815 réponses à ce sujet

[Nozybidaj]

wizardryforever wrote...



When did I ever say that ME2 was the best game ever conceived?

When did anyone say you did say that? Now you're just making up people saying things to fit the argument you want to win. /shrug



That said, you are indeed the one the throwing around terms like "dramatic improvement" and "better by a huge amount" and you are the one trying to compare ME2 to the likes of TESB and RotK. So don't get mad when people call you on it. If you want to say ME2 is better than ME1 just say it and be done with it, but don't back track every time someone challenges you on it just so you can reassert the same position later.

[Xeranx]

wizardryforever 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.

Is it any more elitist than starting a thread titled "Rose-colored glasses" and calling all those who prefer ME over ME2 to just admit that we can't move on?:
 

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?

Seriously, I can imagine anyone (even myself if I were making this thread) smirking at how defensive I'd imagine people would be.  By using the words "rose-colored glasses" they way you do you're basically putting yourself above those who think differently than you do.

The gameplay being a dramatic improvement gets a yes and no from me.  The ability to target limbs on mechs in ME2 is great.  I can conserve ammo by focusing on a specific part of the body and let them crawl until they self-destruct. ([x]YES / [  ]NO)  For humanoids I don't think I've come across a time where targeting a specific body part helps me out in combat. ([  ]YES / [x]NO)  

In ME I could choose to get into cover, get in the open and shoot, or crouch and shoot. My armor and shields, though limited, help me. ([x]Yes / [  ]No)  About the only other thing I would have liked is to go prone for actual sniper shots.

In ME2 I could shoot out in the open ([x]Yes / [  ]No).  Due to my shields being barely more than a silk sheet and my armor being non-existent I'm forced into cover at all times in combat. ([  ]Yes / [x]No)

Even if I could target humanoid limbs to stop them from firing and make it easier for me in combat it's still not an overall good thing as far as I'm concerned.  I'm restricted too much (can't get into an actual fire fight without the Gears of War "you're dying" motif showing up) and there's plenty stacked against me while there's stuff taken away (armor being armor).

[Frybread76]

DarthCaine 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?

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

I can read fine.  And again, USER or CRITIC scores does not mean a product is "good" or better than another.  Simple as that.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

An inventory is one of several defining features of an RPG.  Is it absolutely neccessary?  No, I guess it isn't, but it's a pretty nice feature to have so you can buy stuff, upgrade weapons and armors, etc.

ME2 does have a sort of quasi-inventory with the weapon choices, but you can't sell any of those weapons or purchase new weapons or upgrades because guns now have random, magic buttons that turn ammo into "fire ammo" or "warp ammo."

Also, you can't buy or sell any armors for your squad mates because half of them are super-heroes and don't need armor or helmets.  I guess this is "streamlining" for the shooter fans.

[wizardryforever]

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

When did I ever say that ME2 was the best game ever conceived?

When did anyone say you did say that? Now you're just making up people saying things to fit the argument you want to win. /shrug

That said, you are indeed the one the throwing around terms like "dramatic improvement" and "better by a huge amount" and you are the one trying to compare ME2 to the likes of TESB and RotK. So don't get mad when people call you on it. If you want to say ME2 is better than ME1 just say it and be done with it, but don't back track every time someone challenges you on it just so you can reassert the same position later.

I believe you said that, in the very post that I quoted.  I have not compared ME2 to any game except ME1, so saying I did is flat out wrong.  I made a comparison to TESB to make a point to the naysayers who think ME2's plot is complete garbage, that it has no basis in other media.  How is defending my argument a bad thing?  Backtracking is necessary when people don't read and/or comprehend what I've posted, simply so I don't sound like a broken record.  If I've said something in this very thread, and then people challenge with a strawman argument, it helps to be able to point out exactly what I did say.

[Nozybidaj]

wizardryforever wrote...
I believe you said that, in the very post that I quoted. 

Thank you for proving my point.

[Babli]

GodWood wrote...

I enjoyed both games and thought ME2 was superior in most ways however I hate how the style changed from an epic space opera to some comic book sci-fi pulp.

I blame Mac Walters.

After I read OP I was going to write something but man...you wrote it for me. ME 1 was so realistic (...you know how I mean it) while ME 2 is just about cool stuff, flying people, T&A, no helmets in vacuum and lists go on...

[wizardryforever]

Xeranx wrote...

Is it any more elitist than starting a thread titled "Rose-colored glasses" and calling all those who prefer ME over ME2 to just admit that we can't move on?:
 
Seriously, I can imagine anyone (even myself if I were making this thread) smirking at how defensive I'd imagine people would be.  By using the words "rose-colored glasses" they way you do you're basically putting yourself above those who think differently than you do.

Yes it is.  Implying that someone is nostalgic is nowhere near as bad as proclaiming someone stupid and ADD.  I never said "I'm better than you" or even implied that.  If I did imply that, I never meant to.  Nostalgia isn't an inherently bad thing.  I'll admit that most of the appeal that ME1 now has for me is nostalgia.  If I play it, I'll frequently think to myself "I remember when I played this part the first time, I was so pumped!" or something along those lines.  It's fun because I remember how fun it used to be, and those memories sustain me through each successive playthrough.  I've played other RPGs lately for no other reason than nostalgia, like Baldur's Gate 1&2, Neverwinter Nights, and Fable.  I freely admit that nostalgia is really the only reason I still like those games.  If I compared them to more modern games in proportion of story/gameplay, I would never play them.  I started this thread to ascertain if others had any other reason for playing ME1 when ME2 is easier to play.  I asked a question, and so far no one has admitted to nostalgia coloring their viewpoint.  I don't know what I was expecting, but nothing that's been said so far has convinced me that it is anything but nostalgia.

[Mongerty]

Ok, so maybe we should admit that ME1 storywise had a more complete plot.

This is a normal strategy. The first always has a more complete plot, and is a stand alone story. The middle of a trilogy almost always leans on the third in order to complete the story arc. Mass Effect 2 was building up to a climax, but gets away with a relatively inconsequential battle. This is because Mass Effect 3 will start with us in the thick of the action. It is an age old method of conveying story from one movie/game/book to the next. That is why the new DLC (shadow broker included) are all going to be based towards bridging the gap. Mass Effect 2 and 3 will probably have little to no time pass between them.

Not saying that ME2 is somehow not a complete game, but it is not a self contained story as much as ME1.

[wizardryforever]

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I believe you said that, in the very post that I quoted. 

Thank you for proving my point.

Which was what exactly?  That you didn't read anything I said?

[Nozybidaj]

wizardryforever wrote...
nothing that's been said so far has convinced me that it is anything but nostalgia.

And apparently nothing ever will as you had already convinced yourself your answer was the right one before you even asked the question.  So in the end, what was the point of even making the thread?

[Frybread76]

I might be reading too much into it, but saying someone is "nostalgic" for a game is like saying they are stuck in the past. Or that people who prefer ME1 do so because they are "stuck in the past" and they like the game because of their "rose-colored glasses" and not because ME1 is actually good on its own merits. That if they would get over their nostaliga, they would realize ME2 is better. Which it isn't, IMO.

[wizardryforever]

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
nothing that's been said so far has convinced me that it is anything but nostalgia.

And apparently nothing ever will as you had already convinced yourself your answer was the right one before you even asked the question.  So in the end, what was the point of even making the thread?

I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2.  I guess that's the nature of the argument though.  To be fair, I've only responded harshly to people who accuse me of something I didn't do.  I am interested in real debate, though.

[Babli]

wizardryforever wrote...
I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2. 

There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

[Frybread76]

wizardryforever wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
nothing that's been said so far has convinced me that it is anything but nostalgia.

And apparently nothing ever will as you had already convinced yourself your answer was the right one before you even asked the question.  So in the end, what was the point of even making the thread?

I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2.  I guess that's the nature of the argument though.  To be fair, I've only responded harshly to people who accuse me of something I didn't do.  I am interested in real debate, though.

What's not subjective is the fact that ME2 dedicates more time to the squad mates and their stories and not Shepard or the main story dealing with the Collectors and Reapers.  While I enjoyed some of the squad missions, I would have preferred to have much more time devoted to the Collectors.

Edited to add that it really bothers me that Bioware dedicated so much time to your squad mates in ME2 when it sounds like hardly any of them will return in ME3.  That's just a waste of time and says, IMO, that ME2 was just filler to tide us over until the real story picks up in ME3.

Modifié par Frybread76, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:24 .

[Slayer299]

wizardryforever wrote...
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.

I was actually trying to avoid using TESB as a comparison, but since you prefer TESB to TT let's go with that


The only loyalty missions that foreshadow anything are Tali, MOrdin Grunt and Legion (4 our of 12<_<) so those were good. And that brings us back to the CB and the RQ, and more than afew people wiped the Rachni out back in ME1 and more than a few blew the CB base however, so you can't completely count those variables because not everyone 'knows' that or has the CB or both.
We already knew that the Rachni had been indoctrinated when you first met the Queen in ME1, so that wasn't new. The Collector missions weren't all that illuminating really, a - we know the Reapers re-puposed the Protheans into Collectors since their DNA wasn't felt to be 'up to snuff,' B- they were building a baby-Reaper, the Collector Ship only told you that they were after massive amounts of humans, C - the SM tells you the 'why'. Also, since you mentined Haestrom, you should also be aware of Solveig which is prematurely turning into a Red Giant due to the same causes of DE.

But the overall story itself didn't move forward with the Reapers to find ways to try and stop them, it didn't even feel like anything had changed that much. NOt when I was spending 99% of my time recruiting and then their LM because other than the Krogan with Wrex, hopefully the Quarians/Geth (No guarantee that both won't be dead), and the RQ our list of allies is painfully short since we can't count on the Council Races to help us out at this point and we still lack seriuos tech to halt/stop the Reapers...

[wizardryforever]

Babli wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2. 

There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

While I agree with this, it still isn't objective.  I'm sure that somewhere out there there is someone with the opinion that ME2 had a better plot.  That makes it subjective, it's not quantifiable.  And really the plot was not that much better, to be honest.

[Nozybidaj]

Babli wrote...
There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

I just bought a new gaming rig and set it up Monday of this week (yay me!).  The very first thing I did was install games I continue to play.  The second one I installed was ME1 (Oblivion was first ), ME2 I am shipping off with my older computer to my nephew.

Games I continue to play installed on my new PC
ME1: 1
ME2: 0

I'd say that is a fairly objective measurement.  I even qualified it with numbers.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:32 .

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...

Babli wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2. 

There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

While I agree with this, it still isn't objective.  I'm sure that somewhere out there there is someone with the opinion that ME2 had a better plot.  That makes it subjective, it's not quantifiable.  And really the plot was not that much better, to be honest.

Please explain to me how ME2 had a better plot than ME1.

I expect great things.

Like, Biblical.

[Babli]

wizardryforever wrote...

Babli wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2. 

There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

While I agree with this, it still isn't objective.  I'm sure that somewhere out there there is someone with the opinion that ME2 had a better plot.  That makes it subjective, it's not quantifiable.  And really the plot was not that much better, to be honest.

It was.
Well, then there isnt anything objective if you want to put it like this. Because, after all, everybody will write just their opinions and opinions are always subjective. Just like yours.

Modifié par Babli, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:39 .

[bjdbwea]

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.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:57 .

[kraidy1117]

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.

[Asepsis]

I dunno, I liked both games a lot. What I missed about ME1 that ME2 didn't have was the armor upgrades you could add and change quickly, as well as armor upgrades for your party members. For example, I didn't have to go running back to my ship to add armor upgrades in the middle of a level if I decided one would work better than another in that situation, I also liked the different type of ammo upgrades in ME1. I wanted to change the character's armor but I couldn't, of course you can research upgrades to improve their armor supposedly but it feels different when you can actually see a better suit of armor on your party members and feel like you've improved them by investing in that armor, lol!

That's about the only thing I liked better though, over all both games were excellent and both games were insanely fun to play and had great story lines.

Modifié par Asepsis, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:08 .

[wizardryforever]

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Babli wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2. 

There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

While I agree with this, it still isn't objective.  I'm sure that somewhere out there there is someone with the opinion that ME2 had a better plot.  That makes it subjective, it's not quantifiable.  And really the plot was not that much better, to be honest.

Please explain to me how ME2 had a better plot than ME1.

I expect great things.

Like, Biblical.

Did you not read the first sentence at all?  I said that I agree that ME1's plot was better.  My point is that this is still opinion, and not objective.

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Babli wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
I've listened (or read, I guess) to other peoples reasons and I have considered them.  Practically every one of them has been about subjective things like "atmosphere," color tones, and "epicness."  No one has offered anything objective on what makes ME1 superior to ME2. 

There is something objective.

ME 1 had BETTER PLOT.

While I agree with this, it still isn't objective.  I'm sure that somewhere out there there is someone with the opinion that ME2 had a better plot.  That makes it subjective, it's not quantifiable.  And really the plot was not that much better, to be honest.

Please explain to me how ME2 had a better plot than ME1.

I expect great things.

Like, Biblical.

Did you not read the first sentence at all?  I said that I agree that ME1's plot was better.  My point is that this is still opinion, and not objective.

Oh, my mistake.

How was ME1's plot only slightly better than ME2's?