1700 réponses à ce sujet

[cipher86]

Mass Effect 2 is awesome when it comes to combat, music, and technical stability. However...

You can only have 2 other people in your squad, and with DLC, there are a total of 12 members to choose from. There are plenty of overlaps in squad abilities, and it seems like there was no reason to have such a large squad aside from the fact that there needed to be a lot of side missions (ie. loyalty quests) to fill out what would otherwise be a hollow game. It's just too big of a cast for how unimportant they are aside from their loyalty missions and certain elements of the Suicide Mission.

The Collector missions are cool. They are the main story. But they are all very short, and there just aren't enough of them.

Planet scanning. It's fun at first, but quickly becomes an annoyance. Maybe it would've been more enjoyable if there were more anomalies, but it seems like the vast majority of planets are just there for you to probe. More anomalies definitely would have made going planet to planet in search of minerals more fun.

Hammerhead is alright. I don't enjoy the combat in it much, but I enjoy getting from A to B with it. Certain sections turn the game into a platformer (awesome) which is a welcome change of pace from the rest of the game (dialogue and on-foot heavy), and gathering resources on the go is much better than having to play the scanning minigame. Having Hammerhead (and perhaps Space Combat, if it is done with great care and attention) missions sprinkled throughout the retail ME3 would be very cool indeed.

If you have a tech specialist in your squad (or are one yourself), bypasses/hacks should have less circuits/scripts required to succeed, scaling with one of the specialist's abilities until eventually bypasses/hacks are automatic. No omni-gel option made these minigames get tedious just as quickly as planet scanning.

I need a headbob toggle. I can kind of get used to it, but I feel a lot better with no headbob.

We could also use a helmet toggle like in ME1.  Equip the helmet and reap the equip benefit, but be able to toggle it off so you can still see your character's facial expressions (except in situations where you would obviously need to be wearing it).  Speaking of armor...

There just isn't enough customization when it comes to armor. Yeah, I can fiddle with my armor, but it hardly makes a difference. And why can't I alter my squad's armor as well (not counting research)? However, I do think the weapon/ammo system works pretty good. In ME1 I just spent a lot of time going to the inventory screen to swap in/out ammo types during combat - being able to swap through several as a soldier during combat is perfect. Having non-soldier classes possibly having access to ONE ammo type was also a good idea.

Zaeed/Katsumi having canned dialogue instead of proper interrogations REALLY hurts their character, and they should have no place on the main squad if the player can't dig into them as with the other squad members.  They're about as fleshed out as Mess Sergeant Gardner, and I don't even consider him to be a supporting role.

Where's the party banter?  Except for a few scripted events, it's dead.  Having Miranda and Jack together on a mission should have had interesting catfight dialogue.  Garrus and Tali could have had some more lines together.  Thane and Samara (due to their focus on their spiritual beliefs).  So much potential lost.

Having a high Paragon/Renegade makes it very easy (TOO easy) to get out of hard decisions. Ie. Miranda and Jack are arguing, being able to meet a middle ground and keep both loyalties means neither loses it and thus you can keep them both alive if you play your cards right. If we were able to choose a Paragon/Renegade option, but still HAVE to choose a side, I think it would have been more involving, as you would essentially be choosing who would lose loyalty and as a result they would likely die in the suicide mission.  Being able to choose between Paragon/Renegade is excellent for roleplaying, but having such options always provide an easy out really hurts the ramifications that these tough situations should bring about.

Finally, the whole "all 12 of us are going on a mission in this shuttle to leave you open for a Collector attack because we can't think of a better plot device" was incredibly, INCREDIBLY lame. I would love for Bioware to release free DLC that corrects this (maybe give us a 15-20 minute mission that we actually play and makes it a bit more coherent), but I know it won't happen. I can't express how disappointing the concept was, especially since every time this happens I have no more missions I need to do!

Despite all the negatives, I really do love the game. The combat is good, the squad strategy is fun (except on Insanity, where the squad AI nuances becomes very frustrating), the music is awesome, the game is technically FAR superior to ME1, but ME1 just feels like a better game to me. Even though the shooter aspects of it were clunkier and the screen tearing/frame loss/texture pop-in was non-stop, most everything else was so incredible that the genius was still obvious.

Still very much looking forward to ME3, and hoping Bioware takes all the constructive feedback into consideration and makes another incredible game.

Modifié par cipher86, 05 novembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Lumikki]

Freezingfire wrote...

iakus wrote...
Of course, where the teambuilding takes place is still an unanswered question for me.  And it goes beyond coincidence that everyone "just happens" to have a personal mission which needs to be done or they'll be unfocused and die.

This is really my main complaint about the story. There is no team building, there is only Shepard + Squad member building. They really needed to get all squad mates interacting with each other(which I really hope they do in ME3), like the meetings in ME1(only better! ^.^).

That depense how you look situation.

In the beging Sheapard says, "I'm gonna need army or good team". My point here is the good team, doesn't mean personal issues with targets, it means people who can get the job done. Meaning they are really good to survive and kill others. All of them where really good in that. Meaning they where "best" of the best. Little like Shepard it self.

For some reason some players look too much personal motives, when there isn't. Like players assume that team is like some happy family. They are persons who just do the job, no emotional connection to other team members. They work for Shepard and TIM pay's for them , if they are with Shepard because money. Some of them are there because Shepard or because cause.

In my opinion if people complain they should first understand better what the ME2 story was all about. As for loyalty missions, when you go mission where is high chance you die, most people wants to put some personal issues in order. Now was ME2 story too much connected to squad members, in my opinion it was. How ever, that's not reason to refuse to understand what the story was all about.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Wittand25]

Lumikki wrote...

Freezingfire wrote...

iakus wrote...
Of course, where the teambuilding takes place is still an unanswered question for me.  And it goes beyond coincidence that everyone "just happens" to have a personal mission which needs to be done or they'll be unfocused and die.

This is really my main complaint about the story. There is no team building, there is only Shepard + Squad member building. They really needed to get all squad mates interacting with each other(which I really hope they do in ME3), like the meetings in ME1(only better! ^.^).

That depense how you look situation.

In the beging Sheapard says, "I'm gonna need army or good team". My point here is the good team, doesn't mean personal issues with targets, it means people who can get the job done. Meaning they are really good to survive and kill others. All of them where really good in that. Meaning they where "best" of the best. Little like Shepard it self.

For some reason some players look too much personal motives, when there isn't. Like players assume that team is like some happy family. They are persons who just do the job, no emotional connection to other team members. They work for Shepard and TIM pay's for them , if they are with Shepard because money. Some of them are there because Shepard or because cause.

In my opinion if people complain they should first understand better what the ME2 story was all about. As for loyalty missions, when you go mission where is high change you die, most people wants to put some personal issues in order. Now was ME2 story too much connected to squad members, in my opinion it was. How ever, that's not reason to refuse to understand what the story was all about.

No teammembers don´t need a connection to the collectors or to the reapers, and for most of the teammembers why they are on the team is explained reasonably well for some others not so but that is not the point.
If you say that ME2 is about building a team it fails because you do not built a team you recruit powerful individuals and than help them solve their personal problems. A team is something different than a bunch of people and building a team involves them training to work together and resolving issues they have with each other. The training never happens and there are only two instances when you have to resolve a quarrel between teammates. That is why ME2 is disappointing, if the focus of the game is building a team you need to build a team and work on it not recruit a bunch of people who after one mission become loyal and more likely to survive the endgame.

[Lumikki]

Wittand25 wrote...

No teammembers don´t need a connection to the collectors or to the reapers, and for most of the teammembers why they are on the team is explained reasonably well for some others not so but that is not the point.
If you say that ME2 is about building a team it fails because you do not built a team you recruit powerful individuals and than help them solve their personal problems. A team is something different than a bunch of people and building a team involves them training to work together and resolving issues they have with each other. The training never happens and there are only two instances when you have to resolve a quarrel between teammates. That is why ME2 is disappointing, if the focus of the game is building a team you need to build a team and work on it not recruit a bunch of people who after one mission become loyal and more likely to survive the endgame.

You get recuired mission what has 99.9% chance you die. Are you saying you don't want to put you personal issues in order? No-one is so stupid. Why Shepard helps them, because they work for Shepard now and many of these personal issues seem to be little dangerous. (Mostly because gameplay reasons)

Also these people are NOT some noobs who needs to learn to do they job as been part of teams. There is no issues with working with eatch other, because they don't give **** about others, they just do the job. People stop trying to requires so much emotional connected and learn to accept, as they been cold bastard, like most of these squad members are. Happy bunny families aren't here, they are hard cold soldiers.

As for them to become loyal, yeah I know what you mean, but again it happens because providing gameplay for us. Not because it would make so good sense as been so realistic situation, but there is some logic too there. It's not about  loyalty on/off switch, it's about ability conserate to do the job, peace of mind and be grateful for Shepard for help with issues.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2010 - 09:16 .

[Moiaussi]

Lumikki wrote...

You get recuired mission what has 99.9% chance you die. Are you saying you don't want to put you personal issues in order? No-one is so stupid. Why Shepard helps them, because they work for Shepard now and many of these personal issues seem to be little dangerous. (Mostly because gameplay)

Also these people are NOT some noobs who needs to learn to do they job as been part of teams. There is no issues with working with eatch other, because they don't give **** about others, they just do the job. People stop trying to requires so much emotional connected and learn to accept, as they been cold bastard, like most of these squad members are. Happy bunny families aren't here, they are hard cold soldiers.

What mission is this, exactly, that you have a 99.9% chance of dieing in? I can't remember the game being anywhere near that hard.

If these people are as competent as you say, why can't they suck up their personal problems and concentrate on the actual mission? If they fail, Miranda's sister dies, Jacob's dad is irrelevant (Jacob has gone this long without panicing where his dad is), Mordin's assistant's fate (and genophage cure) are irrelevant, the Heretics are irrelevant, Samara's daughter is irrelevant in that the Collectors are killing far more than she could ever possibly kill. Vido would die, but so would Zaheed, so his revenge would be pointless. The migrant fleet would be gone (although if they blow the alerai they blow the evidence too). Thane's son might become an assassin, but it would be a brief career. The reapers are better at it. There would be nothing left to steal, memories or otherwise.

There might be an issue with Garrus (he never has been more than a cop as far as formal military, and is so off his game he gets shot up by that gunship like a complete noob) and Jack (who likewise has at least something of a death wish),

Grunt is a special case in that his issues are biological, but why the collector base couldn't have served as his 'manhood exam' I have no clue.

The 'unfinished business' should be reasons for them all to keep their head in the game, a reason to succeed and come back alive.

Shepard could have given a Kirahee-esque speech reminding them all of that, but instead he either panders to them or ignores them.  They are not 'hard core soldiers.' They are whiney civilians.

[Lumikki]

Moiaussi wrote...

What mission is this, exactly, that you have a 99.9% chance of dieing in? I can't remember the game being anywhere near that hard.

*snip*

They are not 'hard core soldiers.' They are whiney civilians.

If you are some emotional powerplayer, then yes these are issues. If you would actually be roleplayer and then think about story and role, the story and situation would actually make more sense.

[Wittand25]

Lumikki wrote...

Also these people are NOT some noobs who needs to learn to do they job as been part of teams. There is no issues with working with eatch other, because they don't give **** about others, they just do the job. People stop trying to requires so much emotional connected and learn to accept, as they been cold bastard, like most of these squad members are. Happy bunny families aren't here, they are hard cold soldiers.

As for them to become loyal, yeah I know what you mean, but again it happens because providing gameplay for us. Not because it would make so good sense as been so realistic situation, but there is some logic too there. It's not about  loyalty on/off switch, it's about ability conserate to do the job, peace of mind and be grateful for Shepard for help with issues.

Even hard core soldiers need to train together to work well together. No coach in the world made a team by picking just good players and then never trained them to work together, because that is a sure way to failure. The team needs to know that they can trust each other and to work with each other, because if the technician has to worry if the fire team leader will arrive in time he or she cannot concentrate on hacking the doors and so on. The teammembers need to learn to trust each other for building a team. And if building a team is the main focus of the game building trust between teammembers has to be part of the game too, but this is not the case in ME2 because they only start to trust Shepard but not each other. Short of some exceptions they don´t even realise the existence of other squadmembers at all.

[Lumikki]

Wittand25 wrote...

Even hard core soldiers need to train together to work well together. No coach in the world made a team by picking just good players and then never trained them to work together, because that is a sure way to failure. The team needs to know that they can trust each other and to work with each other, because if the technician has to worry if the fire team leader will arrive in time he or she cannot concentrate on hacking the doors and so on. The teammembers need to learn to trust each other for building a team. And if building a team is the main focus of the game building trust between teammembers has to be part of the game too, but this is not the case in ME2 because they only start to trust Shepard but not each other. Short of some exceptions they don´t even realise the existence of other squadmembers at all.

In some ways yes, sertain teams train with each others, to become real good as team work.

Lets look situation little different way. Example people have played mmorpgs here, I assume. So, when You play with others in mmoprg, it's benefit if you know each others and have played before. How ever, if any good player knows how to play they character class well, then that person can be better player in team than even someone who you have played before in team. My point is that if you know you "job" well, you don't need noob training anymore. You will learn others behaviors as beeing with others and doing your job. You don't need to practice with others to learn, because you have allready done it 100's of times with other people. Only thing what is required that you know how to "play" in team and know you "job" well.

In DAO companions learn togather to do they job, but in Mass Effect they are professionals from start. Setup is totally different.  So, behavior is also different. In mmorpgs there is PUG's, more "better" player is in team less you need to talk about how to play you class and more it's just roleplaying or talking other BS. If how ever the PUG players are totally noobs, then it's more about learning and team works will suck. How ever, that is not setup in Mass Effect.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 novembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

You'd think they'd understand that.  But apparantly we're wrong.

The game is perfect.  It's a documented fact.
We're just haters who wants to carry dozens of suits of armor around.  Haven't you heard? 

Yes. I've heard.

They should know that it isn't the concept of a character-focused game that failed - just the execution.

BioWare, it's okay to focus on characters like this, your vision wasn't wrong. I get the feeling you wanted to go in a different direction and focus on the small universe instead of this big story - which is fine.

But it's not that we weren't receptive to the idea of a character driven story for once; it's that this wasn't a character driven story. Loghain is an example of a story-driving character. The ME2 characters are not. You established the story and then made the whole game about something other than the story. Instead, I wanted you to merge the two. That is all ME2 failed to do: merge characters and story. Other than this it was a phenomenal game.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:04 .

[glacier1701]

Lumikki wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Even hard core soldiers need to train together to work well together. No coach in the world made a team by picking just good players and then never trained them to work together, because that is a sure way to failure. The team needs to know that they can trust each other and to work with each other, because if the technician has to worry if the fire team leader will arrive in time he or she cannot concentrate on hacking the doors and so on. The teammembers need to learn to trust each other for building a team. And if building a team is the main focus of the game building trust between teammembers has to be part of the game too, but this is not the case in ME2 because they only start to trust Shepard but not each other. Short of some exceptions they don´t even realise the existence of other squadmembers at all.

In some ways yes, sertain teams train with each others, to become real good as team work.

Lets look situation little different way. Example people have played mmorpgs here, I assume. So, when You play with others in mmoprg, it's benefit if you know each others and have played before. How ever, if any good player knows how to play they character class well, then that person can be better player in team than even someone who you have played before in team. My point is that if you know you "job" well, you don't need noob training anymore. You will learn others behaviors as beeing with others and doing your job. You don't need to practice with others to learn, because you have allready done it 100's of times with other people. Only thing what is required that you know how to "play" in team and know you "job" well.

In DAO companions learn togather to do they job, but in Mass Effect they are professionals from start. Setup is totally different.  So, behavior is also different. In mmorpgs there is PUG's, more "better" player is in team less you need to talk about how to play you class and more it's just roleplaying or talking other BS. If how ever the PUG players are totally noobs, then it's more about learning and team works will suck. How ever, that is not setup in Mass Effect.

In small unit tactics it really is a matter of life or death on how well you know the people you are fighting with. Special Forces quite literally ensure that squads spend as much time as they possibly can working together so that when in combat a minimum of time is lost issuing orders. After all if your squadmate takes 5 minutes to realise you want them to flank left the effect of that is now lost because of what your enemy is doing during that time. And that is basically the situation we are given in ME2 especially as the squadmate AI can be so funky at times with telling your squadmates that standing on a barrier is the best place to be or that being behind cover on the same side as the enemy is fine. Really there was no mass training sessions where everyone got to see how effective others were in situations. And this is the point that BioWare missed out on and seems to be very confused about. The concept of a lot of characters is not bad but that the team building trust with each other was just plain left out leaving us with a group of individuals who, with some exceptions, had NEVER worked with each other and in some cases had spent HUNDREDS OF YEARS working alone. That is NOT a team and if had been real life it would have been a sure fire recipe for disaster.

 BioWare knows of the movie that they are fond of quoting and in that movie we saw the essential point of the 12 individuals coming together and learning to trust each other by working together. Not once do we see that within ME2. Hell we still get Jack questioning Miranda as choice of being made a leader and if we see that at the point of the suicide mission then our efforts in trying to build a team have failed!!!! Its quite lucky we are only playing a game and that does not count for anything but it really calls into question the whole reason for using this method of story telling if BioWare/Mass Effect dev team could not get it right.

[Nightwriter]

I think telling a good narrative is more important than observing realism.

Having the characters come together as a team would have been a truly awesome experience that I was sad to miss out on. Instead their interactions feel very empty and each exists in their own private world.

Besides, the game doesn't really try to perfectly mimic professional military behavior anyway. No helmsman would get away with some of the stuff Joker says. In ME1, anyway, when he's still Alliance.

[glacier1701]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think telling a good narrative is more important than observing realism.

Having the characters come together as a team would have been a truly awesome experience that I was sad to miss out on. Instead their interactions feel very empty and each exists in their own private world.

Besides, the game doesn't really try to perfectly mimic professional military behavior anyway. No helmsman would get away with some of the stuff Joker says. In ME1, anyway, when he's still Alliance.

 It is a fictional world after all and some leeway has to be given I agree but still considering the training that Shepard has so much is just plain ignored beyond that point of forgiveness. Could some sort of 'lets all work together' mission been shown? Considering HOW the game played not really because until the very end you do not have a full team and by then you are on a time limit. In essence as soon as the devs decided on how the team was recruited they doomed the whole team building aspect which the story is supposed to be based on. Unless of course that shuttle ride with everyone on it was supposed to be our 'training' mission which we never got to see.

Modifié par glacier1701, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:30 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...
You get recuired mission what has 99.9% chance you die. Are you saying you don't want to put you personal issues in order? No-one is so stupid. Why Shepard helps them, because they work for Shepard now and many of these personal issues seem to be little dangerous. (Mostly because gameplay reasons)

Settling affairs can be all fine and good.  But a better plan would be to do whatever you can to maximize your chances of getting through the mission alive.  That means training.  Upgrading your weapons and armor as much as possible (oh, wait, there is no armor)  Learning to finction as a unit.  Gathering as much information about your mission as possible.   Aside from upgrading the Normandy and teh Collector Ship trap, none of this happened. 

Also these people are NOT some noobs who needs to learn to do they job as been part of teams. There is no issues with working with eatch other, because they don't give **** about others, they just do the job. People stop trying to requires so much emotional connected and learn to accept, as they been cold bastard, like most of these squad members are. Happy bunny families aren't here, they are hard cold soldiers.

Define "noob" in this case.  Yes they are all very efficient killers.  Also, most of them admit that they generally work alone, or in very small groups.  Most of them do not know each other, and have little reason to trust them. 

Look at Jack and Grunt, for example.  Why would anyone trust them to watch their backs?  As has been pointed out, objections are given to having Miranda (Shepard's second in command) lead the second fire team.  That is simply unacceptable. 

In a dangerous situation.  Like, say, a Suicide Mission, everyone on the team needs to trust everyone else.  They don't have to like each other.  But they do have to trust that theey'll do whatever they can to keep each other alive.  With disparate personalities like Tali, Jacob, Samara, Thane, and Jack, Shepard should have a monumental task ahead.  Not a bunch of bite-sized one-off adventures.  Trusting Shepard is simply not enough.

As for them to become loyal, yeah I know what you mean, but again it happens because providing gameplay for us. Not because it would make so good sense as been so realistic situation, but there is some logic too there. It's not about  loyalty on/off switch, it's about ability conserate to do the job, peace of mind and be grateful for Shepard for help with issues.

But what it amounts to is an on/off switch.  These people have gone for years, decades, even centuries without settling these matters.  Even gone on other "suicide missions" without resolving them.  Yet now, of all times, they become all-important?  Why couldn't the "loyalty misions" have revolved around integrating the team?  Plenty of shooting could have been involved as they gathered materials, intelligence, or simply repelled threats to the mission.  Maybe even missions specifically designated as "training exercises" 

[Lumikki]

You can't require game to be perfect simulation of life, it is still just game, even how good it tries to do stuff. I mean sure we want better, but complain so many stuff what aren't really that big issue in the beging. If it would be really BIG issue, most of people would agree, but they don't.

[Getorex]

Do ya'll know that the Geth-Quarian "issue" is perhaps the easiest conflict to solve in the galaxy?



The geth are bots. They do not need breathable air, drinkable water, nor a even semi-habitable or terraformable planet. They don't really need planets at all except as a source for resources, same as everyone else.



They could get by quite well simply sticking to moons, lifeless planets, even simply bases/stations near stars or gas clouds, etc, where access to resources would be greater. So, the obvious fix for the entire Geth-Quarian fight is:



Shepard: "Legion, would the Geth be down with handing the Quarian homeworld back over to the Quarians in return for peace and a promise of non-interference? Perhaps we could even welcome you into the Council, maybe even the Alliance."



Legion: "Yes, Shepard Commander."



"OK, glad we talked about this. Let's get off to the Quarian fleet and finalize the details of the peace treaty and then off to the Citadel."



Legion: "Okidokie."



Ta-da. Fixed, finished, done.



I mean, what, are the Geth going to complain because they would be losing a nice habitable (for organics) world? That they need fresh air? They just CANNOT part with all the pretty birds (or their Quarian homeworld equivalent)?

[RiouHotaru]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think telling a good narrative is more important than observing realism.

Having the characters come together as a team would have been a truly awesome experience that I was sad to miss out on. Instead their interactions feel very empty and each exists in their own private world.

Besides, the game doesn't really try to perfectly mimic professional military behavior anyway. No helmsman would get away with some of the stuff Joker says. In ME1, anyway, when he's still Alliance.

I'll agree that having some scenes of them working together and coming together would make sense, but then you also have to realize that many of them likely have personal reasons to steer clear of others.  For example, Jack definitely wouldn't get along with most folks besides Grunt, and in his case they'd likely try to kill each other just for kicks.  Zaeed and Samara would likely not get along socially either.

The team "coming together" is a nice pipe-dream.  But socially speaking, a lot of them don't have a lot of reasons to interact with one another, preferring to keep their own company.  During missions however, they know to set aside their misgivings and work, because of who they're working for, a point that a LOT of them like to point out.  They're doing it for Shepard.  If Shepard tells them to watch each other's back, they will.  If Shepard wants them to cover for each other, they will.  But they won't usually do it out of any sort of altruism.  Now I realize this isn't perfect, since Tali/Garrus and Miranda/Jacob have every reason to work together altruistically beyond just what Shepard wants.

But yes, I think the narrative should trump realism in video games unless the point OF the game is to be realistic.  This is why I like the fact that you can come out of the suicide mission with everyone intact, instead of this masochistic desire people have to force cheap deaths because other the spirit of the mission is meaningless.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

You can't require game to be perfect simulation of life, it is still just game, even how good it tries to do stuff. I mean sure we want better, but complain so many stuff what aren't really that big issue in the beging. If it would be really BIG issue, most of people would agree, but they don't.

No game is perfect.  No game gets everything right.  DAO didn't do things perfectly.  Neither did ME 1.  But they did things well enough that I could enjoy them. 

But I believe that ME 2 did things badly.  As far as story and charactarization went.  It wasn't the interactive story/rpg Bioware normally does so well.  It was little more than "just another video game"  Things like teambuilding, continuity with ME 1, the Collectors, charactarization, are important to me.  If a game is going to be about building a team, it has to be about building a team.  Maybe others are willing to settle for less (I guess a lot are, given sales numbers I see tossed around).  Maybe Bioware is willing to deliver less because of that.  But I am not willing to simply settle. 

[RiouHotaru]

Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the writing for ME2 is only "bad" when compared to the rest of their work. Because comparing it to other games outside of Bioware's library, it's definitely not poor quality. It's of a different quality than what some expected from Bioware.



Heck, Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, known for ripping games new ones, noted that he couldn't give ME2 any points for good writing because good writing is what Bioware does, it's basically their standard. So I'd hesitate to call the story and characterization "bad" in a general sense, when compared to the rest of the gaming market.



But that's just me, and I admit I think that thie story is just fine. Could use some things added on, but as it stands, is good in my books.

[Iakus]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the writing for ME2 is only "bad" when compared to the rest of their work. Because comparing it to other games outside of Bioware's library, it's definitely not poor quality. It's of a different quality than what some expected from Bioware.

Heck, Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, known for ripping games new ones, noted that he couldn't give ME2 any points for good writing because good writing is what Bioware does, it's basically their standard. So I'd hesitate to call the story and characterization "bad" in a general sense, when compared to the rest of the gaming market.

But that's just me, and I admit I think that thie story is just fine. Could use some things added on, but as it stands, is good in my books.

Perhaps.  Like I said, ME 2 felt very much like "just a video game" while ME 1 (not Bioware's best by any means) felt more like an epic adventure.  If Bioware simply joins the mix of any other video game company, what's left for those who have grown accustomed to their style of storytelling?  Bioware has always been a cut above the rank and file.  I'd hate to see them sacrifice quality for "good enough"

And I'd definitely call ME 2 "poor quality" for them, or perhaps "average quality" compared to other games.  I mean:
 
Killing and ressurecting Shepard through mysterious "cutting edge technology" as a reset button?  It felt more like a reboot than a continuation.

Railroaded forcing to work with Cerberus (not that working for Cerberus was a bad idea, but the fact that Shepard is so obviously pushed into doing it was really clumsy)

Cool villains like the Collectors introduced then forgotten about for most of the game.  Umm, aren't they the whole point of the mission?

The teambuilding stuff you already know about.  Rather than being about a team of bad****es coming together to stop a galactic threat, it was more about Shepard solving said bad****es personal problems.

I've said a few times that there is good stuff in ME 2.  But it's bits and pieces of good stuff for several good games.  As a game in itself, as a sequel, and particularly as a middle part of a story, it simply doesn't hold together.  The story's an incoherent mess.  Sadly, I suspect Bioware's reach exceeded its grasp.

[Destroy Raiden_]

cipher86 You can only have 2 other people in your squad, and with DLC, there are a total of 12 members to choose from. There are plenty of overlaps in squad abilities, and it seems like there was no reason to have such a large squad aside from the fact that there needed to be a lot of side missions (ie. loyalty quests) to fill out what would otherwise be a hollow game.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that the loyalty missions for the some characters did fill like fillers Thane, Jacob, Miranda, Zeed, Mordin, and Grunt where these as far as well done loyalty mission they shouldn't have been loyalty missions at all they should've been rolled right into the story Kasumi, Leigion, Tali, Garrus, and Samara should've been added to the story plot not done as glorified sidequest like BW did them I hope in 3 loyalty missions are out and characters that have stories that really develop them are just added to the storyline as part of game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For being the 2 of the main plot episodes we should've had more dealings w/ the collectors but 2's done so theres no need to toss in a bunch of collector meetings in 3.



Planet scanning was fun for 1 planet after that it was boring then after that tedious I really really hate it I want tires and boots on the ground for mineral mining and if I can't get that I can use SB means to appoint mining companies to get it for me and I just get the goods.



The new mini hack games in 2 did get repetitive and I would've loved to bypass it all after a point eventually I just stopped hacking entirely sense I was so sick of doing them every single playthough I don't know why the Simon says hack on 1 was better to me then the scrolling text or match the symbol circuit game. Maybe because it was more straightforward and I could get on w/ my game. I'd like to have harder hack like AI core in 1 beable to be assigned to say Tali or Garrus if I had them in my squad.



Squad banter was an issue in 2 you had to play find the blue box inorder to hear them I liked it better in 1 where dI could just click them and they'd talk I'd like for 3 to have them give opinions if they have it as soon as you enter the area automatically like say we go to a bar and Tali says, " I wish they served Quarian drinks here..." She'd say it as soon as you came to the bar and if I want to talk to her more I can click her and she'd say something else like, " My friends on the flotilla really liked the last club recording I sent back I should send this one too!" or something.



There was really a lack in 2 of things to do off duty wise starring at strippers and drinking myself blind can only be done for so long I think we've got some military or ex military personnel on the boards who say yep thats life for service men but...I'm a civillian I'd like more to do. Oh and where are the male strippers? Equal opportunity work places anyone?



Now that 3 is in the works I'd like the option to take ground or hub side 1 -3 squad members at times it seems odd that 3 can take on the world ya'know? You would not be forced to take all 3 but you'd have to bare minimum take 1 squad mate with you.

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

But I believe that ME 2 did things badly. 

Yeah, but that's the point, not everyone agrees with you. Meaning there is even people who think ME2 did it better. Point here is, that it's just your personal taste and issue, not that game was done badly. Every games has issue, like you sayed, but people should recognize what are REAL issues what most people agree and what are just some players personal issues.

[Moiaussi]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

But I believe that ME 2 did things badly. 

Yeah, but that's the point, not everyone agrees with you. Meaning there is even people who think ME2 did it better. Point here is, that it's just your personal taste and issue, not that game was done badly. Every games has issue, like you sayed, but people should recognize what are REAL issues what most people agree and what are just some players personal issues.

I am sorry that our issues and opinions are not REAL enough for you. We get that you liked ME2. You seem to be having trouble accepting that not everyone agrees with you, either.

[Jebel Krong]

Moiaussi wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

But I believe that ME 2 did things badly. 

Yeah, but that's the point, not everyone agrees with you. Meaning there is even people who think ME2 did it better. Point here is, that it's just your personal taste and issue, not that game was done badly. Every games has issue, like you sayed, but people should recognize what are REAL issues what most people agree and what are just some players personal issues.

I am sorry that our issues and opinions are not REAL enough for you. We get that you liked ME2. You seem to be having trouble accepting that not everyone agrees with you, either.

that's not what he was saying, so quit being obtuse.

[Moiaussi]

Jebel Krong wrote...

I am sorry that our issues and opinions are not REAL enough for you. We get that you liked ME2. You seem to be having trouble accepting that not everyone agrees with you, either.

that's not what he was saying, so quit being obtuse.

Actually it pretty much is. He is saying that opinions differ, and since some liked it, there can't have been any legitimate arguements why others didn't, or at least the fact that others didn't like it is irrelevant.

In theory that is true, if the overall sales (including ME3 sales) aren't adversely affected. That isn't a given though and is for Bioware to decide, not for either of us.

Should everyone who disagrees with him (or you) simply go away just because we are told to by either of you?

[Jebel Krong]

Moiaussi wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

I am sorry that our issues and opinions are not REAL enough for you. We get that you liked ME2. You seem to be having trouble accepting that not everyone agrees with you, either.

that's not what he was saying, so quit being obtuse.

Actually it pretty much is. He is saying that opinions differ, and since some liked it, there can't have been any legitimate arguements why others didn't, or at least the fact that others didn't like it is irrelevant.

In theory that is true, if the overall sales (including ME3 sales) aren't adversely affected. That isn't a given though and is for Bioware to decide, not for either of us.

Should everyone who disagrees with him (or you) simply go away just because we are told to by either of you?

really? idiots complaining that the combat system is "inferior to ME1" in ME2 is suddenly a valid criticism, when even most detractors don't go near that near universally-praised improvement? what Lumikki was saying is that perhaps discussions should be directed to the things that are actually generally acknowledged as weaknesses in the sequel, and not give undue material/credence to the haters with an agenda....

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:07 .