815 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

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.

[Veen130]

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?"

[Burdokva]

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.

So, just because you like Mass Effect 2 more that  means other people don't have an opinion, wearing "rose-colored glasses"? 

Yes, in all honesty, I prefer almost everything about the original Mass Effect. The exceptions being the graphics quality, the graphics optimization (smooth framerate everywhere), the more dynamic conversations/cutscenes, and the variety of weapon models and armors for Shepard.

I like the story, the atmosphere, the coherence, the pacing of the original a lot more. I like the fact that people wore normal clothing on the Normandy SR-1, yet were always properly armored on missions. I like to customize my weapons and armors with different mods that affect how they work, and them actually working (for armor), instead of being nearly useless visual pieces with barely any gameplay effect. And I prefer overheating to ammo (I've modded my Mass Effect 2 to overheating weapons). Also, I like the music on the hub worlds and the Normandy. The sequel is too quiet and too filled with ambient sounds on hub worlds for  my taste. I'm torn about the soundtrack, but I overall prefer the first (though sound effect are on par). I liked character progression and having a large number of skills for each characters. The paragon/renegade system, while not perfect, was still better than that in the sequel which gradually bottlenecks you in either path.

The user interface was not only vastly superior on the Mass Effect PC, but actually had the common sense of adding hotkeys. It's ridiculous that Mass Effect 2 still doesn't have them patched in, eight months after release. 

[Ieldra]

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.

No rose colored glasses. Real complaints.

ME2 leads:
*Combat mechanics. Excepting biotics which should be lore-compatible, i.e. not be blocked by armor.
*Interrupts. Simply a great idea.
*Variation in sidequest scenarios. Most sidequests take place at interesting and unique loactions.
*General character interaction. Dialogue scenes are so much improved that there's no comparison.
*Better endgame presentation. The suicide mission is really epic, in spite of the Collectors just being mooks.
*Most areas look better than their ME1 counterparts.

ME1 leads:
*The world presents itself more as a coherent whole with bigger areas connected by believable mechanics, which makes it feel more epic. The ME2 universe is fragmented. Loading screens, mission end screens and the player being teleported to new locations add to the impression of a fragmented universe with areas too small to feel epic.
*Locations are less beautiful, but feel more real. ME1 has locations, ME2 has levels.
*Less linearity within main plot missions.
*Main plot missions where you actually make decisions, that don't amount to "go to place X, kill everything that moves and you're done." Apart from the suicide mission, ME2 has only those. Character missions don't count because they don't feel like parts of the main plot.
*Planet exploration is better than mining. Both have in common that there's too much of it to keep it interesting, but at least in ME1 you had the occasional scenic view and you actually explored something. The simple act of standing on an empty planet adds to the SF atmosphere.
*The main plot actually takes up a big part of the game. ME2 character missions do not seem part of the main plot.
*Better antagonists. The Collectors are just mooks. Saren and Sovereign are interesting. And don't get me started on the human Reaper *resisting the temptation to go on a page-long rant*
*Better mysteries and plot reveals: in ME2, you know from the start what's happening and who's going to be your enemy. Also, the dialogue with Sovereign is epic like nothing in ME2.
*Less silly stuff added just because it's thought to be cool. A great deal of that. Real helmets and not going into space naked are just the start. Outfits that don't look like they're painted on the skin are next.
*less silly body horror. That *hugely* detracts from my enjoyment of ME2.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 octobre 2010 - 11:41 .

[Count Viceroy]

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?"

Beaten to it

[Gibb_Shepard]

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.

[Slayer299]

I'm really not certain how thinking that ME1 is superior to ME2 is rose-tinted glasses OP, because that's a hell of a generalized statement to make. I got ME1 4 weeks before ME2 and ME2 was a let down in more than a few ways.

ME2 definitely got the bugs out for gameplay and combat was much smoother

The problem was that ME2 didn't just 'simplify' or tweak areas they completely butchered them, - Inventory, visiting planets and the Mako.

Most importantly, there was no plot. You collected people for the SM and ran their loyalty missions and with the exception of Tali, Legion and Mordin the rest of of the LM's had nothing to do with the Reapers/Collectors. You meet the Collectors 3 times and the 2nd is when you find out that the Collectors were Protheans. Other than TIM telling you that the Collectors were attacking human colonies (FP and Horizon) there was no sense of urgency or immediacy to stop them. The plot with the Reapers never moves forward, you never find out anything about them whatsoever and teh Collectors are left feeling like an afterthought for a villain.

Mass Effect 1 had flaws, but Mass Effect 2 was a grave disappointment. I'll play ME1 a lot more than I'll ME2.

Modifié par Slayer299, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:01 .

[wizardryforever]

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.

I don't get why so many people claim that the ME1 characters are more fleshed out, then complain at having to do loyalty missions in ME2.  Those loyalty missions exist to flesh out the characters!  Don't like a character, don't do their loyalty mission and your opinion of them will never change, because their character development depends on Shepard getting involved.  I'd much rather have interactive squadmates that you can talk to and do missions for than walking codex entries like Tali and Liara in the first game.

Also, about the "epic" feel of the first game.  That only comes into play at the end of the game, with Virmire, through Ilos and the Citadel.  The rest of the game is bland.  Huge and empty, yes, but still bland.  It's cool if you consider "vastness of space is epic," but its not if you consider "there's nothing to do here but look around, no one to talk to, nothing to gather, and no fighting."  I also don't see the problem with linearity in missions.  In almost every situation, I did not feel like I needed to backtrack.  So like that guy said earlier, why would you want to walk all the way back down to the bottom of the tower after reaching Nassana's penthouse?  I never backtracked in ME1 either, I saw no point in it, unless you wanted more empty rooms with nothing to do.

I'm not saying my opinion is word of God or anything, but some of the complaints about ME2 are ridiculous.  Half of the complaints are nostalgia at work, another quarter are nitpicks, and another eighth are subjective.  I've seen very few solid complaints that I agree with.

Also this: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase

EDIT: Whoops, seems I misread part of your post.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:36 .

[Slayer299]

wizardryforever wrote...
I'm not saying my opinion is word of God or anything, but some of the complaints about ME2 are ridiculous.  Half of the complaints are nostalgia at work, another quarter are nitpicks, and another eighth are subjective.  I've seen very few solid complaints that I agree with.

Maybe not yet, but you are telling everyone that over 85% of any complaints have no validity what so ever... So, thanks for that<_<

[Count Viceroy]

Slayer299 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I'm not saying my opinion is word of God or anything, but some of the complaints about ME2 are ridiculous.  Half of the complaints are nostalgia at work, another quarter are nitpicks, and another eighth are subjective.  I've seen very few solid complaints that I agree with.

Maybe not yet, but you are telling everyone that over 85% of any complaints have no validity what so ever... So, thanks for that<_<

In his opinion, they don't. Whilst in your opinion they do. See a pattern here? 

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:35 .

[Slayer299]

yes, i do get your meaning. Opinions are like..... everyone has them

[Mister Mida]

I do like ME2, but I miss the feeling I had when I was playing ME (1).

ME2's plot/story/whatever felt like a collection of small but overall good stories with at the end a reasonably good mission that all and all felt more suited for an add-on or (stand-alone) expansion rather than the title 'Mass Effect 2'.

I don't like about ME2 that it's so incredibly modular. Once you went to Korlus to get Grunt you can never go back. It's okay to do it a few times, but everytime? No.

The game's design was more of that of a TPS than an RPG. Although I don't hate TPS, it bothered me if you compare it to ME (1)'s design, which was fine but needed some tweaking.

The semi-retconning also felt silly. Exchanging overheat for thermal clips didn't make sense to me. The Reapers being giant cyborg squids instead of giant AI starships is something I'll never be comfortable with. The Reapers being pure tech and AI made ME (1)'s story so strong and it reinforced the theme of machines controlling organic life instead of the other way around. I hope that the human Reaper was more of an exception instead of the rule of it comes down to the Reapers' construction.

I can go further but I don't wanna write a text wall. ME2 is not bad, but I don't find it a true sequel.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 05 octobre 2010 - 03:00 .

[GHOST OF FRUITY]

I love both games. RPG mechanics, plot, characters - those are things that everyone will have their own take on as to which game did what better, but for me both ME games have been utterly captivating, flaws and all. Neither game was perfect of course, but I only have to look at the other crap out on the gaming market right now to realize just how good the two ME games are.



A fanbase is impossible to please fully. Some will have a certain idea of which direction Bioware should go, some will have another. And the only dead certainty about ME3 is that there will be scores of people on this forum lining up to complain about some element of the game. Some will go the route of stating that if ME3 isn't a carbon copy of the first ME, then it will be an inferior game. If it strays too far from the more action orientated ME2, different people will complain about that. It's an impossible job for Bioware. I can only wish them luck for ME3 and hope they make a game that pleases as many members of it's diverse fanbase as possible.

[wizardryforever]

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.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

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.

[Habelo]

My points why i think that ME1 was better:



*minigames was better.

*there was exploration

*more story oriented, some things left in the dark the whole game, very intresting to find out things about protheans.

*as a vangaurd, it was funnier gameplay

*talent system was way way way better.



However, ME2 had graphics, that automatically makes it better by the populace it seems :/

[crimzontearz]

there are things for which I prefer ME1 and vice versa



RPG mechanics, full crew customization, lack of enrmous plotholes and literary devices...all those made ME1 better than ME2



Better Graphics, smoother convos, interrupts, better gameplay (if sadly streamlined), modular armor for shepard, better biotic and tech implementation and more made ME2 better than ME1



but yes



I do agree that some changes made in ME2 were for the worse AND were made to draw in the average gamer and those paying the price for it as the RPG fans

[Sajuro]

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.

I agree with the cheating part, but the inventory really wasn't that good for me since what I ended up doing was getting the guns with the most stopping power (sniper rifle) or best heat sink (Assault Rifle) mod it appropriatly and sell everything else. I don't want to be uber rich with nowhere to spend my money since almost all of the guns are useless, and I do not want to be constantly told that I'm reaching my inventory limit since I forgot to flood the market on Feros or the Citadel Wards with dozens of high powered weapons, Military Issue mods, and the grenade mods. So just because they cheat to get weapons they want, it isn't a reason to dismess their claims like a Turian Councilor, bless your heart.

[wizardryforever]

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?

[crimzontearz]

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?

gameplay matters. 

point is they delivered it in a non RPG fashion that pissed off lots of people AND as much as they delivered a solid gameplay on a shooter point of view they did so damaging the overall story which is subpar compared to ME1. Also a movie is not interactive, you cannot craft yuour own story there as you do in ME.

with that in mind 

[Cra5y Pineapple]

crimzontearz wrote...

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?

gameplay matters. 

point is they delivered it in a non RPG fashion that pissed off lots of people AND as much as they delivered a solid gameplay on a shooter point of view they did so damaging the overall story which is subpar compared to ME1. Also a movie is not interactive, you cannot craft yuour own story there as you do in ME.

with that in mind 

What he said.

Plot has nothing to do with a game. Any other fan of a franchise would look at this forum and laugh their ass off. Nor does a plot make a game smarter or stupider. Portal is an incredibly fun and intelligent game and its just rooms.
Also bring in the fact almost all game writing is bad. There are of course exceptions (Mass Effect, Halo, Asassin's Creed, Gears of War, GTA, etc.) but the majority is awful. Another reason plot should not be brought into judging games.

Also ME1 wasn't that good a plot. Alot of the writing felt very forced and the general theme felt very "square." It felt like a dangerously bad episode of Star Trek at times and only really got good after you got locked on the citadel. ME2 felt like an epic movie filled with excitment, danger and grittiness. The sense of darkness really improved it too. And every character (excluding Jacob) felt like a character with a story and a back drop. Rather than in ME1 were the squad might as well not be there.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:16 .

[crimzontearz]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

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?

gameplay matters. 

point is they delivered it in a non RPG fashion that pissed off lots of people AND as much as they delivered a solid gameplay on a shooter point of view they did so damaging the overall story which is subpar compared to ME1. Also a movie is not interactive, you cannot craft yuour own story there as you do in ME.

with that in mind 

What he said.

Plot has nothing to do with a game. Any other fan of a franchise would look at this forum and laugh their ass off. Nor does a plot make a game smarter or stupider. Portal is an incredibly fun and intelligent game and its just rooms.
Also bring in the fact almost all game writing is bad. There are of course exceptions (Mass Effect, Halo, Asassin's Creed, Gears of War, GTA, etc.) but the majority is awful. Another reason plot should not be brought into judging games.

ME1 wasn't that good a plot. Alot of the writing felt very forced and the general theme felt very "square." It felt like a dangerously bad episode of Star Trek at times and only really got good after you got locked on the citadel. ME2 felt like an epic movie filled with excitment, danger and grittiness. The sense of darkness really improved it too.

well it should if it is one of the major selling points of the game according to the devs

[smudboy]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

Plot has nothing to do with a game. Any other fan of a franchise would look at this forum and laugh their ass off. Nor does a plot make a game smarter or stupider. Portal is an incredibly fun and intelligent game and its just rooms.
Also bring in the fact almost all game writing is bad. There are of course exceptions (Mass Effect, Halo, Asassin's Creed, Gears of War, GTA, etc.) but the majority is awful. Another reason plot should not be brought into judging games.

Also ME1 wasn't that good a plot. Alot of the writing felt very forced and the general theme felt very "square." It felt like a dangerously bad episode of Star Trek at times and only really got good after you got locked on the citadel. ME2 felt like an epic movie filled with excitment, danger and grittiness. The sense of darkness really improved it too. And every character (excluding Jacob) felt like a character with a story and a back drop. Rather than in ME1 were the squad might as well not be there.

I love you man.

Man I love you.  Out of love.

[smudboy]

I can judge a game on whatever I damn well please, thank you very much.

ME had a great plot, and it was told well. It wasn't perfect, but as far as sci-fi stories go, it was pretty well put together and executed.

Story gives ANYTHING value, meaning, and purpose. The plot gives the story value. It makes the explosions, the shooting, the things you do, mean something to me. It motivates that player.

What? You said plot didn't matter? How come Jacob didn't feel like a character in a story? How dare you contradict yourself! I am now confused, and am going to laugh at myself in the mirror for bothering with your silly complex thoughts of chaos.

[wizardryforever]

smudboy wrote...

I can judge a game on whatever I damn well please, thank you very much.
ME had a great plot, and it was told well. It wasn't perfect, but as far as sci-fi stories go, it was pretty well put together and executed.
Story gives ANYTHING value, meaning, and purpose. The plot gives the story value. It makes the explosions, the shooting, the things you do, mean something to me. It motivates that player.
What? You said plot didn't matter? How come Jacob didn't feel like a character in a story? How dare you contradict yourself! I am now confused, and am going to laugh at myself in the mirror for bothering with your silly complex thoughts of chaos.

Who are you referring to with this?  It's uncharacteristically vague as to who you are pointing to.  If it's me, I never argued that story meant nothing, only that gameplay means something, a very significant something almost equal to story.  I fail to see how ME1's plot was SO much better than ME2's.  Sure, I'll agree that it was better, but not so much that ME2 is a complete letdown because of it.  They both have issues and plotholes, which you have made abundantly clear (about ME2 anyway) in almost all of your posts on this board.