of ME2 pretty much intact. Might support some bells and whistles added but only if they really benefit ME2's style.



Plus it helps support the continuity of ME2 to ME3.



Keep at it Casey! Can't wait for ME3!

[Gorn Kregore]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
However sometimes I feel like im the only person who preferred ME2 over ME1 gameplay wise.
I found the combat system more realistic and simultaneously easier and more difficult to use (easier because its more sensible and intuitive and harder because you are actually in danger of dying quite a lot even from low level enemies). Though I do think they "dumbed" it all down a bit too much; and I hope for ME3 they tweak it back up a bit. And introduce REAL RPG elements back into it.

They dont need to overhaul the engine or make "major" changes to the game to effect the sorts of changes most people seem to want.

To be honest, you aren't the only one. I was kinda surprised how you "endorsed" the gameplay in ME2 in comparison to Mass Effect 1's. And believe it or not I agree completely, it's true what you've just stated.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Iakus, I usually understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree with it. But are you honestly telling me that you enjoyed Neverwinter Nights more than Mass Effect 2? 

Yes, yes I am. 

I'm not saying it didn't have problems.  In one of my gaming groups "Here comes halfling death!" became a catchphrase when someone is about to do something suicidally crazy.

But what did it have?:  "An awesome sense of exploration, intense combat, a deep and non-linear story that's affected by your actions, and rich customisation of your armour, weapons and appearance..."

Plus inventory.

To be fair, the expansions were better, especially HoTU

[Sparda Stonerule]

Let's try to end this. Both sides have made intelligent, rational, and reasonable reasons about why they do or do not like the game. Both sides have made utterly terrible points as to why they do or don't like the game.



Both sides have a point. Both sides are valid. Both sides have been talked to death. Both sides will continue to be talked to death even after Mass Effect 3 comes out.



What I absolutely do not understand is the overwhelmingly defensive nature of almost everyone. Just making a good argument doesn't make you right. That makes you rational. Making a bad argument doesn't make you wrong. That makes your points harder to understand. No one really has to go through this gauntlet of defending their ideas. Everything in everyones life is subjective. Not only that but each subjective point of view can have an infinite amount of sub sets and variations. There will never be an absolute consensus. People will like or dislike something and be completely validated in their opinions.



It's mostly asinine and pointless because both games have flaws and need improvement. Every game will always need improvement because nothing can actually be perfect. It's everyones right to say how they feel and want change but what isn't needed is the butting of heads. That just confuses discussion and makes it harder to try and come together in something possibly more favorable to everyone.



It just amazes me how often people squabble over things instead of actively attempting to make things better. Just saying something is a far cry from doing something about it. In this case doing something would be attempting to be non argumentative and legitimately constructive. Just name what you feel would be good and people could try to add to it or alter it in an effort to collaborate.



I mean I know this won't happen because it rarely does. But I really want this community to come together and actually try to make Mass Effect 3 better instead of flinging out ideas without any actual discussion.

[Sandcake]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Let's try to end this. Both sides have made intelligent, rational, and reasonable reasons about why they do or do not like the game. Both sides have made utterly terrible points as to why they do or don't like the game.

Both sides have a point. Both sides are valid. Both sides have been talked to death. Both sides will continue to be talked to death even after Mass Effect 3 comes out.

What I absolutely do not understand is the overwhelmingly defensive nature of almost everyone. Just making a good argument doesn't make you right. That makes you rational. Making a bad argument doesn't make you wrong. That makes your points harder to understand. No one really has to go through this gauntlet of defending their ideas. Everything in everyones life is subjective. Not only that but each subjective point of view can have an infinite amount of sub sets and variations. There will never be an absolute consensus. People will like or dislike something and be completely validated in their opinions.

It's mostly asinine and pointless because both games have flaws and need improvement. Every game will always need improvement because nothing can actually be perfect. It's everyones right to say how they feel and want change but what isn't needed is the butting of heads. That just confuses discussion and makes it harder to try and come together in something possibly more favorable to everyone.

It just amazes me how often people squabble over things instead of actively attempting to make things better. Just saying something is a far cry from doing something about it. In this case doing something would be attempting to be non argumentative and legitimately constructive. Just name what you feel would be good and people could try to add to it or alter it in an effort to collaborate.

I mean I know this won't happen because it rarely does. But I really want this community to come together and actually try to make Mass Effect 3 better instead of flinging out ideas without any actual discussion.

Well said!

[CatatonicMan]

Jebel Krong wrote...
the sequel was changed only to refine what didn't work from what came before, to appeal to the majority that also liked me1 but recognised it wasn't perfect.

Had they actually refined what didn't work, we probably wouldn't be having this argument - but they didn't.

Instead of refining the problem areas, they eliminated the problem areas.

[Lumikki]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
the sequel was changed only to refine what didn't work from what came before, to appeal to the majority that also liked me1 but recognised it wasn't perfect.

Had they actually refined what didn't work, we probably wouldn't be having this argument - but they didn't.

Instead of refining the problem areas, they eliminated the problem areas.

How you know that eliminating the problem areas aren't the refining?

Or are you saying that, it's not refining, because outcome isn't plealing you personal needs?

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 août 2010 - 06:18 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...
On the other hand, both games are so easy that you can go through them without ever considering the companions.

The reason for this is that an achievement for insanity exist. If they make the game to hard, some achievement hunters
would whine about that it is to hard.

Better they remove this and make the game really challenging on the highest difficulty. That means,for example, that "asari commandos" are not only some dumb warp spammers that used shotguns at all ranges. Bringing down the sky went in the right direction.The engineers used all abilities shepardt had.

[tonnactus]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
At least in ME2 you have to think about what ur doing, even if they are artificially forcing you to do it.

Aehm, really?? Tell where the thinking is there?

That is not even a high level build.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 août 2010 - 06:29 .

[CatatonicMan]

Lumikki wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
the sequel was changed only to refine what didn't work from what came before, to appeal to the majority that also liked me1 but recognised it wasn't perfect.

Had they actually refined what didn't work, we probably wouldn't be having this argument - but they didn't.

Instead of refining the problem areas, they eliminated the problem areas.

How you know that eliminating the problem areas aren't the refining?

Or are you saying that, it's not refining, because outcome isn't plealing you personal needs?

You can't refine something if it doesn't exist.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Actually when you refine your PC storage space you eliminate things that serve no function. So therefore you can take a digital piece and refine it by removing it.



Not that it matters much because this argument will go on ad nauseam. I just feel like pointing out when people are being unreasonable. Saying you wouldn't have a specific argument about something had something not have happened is a non issue. You'd either be arguing about something else or holding this game up as a good example. Try to confuse the issues as much as you want but at least attempt to be constructive.

[bjdbwea]

And who decides which feature "serves no function" and which does?

[Sparda Stonerule]

The developers. With some input from fans of both sides of the argument. No choice is inherently right nor wrong unless it renders the game unable to function as a game. Developers take input and make decisions. The decision made was unfavorable to you but favorable to others. So why not make a real discussion about what everyone can do to make Mass Effect 3 even better as a whole instead of butting heads with people?

[Sparda Stonerule]

tonnactus wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...
At least in ME2 you have to think about what ur doing, even if they are artificially forcing you to do it.

Aehm, really?? Tell where the thinking is there?

That is not even a high level build.

Oh right you. If that required no thinking than anyone who plays the game can do the same thing on the same difficulty with the same results. This point you bring up is silly because the person is rather skilled and knows a lot about what enemies to expect. It requires thought just like most things do. Whether or not it requires more thought than ME 1 is a matter of opinion since people can play the games differently.

[bjdbwea]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

The developers. With some input from fans of both sides of the argument. No choice is inherently right nor wrong unless it renders the game unable to function as a game. Developers take input and make decisions. The decision made was unfavorable to you but favorable to others. So why not make a real discussion about what everyone can do to make Mass Effect 3 even better as a whole instead of butting heads with people?

We are doing that by naming and collecting the things that didn't work in ME 2. If the developers could be bothered to read their own forums, they should be thankful for the amount of input they get. After all, that's how the changes from ME 1 to ME 2 came about, or didn't they?

:happy:

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 août 2010 - 07:19 .

[tonnactus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
 It requires thought just like most things do.

Yes,though like this: Geth->shields-> energy drain.Problem solved. Now go crazy and melee some geth to death.
The one poster i replied wrote that Mass Effect 2 required more thinking then the first what is an utter joke like everyone could see.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 août 2010 - 07:17 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

tonnactus wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
 It requires thought just like most things do.

Yes,though like this: Geth->shields-> energy drain.Problem solved. Now go crazy and melee some geth to death.
The one poster i replied wrote that Mass Effect 2 required more thinking then the first what is an utter joke like everyone could see.

Well personally in Mass Effect 1 I played a Vanguard. With that Vanguard I used barrier, shield boost and then proceeded to blast people with my Specter Master Shotgun, occasionally  take out the pistol and perforate my foes from a distance. That didn't require much thought from me. However as a Vanguard in Mass Effect 2 I had to be careful because a misplaced charge could kill me really quickly. I was less vulnerable in ME 1 and had to think less. I was more vulnerable in ME 2 so I had to think more.

I'm not saying either one requires more thought. I'm merely stating I had to think more in the ME 2. I won't say how I personally feel but I will get into what I personally experienced. 

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

The developers. With some input from fans of both sides of the argument. No choice is inherently right nor wrong unless it renders the game unable to function as a game. Developers take input and make decisions. The decision made was unfavorable to you but favorable to others. So why not make a real discussion about what everyone can do to make Mass Effect 3 even better as a whole instead of butting heads with people?

We are doing that by naming and collecting the things that didn't work in ME 2. If the developers could be bothered to read their own forums, they should be thankful for the amount of input they get. After all, that's how the changes from ME 1 to ME 2 came about, or didn't they?

:happy:

Very true and I am glad you brought it up. I never implied you should put up or shut up. If you extrapolated that then I do apologize. I am merely stating a lot of people who were not very happy tend to be combative, as do supporters of the game. I just think it would be even more helpful if you fought less. I do know that ME 2 changed from ME 1 due to input. I just know a lot of disappointed fans feel ME 3 won't change even though there is tons of input. So they then come out and act as if things will never change for the better and everything will stay the same. Except that there were plenty of people who wanted ME 1 to improve but felt that it would never change. I think it's best to keep your spirits up for a ME 3 that will have changes in it. Hopefully for the better of both parties of course.

[Lumikki]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
the sequel was changed only to refine what didn't work from what came before, to appeal to the majority that also liked me1 but recognised it wasn't perfect.

Had they actually refined what didn't work, we probably wouldn't be having this argument - but they didn't.

Instead of refining the problem areas, they eliminated the problem areas.

How you know that eliminating the problem areas aren't the refining?

Or are you saying that, it's not refining, because outcome isn't plealing you personal needs?

You can't refine something if it doesn't exist.

Yes, you can if removing some part refines other parts. Don't look situation just as part is there or isn't, but how that part affects to hole picture.

[tonnactus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...


Well personally in Mass Effect 1 I played a Vanguard. With that Vanguard I used barrier, shield boost and then proceeded to blast people with my Specter Master Shotgun, occasionally  take out the pistol and perforate my foes from a distance. That didn't require much thought from me.

That couldnt be insanity difficulty. Not that it is wrong to play on easier difficulties,but the most thinking is required
at the highest difficulty.I think you could agree with me in this point.
The vanguards barrier dont protect him against a krogan that charge him/her on insanity. That means instant death
(as long as the vanguard dont have colossus light armor at least) if the vanguard didnt stop the krogan with throw or lift. Then,krogans and mercs have master immunity on insanity.This means,without warp they were nearly unkillable.
So the vanguard has to use all his skills on insanity.Barrier and shotgun were not enough.

However as a Vanguard in Mass Effect 2 I had to be careful because a misplaced charge could kill me really quickly. I was less vulnerable in ME 1 and had to think less. I was more vulnerable in ME 2 so I had to think more.

Once i learned to nether charge at places were cover isnt available in a decent time,it was not really hard.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 août 2010 - 07:46 .