815 réponses à ce sujet

[Phobius9]

I think its important to remember that ME1 had to be written as a stand alone story. It had to have a beginning, middle and end. You had to meet people, learn everything about them, and tie up all available character plots before the game ended. It was designed so, should the franchise not sell well, it could operate as a stand-alone game, but still allow a easy transition to a trilogy if it proved popular enough.



Obviously it did, and the way I see it is that ME2 and ME3 are like Mass Effect 2 parts 1 and 2. ME2 arguably does not have the same dramatic, tense feel as the first and the characters (Shepard and NPCs) seem less "fleshed out". But I believe that's because we'll see more of this in ME3.



ME2 and ME3 will combine to produce a epic story with more character and depth than all of ME1. Once ME3 is done and gone, we'll look back at the trilogy as a whole and wonder what we were so worried/disapointed about.



I do agree, however, that they need to focus more on the RPG elements, than the 3rd person shooter elements. I'd favour more dialouge over more generic corridor action any day of the week. Fingers crossed LotSB marks a return to this mind-set for ME3.

[bjdbwea]

Phobius9 wrote...

ME2 and ME3 will combine to produce a epic story with more character and depth than all of ME1. Once ME3 is done and gone, we'll look back at the trilogy as a whole and wonder what we were so worried/disapointed about.

I disagree. As great as ME 3 might - hopefully - be, it will not fix ME 2. The story of ME 2 is mediocre as a stand-alone game, and as a second part of a trilogy. And it will remain that way, unless ME 3 also contains a big patch for ME 2. And since that's very unlikely, the best we can probably hope for is that ME 3 corrects at least the biggest mistakes, like the whole human reaper idea. The writers should try to explain that away and come up with a better explanation for the motives of the reapers. Then at least the overarching story of the trilogy will not remain damaged by ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 octobre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Terror_K]

ME2 has so many issues, I don't even know where to begin and end, and even if I did decide to start listing them off I'd probably forget half of them. ME1 has issues too, but they're mostly relegated to poor execution of good basic concepts. ME2 is just completely riddled with horribly concepts and deliberately bad design choices and the intentional oversimplification and modernizing just plagues and pervades so much of it that it ends up being riddled with annoying, niggling issues that are hard to ignore. I think if anybody has rose-tinted glasses on it's those who actually think ME2 is the better game.

[Foolsfolly]

They know Mass Effect attracted fans, and they strived to make what they thought was a better game. Of course, whether ME2 is a better game or not boils down to perception.

And according to reviews, word of mouth, and game sales they made a better game!

[Xeranx]

Foolsfolly wrote...

They know Mass Effect attracted fans, and they strived to make what they thought was a better game. Of course, whether ME2 is a better game or not boils down to perception.

And according to reviews, word of mouth, and game sales they made a better game!

I don't know how people can offer game sales as proof of the current product being better especially when it's supposed to be a sequel.  Sales of any product hinge on marketing and reviews, yes, but at that point it is still a gamble.  Look at the Star Wars IP.  How many people think that the success of the prequel movies is a result of the prequels being good themselves?  Just about everyone I've spoken to feels the prequels were horrible compared to the original trilogy, but ask them why they went to see them and they'll tell you: "It's Star Wars".

In light of that, sales figures for ME2 are indicative how well received Mass Effect was.  If ME3 is a masterpiece and only sells a few hundred thousand initial boxes does that mean that ME3 is worse than ME2?  This is what you're saying when referring to game sales indicating that ME2 was well received when that doesn' t make sense.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I think a major reason for all these issues is the fact that BioWare wants to make the ME games "standalone". This claim is contradictory in and of itself, seeing as how ME was apparently meant to be a fully connected trilogy with the import utility playing key role. But no, potential customers > current and loyal customers.

[Terror_K]

Brodyaha wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 is just completely riddled with horrible concepts and deliberately bad design choices and the intentional oversimplification and modernizing just plagues and pervades so much of it that it ends up being riddled with annoying, niggling issues that are hard to ignore.

In BioWare's defense, I don't think any game company or designers spends two years of their job making a game with deliberately bad design choices.

I don't mean "deliberately bad" as if to imply or say they purposefully made bad decisions intentionally so much as they intentionally made poor decisions in how to go about things by going about them in a manner that doesn't suit the style and medium. There's an overwhelming tendency of style over substance, shooter over RPG and simplicity over complexity that just harms the game, IMO, and pulls me out of it entirely. Almost everything they apparently did to increase immersion in ME2 had almost the complete opposite effect on me, and the whole thing feels more like a game and less like an experience than the first one. Overall, it's just riddled with poor design choices that shouldn't have been made in the first place, and that's why it's so much harder for me to forgive ME2 for its faults than it is to forgive ME1 for its ones, as well as the fact that it's easier to ignore ME1's faults and none of them seem as deliberate and in-your-face.

[Fiery Phoenix]

LiamN7 wrote...

I pre ordered ME2 collectors edition based off of how much I love ME1. So not all ME2 sales were based off how great ME2 was, for me It was because of how great ME1 is. I was not happy with ME2. I will not make the mistake of pre ordering ME3. I will need to be convinced again to buy ME3. My purchase of ME2 was because of ME1, my indecision about even buying ME3 is because of ME2.

I can say this: ME3 will be a much, much better game than ME2. Probably even better than ME1.

How do I  figure? Just a hunch.

[Elyvern]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

LiamN7 wrote...

I pre ordered ME2 collectors edition based off of how much I love ME1. So not all ME2 sales were based off how great ME2 was, for me It was because of how great ME1 is. I was not happy with ME2. I will not make the mistake of pre ordering ME3. I will need to be convinced again to buy ME3. My purchase of ME2 was because of ME1, my indecision about even buying ME3 is because of ME2.

I can say this: ME3 will be a much, much better game than ME2. Probably even better than ME1.

How do I  figure? Just a hunch.

That may be so standalone-wise, but if ME3 doesn't take into far deeper considerations of what we did in ME2 (be it ME2 character-involvement or the big decisions), then the whole trilogy-arc will fail for me.  

[Fiery Phoenix]

That's what worries me as well, Elyvern. But Hudson did say our decisions will just be let loose in ME3, so you'd expect something there.



Then again, Casey does say a lot of things...

[Nozybidaj]

bjdbwea wrote...

Phobius9 wrote...

ME2 and ME3 will combine to produce a epic story with more character and depth than all of ME1. Once ME3 is done and gone, we'll look back at the trilogy as a whole and wonder what we were so worried/disapointed about.

I disagree. As great as ME 3 might - hopefully - be, it will not fix ME 2. The story of ME 2 is mediocre as a stand-alone game, and as a second part of a trilogy. And it will remain that way, unless ME 3 also contains a big patch for ME 2. And since that's very unlikely, the best we can probably hope for is that ME 3 corrects at least the biggest mistakes, like the whole human reaper idea. The writers should try to explain that away and come up with a better explanation for the motives of the reapers. Then at least the overarching story of the trilogy will not remain damaged by ME 2.

What he is saying is that (assuming ME3 follows the path of ME2) it will take both games to equal the quality and overall epicness of ME1.  I'd agree it will take, at least, both of them to do so at this point.

[wizardryforever]

bjdbwea wrote...

Phobius9 wrote...

ME2 and ME3 will combine to produce a epic story with more character and depth than all of ME1. Once ME3 is done and gone, we'll look back at the trilogy as a whole and wonder what we were so worried/disapointed about.

I disagree. As great as ME 3 might - hopefully - be, it will not fix ME 2. The story of ME 2 is mediocre as a stand-alone game, and as a second part of a trilogy. And it will remain that way, unless ME 3 also contains a big patch for ME 2. And since that's very unlikely, the best we can probably hope for is that ME 3 corrects at least the biggest mistakes, like the whole human reaper idea. The writers should try to explain that away and come up with a better explanation for the motives of the reapers. Then at least the overarching story of the trilogy will not remain damaged by ME 2.

I agree with Phobius9.  People are not judging ME2 on its own merits here, they're comparing it to ME1, remarking on how much better ME1 was, simply because it was ME1.  If that's not nostalgia, I don't know what is.  Comparing the story of ME2 to ME1 doesn't make much sense because it's a trilogy, it's all the same story, just different parts.  This is like saying that any trilogy is RUINED FOREVER because of the middle part, which is utterly ridiculous.  See this page: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuinedFOREVER.  We don't know how the story will turn out.  It could be that all the happenings in ME2 turn out to be more important to the story than those in ME1.  We just don't know, and I fail to see why we are all so doom and gloom about ME3 because of ME2.

[Nozybidaj]

wizardryforever wrote...
Comparing the story of ME2 to ME1 doesn't make much sense because it's a trilogy, it's all the same story, just different parts. 

Haha, if you think ME2 is part of the same story that ME1 was a part of, I have a beachfront house in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

[FireEye]

... in my case, it's not nostalgia.  I was late to the party, and I played them back to back (immediately running out and buying ME2 on the completion of  ME1).  I much prefer ME1, whereas ME2 felt like a bait and switch. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
Comparing the story of ME2 to ME1 doesn't make much sense because it's a trilogy, it's all the same story, just different parts. 

Haha, if you think ME2 is part of the same story that ME1 was a part of, I have a beachfront house in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

[Frybread76]

Foolsfolly wrote...

They know Mass Effect attracted fans, and they strived to make what they thought was a better game. Of course, whether ME2 is a better game or not boils down to perception.

And according to reviews, word of mouth, and game sales they made a better game!

None of those mean a game is "good" or "better," just more popular.  Again, according to your logic, American Idol is "better" than NOVA or any Discovery Channel program that actually might educate people.

[wizardryforever]

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
Comparing the story of ME2 to ME1 doesn't make much sense because it's a trilogy, it's all the same story, just different parts. 

Haha, if you think ME2 is part of the same story that ME1 was a part of, I have a beachfront house in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat?  It's the same freakin story, this is just the newest addition to it.  This is one of those Unpleasable Fanbase moments.  If you judge ME2 based on what happened in ME1, you say, "Why did they do this, it does nothing at all to advance the story!"  And if you judge ME2 as a standalone, you say, "Why should I care about all of this?  They aren't telling me everything!"  It's all because Bioware tried to stay on the fence about whether this would be a real trilogy or a standalone game.  Because of that, the story they told was disjointed, some choices didn't change much, and they introduced too many new characters.  It's a fine line between new, fresh, characters and abandoning everything that made the original great.

For a better analogy, it's like comparing chapter 6 in a book to chapter 2.  It's all part of the overall story, you judge the story as a whole, not individual chapters.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 08 octobre 2010 - 05:50 .

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
Comparing the story of ME2 to ME1 doesn't make much sense because it's a trilogy, it's all the same story, just different parts. 

Haha, if you think ME2 is part of the same story that ME1 was a part of, I have a beachfront house in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat?  It's the same freakin story, this is just the newest addition to it.  This is one of those Unpleasable Fanbase moments.  If you judge ME2 based on what happened in ME1, you say, "Why did they do this, it does nothing at all to advance the story!"  And if you judge ME2 as a standalone, you say, "Why should I care about all of this?  They aren't telling me everything!"  It's all because Bioware tried to stay on the fence about whether this would be a real trilogy or a standalone game.  Because of that, the story they told was disjointed, some choices didn't change much, and they introduced too many new characters.  It's a fine line between new, fresh, characters and abandoning everything that made the original great.

For a better analogy, it's like comparing chapter 6 in a book to chapter 2.  It's all part of the overall story, you judge the story as a whole, not individual chapters.

i would say the backstory is the same, but the main plot of the game is not.  ME2 is mainly about Shepard's squad and their issues, not about Shepard or about the Collector/Reaper storyline.

[Therion942]

wizardryforever wrote...



Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat? 

What exactly did we do to stop the reapers? Oh and can you point out which part of the story was Shepard's, you know the part where there's gross amounts of reflection and character exposition and definition of a personality?
Oh right nothing at all and none of it. Shepard may as well have not been in the game in the first place, you could have subbed him out for, let's say, Dr. Phil or the corpse of Freddie Mercury and it would have been very much the same.

[wizardryforever]

Therion942 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...



Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat? 

What exactly did we do to stop the reapers? Oh and can you point out which part of the story was Shepard's, you know the part where there's gross amounts of reflection and character exposition and definition of a personality?
Oh right nothing at all and none of it. Shepard may as well have not been in the game in the first place, you could have subbed him out for, let's say, Dr. Phil or the corpse of Freddie Mercury and it would have been very much the same.

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Therion942 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...



Oh?  So ME2 is not about a Spectre named Shepard and his/her epic struggle to save the galaxy from an overarching threat? 

What exactly did we do to stop the reapers? Oh and can you point out which part of the story was Shepard's, you know the part where there's gross amounts of reflection and character exposition and definition of a personality?
Oh right nothing at all and none of it. Shepard may as well have not been in the game in the first place, you could have subbed him out for, let's say, Dr. Phil or the corpse of Freddie Mercury and it would have been very much the same.

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

People wouldn't have cried foul because ME is supposed to be "Shepard's story."  About Shepard's motivation, development, beliefs, etc.  We get none of that in ME2.

[Fiery Phoenix]

wizardryforever wrote...

The first game's story was all about Shepard.  The other characters were an afterthought by comparison.  If they had done the same thing in the second game, people would cry foul because it cloned the first game's story and didn't try anything new.  Shepard had his/her time in the spotlight, the second game is about building up the setting and foreshadowing.  I don't know why this makes ME2 so absolutely horrible that Mass Effect is ruined FOREVER because of it.

No one said Mass Effect is forever ruined due to that. The thing is ME2 is hardly relevant to the overarching plot; it paid too much attention to building a team and gaining their loyalty. ME2's story in and of itself has nothing to do with Shepard. Anyone else could have accomplished the task of building the team and going on the suicide mission. There were no moments where Shepard feels special and a critical plot device as was the case in much of ME1. Shepard was just doing business for the squad, while following TIM's leads.

Having said that, Lair of the Shadow Broker fixed that, which I think is a very good sign of progress.