815 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

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.

Furthermore, dialogue and actual role-playing is integral to an RPG.  A bulky inventory and ludicrous amounts of character customization is not.  They've become synonomos somehow, and it's getting ridiculous.  Dialogue, story, and an opportunity to influence that story is all that is necessary to be an RPG.  ME2 has that, making it no less of an RPG than ME1, which also had that.  Note: this second paragraph is not directed at anyone in particular.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:24 .

[Xeranx]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

You don't believe that the part I highlighted in orange doesn't represent smugness on your part?  You don't see how that in conjunction with the thread title you chose doesn't illicit a feeling as though you're putting yourself above others and that hinting any idea that ME is better than ME2 is the wrong idea?

Frybread76 wrote...

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.

That's exactly what I thought when I read through the first post.

I don't believe that shooter fans are stupid.  My brother is a shooter fan and his reason for not playing RPGs is all the dialogue involved.  He just wants to get to the action.  I don't believe he's stupid.  At the same time I don't entirely disagree with the notion that there's a bit of ADD involved because of how easy it is to pick up a shooter game and leave it when you're done.  The game is the same whether you come back to it immediately or months from now.  RPGs are different because you have to ask yourself which choices you made or what areas you explored when you get back to it months down the line.

I agree that nostalgia isn't a bad thing.  I got into RPGs by happenstance and I was away from it for a while.  I got back into it because I wanted to do something creative and I missed my HS drama performances, but using "rose-colored glasses" as a lead-in already gives your thread a hue (pun intended) you might not have intended.

Modifié par Xeranx, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:26 .

[wizardryforever]

Xeranx wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

You don't believe that the part I highlighted in orange doesn't represent smugness on your part?  You don't see how that in conjunction with the thread title you chose doesn't illicit a feeling as though you're putting yourself above others and that hinting any idea that ME is better than ME2 is the wrong idea?

Frybread76 wrote...

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.

That's exactly what I thought when I read through the first post.

I don't believe that shooter fans are stupid.  My brother is a shooter fan and his reason for not playing RPGs is all the dialogue involved.  He just wants to get to the action.  I don't believe he's stupid.  At the same time I don't entirely disagree with the notion that there's a bit of ADD involved because of how easy it is to pick up a shooter game and leave it when you're done.  The game is the same whether you come back to it immediately or months from now.  RPGs are different because you have to ask yourself which choices you made or what areas you explored when you get back to it months down the line.

I agree that nostalgia isn't a bad thing.  I got into RPGs by happenstance and I was away from it for a while.  I got back into it because I wanted to do something creative and I missed my HS drama performances, but using "rose-colored glasses" as a lead-in already gives your thread a hue (pun intended) you might not have intended.

To answer the bolded statement, no, I don't think it does.  I think this particular misunderstanding is people seeing what they want to see, and they wanted to see me attacking ME1 and thus swoop in to defend it.  Don't know what to make of that, if anything.

When I referred to shooter fans, I was talking about the guy who I had called elitist, who had basically alluded that shooter fans are a lower life form than us perfect RPGers.  That's why I called him elitist.  It seems to be a commonly held belief on these forums and it sickens me.  Glad to know that you aren't one of those, at least not completely.

As for the thread title, I used it to draw people in to discuss.  Maybe it worked a little too well, and carried a negative connotation that I didn't realize.  Like I said, I don't see nostalgia as a bad thing necessarily.

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

  Dialogue, story, and an opportunity to influence that story is all that is necessary to be an RPG.. 

I'm inclined to agree.  Now look at my problems with ME 2:

Dialogue.

Which of your companions, in Jacob's loyalty mission:
Advocate arresting Jacob's father?
Advocate leving him to his fate?
Would rather kill him?

Garrus wants to kill Sidonis, what do the following have to say about that?
Thane.  Samara.  Tali.

At what point in the game does Tali express her thoughts about having an AI (EDI) on board?

Mordin is struggling to decide what to do with the genophage data.  Which companions advocate destroying it?  Which advocate keeping it?

Story

How is ME 2 a continuation of the ME 1 story?  Keep in mind that ME 2 has an almost entirely new cast, a new enemy that's introduced and promptly forgotten about, and glaring continuity problems with ME 1

Opportunity to influence the story:

This is where ME 2 actually hurts ME 1.  ME 2 cannot simply be judged as a standalone game, but as a sequel to ME 1.

What choices end up mattering?  No, not all the choices in ME 1 had to have an immediate impact on ME 2 (I actually thought the rachni cameo was well done), but there were some that should.  The fate of the Council, the Virmire survivor, your LI, if any.  Anderson or Udina as Councilor.  Missions you took against Cerberus.

In addition, how do you think your choices in ME 2 will matter in ME 3?  Keep in mind that most recruitment missions, and all loyalty missions are skippable.  Any squadmate can potentially die, and all these games are supposed to be "standalone".  How will these choices matter without penalizing newcomers?

Modifié par iakus, 07 octobre 2010 - 12:40 .

[smudboy]

I'm still waiting to find out how ME1's plot is only slightly better than ME2's.

[scotchtape622]

The only true issue I had with ME2's story was the premise (of course, that is a huge issue). Having to work with Cerberus, going on a Suicide mission (that can really limit party member's importance in ME3), and Shepard dying.

[Giggles_Manically]

ME2 left you in the same place ME1 did.



With only a little more details really on the Reapers.

[wizardryforever]

smudboy wrote...

I'm still waiting to find out how ME1's plot is only slightly better than ME2's.

I'd rather not go through that whole circular argument in which I make a point, you call me wrong, you make a counter argument, and then I call you out on subjectivity.  Over and over.  I just don't see the point.  Suffice to say I have my opinion and you have yours and leave it at that.

[scotchtape622]

I'm pretty sure that on a literary level, ME1 had a better plot, even though ME2 had some advantages when it came to story/dialogue/characters.

[wizardryforever]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

ME2 left you in the same place ME1 did.

With only a little more details really on the Reapers.

But, you do know more about the universe at the end of ME2, which I think was the point of the whole thing.  Again, compare to The Empire Strikes Back for how the story is treated.

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...

smudboy wrote...

I'm still waiting to find out how ME1's plot is only slightly better than ME2's.

I'd rather not go through that whole circular argument in which I make a point, you call me wrong, you make a counter argument, and then I call you out on subjectivity.  Over and over.  I just don't see the point.  Suffice to say I have my opinion and you have yours and leave it at that.

Pardon me, when I prove someone wrong, it's with evidence.

Feel free to call me out on subjectivity.  All of my observations and conclusions thereof have been objective.  However I've no problems for people showing me otherwise.

No seriously.  How is ME1's plot only slightly better than ME2's plot?

[wizardryforever]

DarthCaine wrote...

Here's your plot hole free ME1:
http://social.biowar...5/index/2844283

Of course, it doesn't matter what anyone says, haters still gonna hate

Here ya go smudboy, enjoy.  I'm too tired at the moment to argue endlessly on subjective points.

[HTTP 404]

there are plot holes in every story. they are fun to point out but I dont think Mass Effect's story has plot holes that are deal breakers for me.

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

Here's your plot hole free ME1:
http://social.biowar...5/index/2844283

Of course, it doesn't matter what anyone says, haters still gonna hate

Here ya go smudboy, enjoy.  I'm too tired at the moment to argue endlessly on subjective points.

No, you stated ME1 had an only slightly better plot than ME2.  I'm curious what makes ME1's plot only slightly better.

Ecael's fantastic joke thread on plot holes is irrelevant.

[HTTP 404]

Also, whoever has the last say in an argument, wins....

[wizardryforever]

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

Here's your plot hole free ME1:
http://social.biowar...5/index/2844283

Of course, it doesn't matter what anyone says, haters still gonna hate

Here ya go smudboy, enjoy.  I'm too tired at the moment to argue endlessly on subjective points.

No, you stated ME1 had an only slightly better plot than ME2.  I'm curious what makes ME1's plot only slightly better.

Ecael's fantastic joke thread on plot holes is irrelevant.

My whole point about plot quality is that both games have glaring plotholes and inconsistencies, along with a fair deal of linearity and inexplicable conclusions and motivations.  ME1 was just a little better about this, hence my point of view.  For this, the linked thread is excellent at illustrating it.  Regardless, I fail to see how ME2's sub-standard story completely cancels out all of the good of the gameplay improvements.

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...
My whole point about plot quality is that both games have glaring plotholes and inconsistencies, along with a fair deal of linearity and inexplicable conclusions and motivations.  ME1 was just a little better about this, hence my point of view.  For this, the linked thread is excellent at illustrating it.  Regardless, I fail to see how ME2's sub-standard story completely cancels out all of the good of the gameplay improvements.

So you pretty much have no evidence to support that ME1 is only slightly better than ME2, aside from a joke thread.

[wizardryforever]

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
My whole point about plot quality is that both games have glaring plotholes and inconsistencies, along with a fair deal of linearity and inexplicable conclusions and motivations.  ME1 was just a little better about this, hence my point of view.  For this, the linked thread is excellent at illustrating it.  Regardless, I fail to see how ME2's sub-standard story completely cancels out all of the good of the gameplay improvements.

So you pretty much have no evidence to support that ME1 is only slightly better than ME2, aside from a joke thread.

Never said that.  I just don't feel the need to prove my opinion to anyone based on their curiosity alone.  Seriously, it's just my opinion, does it really matter that much to you?  I didn't start this thread to argue about subjective points anyway.  Quality of a plot is always subjective, period.

[smudboy]

wizardryforever wrote...

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
My whole point about plot quality is that both games have glaring plotholes and inconsistencies, along with a fair deal of linearity and inexplicable conclusions and motivations.  ME1 was just a little better about this, hence my point of view.  For this, the linked thread is excellent at illustrating it.  Regardless, I fail to see how ME2's sub-standard story completely cancels out all of the good of the gameplay improvements.

So you pretty much have no evidence to support that ME1 is only slightly better than ME2, aside from a joke thread.

Never said that.  I just don't feel the need to prove my opinion to anyone based on their curiosity alone.  Seriously, it's just my opinion, does it really matter that much to you?  I didn't start this thread to argue about subjective points anyway.  Quality of a plot is always subjective, period.

Since we can make objective observations on a story, then we can determine how well that story has been told.  Thus, storytelling is an objective experience.  We can also determine how weak a plot is objectively.

Therefore, quality of a plot is an objective experience, period.

[Axeface]

After going back to play ME1 before starting a new ME2 for LOTSB, I have decided that ME1 IS a better game for a massive amount of reasons, and it's not nostalgia. I thought it might be, but after going back I saw that it was not.

ME1 has a freedom feel of a sandbox type of game that was totally lost in ME2. It's customisation and the free roaming, making it feel like 'my' adventure and not biowares adventure that i'm watching from a back seat.

If ME3 brings back that feeling of freedom, with the character and quality of Lotsb, we will have the greatest game ever concieved. This is a fact.

Modifié par Axeface, 07 octobre 2010 - 03:22 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

ME2 left you in the same place ME1 did.

With only a little more details really on the Reapers.

But, you do know more about the universe at the end of ME2, which I think was the point of the whole thing.  Again, compare to The Empire Strikes Back for how the story is treated.

But what more do we know about the Reapers?  Do we know what their plans are for returning to the galaxy?  Do we have a clue how to fight them?  Are any plans being put in motion to face them?  Have any weaknesses been found?  Any more slave races lying about?  Does Shepard, in fact, have any knowledge or weapons that could lead to a way to stop the Reapers?  Not potentially, actual, confirmed leads?

In other words, is Frodo any closer to Mount Doom?

[StarcloudSWG]

That's pretty much what Shepard says to Liara at the end of Lair, in the ship.

"I'm worried" = "I don't know how we're going to do this. I have no idea of where to go from here."

Or the lower response in the second option:

"What did we accomplish? We blew up a base, stopped the abductions, but..."



Bioware is aware of where the plot is, what the players have seen, and what it looks like to us. But they don't feel that way because they have the larger picture. They can see "into the future" of the game, and where they left us in ME 2 was apparently quite deliberate.

[ScooterPie88]

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

smudboy wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
My whole point about plot quality is that both games have glaring plotholes and inconsistencies, along with a fair deal of linearity and inexplicable conclusions and motivations.  ME1 was just a little better about this, hence my point of view.  For this, the linked thread is excellent at illustrating it.  Regardless, I fail to see how ME2's sub-standard story completely cancels out all of the good of the gameplay improvements.

So you pretty much have no evidence to support that ME1 is only slightly better than ME2, aside from a joke thread.

Never said that.  I just don't feel the need to prove my opinion to anyone based on their curiosity alone.  Seriously, it's just my opinion, does it really matter that much to you?  I didn't start this thread to argue about subjective points anyway.  Quality of a plot is always subjective, period.

Since we can make objective observations on a story, then we can determine how well that story has been told.  Thus, storytelling is an objective experience.  We can also determine how weak a plot is objectively.

Therefore, quality of a plot is an objective experience, period.

I don't necessarily support either side of this argument I just have a question for you smud.  Why is it whenever ou post it's rude, snide, provocative, and generally unwelcome?

[Revan312]

StarcloudSWG wrote...



That's pretty much what Shepard says to Liara at the end of Lair, in the ship.

"I'm worried" = "I don't know how we're going to do this. I have no idea of where to go from here."

Or the lower response in the second option:

"What did we accomplish? We blew up a base, stopped the abductions, but..."



Bioware is aware of where the plot is, what the players have seen, and what it looks like to us. But they don't feel that way because they have the larger picture. They can see "into the future" of the game, and where they left us in ME 2 was apparently quite deliberate.

No doubt it was deliberate, but imo it was deliberate because they had no clue how to formulate any continuity for the sequel. ME1 -> ME3 is the story arc.. ME2 is a side quest, or at least that's how I felt about the story.. I could see it as just a long DLC for the first game, that's the feeling I have after playing it..



The main plot of ME2 could literally take 4 hours to beat.. Wake up, Freedom's Progress, Horizon, Collector ship, dead Reaper and finally suicide mission. The rest is fluff, fairly well done fluff, but fluff none the less. There's no integration between goal and content. The majority of ME1 quests were infused into the main story in some way.. Sure there were missions like "find my (dead) brother" or the cerberus quests, but most of the content involved individuals on the main planets you visit and the problems they have. Problems that help you achieve your specific goal on that planet.



ME2 has no such thing. There are no side quests on freedom, horizon, the collector ship, the reaper or the suicide mish. They're completely straightforward with a single goal. The rest of the assignments are simply go here, recruit him/her and fix them like a therapist.



It feels as if Bioware just had no clue what to do for the second installment in the trilogy and so they just threw a bunch of explosions and bombastic characters at us with the hope that we would forget about the Reapers for the majority of the game. This franchise would have worked much better as simply two games rather than three as I'm sure they'll have a good chunk of proper, connected content for ME3. This game however doesn't suffer from the dreaded sequel syndrome, instead it just treats itself as if the first game never really existed, another problem I have with Bioware's model, make each standalone.. Bleh