1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I don't know, Terror. When squadmates aren't walking around in vacuum space with exposed skin, or acting like mute tag along dummies, I think it's pretty immersive.

The lighting is incredibly immersive in ME2. The environments. The addition of holograms in many more places, on walls, on computer logs, on omnitools. Diversely designed planets, the interrupt system, better physical acting, more body movement during dialogue.

[firecleaner]

Nightwriter wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I don't know, Terror. When squadmates aren't walking around in vacuum space with exposed skin, or acting like mute tag along dummies, I think it's pretty immersive.

The lighting is incredibly immersive in ME2. The environments. The addition of holograms in many more places, on walls, on computer logs, on omnitools. Diversely designed planets, the interrupt system, better physical acting, more body movement during dialogue.

I felt that the planets felt more life like due to the upgraded graphics engine... but the lacked what made Mass Effect 1 special the lack of open space and exploring. The ability to walk and take elevators everywhere on the Citadel was cool and the small little comments in the elevators were great touches. I played ME1 on the PC so the elevators weren't that bad.

ME1 is like a rough diamond, it isn't the most polished game out there but it's special, while ME2 has all the polish but it lacks the "it" factor. Just like how pro-athletes can have all the physical tools to succeed at the highest level but lack the drive... 

[Nightwriter]

Well it depends, are we talking uncharted worlds or hub worlds?

If we're talking about uncharted worlds then lack of open space was not the issue in ME2, it was lack of side story missions of any entertainment value whatsoever. All the open space in the ME1 worlds was actually very monotonous.

If we're talking hub worlds, definitely, they felt really confined and small. My world felt shrunken.

[firecleaner]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well it depends, are we talking uncharted worlds or hub worlds?

If we're talking about uncharted worlds then lack of open space was not the issue in ME2, it was lack of side story missions of any entertainment value whatsoever. All the open space in the ME1 worlds was actually very monotonous.

If we're talking hub worlds, definitely, they felt really confined and small. My world felt shrunken.

Sorry, I meant hub worlds...  I was very disappointed when you couldn't explore the Persidium again.

I agree again that the ME1 side missions were better done especially with the voiced introductions and the cool branches from the main story.

[Terror_K]

Both hub and N7 worlds were disappointing. Hub worlds felt small and cramped, and N7 worlds felt just as tiny, as well as feeling too linear and manufactured. They were a little too diversely designed and over-designed, which was their failing. I didn't find the ME1 worlds monotonous, I found them vast and epic, with this lonely, empty beauty to them. It felt like exploring space because most of space really is dead worlds with little on them, and there were enough different textures, skyboxes, environments, etc. for them to not feel too much the same. The N7 missions were either gimmicky or tiny shooter zones, and it showed in their design. They were too alive and too manufactured, and lacked the feeling the UNC worlds in ME1 had entirely. That's why I want a mix in ME3 of both in a way, because that would fix ME1's issue of there being too many dead worlds that are mostly the same and also fix ME2's issue of there not being enough and it making everywhere feel small and artificial.



Overall the issue for me is that I can't lose myself in ME2, because there's far too much there reminding me that this is a game and I have a hard time believing in the universe when everything feels so false and created. It's like seeing the strings on a model ship or noticing the background buildings are cardboard cutouts. On top of it all, the developers don't even seem to care about the integrity or realism of their own universe any more, so why the hell should I?

[Nightwriter]

I totally agree with you, firecleaner, the removal of the Presidium in particular was a big punch to the gut. And you're right, all the hub worlds felt cramped.

I actually did not like the UNC worlds of ME1, Terror, just the UNC missions. The planets were so monotonous it was unreal. I also can't tell you how weird it is to see a single lonely bunker in the middle of a vast wasteland. You'd think that just once you'd find an actual colony, a town. But no, every time it's just one bunker in the middle of nowhere.

And what I actually felt like the developers didn't care about was story. It seems like they assigned 50,000 people to gameplay and graphics design and .5 people to story.

[Xeranx]

Terror_K wrote...
Overall the issue for me is that I can't lose myself in ME2, because there's far too much there reminding me that this is a game and I have a hard time believing in the universe when everything feels so false and created. It's like seeing the strings on a model ship or noticing the background buildings are cardboard cutouts. On top of it all, the developers don't even seem to care about the integrity or realism of their own universe any more, so why the hell should I?

Case in point:
Kasumi's loyalty mission.

While it was off the beaten path and tried to interject something of a "Bond" theme the level design confused me.  It made me wonder what I was supposed to do which I felt was a good thing.  I started looking at the staircases and noticed I didn't have access to anywhere up there.  Bummer.  Looked elsewhere for possible signs to lead me to where I need to go or what to do next.  Nothing.  At that point I went back to the door leading to the security office and asked myself why design the level like this if there's supposed to be a believable cloak and dagger element.

Having to get access to the security room was something that, I felt, should have been a problem.  There were people standing outside the door for the security room.  Considering I'm playing the role of a spy I should assume the guests know that the door they're standing near is the door leading to the security room.  I thought I was going to have to create a distraction to get people away so that I could enter without anyone seeing me.  I have to say that I thought about what the overall design of that stage of the mission would be if I were playing "Hitman".  Even reading the data pad outside had me wondering if there was a way I could read the datapad without drawing attention to myself.  After that any sense of being immersed vanished until I got back to combat.  That's not supposed to happen.  This is the case of the small, seemingly insignificant, stuff being bigger flaws than perceived at first.

[Nightwriter]

I actually loved Kasumi's loyalty mission. I didn't notice the things you did, but yes, fixing them would've been an improvement.

I'd actually say Kasumi's was the least immersion breaking for me because it's just me and Kasumi and no other squadmate. Bringing a third squadmate to the loyalty missions and having them say nothing is so annoying, so lonely and experience-ruining, that I can't even describe it.

But my main beef with her mission was her choice in formal attire.

[MajFauxPas]

 
Michael Abbot's Article discussing "investment" in characters by the player with view to compelling storytelling at brainygamer.com, one of my new favorite sites.

My comment on the article, which is specifically about character "investment" in ME1 vs ME2:

"This article reminds me clearly of the differences between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. I was attached to the characters in ME1 due to what you aptly described as "investment." In-depth skill progression and customizable gear led to certain characters fulfilling needed roles and eventually being indispensable in combat, which made them part of the story. Not so in ME2. The skill progression and inventory were "dumbed down," for what I assume is a growing audience of young console players, who are decreasingly interested in optimizing gear and skills for each character so they compliment each other for maximum effect before each battle (aka geekdom!). Nowadays, you just stroll in with random support characters and do a mediocre job of kicking ass. What fun!?

All the interesting combinations of skills and weapon modifications I could develop with each character to better help them with their role were simply no longer possible in ME2. The new characters were made to be one-dimensional from a gameplay aspect, with limited skills and no gear customization, which made them flat in the story as well... since there was not even the possibility for "investment." No financial investment, no time investment, no emotional investment. Character roles were decided beforehand by the developers, and most were duplicates screaming for tweaked skill trees or custom gear. Compare that to the incredibly lovable and customizable characters of ME1, and it's almost a shame that everyone is raving about the new changes, a shame that ME2 is lined up for GOTY. Actually, I voted ME2 due to lack of competition, but I believe ME1 was a better game in almost every way.

The sad thing is that BioWare and EA will inevitably see their dumbing-down of ME as being changes for the better. A GOTY title along with increased sales and popularity will justify their decisions to make the game less complex, less customizable, less involving, less compelling. ME3 will hopefully go in the opposite direction and allow more customization, back toBioWare roots, but I doubt they will think they have done anything wrong due to the $$$ being thrown at them."

Please roll it back just a bit so I can nerd-tweak my skills and weapon loadouts! It's more fun, more compelling, more personally involving when building characters to fill roles. Healer, damage-dealer, crowd-control, tech support, but not all at once. You had to pick who was going to level their tech skills, who was going to level their heal skills, and who was going to level their defensive skills. It's called a ROLE playing game....

Modifié par MajFauxPas, 25 octobre 2010 - 07:26 .

[Terror_K]

MajFauxPas wrote...

 
Michael Abbot's Article discussing "investment" in characters by the player with view to compelling storytelling at brainygamer.com, one of my new favorite sites.

My comment on the article, which is specifically about character "investment" in ME1 vs ME2:

"This article reminds me clearly of the differences between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. I was attached to the characters in ME1 due to what you aptly described as "investment." In-depth skill progression and customizable gear led to certain characters fulfilling needed roles and eventually being indispensable in combat, which made them part of the story. Not so in ME2. The skill progression and inventory were "dumbed down," for what I assume is a growing audience of young console players, who are decreasingly interested in optimizing gear and skills for each character so they compliment each other for maximum effect before each battle (aka geekdom!). Nowadays, you just stroll in with random support characters and do a mediocre job of kicking ass. What fun!?

All the interesting combinations of skills and weapon modifications I could develop with each character to better help them with their role were simply no longer possible in ME2. The new characters were made to be one-dimensional from a gameplay aspect, with limited skills and no gear customization, which made them flat in the story as well... since there was not even the possibility for "investment." No financial investment, no time investment, no emotional investment. Character roles were decided beforehand by the developers, and most were duplicates screaming for tweaked skill trees or custom gear. Compare that to the incredibly lovable and customizable characters of ME1, and it's almost a shame that everyone is raving about the new changes, a shame that ME2 is lined up for GOTY. Actually, I voted ME2 due to lack of competition, but I believe ME1 was a better game in almost every way.

The sad thing is that BioWare and EA will inevitably see their dumbing-down of ME as being changes for the better. A GOTY title along with increased sales and popularity will justify their decisions to make the game less complex, less customizable, less involving, less compelling. ME3 will hopefully go in the opposite direction and allow more customization, back toBioWare roots, but I doubt they will think they have done anything wrong due to the $$$ being thrown at them."

Please roll it back just a bit so I can nerd-tweak my skills and weapon loadouts! It's more fun, more compelling, more personally involving when building characters to fill roles. Healer, damage-dealer, crowd-control, tech support, but not all at once. You had to pick who was going to level their tech skills, who was going to level their heal skills, and who was going to level their defensive skills. It's called a ROLE playing game....

^ This x1000.

[Nightwriter]

Once again, this absurd focus on gameplay... how can you write an entire article of dissatisfactions without mentioning the story once, once...

It's like if book six of Harry Potter had him joining a traveling circus and dying in an elephant rampage, and all people were complaining about was the text font.

"What awful, awful text font! Look at how the g's do a loopy loop at the bottom, the last book's g's didn't do that!"

[MajFauxPas]

OK, you're right.

I'd add that I kind of see what they did here, when ME1 was about having to build character relationships, but then you have to choose which one dies, even though you are attached to all of them in some way and you really can't let one of those two go just then....

But then, in ME2 you build a larger team of characters, each with their own private story, and try to keep them all loyal, though it takes some work because they fight amongst themselves. The characters ARE the story in ME2.

Actually, the characters are the plot.

BioWare changing it up again....

P.S. Read www.brainygamer.com, it's good.

Modifié par MajFauxPas, 25 octobre 2010 - 08:25 .

[GodWood]

Thats a wonderful analogy.

[MajFauxPas]

Terror_K wrote...

Both hub and N7 worlds were disappointing. Hub worlds felt small and cramped, and N7 worlds felt just as tiny, as well as feeling too linear and manufactured. They were a little too diversely designed and over-designed, which was their failing. I didn't find the ME1 worlds monotonous, I found them vast and epic, with this lonely, empty beauty to them. It felt like exploring space because most of space really is dead worlds with little on them, and there were enough different textures, skyboxes, environments, etc. for them to not feel too much the same. The N7 missions were either gimmicky or tiny shooter zones, and it showed in their design. They were too alive and too manufactured, and lacked the feeling the UNC worlds in ME1 had entirely. That's why I want a mix in ME3 of both in a way, because that would fix ME1's issue of there being too many dead worlds that are mostly the same and also fix ME2's issue of there not being enough and it making everywhere feel small and artificial.

Overall the issue for me is that I can't lose myself in ME2, because there's far too much there reminding me that this is a game and I have a hard time believing in the universe when everything feels so false and created. It's like seeing the strings on a model ship or noticing the background buildings are cardboard cutouts. On top of it all, the developers don't even seem to care about the integrity or realism of their own universe any more, so why the hell should I?

You mentioned Skyboxes... done any mapping?

Strangely I loved the old Mako missions too.

Oh and ME1 is more awesome thusly: the amount of *pumpfists* greatly outnumbers ME2's. Ha!

[Jebel Krong]

"brainygamer" what an oxymoron... seriously when your quote contains the words "interesting combinations of skills and weapon modifications I could develop with each character" referring to me1 - i have to laugh: there was hardly any difference in any of the manufacturers weaponry, even when "modded" the low-level stuff was all crap, whatever you tacked on, and once you hit spectre stuff everything else became superfluous.



comparing me1 character to me2 characters is also ridiculous - you have so much more meaningful content in the sequel, and none of the characters are alike. garrus was boring as hell in me1, yet by me2 they made him cool. people complain about characters not interacting in both games, but it was even more limited in the first - and no the odd "random" comment in a crappy elevator does not add "depth."

[Nightwriter]

Which is why it's such a damn tragedy that none of the ME2 characters are aware of each other's existence.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

Which is why it's such a damn tragedy that none of the ME2 characters are aware of each other's existence.

it's a fault of both games outside of specific moments. i put that down to technological limitations rather than design ones - i'm sure mass effect 2184 will be super.

[Bourne Endeavor]

MajFauxPas wrote...

 
Michael Abbot's Article discussing "investment" in characters by the player with view to compelling storytelling at brainygamer.com, one of my new favorite sites.

My comment on the article, which is specifically about character "investment" in ME1 vs ME2:

"This article reminds me clearly of the differences between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. I was attached to the characters in ME1 due to what you aptly described as "investment." In-depth skill progression and customizable gear led to certain characters fulfilling needed roles and eventually being indispensable in combat, which made them part of the story. Not so in ME2. The skill progression and inventory were "dumbed down," for what I assumeis a growing audience of young console players, who are decreasingly interested in optimizing gear and skills for each character so they compliment each other for maximum effect before each battle (aka geekdom!). Nowadays, you just stroll in with random support characters and do a mediocre job of kicking ass. What fun!?

All the interesting combinations of skills and weapon modifications I could develop with each character to better help them with their role were simply no longer possible in ME2. The new characters were made to be one-dimensional from a gameplay aspect, with limited skills and no gear customization, which made them flat in the story as well... since there was not even the possibility for "investment." No financial investment, no time investment, no emotional investment. Character roles were decided beforehand by the developers, and most were duplicates screaming for tweaked skill trees or custom gear. Compare that to the incredibly lovable and customizable characters of ME1, and it's almost a shame that everyone is raving about the new changes, a shame that ME2 is lined up for GOTY. Actually, I voted ME2 due to lack of competition, but I believe ME1 was a better game in almost every way.

The sad thing is that BioWare and EA will inevitably see their dumbing-down of ME as being changes for the better. A GOTY title along with increased sales and popularity will justify their decisions to make the game less
complex, less customizable, less involving, less compelling. ME3 will hopefully go in the opposite direction and allow more customization, back toBioWare roots, but I doubt they will think they have done
anything wrong due to the $$$ being thrown at them."

Please roll it back just a bit so I can nerd-tweak my skills and weapon loadouts! It's more fun, more compelling, more personally involving when building characters to fill roles. Healer, damage-dealer, crowd-control, tech
support, but not all at once. You had to pick who was going to level their tech skills, who was going to level their heal skills, and who was going to level their defensive skills. It's called a ROLE playing game....

This... simply could not be better worded even if someone tried. Absolutely x1000 yes.

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Which is why it's such a damn tragedy that none of the ME2 characters are aware of each other's existence.

it's a fault of both games outside of specific moments. i put that down to technological limitations rather than design ones - i'm sure mass effect 2184 will be super.

Incorrect, Dragon Age had a degree of character banter that was considered hilarious. It is exceptionally easy to provide us witty dialogue at random intervals. Wrex and Garrus having a brief discussion when you meet? Miranada and Jack having more frequent arguments about Cerberus? Bioware has proven it is a possibility, they simply have yet to utilize it to its most worthwhile effect.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 25 octobre 2010 - 10:16 .

[Nightwriter]

ME1 wasn't very good at this either, but ME2 was yet worse. ME1 did at least have elevator conversations - when I wasn't hearing news broadcasts about a hanar problem at a Prothean dig site again - but even those convos were recycled.

I'd give anything just for some unique squadmate dialogue.

Or to walk by the mess hall and see Thane and Samara playing chess... or Jack and Grunt having an arm wrestling contest... while Grunt yells "Hey! I said no biotics!"...

[Jebel Krong]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Incorrect, Dragon Age had a degree of character banter that was considered hilarious. It is exceptionally easy to provide us witty dialogue at random intervals. Wrex and Garrus having a brief discussion when you meet? Miranada and Jack having more frequent arguments about Cerberus? Bioware has proven it is a possibility, they simply have yet to utilize it to its most worthwhile effect.

which is why i said: specific moments. i'm sure they can put more in, but it's also a question of development time considering all the other things going into the game - it's not the one vital element that simply must be in there... and Dragon Age is an entirely different game/game engine, not comparable.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 25 octobre 2010 - 10:27 .

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

ME1 wasn't very good at this either, but ME2 was yet worse. ME1 did at least have elevator conversations - when I wasn't hearing news broadcasts about a hanar problem at a Prothean dig site again - but even those convos were recycled.

I'd give anything just for some unique squadmate dialogue.

Or to walk by the mess hall and see Thane and Samara playing chess... or Jack and Grunt having an arm wrestling contest... while Grunt yells "Hey! I said no biotics!"...

me1: the "roundtable" talks after missions. that's it, outside that the characters almost never interacted after recruitment.

me2: even after recruitment you had the confrontations (i agree to few) and the pre-suicide mission "roundtable."

all in all both games have too few, but about equal interaction. me2 at least makes up for this with specific squad-mate missions/dialogue etc.

[tatatala82]

My only disappointment is there no squad banter (even the short elavator convo is better than nothing). The rest is top notch.

[crooked]

MajFauxPas wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Both hub and N7 worlds were disappointing. Hub worlds felt small and cramped, and N7 worlds felt just as tiny, as well as feeling too linear and manufactured. They were a little too diversely designed and over-designed, which was their failing. I didn't find the ME1 worlds monotonous, I found them vast and epic, with this lonely, empty beauty to them. It felt like exploring space because most of space really is dead worlds with little on them, and there were enough different textures, skyboxes, environments, etc. for them to not feel too much the same. The N7 missions were either gimmicky or tiny shooter zones, and it showed in their design. They were too alive and too manufactured, and lacked the feeling the UNC worlds in ME1 had entirely. That's why I want a mix in ME3 of both in a way, because that would fix ME1's issue of there being too many dead worlds that are mostly the same and also fix ME2's issue of there not being enough and it making everywhere feel small and artificial.

Overall the issue for me is that I can't lose myself in ME2, because there's far too much there reminding me that this is a game and I have a hard time believing in the universe when everything feels so false and created. It's like seeing the strings on a model ship or noticing the background buildings are cardboard cutouts. On top of it all, the developers don't even seem to care about the integrity or realism of their own universe any more, so why the hell should I?

You mentioned Skyboxes... done any mapping?

Strangely I loved the old Mako missions too.

Oh and ME1 is more awesome thusly: the amount of *pumpfists* greatly outnumbers ME2's. Ha!

Because those Mako missions make you feel like you are exploring an actual universe
I hated scanning areas for minerals though, but I stopped doing that quest after my first 2 playthroughs.

[crooked]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

ME1 wasn't very good at this either, but ME2 was yet worse. ME1 did at least have elevator conversations - when I wasn't hearing news broadcasts about a hanar problem at a Prothean dig site again - but even those convos were recycled.

I'd give anything just for some unique squadmate dialogue.

Or to walk by the mess hall and see Thane and Samara playing chess... or Jack and Grunt having an arm wrestling contest... while Grunt yells "Hey! I said no biotics!"...

me1: the "roundtable" talks after missions. that's it, outside that the characters almost never interacted after recruitment.

me2: even after recruitment you had the confrontations (i agree to few) and the pre-suicide mission "roundtable."

all in all both games have too few, but about equal interaction. me2 at least makes up for this with specific squad-mate missions/dialogue etc.

That's because ME2 is all about putting your team together and doing loyality missions. 99% of the time the interaction is between miranda/jacob + random teammember who just got recruited. ME1 was more about the main story and exploring, so any random chat during these missions and exploring is an extra, not a logical result of the game structure. In ME1 the stress was on your character and his interaction with the ME universe, not with his teammates.

Modifié par crooked, 25 octobre 2010 - 11:31 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

 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."

I see this statement everywhere on these forums and, for the life of me, I still do not understand it. Where precisely does Mass Effect's ending show me the story will go? The ending between Shepard and Udina/the Council tells me that 1) The Reapers are still out there and 2) Shepard must deal with them in some capacity.

What happens in Mass Effect 2?

1) The Reapers retaliate with the Collector threat.
2) Shepard deals with this new threat, which is a result of the Reapers. 

I would say this covers all the major points.