1700 réponses à ce sujet

[glacier1701]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Even professionals have to learn to work together.

What you think those 20-50 missions before end missions was for?

If they had worked together then that would have been ok but since EVERY mission only allowed 2 squadmates you cannot call that learning to work together ESPECIALLY as there is NO incentive to take anyone other than a favoured few. For the team to learn to work together you would have had to have more missions something like Virmire - that is Shepard is out with one squad (and with more than just 2 squaddies) and the others are on another squad.  Now that is learning to work together even IF the other squad is just heard over the comms at least there is something there. We did NOT get anything that can be called the people we picked up learning to work togther. And remember IF they had learnt to work together then there would have been NO objection at the end mission when Miranda says she could lead the second squad. In other words the ingame evidence does not back the case of this being a team who had learnt to work togther but rather highlights the fact that they are individuals through and through who, in some cases, cannot tolerate other individuals on the team and will voice that.

[Lumikki]

glacier1701 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Even professionals have to learn to work together.

What you think those 20-50 missions before end missions was for?

If they had worked together then that would have been ok but since EVERY mission only allowed 2 squadmates you cannot call that learning to work together ESPECIALLY as there is NO incentive to take anyone other than a favoured few. For the team to learn to work together you would have had to have more missions something like Virmire - that is Shepard is out with one squad (and with more than just 2 squaddies) and the others are on another squad.  Now that is learning to work together even IF the other squad is just heard over the comms at least there is something there. We did NOT get anything that can be called the people we picked up learning to work togther. And remember IF they had learnt to work together then there would have been NO objection at the end mission when Miranda says she could lead the second squad. In other words the ingame evidence does not back the case of this being a team who had learnt to work togther but rather highlights the fact that they are individuals through and through who, in some cases, cannot tolerate other individuals on the team and will voice that.

You seem to look situation little different than I.  I don't judge lore based what is not there, but as what can be there. In simple way sayed, you see what you want, that's all what you see, because that is what you want to see. In movie called "Abyss" one women sayed, you have to look with better eyes.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[glacier1701]

Lumikki wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Even professionals have to learn to work together.

What you think those 20-50 missions before end missions was for?

If they had worked together then that would have been ok but since EVERY mission only allowed 2 squadmates you cannot call that learning to work together ESPECIALLY as there is NO incentive to take anyone other than a favoured few. For the team to learn to work together you would have had to have more missions something like Virmire - that is Shepard is out with one squad (and with more than just 2 squaddies) and the others are on another squad.  Now that is learning to work together even IF the other squad is just heard over the comms at least there is something there. We did NOT get anything that can be called the people we picked up learning to work togther. And remember IF they had learnt to work together then there would have been NO objection at the end mission when Miranda says she could lead the second squad. In other words the ingame evidence does not back the case of this being a team who had learnt to work togther but rather highlights the fact that they are individuals through and through who, in some cases, cannot tolerate other individuals on the team and will voice that.

You seem to look situation little different than I.  I don't judge lore based what is not there, but as what can be there. In simple way sayed, you see what you want, that's all what you see, because that is what you want to see. In movie called "Abyss" one women sayed, you have to look with better eyes.

Unfortunately you are overlooking the fact that for something to be called 'canon' it HAS to be there. Thus if it is not shown or stated inside the game it did not happen. So we did not see this so called 'working together' thus it did not happen. This does not stop you from imaging something that is not shown as happening but it cannot be used as an arguement for it to have happened. In other words "no evidence case dismiised." 

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Even professionals have to learn to work together.

What you think those 20-50 missions before end missions was for?

The missions with only two characters, at least one is absolutely silent?  The characters give zero input when it comes to choices, and few observations about the missions at all.  In essence, does it matter at all  (save for a loyalty mission) who you take with you on a given mission?  Or are they simply interchangeable guns to take along?

It seems Glacier's responses beat me to the punch.  Yes exactly!  What I wouldn't give for at least one or two "practice" Suicide Missions.  That would be almost as good as squad banter.

Modifié par iakus, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:55 .

[Lumikki]

glacier1701 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

You seem to look situation little different than I.  I don't judge lore based what is not there, but as what can be there. In simple way sayed, you see what you want, that's all what you see, because that is what you want to see. In movie called "Abyss" one women sayed, you have to look with better eyes.

Unfortunately you are overlooking the fact that for something to be called 'canon' it HAS to be there. Thus if it is not shown or stated inside the game it did not happen. So we did not see this so called 'working together' thus it did not happen. This does not stop you from imaging something that is not shown as happening but it cannot be used as an arguement for it to have happened. In other words "no evidence case dismiised." 

Actually yes and no. If it's in canon then it's there. But alot of stuff isn't in canons lore and it's just assumption what that missing part is. Meaning people make assumption as what something means based they own view poins as how they want to see it. That's what I meaned by looking better eyes. Don't make the negative assumption.

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

Even professionals have to learn to work together.

What you think those 20-50 missions before end missions was for?

The missions with only two characters, at least one is absolutely silent?  The characters give zero input when it comes to choices, and few observations about the missions at all.  In essence, does it matter at all  (save for a loyalty mission) who you take with you on a given mission?  Or are they simply interchangeable guns to take along?

It seems Glacier's responses beat me to the punch.  Yes exactly!  What I wouldn't give for at least one or two "practice" Suicide Missions.  That would be almost as good as squad banter.

You make assumption that talking is required to learning. Then you make conclusions what are based assumption you made based your own view point. Do you question, is you base assumption the only assumption what can be made and conclusion what they leads?

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Moiaussi]

Lumikki wrote...

You make assumption that talking is required to learning. Then you make conclusions what are based assumption you made based your own view point. Do you question, is you base assumption the only assumption what can be made and conclusion what they leads?

Units learn to work together without any communication? Good communication is a big part of working as a team. So is learning what people are capable of, which again usually works much better with communication. These characters never make tactical suggestions, they just take general orders quietly (if you want to micromanage battles), so how do they get to know each other or what they are capable of?

Of course we are all making assumptions based on our own view points... do you have anything to back up yours?

[Lumikki]

Moiaussi wrote...

Of course we are all making assumptions based on our own view points... do you have anything to back up yours

No.  Like I sayed I just rather make more positive assumption than the negative one. Mostly because negative assumptions leads only unhappiness and disapointments.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:40 .

[Googlesaurus]

Yes, there is no squad communication. And it is kind of bogus considering the vast array of characters you can bring along with you. At the very least, they should be noticing different things; at most they should be reacting differently to each other. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:31 .

[A_y0ner_]

Hey guys, I know this is not a response to any of the previous posts before mine but, as this is a topic for people dissapointed with ME2, I don't see any issue with me posting my beef about the game here:

I dont want to make a huge list of, what is in my opinion, shortcomings of ME2 so i'll just jot down what I consider the main issue:

First is that the plot of the game broke down the immersion/belief factor of the Mass Effect universe. ME1 had us chasing down a villain and all of Sheperd's responses were reasonable and logicall. I didn't see that in ME2.

The player must fall in this stiff cycle of:
1) seeking a new potential squadmate,
2)kill a bunch of bad guys to get to him/her
3)recruit
4)find out whats bugging him or her
5)go to wherever you need to go to fix this
6)kill a bunch of baddies
7)resolve the situation.

Yeah, there are stuff in between but that is what I think most of the game falls into. When a gamer can start to recognize and even correctly predict a cycle in which they're going through, it shatters the believability of the game's world.

"Oh, what? There's something I can do for you that will make you loyal towards me? Wht a surprise..."

ME1 you did loyalty missions too but they were so much more organic and believable. You really wanted to help Garrus and Wrex. Because it was only coming from two of your squadmates, it made it more sincere.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Yep A_y0ner_ you pretty much summed it up for me. I mean how can 12 people have crisis at the same time? I live in a large family and we only have crisis every so years I find the believability of 12 unrelated people all needing the types of aid they required right out. What they started in 1 they should've continued in 2 now we have to figure out are they pushing ahead w/ going main stream and becoming a game clone or are they going to lean towards 1 and become a niche but a really cool rememberable one?

[Skilled Seeker]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

Yep A_y0ner_ you pretty much summed it up for me. I mean how can 12 people have crisis at the same time? I live in a large family and we only have crisis every so years I find the believability of 12 unrelated people all needing the types of aid they required right out. What they started in 1 they should've continued in 2 now we have to figure out are they pushing ahead w/ going main stream and becoming a game clone or are they going to lean towards 1 and become a niche but a really cool rememberable one?

LOL Is this seriously what is used to bash ME2 now?

[Iakus]

Skilled Seeker wrote...
LOL Is this seriously what is used to bash ME2 now?

Less that than the fact that these missions are the ME 2 story.  Instead of actually getting a team ready for a dangerous mission against the Collectors.  Sure they're interesting.  But they get monotonous, waiting for the game to get to the point.  They can't carry the story on their own

Modifié par iakus, 13 novembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[glacier1701]

Lumikki wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Of course we are all making assumptions based on our own view points... do you have anything to back up yours

No.  Like I sayed I just rather make more positive assumption than the negative one. Mostly because negative assumptions leads only unhappiness and disapointments.

Thats totally fine Lumikki and I am not saying that is a wrong attitude or anything. However to use that assumption without something to back it up is not enough to say that nothing is wrong. It is unfortunate that, to a large degree, BioWare compared ME2 to The Dirty Dozen, has made statements saying its a character driven story and then fails to provide the basics to make that a valid conclusion from our point of view. Its not character driven if the characters do not do anything outside of 2 missions (for most of them though its just 1 in a few cases) that suggest that they are characters that are trying to learn to work together. At most all we get to see is conflict in 2 cases and a couple of words and its all settled. You cannot even follow up on those conflicts. For some people what is there is enough but BioWare has set a standard and ME2 did not reach that standard. They need to have that wake up call. After all IF they try to go just for the shooter aspect they have lost (Call of Duty: Black Ops for example just blew the doors off the record for sales in 24hours on the first day of release. Looking at that figure its perhaps what ME2 has made in sales since its release!!!! In other words they fail on story and the game is going to be buried by other games it might try to emulate).

[KotOREffecT]

A_y0ner_ wrote...

ME1 you did loyalty missions too but they were so much more organic and believable. You really wanted to help Garrus and Wrex. Because it was only coming from two of your squadmates, it made it more sincere.

 No not really, that makes no sense. The couple of loyalty quests in ME1 were very insignificant at best, infact they weren't actually important, on one playthrough I couldn't even get Wrex's family armor in the crate, so that ended akward.

In ME 2, take Tali's loyalty quest, not only is there character connection and growth, theres actually a bigger picture, the conflict between Quarians and Geth. The whole trial thing, there were big decisions to be made. Much like some other loyalty quests that will set up events for ME 3.

And plus,why wouldn't you want to clear the minds of the best of the best, before embarking on a suicide mission that depends on humanity and the universe in general? Getting that Reaper tech and base is very important, not to mention putting a stop to the Collectors.
 
Even though most of the pace in the game was about getting more people and solving personal issues, I though it was a nice pace, more of a calm before the big storm. I mean one moment, your helping Garrus get revenge, heliping Thane and his son, and stopping an heated argument between Miranda and Jack, all this seems so unimportant as were all about to die in one glorius mission. Yea, these are deep personal issues, some bigger than others, but still.. Kinda like how Shep says in the end game epic prep talks, we have to pull together and push on, we have come this far, were not gonna let them bully us. Those talks and the team work in the end just really brought the team together and made everyone forget past issues and really get the bigger picture here.

[kmcd5722]

I already made similar posts like this in other threads, but I really want to stress how important I felt this was.



First, BioWare, thank you thank you thank you for ME2. It was above and beyond what I thought it could be. However, I have one small, very small, area for improvement for ME3 so as to make it the best game ever.



My small complaint/humble request relates to the "feel" of immersion that ran so deep in ME1. I felt much of this enchanting and truly almost euphoric sense of reality in ME1 didn't quite make the transfer over to ME2. Here's how:



1) The MAKO and "Copy/Paste" Barren Landscape Environments

Much of the "immersion" and "exploration" that felt so real, epic, awe-inspiring, and truly (if you stopped every now and then while you driving the MAKO over some barren planets) humbling and mystifying was lost from ME1 when the MAKO was out for ME2. I loved the fleshed out planets from ME2, it was really cool to see that. I for one posted constantly about that in the old ME1 forums. However, I guess I never realized that the MAKO and all the copy/paste worlds would be entirely dropped. And now I somewhat regret it, seeing as I truly did love how they offered you incredible views of space, light-years away from earth, that made you reflect on the vastness of space as you looked up at the horizon. What I wanted was more variety, in addition to the already awesome barren world space vistas, not that all the barren landscapes be entirely removed. It was this lack of immersion that I missed so much when playing ME1. Maybe for ME3 or ME2 DLC add in another 15-20 truly uncharted worlds like ME1. (There is a thread much like this already, so go there if you want to see the whole argument and pictures of the cool space vistas)



I absolutely LOVED Overlord for the fact that it was a throwback to the open world exploration, not just linear point and drag motion.



2) Elevators and "Decontamination in Progress"

Really, truly, I didn't mind the elevators or having to walk back to the Normandy in ME1 as it made the game feel like you were truly always in it; there were no "discontinuities" in the storyline that loading screens unfortunately made the ME2 feel less personal. The "taken outside the movie" kind of feeling crept up more I felt with all the loading screens in ME2, versus ME1 I always felt "in the game/movie." Don't get me wrong, some of the load screens were pretty cool, being able to see where you were traveling; however, maybe for ME3, have those load screens very very intermittently and bring back the elevators. (To all future posters, please don't hurt me for this idea, I promise I am being truly sincere in my requests)



3) Status Reports with your Superiors

Not talking directly to Hackett/the Council like ME1 really made me feel even less immersed for the things I did in the game. I felt this really made me think about my decisions, as eventually my superiors would know about it. Versus just receiving an email from TIM, I felt BioWare could have made it so it would have been neat to hear his voice, and then discuss with the squad about the last mission. Simply reading the emails is not nearly as entertaining nor as immersive as talking to an NPC.



4) Mission Complete Screens/End of Mission Reports

After a truly intense moment, emotional or not, they were just jarring, out of place, and felt almost forced. The whole in-game movie experience is lost. However, the unique movie feel of a well-immersed experience in a video game turned into a stock FPS with these screens. If I just want to shoot the hell out of something, I can play COD or Halo, but if I want to be alive in a game, I want to play ME.



5) Squad Banter

Simple. It just brings out a sense your squadmates aren't mutes who don't have feelings towards each other. In ME2, they just seemed like mindless servants obeying orders when you couldn't even have the opportunity to talk to them on a mission or post-mission about your in-game decisions. Granted, I am not ripping on the incredible character development that was present by talking to your squadmates about their personal lives in ME2, but what the mission and how they get along with the rest of the crew?



All in all, ME2 was absolutely fantastic to play, but I miss the planets and other small things that made ME1 feel so real.



Because I couldn’t say it any better, I quote:

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

ME2 is a great game, but ME1 was a great experience.

[Skilled Seeker]

Funnily enough I enjoy the mission complete screens. I find them satisfying as you really feel like you've achieved something. It was like a reward and acknowledgement at the end of each mission that you didn't get in ME1.

[Slayer299]

I don't understand that Skilled Seeker, how does a mission complete screen make you feel like you've achieved anything? All it tells you is the money/minerals found, you already knew what the results of your mission were before the MCS popped up.

[Iakus]

[quote]KotOREffecT wrote...

 No not really, that makes no sense. The couple of loyalty quests in ME1 were very insignificant at best, infact they weren't actually important, on one playthrough I couldn't even get Wrex's family armor in the crate, so that ended akward.[/quote]

I assume you mean it "ended awkward" because you had to kill Wrex on Virmire?

{/quote]
In ME 2, take Tali's loyalty quest, not only is there character connection and growth, theres actually a bigger picture, the conflict between Quarians and Geth. The whole trial thing, there were big decisions to be made. Much like some other loyalty quests that will set up events for ME 3.[/quote]

Growth?  How do the characters act any differently after completing their loyalty missions?  What sign do we have that "their minds are clear" besides a costume change?  THe missions give us a glimpse into the squadmates' pasts and their way of thinking, which is a good thing.  Bioware has a lot of experience in personal side missions and knows how to do them well.  Tali, Legion, and Mordin each had "big decisions" in their loyalty missions.  But what about others like Thane, Jacob, and Jack?  Most of these personal missions were essentially interesting side missions, regardless of how they're categorized..

[quote]
And plus,why wouldn't you want to clear the minds of the best of the best, before embarking on a suicide mission that depends on humanity and the universe in general? Getting that Reaper tech and base is very important, not to mention putting a stop to the Collectors.[/quote]

No arguements with any of that.  However, It's not enough.  A clear head should not be all that's needed for a suicide mission.  Teambuilding is vital too, particularly since the whole game is supposed to be based on "build a team"  That aspect is sadly lacking.


[quote] 
Even though most of the pace in the game was about getting more people and solving personal issues, I though it was a nice pace, more of a calm before the big storm. I mean one moment, your helping Garrus get revenge, heliping Thane and his son, and stopping an heated argument between Miranda and Jack, all this seems so unimportant as were all about to die in one glorius mission. Yea, these are deep personal issues, some bigger than others, but still.. Kinda like how Shep says in the end game epic prep talks, we have to pull together and push on, we have come this far, were not gonna let them bully us. Those talks and the team work in the end just really brought the team together and made everyone forget past issues and really get the bigger picture here.[/quote]


We should have had talks and teamwork throughout the game, not just at the end.  It needs to be demonstrated how these indivuals, brought together by Shepard, now trust each other as much as they do him/her.  Instead what we have is a dozen gunslingers, individually loyal to Shepard.  Not a team.

To those who followed the tv show Lost, we needed some sort of "live together, die alone" speech.

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

We should have had talks and teamwork throughout the game, not just at the end.  It needs to be demonstrated how these indivuals, brought together by Shepard, now trust each other as much as they do him/her.  Instead what we have is a dozen gunslingers, individually loyal to Shepard.  Not a team.

I don't need to trust my fellow workers in work to do my job or practise team work. Only thing required is that I know that they know how to do they own jobs and I know my job. My point, you seem to have this extreme need for personal connections between people. It's way too emotional to feel real. I don't mean that there isn't team work like what you say, because there is. But it's not required to happen allways, it's just what you want to happen.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 novembre 2010 - 03:15 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Slayer299 wrote...

I don't understand that Skilled Seeker, how does a mission complete screen make you feel like you've achieved anything? All it tells you is the money/minerals found, you already knew what the results of your mission were before the MCS popped up.

The acknowledgement that the mission was complete. I like tackling things in bitesized portions. And the nice little summary of what you did written by the Illusive man.

[InfiniteCuts]

Some of the key aspects of Mass Effect, aside from plot, that were superior to their counterparts in the sequel:

Scale - ME is just a larger game in both perspective, space and narrative. Hub worlds were larger and seamless with the use of a few elevators, which served as perfect time for squad banter, news, etc. Combat environments were varied in ME1, offering both CQC and large open battlefields. Enclosed combat spaces were repetitive, and they took the right steps to correct this in ME2, while sacrificing open spaces. Most places in ME2 felt cramped, including the "larger" SR2. The Citadel was reduced to a few rooms and a mini-mall. Even the galaxy had a larger feel to it as we were dealing with a sense of discovery that was lost in ME2. Overall, Mass Effect was a larger game than Mass Effect 2.

Physics - ME2 is incredibly "heavier" than its predecessor. Shepard's movement in ME2 felt awkward and sluggish, as if he/she was crippled somehow. There was a greater sense of speed and freedom in movement in ME1. Count me as one of the few that actually prefer moving into cover with the thumbsticks than having to press a button. It felt more intuitive and didn't place all of the focus on cover mechanics. Basically, **** cover if it's the only way you're going to survive combat in a game. It's been said many times before, but there are other games that cater to this style of play and do it much better. Bring back the kind of ranged, tactical combat that can benefit from but not absolutely require the use of cover. Also, who in their right mind doesn't miss the ragdoll physics of ME? As an infiltrator, I actually feel sorry for biotics this time around. How you guys have managed to remain relatively quiet while losing so much of what made your powers great in ME is beyond me.

Art - ME1's art style was more refined and didn't try too hard to impress with neon lights and dark colors. More specifically, armor, despite not being as customizable as in ME2, was head and shoulders above anything offered there. Light/Medium/Heavy armor for each race with fairly distinctive design qualities between them. Meanwhile, ME2 offers the ability to mix and match armor pieces, but most pieces just look cumbersome and plain ugly. Life Support Webbings, Death Mask, Collector Armor... anyone? Environments were also treated with more refinement and creativity in ME1. The Citadel with all its different locales and how they all come together seamlessly, Virmire with its beaches and tropical setting, Ilos... the alien vegetation, prothean artifacts and the bunker levels. Noveria with it's isolated and sterile atmosphere. I could go on and on how each of these locations stand out on their own and all come together to create a compelling world. There is very little of this in ME2. Instead they tried to impress us with light and color combinations, while not putting as much thought into the overall feel of the environment. ME2 levels were designed either for you to get from point a to b or to provide adequate cover for the obvious fight that is coming, whereas ME has levels that were created on their own merits, in which you might have to fight or just explore.

Audio - Ambient sound and music played a more important role in Mass Effect. Nearly everywhere you went, there was some memorable piece of music or soundscape to accompany you. Sounds of battle on Feros, varying levels of wind on the planets, quasar machines at Flux... there are tons of examples in ME1 where the environment's sound combined with music really draw you into the world. This is sort of an afterthought in ME2, or just doesn't quite have the same effect. My guess is because of the shift from the well-suited synthesized style of the original in favor of more orchestral, contemporary themes. And there is very little ambient sound in ME2... mostly just humming sounds and chatter. ME1 excels in this department as well.

Animation - ME2 character animation was exaggerated and had Shepard looking quite the fool at times. I winced everytime he'd do his little arm fold gangster-lean while trying to express disapproval. Femshep was beyond awkward with her mannerisms. Facial animation somehow managed to regress over what we've previously seen. Even enemies took a hit as they lost much of the ragdoll effects from the first game and instead had scripted overeactions to gunfire. Also, biotics lost some of the interesting gestures they made while casting different powers in the original.

There are quite a few of these nuanced aspects to the game that most people don't take the time to consider when comparing both games. There is something to be said for subtlety, BioWare.

Modifié par InfiniteCuts, 13 novembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[OneDrunkMonk]

I will concur with the fact that in ME2, aside from some conversations, the characters don't really bring much to missions aside from their own offensive abilities. Sure you might get a quip on the scenery or situation here and there but that's it. Like...I brought Jack along for the Overlord mission and I would have thought she would have had some kind of emotional reaction but no. For that matter I don't see, in any logical sense, why Legion should be allowed to join you on the Citadel or the Quarian fleet or even Omega. I mean what station security would allow a Geth to roam around their station? Oh, but this Geth is a good one? Cause you say so? So like, we can just ignore 99.97% of the other encounters we've had with the Geth and just take your word on it that this Legion is actually really a nice robot if you get to know it?

[Skilled Seeker]

InfiniteCuts wrote...

Some of the key aspects of Mass Effect, aside from plot, that were superior to their counterparts in the sequel:

Scale - ME is just a larger game in both perspective, space and narrative. Hub worlds were larger and seamless with the use of a few elevators, which served as perfect time for squad banter, news, etc. Combat environments were varied in ME1, offering both CQC and large open battlefields. Enclosed combat spaces were repetitive, and they took the right steps to correct this in ME2, while sacrificing open spaces. Most places in ME2 felt cramped, including the "larger" SR2. The Citadel was reduced to a few rooms and a mini-mall. Even the galaxy had a larger feel to it as we were dealing with a sense of discovery that was lost in ME2. Overall, Mass Effect was a larger game than Mass Effect 2.

Physics - ME2 is incredibly "heavier" than its predecessor. Shepard's movement in ME2 felt awkward and sluggish, as if he/she was crippled somehow. There was a greater sense of speed and freedom in movement in ME1. Count me as one of the few that actually prefer moving into cover with the thumbsticks than having to press a button. It felt more intuitive and didn't place all of the focus on cover mechanics. Basically, **** cover if it's the only way you're going to survive combat in a game. It's been said many times before, but there are other games that cater to this style of play and do it much better. Bring back the kind of ranged, tactical combat that can benefit from but not absolutely require the use of cover. Also, who in their right mind doesn't miss the ragdoll physics of ME? As an infiltrator, I actually feel sorry for biotics this time around. How you guys have managed to remain relatively quiet while losing so much of what made your powers great in ME is beyond me.

Art - ME1's art style was more refined and didn't try too hard to impress with neon lights and dark colors. More specifically, armor, despite not being as customizable as in ME2, was head and shoulders above anything offered there. Light/Medium/Heavy armor for each race with fairly distinctive design qualities between them. Meanwhile, ME2 offers the ability to mix and match armor pieces, but most pieces just look cumbersome and plain ugly. Life Support Webbings, Death Mask, Collector Armor... anyone? Environments were also treated with more refinement and creativity in ME1. The Citadel with all its different locales and how they all come together seamlessly, Virmire with its beaches and tropical setting, Ilos... the alien vegetation, prothean artifacts and the bunker levels. Noveria with it's isolated and sterile atmosphere. I could go on and on how each of these locations stand out on their own and all come together to create a compelling world. There is very little of this in ME2. Instead they tried to impress us with light and color combinations, while not putting as much thought into the overall feel of the environment. ME2 levels were designed either for you to get from point a to b or to provide adequate cover for the obvious fight that is coming, whereas ME has levels that were created on their own merits, in which you might have to fight or just explore.

Audio - Ambient sound and music played a more important role in Mass Effect. Nearly everywhere you went, there was some memorable piece of music or soundscape to accompany you. Sounds of battle on Feros, varying levels of wind on the planets, quasar machines at Flux... there are tons of examples in ME1 where the environment's sound combined with music really draw you into the world. This is sort of an afterthought in ME2, or just doesn't quite have the same effect. My guess is because of the shift from the well-suited synthesized style of the original in favor of more orchestral, contemporary themes. And there is very little ambient sound in ME2... mostly just humming sounds and chatter. ME1 excels in this department as well.

Animation - ME2 character animation was exaggerated and had Shepard looking quite the fool at times. I winced everytime he'd do his little arm fold gangster-lean while trying to express disapproval. Femshep was beyond awkward with her mannerisms. Facial animation somehow managed to regress over what we've previously seen. Even enemies took a hit as they lost much of the ragdoll effects from the first game and instead had scripted overeactions to gunfire. Also, biotics lost some of the interesting gestures they made while casting different powers in the original.

There are quite a few of these nuanced aspects to the game that most people don't take the time to consider when comparing both games. There is something to be said for subtlety, BioWare.

I pretty much universally disagree with EVERYTHING you have said. And I did read your entire post.
 
What does this mean? That different people have different opinions and there is no right and wrong in art. I'm not a big fan of Van Goth but you don't see me trolling his art at museums, calling his work crap. So if its not for your tastes then I suggest you leave.

Since because Bioware is a company they will go with what was more successful whch is ME2. If you are hoping for a retro recede in ME3 it won't happen.

Have a nice day.

[Skilled Seeker]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

I will concur with the fact that in ME2, aside from some conversations, the characters don't really bring much to missions aside from their own offensive abilities. Sure you might get a quip on the scenery or situation here and there but that's it. Like...I brought Jack along for the Overlord mission and I would have thought she would have had some kind of emotional reaction but no. For that matter I don't see, in any logical sense, why Legion should be allowed to join you on the Citadel or the Quarian fleet or even Omega. I mean what station security would allow a Geth to roam around their station? Oh, but this Geth is a good one? Cause you say so? So like, we can just ignore 99.97% of the other encounters we've had with the Geth and just take your word on it that this Legion is actually really a nice robot if you get to know it?

*Sigh*

Your dig at the DLC mission is highly hypocritical. Squadmates don't banter in the ME1 DLCs either. Because they are made after the main game and it would be too expensive to bring all the voice acters back. Otherwise in the main game where a comment is appropriate squadmates do speak out, as much as if not more so than in ME1.

As for Legion people think he is a mech and not a real Geth, a war trophy that you take with you to show off. At least thats the reason given if you ask the lady at the citadel entrance or even Anderson.

You can't bring Legion onto the quarian fleet without causing a stir and having to win a couple of persuasion options. This was handled pretty well.

[DunadanTurambar]

I think ME2 dissapointed me because there aren't significant decissions like in ME. I mean in the first game you can choose between kill the rachni queen, the thorian and the counsil; wich is huge. In ME2 you can only choose to destroy the collector base. Also this second game is more focused in you building your squad, rahter than in you stoping the reapers. I hope that is because in ME3 you will no need to asamble a team, and the story will be more focused on the reapers.