887 réponses à ce sujet

[Shotokanguy]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Concerning thermal clips, I'd like a hybrid form of play - your gun has thermal clips, allowing for continuous fire, but when you run out you return to the ME1 style of letting your guns cool down between bursts.

I think the only reason we don't have this in ME2 is BioWare wanted us to think that guns weren't supposed to cool as fast as they did in ME1.

I wouldn't mind a tweaked system though - just having ammo is too simple for Mass Effect.

[WilliamShatner]

hex23 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

It's more reliable than you are just saying "ME2 outsold ME1" without any numbers to back it up.

ME2 is done.  It had a big opening week due to the popularity of Mass Effect and then it fell like a rock.  It's not in the charts anymore.  It's selling less than 10,000 WW a week.

Even if it somehow magically tie or edges pass Mass Effect, with the amount of hype and advertising pumped behind it, the changes the game and catering for a mystical "new audience" was certainly not worth it.

VGchartz is so inaccurate you might as well make the numbers up. Even using the numbers they present, "ME1" is at 2.25 million after 3 years. "ME2" sold about 80% of that in 6 months. Realisticaly "ME1" is done selling, "ME2" isn't.

Let's be honest here, you want "ME1" to outsell "ME2" so you can feel vindicated with what you're saying. But it's not realistic, at all. In 6 months "ME2" nearly sold what "ME1" did in 3 years, and it's more critically acclaimed on top of that. So no....they aren't going back to the way things were. Not worth it according to you, which is obivously in the minority on the subject.

Well if VGchartz is inaccurate then the rest of your post is null and void, unless you have a magical little elf who tells you the accurate figures you're getting.

""ME2" sold about 80% of that in 6 months."

And once again, it sold 50% of its total so far in its first week.  That is pathetic and indictative of a failure to expand the game beyond its fanbase.  It is out of the charts.  It is selling less than 10,000 copies a week worldwide. 

In comparison, Modern Warfare 2, one of the most hyped games of all time breaking opening records only sold around 33% of its total sales in its first week.  And it's STILL IN THE CHARTS despite coming out months before Mass Effect 2.

Whether or not ME2 surpasses Mass Effect  in the end is not the point, the point is that it hasn't sold significantly more to justify the whoring out to a mystical, perhaps imaginary "new audience".

[bjdbwea]

The only thing that can be said with some certainty is that ME 2 didn't sell as well as they certainly hoped with all those changes to the game. The demo release and the price which is already lower than DA are further indicators for that.

[Siansonea]

Okay, what are we fighting about here? I don't feel like reading the walls of text. Just give me the Cliff's Notes version.

[pika72]

It's hard to guess if Casey really means what he said or that it's just PR. I honestly hope it's the latter. The ME2 story is very much linear with fewer decisions than ME1. I don't really expect him to say 'the story was bad, we will do better next time'



Some of the side-quest stories were nice, but the main plot... not so much. That only became involving (and urgent) after a certain shuttle-trip. But that's near the end already.



Also exploration is clearly less than ME1 if present at all. Sure you can choose between several missions, but the missions themselves are VERY linear. To the point they push you forward by locking down doors behind you. I'm sure ME1 missions were also (forward) linear but they hid it far better.



You can't customize your weapons, only upgrade them (linearly I might add). No idea why he sees that as 'rich' ? You could customize your own armor I'll give him that. The no-helmet-toggle pretty much destroyed the usability of that though (that one truly makes me wonder if this game was play-tested btw).



Most reviewers don't mind those problems to mind I guess. Makes it harder for me to figure out if I'll buy ME3. I doubt I'll pre-order like I did ME2 though.



Maybe we should ask Casey for his opinion again five years from now or so

[Spartas Husky]

Aradace wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Aradace wrote...

As long as there isnt a giant WTF ending at the end of ME3, I'll be happy lol

plz... dont ... I already have enough fears about the trilogy as it is lol.

lol Alpha Protocol ending anyone?

haven't seen it... but now I curse you because I must rent the game to figure out how worse it can be lol

[Simpfan]

ME1 obsessives just dont want to admit the first game had fat and flaws that were not needed and didnt enhance gameplay in any way.

[legend of kane]

I'm sorry, but that whole line about the exploration is total crap.

The exploration in ME 2 is as linear as it gets, no surprises, hacking consoles
is better in ME 1, at least you get a message or a mission out of it. To me, exploration
in ME 2 fails completely because there IS NOTHING to explore and NOTHING to find.
You know the 5th wall safe you hack is only going to have some credits and thats it,
its completely predictable. I'm not looking for oodles of loot, but they could have crafted
some side missions out of finding something in a safe, or hacking a console. The
creativity in ME 2 isn't quite at the same level as ME 1 was.

Overlord is a small step in the rite direction, but being stuck in the Hammerhead on that
beautiful world ruins the mood of exploration a little.

But not one person i know who has played ME 2 has praised it for its exploration, battle style yes,
conversation interrupt yes, graphics sound and most choices carried over from ME 1 yes.
But exploration? Most say its way to linear and ME 1 did it better even with its flaws and
i am one of them.

[Spartas Husky]

legend of kane wrote...

I'm sorry, but that whole line about the exploration is total crap.

The exploration in ME 2 is as linear as it gets, no surprises, hacking consoles
is better in ME 1, at least you get a message or a mission out of it. To me, exploration
in ME 2 fails completely because there IS NOTHING to explore and NOTHING to find.
You know the 5th wall safe you hack is only going to have some credits and thats it,
its completely predictable. I'm not looking for oodles of loot, but they could have crafted
some side missions out of finding something in a safe, or hacking a console. The
creativity in ME 2 isn't quite at the same level as ME 1 was.

Overlord is a small step in the rite direction, but being stuck in the Hammerhead on that
beautiful world ruins the mood of exploration a little.

But not one person i know who has played ME 2 has praised it for its exploration, battle style yes,
conversation interrupt yes, graphics sound and most choices carried over from ME 1 yes.
But exploration? Most say its way to linear and ME 1 did it better even with its flaws and
i am one of them.

.....if ME2 has exploration. Then I guess the ones invading the US in Modern warfare 2 were fairies from Lord of the rings.

[Simpfan]

legend of kane wrote...

I'm sorry, but that whole line about the exploration is total crap.

The exploration in ME 2 is as linear as it gets, no surprises, hacking consoles
is better in ME 1, at least you get a message or a mission out of it. To me, exploration
in ME 2 fails completely because there IS NOTHING to explore and NOTHING to find.
You know the 5th wall safe you hack is only going to have some credits and thats it,
its completely predictable. I'm not looking for oodles of loot, but they could have crafted
some side missions out of finding something in a safe, or hacking a console. The
creativity in ME 2 isn't quite at the same level as ME 1 was.

Overlord is a small step in the rite direction, but being stuck in the Hammerhead on that
beautiful world ruins the mood of exploration a little.

But not one person i know who has played ME 2 has praised it for its exploration, battle style yes,
conversation interrupt yes, graphics sound and most choices carried over from ME 1 yes.
But exploration? Most say its way to linear and ME 1 did it better even with its flaws and
i am one of them.

ME1 is just as linear.
Unless youre talking only about the color swapped empty planets with the cookie cutter bases ad bunkers.

[kraidy1117]

legend of kane wrote...

I'm sorry, but that whole line about the exploration is total crap.

The exploration in ME 2 is as linear as it gets, no surprises, hacking consoles
is better in ME 1, at least you get a message or a mission out of it. To me, exploration
in ME 2 fails completely because there IS NOTHING to explore and NOTHING to find.
You know the 5th wall safe you hack is only going to have some credits and thats it,
its completely predictable. I'm not looking for oodles of loot, but they could have crafted
some side missions out of finding something in a safe, or hacking a console. The
creativity in ME 2 isn't quite at the same level as ME 1 was.

Overlord is a small step in the rite direction, but being stuck in the Hammerhead on that
beautiful world ruins the mood of exploration a little.

But not one person i know who has played ME 2 has praised it for its exploration, battle style yes,
conversation interrupt yes, graphics sound and most choices carried over from ME 1 yes.
But exploration? Most say its way to linear and ME 1 did it better even with its flaws and
i am one of them.

ME was linear just like ME2. At least in ME2, the places you explored looked better and Overlord brought back a stunnig hub world. Both games where not that good in exploring.

[AllenShepard]

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



My Krogan ass. That's a blatant lie. Come on, Bioware.

[Simpfan]

AllenShepard wrote...

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

My Krogan ass. That's a blatant lie. Come on, Bioware.

weapons, no.
but armor and appearance yes.
but then again 3 upgrade slots are the ULTIMATE customization rather than swapping colors, patterns and pieces.

[kraidy1117]

AllenShepard wrote...

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

My Krogan ass. That's a blatant lie. Come on, Bioware.

The only lie is the weapon part, the armour was more cusomizable in ME2, just needs work and Shepards apprance can be customized more in ME2.

[AllenShepard]

kraidy1117 wrote...

AllenShepard wrote...

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

My Krogan ass. That's a blatant lie. Come on, Bioware.

The only lie is the weapon part, the armour was more cusomizable in ME2, just needs work and Shepards apprance can be customized more in ME2.

To call the customization on ME2 "rich" is a lie. It was substandard at best. Swapping colors and couple of different armor pieces aint nothing. 

[Whatever42]

AllenShepard wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

AllenShepard wrote...

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

My Krogan ass. That's a blatant lie. Come on, Bioware.

The only lie is the weapon part, the armour was more cusomizable in ME2, just needs work and Shepards apprance can be customized more in ME2.

To call the customization on ME2 "rich" is a lie. It was substandard at best. Swapping colors and couple of different armor pieces aint nothing. 

I agree that it wasn't rich. There is nothing wrong with the system but the choices available were very limited. I sometimes think Bioware underestimates the importance of fluffy features like that and how easy it is to make us happy.

[Spartas Husky]

I guess there are different definitions.



SOme think "options" means custom painted armor.



Other think "options" means custom upgraded armor.



I vote for the latter, even if the "fashion" side is lacking in ME1.

[Zweebs]

Exploration in ME1 was pointless. Lets drive around on a barren rectangular piece of land where the only differences between planets were the colors of the ground and sky. After that you would always wind up in the same exact building, lab, or mine... that is if your mako could make it past the ridiculous looking mountains. Exploration in ME2 was just as bad... pretty much non existent. It also bugged me that was there was never any dialogue.



But... with that being said, I loved both games and it annoys me when I see so much hatred on these forums. For me, ME3 is an automatic pre-order an I cannot wait to finish the story!



Thank You Bioware

[Bom_diggidy_Wrex]

Good to hear they aren't going to give in to the RPGS NEED LOOTZ mindset. i want story and gameplay which ME2 did great they do need a few more options for guns and armor but i like the current system and would hate to see anything like ME1 system that just felt forced.

[kraidy1117]

AllenShepard wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

AllenShepard wrote...

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

My Krogan ass. That's a blatant lie. Come on, Bioware.

The only lie is the weapon part, the armour was more cusomizable in ME2, just needs work and Shepards apprance can be customized more in ME2.

To call the customization on ME2 "rich" is a lie. It was substandard at best. Swapping colors and couple of different armor pieces aint nothing. 

It was more rich then the system in ME.

[kraidy1117]

Bom_diggidy_Wrex wrote...

Good to hear they aren't going to give in to the RPGS NEED LOOTZ mindset. i want story and gameplay which ME2 did great they do need a few more options for guns and armor but i like the current system and would hate to see anything like ME1 system that just felt forced.

lolwut.

[Tazzmission]

kraidy1117 wrote...

legend of kane wrote...

I'm sorry, but that whole line about the exploration is total crap.

The exploration in ME 2 is as linear as it gets, no surprises, hacking consoles
is better in ME 1, at least you get a message or a mission out of it. To me, exploration
in ME 2 fails completely because there IS NOTHING to explore and NOTHING to find.
You know the 5th wall safe you hack is only going to have some credits and thats it,
its completely predictable. I'm not looking for oodles of loot, but they could have crafted
some side missions out of finding something in a safe, or hacking a console. The
creativity in ME 2 isn't quite at the same level as ME 1 was.

Overlord is a small step in the rite direction, but being stuck in the Hammerhead on that
beautiful world ruins the mood of exploration a little.

But not one person i know who has played ME 2 has praised it for its exploration, battle style yes,
conversation interrupt yes, graphics sound and most choices carried over from ME 1 yes.
But exploration? Most say its way to linear and ME 1 did it better even with its flaws and
i am one of them.

ME was linear just like ME2. At least in ME2, the places you explored looked better and Overlord brought back a stunnig hub world. Both games where not that good in exploring.

me2 felt alot like me1 except the shooting system is better and the graphics were crisper, i personaly feel that me2 had the better story when it came to knowing your crew members. as far as space exploration go's for both games imo there similar but me2s exploration was really only about the minerals to upgrade weapons wile me1 had some side quests. when it comes to the rpg diolauge i find it similar because i admit on both games i had trouble getting specific key options. the only differnce really between the 2 games is me1 had that story wich captured the player about the geth thread and sarens betrayale. me2 had a big miss when the whole collector thing got  rushed and didnt really feel threatning at all. regardless of there  few faults i still believe mass effect is a great franchise

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Juromaro wrote...

Aradace wrote...



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.

Not to burst your bubble but in DnD/Table top RPGs the point and meaning of it is to play a role and explore, to beat the boss at the end of the dungeon and to advance your character levels and skills. Items come into play yes but hardly as important as the story and role your playing even in tabletop games inventory isn't there, you don't sift through thousands of items, you find an item the DM has placed and if it's better than the one on your character sheet you equip it, not store it for later.. Though your opinion is valid, the fact remains that RPG stands for Role Playing Game....not Item Collection Game.


RPGs have exploration, quests both main and sub, items both strong and weak, plot/story, actions and consequences.

Inventory is just from console RPG, and some PC rpg's like dragon age and fable, but it's not the main factor nor driving force of a game, it's a nusince and a hassle.

I played ME1, and ME2 multiple times currently on my 30th playthrough with ME2 and did the same for ME1, the biggest downturn for ME1 for me was constantly seeing "You are nearing your 150 item limit and any new items past 150 will be converted into omni-gel", and I saw that because it was a pain in the ass having to manually sell or convert one item at a time.

Even with ME1 item/weapon/armor everyone generally equipped the best gear anyway so no sense in carrying around 140 other useless items. At least with ME2 when you find a new weapon it usally replaces the one your currently using anyway.

The only downside I had with ME2 was the lack of ammo for some weapons like sniper rifles and do wish it had the overheat feature ME1 had(Two years since ME1 and every weapon in the galaxy uses thermal clips? not likely).

Could you elaborate on the character development (skill-wise) and exploration that sticked out in Mass Effect 2? I seemed to miss it.