815 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

PD ORTA wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

But that is like saying the majority of whoever plays any video game does not like that video game

Most people do not complete any given game

My argument is not saying that a majority doesn't like the game.  The comptetitive individual in me would love it if it were so just to shut people up about using some imaginary silent majority to make a statement and act as though it were irrefutable.  My argument is against making any claim that there is a majority/minority who like the game.  

The use of roughly implies close.  To me it says it's "less than" because I think that if it were "more than" you'd actually state such, but in any case (before people decide to jump on me saying "a-ha!") you cannot make a case for there being a majority especially with the given numbers we have.

This stat means nothing. I have games that I've enjoyed in the past that I didn't complete for various reasons, as well as games I didn't particularly like, that I did.
I'm sure you and all the other complainers are part of the 50% who completed the game.

As far as the silent majority/vocal minority, of the hundreds of people who regularly visit this site, it's the same 20/30 posters who appear in every ME2 bashing thread. While a few of us who enjoyed ME2 come in to these threads to support the game... the rest can be found in character support and general threads discussing how much they enjoy the ME series and are looking forward to ME3. 

You can attempt to wave it away as much as you want.  In regards to where you (not you, PD ORTA) stand on the issue, trying to make a case for a majority/minority group is pointless and silly without anything that would further support your claim.

The initial post I responded to never made a claim of where the majority resided.  He stated matter-of-factly that there was a majority that liked ME2.  I compared the numbers he put up for support of his claim and found that of everything listed his so-called majority was comprised of less than 1% of the ME2 population.  That is not a majority unless the definition of majority changed recently.  Maybe I'm out of the loop.

[Cheese Elemental]

I think ME2 did everything better apart from the story. I didn't really care about the Collectors much, and I disliked how some choices were handled. Why did the Paragon ending have to be accompanied by a Lawful Stupid line?

I don't like how words get put in my mouth so often. More choice in the dialogue would have been nice, and so would deeper weapon customisation.

[Major Truth]

I loved bith ME1 and ME2 but I did feel that the central missions in ME1 were superior to ME2. At times ME2 felt like just one big recruitment drive and the story didn't progress as a result.



In ME1 the main story progressed cinsistently through the game I felt. Also you had a great villain in Saren and tough decisions to make such as those on Virmire



I also did not like running out of ammo in ME2. I just found it frustrating

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...


Yeah, basically.  I'm astonished that some of these people still hang around these boards if the game is really that bad.  I mean seriously, if you hate the game as much as you say you do, then why stick around for months to complain to people who don't care?  This kind of activity seems to scream troll, or at the very least someone who likes to have their ego stroked, even by themselves.

Two reasons:

1) I enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and every other Bioware game I've ever played, going back to the original Baldur's Gate.

2) There is going to be a Mass Effect 3.  I want to be able to enjoy that game as much as these other games.
 
Given that Bioware has no customer satisfaction survey, or anything resembling that.  I have to make my voice heard in other ways.  In the hopes that someone will take note of what's said and take it into consideration in making ME 3.  A vain hope, perhaps, but it's all I have.

But don't worry, I'm polite while addressing my grievances.  I don't insult people, I'm reasonably respectful, even when accused of being a troll, an elitist, a hater, or what have you.  I'm just interested in a spirited debate. 

I wasn't referring to you specifically, you are generally polite with your grievances and are willing to concede points.  There are others (I think everyone knows who I'm talking about) whose only posts, by and large, are to bash ME2.  In their eyes, ME2 is a irredeemable mess and if you like it you're just stupid.  Yeah, those are the people I have a problem with.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:10 .

[wizardryforever]

Slayer299 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
Covered this, didn't we?  ME2 is not the finale, I would be disappointed if everything we did had an immediate impact on the galaxy.  That smacks of lazy writing with no long-term story arc and discontinuity issues across the board.  What do you expect from the middle game in a trilogy?  Since when is the middle part of a trilogy ever the best part in terms of story?  Try never (maybe almost never).

BUt it isn't expected that Bioware would wrap everything up in nice pink bow in the middle. The middle of a trilogy is to set things up for the finale. To use LotR (Two Towers) it did resolve some issues and setup/foreshadow what was to come in the last chapter. By the end of the TT things were looking very bleak even with their respective victories. I really didn't see that in ME2, we blew up the baby-Reaper and did/did not destroy the CB, but we didn't discover anything major about the Reapers or how to stop them. 

If you can show me exactly what was setup for 3 and what we really learned (Not including the Prothean/Collector 'reveal') I'd like to hear it and on that note I gotta grab some zzzz's. I'll look for your reply in the morning.

edit - removed a line not needed.

There was quite a lot of foreshadowing in ME2.  How about all that business with Dark Energy that everyone and their mother is suddenly interested in?  Like with Haestrom's sun.  There's no way that was thrown in there the way it was unless it has some major impact on ME3.  What about the Quarians, with their Admiralty split on how to handle the Geth?  I betcha we'll see Xen again in some form in ME3.  Or the Geth schism and Legion's loyalty?  That could definitely have major consequences in ME3.  Or the genophage, which was explored much more explicitly this time around.  We confirmed that the Rachni were indoctrinated in ME2, with the Rachni messenger, meaning we can count on their aid against the Reapers.

The setup for ME3 wasn't in the Collector missions.  We learned much more useful information in recruitment and loyalty missions.  I'm inclined to say that the Collector missions really were more of a background story.  Although learning the Collectors' plans to build a Reaper (no matter how contrived that is) is valuable information.  Now we can learn more about the Reapers from the base or its wreckage.  This is not insignificant.

Really, Lord of the Rings is more of the exception than the rule when it comes to trilogies.  A more appropriate analogy would be to compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy (as much as I dislike Star Wars).  The comparsion of ME2 to The Empire Strikes Back is striking.

[bjdbwea]

wizardryforever wrote...

Really, Lord of the Rings is more of the exception than the rule when it comes to trilogies.  A more appropriate analogy would be to compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy (as much as I dislike Star Wars).  The comparsion of ME2 to The Empire Strikes Back is striking.

Actually, no, it isn't. The comparison would be valid if TES would have killed and resurrected the protagonist with no story-relevant reason and without ever mentioning it again, sidelined almost everything of importance from the previous installment, ignored the Empire as an enemy despite even having its name in the title, introduced a lot of new characters while ignoring the established ones, and created a death star with the shape of a human face.

Instead, each Star Wars movie is a great movie on its own, and at the same time builds on and continues the story from the previous installment(s). The difference to ME 2 is obvious.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:25 .

[Ghostano]

Mongerty wrote...

smudboy wrote...

But instead, at the end of ME2, we're in exactly the same position we were in at the end of ME1, the Reapers are coming.  Although now, the Council has gone stupid, our pistols run out of "ammo", and we can sell a live Geth and blow up a base that makes the enemy we're trying to stop.  Woo.  Nice development.

Well, you don't really know how the allies and choices you made in Mass Effect 2 will affect Mass Effect 3.
Including, but not limited to:
Fate of Collector Base
Geth and Quarian conflict
Shadow Broker  (Liara)
Cerberus Support/ Opposition
Sheperd cybernetic implants
Geth in General (Legion's mission)


Going by your standards, the Rebellion wasn't any closer to defeating the Empire at the end of Empire Strikes back, so it was a terrible movie according to how the trilogy works.

 Well the second movie is called "The Empire Strikes Back"  and shows how the rebels are on the ropes for most of the movie. We can see how strong the empire is more clearly and just how much of a struggle they have. As far as our choices in ME2 given what they did with our choices from ME1 I have little faith in that area.

 Were I do not like that ammo to the basic weapons it does make sense for the heavy weapons. For me the story in ME2 is just to weak for me. I have been playing ME1 as of late and I feel the story draws me in far more then the second. The 2 missions that come close to that in ME involve 2 squad members from the first one (Tali and Liara). Wrex was like seeing a old friend and I never cared for Garrus. Care even less for him now thanks to ME2 but then again the first 2 play throughs of Mass Efffect 1 way back when I never went down to were the mako was. For the simple reason I did not know I could or how to get there

 There are things I like from Mass Effect 2 but if I had to make a choice between the two I would have to pick Mass Effect 1. When playing Mass Effect 1 I feel like I am part of a story, when I play Mass Effect 2 I feel more like I am playing a combat sim in the Mass Effect universe.


 Oh well for the most part this is a nice thread to read through,  never understood the rose colored thing since you can go back and play ME1 unlike most things were all you have a memories to judge said event,thing or person.


 When all else fails I say Kick'em in the man berriers and eat a some cheese 

 

[Ghostano]

Major Truth wrote...

 At times ME2 felt like just one big recruitment drive and the story didn't progress as a result.



I also did not like running out of ammo in ME2. I just found it frustrating

For some reason when I read this I had the image of Shapard standing in front of a tote board saying," For just a donation of 50 credits we can buy jack a shirt, will you not help this poor girl buy a shirt."

 Eh I know not as funny on screen as in my head

[Nozybidaj]

bjdbwea wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Really, Lord of the Rings is more of the exception than the rule when it comes to trilogies.  A more appropriate analogy would be to compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy (as much as I dislike Star Wars).  The comparsion of ME2 to The Empire Strikes Back is striking.

Actually, no, it isn't. The comparison would be valid if TES would have killed and resurrected the protagonist with no story-relevant reason and without ever mentioning it again, sidelined almost everything of importance from the previous installment, ignored the Empire as an enemy despite even having its name in the title, introduced a lof of new characters while ignoring the established ones, and created a death star with the shape of a human face.

Instead, each Star Wars movie is a great movie on its own, and at the same time builds on and continues the story from the previous installment(s). The difference to ME 2 is obvious.

Hehe, well said.  About the only similarity between ME2 and TES is they are both set in space.  Aside from that I can't really think of anything they have in common.

[wizardryforever]

bjdbwea wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Really, Lord of the Rings is more of the exception than the rule when it comes to trilogies.  A more appropriate analogy would be to compare it to the original Star Wars trilogy (as much as I dislike Star Wars).  The comparsion of ME2 to The Empire Strikes Back is striking.

Actually, no, it isn't. The comparison would be valid if TES would have killed and resurrected the protagonist with no story-relevant reason and without ever mentioning it again, sidelined almost everything of importance from the previous installment, ignored the Empire as an enemy despite even having its name in the title, introduced a lof of new characters while ignoring the established ones, and created a death star with the shape of a human face.

Instead, each Star Wars movie is a great movie on its own, and at the same time builds on and continues the story from the previous installment(s). The difference to ME 2 is obvious.

Did I ever say an exact match?  No I didn't.  I did say that the comparison is valid.  Everything you brought up is plot particulars, not plot structure.  TESB is more of a personal story about characters, so is ME2.  Very little of the story is actually about fighting the big enemy, so is ME2.  The story ends with nothing major resolved and with a definite impression that there is more to come, so does ME2.  The story introduces major characters that have heavy influence on the story (Yoda, Lando, Boba Fett), while only peripherally tying into the first story, so does ME2.  Seeing a pattern here?  I'm not saying the stories are similar, I'm saying the plot structure is similar.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:26 .

[Frybread76]

Xeranx wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

The haters are just a vocal minority, the majority prefers ME2 over ME1

http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/
http://social.biowar...596/polls/4081/
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/

GameSpot User Scores:
ME1: 9.1 360, 8.9 PC
ME2: 9.4 360, 9.3 PC
(you can check other sites if you want, in every last one ME2 has a higher user score)

Sales

My mini review

Disliked:
-No armor for squad mates
-Effects of ME1 choices (though every realist saw this coming, it's the same in every BioWare game)
-Too many squad mates (by the time I recruited them all, I forgot about the ones I already have)
-Scanning (still, I'd rather scan a planet than go up 90 degrees hills just to get to an even more annoying minigame)
-Glitches
-No helmet toggle
-No skipping opening scene (still, it's better than ME1 where NO scenes were skippable)
-Box-art (worst ever)
-Very little armor parts
-A few unexplained plot holes
-Arnold Schwarzenegger (though not much worse than Zombie Cyborg Jumping Frog)

Liked:
-No mako
-Easier to manage equipment
-More cinematic
-More emotional
-Better written new interesting characters (ME1's squad mates were the most boring characters BioWare has ever made)
-Shepard speaks more often thus giving him more personality
-More Humor (than in ME1)
-Profanity (the more, the merrier I say)
-Better environments
-More atmospheric (Afterlife, Omega, Illium)
-Much better music (than  ME1's)
-Every weapon is different
-Biotics are awesome (unlike ME1)
-Better Powers
-Awesome combat
-New xp system
-Much better side quests
-Ammo
-Tougher decisions (thought still not tough enough, BioWare should take cues from The Witcher)
-Better easter eggs

"Roughly 50% of the people who started Mass Effect 2 finished the game"

If sales, critics and general popularity make a product great then I guess American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time, right?

[wizardryforever]

Frybread76 wrote...

If sales, critics and general popularity make a product great then I guess American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time, right?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.  No one is claiming (here anyway) that ME2 is the greatest ever.  Simply that it is better than ME1.  Why would it rate higher among both critics and users, from multiple sources, if it wasn't actually better?  Why would it sell more if it wasn't actually better?

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:32 .

[bjdbwea]

wizardryforever wrote...

Did I ever say an exact match?  No I didn't.  I did say that the comparison is valid.  Everything you brought up is plot particulars, not plot structure.  TESB is more of a personal story about characters, so is ME2.  Very little of the story is actually about fighting the big enemy, so is ME2.  The story ends with nothing major resolved and with a definite impression that there is more to come, so does ME2.  The story introduces major characters that have heavy influence on the story (Yoda, Lando, Boba Fett), while only peripherally tying into the first story, so does ME2.  Seeing a pattern here?  I'm not saying the stories are similar, I'm saying the plot structure is similar.

Fair enough, so on an abstract level, there are some similarities between ME 2 and TES. But it matters more how the actual story is implemented. TES has a well thought out plot that is presented amazingly well. Whereas the writing and the presentation in ME 2 leave a lot to be desired. I outlined above how TES might have looked like with this approach to writing.

(I guess I have to say it everytime now when I criticize ME 2: LotSB was of course a huge step into the right direction.)

[Nozybidaj]

Frybread76 wrote...



If sales, critics and general popularity make a product great then I guess American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time, right?

And a McDonald's Cheesburger is the best meal ever created.



Its actually not all that surprising that in a time where mindless FPS games are the most popular thing on the market that you'll find the far simpler and stripped down ME game to be the more popular one. The surprising thing is that they actually had the attention span to fillout the gamerscore before the urge to virtually kill or blow something up drew them away from the submission form.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

If sales, critics and general popularity make a product great then I guess American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time, right?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.  No one is claiming (here anyway) that ME2 is the greatest ever.  Simply that it is better than ME1.  Why would it rate higher among both critics and users, from multiple sources, if it wasn't actually better?  Why would it sell more if it wasn't actually better?

Maybe it's just my opinion, but ME2 is not a better game than ME1 in terms of main story and the interface for PC.  Not close.  You might have an argument in terms of combat (although biotic/tech powers were weakened) and character depth, but not main story.  I'm not saying ME2 is bad, just that it's not as good as ME1.

And do you really not understand that there are many products, films, games, etc. of questionable quality that sell well, are critically received, etc.?  Like I said above, if sales, popularity and/or good reviews were all that determined quality, then American Idol, professional wrestling, the Twilight series and those stupid Mario Kart racing games are works of art.

[wizardryforever]

Its actually not all that surprising that in a time where mindless FPS games are the most popular thing on the market that you'll find the far simpler and stripped down ME game to be the more popular one. The surprising thing is that they actually had the attention span to fillout the gamerscore before the urge to virtually kill or blow something up drew them away from the submission form.

I swear, could this comment be much more elitist?  I'm sick of people always saying that because people like shooters and shooter mechanics, they somehow have the intelligence and attention span of five-year olds.  Really, where do you draw this correlation from?  Complexity does not automatically make a game better by virtue of being complex.  Everything they took out of for ME2 as far as gameplay goes is a dramatic improvement, it makes you feel like you are actually playing a game, not grinding for loot and levels, or completing pointless fetch quests, or customizing your character down to how far they can pee.  Two more points and I can pee two more inches!  Woohoo, progress! <_<

Now all the stuff that a soldier can reasonably expect to do is actually easier, with less clutter and nonsense.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:52 .

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

Its actually not all that surprising that in a time where mindless FPS games are the most popular thing on the market that you'll find the far simpler and stripped down ME game to be the more popular one. The surprising thing is that they actually had the attention span to fillout the gamerscore before the urge to virtually kill or blow something up drew them away from the submission form.

I swear, could this comment be much more elitist?  I'm sick of people always saying that because people like shooters and shooter mechanics, they somehow have the intelligence and attention span of five-year olds.  Really, where do you draw this correlation from?  Complexity does not automatically make a game better by virtue of being complex.  Everything they took out of for ME2 as far as gameplay goes is a dramatic improvement, it makes you feel like you are actually playing a game, not grinding for loot and levels, or completing pointless fetch quests, or customizing your character down to how far they can pee.  Two more points and I can pee two more inches!  Woohoo, progress! <_<

Now all the stuff that a soldier can reasonably expect to do is actually easier, with less clutter and nonsense.

You quoted the wrong person.  I did not type that.

Beside the point, it's clear you are not an RPG fan.  Taking out the inventory was not a good thing, I don't care how "streamlined" a game is.  Sure, the ME1 inventory was too messy, but taking it out completely is "dumbing down" the game and lazyiness because the developers just cut it instead of improving the inventory.

[wizardryforever]

Beside the point, it's clear you are not an RPG fan.  Taking out the
inventory was not a good thing, I don't care how "streamlined" a game
is.  Sure, the ME1 inventory was too messy, but taking it out
completely is "dumbing down" the game and lazyiness because the
developers just cut it instead of improving the inventory.

Clear is it?  Because it's simply not possible that someone can like both right?  They're completely incompatible. <_< I've been playing RPGs for years now, I have more than a little experience with the genre.  In fact, I like RPGs much more than shooters.

Why is it so hard to understand that inventory is not necessary for an RPG?  Why is collecting loot so important for role-playing?  Are you constantly role-playing a pack rat with kleptomaniac tendencies?  Or are you actually playing someone who's supposed to be a soldier?  Besides, the inventory is not gone.  You still collect weapons, armor pieces, even aesthetic crap like ships and fish and a hamster.  I fail to see how carrying around a massive inventory everywhere you go is supposed to help you role-play a soldier.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:58 .

[wizardryforever]

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:00 .

[bjdbwea]

wizardryforever wrote...

Now all the stuff that a soldier can reasonably expect to do is actually easier, with less clutter and nonsense.

Do you know what would be even easier and have less "clutter" and "nonsense"? If you just watched a movie. Or played one of the countless shooters, that, according to your logic, are much better anyway, because the masses buy them in record numbers. But please, why does every RPG that happens to have guns, have to be simplified, and why do all features that prevent you from getting to the next pew-pew have to be removed? Why does it have to be like any common shooter? There are enough other games like that which you could simply play instead.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Frybread76 wrote...

If sales, critics and general popularity make a product great then I guess American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time, right?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.  No one is claiming (here anyway) that ME2 is the greatest ever.  Simply that it is better than ME1.  Why would it rate higher among both critics and users, from multiple sources, if it wasn't actually better?  Why would it sell more if it wasn't actually better?

Maybe it's just my opinion, but ME2 is not a better game than ME1 in terms of main story and the interface for PC.  Not close.  You might have an argument in terms of combat (although biotic/tech powers were weakened) and character depth, but not main story.  I'm not saying ME2 is bad, just that it's not as good as ME1.

And do you really not understand that there are many products, films, games, etc. of questionable quality that sell well, are critically received, etc.?  Like I said above, if sales, popularity and/or good reviews were all that determined quality, then American Idol, professional wrestling, the Twilight series and those stupid Mario Kart racing games are works of art.

Of course not.  There may be products that sell well that are not the best quality, but every product that actually is quality will sell well, and be well received.  So while all quality products are well-received, not all well-received products are quality.  There is no real proof that ME2 is in the latter group, so really it kinda falls flat on both sides of the argument, since it's all subjective.  But I never brought up the sales, that other guy did.

True.  But my only point is just because a product is popular or sells well doesn't mean its of better quality than another.  And ME1 did sell well, was critically received, etc., just like ME2.

When it comes down to it, ME2 is a better shooter than ME1, but ME1 is a better RPG than ME2, IMO.

[Xilizhra]

I vastly preferred ME1's plot to ME2's, but I liked ME2's gameplay more. Complexity only really matters in the storyline to me; the gameplay can be as simple as possible so that there's less hassle mastering it, and I can get on with the story.

[Nozybidaj]

wizardryforever wrote...
I swear, could this comment be much more elitist? 

I'm sure it could be, would you like me to try again?

I play shooter games as well when I am in the mood, and lets face it, they aren't the height of complex and deep gameplay.  In comparison strictly as a shooter though ME2 falls flat to other current games in that area as well.  GoW had more interesting mechanics, maps, and enemey placement nearly half a dozen years ago.  As far as RPG mechanics go I think it would be redundant to the point of ridiculousness to even bother listing any comparisons.

About the only area ME2 is superior to any other game is in its cinematic presentations, which I thought were done quite well, even if the story driving all of it was so eyeroll inducing that I didn't care a squat about it.

To say that ME2 is a better game overall than ME1, or any other current action/shooter game, is way too big a pill for me to swallow.

[wizardryforever]

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I swear, could this comment be much more elitist? 

I'm sure it could be, would you like me to try again?

I play shooter games as well when I am in the mood, and lets face it, they aren't the height of complex and deep gameplay.  In comparison strictly as a shooter though ME2 falls flat to other current games in that area as well.  GoW had more interesting mechanics, maps, and enemey placement nearly half a dozen years ago.  As far as RPG mechanics go I think it would be redundant to the point of ridiculousness to even bother listing any comparisons.

About the only area ME2 is superior to any other game is in its cinematic presentations, which I thought were done quite well, even if the story driving all of it was so eyeroll inducing that I didn't care a squat about it.

To say that ME2 is a better game overall than ME1, or any other current action/shooter game, is way too big a pill for me to swallow.

When did I ever say that ME2 was the best game ever conceived?  I never did, and I believe I already pointed that out.  ME2 was better than ME1 in terms of gameplay by a huge amount, everything that was broken was either fixed or removed.  The story was only marginally worse, for reasons I have already outlined.  Seriously, I think at this point people have been too media exposed.  Everything is a cliche or poorly done or not-as-good-as-it-used-to-be.  I'm just amazed that people don't realize this about themselves.

[DarthCaine]

Frybread76 wrote...

If sales, critics and general popularity make a product great then I guess American Idol is the greatest TV show of all time, right?

Learn to read, I said USER scores. I never metioned critics score. On every single site ME2 has a higher user score than ME1

Modifié par DarthCaine, 06 octobre 2010 - 05:08 .