1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

I'm on my 6th ME2 playthrough these days and although I've modded everything I could to make it more ME1-like, the experience is frustrating.

ME2 sucks everywhere. Most importantly, it sucks at science fiction, and at science and at fiction.

And it tries to suck up to me. On every level I'm reminded of how great my Shepard is. I'm feeling like I've purchased a course of therapy for an inferiority complex from BioWare. The problem is that I've never thought I had one.

Not much of a constructive post. Just venting, I think.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 octobre 2010 - 09:19 .

[GodWood]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
And it tries to suck up to me. On every level I'm reminded of how great my Shepard is. I'm feeling like I've purchased a course of therapy for an inferiority complex from BioWare. The problem is that I've never thought I had one.

Thank god I'm not the only one who hates this!

[Terror_K]

GodWood wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
And it tries to suck up to me. On every level I'm reminded of how great my Shepard is. I'm feeling like I've purchased a course of therapy for an inferiority complex from BioWare. The problem is that I've never thought I had one.

Thank god I'm not the only one who hates this!

Doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I'd like to see more of it. The whole point of it is --because the player is in Shepard's shoes-- that all the praise is directed as much at the player as it is the character. You're supposed to feel proud of your accomplishments as Shepard, and that's simply the game putting that across. I'd personally love to see an Oblivion-esque statue of your Shepard somewhere in ME3 (perhaps post-ending... perhaps on The Presidium, since Shepard did save The Citadel).

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
And it tries to suck up to me. On every level I'm reminded of how great my Shepard is. I'm feeling like I've purchased a course of therapy for an inferiority complex from BioWare. The problem is that I've never thought I had one.

Thank god I'm not the only one who hates this!

Doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I'd like to see more of it. The whole point of it is --because the player is in Shepard's shoes-- that all the praise is directed as much at the player as it is the character. You're supposed to feel proud of your accomplishments as Shepard, and that's simply the game putting that across. I'd personally love to see an Oblivion-esque statue of your Shepard somewhere in ME3 (perhaps post-ending... perhaps on The Presidium, since Shepard did save The Citadel).

I don't mind playing a special character,  I'd just like to know why I'm special.  Besides the fact that I'm the player of course.  I mean, the whole "you're unique" drivel TIM gives us is pretty much meaningless plattitudes. Yes, Shepard was a survivor, perhaps even a hero before ME 1 even started, but as of ME 2, Shepard was a dead hero.   I want to see why my Shepard is so special he's worth defying logic and nature to raise from the dead. 

[Nightwriter]

I like praise. I just don't like praise that doesn't feel genuine.

Example: 

TIM: You're special. - No

Quarian: Did you hear that speech? Keelah! - Yes

Modifié par Nightwriter, 24 octobre 2010 - 05:04 .

[Shockwave81]

ME2 is a few things to me, mainly it seems to be the game that BioWare wanted ME1 to be - they just got a bit too carried away implementing things (specifically combat oriented) that couldn't be done due to time, financial, and technical limitations back in the day.



The net result is that many other areas suffered - most (or all) of which have been discussed and dissected in varying degrees of detail since the game was released.



A few things would have made this game much better for me, I can't remember if I've listed them before, but here goes:



1: Shepard's big reset

This could have been handled in any number of ways. BioWare could have taken the pre-suicide mission Collector attack and used it at the start of the game instead of at the end. Shepard could have been abducted or hit with some kind of weapon that either reset his/her abilities, or 'evolved' them. Sure it ain't perfect, but I think it would have been easier to stomach than a complete resurrection.



One of the things that goes against my abduction suggestion is the fact that the Collectors tend to take all of their victims back to the galactic core - making a rescue somewhat difficult. Perhaps they could have had a base elsewhere within the galaxy though?



2: The Collector base and Omega 4 Relay

The Collector base is a potential treasure trove of information. When was it built - before or after the Prothean extinction? Were other species also modified in the same way as the Protheans? This was touched on in ME1 with Vigil's conversations I guess, but surely there was room for this in ME2 as well.



There is ZERO exploration within the base. The whole thing is linear - players are quite literally rail-roaded into the final battle with almost no pauses for elaboration on the main story - apart from the grey liquid revelation...



The debris field is full of ships, some of which appear ancient (according to Joker). Does this imply that the Omega 4 relay has been around since before the time of the Protheans?



3: Side quests and their relation to the main story

I think it's safe to say that 95% of the side quests in ME2 had absolutely NOTHING to do with Reapers, Collectors, or even the Protheans.



Sure they 'upped the fidelity' of the side quests, but would it have hurt for players to visit some of those worlds that had been attacked during previous harvests? Maybe something that would have touched on the profound loss associated with the complete annihilation of an advanced culture? Ilos was a great experience and still stands out as my favourite location in ME1, yet ME2 had nothing even remotely similar.



4: Harbinger/Collector General

The comics showed us that the Collectors were capable of more than just 'run and gun', and actually had conversations with others from time to time, yet in ME2 the only interactions they have with others involve weapons and stasis pods. It would have been nice to see something going on in the background.



Dreams are free I guess.

[Terror_K]

Shockwave81 wrote...

ME2 is a few things to me, mainly it seems to be the game that BioWare wanted ME1 to be

I don't see this at all, and don't know how people can come to that conclusion. To me it's pretty damn clear what "they wanted Mass Effect to be" changed between both games. ME2 just seems to be designed in such a completely different manner and has such a different style to it... I find it impossible to believe that that's what BioWare had intended for ME1 from the start. Especially considering how very simple ME2 is gameplay wise: if they had intended that from the get-go, it would have been easier and simpler for them to have adopted it from the start, instead of wrapping RPG elements around everything.

It's pretty damn clear to me that ME2 became more aimed at the shooter market and the casual gamer than the first one. Especially with the presentation that went from something that treated you like an adult in ME1 to something that treats you like a toddler in ME2.

[Nightwriter]

I'm sure BioWare would say they went in the direction they wanted to go in for ME1 and they went in the direction they wanted to go in for ME2.

[Zulu_DFA]

The relation between ME1 and ME2 is as follows:

Once upon a time BioWare decided to make a sequel to Mass Effect. They sat in a briefing room and discussed and discussed and discussed what it should be like. Until somebody stood up and said:

How 'bout we just do it as cheesy as we can?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 24 octobre 2010 - 02:48 .

[Sharuko]

Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games I ever played, but for some reason I prefer Mass Effect 1.

Modifié par Sharuko, 24 octobre 2010 - 03:50 .

[tonnactus]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
On every level I'm reminded of how great my Shepard is. I'm feeling like I've purchased a course of therapy for an inferiority complex from BioWare.

Too bad that the main character is less relevant for the plot then mordin,right?
In MAss Effect,he had the information from the proteans in his mind.
And nowthere in the game something of the great leadership qualities are seen.

Most recruitments go this way: Hey, you there,want to go with me on a dangerous trip?

Sure,i didnt have more important things to do.

And before that,the player have to slaughter millions of mercs for some short conversation called "recruitment".

Modifié par tonnactus, 24 octobre 2010 - 04:38 .

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...


It's pretty damn clear to me that ME2 became more aimed at the shooter market and the casual gamer than the first one. Especially with the presentation that went from something that treated you like an adult in ME1 to something that treats you like a toddler in ME2.

"Shepardt,use warp to bring the armor down."(Jacob on Freedoms Progress)

[Shockwave81]

Terror_K wrote...

Shockwave81 wrote...

ME2 is a few things to me, mainly it seems to be the game that BioWare wanted ME1 to be

I don't see this at all, and don't know how people can come to that conclusion. To me it's pretty damn clear what "they wanted Mass Effect to be" changed between both games. ME2 just seems to be designed in such a completely different manner and has such a different style to it... I find it impossible to believe that that's what BioWare had intended for ME1 from the start. Especially considering how very simple ME2 is gameplay wise: if they had intended that from the get-go, it would have been easier and simpler for them to have adopted it from the start, instead of wrapping RPG elements around everything.

It's pretty damn clear to me that ME2 became more aimed at the shooter market and the casual gamer than the first one. Especially with the presentation that went from something that treated you like an adult in ME1 to something that treats you like a toddler in ME2.

Just reading through old interviews with Casey Hudson in support of my theory (of course )

(http://www.pcworld.c...s_effect_2.html)

Casey Hudson: "Yeah, absolutely. I mean firstly, Mass Effect 2 is just a much better game than Mass Effect
in virtually every way. We've made a lot of improvements, such that I think it'll have a broader audience and broader appeal.The combat plays better, the graphics are better, it has a better tutorial, all the things that make a game like this more accessible.

Can you honestly say that BioWare wouldn't have implemented some aspects of ME2 in ME1 if they didn't have the limitations I spoke about earlier?  Surely some of the improvements Casey Hudson mentioned were on the drawing board during development of ME1, which brings me to my next little quote:

Casey Hudson: "Interruptible dialogue was meant to be a feature in the original Mass Effect, and in a sense it actually was a feature. This is where you can hit the X button to interrupt someone and talk over them, but the thing that happened was, it was one of the things that in the context of developing an incredibly ambitious game
we weren't able to fully support."

He then goes on to say...

"In Mass Effect 2, we're able to look at partially realized features like this and say, how do you perfect what we were trying to do there? We've put the time into really getting it right this time and into establishing the kind of content that fully supports it."

And then something that goes along the lines of what you're saying:

Casey Hudson: "...Much of what we were trying to do with the first game was to accomplish this experience of enormous scope, and that involved creating a new IP and all of that stuff. Now we're able to look at the feedback, what people wanted, what we want to do differently..."

Now for every little snippet I've managed to dredge up I'm sure there'll be at least a dozen examples that counter my belief, but hopefully I've managed to clear up what I was trying to say at least a little. I don't doubt that the story in ME1 was almost exactly what they wanted, but the game-play was probably quite different to what they envisioned. ME2 just feels like too much effort was poured into that aspect.

Modifié par Shockwave81, 24 octobre 2010 - 11:10 .

[Nightwriter]

Well when you say ME2 was the game BioWare wanted ME1 to be, you're encompassing gameplay, story, characters. Your snippets only seem to suggest that you're right in terms of a few gameplay features. Well actually one gameplay feature.

Also, I strongly, strongly disagree with Casey about ME2 being just a much better game than ME1 in virtually every way.

You made it prettier, Casey, you made it more immersive, more intense, but as someone looking for a journey like I went on in ME1, the experience was emptier.

[Shockwave81]

Hmmmm, I don't think I'm accurately capturing exactly what I'm feeling, but Nightwriter has touched on it for me. ME2 plays like a showcase for new design innovations and technical abilities, so much so that it ends up feeling disconnected from the 'soul' of the source material.



I've been compelled to play ME2 almost a dozen times since it was released - but I'm not entirely sure why, considering it has failed time and time again to evoke the same emotional responses that its predecessor did - on almost EVERY playthrough.



Only two out of the twelve loyalty missions made me feel anything - this accounts for approximately two hours of gameplay out of 30+ hours (excluding the DLC), so what am I feeling for the rest? I'm actually not sure - kind of playing on auto-pilot I guess.

[Nightwriter]

The thing about ME2 is you can point me to specific parts of it and I can say, "Oh that was great, well done". But as soon as you start referring to the whole thing, I'm like, "Eh..."

Like you could ask me, "How did you like Samara's loyalty mission?"

And I'd go, "OMG I LOVED IT, MY FAVORITE LOYALTY MISSION, SO AWESOME."

You could go, "What was your opinion of her recruitment mission?"

And I'd go, "That biotic god was hilarious!"

You could go, "What did you think of Mordin?"

And I'd go, "His loyalty mission was so well done, you really made me grapple with these philosophical concepts."

But then, if you go, "What did you think of the whole game? The structure, the story overall?"

Then, then I'm like, "I was disappointed."

[Bourne Endeavor]

Nightwriter wrote...

The thing about ME2 is you can point me to specific parts of it and I can say, "Oh that was great, well done". But as soon as you start referring to the whole thing, I'm like, "Eh..."

Like you could ask me, "How did you like Samara's loyalty mission?"

And I'd go, "OMG I LOVED IT, MY FAVORITE LOYALTY MISSION, SO AWESOME."

You could go, "What was your opinion of her recruitment mission?"

And I'd go, "That biotic god was hilarious!"

You could go, "What did you think of Mordin?"

And I'd go, "His loyalty mission was so well done, you really made me grapple with these philosophical concepts."

But then, if you go, "What did you think of the whole game? The structure, the story overall?"

Then, then I'm like, "I was disappointed."

This summary is essentially identical of my own feelings towards the game. I adored the experience as ME2 is most definitely one of the best games released on the 360. Unfortunately, the storyline does not retain the allure of its predecessor. Individual missions having a significant charm and sensation of immersion. I, for example, will praise to the galaxies the delivery rendered in Tali's loyalty mission. The VA work - Renegade Meer in particular - was arguably the best in the game. Furthermore, numerous portions of those specific missions I thoroughly enjoyed. Yet as a whole the game was devoid of the substance, which made the original so captivating. That being said, ME had horrendously monotonous aspects, such as the redundancy of the side quests. So a combination of the two would be ideal.

Edit : Because Nightwriter would cry

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:50 .

[Nightwriter]

Relatively accurate?! My pride is insulted!!

[Bourne Endeavor]

Nightwriter wrote...

Relatively accurate?! My pride is insulted!!

Well how would you like if I said "hardly">? Eh, eh? Would you cry?!

Jesting aside, I did end up agreeing with you more or less completely. *removes relatively!*

[freestylez]

This has probably been mentioned already in this thread, but I get the feeling that ME2 was constructed in such a way that it could basically serve as a standalone - perhaps to accommodate a future port for the PS3. Since we know that Microsoft Studio-produced ME1 will never to go the PS3, it seemed that BW shifted the storyline accordingly. The weight
of the consequences from decisions made ME1 seem to have been neutered. I just didn't envision anything like the Collectors being introduced, considering the conclusion of the first game.

Modifié par freestylez, 25 octobre 2010 - 03:10 .

[Terror_K]

Shockwave81 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Shockwave81 wrote...

ME2 is a few things to me, mainly it seems to be the game that BioWare wanted ME1 to be

I don't see this at all, and don't know how people can come to that conclusion. To me it's pretty damn clear what "they wanted Mass Effect to be" changed between both games. ME2 just seems to be designed in such a completely different manner and has such a different style to it... I find it impossible to believe that that's what BioWare had intended for ME1 from the start. Especially considering how very simple ME2 is gameplay wise: if they had intended that from the get-go, it would have been easier and simpler for them to have adopted it from the start, instead of wrapping RPG elements around everything.

It's pretty damn clear to me that ME2 became more aimed at the shooter market and the casual gamer than the first one. Especially with the presentation that went from something that treated you like an adult in ME1 to something that treats you like a toddler in ME2.

Just reading through old interviews with Casey Hudson in support of my theory (of course )

(http://www.pcworld.c...s_effect_2.html)

Casey Hudson: "Yeah, absolutely. I mean firstly, Mass Effect 2 is just a much better game than Mass Effect
in virtually every way. We've made a lot of improvements, such that I think it'll have a broader audience and broader appeal.The combat plays better, the graphics are better, it has a better tutorial, all the things that make a game like this more accessible.

Can you honestly say that BioWare wouldn't have implemented some aspects of ME2 in ME1 if they didn't have the limitations I spoke about earlier?  Surely some of the improvements Casey Hudson mentioned were on the drawing board during development of ME1, which brings me to my next little quote:

Casey Hudson: "Interruptible dialogue was meant to be a feature in the original Mass Effect, and in a sense it actually was a feature. This is where you can hit the X button to interrupt someone and talk over them, but the thing that happened was, it was one of the things that in the context of developing an incredibly ambitious game
we weren't able to fully support."

He then goes on to say...

"In Mass Effect 2, we're able to look at partially realized features like this and say, how do you perfect what we were trying to do there? We've put the time into really getting it right this time and into establishing the kind of content that fully supports it."

And then something that goes along the lines of what you're saying:

Casey Hudson: "...Much of what we were trying to do with the first game was to accomplish this experience of enormous scope, and that involved creating a new IP and all of that stuff. Now we're able to look at the feedback, what people wanted, what we want to do differently..."

Now for every little snippet I've managed to dredge up I'm sure there'll be at least a dozen examples that counter my belief, but hopefully I've managed to clear up what I was trying to say at least a little. I don't doubt that the story in ME1 was almost exactly what they wanted, but the game-play was probably quite different to what they envisioned. ME2 just feels like too much effort was poured into that aspect.

Too much effort was put into making it different and fixing ME1's issues by scrapping them entirely, substituting the changes with overly simplistic mechanics and forgetting to retain most of the stuff that actually made the original mechanics fun in the first place, even if they were admittedly flawed.

Beyond that, much of this is simply Casey talking up ME2. Remember how they talked up how your choices made
a difference in the game and really matter and then they didn't... same thing here. Also, every developer talks up their games. ME1 was talked up by BioWare prior to its release and they were praising their own
flawed mechanics then.

What is "better" is a point of view too. He claims ME2 is better than ME1 in almost every way, and yet I actually
feel it's inferior in almost every way, or at least in more ways than it is superior. In some ways it's a less flawed game than ME1, but it's also a less satisfactory game with less elements that ends up doing half the work for you. BioWare crossed the line between simplifiction and making it simple. Less flawed is not necessarily better when the less flawed fails to fully deliver.

Like he says, it's a "more accessible game" than the original, but that's because it's so damn simple. A rolling demo you can't even play is even more accessible again. That's an extreme example I know, but that's pretty much the direction ME2 took. And in making it "more accessible" they also made it less customisable and took away player choice. I recall with Christina Norman's presentation about ME2's changes she had a bit on the squaddie customisation with a blurb saying something along the lines of "what could be more simple than not having to do it at all?" as if it was a positive thing. This is the overall problem with both ME2 and the mindset of those who made it (keeping in mind that Christina was ME2's lead gameplay designer): taking away player choice and gameplay depth is not the answer. They claimed to be streamlining the game, but streamlining is the process of making an existing thing as user-friendly, simple and accessible as possible without losing the original functionality. They only did the former with ME2, because they lost the latter in the process, which is why I never accept the term "streamlined" with regards to ME2 and prefer the term "dumbed down" or "oversimplified" instead.

Nothing listed there beyond the interrupts were things they couldn't have done with the original game (I don't include the game looking better) and so if they had intended that from the start they would have done it. ME2 is a much simpler game with much simpler concepts, and has far less innovation and truly unique aspects than the original.The interrupts were admittedly an original game concept, but they're also one of the few changes made that I actually like (and one of the few that are also universally liked), so it's hardly surprising that it's an ME1 concept that didn't fly that they finally got into the air. They also worked slightly different in the first game, whereby they were actually part of the dialogue tree rather than a separate icon that flashed up. In either case, interrupts
are hardly something that goes against the grain of the original game, unlike several other factors introduced in ME2.

BioWare themselves admitted that the game was being tuned more towards the mainstream audience prior to release too, and Casey even says how he believes it will have a broader audience and appeal in one of your quotes above. BioWare has said several times over the past couple of years that they feel they need to appeal to the masses in order to stay in business and are now following the pack more. You can see it even today in the DA2 forums where people bring up concerns about it being dumbed-down and console-ified, etc. as well. I personally think they're mistaken and that there'll always be a place for the more nerdy, cult audience rather than merely just the popular mainstream one. DAO was apparently more popular than ME2 and sold better and became their most successful IP, and yet now they're deciding to make the second game more like Mass Effect. I think with ME2 they tried to have their cake and eat it too, by trying to appeal more to the casual shooter-oriented gamer as well as their old fans, but in the process they seem to have forgotten their old fans like their games not just because they are what they are, but because they're not the same simple-minded stuff that everybody else is producing. That's not to say that the more mainstream games are bad, but that they're generic and simpler, and that the very thing that makes BioWare games special and better seems to be getting abandoned for the pursuit of profit and becoming like everybody else out there.

To me, saying that ME2 was "how BioWare intended Mass Effect to be from the start" is like the Wright Brothers saying their plane is how it was originally supposed to be after they'd already made a Spitfire before hand. If BioWare had intended Mass Effect to be so simple from the start, then they would have made it as such. It's easier to make standard shooter gameplay than it is to tie an RPG-based statistical system into it, just for one example. On top of it all, presentation wise, ME1 felt like it was a game made for mature, intelligent 25+ adults. ME2 felt like a game made for immature, average teenagers.

Nightwriter wrote...

Also, I strongly, strongly disagree with Casey about ME2 being just a much better game than ME1 in virtually every way.

You made it prettier, Casey, you made it more immersive, more intense, but as someone looking for a journey like I went on in ME1, the experience was emptier.

Prettier, yes. More intense, yes. More immersive... no. Not at all, in fact. I find myself constantly being taken out of the game and constantly being reminded that it is a game. That's an epic fail as far as I'm concerned when they said their goal was to make ME2 more immersive and make you lose yourself more in it and forget it's a game by them taking the aspects they felt got in the way away. Not only did they take too much away overall in the end, but they put in far more things that remind you that ME2 is just a game and therefore make it less an experience and less immersive than ME1. The loading screens, the mission complete screens, the obviously-designed areas, the linearity, how small and manufactured everything seems, the complete lack of exploration, everywhere being so inhabited and cramped, the obvious waist-high cover, the lack of proper integration and polish with N7 missions, the gimmicky nature of the N7 missions, the import bugs, the candy-esque, childl-like information screens, thermal clips, squaddies running around in pyjamas in battle with full armour benefits somehow being protected from the environments with only a breathing mask, massive plotholes, etc.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 octobre 2010 - 04:10 .

[Iakus]

freestylez wrote...

This has probably been mentioned already in this thread, but I get the feeling that ME2 was constructed in such a way that it could basically serve as a standalone - perhaps to accommodate a future port for the PS3. Since we know that Microsoft Studio-produced ME1 will never to go the PS3, it seemed that BW shifted the storyline accordingly. The weight
of the consequences from decisions made ME1 seem to have been neutered. I just didn't envision anything like the Collectors being introduced, considering the conclusion of the first game.

Indeed, and and that's one of its big weaknesses.  Nothing you did in ME 1 really matters in ME 2.  The end of ME 1 has you thinking you know where the story's going.  Though ME 2 really pulls the rug out from under you.  The game ends with no idea where things are going in ME 3.  There's no real connection between the games except in both you play a character who happens to be called "Commander Shepard."

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

The thing about ME2 is you can point me to specific parts of it and I can say, "Oh that was great, well done". But as soon as you start referring to the whole thing, I'm like, "Eh..."

Like you could ask me, "How did you like Samara's loyalty mission?"

And I'd go, "OMG I LOVED IT, MY FAVORITE LOYALTY MISSION, SO AWESOME."

You could go, "What was your opinion of her recruitment mission?"

And I'd go, "That biotic god was hilarious!"

You could go, "What did you think of Mordin?"

And I'd go, "His loyalty mission was so well done, you really made me grapple with these philosophical concepts."

But then, if you go, "What did you think of the whole game? The structure, the story overall?"

Then, then I'm like, "I was disappointed."

Yeah, ME 2 has pieces of a good game.  Actually pieces of several good games.  Parts of it could be expanded into entire (enjoyable games)  But taken as a whole, it's an incoherant mess when it should be proceeding along the path of "Shepard's story"

No wonder "bridge DLC" is needed.