815 réponses à ce sujet

[kraidy1117]

Nozybidaj wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Pretty much Nozy. I know we don't agree on characters, but when it comes to the story I agree with you 100%

You either quoted the wrong post, otherwise I didn't say that.  Not that I don't agree with it, but still....

Bah you and night have the same avie, it's hurting my small brain

[Nozybidaj]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Pretty much Nozy. I know we don't agree on characters, but when it comes to the story I agree with you 100%

You either quoted the wrong post, otherwise I didn't say that.  Not that I don't agree with it, but still....

Bah you and night have the same avie, it's hurting my small brain

And you seem to have converted to being a Liara lover, I wouldn't say we don't agree on characters anymore.

Unless of course you are just being facetious.

[Fiery Phoenix]

I'm having a nightmare telling Nozy and Night apart. Seriously.

[Nozybidaj]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I'm having a nightmare telling Nozy and Night apart. Seriously.

Night has a big banner in his sig, i just have a wisecrack.

[ObserverStatus]

I have played ME1 more recently than ME2 and still think it is better, here is my reasoning.

1. I do not like the thermal clip system. A lot of people have complained about having to take cover and wait for their weapons to cool down, but in ME2 you have to spend just as much time waiting for life & other layers of protection to regenerate. Also, in ME1 overheating wasn't much of a problem after equipping high end weapons with frictionless materials.
My main objection to ME2's thermal clip system is the ridiculously low number of thermal clips Shepard can carry.  If you play as a sniper, you may remember having to dodge bullets while scavenging for ammunition in the middle of a firefight, or having to switch to a weapon which is poorly suited to the situation.  I don't think I have to explain why either of these are tactically absurd options.

Modifié par bobobo878, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:51 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Night is a she, by the way. =D

[Nozybidaj]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Night is a she, by the way. =D

Telling us apart should be simple then. :happy:

[Fiery Phoenix]

^ LOL! You're too much, dude!

[Nightwriter]

kraidy1117 wrote...
Pretty much Night. I know we don't agree on characters, but when it comes to the story I agree with you 100%

What characters don't we agree on? Aren't we both Miranda fans?

And there. Confusion gone, everyone. Different avatars.

[Bad King]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Therion942 wrote...

No, I really don't think it's a case of Rose-Tinted Glasses. I think it's more a case that BioWare pulled a Kansas City shuffle on us with the direction of the story. ME2 is a great game so long as you don't look at it too hard, the second you start peeling back layers, things begin to fall apart very quickly.

Gameplay was improved greatly over its predecessor, but they cut too much from the depth of the classes. Yes, they got rid of one of the absolute banes of RPGs - bloated passives - but they didn't put anything else in their place. The game could definitely use a whole lot more active skills.

The story falls so flat it hurts if you bother with more than one playthrough after the wow-factor has worn off. The characters have more dimensions to them, but they're not connected to anything, they all have a massive case of "Why are you even here?" Now I can deal with a group of heroes who justify themselves for sticking around, but I daresay most of the crew just clams up after you solve their daddy issues. That is poor form. ME2's music is equal in my eyes to ME1's

Back to combat again, there is a jarring switch from narrative to shooting that I'm annoyed by in ME2, in ME1 the shooting - while very tedious and often times boring - is at least organic in the setting and pacing of the game, in ME2 that's not the case.

Overall the game sort of reeks of a huge disconnect between the writing team and the gameplay team, we live now in an era where the gameplay should be designed by the writing, not -around- the writing.

Why didn't Saren hack the Citadel when he was Spectre and allowed to do anything anywhere he wanted? Or why didn't Soverign and the geth fleet move on the Citadel instead of hitting Eden Prime in an effort to find the Conduit? All that search did was give Shepard time to catch up and stop them. Had they attacked the Citadel in a surprise attack instead of Eden Prime they would have had krogan, geth, and Soverign leveling the Citadel fleets and Saren, one of the best Spectres, on the inside sabotaging everything during the chaos.

Both games actually fall apart if you look hard enough. Their stories both only make enough sense to be enjoyable. And they're both great games. I prefer 2 to 1, however, because of the gameplay and characters. Really dug the characters in ME2 more. They were better fleshed out thanks to each one having Loyalty quests. We get Legion for a small small part of the game and he's still more interesting than everyone but Wrex from ME1's crew.

Okay, this has probably already been answered but here goes-

If Saren had hacked the Citadel at the Council chambers he would have ended up revealing the nature of the citadel (since noone seemed to know about the master control). Sovereign and the geth needed the conduit to get Saren and a Legion of geth on the inside (Saren needed geth to protect him in order to reach the council chambers). Had Sovereign tried to blast its way into the Citadel without a man on the inside, the citadel would have closed too quickly and Sovereign would have been trapped outside at the mercy of a united galactic fleet. With the conduit and Saren on the inside, Sovereign could lock down the relays (to prevent reinforcements), delay the citadel closing and close the walls around itself to defend it. Saren would then hack control of the station and give control to Sovereign.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Nightwriter wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Pretty much Night. I know we don't agree on characters, but when it comes to the story I agree with you 100%

What characters don't we agree on? Aren't we both Miranda fans?

And there. Confusion gone, everyone. Different avatars.

Wow! Now you're like a completely different person.

[bjdbwea]

Nightwriter wrote...

This is what it seemed like.

They didn’t know how to occupy us betweens game 1 and 3. They needed a stall tactic.

So they invented this throwaway enemy and gave us new characters to play with while they went in a back room and planned the rest of the actual story.

I doubt that. It doesn't take that long to write a story of this scope, not even a good one. On the contrary, I suspect that the whole trilogy was pretty much outlined already, but the writers were told to make significant changes, to make everything simpler and quicker for new players and the mainstream market, and because of the planned PS 3 version which has to function without much knowledge of ME 1. Though that still doesn't explain some important flaws of the story. LotSB on the other hand was written amazingly well, so maybe the difference is simply down to who writes what after all.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 15 octobre 2010 - 09:15 .

[Xeranx]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...
Pretty much Night. I know we don't agree on characters, but when it comes to the story I agree with you 100%

What characters don't we agree on? Aren't we both Miranda fans?

And there. Confusion gone, everyone. Different avatars.

Wow! Now you're like a completely different person.

I like Nightwriter.  The television reference helps as well.  That avatar however...I don't think it fits. 

[Nightwriter]

Exactly, the excellence of the DLCs makes me feel like all of ME2 was rushed and haphazard or something. The way they glossed over Shepard's death, the awfulness of the Liara cameo, the total "wtf" you get with the human goo-baby Reaper...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Wow! Now you're like a completely different person.

But it doesn't feel like me... sigh... maybe I should experiment some more...

[Epic777]

Frybread76 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...
What was their plan?  Oh yeah, to create a human baby Reaper by liquifying humans into "goo."  But why?  For what reason?  What was the baby Reaper going to do?

Travel back in time and kill Shepard's mother so he can never be born, would be my guess.

Unless the Alliance sends Captain Anderson back in time to save Shepard's mother!  And, in the process, Anderson impregnates Sheprd's moms and becomes his father!

Do not give fan fic writers idea

[azerSheppard]

It's like comparing bioshock 1 and 2, sure the second game is better in everyway,(cept plot) but you don't get the same feeling of newness, all you can think is "been there done that".



so yeah, mass effect 1 brought about 80 percent lore of the games(thats excluding the books), ME2 only added in a little (notice how little the codex has grown) so 1 is def better imo.

[Nightwriter]

It really has nothing to do with how much lore was introduced at what time. At least, not for me.

[Elyvern]

Damnit, night. Switch back to your old avatar again! That's not....you!

[Shockwave81]

For me it's very simple:

ME1 represented possibilities and wonder

ME2 represents the vision that BioWare has (and had) for the series.



Unfortunately (for me) those two things aren't in concert with one another. ME2 was anti-climactic. All we see at the end is the Reapers bumming about in 'dark space'. We knew they were out there at the end of ME1, so how does that 'dramatic' finishing note advance the main storyline?? Can somebody please tell me?



ME2 doesn't seem to know exactly what it wants to be.



1: Is it all about building personal connections to the NPCs and ensuring their loyalty for the suicide mission? (How do ANY of the loyalty missions (the focus of ME2) advance the OVERALL storyline?)

2: Is it all about stopping the Collectors and by extension the Reapers?

3: Is it all about The Illusive Man and his machinations? (I'm leaning towards this, which is a scary thought because that means that ME3 will either continue this storyline, or push it to the side so we can get back to answering question 2, which makes ME2 even MORE irrelevant)

4: Is it all about exciting new gameplay?

5: Is it about seeing the 'dark side' of Galactic society because it makes for an interesting back drop that couldn't be explored more fully in ME1?



I think it tried to be all of those things which is sad because some ended up overshadowed by others to the detriment of the overall game.



Just my two cents worth.

[Nightwriter]

All right, there. Goodness, you can't please people, if you leave your avatar the same they comment, if you change it they comment...

Now look. It doesn't seem, well, possible to me that you can say ME2 had a better story, layout or plot design. You can say it was a better game, but in no real way that you wouldn't expect after a few years of technological progression.

You can say it had better characters, and did characters better. Definitely. But that's the only way it was better, to me.

[Darthbill52]

Brodyaha wrote...

Regarding the ME2 sqaud mates--Some of them aren't needed (maybe half), but then we wouldn't have met all those great characters.

Miranda and Jacob are, like Ashley and Kaidan, the humans in the group, and they help you get off Lazarus.
Mordin is needed for the seeker swarm antitode. And his loyalty mission could have far-reaching implications. IMO, he's essential.
Jack is supposedly one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy.
Grunt is...I don't really think he's necessarily needed, but he's a good fighter, from what I remember.
Garrus was put in for fan service, from what I hear. I don't think he's essential....but I'm biased, I love him, he's a great fighter, I'm happy he's in. He can also be one of the team leaders in the CB, which is great.
Legion is the first tech expert you get, and he helps you understand more of how the geth operate. Plus, his loyalty mission could also have far reaching consequences.
Tali is like Garrus, but her loyalty mission is important, and we could see how what we told the Admiralty Board affects ME3.
Thane and Samara aren't really needed, but they're cool characters; they have their fans. Plus, Jack is already the powerful biotic, another isn't really needed if you want to think about function.
Kasumi and Zaeed aren't essential if they're DLC, sorry. (Still love Kasumi though.)

Jack, Grunt, Mordin, and Garrus all have to be recruited to progress to Horizon; they're the mandatory recruitables. You can space Legion, but you still take him back to the ship, so he could be considered another "mandatory" character. Taking Miranda and Jacob into account, you could conceivably pass the game with those 5-6 characters.

Or, if we're going with essential characters whose loyalty missions really matter, then we would be restricted to Mordin, Legion, and Tali. Grunt's existence could implicate the krogan too. But then the team is still 3-4.

I think ME2 wouldn't have been as great a game had we not gotten to meet all those characters.  Whether certain ones are needed or not, it's up to you.

And I'm not trying to bash characters or anything here, sorry if I come across as such.

What irked me was not only the overabundence of charaecters who combat skills overlapped it was to a point my squads were a combo of garrius, Kasumi, Zheed, Miranda(usually after the cerebus officer health bonus).  What really irked me was Shepards death, Ok I get it is a way to be new player friendly but magically restoring a "bigger ship" to house not your crew but all these operatives.  It seemed to me it was going to be more story, more "plot twists" than what seemed like a linear choose your own adventure book.  I liked the story first and second time through by time number 3 ..it was like ok pg 63 will kill you ..its pg 45 right.   Not to mention recruitment of at least Jack and grunt(who i found useless)  was required.  I hated the fact Shepard felt like two different people after Cerbreus pulled the Col. Steve Austin treatment, what really got me was the strong dialouge in ME1 between shepard and ashley, Shepard and Saren. When your talking to Ash you feel something  yet when you meet her on horizon its like a spoiler free cameo.   Yet is it just me or like when TIM was lecturing Shepard . It was only at the end "there is a lot of B__S_it of this line or using the "interupt" to toss the merc out the window did we have the old shepard back.   I agree even though the charaecters were alot, it made for a unique experence.  ME2 was different but but not in a bad way, if we ruled the world or wore "rose colored glasses" the experence would be different.  Right now Listen to your fans Bioware, and maybe ME3 will be badass.  Thats my two cents Thank you much

[mopotter]

kraidy1117 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

It's all a matter of taste, and of course a matter of preferences. I do not doubt that people who are mostly interested in the pew-pew, will give ME 2 a higher score than ME 1. And since pure shooters sell so well, the number of shooter fans is obviously quite high. It is therefore no surprise that they will make up a large percentage of people who gave ME 2 any score in the first place. Likewise, since they aren't really interested in the story and dialogue and all the other "nonsense", it is no surprise that ME 1 received a lower score from them.

Popularity alone however says nothing about the actual quality of a product, you just have to take a look at politics to understand that.

Not all shooter fans rated ME2 higher

For me I rated
ME 9.0
ME2 9.5

If ME3 takes the best out of both games ME3 could be one of the best games ever, and LotS did show that Bioware can still write, why they did poorly with ME2 in terms of writting is beyond me.

This! This is what I am hoping with all my heart.  

[mopotter]

wizardryforever wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

It's all a matter of taste, and of course a matter of preferences. I do not doubt that people who are mostly interested in the pew-pew, will give ME 2 a higher score than ME 1. And since pure shooters sell so well, the number of shooter fans is obviously quite high. It is therefore very likely that they make up a large percentage of people who gave ME 2 any score in the first place. Likewise, since they aren't really interested in the story and dialogue and all the other "nonsense", it is no surprise that ME 1 received a lower score from them.

Popularity alone however says nothing about the actual quality of a product, you just have to take a look at politics to understand that.

Now see, for me, story is highly important, but I do have realistic expectations when it comes to video game stories.  Expecting the story to be something with no loose ends and no holes whatsoever is a great way to not like any games ever.  As important as story is for me, gameplay is almost as important.  As in, practically tied for most important.  So any improvement in gameplay, as long as story is not utterly abysmal, makes for a better game.  I've played games that have good story but horrendous gameplay.  Arcanum is the best example I can think of.  The thing is, unless the gameplay is halfway decent, no matter how good the story is, I won't replay it over and over.

 If the story doesn't keep me interested I lose interest in the game.  But I also agree that if the game play sucks, I probably won't enjoy it, though I'm pretty picky about my games and Arcanum wasn't one I ever picked up.  
My expectations of BioWare games are higher than expectations of other game companies.  For me, their games have always combined excellent story with fun game play and I expect them to continue this.  ME2 was still good, I enjoyed it, just not as much as ME1.
The only game I've played and kept that, as far as I'm concerned, had a story that was good till the ending which made no sense, was KOTOR2.  

[Nightwriter]

See, I am constantly astounded by the way people say ME1's gameplay sucks.

I noticed, literally, no difference. That's how story-focused I am. I've been replaying ME1 and I don't understand how people groan when they go back to ME1's gameplay. I was actually delighted by the lack of global cooldowns and the return of the barrier ability.