149 réponses à ce sujet

[brfritos]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

The whole purpose of the game, other than defeating the Collectors, was to build a team, connect with that team, and to introduce some important subplots that will require resolving in Mass Effect 3 (quarian/geth conflict anyone?)  All of the recruitment and loyalty missions are part of the main quest.  I honestly think people are looking at Mass Effect 2 the entirely wrong way; it wasn't about the overarching Reaper conflict, it was entirely about Commander Shepard and his squad, and their mission to stop the Collector's who served as Reaper agents.  Period.

Second point, and this just comes down to opinion; how did you possibly find the massive variety of recruitment and loyalty missions to be yawn-inducing? 

The whole purpose of the game is recruting a team?
Connecting with people?

No wonder "The Sims" made more sucess than ME2

[JeanLuc761]

brfritos wrote...

The whole purpose of the game is recruting a team?
Connecting with people?

No wonder "The Sims" made more sucess than ME2

The storyline of Mass Effect 2 was mostly built on recruiting and bonding with your squadmates.  That's just fact.  

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

[sevach]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

The storyline of Mass Effect 2 was mostly built on recruiting and bonding with your squadmates.  That's just fact.  

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

Even so, it's still boring doing the same thing over and over and over again.
And most of the missions were essentially the same aswell, go to this place kill hundreds of mercs and meet your guy at the end, simple as that, no roleplaying whatsoever. 

They should've combined characters you have to look for (Mordin had a reason on why you should go to him), with others you just meet along the way.

Fewer missions, but bigger more involved, that go back and fourth, make you understand what's going on, get people to help solve your problems (or help them with theirs) would be better imo.

[zazei]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

brfritos wrote...

The whole purpose of the game is recruting a team?
Connecting with people?

No wonder "The Sims" made more sucess than ME2

The storyline of Mass Effect 2 was mostly built on recruiting and bonding with your squadmates.  That's just fact.  

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

You know that just makes it even worse. Honestly for game that is built around building a team and getting them ready for a suicide mission it handles squadmembers rather badly. Unless a companion is also a love interest there is very little dialog with them. Mostly the ME2 way seem to be pick someone up, talk with them 1-2 times, do their loyalty mission, talk to them again and then forget they exist and move on. They also seem to exist in their own little bubble seperated from each other. With a few minor exceptions no companions will ever break that bubble and interact with someone else then the player. Also you won't ever see any of them leave their spot. Miranda will always sit in her office and Garrus will always be stuck calebrating the guns.

Also if you do their quest or not only affect their chance of survival and nothing else. You won't ever have to face any consequences for treating squad members badly beyond that. Dragon age handled bonding with companions better then this. In that game if influence dropped to low someone would leave. Yet in ME2 no matter what you do the squad members will stick around and die for you even if you break the terms of the contract they signed up for and yet this is suppose to be the game about recruiting and building a team?

In 9/10 cases it won't matter who you bring along for a mission as well. They will still say exactly the same lines as every one else unless it's their loyalty mission. Companions in the main quest honestly have not been this dead since Baldur's gate 1. Just compare the team in Mass effect 2 to Jade Empire for example in terms of interaction. In Jade Empire you had a group of very different personalities as well but they at least came together and worked together under the main quest and didn't just talk to the PC and no one else. For a game that is suppose to be about the team ME2 did it worst of any Bioware game the last 10 years.

[lazuli]

zazei wrote...
Mostly the ME2 way seem to be pick someone up, talk with them 1-2 times, do their loyalty mission, talk to them again and then forget they exist and move on.

What game has spoiled you to the point where this seems inadequate?  For every companion in as large a squad as we see in ME2 to have an entire mission* (of varying length) dedicated to him or her is something new to the RPG genre, or at least it's not something I've ever encountered before.  Bioware moved their companion system in a different direction.  Some games have tons of dialogue for each companion, like Dragon Age.  This is a great system.  I love it.  But the quest for Sten's Asala or stumbling across an emotionally significant trinket for Alistair can't really be compared to the high production value we see in each loyalty mission in ME2.  There's a trade-off there.  Whether or not it's one you approve of, I can't say.


*Or missions, in many cases.

[TornadoADV]

I like/love/prefer ME1 over ME2. For those crying about accuracy issues, try this simple mantra : Stop, Crouch, Pulse. Even with a Lancer Mk.1 AR you will hit your target 90% of the time with 0 points invested.



The only time the repeating missions got a bit much was the Armstrong Cluster and repulsing the Geth, that I usually have to tackle on it's own.



Also, funny how modular transporters and pre-fabs all look alike...reminds me of something, like real-life.

[Solaris Paradox]

TornadoADV wrote...

Also, funny how modular transporters and pre-fabs all look alike...reminds me of something, like real-life.

So if an organization like Cerberus existed in real life, all of their buildings would consist of one large room and one smaller room connected by a single short hallway? In real life, warehouses are all medium-sized rooms with random assortments of crates scattered hither and thither with exactly two siderooms that are always in exactly the same place? In real life, all mines consist of three small caverns and one large one, connected by a few short tunnels, always coincidentally arranged in exactly the same way? In real life, a civilian spaceship is always the same exact impractical design dominated by a really big cargo hold, whether or not the purpose actually involves cargo at all, with exactly one deck despite that one deck being larger than two of the multi-deck Normandy's decks combined?

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:31 .

[Solaris Paradox]

brfritos wrote...

You're nitpicking, man...

If she is carried by the seeker swarms in the next scene she appears like nothing had happen.

She magically return from the dead. 

THAT would be a glitch. If she's not intended to die, the cutscene should never show her being killed.

[tonnactus]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

...Wanting the second game to focus mainly on the Reapers is an unrealistic expectation.

No,but there are collectors.And while it would be not really necessary to fight them in every mission like the geth,we also know that they made contracts with other groups like slavers and mercs,trade their tech against special organics.
That would enough instead just slaughter of eclipse,blue suns and blood pack the whole time.Uncover such things,learn about your enemy(what didnt happen in the game,or where it was told that the collectors only have one base and ship?)

Focusing on the characters rather than the world for part of the experience isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But awfull executed.The other squadmember in a loyality mission wouldnt say anything.Except jack,who liked enyala.
This is a joke for a so called character driven game.And why i need high paragon or renegade points to keep their loyality? I just loose because o a heated argument? Thats dumb.Did i work with adults or dumbasses?

Thane's mission contributed something to the player's understanding of the current state of galactic politics and law enforcement (as well as some insight into the criminal element);

Nothing new.Fist,chellick,the talk with executor palin.Corruption existed in the first game too.

Mordin's digs deeper into the ethics of the genophage and the moral dillemma faced by those responsible for its proliferation.

Nothing new,not even more personal.(what was more personal then the confrontation with wrex)

Jack's digs a little deeper into some of Cerberus's less admirable operations.

This already happened with Toombs in the first game.

More on-topic, it's still more interesting than driving across the same barren terrain and fighting the same lame-o mooks in the same four buildings over and over again.

Like in real life,like an poster wrote. Could you told a boeing from a airbus in real life? Did mercs hire star architects?
Ever heard of precast concrete slabs?

[tonnactus]

TornadoADV wrote...

I like/love/prefer ME1 over ME2. For those crying about accuracy issues, try this simple mantra : Stop, Crouch, Pulse.

Thats right.Assault rifles are even usable without training with crouch.

[lazuli]

tonnactus wrote...
But awfull executed.The other squadmember in a loyality mission wouldnt say anything.Except jack,who liked enyala.
This is a joke for a so called character driven game.And why i need high paragon or renegade points to keep their loyality? I just loose because o a heated argument? Thats dumb.Did i work with adults or dumbasses?

So you're complaining about a lack of character interaction, and then you're complaining that the characters do interact?  Adults don't always get along.  Look at the divorce rate.

Tonnactus, I would certainly welcome more character interaction.  I just don't think your argument makes any sense.

[JeanLuc761]

zazei wrote...
You know that just makes it even worse. Honestly for game that is built around building a team and getting them ready for a suicide mission it handles squadmembers rather badly. Unless a companion is also a love interest there is very little dialog with them. Mostly the ME2 way seem to be pick someone up, talk with them 1-2 times, do their loyalty mission, talk to them again and then forget they exist and move on. They also seem to exist in their own little bubble seperated from each other. With a few minor exceptions no companions will ever break that bubble and interact with someone else then the player. Also you won't ever see any of them leave their spot. Miranda will always sit in her office and Garrus will always be stuck calebrating the guns.

Also if you do their quest or not only affect their chance of survival and nothing else. You won't ever have to face any consequences for treating squad members badly beyond that. Dragon age handled bonding with companions better then this. In that game if influence dropped to low someone would leave. Yet in ME2 no matter what you do the squad members will stick around and die for you even if you break the terms of the contract they signed up for and yet this is suppose to be the game about recruiting and building a team?

In 9/10 cases it won't matter who you bring along for a mission as well. They will still say exactly the same lines as every one else unless it's their loyalty mission. Companions in the main quest honestly have not been this dead since Baldur's gate 1. Just compare the team in Mass effect 2 to Jade Empire for example in terms of interaction. In Jade Empire you had a group of very different personalities as well but they at least came together and worked together under the main quest and didn't just talk to the PC and no one else. For a game that is suppose to be about the team ME2 did it worst of any Bioware game the last 10 years.

No, I do not actually know that it makes the game worse.  Matter of fact, I've stated several times now that Bioware did exactly the right thing by focusing the game on your squad.  Did they do it as well as they could have?  Probably not *glances at Dragon Age*

[Solaris Paradox]

tonnactus wrote...

But awfull executed.The other squadmember in a loyality mission wouldnt say anything.Except jack,who liked enyala.
This is a joke for a so called character driven game.And why i need high paragon or renegade points to keep their loyality? I just loose because o a heated argument? Thats dumb.Did i work with adults or dumbasses?

You can make up with the character after ticking them off if you have a high enough morality score to charm/intimidate them. It's actually possible to have enough points for that and still not have enough points to diffuse the actual argument without taking a side. Just letting you know.

And actually, you're working with a quarian and a geth, two races that have a bloody history. You're also working with a loyal Cerberus agent and a psychotic murderer who happens to hate Cerberus. It's not dumb.

Nothing new,not even more personal.(what was more personal then the confrontation with wrex)

How about the moral dilemmas of the salarians responsible for modifying the genophage to keep the krogan populations down? You know, the other side? Because that's totally nothing new.

You're an idiot. I'm done arguing with the wall.

[lazuli]

Solaris Paradox wrote...
How about the moral dilemmas of the salarians responsible for modifying the genophage to keep the krogan populations down? You know, the other side? Because that's totally nothing new.

You're an idiot. I'm done arguing with the wall.

Did Tonnactus really just write off Mordin's loyalty mission?  Sigh...

[brfritos]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

brfritos wrote...

You're nitpicking, man...

If she is carried by the seeker swarms in the next scene she appears like nothing had happen.

She magically return from the dead. 

THAT would be a glitch. If she's not intended to die, the cutscene should never show her being killed.

Wait a second, let's make this clear!

In the final mission if you made a wrong decision a squad mate is killed.

In the final mission if you want, you can plan to a squad mate be killed (is one of the most famous thread in the forums, "The Worst Possible Playthrough Import Guide for ME3", a guide for killing your squad mates).

In the final mission, if one of your squad mate is killed at some point, for example, in the second part of the Suicide Mission (The Long Walk) they will not return.

Except for Miranda.

You think this is acceptable? You think this is even logical? You don't think this is lazyness and very, very, very, very DUMB?

[VanguardtoDestruction]

I just wanted to put this out there: I liked everything about ME2 over ME1. Yes, even the story. I liked how we got to get into the different cultures of the galaxy (these so called "sideplots" to some people). The thing is, for someone like me, who hates lame sidequests and overly hard combat (I play on Normal difficulty), Mass Effect 1 lasted only 18 hours. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, lasted me 40 hours. That, coupled with the superb combat, and the "sideplots", made the game great for me.



I just didn't find the combat to be that great in ME1, especially coming from previous Bioware games like Kotor and Jade Empire where it was interesting. ME1 weapons responded strangely and the skill system made it a chore to do something Shepard should have mastered already. I am not a fan of thermal clips but everything else with the weapons in ME2, from the sounds, to the look, to the targeting, to the actual blood that comes out of enemies when they are hit, create a better experience.



And I hated how they handled Citadel Hub in ME1, only because it detracted from the rest of the game. I really love dialogue in Bioware games, which is again why ME2 wins by a landslide. See, I always enjoy the first 4 hours of ME the best, because you have all that dialogue with your crew, then go to the Citadel and have more dialogue and what not. But that ends when you become a Specter. Noveria and Feros had god awful lifelessness to them, compared to the Citadel. ME2 handled this much better, adding life, dialogue, and interesting characters to every single important planet and town in the game. Illium, Tuchunka, and the new Citadel, all feel alive and make the game so much more involving.



This is also why I played through Kotor more times then I can count, because Bioware used the same philosophy as in ME2, which is to make every planet fleshed out. Anyways, I have rambled on. Let me be clear that I am not bashing ME1, it is still in my Top 5 games ever played, but for me personally I think that ME2 topped it in every way except perhaps for the talk with Vigil and Sovereign.



Well, that's all, and to think I only planned on writing a few sentences...

[Daeion]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

(in summary: less emphasis on exploration, more focus on episodic character-based sideplots and less on the main plot, greater balance in focus toward action and less toward RPG elements in general, and so on, and so forth).

I'm going to be honest, I stopped reading at this point because this right here tells me that we are not even on the same page.  Most who are dissapointed in ME2 don't feel the there was a need for the game to be turned into a cookie cutter cover based shooter so that it would be more action oriented and focus less on the RPG elements that BW is known for.  Oh look, there's a row of waist high crates in the middle of this warehouse, I wonder if I'm going to get attacked?  Oh look, I found this cool shotgun, I wonder who I should give it....oh wait I don't need to make any decisions because the computer just does it for me...

While ME played like a traditional RPG, which is why many of us bought it, it also incorporated some shooter aspects that made it unique from other RPGs.  ME2 in contrast plays more like a shooter that trys to incorporate some RPG elements.  I say trys because I don't think they did it succesfully.  IMO BioShock does a better job of balancing shooter and RPG then ME2 did.  I understand that by going this direction BW was able to appeal a larger player base and thus increase sales.  Just because I understand it though doesn't mean that I agree with it.

[VanguardtoDestruction]

Daeion wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

(in summary: less emphasis on exploration, more focus on episodic character-based sideplots and less on the main plot, greater balance in focus toward action and less toward RPG elements in general, and so on, and so forth).

I'm going to be honest, I stopped reading at this point because this right here tells me that we are not even on the same page.  Most who are dissapointed in ME2 don't feel the there was a need for the game to be turned into a cookie cutter cover based shooter so that it would be more action oriented and focus less on the RPG elements that BW is known for.  Oh look, there's a row of waist high crates in the middle of this warehouse, I wonder if I'm going to get attacked?  Oh look, I found this cool shotgun, I wonder who I should give it....oh wait I don't need to make any decisions because the computer just does it for me...

While ME played like a traditional RPG, which is why many of us bought it, it also incorporated some shooter aspects that made it unique from other RPGs.  ME2 in contrast plays more like a shooter that trys to incorporate some RPG elements.  I say trys because I don't think they did it succesfully.  IMO BioShock does a better job of balancing shooter and RPG then ME2 did.  I understand that by going this direction BW was able to appeal a larger player base and thus increase sales.  Just because I understand it though doesn't mean that I agree with it.

Listen, RPG's are my favorite type of game.  Just because ME2 tries to make it's combat more interesting doesn't mean it suddenly turns into a shooter.  Like I said, I consider interactive dialouge to be as great a part of an RPG system as skills.  I mean, I barely noticed the absence of weapon skills because of the new powers and skills that Bioware implemented.  I know some people (like you) enjoyed the mixing and matching game of ammo and attatchments, but leaving that part out doesn't make the game any less of an RPG.  Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with a highly polished combat system, not a shooter with RPG elements.  

Modifié par VanguardtoDestruction, 06 septembre 2010 - 06:13 .

[tonnactus]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

You're an idiot.

Idiots use insult as arguments...

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 septembre 2010 - 06:18 .

[tonnactus]

lazuli wrote...


So you're complaining about a lack of character interaction, and then you're complaining that the characters do interact?

No.I complain that its dumb to need renegade or paragon points for that.For what i earned their "loyality"?
This conflicts have to be solved without "blue" or red "options".Thats why wrex family armor mission was a loyality mission in the sense of the word and not a lame gameplay switch that in most cases only improved the survial rate or if someone could do the biotic bubble without breakdown.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 septembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[sevach]

VanguardtoDestruction wrote...

I just wanted to put this out there: I liked everything about ME2 over ME1. Yes, even the story. I liked how we got to get into the different cultures of the galaxy (these so called "sideplots" to some people). The thing is, for someone like me, who hates lame sidequests and overly hard combat (I play on Normal difficulty), Mass Effect 1 lasted only 18 hours. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, lasted me 40 hours. That, coupled with the superb combat, and the "sideplots", made the game great for me.

I just didn't find the combat to be that great in ME1, especially coming from previous Bioware games like Kotor and Jade Empire where it was interesting. ME1 weapons responded strangely and the skill system made it a chore to do something Shepard should have mastered already. I am not a fan of thermal clips but everything else with the weapons in ME2, from the sounds, to the look, to the targeting, to the actual blood that comes out of enemies when they are hit, create a better experience.

And I hated how they handled Citadel Hub in ME1, only because it detracted from the rest of the game. I really love dialogue in Bioware games, which is again why ME2 wins by a landslide. See, I always enjoy the first 4 hours of ME the best, because you have all that dialogue with your crew, then go to the Citadel and have more dialogue and what not. But that ends when you become a Specter. Noveria and Feros had god awful lifelessness to them, compared to the Citadel. ME2 handled this much better, adding life, dialogue, and interesting characters to every single important planet and town in the game. Illium, Tuchunka, and the new Citadel, all feel alive and make the game so much more involving.

This is also why I played through Kotor more times then I can count, because Bioware used the same philosophy as in ME2, which is to make every planet fleshed out. Anyways, I have rambled on. Let me be clear that I am not bashing ME1, it is still in my Top 5 games ever played, but for me personally I think that ME2 topped it in every way except perhaps for the talk with Vigil and Sovereign.

Well, that's all, and to think I only planned on writing a few sentences...

Don't you think that the missions in ME2 are painfully simple (and repetitive) by design??? 
I mean it's all, "go to this place, shoot hundreds of mercs, meet guy in the end".

On Noveria for example, you had to work with the people there to get where you wanted, everyone was going about their bussiness and they would only help you in two cases (in return for you helping them or because it suited their agenda), and you had to  figure out what was going on in Peak 15, and make a decision.

On Feros, if you talk to people, you can smell that there's something fishy in the air, you go on with your mission, and you find out what they were hiding something in fact, and you are back to the place you started.

That's downright more complex level design then we see (over and over and over) in ME2.
Feros and Noveria aren't like the hubs we see in KOTOR (except Kashyyk, that is really small as a hub and everything you do is more or less necessary to complete your objective), there isn't anyone who just wants to play cards, fight for sport or race,there's nothing to do just for fun, instead they are just really big and complex missions.

Plus i really miss bosses with personality, that talked and challenged you more than phisically, ME2 has none.

And a lot of people think (myself included) that the ME1 Citadel hub detracts from the ME2 hubs that don't come close to that level.

I agree with what you said regarding combat, combat in ME1 is like a first screwed effort of Bioware in terms of shooters, and ME2 is simply better in this department imo.

[PHub88]

The problem with all this crap is most of it is peoples opinions....shooter fanboys who dont like walking around to complete goals...and RPGers who GET the fact that a larger Citadel makes more sense in a game thats supposed to be RPG



Heres the thing I love the most...People cry cry cry about the Mako in ME1...collecting resources...when all of it was totally up to the player...So basically these people cry about something they never really HAD to do..



Yet...people still cry cry cry cry about probing planets in ME2...What do you COD boys suggest? There be absolutely NO WAY to earn extra resources other than the laughably pointless ones you find in the game? This game came out and was supposed to be an RPG...you got these fools suggesting they get rid of or tweak absolutely every aspect of the game that ISNT %100 pure nonstop action...grow up and learn to enjoy the effort at least SOME devs still put into their games.

[spirosz]

In my opinion, ME2 is a superior game, but that is all a matter of opinion. The whole argument of which game is better is irrelevant because we all base this off what we, the individuals like. We can argue and argue the same points over and over again, but it won't change the outcome. You either like it or you don't like. Don't get me wrong, I love ME, defiantly in my top 5, but what defines an RPG may or may not be the same as you.

[theelementslayer]

sevach wrote...

Don't you think that the missions in ME2 are painfully simple (and repetitive) by design??? 
I mean it's all, "go to this place, shoot hundreds of mercs, meet guy in the end".

On Noveria for example, you had to work with the people there to get where you wanted, everyone was going about their bussiness and they would only help you in two cases (in return for you helping them or because it suited their agenda), and you had to  figure out what was going on in Peak 15, and make a decision.

On Feros, if you talk to people, you can smell that there's something fishy in the air, you go on with your mission, and you find out what they were hiding something in fact, and you are back to the place you started.

That's downright more complex level design then we see (over and over and over) in ME2.
Feros and Noveria aren't like the hubs we see in KOTOR (except Kashyyk, that is really small as a hub and everything you do is more or less necessary to complete your objective), there isn't anyone who just wants to play cards, fight for sport or race,there's nothing to do just for fun, instead they are just really big and complex missions.

Plus i really miss bosses with personality, that talked and challenged you more than phisically, ME2 has none.

And a lot of people think (myself included) that the ME1 Citadel hub detracts from the ME2 hubs that don't come close to that level.

I agree with what you said regarding combat, combat in ME1 is like a first screwed effort of Bioware in terms of shooters, and ME2 is simply better in this department imo.

Hmmmm let me think, repetative.

Samaras loyalty mission-Seduce a ardat yakshi, ever did that in ME1, naw we went to a generic place and shot generic enimies. Noveria=geth

Thanes loyalty- Beat out an answer of a criminal and then find and stop an assassination. Nope lets go and figure out how to kill a Thorian, oh right and there are a billion geth in between.

Kasumis Loyalty-Lets go sneak into a party and then flirt with hock (femshep) and then you know for the hell of it lets have some fun and see the statue of liberty. Nope Id rather go save an asari (which I would) but look... More geth to fight .

Citidel ME1-Its large but oooo look same grey rooms everywhere
Citidel ME2-Small but look now we have
-Tuchunka (rocky)
-Illium (clean)
-Omega (dirty)

Side missions
ME1-lets go to a bland planet and one of three bunkers and shoot mercs that all scream-I will destroy you
ME2-Lets stop a rouge VI by not firing a shot, lets go help a YMIR mech out to find resources, lets start up a mircowave shield. Now lets go to a ship and figure out why it crashed, oops now we get to shoot mechs.

Nope your right there was much more diversity in ME1, how was I so blind.

[JeanLuc761]

PHub88 wrote...

The problem with all this crap is most of it is peoples opinions....shooter fanboys who dont like walking around to complete goals...and RPGers who GET the fact that a larger Citadel makes more sense in a game thats supposed to be RPG

Heres the thing I love the most...People cry cry cry about the Mako in ME1...collecting resources...when all of it was totally up to the player...So basically these people cry about something they never really HAD to do..

Yet...people still cry cry cry cry about probing planets in ME2...What do you COD boys suggest? There be absolutely NO WAY to earn extra resources other than the laughably pointless ones you find in the game? This game came out and was supposed to be an RPG...you got these fools suggesting they get rid of or tweak absolutely every aspect of the game that ISNT %100 pure nonstop action...grow up and learn to enjoy the effort at least SOME devs still put into their games.

*smirks*
Because clearly the Call of Duty developers didn't put any effort into their games.  Nice try, but if you're going to **** about the game somehow no longer being an RPG (even though it CLEARLY is), you're going to have to do better than the old and completely wrong argument that the game was catered to the "stupid shooter fans."