1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

What's wrong with the visit to the Citadel? It was an awesome, as well as crucial, part of the game.

Oh it's quite valid, yes. The game does feel very rushed and many things don't feel very well explained.

Perhaps if the game had succeeded in creating feelings of threat this whole "edge of the wire" thing would be believable and tasteful.

[Nozybidaj]

Terror_K wrote...

It was like BioWare was basically saying "we know that it's a cop-out, but rather than actually do anything about it we'll just gloss over and acknowledge our failings with this one line and leave it at that."

That actually sums up the game and the "story" pretty well. 

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

What's wrong with the visit to the Citadel? It was an awesome, as well as crucial, part of the game.

Oh it's quite valid, yes. The game does feel very rushed and many things don't feel very well explained.

Perhaps if the game had succeeded in creating feelings of threat this whole "edge of the wire" thing would be believable and tasteful.

wrt the citadel, i meant in me1 where you had the introductions, some main plot threads but then 3 hours or so of not going anywhere else...

for me the game did create the sense of urgency and desperation required, but i guess that's up to individual immersion, both games did that for me, in spades.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nightwriter wrote...

What's wrong with the visit to the Citadel? It was an awesome, as well as crucial, part of the game.

Oh it's quite valid, yes. The game does feel very rushed and many things don't feel very well explained.

Perhaps if the game had succeeded in creating feelings of threat this whole "edge of the wire" thing would be believable and tasteful.

Both games had that problem to some degree -- time is critical, the situation is dire... let's do 90 side missions!


If even a few more of the "side" missions had been related to resources and research that tied into the main threat -- Sovereign and the Collectors respectively -- it would have allowed the same content level without putting as much strain on the sense of urgency.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 26 octobre 2010 - 01:37 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

and how is that a cop-out? sounds pretty realistic to me - people force politicians to change, they don't do it themselves.

Because it's a cheap way of glossing over the fact that what should have been the most galaxy-altering consequence of galactic proportions is instead minor and insignificant in the end and barely changes a thing. It's a trashy way of explaining their way out of a consequence that should have had a real impact simply not, particularly after how much they talked the whole "choices really matter and have real consequences" angle, particularly when they pointed at this one as supposedly being one of the most poignant ones. They knew import players would see the whole thing was cheaply and lazily handled, so they put a sticking plaster on it in the form of that line, hoping it would stick. Anybody with any sense can see though that they may as well have put it on a bursting dam because it's about as effective and well thought out. Why even have real consequences at all when every time you can simply say "but, despite what you did and the effect it should have, instead *insert pathetic excuse for sameyness here*"

That's why it's a cop-out.

Modifié par Terror_K, 26 octobre 2010 - 02:38 .

[Jebel Krong]

you know what, i did have a decent reply typed out but it's not worth it - me2 could never live up to your expectations, anymore than me1 did, if you thought about it (but you don't because the old rose-tinted spectacles come out in full-force for that one). if you really thought that everyone would be on-side after game #1 of a trilogy, then you are deluded.

[Terror_K]

All that says to me was that you didn't have a decent rebuttal at all, but... whatever.



ME1 was a far from perfect game, but it at least had potential. ME2 squandered almost all of that potential. There are far more people with rose-tinted glasses looking at ME2 than there are at ME1. Those that prefer ME1 don't deny its problems, but simply question how BioWare went about "dealing" with them in the follow-up. ME2 would have been a great game if it wasn't trying to be ME2. That's what let it down more than any specific flaw within itself.

[Nightwriter]

[Iakus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

iakus wrote...

The ME 1 universe felt huge, old, and not very welcoming.  Just like the humanity's reception from the galactic community.

It could have been tweaked , some problems ironed out.  But overall it had the right idea.

ME 2 universe feels like it's designed specifically for cover-shooting.  Narrow corridors.  improbably cover. Close confines.  Impressively designed though they were, they were just impressively designed shoeboxes.

hold on, you just compared two very different things:

1. the overall 'feel' of the games - me1 did feel like you said, me2 felt the same, but darker and more dangerous, perhaps less sterile, (but that's because you spent less time on barren UNCs).

2. level design, yes certain concessions were made to tighten up the combat, but you can see even that evolving to the point of LoSB where it's a lot more naturally integrated (though the bane of UE3 games - linearity - is still omnipresent).

however don't confuse the two because me1's main missions were just as linear as me2s, the only freedom you got was on the UNC worlds - and they got dull fast (just not as dull as me2's mining). ignoring the stupid hammerhead, at least we've had some non-linearity in me2 in overlord.

I thought the N7 missions were very pretty shoeboxes too.  Compared to UNC missions

As to hubs, well, to me:

ME 1 old, unfriendly,  potentially dangerous places, like Feros, Noveria, even the CItadel. Linear, yes, but the journeys are long, there is much to do along the way, even backtracking sometimes.

ME 2 the hub worlds are...shopping malls.  Illium, the Citadel, Omega, Tuchanka (though Omega is pretty seedy and Tuchanka is postapocolyptic)  The missions you do are tiny, bite-sized chunks that don't threaten the attention span.  Exploration is nonexistent.

So yes, the galaxy in ME 2 may be bigger, but everything feels smaller.

I fervently hope that LOtSB is a sign of things to come in ME 3.  It still sufferes from many flaws from ME 2, but it's a step in the right direction.

[Iakus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus wrote...

Don't forget that until the Collector Ship mission, you only have TIM's word that the Reapers are involved at all.

Do not feed the flames of my criticisms. Do not encourage my behavior.

so what? you'd already been killed by *unknown enemy A* once, then TIM tells you entire colonies are vanishing - even with circumstantial links to the reapers that alone is more than enough for a SPECTRE to be looking at, cerberus or not.

THere you hit it on the head, TIM tells you.  TIM tells you everything, and Shepard can't or won't verify anything, even klnowing what Cerberus is.

TIM says the Citadel isn't doing anything (not even sending a Spectre)
TIM says the Alliance isnt doing anything (which is not entirely accurate)
TIM says your old squad isn't available
TIM says the Reapers are involved (which Shepard accepts as veritas)
Heck, if it weren't for the recordings you find in the tutorial, you'd have to accept on faith the fact that you even died.

TIM shows you one colony, tells you "this has been going on for two years"  and suddenly Shepard is On a Mission.  Fact-checking?  Bah, that's for weaklings, "I'm Gonna Shoot Me Some Mercs!"

Okay, that got a little carried awaybut the point is, Shepard gets no opportunity to verify most of TIM's claims.  Shep can't contact the Citadel until after agreeing to work with/for TIM.  Shep never gets to contact the Alliance at all:
 
"Hello, Admiral Hackett?  It's Shepard.  Look, I think I've got some kind of paperwork snafu here.  I haven't ben paid in two years..."

Yes human colonies disappearing should be a cause for concern.  But Shepard simply hears "Reapers" and drops everything, no concern for source or verification.

[Nightwriter]

Basically ME1 shows you a 5 hour long story and takes you on a journey.

ME2 tells you a 5 minute story and lets you watch your character get led through it on a conveyor belt.

Oh, you can shoot things while you're moving through on the conveyor belt though.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 26 octobre 2010 - 06:04 .

[Moonbox]

Exactly.



As far as ME2 goes, the whole story could be removed from the trilogy, or turned into a DLC, and nothing would be lost. Other than some new characters (which could have been introduced in ME3) I don't think ME2 took us ANYWHERE as far as story goes, except to the GIANTDEATHROBOT at the end that we'd all like to forget about.

[Nightwriter]

Well, it feels that way now, but they may even try to explain the purpose of the giant human Reaper in ME3. They may try to salvage ME2 and make it count for something.

ME2 may require you to play ME3 before you feel like you achieved anything. All I wish to observe is that ME1 didn't require you to play the next game for you to feel a sense of achievement.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, it feels that way now, but they may even try to explain the purpose of the giant human Reaper in ME3. They may try to salvage ME2 and make it count for something.

ME2 may require you to play ME3 before you feel like you achieved anything. All I wish to observe is that ME1 didn't require you to play the next game for you to feel a sense of achievement.

If by some miracle, ME 3 manages to somehow put everything together so ME1, ME2 and ME 3 makes some kind of logical sense when taken as a whole, and merges into a single, epiclly awesome game, then I will happilly buy any and all DLC for it.  No matter how overpriced or useless.  Because after pulling off such a feat, Bioware will have earned it.

I truly hope this happens, but I really don't see how it can be.  What with this whole "standalone" thing.  As it is, I'll be surprised if they make Terminator Kong make sense.

[Nightwriter]

It's important to me to at least try to be positive here. What I don't want to let happen is to complain or criticize so much that I start liking to complain or criticize. Yeah, it feels good to get my feelings out, but I don't want to be known for my criticism. So I'm going to say that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and hope ME3 does try to explain some things.

[freestylez]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

and how is that a cop-out? sounds pretty realistic to me - people force politicians to change, they don't do it themselves.

Because it's a cheap way of glossing over the fact that what should have been the most galaxy-altering consequence of galactic proportions is instead minor and insignificant in the end and barely changes a thing. It's a trashy way of explaining their way out of a consequence that should have had a real impact simply not, particularly after how much they talked the whole "choices really matter and have real consequences" angle, particularly when they pointed at this one as supposedly being one of the most poignant ones. They knew import players would see the whole thing was cheaply and lazily handled, so they put a sticking plaster on it in the form of that line, hoping it would stick. Anybody with any sense can see though that they may as well have put it on a bursting dam because it's about as effective and well thought out. Why even have real consequences at all when every time you can simply say "but, despite what you did and the effect it should have, instead *insert pathetic excuse for sameyness here*"

That's why it's a cop-out.

Agreed.

[Pocketgb]

Nightwriter wrote...

It's important to me to at least try to be positive here. What I don't want to let happen is to complain or criticize so much that I start liking to complain or criticize. Yeah, it feels good to get my feelings out, but I don't want to be known for my criticism. So I'm going to say that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and hope ME3 does try to explain some things.

That's why I love ya, Nightwriter

I'm sort of in a similar boat: I've more-or-less painted myself as a 'white knight' for ME2, which was far from my original intentions. I see tons of faults in both games, and I still love them equally for the experiences they've given me. ME2 failed to deliver on multiple occasions but so did ME1. That's why there are many complaints that are valid, even if they do get squished under the horrendously degrading side comments - the latter of which I'm here, more or less.

I'm staying hopeful for ME3 even if both previous games were mixed experiences. The first 'big' reason being that ME2 attempted to address quite a few concerns, and I'd expect ME3 to do the same. The other reason is that they've learned a lot with both ME1 *and* 2, and a sort of 'collaberation' of the two games could make something pretty koo.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 26 octobre 2010 - 10:50 .

[Nightwriter]

It's amazing how extremists from either side can railroad an ME2 moderate into defending their position until they seem like an ME2 "white knight" or even (in my case) an ME2 basher.

In the beginning, I was just confused by ME2. A little lost, a little confused. The pacing was so different. it seemed to rush through things that shouldn't be rushed through. It seemed to jump to the action without explaining why that action was happening. When I came online I just wanted to express that confusion, I think, but was hit with cries of OMG THAT WAS THE BEST GAME EVER HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT. I guess I defended myself so much I just got shuffled into smudboy's side of things.

[Pocketgb]

That's interesting: My case was "hey guys, I liked this game Whaddya think?" and I immediately got bombarded with comments like "IT'S CASUAL/MAINSTREAM BULL****!" And then I got into Quote Wars, which are for no one's benefit except the poster and the person he's arguing with. Yeek!

[freestylez]

I just don't feel like I have to preface every criticism I have of ME2 by saying "I loved ME2" or "I have every single gamerpoint for ME2" etc.

I think it's clear that almost everyone enjoyed ME2, enough to join and participating in a forum dedicated to the game. I don't think criticism of the game should be dismisssed as "hating". Hell, even if it were, who cares? You don't have to agree - no one's opinion is fact (something which also should go without explicitly stating).

Modifié par freestylez, 27 octobre 2010 - 02:54 .

[glacier1701]

 I have played ME2 a lot more than I have played ME1 though I do think ME1 is the better game. I have also posted a lot about the flaws within ME2 and to a large degree have found much of what Smudboy has said as being valid. This does not mean I hate or even dislike ME2 since it is still a fairly good game. I have many games that looked good yet once I started playing they turned out to be terrible and so I dont play them (in some cases deciding this within the first hour of gameplay). What this boils down to is that I like ME2 enough that those things about the game I did not like I want to make available to the developers so that perhaps ME3 will correct them and be a game I like a lot. I would say that most people who do post on the 'dislike' side are in the same boat. I have found that the people who post 'dont like it dont play it' in most cases cannot constructively argue against the points raised as to why a person did not like the game so they resort to that line because they cannot be bothered to think.

 I will also add that BioWare cannot rest on its laurels of the past. At least one other company is moving towards the same kind of game idea as BW but doing so in a manner that could leave BW eating dust simply because the players of the games that this other company produces are stakeholders within the development process. They have a voice inside the company during the actual development of the game(s) that are coming down the pipeline. While I am certain that BW is aware of this other company I do not think that they (and other game companies for that matter) have paid enough attention to the growing feeling of disenfranchisement that customers of games are feeling and expressing more and more often on forums everywhere. I do not necessarily advocate that they use the same model for themselves but that they engage more openly with their potential customers. After all the computer/console game industry  is perhaps one of the few industries where a 'bad' product cannot be returned (in most cases). What if that did change? It does make you think about what you produce (or at least should).

[Nightwriter]

I think some of my confusion comes from the perhaps incorrect expectation for there to be storyline continuity from ME1 to ME2. So maybe a bit of it was my fault.

Well it looks like my thread is locked. It's back to the disappointment thread. Ah well, we had a good run.

[Teknor]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well it looks like my thread is locked. It's back to the disappointment thread. Ah well, we had a good run.

That thread was a disappointment thread too. Except it was unnecessary.

[cachx]

Teknor wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Well it looks like my thread is locked. It's back to the disappointment thread. Ah well, we had a good run.

That thread was a disappointment thread too. Except it was unnecessary.

Well it turned into one, eventually everything does. Unfortunate. Good while it lasted. Talking like Mordin. Don't know why. Must go back to work.

Modifié par cachx, 27 octobre 2010 - 05:55 .