1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Uh, false. Call of Duty's main hook was squad-based combat, minus the tedious micromanagement involved, and the idea of playing from the perspective of different armies. As far as I know, no other game has done that, and I'm not counting the ****fest that is Conflict: Desert Storm.

So, no other game features squad-based combat? I can name you quite a few. Hell, even Halo Reach now features squad-based combat. Whether COD's original hook was squad-based combat is irrelevant to where it stands now.

You also missed the spirit of my post, which was that the storylines of the most recent Call of Duty games have not been steadily 'getting better'. Modern Warfare is the exception among examples like Modern Warfare 2 or previous titles where there isn't so much a storyline as much as an explanation of where you are and why you are killing things there.

How is Call of Duty's multiplayer that special compared to other FPS of the past two decades? All I know so far is Call of Duty 4 did the Killstreak system and other games copied/refined the fomula.

I wouldn't know. Maybe you should ask the 25 million pleople who played it extensively. I'll give you a hint; they didn't do it for the campaign. The devs could probably have omitted the single player altogether and they still would have done nearly as well for sales. The point is that COD's strength lies in its multiplayer, not in squad-based combat.

[Yojimbo_Ltd]

Like halo and every other sucessful FPS, there are really only three seconds of fun repeated over and over again with varying scenarios. Sometimes they have a variable (I.E. riding the warthog, flying the helicopter) and subsequently return to the three seconds of fun. Mass Effects main attraction is a conversation of fun repeated over and over with varying scenarios.

[Skilled Seeker]

RiouHotaru wrote...

InfiniteCuts wrote...
*snip because I don't want to quote a massive wall of text and then drop a comparable wall on TOP of that*

...I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to argue, but I feel you're leaving out several weak points in your arguments, and I’m not sure if you’re even aware you did this:




Scale – ME1 may have felt bigger, but how much of that was purely empty space or the same environment rehashed over and over and over again?  Combat environments were NOT that varied, and I feel your statement is largely in error.  It was the same buildings, often with the same interior designs, even when it came to the caves.  ME2 makes an in-joke about pre-fab buildings and structures because they recognized their own mistake.  While they did sacrifice this for comparatively smaller spaces in ME2, each environment is unique and different
looking.  Also, the hubs were larger, yes, but how often did you actually take the time to manually traverse the
entire Citadel, or did you just use the Transit to get around (which had its own load screen too!)  While the
elevators were an interesting touch, having to use the Elevator every time you wanted to hear the news got old FAST, hence the news terminals.  I will concede that the squad banter in the elevators was nice, but often it was the same conversation and the same responses only with very slight differences.


Physics – “Heavier”?  Well, we all noticed that Shepard seems to move with a slight limp, which was odd, but it didn’t bother me too much.  As for the cover mechanic…well, this is the price of moving away from the RPG-style and into the TPS-style.  Cover becomes very important in a TPS, and means the difference between life or death.  Cover was only unnecessary in ME1 because power combos or armor combos rendered Shepard largely invulnerable to damage.  And you admit you preferred it using the thumbstick, and that’s cool, but for a lot of us, not only was using cover awkward, but Shepard’s ability to stick to walls became annoying fast.  Using a button to control cover makes things MUCH easier for us.  I wouldn’t have minded some sort of blind-fire, which a lot of other TPS’ use, but that’s another story.  As for ragdoll physics…sure, sniping someone and sending their bodies soaring back was awesome…but you can’t snipe at NEARLY the ranges you could in ME1 anymore.  We were quiet probably because the ragdoll physics of old just didn’t cut it anymore.


Art – Now here, I have the largest disagreement with you.  ME1’s hub worlds and story planets were the ONLY places where unique artwork was used in the entire game.  Every other word was the same base rock croppings and mountains with different color textures, and even THOSE were often reused from time-to-time.  ME2 may have had less worlds to visit, but each one was different looking and offered great variety of styles, from the lush backdrop used in Overlord, to the clashing storm of Lair of the Shadow Broker.  Even the N7 assignments, while short, did offer unique venues as well.  To argue otherwise…As for the way ME2 tries to “impress us with flashy color combos”, sure.  The technology for graphics had improved…tenfold since ME1.  They went for better because the technology and budget for better was present.  I don’t think anyone would’ve wanted a repeat of ME1 in that sense.  You’re right though, in that ME2’s locales made it obvious if combat was coming, this is the drawback of a TPS.  Hard to make your cover blend in seamlessly sometimes.


Sound – You make excellent points in that you’re right, ME2 went for more dramatic background noise, and there’s less ambience sound-effects in places where the proper use of such would be great.  But I actually enjoyed the chatter.  It’s weird that there’s so many NPCs in the ME1 hub worlds…but you rarely hear them talk, and only on specific triggers.  I’d agree that some ambient sound effects would work too, the music does it’s job of setting the scene as well, which is WHY the music in ME2 is so memorable.


Animation – For a bit, I just sort of stared at this section.  Backwards?  Yes, Sheploo’s creepy face is the face that
has since launched a thousand memes, but really, the people were MUCH more expressive this time around.  While there was some exaggeration, I felt it was necessary a bit.  If the characters tried being TOO realistic we’d
step straight into the Uncanny Valley.  But I could tell easily on people’s faces when people were sad or mad or happy.  Even characters who couldn’t easily express emotion like Garrus, Legion, or Tali, it was clear when there were expressions and emotions.  Why do you think Legion is so popular despite not even being remotely humanoid save for bipedal shape?  They had an entire team devoted purely to the EYES of characters, to make movements look realistic.  As for ragdolls, sure, enemies now have scripted reactions, but most enemies wouldn’t even exhibit reactions until you killed them in ME1.  I think it’s a rather fallacious claim to state that animations have taken whole steps backwards.

Now this I can agree with 100% But I'm afraid the hater trolls won't listen to your words of wisdom.

[Fhaileas]

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.

What a nice concise summary of the blaring non-narrative technical inadequacies of ME2 relative to ME1! The plot elements have been discussed ad-nauseam so its refreshing to read about the other disappointing aspects of the game. Great job!

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Fhaileas wrote...

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.

What a nice concise summary of the blaring non-narrative technical inadequacies of ME2 relative to ME1! The plot elements have been discussed ad-nauseam so its refreshing to read about the other disappointing aspects of the game. Great job!

What, so now we're critizicing the Mass Effect series as games instead of movies? 

Modifié par BlackbirdSR-71C, 15 novembre 2010 - 08:55 .

[Xeranx]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

What, so now we're critizicing the Mass Effect series as games instead of movies? 

[Lunatic LK47]

Il Divo wrote...


So, no other game features squad-based combat? I can name you quite a few.

Nice twist of my words. I said the main hook of the series was exactly that FOR THE FIRST GAME. They did not hype the multiplayer when the first ****ing game was previewed. BTW, Halo mostly had you alone a good majority of the game, with the exception of a few levels here and there.

I wouldn't know. Maybe you should ask the 25 million pleople who played it extensively. I'll give you a hint; they didn't do it for the campaign. The devs could probably have omitted the single player altogether and they still would have done nearly as well for sales. The point is that COD's strength lies in its multiplayer, not in squad-based combat.

Oops, my PC was not powerful enough to play Call of Duty 1 online, and gaming cafes were as common as a needle in a haystack. BTW, campaign *WAS* a main focus. I have an old out-of-print gaming magazine saying exactly that since the game was previewed . Last time I checked, no other World War II FPS ever had an "easy-to-get-into" squad-based combat since Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 16 novembre 2010 - 12:24 .

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Xeranx wrote...

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

What, so now we're critizicing the Mass Effect series as games instead of movies? 

Amazing storylinge, quality characters, beatiful scenery vs. poor gameplay.

[sheridanmovieguy]

InfiniteCuts wrote...

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

Scale

The only area in ME1 that I will actually concede is larger than ME2 would be the Citadel. It was indeed larger than anything in Mass Effect 2. However, it was also the only "hub world" in ME1. A "hub world" is a large area with an abundance of sidequests that also involves the main story as well. None of the other levels really qualified. Noveria had a pualtry number of sidequests (I think it was two or three very breif ones) and Feros's could all be compelted in a single area in the space of four minutes (the underground area, which was basically just a hallway with all of the objectives along it). None of the other levels were "hub worlds" at all. They were either the mostly barren uncharted planets, or the story worlds which were basically just a straight-shot down a mostly linear path.

ME2 has several Hub worlds. The Citadel (smaller than it was, but still there), Omega, Illium and to a much, much lesser degree Tuchanka. Instead of having one large hub world, they have several smaller ones that probablyl equal out to the same size or larger than t he Citadel in ME1, with equal or more sidequests.

ME1's "story planets" were longer than ME2's story missions, yes, but that's becuase ME2 had significantly more story quests than ME1. So, instead of having five really long missions, there are at least a dozen shorter missions.

Uncharted worlds were bigger, and I agree the N7 missiosn weren't all that satisfying, but for the most part the uncharted worlds were just large, copy-pasted envrionments with not much in them. A nice looking sky if you were lucky. If you were really lucky an actual conversation. As its been brought up before, Overlord was an attempt to marry the N7 missions of ME2 with the uncharted worlds of ME1, and I think it was pretty successful.

The reason ME2 was two discs was becuase it was larger in Bioware's preffered area: story.

Physics

It's true, ME2 is more of a shooter when it comes to combat. Then again, that's what they wanted ME1 to be. In all the previews they were excited about cover and how Shepard would need it to survive. They wanted that experience in ME1. However, the proper allocation of shields, armor and powers basically turned Shepard into an unkillable demi-god who could just stand in front of enemy fire and waste everyone like Rambo with no consequences. Even insanity was more a test of patience rather than skill, as it was putting up with the enemies' health bar and immunity spamming that made it difficult rather than actually being in danger of dying yourself.

ME2 made it so death is always a possiblity if you're careless, even on the easiest difficulty, and I agree with this decision. It is, after all, what they wanted from the start.

Art

I disagree here. While the armors may have been sleeker in ME1, I think it sucked a lot of personality out of the characters. By giving them each an identifiable outfit it made them stand out as characters more. Did it make for some ridiculous scenes? Yes. Jack in a vaccum with nothing more than a breathmask was a little silly, but ultimately, I think unique designs trump the old armor that made everyone look the same.

As for envrionments themselves, I felt almost every one of the story missions had a great atmosphere and look. This is a matter of personal preference, of course, but I honestly don't see your point about how ME2's envrionments are somehow asthetically inferior to ME1's.

Audio

As a lover of musical scores, I can tell you Jack Wall's work in ME2 is fantastic. I liked the shift to the more orchestral soundtrack and think it was incredibly well made. I liked ME1's soundtrack quite a bit, but I think (like many aspects of the series) it improved with the sequel. As for ambient noises, I liked the NPC chatter in ME2, though it did get a bit repetitive. In fact, many of the game's funniest moments come from this chatter, and a few of the emotional ones too, if you listen. It all comes down the fabulous writing in these games. They work hard, even for the background stuff most gamers won't pay attention to.

Animation.

A strong dissagree here. I believe with the added animation characters became more realistic. And more cinimatic handling of scenes
conveyed emotion far better so that character expressions could really
say a lot without dialogue (case in point: Jack waiting to blow up the base on her
personal quest. The look on her face...there's actually emotion there.
You can see it, and it's good). Ultimately, everything was more expressive so that every character interaction became much more dynamic.

Remember how in ME1 every conversation was stiff, and at the end the person you were talking to would just sort of wandered off, with their eyes shifting creepily to the side before they started moving? ME2 fixed that by making every interatction seem more natural and fluid.



Believe it or not. I am not a total ME2 fanboy. I actually do believe there were several things ME1 did better than ME2, but this list is pretty much the right point for all the wrong reasons.

Personally, in my opinion ME3 should be a pleasant hybrid of the two, and frankly, I think that's the way it's going.

[Xeranx]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

What, so now we're critizicing the Mass Effect series as games instead of movies? 

Amazing storylinge, quality characters, beatiful scenery vs. poor gameplay.

I guess you were being sardonic that the review was akin to how movie critics would review a film, but I think the gaming world could use a bit of that. 

[SithLordExarKun]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

InfiniteCuts wrote...
*snip because I don't want to quote a massive wall of text and then drop a comparable wall on TOP of that*

...I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to argue, but I feel you're leaving out several weak points in your arguments, and I’m not sure if you’re even aware you did this:




Scale – ME1 may have felt bigger, but how much of that was purely empty space or the same environment rehashed over and over and over again?  Combat environments were NOT that varied, and I feel your statement is largely in error.  It was the same buildings, often with the same interior designs, even when it came to the caves.  ME2 makes an in-joke about pre-fab buildings and structures because they recognized their own mistake.  While they did sacrifice this for comparatively smaller spaces in ME2, each environment is unique and different
looking.  Also, the hubs were larger, yes, but how often did you actually take the time to manually traverse the
entire Citadel, or did you just use the Transit to get around (which had its own load screen too!)  While the
elevators were an interesting touch, having to use the Elevator every time you wanted to hear the news got old FAST, hence the news terminals.  I will concede that the squad banter in the elevators was nice, but often it was the same conversation and the same responses only with very slight differences.


Physics – “Heavier”?  Well, we all noticed that Shepard seems to move with a slight limp, which was odd, but it didn’t bother me too much.  As for the cover mechanic…well, this is the price of moving away from the RPG-style and into the TPS-style.  Cover becomes very important in a TPS, and means the difference between life or death.  Cover was only unnecessary in ME1 because power combos or armor combos rendered Shepard largely invulnerable to damage.  And you admit you preferred it using the thumbstick, and that’s cool, but for a lot of us, not only was using cover awkward, but Shepard’s ability to stick to walls became annoying fast.  Using a button to control cover makes things MUCH easier for us.  I wouldn’t have minded some sort of blind-fire, which a lot of other TPS’ use, but that’s another story.  As for ragdoll physics…sure, sniping someone and sending their bodies soaring back was awesome…but you can’t snipe at NEARLY the ranges you could in ME1 anymore.  We were quiet probably because the ragdoll physics of old just didn’t cut it anymore.


Art – Now here, I have the largest disagreement with you.  ME1’s hub worlds and story planets were the ONLY places where unique artwork was used in the entire game.  Every other word was the same base rock croppings and mountains with different color textures, and even THOSE were often reused from time-to-time.  ME2 may have had less worlds to visit, but each one was different looking and offered great variety of styles, from the lush backdrop used in Overlord, to the clashing storm of Lair of the Shadow Broker.  Even the N7 assignments, while short, did offer unique venues as well.  To argue otherwise…As for the way ME2 tries to “impress us with flashy color combos”, sure.  The technology for graphics had improved…tenfold since ME1.  They went for better because the technology and budget for better was present.  I don’t think anyone would’ve wanted a repeat of ME1 in that sense.  You’re right though, in that ME2’s locales made it obvious if combat was coming, this is the drawback of a TPS.  Hard to make your cover blend in seamlessly sometimes.


Sound – You make excellent points in that you’re right, ME2 went for more dramatic background noise, and there’s less ambience sound-effects in places where the proper use of such would be great.  But I actually enjoyed the chatter.  It’s weird that there’s so many NPCs in the ME1 hub worlds…but you rarely hear them talk, and only on specific triggers.  I’d agree that some ambient sound effects would work too, the music does it’s job of setting the scene as well, which is WHY the music in ME2 is so memorable.


Animation – For a bit, I just sort of stared at this section.  Backwards?  Yes, Sheploo’s creepy face is the face that
has since launched a thousand memes, but really, the people were MUCH more expressive this time around.  While there was some exaggeration, I felt it was necessary a bit.  If the characters tried being TOO realistic we’d
step straight into the Uncanny Valley.  But I could tell easily on people’s faces when people were sad or mad or happy.  Even characters who couldn’t easily express emotion like Garrus, Legion, or Tali, it was clear when there were expressions and emotions.  Why do you think Legion is so popular despite not even being remotely humanoid save for bipedal shape?  They had an entire team devoted purely to the EYES of characters, to make movements look realistic.  As for ragdolls, sure, enemies now have scripted reactions, but most enemies wouldn’t even exhibit reactions until you killed them in ME1.  I think it’s a rather fallacious claim to state that animations have taken whole steps backwards.

Now this I can agree with 100% But I'm afraid the hater trolls won't listen to your words of wisdom.

I wouldn't really call InfiniteCuts a troll, at the very least he acknowledges that his criticisms are his opinions and not universal facts like a few other posters. I don't see him calling anyone who enjoys ME2 a "dumb meathead shooter fan".

I may disagree with him, but honestly I'm reading his posts from a different point of view unlike other posters which i just laugh at and ignore in this thread.

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Xeranx wrote...

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

What, so now we're critizicing the Mass Effect series as games instead of movies? 

Amazing storylinge, quality characters, beatiful scenery vs. poor gameplay.

I guess you were being sardonic that the review was akin to how movie critics would review a film, but I think the gaming world could use a bit of that. 

A good game, however, manages to include good characters and a good storyline together with good gameplay, graphics and the like, e.g. Half Life 2. What would you say about Half Life 2 if it were missing the awesome physics system, enemy AI, balanced difficulty and just overall fun factor? Sure, you could still say "The characters are so convincing and moving", but that's secondary to what makes a game. 
In my oponion, Mass Effect 2 is a good game, but just can't hold up to todays standards of what makes a good game.

[Iakus]

sheridanmovieguy wrote...

The reason ME2 was two discs was becuase it was larger in Bioware's preffered area: story.

The problem, was, there was nothing binding the story together.  I found that no  matter how many worlds I visited, missions done, squadmates recruited, that I was actually accomplishing anything.  Lke all these stories were essentially make-work.  A game made up almost entirely of side-missions.  It may seem big, and take up a second disk.  But it feels very small.

disagree here. While the armors may have been sleeker in ME1, I think it sucked a lot of personality out of the characters. By giving them each an identifiable outfit it made them stand out as characters more. Did it make for some ridiculous scenes? Yes. Jack in a vaccum with nothing more than a breathmask was a little silly, but ultimately, I think unique designs trump the old armor that made everyone look the same.

I have no problem with unique looks.  But couldn't the looks have been armor?  It really takes me out of the game to see squadmates in combat in some of those ridiculous outfits.  ME 1 armors may have been bland and/or ugly.  But it was armor.

As a lover of musical scores, I can tell you Jack Wall's work in ME2 is fantastic. I liked the shift to the more orchestral soundtrack and think it was incredibly well made. I liked ME1's soundtrack quite a bit, but I think (like many aspects of the series) it improved with the sequel.

I think the scores for both were equally good.  Just different styles.  I'm actually a big fan of "The Long Walk"  from the Suicide Mission.  It really added to what I thought was the only tense part of the mission.

Personally, in my opinion ME3 should be a pleasant hybrid of the two, and frankly, I think that's the way it's going.

I think ME 2, from a technical standpoint, is much improved from ME 1.  I just believe that too much was left out/replaced to really be worth the gains.

[wookieeassassin]

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004



A lot of the things he says make sense but other ones seem to be sort of nitpicky. He does say that like 75% of the game, that is recruiting and making your team members loyal is awesome.



I thought that the suicide mission was going to make you take two people with you, I'm glad they did the reasonable choice and allowed you to use your entire team you spent the whole game recruiting to take the base down.

[MrFob]

WOW, who locked the other thread about the article? Why does everything exclaiming that not everything is perfect about ME2 have to go in this thread and this thread alone? I thought a discussion of an article would constitute enough reason for a seperate thread.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to post in the other thread and couldn't anymore:

I absolutely agree with everything the article says (negative and positive parts).
ME2 is one of the best games I have ever played in my life but I seriously hope Mac Walters and company are going to read this article because it describes the main problems of ME2 (and IMO all its problems, I think gameplay, etc. is great) in a reasonable and constructive way while at the same time acknowledging ME2s strengths. Kudos to the author, this should be the main basis of feedback for the dev team when they are coming up with ME3.

EDIT: BTW, I am pretty disappointed by the way these forums are developing. Just saying.

Modifié par MrFob, 16 novembre 2010 - 11:21 .

[Lumikki]

wookieeassassin wrote...

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004

Problem with this analysis is that it's based what player wanted from ME2. Meaning it's not based what it is, but what it could been if player whould have got what he/she wanted. There is some point in there, but like I sayed, it was too much "I wanted this, but got that" That's the situation what allways cause disapointments, assuming and wishing something to be what it isn't. So, I both agree and disagree.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 novembre 2010 - 11:37 .

[Nightwriter]

MrFob wrote...

WOW, who locked the other thread about the article? Why does everything exclaiming that not everything is perfect about ME2 have to go in this thread and this thread alone? I thought a discussion of an article would constitute enough reason for a seperate thread.
Anyway, here is what I wanted to post in the other thread and couldn't anymore:

I absolutely agree with everything the article says (negative and positive parts).
ME2 is one of the best games I have ever played in my life but I seriously hope Mac Walters and company are going to read this article because it describes the main problems of ME2 (and IMO all its problems, I think gameplay, etc. is great) in a reasonable and constructive way while at the same time acknowledging ME2s strengths. Kudos to the author, this should be the main basis of feedback for the dev team when they are coming up with ME3.

EDIT: BTW, I am pretty disappointed by the way these forums are developing. Just saying.

I was so disgusted disappointed that it got locked. Normally Pacifien will explain why she locks a thread (and normally the explanations are pretty good) so I wasn't sure if it was Pacifien.

I mean, that article has images like this in it:




I think this is a pretty awesome diagram here that proves it's not just another ME2 bashing article.

It goes out of its way to say most of the game was "AWESOME".

[Lumikki]

Nightwriter wrote...

I mean, that article has images like this in it:




I think this is a pretty awesome diagram here that proves it's not just another ME2 bashing article.

It goes out of its way to say most of the game was "AWESOME".

Sorry, but that diagram does allmost opposite. Because some of ME2 recruit and loyalty missions was really good and nicely done. How ever, ME2 major problem with missions was that it was too much about squad members. Game leaved the main story weak. So, my point is the green and red in that bar is in wrong places. Main story missions wasn't bad at all, there was too little of main story. That bar is done by someone who hates the ME2 main story. Read the article again and see how the writer hates the main story, because he/she wanted something different.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 novembre 2010 - 11:56 .

[Nightwriter]

Lol, it's pretty obvious he thinks the main story left a lot to be desired. And I agree, so I do not concede your point. However, like him, I think the game is redeemed by its awesome character missions, which were very well done, if very compartmentalized.

[Iakus]

wookieeassassin wrote...

http://www.shamusyou...dedtale/?p=7004

A lot of the things he says make sense but other ones seem to be sort of nitpicky. He does say that like 75% of the game, that is recruiting and making your team members loyal is awesome.

I thought that the suicide mission was going to make you take two people with you, I'm glad they did the reasonable choice and allowed you to use your entire team you spent the whole game recruiting to take the base down.

I pretty much agree with that article.  The complaint about the Illusive Man is kinda nitpicky, but the lack of continuity with the ME1 Cerberus is right on the money.  Through most of that article, I found myself going "Dude, get outta my head!" 

Unfortunately, I can't really say that all the crew quests are awesome because for most of them I find myself asking questions like "How does this get us any closer to the Collectors?"  The lack of a central story spread throughout the game, tainting my enjoyment of the rest. 

With a stronger central plot, I think I could have enjoyed these squad missions more for what they were.  Instead I  felt more like I was filling up on appetizers while waiting for a main course that never showed up.

While I like that you get to use several squadmates in the SM as specialists, I can't help but note that you only need about half the number you actually recruit.  The rest are essentially extra baggage.

A particular quote  I liked and wholeheartedly agree with:

"I don’t mind the notion of a Shepard who is the only one with the courage, knowledge, and leadership to face the challenge. But I’m not at all keen on the notion of a Shepard who is the only one who KICKS ENOUGH ASS to take on the Reapers..  I’d like the game to maintain the pretense that they need him to do more than just hose the galaxy down with bullets until the problem goes away"

Shepard was in the right place at the right time in ME 1.  He got the beacon's message, and that started the ball rolling.  In ME 2 he's, well, some cybernetic demigod, drifting towards cartoonish proportions.  Same with the squad (both figuratively and literally)

Modifié par iakus, 17 novembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Nightwriter]

I know, I loved that quote. I was like, "Yes!!" Also, this one:

"Instead, they simply shoved you into service of Cerberus and then threw in a few dialog options to let you b*tch about it in petty, non-specific ways."

And:

"In fact, you can’t really say anything of value to the Illusive Man. Your only dialog options are halfhearted resignation or Luke Skywalker-level, 'I’ll never join you!' bravado. The latter is particularly risible since, by the end of the conversation, you’ve done exactly that."

And if we're talking about nitpicking, I thought the part about Chakwas was also pretty nitpicky. I feel like some stuff is worth focusing on and some stuff really isn't. The bit about Chakwas isn't.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 17 novembre 2010 - 12:18 .

[MrFob]

Nightwriter wrote...

And if we're talking about nitpicking, I thought the part about Chakwas was also pretty nitpicky. I feel like some stuff is worth focusing on and some stuff really isn't. The bit about Chakwas isn't.

True but in the broader context, this is just another example of how the series gets a reboot, just to end up right where ME1 left us in the first place. I think the author made a very good point there. That is one if the main reasons why the whole setup feels so "attached" (for lack of time to think of a better word). While the reboot introduces a lot of problems, it doesn't really change Sheps situation. So what's the point?

The real shame is, that because we are back in this thread, no one but those who care to follow that thread (and most of those already agree on the major points anyway) will read it.

Modifié par MrFob, 17 novembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[Nightwriter]

Which is totally where my frustration and disappointment comes from. Throwing any and all disappointment discussions back in this thread is just an excuse to put them in one place so they can be more easily ignored.

Yeah, I totally agree with his point about the reboot, but I guess I don't feel Chakwas was a good argument for it - his other points were much better. I didn't really find fault with Chakwas's story.

[Moiaussi]

I think if more of the loyalty missions related to the main plot rather than the characters, it would have been a much more coherrant game. For example, getting information on a collector spy and going along with Thane and/or Garrus to take him out, or possibly Garrus on an investigation. Bringing Zaeed along because of his field knowledge of mercenary tactics, etc, etc, etc.



In other words, seeing how they handle the kind of assignments you actually recruited them for so you know how they will handle them when you are ready for the real mission.



Wrex's mission could remain as is, since his agression could jeapordize the mission if not controlled.

[InfiniteCuts]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

I wouldn't really call InfiniteCuts a troll, at the very least he acknowledges that his criticisms are his opinions and not universal facts like a few other posters. I don't see him calling anyone who enjoys ME2 a "dumb meathead shooter fan".

I may disagree with him, but honestly I'm reading his posts from a different point of view unlike other posters which i just laugh at and ignore in this thread.

ha... thanks for the vote of confidence, SithLord. But yeah... some people seem to equate criticism with abject hatred of the game. ME2 is my second favorite Xbox360 title (you'll never guess the first). If anyone disagrees then state your reasons and discuss or keep it moving... I'm not interested in the ego trips some people have on this forum. It really doesn't have to be all or nothing... the more we make it seem that way the more likely BioWare will cater to one side over the other, and most people seem to agree that a merger of what made both games great is what we're looking forward to.

Modifié par InfiniteCuts, 17 novembre 2010 - 01:20 .