815 réponses à ce sujet

[spacehamsterZH]

Jebel Krong wrote...
kaiden - anonymous. garrus - just happens to be on citadel and peripherally involved but you don't even have to recruit him, no impact on plot. ashley - happened to be stationed on eden prime, no impact on plot thereafter. wrex - randomly wandering round citadel making trouble, not necessary (but awesome). tali - just happens to have the vital evidence against saren for no particular reason other than she managed to obtain that one specific thing without looking for it, no other effect on plot. liara - benezia's daughter and prothean expert, only one you recruit much later, subsequently has effect on plot. apart from that, and some specific conversations none of the character shave any effect on each other.

Shush now, that's not allowed. Everybody knows ME1 was a perfect masterpiece in every conceivable way - especially the characters. Watching a talking head with no real connection to the plot endlessly gargle exposition about more characters that have nothing to do with the plot and are never even seen in the game, that's what true role playing is all about.

Seriously, though, I think you're right, I just think this isn't a problem in either game. Gathering up a party of characters that are around for some reason or other is part of any RPG, and I'd rather just bump into them than have some contrived plot connection that doesn't make sense.

Only marginally related, but my biggest issue with ME1 as far as the story and the overall structure of the game goes, everytime I play it, is that everything outside of the main story missions feels like a chore. 2/3 of the time, I'm basically playing these dumb copy/paste Mako sidequests that the game somehow makes me feel obligated to do, just waiting until I can take a crack at the next story mission. Say about the recruitment and loyalty missions in ME2 and their, uh, tenuous connection to the main plot what you will, but at least they're fully fleshed out stories with dialogue and cutscenes and not just a couple of text boxes summarizing the plot for you.

[smudboy]

Jebel Krong wrote...

at least in mass effect 2 you are told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring.

What individuals?

What skills?

[Giggles_Manically]

ME1 did a better job of getting the story done then ME2 did.



You got introduced to the story, went to the citadel got all your squadmates save one, and then youre right back into the story. Then when you pick up Liara she is still VERY important to the plot.



In ME2 its, story, recruit, story, recruit someone X10, little bit of story, lots of silly mining and loyalty missions. Outside of Mordin, NO one adds anything really to the plot, or is vital to it.



Honestly ME2 felt so broken up and disjointed, it was like a bunch of short stories written by a bunch of different authors. Where as ME1 felt like an actual story.



No amount of clevage, pew pew, graphics, or leet combat can make up for how disjointed, or weak the plot was in ME2.

Or you could watch Smudboy's videos and see why.

[Jebel Krong]

smudboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

at least in mass effect 2 you are told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring.

What individuals?

What skills?

i'm not going to waste my time recounting the obvious to stupid questions, thanks.

[smudboy]

Jebel Krong wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

at least in mass effect 2 you are told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring.

What individuals?

What skills?

i'm not going to waste my time recounting the obvious to stupid questions, thanks.

So you don't like rhetorical questions?

Seriously, where were we told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring?

[Giggles_Manically]

Mordin is the only one where we are told to go after, because he is a brilliant scientist.

Thats about it.

[Jebel Krong]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

ME1 did a better job of getting the story done then ME2 did.

You got introduced to the story, went to the citadel got all your squadmates save one, and then youre right back into the story. Then when you pick up Liara she is still VERY important to the plot.

In ME2 its, story, recruit, story, recruit someone X10, little bit of story, lots of silly mining and loyalty missions. Outside of Mordin, NO one adds anything really to the plot, or is vital to it.

Honestly ME2 felt so broken up and disjointed, it was like a bunch of short stories written by a bunch of different authors. Where as ME1 felt like an actual story.

No amount of clevage, pew pew, graphics, or leet combat can make up for how disjointed, or weak the plot was in ME2.
Or you could watch Smudboy's videos and see why.

both games had very similar stories, and the structure was also pretty much identical, if you reduce it that way, what made mass effect 1's better was the presence of a singular (at least to start) clearly defined antagonist, which by very nature mass effect 2 lacks.

[Jebel Krong]

smudboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

at least in mass effect 2 you are told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring.

What individuals?

What skills?

i'm not going to waste my time recounting the obvious to stupid questions, thanks.

So you don't like rhetorical questions?

Seriously, where were we told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring?

how about you play the game and find out for yourself, if you don't remember? that way you can also spend less time here making stupid posts, baiting people?

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Seriously, though, I think you're right, I just think this isn't a problem in either game. Gathering up a party of characters that are around for some reason or other is part of any RPG, and I'd rather just bump into them than have some contrived plot connection that doesn't make sense.

i don't think it's a problem, either, in fact it's the opposite: characters that have their own stories expand the universe within the game, and as long as they are interesting, worth exploring.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 15 octobre 2010 - 02:30 .

[mopotter]

Veen130 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

With all due respect, but I don't think someone who cheats to get to the pew-pew quicker and who seems to prefer watching a movie over playing a game, is in any position to decide what is and what is not an essential part of an RPG.

"Why is it when someone says with all due respect, they really mean kiss my ass?"

  I googled RPG once just on a whim.  Amazing how many definitions there were.  Of course, my favorite was Rocket Propelled Grenade.  Sometimes I think that one might be the best description when people start talking about what a rpg is.  

[mopotter]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Okay, there seems to be a lot of things that people like more about ME1 than the equivalent things in ME2.  The main question I have is why?  Be honest with us (and yourself) here.  Is at least part of the reason you like ME1 better because of nostalgia?  "Why did they change it, now it sucks!" is something I read all too frequently on these forums.  If you played ME2, then went back and played ME1 (nevermind story continuity here) could you honestly say that you would still like ME1 more?

I personally liked almost everything in ME2 better than in ME1, everything was an improvement to me.

I played ME2 before ME1 (I know, blasphemy). I prefer ME1 in a lot of regards, so your "nostalgia" accusation doesn't apply to me.

I played ME2 because everyone i know said that it is 10x better than the first and decisions don't make that much of a difference, so i played the second one first. I finished it, and i have to say it was on of the best games i had ever played. I thought i would go and play ME1 since i enjoyed ME2 so much. At first i was like " Ahh, such **** combat, too much **** i have to take care of, not enough explosions". As i started to progress in the story however, the game grew on me like a wart on steroids. I fell in love with all of the characters, fell in love with the soundtrack and fell in love with the expansiveness of the citadel. I eventually saw past the combat (Which now i don't think is that bad) and got so engrossed in the continuing story, the continued unravelling of new information in each and every mission. When i hit Virmire, from there the game just picked up epicness, the rapid upbringing to an epic climax of events. The battle of the citadel is the most epic thing i've seen in a video game before.

I compare that to ME2, that never happens. You learn about the collectors and that you'll be travelling to their base at some point, then the game just hits a stalemate. Instead of continuing the plot, you are stuck with resolving everyones issues. It doesn't go forward with the plot, and really only picks up pace as soon as you enter the O4 relay.

I agree that ME2 gameplay is far superior, but everything else in ME1 is far superior, especially the plot.

Perhaps you should pay attention to the story of the game, not just the shooting mechanics.

Nice.  I agree with you.  I enjoy ME2, but I loved the plot in ME1.  There were things in both games that if I were making my own personal version I would change.  But both games are far better than the others out there, at least for me.  And I'm looking forward to ME3 with hope and trust that they will take the good parts from both game and make ME 3 a spectacular finishing for a great series.  

[mopotter]

wizardryforever wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I'm not saying that ME1 was horrible and you are horrible by extension if you like it.  I enjoy ME1 to this day, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying ME2 more.  Until I got ME2, I played ME1 more than almost anything else.  I just don't see how anyone can see ME1 as actually being better than ME2, as EDI said "seamless improvements were made."  Of course, some of those improvements weren't seamless, and some weren't actually improvements, but the vast majority of them were.  ME2 isn't perfect by any means, but the gameplay is so vastly improved and the story is only slightly worse.  So by default that makes ME2 a better game, IMO.

Wow, I didn't realize when I started this topic how defensive people (including myself) would get over the subject.  I guess I should have known better.

Not if you value the story as more important than gameplay.

The gameplay sure as hell is better in ME2. But I didn't buy it for that reason. I brought it because I hoped it would continue the awesome story that ME1 started.

Which it did poorly.

See what I don't get about this argument is: if the story is all that matters and gameplay means absolutely nothing, why play a game at all?  Why not read a book or watch a show/movie?  I've played games with good story and sucky gameplay before, but if a sequel then comes out with vastly improved gameplay and an almost equal story, I would call that an improvement.  If story is literally the only thing that matters, then why play games?

I do read books.  I also play video games that are story based.  Playing the game I am the main character, not just reading about it.  If you don't understand the joy of that, then probably, you won't understand why someone who loves to read also loves to play games like the ones BioWare puts out.  The story is the most important part for me, the book lover.  The game play is 2nd but still important.  

[smudboy]

Jebel Krong wrote...


how about you play the game and find out for yourself, if you don't remember? that way you can also spend less time here making stupid posts, baiting people?

You're the one who stated it.  I'm just asking for the proof.

[Frybread76]

Jebel Krong wrote...

how quickly people forget that me1 was even more self-contained and linear:

kaiden - anonymous. garrus - just happens to be on citadel and peripherally involved but you don't even have to recruit him, no impact on plot. ashley - happened to be stationed on eden prime, no impact on plot thereafter. wrex - randomly wandering round citadel making trouble, not necessary (but awesome). tali - just happens to have the vital evidence against saren for no particular reason other than she managed to obtain that one specific thing without looking for it, no other effect on plot. liara - benezia's daughter and prothean expert, only one you recruit much later, subsequently has effect on plot. apart from that, and some specific conversations none of the character shave any effect on each other.

at least in mass effect 2 you are told to go after certain individuals because of the skills they bring.

I think you missed the above post about how the squad mates in ME1 made sense, whereas in ME2 most of them are recruited for no good reason.

[pacer90]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

ME1 did a better job of getting the story done then ME2 did.

You got introduced to the story, went to the citadel got all your squadmates save one, and then youre right back into the story. Then when you pick up Liara she is still VERY important to the plot.

In ME2 its, story, recruit, story, recruit someone X10, little bit of story, lots of silly mining and loyalty missions. Outside of Mordin, NO one adds anything really to the plot, or is vital to it.

Honestly ME2 felt so broken up and disjointed, it was like a bunch of short stories written by a bunch of different authors. Where as ME1 felt like an actual story.

No amount of clevage, pew pew, graphics, or leet combat can make up for how disjointed, or weak the plot was in ME2.
Or you could watch Smudboy's videos and see why.

Hmm try thinking of it in another way, if you're still not convinced then so be it, I am simply a minority.

ME1 = Big main plot, little details not as important.

ME2 = Smaller plot, little details mean everything. Through your characters you're learning about the universe you're saving. Whats at stake. It's triumphs and pitfalls, the people and how they live.

In ME2 you see the Krogan homeworld, the Quarian fleet, a Geth base, Omega and the terminus systems, human colonies, Illium etc etc...

You learn about the society of Krogan, Quarian, Geth, and so many others. What they have been through and where they want to go. All of their ambitions are for naught if you can't stop the collectors/reapers.

Don't think of it as a collection of disjointed stories. Think of it as an anthology of short stories that may not add to your fight against the reapers, but they form the universe that you are set in. You know what you are fighting for much better now imo.

[Frybread76]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
kaiden - anonymous. garrus - just happens to be on citadel and peripherally involved but you don't even have to recruit him, no impact on plot. ashley - happened to be stationed on eden prime, no impact on plot thereafter. wrex - randomly wandering round citadel making trouble, not necessary (but awesome). tali - just happens to have the vital evidence against saren for no particular reason other than she managed to obtain that one specific thing without looking for it, no other effect on plot. liara - benezia's daughter and prothean expert, only one you recruit much later, subsequently has effect on plot. apart from that, and some specific conversations none of the character shave any effect on each other.

Shush now, that's not allowed. Everybody knows ME1 was a perfect masterpiece in every conceivable way - especially the characters. Watching a talking head with no real connection to the plot endlessly gargle exposition about more characters that have nothing to do with the plot and are never even seen in the game, that's what true role playing is all about.

Seriously, though, I think you're right, I just think this isn't a problem in either game. Gathering up a party of characters that are around for some reason or other is part of any RPG, and I'd rather just bump into them than have some contrived plot connection that doesn't make sense.

Only marginally related, but my biggest issue with ME1 as far as the story and the overall structure of the game goes, everytime I play it, is that everything outside of the main story missions feels like a chore. 2/3 of the time, I'm basically playing these dumb copy/paste Mako sidequests that the game somehow makes me feel obligated to do, just waiting until I can take a crack at the next story mission. Say about the recruitment and loyalty missions in ME2 and their, uh, tenuous connection to the main plot what you will, but at least they're fully fleshed out stories with dialogue and cutscenes and not just a couple of text boxes summarizing the plot for you.

Yeah, who needs a game in which the main story is the best part.

[Frybread76]

pacer90 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

ME1 did a better job of getting the story done then ME2 did.

You got introduced to the story, went to the citadel got all your squadmates save one, and then youre right back into the story. Then when you pick up Liara she is still VERY important to the plot.

In ME2 its, story, recruit, story, recruit someone X10, little bit of story, lots of silly mining and loyalty missions. Outside of Mordin, NO one adds anything really to the plot, or is vital to it.

Honestly ME2 felt so broken up and disjointed, it was like a bunch of short stories written by a bunch of different authors. Where as ME1 felt like an actual story.

No amount of clevage, pew pew, graphics, or leet combat can make up for how disjointed, or weak the plot was in ME2.
Or you could watch Smudboy's videos and see why.

Hmm try thinking of it in another way, if you're still not convinced then so be it, I am simply a minority.

ME1 = Big main plot, little details not as important.

ME2 = Smaller plot, little details mean everything. Through your characters you're learning about the universe you're saving. Whats at stake. It's triumphs and pitfalls, the people and how they live.

In ME2 you see the Krogan homeworld, the Quarian fleet, a Geth base, Omega and the terminus systems, human colonies, Illium etc etc...

You learn about the society of Krogan, Quarian, Geth, and so many others. What they have been through and where they want to go. All of their ambitions are for naught if you can't stop the collectors/reapers.

Don't think of it as a collection of disjointed stories. Think of it as an anthology of short stories that may not add to your fight against the reapers, but they form the universe that you are set in. You know what you are fighting for much better now imo.

Great.  Then ME2 shouldn't have been billed as a sequel to ME1, then.

[Frybread76]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

ME1 did a better job of getting the story done then ME2 did.

You got introduced to the story, went to the citadel got all your squadmates save one, and then youre right back into the story. Then when you pick up Liara she is still VERY important to the plot.

In ME2 its, story, recruit, story, recruit someone X10, little bit of story, lots of silly mining and loyalty missions. Outside of Mordin, NO one adds anything really to the plot, or is vital to it.

Honestly ME2 felt so broken up and disjointed, it was like a bunch of short stories written by a bunch of different authors. Where as ME1 felt like an actual story.

No amount of clevage, pew pew, graphics, or leet combat can make up for how disjointed, or weak the plot was in ME2.
Or you could watch Smudboy's videos and see why.

both games had very similar stories, and the structure was also pretty much identical, if you reduce it that way, what made mass effect 1's better was the presence of a singular (at least to start) clearly defined antagonist, which by very nature mass effect 2 lacks.

Not to mention the fact that there was just more of the main story in ME1 than ME2.

[Jebel Krong]

smudboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...


how about you play the game and find out for yourself, if you don't remember? that way you can also spend less time here making stupid posts, baiting people?

You're the one who stated it.  I'm just asking for the proof.

proof is self-evident when you play the game. i'll give you a hint though: TIM, and the dossiers, to start you off.

Frybread76 wrote...

I think you missed the above post about how the squad mates in ME1 made sense, whereas in ME2 most of them are recruited for no good reason.

i didn't miss anything: how i stated previously is how it is, you can argue it's not like i can argue likewise for mass effect 2's characters, all that does is reduce them all from what are actually 2 amazing games in slightly different ways.

[smudboy]

pacer90 wrote...
ME2 = Smaller plot, little details mean everything. Through your characters you're learning about the universe you're saving. Whats at stake. It's triumphs and pitfalls, the people and how they live.

What little details?  That a planet has neural-decaying food?  That mentally retarded men magically discover guns that weren't invented 10 years ago, 10 years ago?  How is this a good thing?  Why do I care?

In ME2 you see the Krogan homeworld, the Quarian fleet, a Geth base, Omega and the terminus systems, human colonies, Illium etc etc...

Yes.  And they had absolutely nothing to do with anything.

You learn about the society of Krogan, Quarian, Geth, and so many others. What they have been through and where they want to go. All of their ambitions are for naught if you can't stop the collectors/reapers.

Well, if you don't stop the Collectors, the human issues won't be addressed or preserved.  But ME2 isn't about the Reapers.

Don't think of it as a collection of disjointed stories.

I don't have to.  That's what it is.

Think of it as an anthology of short stories that may not add to your fight against the reapers, but they form the universe that you are set in. You know what you are fighting for much better now imo.

They could've done that while they added to our fight against the Reapers.

I am?  I'm trying to save the galaxy from the Reape--err, something?  Oh wait, Jacob has a long lost dad.  Oh wait, Thane is a long lost dad.  Whom no one tells us why we need. etc.

[smudboy]

Jebel Krong wrote...

proof is self-evident when you play the game. i'll give you a hint though: TIM, and the dossiers, to start you off.

And how/where do the dossiers tell us who we need and why?

[Jebel Krong]

Frybread76 wrote...

Yeah, who needs a game in which the main story is the best part.

the main story is the most important part, and links all the other things together. mass effect 2 is just much bigger because there's so many more main missions & therefore, depending on how you play it it may seem less focused (though the unavoidable missions are a counter to that and attempt to keep the pace up, at least - another thing me1 lacked).

smudboy wrote...

And how/where do the dossiers tell us who we need and why?

if you haven't played the game even once to already know the answers then i'm done with you and your pitiful attempts at baiting and flippancy.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 15 octobre 2010 - 03:24 .

[pacer90]

Frybread76 wrote...


Great.  Then ME2 shouldn't have been billed as a sequel to ME1, then.

You don't think the ME universe is relevant to Shepard's fight against the reapers? You don't think that not only building up the people and cultures around shepard as well as the enemy we are fighting seeming to be more insidious has any effect on how we percieve them in ME3?

[mopotter]

theBioticGod wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

I found the combat to be better and I though the plot was better than ME1(better characters).

I liked characters in ME2 more.
The first Mass Effect had characters like Kaiden and Ashley, who are probably my least favorite, while Mass Effect 2 had the Biotic God.

I'll give you the Biotic god.  He was soooooo cute.  But of all the characters we've had the ones from ME1 are still my favorite.  Kaiden, Ash, Garrus, Tali and Joker.  I liked them from the first screen shot, Liara took a bit longer.  

Of the ME2 group I immediately liked Mordin, Legion and Kasumi and after many plays I've developed a fondness for Jack, and Zaeed.   The others I can take or leave.  I think BioWare does a great job with making characters people either like or dislike and that is a great thing.