887 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I don't really think you can tell me how I played Insanity in the first game. It wasn't hard, just killing things took a long time sometimes. I'm not saying it wasn't hard I just never thought much during it. Also learning where to charge required you to think about where to charge. Just because you learned something and it becomes a reaction doesn't mean it never required thought.

I'm sorry, but it bothers me.

Explain bolded...was it hard or not? lol

What there is to explain. Difficulty level increase enemies strenght while it weakens yours. That's all what it does.

So, what effect it will have to player? First higher difficulty doesn't forgive bad tactics. Because even small mistake can kill you. How ever, if you allready have good tactics, the difficulty level doesn't affect anything else than time it takes to kill enemies.

It's hard because it doesn't forgive bad tactics. It's not hard because with good tactics, it only takes longer to kill them. Point is that if you allready have good tactics in situations, it only takes longer to solve situation in higher difficulty and that's not really harder.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 06:37 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Next time I'll try to remember to specify "the fans who are displeased" (or something similar) rather than just say "the fans" when making similar comments.

One good trick is to avoid using any group naming or induviduals. Example fans, shooters, rpgs and so on. Because in the end it will only cause problem. Now what if you really need group name to make a point? Most the time you never need one. Because when you need it, you are talking about people, not about the game. Like I'm now talking to people, not about the game. Also don't worry, you seem to do fine here in forum in my opinion. Few "dumped down" comment with connection player groups has cause some problems, but other ways you are doing fine in my opinion.

I often talk here to people, because i'm trying to show what they are doing. I don't do it allways polite manner, even if I do try to avoid insults. Because other way message just doesn't seem to go trough. How ever, it's wrong me to do so, like is this message too. Because best way to be in forum is avoid talking to people and talk about game subjects. When people go to personal as talking eatch others and not about game, it often cause more problems than it's worth. Also often if someone is angry to someone it will be seen in the message as attitude. Mostly by choosen words and so on.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 07:03 .

[Halo Quea]

Lumikki wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

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.

You you can maybe refine some parts by axing others, but whatever you axed cannot then be refined.

Instead of making the inventory system actually work, they axed it. There can be no refinements to said system because it no longer exists. Instead of refining the Mako and the driving aspects, they axed them. Instead of making weapon mods more varied and interesting, they nuked them. Instead of building upon their unique overheat system, they replaced it with something standard and bland.

Maybe all this axing made the shooter aspect better, but it was at the cost of making the whole far less.

I agree with you armor and weapon modification, that is what most of us have sayed here many times. More customation is needed. ME2 customation is too limited.

As for Mako I think it was mistake take it out. Not because it was problem or so good in first place, but because it provide really needed diversity for gameplay. Driving, not just combat or dialogs. Without it players get feeling like ME2 is all about combat. How ever, so many did complain about that they did not like Mako, so it got removed. If you take Mako out from ME1 you get very combat like game, like ME2 is.

As for overhead, it was nice idea, but did not work well, because player had infinite ammos. Meaning, if you had you super weapon, you never needed to think other weapons, because one weapon did it all. So, that's why clips, to force players change weapons based situations. Refining would not work. How ever, mixing overheat and clips could have worked.

About inventory. In general way any system what has items/tools or what ever in mass amount, has same problem. if you keep increasing amount of items, you will sooner or later have control problems. There is just too many of them to manage. Inventory system like in ME1 will have this problem very soon, because it's based induvidual items. Meaning even same kind of item can be multible times in inventory.

To improve systems requires order, what also often requires removing dublicates. Like in library they don't put 100's of same books in shelf. Reason is simple more there is books in library, harder it will be find what you are looking for. That's what ME2 system did, it did remove the dublicate and create library system. Where is no more induvidual items, but research "items", so that it's only ones in players "inventory". If you start increasing items in this system it will also have problems when there is enough items.

Simple way sayed, more the junk you have, more management problems you have. Inventory with induvidual items is first system what suffers this. So, most efficient system is to have only one item of every kind and make sure every item is also induvidual enough to be different enough. Meaning, not point have items what are too similar.

I don't need 100 t-shirt, I need one t-shirt what I can customize. This makes "inventory" system alot easyer to handle.

Point is that route where ME2 did go with items, is the improved version of ME1 inventory system.

ME2 has set specifics on what a player walks around with. For example, heavy weapons ammo.  When you've reached the limit of how many power cells you can load your HW with, the game turns any overstock into a standard 100 credits.    But if the Normandy were being used as the Inventory, all overstock could be sent to the ship automatically whenever  you gather or salvage items.   

Bioware provided the Normandy with a useless trash compactor in the Starboard Cargo Hold,  there Zaeed and
his big mouth is just taking up space.     Why?  What's it there for?   That would have been a perfect area to
store and/or convert overstock into items that we wanted or needed.  Instead of cycling through endless lists of items, the Normandy could organize things into lists of salvageable items and/or what they could be reprocessed for.

The process of arming and suiting up before you leave the ship to go on a mission was a good concept  since most new upgrades couldn't be utilized without first researching them.  The Normandy as the Inventory would have blended well with process and the gamer wouldn't have to be burdened with an on-the-fly user interface of limitless items.  It would also add a scifi element of having a self-sustaining starship that doesn't waste anything.

Modifié par Halo Quea, 09 août 2010 - 08:01 .

[MonkeyKaboom]

Aradace wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

Aradace wrote...

As I said, they are no more RPGs than Uncharted or Gears of War....They are Shooters, plain and simple.  ME1, yes, as I said falls in the category of RPG (and by RPG I mean RPG in ANY aspect of the word, ACTION included.) but ME2 does NOT fall into this.  Yes, you "level up" your character and yes there are a couple other elements there...But the Shooter parts of it FAR outweigh the RPG elements.  Now Borderlands....THAT is a Shooter/Action RPG.  ME2, not so much.

Seriosuly buddy? There is an RPG there, your playing a role as commander shepard. The dialouge wheel? The actions that you take? Paragon vs Renegade? Romances? Ringing any bells? Uncharted and GoW, while good gaems are 3rd person shooters, no dialogue to choose, no romance. The path will always be the same no matter what. In ME2 no.

And borderlands really? the only thing it has of RPG style is the inventory. The story isnt bad but is a joke compared to ME2s.

RPGs arent about inventories, and lots of loot. Its about playing a ROLE.

That's your opinion just like my position is an opinion....Just dont pass it off as fact.  If you take the last line of your comment and apply it to every game out there on the market, then technically by your definition, almost EVERY game is an RPG which is technically incorrect.  Fallout 3 -RPG......Oblivion-RPG.....Again, if you read my post carefully you'll see that I do acknowledge that there are SOME RPG elements there.  But not enough for it to be really considered an RPG.  At best, it's more like a TPS with a dash of RPG.  I come from the generation of RPG'ers that used to play DnD 2nd Edition (3rd was way better IMO ) and the like.  Our characters werent JUST about playing a role...Sure, that was a large portion of it but the rest of that was epic battles (there are no epic fights in ME2) and the possibility of great loot to upgrade ourselves.  You can call ME2 an RPG all you want, but you're not going to convince me of that.  As someone else posted here, something about how the ONLY motivation you have for killing a "boss" is to activate the next cutscene....There's no loot...No sense of accomplishment. 

For me, an RPG is more than just a role....It's the loot....the distribution of stats (no ME2's system for stat distribution does NOT count lol.) Sure, the conversation wheel is there and again, there are SOME RPG elements present...But not enough for me to call it an RPG.  In my eyes, it will forever be called a TPS.  Again, I love ME2, it's a great game...But I'll be damned if Im going to call it an "RPG" lol.

And your opinion is no more fact than anyone else's.  All these little things you talk about like stats and all that bull**** are just byproducts of actualization within a given medium.  You have no way to measure your make-believe skill in those crappy pen and paper games because you by default aren't actually doing anything other than sitting on your ass.  So they come up with that crap to define your "skill" into a quantifiable value for sake of the game.  It has nothing to do with you playing out your role, other than that limited specific purpose.  All that other crap about looting and all that mess, well if you need a new shiny object that looks exactly the same as the last shiny object to make you feel good then I don't know what to tell you.  In my opinion that's really shallow.  And ironic since people seem to think that brings depth.  Personally, I like overcoming the challenge of a battle that you died to 10-15 times over before you finally won.  The sense of accomplishment is better than any piece of loot trash that won't get used anyways.  Talk about epic battles.....

Your version of RPG is no more RPG than when I used to put on my Jerry Rice jersey and tear it up in the yard playing football and pretending I was a legend wide reciever or pretending I was Jordon after school on the basketball court next to the church down the street.  The only difference is I didn't need "stats" and it really didn't matter if I missed my 3 pointer or not because in my head I was shooting the game winning buzzer beater regardless.  That's roleplaying, stepping outside of myself and into a world beyond my reality.

BTW your generation of RPG's sucked.  DnD sucks.  I don't know how anyone could sit around that long doing nothing productive.  At least my version of role playing got me exercise.  And I'm sick and tired of playing some geeked out fantasy England full of punk white boys and elves.  The ME universe is so much better.  In my eyes ME will be forever called a RPG. 

Modifié par MonkeyKaboom, 09 août 2010 - 08:08 .

[Halo Quea]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Aradace wrote...

theelementslayer wrote...

Aradace wrote...

As I said, they are no more RPGs than Uncharted or Gears of War....They are Shooters, plain and simple.  ME1, yes, as I said falls in the category of RPG (and by RPG I mean RPG in ANY aspect of the word, ACTION included.) but ME2 does NOT fall into this.  Yes, you "level up" your character and yes there are a couple other elements there...But the Shooter parts of it FAR outweigh the RPG elements.  Now Borderlands....THAT is a Shooter/Action RPG.  ME2, not so much.

Seriosuly buddy? There is an RPG there, your playing a role as commander shepard. The dialouge wheel? The actions that you take? Paragon vs Renegade? Romances? Ringing any bells? Uncharted and GoW, while good gaems are 3rd person shooters, no dialogue to choose, no romance. The path will always be the same no matter what. In ME2 no.

And borderlands really? the only thing it has of RPG style is the inventory. The story isnt bad but is a joke compared to ME2s.

RPGs arent about inventories, and lots of loot. Its about playing a ROLE.

That's your opinion just like my position is an opinion....Just dont pass it off as fact.  If you take the last line of your comment and apply it to every game out there on the market, then technically by your definition, almost EVERY game is an RPG which is technically incorrect.  Fallout 3 -RPG......Oblivion-RPG.....Again, if you read my post carefully you'll see that I do acknowledge that there are SOME RPG elements there.  But not enough for it to be really considered an RPG.  At best, it's more like a TPS with a dash of RPG.  I come from the generation of RPG'ers that used to play DnD 2nd Edition (3rd was way better IMO ) and the like.  Our characters werent JUST about playing a role...Sure, that was a large portion of it but the rest of that was epic battles (there are no epic fights in ME2) and the possibility of great loot to upgrade ourselves.  You can call ME2 an RPG all you want, but you're not going to convince me of that.  As someone else posted here, something about how the ONLY motivation you have for killing a "boss" is to activate the next cutscene....There's no loot...No sense of accomplishment. 

For me, an RPG is more than just a role....It's the loot....the distribution of stats (no ME2's system for stat distribution does NOT count lol.) Sure, the conversation wheel is there and again, there are SOME RPG elements present...But not enough for me to call it an RPG.  In my eyes, it will forever be called a TPS.  Again, I love ME2, it's a great game...But I'll be damned if Im going to call it an "RPG" lol.

And your opinion is no more fact than anyone else's.  All these little things you talk about like stats and all that bull**** are just byproducts of actualization within a given medium.  You have no way to measure your make-believe skill in those crappy pen and paper games because you by default aren't actually doing anything other than sitting on your ass.  So they come up with that crap to define your "skill" into a quantifiable value for sake of the game.  It has nothing to do with you playing out your role, other than that limited specific purpose.  All that other crap about looting and all that mess, well if you need a new shiny object that looks exactly the same as the last shiny object to make you feel good then I don't know what to tell you.  In my opinion that's really shallow.  And ironic since people seem to think that brings depth.  Personally, I like overcoming the challenge of a battle that you died to 10-15 times over before you finally won.  The sense of accomplishment is better than any piece of loot trash that won't get used anyways.  Talk about epic battles.....

Your version of RPG is no more RPG than when I used to put on my Jerry Rice jersey and tear it up in the yard playing football and pretending I was a legend wide reciever or pretending I was Jordon after school on the basketball court next to the church down the street.  The only difference is I didn't need "stats" and it really didn't matter if I missed my 3 pointer or not because in my head I was shooting the game winning buzzer beater regardless.  That's roleplaying, stepping outside of myself and into a world beyond my reality.

BTW your generation of RPG's sucked.  DnD sucks.  I don't know how anyone could sit around that long doing nothing productive.  At least my version of role playing got me exercise.  And I'm sick and tired of playing some geeked out fantasy England full of punk white boys and elves.  The ME universe is so much better.  In my eyes ME will be forever called a RPG. 

Are you talking about RPGs or something else?    Because it looks like you're trying to get some OTHER message across. 

[Lumikki]

Halo Quea wrote...

Are you talking about RPGs or something else?    Because it looks like you're trying to get some OTHER message across. 

I think he/she is just angry because some people think RPG is all about inventory and stats. You know character development as building it.

While character building can be major part of RPG's, it's not only possible way to roleplay. People has to remember that computers can do something what board games could never do. Crush numbers really fast. So, all the numbers in roleplaying games was more like keep track of rules and situation. Board games legacy forced players to handle numbers, because human as player was onlyone who could do it. Computers can do that without showing numbers for player, so that player can actually consenrate to playing the role of character. Roleplaying.

It's the difference between player building character with numbers or actually playing role of character in game. Little like does you character build (numbers) define what you are or are you actions and choises define what you character is. Both will end same, but way they are played in games are different.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 09:11 .

[Vena_86]

What many understand as RPG elements are things like stats, diverse options, inventory (which should come with options too). It is a fact that with great success more and more games that are not roleplaying games by definition have these RPG elements in them, because they offer the feeling of freedome (play it your way) and reward if done right. The way ME2 as a roleplaying game handles RPG elements is less thought through and weaker than in several shooters or even strategy games. For a leading RPG developer that is nothing to be proud of.

[Lumikki]

So, without numbers there is no freedom?

Vena_86 wrote...

It is a fact that with great success more and more games that are not roleplaying games by definition have these RPG elements in them, because they offer the feeling of freedome (play it your way) and reward if done right.

I bolded something from you text, can you explain it?

I played Kotor 1 and then Kotor 2. Same Jedi Sentinel character.
How ever my stats where different, not because I wanted different character, but because game design.
Both games are very similar, but have small differences. So why are my starting stats for same character different?

Kotor 1: Str 13, Dex 14, Con 9, Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 14
Kotor 2: Str 8, Dex 14, con 14, int 16, Wis 14, Cha 10

Same character allmost same sequal game, why these differences?

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 11:19 .

[bjdbwea]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

It is a mistake to settle for less.

This is how rich people get rich. They sell **** and people with less expectations buy it all. Then those same people wonder why the hell are there so rich people.

Now here's someone who understood how the entertainment industry (and others) work these days. Sad, but true. Thing is, BioWare resisted that for a long time, longer than most others. The quality of their products and their loyal fans still made it profitable not to settle for less. Too bad they've given in to the temptations after all.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 août 2010 - 11:24 .

[zazei]

I really don't get the ME2 defenders. Are you people blind or do you just refuse to see that it's not just one or a few invidivuals that are displeased about ME2? I don't claim I'm appart of the majority but it just seems silly to me that no matter what people say they are instantly dismissed as either part of a vocal minority or as something that is just their opinion and not shared by any other. There is a thread with around 325 pages of complaints on this forum, I remember the weeks after ME2 was released there was dozens of different threads about the issues people first encountered in the game or displeased ME1 fans. We might be a minority but still I doubt very much all this could been done by the same 5-6 people like some claim.

Modifié par zazei, 09 août 2010 - 11:56 .

[Ross42899]

Well, they don't need to reinvent the Action-RPG with ME3 IMO. Just keep the combat system (& most other improvements) of ME2 for ME3. Don't change too much.



But please Bioware give us again more character skills & traits and make them important! (e.g. hacking should only be possible if your character is tech class or you have a tech spcialist on your team [like it used to be in ME1], etc.) Give us more (buyable) inventory items (weapons & armor pieces) & personal items (for our cabin. Maybe also gifts for squadmates like in Dragon Age)

And please give us a few more non-combat side-quests!

[Il Divo]

zazei wrote...

I really don't get the ME2 defenders. Are you people blind or do you just refuse to see that it's not just one or a few invidivuals that are displeased about ME2? I don't claim I'm appart of the majority but it just seems silly to me that no matter what people say they are instantly dismissed as either part of a vocal minority or as something that is just their opinion and not shared by any other. There is a thread with around 325 pages of complaints on this forum, I remember the weeks after ME2 was released there was dozens of different threads about the issues people first encountered in the game or displeased ME1 fans. We might be a minority but still I doubt very much all this could been done by the same 5-6 people like some claim.

Blind? No, we're not blind at all. The complainers are in the vast minority. Just like the complainers on the WoW boards are in the vast minority. Do you think any of your tactics are any different than any which they employ? The only reason most wow threads don't reach 365 pages is because every day something new is released for them to complain about. It doesn't make them any less the minority.

MonkeyKaboom wrote...
TW your generation of RPG's sucked.  DnD sucks.  I don't know how anyone could sit around that long doing nothing productive.  At least my version of role playing got me exercise.  And I'm sick and tired of playing some geeked out fantasy England full of punk white boys and elves.  The ME universe is so much better.  In my eyes ME will be forever called a RPG. 

And as for you, your post is a crime against the RPG genre. You know that Mass Effect universe you love? Yeah, it wouldn't be around if it weren't for those "geeked out white boys".

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2010 - 12:19 .

[Whatever42]

That 325 page thread is half people defending it and a tremendous amount of back and forth. It is not 325 pages of complaints. And, of course, more than 5-6 people on this board are unhappy with ME2. Although, 5-6 people seem to be responsible for 90% of the posts. However, read any other gamer site and you'll find that the response has been overwhelmingly positive.



This board is not a reliable indicator of anything. I played World of Warcraft for years and the boards there were full of people constantly raging about how that game sucked. Yet, for years wow's number of active subscribers rose quickly.



I really do understand why some people dislike the game. They dislike it for perfectly valid reasons. They attach far greater weight to certain game elements than I do but that doesn't mean they are wrong and I am right by any stretch. However, just because they didn't the game they wanted, doesn't mean Bioware skimped on the quality of the game nor does it mean Bioware isn't perfectly aware of what they want. It simply means that Bioware has a different vision of the series than they do.



Some people are furious that Bioware dared to branch out instead of sticking to its tried and true forumulas. That's their right. And its their right to spam these boards with bitter messages and claim that they are Bioware's only loyal fans, as bjdbwea insinuates. Just as it's my right to reply and point out how ludicrous such statements are.

[CatatonicMan]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Some people are furious that Bioware dared to branch out instead of sticking to its tried and true forumulas. That's their right. And its their right to spam these boards with bitter messages and claim that they are Bioware's only loyal fans, as bjdbwea insinuates. Just as it's my right to reply and point out how ludicrous such statements are.

Branching out is fine, but they really, really shouldn't have radically redesigned a game in the middle of a trilogy. If ME2 had been a standalone game, there would have been comparatively few complaints.

[Il Divo]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Branching out is fine, but they really, really shouldn't have radically redesigned a game in the middle of a trilogy. If ME2 had been a standalone game, there would have been comparatively few complaints.

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start. I think Bioware with Mass Effect designed it with old school fans in mind and then tacked on the tps elements at the end. Unfortunately, the terrible pacing problems this created did not do a great job of blending the two genres, among other issues.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2010 - 12:40 .

[zazei]

Il Divo wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

Branching out is fine, but they really, really shouldn't have radically redesigned a game in the middle of a trilogy. If ME2 had been a standalone game, there would have been comparatively few complaints.

Fair enough, but despite the shift in the middle of the trilogy, I'd say Mass Effect 2 was closer to the RPG-TPS hybrid and cinematic experience which Bioware had intended from the start. I think Bioware with Mass Effect designed it with old school fans in mind and then tacked on the tps elements at the end. Unfortunately, the terrible pacing problems this created did not do a great job of blending the two genres, among other issues.

If combat and game mechanics was the only thing that was changed in ME2 I might have believed this too. However since they reseted Shepard and the story as well as making everything from plot to the companions and characters different from what we had in the first game I have a hard time believing this was how they intended it all along. Of course it might be that they intended the story to be like what was in ME2 all along as well but if so my own personal opinion is that Bioware failed horribly with what they indended in ME1 even though it for me turned out to be a brilliant game.

Modifié par zazei, 09 août 2010 - 12:49 .

[Il Divo]

zazei wrote...

If combat and game mechanics was the only thing that was changed in ME2 I might have believed this too. However since they reseted Shepard and the story as well as making everything from plot to the companions and characters different from what we had in the first game I have a hard time believing this was how they intended it all along. Of course it might be that they intended the story to be like what was in ME2 all along as well but if so my own personal opinion is that Bioware failed horribly with what they indended in ME1 even though it for me turned out to be a brilliant game.

And I felt that it was nothing more than an average Bioware game which is still pretty good, but nothing that impressed me like previous installments.

It's not just combat and game mechanics, although that too is important. Pacing is crucial when combining the two genres, which Mass Effect still utterly fails at. Either I'm playing the RPG portion (deep and plodding) or the tps portion (fast and mindless). They should have combined them in a manner that the final product was "fast-paced and deep" so to speak. The loyalty missions were a great example of this, imo.

Now the story was hardly brilliant, I agree. On the other hand, I would say that this is among Bioware's best cast of characters yet. I would also say the cinematic quality in Mass Effect 2 went above and beyond the cinematic quality in Mass Effect, which was supposed to be important in distinguishing it from previous RPGs.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2010 - 01:02 .

[Aradace]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Some people are furious that Bioware dared to branch out instead of sticking to its tried and true forumulas. That's their right. And its their right to spam these boards with bitter messages and claim that they are Bioware's only loyal fans, as bjdbwea insinuates. Just as it's my right to reply and point out how ludicrous such statements are.

Branching out is fine, but they really, really shouldn't have radically redesigned a game in the middle of a trilogy. If ME2 had been a standalone game, there would have been comparatively few complaints.

Maybe I read that wrong but....I was to the understanding that ME2 IS a stand-alone game.  (As in can be played w/o playing the first game and still know what's going on.)

[Iakus]

Aradace wrote...

Maybe I read that wrong but....I was to the understanding that ME2 IS a stand-alone game.  (As in can be played w/o playing the first game and still know what's going on.)

It is also the second volume of a trilogy.  As such it has a history and a continuity that has to be maintained as well for those who have played the first game

[catabuca]

iakus wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Maybe I read that wrong but....I was to the understanding that ME2 IS a stand-alone game.  (As in can be played w/o playing the first game and still know what's going on.)

It is also the second volume of a trilogy.  As such it has a history and a continuity that has to be maintained as well for those who have played the first game

And I think that's the problem.

BW set themselves a difficult task, in producing a trilogy of games that are expected to work both as 3 chapters of the same story AND as 3 stand-alone games that anyone can play. It's no wonder that some fans of the first installment are disgruntled (to varying degrees) with the second: they are likely the ones who broadly expected more of the same but with a few tweaks and improvements. What they got was a complete re-write of game mechanics (from combat to customisation) coupled with a radically different plot.

Of course, other fans of ME1 had no such expectations, and are seemingly better able to adjust to the large sweeping changes. Neither group is necessarily more entitled to their opinion than the other, and neither is more 'right' than the other. Both expectations (or lack thereof) are perfectly valid. And all the arguing in the world won't make either group's opinions void.

But this is the internets, and arguing is what we do.

[Aradace]

iakus wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Maybe I read that wrong but....I was to the understanding that ME2 IS a stand-alone game.  (As in can be played w/o playing the first game and still know what's going on.)

It is also the second volume of a trilogy.  As such it has a history and a continuity that has to be maintained as well for those who have played the first game

If that's the case, then why are people complaining about DA2 again? lol.  The History from the first game is still going to be present (and apparently some decisions will "Carry over") As such, the continuity (when you split the hairs about it.) is still present as well.  So again, why complain?  Im totally stoked about DA2.  The ONLY thing that will deter me from buying it is if there is no New Game+ feature this time around.  Even then, Im still going to at least rent it.

[Il Divo]

catabuca wrote...

BW set themselves a difficult task, in producing a trilogy of games that are expected to work both as 3 chapters of the same story AND as 3 stand-alone games that anyone can play. It's no wonder that some fans of the first installment are disgruntled (to varying degrees) with the second: they are likely the ones who broadly expected more of the same but with a few tweaks and improvements. What they got was a complete re-write of game mechanics (from combat to customisation) coupled with a radically different plot. 

I actually thought the problem most had was that it was 'too much' of the same; that the plot didn't progress enough and was a rehash of the original.

Of course, other fans of ME1 had no such expectations, and are seemingly better able to adjust to the large sweeping changes. Neither group is necessarily more entitled to their opinion than the other, and neither is more 'right' than the other. Both expectations (or lack thereof) are perfectly valid. And all the arguing in the world won't make either group's opinions void.

But this is the internets, and arguing is what we do.

I think this is a very good point. It's very common for expectation to destroy our opinions of a video game or film or anything. Assassin's Creed 2 is a great example (for me). I followed the details surrounding its release very closely and ended up preferring the original in almost everything but gameplay.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2010 - 01:34 .

[catabuca]

Il Divo wrote...

catabuca wrote...

BW set themselves a difficult task, in producing a trilogy of games that are expected to work both as 3 chapters of the same story AND as 3 stand-alone games that anyone can play. It's no wonder that some fans of the first installment are disgruntled (to varying degrees) with the second: they are likely the ones who broadly expected more of the same but with a few tweaks and improvements. What they got was a complete re-write of game mechanics (from combat to customisation) coupled with a radically different plot. 

I actually thought the problem most had was that it was 'too much' of the same; that the plot didn't progress enough and was a rehash of the original.

I don't think those two points are mutually exclusive. My impression was that many thought the plot took Shep out of the narrative that we associated him/her with, i.e., being a Spectre, dealing with the Alliance/Council. Now that was an essential plot point, imo, and something that was necessary seeing as though s/he died and was rebuilt by Cerberus. The other way the plot appears to break with the previous one is by having a different enemy - which is unavoidable since Saren is dead, obviously, but one that many argue doesn't work as well because Harbinger is less of a personal enemy than Saren. If the plot had progressed the story further, for argument's sake, then it could be viewed as being more like the first in that it continued the same narrative. As it is, it seemed to break with ME1 and go in a different direction. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but a possible reason why some find the second game jarring when viewing it as part two of the installment.

Il Divo wrote...

catabuca wrote...
Of course, other fans of ME1 had no such expectations, and are seemingly better able to adjust to the large sweeping changes. Neither group is necessarily more entitled to their opinion than the other, and neither is more 'right' than the other. Both expectations (or lack thereof) are perfectly valid. And all the arguing in the world won't make either group's opinions void.

But this is the internets, and arguing is what we do.

I think this is a very good point. It's very common for expectation to destroy our opinions of a video game or film or anything. Assassin's Creed 2 is a great example (for me). I followed the details surrounding its release very closely and ended up preferring the original in almost everything but gameplay.

I think we are gaming anti-twins I couldn't finish AC1 because I got bored and my heart wasn't in it. I played AC2 to death and achieved 100% synchronisation and can't wait for ACB . But yes, expectation is the root of all evil. I've said before, the marketing and hype leading up to ME2, and my love of ME1, made me think ME2 was going to be the second coming. When it wasn't I was really bummed. It's taken me months of not playing it and finally coming back to it to appreciate it more. There are still things I wish it did differently, and I still hold ME1 dear to me, but I'm better able to play ME2 and enjoy it than before.

[Whatever42]

Il Divo wrote...

I think this is a very good point. It's very common for expectation to destroy our opinions of a video game or film or anything. Assassin's Creed 2 is a great example (for me). I followed the details surrounding its release very closely and ended up preferring the original in almost everything but gameplay.

I agree as well. I actually had a bit of a grudge against Oblivion because of my expectations from Morrowind.  I felt they streamlined too much, from talents to factions. I wish they could have just made a game like Morrowind with their improved engine and physics. I also very much preferred the story and lore of Morrowind. Most everyone disagreed with me, of course. Idiots.