170 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

I feel like the squad mates (or more generally, the characters) are the story and without them the game/plot would be kind of stupid. To be honest I wasn't that impressed in ME1's story either.

[Moiaussi]

Mesina2 wrote...

Most people who said ME2 game is bad GAME is because PLOT is much weaker from ME1 which is just stupid.

GAME>PLOT

While it is true that GAME > PLOT, that does not mean that PLOT isn't part of the GAME. If the plot is sufficiently questionable, then why not make something a lot closer to a pure shooter and not bother with a trilogy at all?

When you have a game that has has a strong plot but weak combat elements, is the answer to produce a game with stronger combat elements but then ignore the plot? Why do the two seem mutually exclusive?

[Nightwriter]

Perhaps because ME2 makes us feel like we're faced with a one-or-the-other situation?

ME2, good on gameplay, weak on story.
ME1, good on story, weak on gameplay.

So we're going to juxtapose them.

Collider wrote...

I feel like the squad mates (or more generally, the characters) are the story and without them the game/plot would be kind of stupid. To be honest I wasn't that impressed in ME1's story either.

You know, I do think ME1's story gets a little over-glorified in the post-ME2 light.

I actually now believe it wasn't necessarily about better quality - more about pacing, content, and presentation.

ME2 had less story content, it was paced poorly - five minutes of story packed into countless hours of game - and it didn't exactly present the Collectors in the most compelling way. So really, ME2 was just at a disadvantage.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 26 octobre 2010 - 11:38 .

[Nightwriter]

You're right, I think BioWare does listen to fans more than any other developer out there. I don't particularly like what was done with N7 missions in ME2 at all - the lack of story element to them, not the environments - and I can't say I noticed better email scrolling, but there were improvements.

The only question is if BioWare will interpet increased ME2 sales as confirmation that, yes, players want more gameplay than story and want BioWare to continue in that direction.

[Pacifien]

In a way, I'm going to agree with Shandepared here, just because I like the opportunities to say when I'm in agreement. But the developers did obviously try to address many issues people had with ME1 to varying levels of success in ME2. And with each DLC, I see them addressing issues people have had since ME2's main release.

People wanted the squadmates to acknowledge each other's existence. Lo and behold, Kasumi does that. People wanted the return of explorable landscapes. That's what Overlord tries to give us. With Lair of the Shadow Broker, Liara addresses people's romances. She banters with you during battle. The fight into the Shadow Broker's base was one of the better designed combat sequences. They even made a measly attempt to have a fellow squadmate comment on the situation. But each DLC is obviously addressing people's various concerns.

Of course, there are some situations that the developers have addressed that are going to polarize the fanbase. I would never in a million years want the developers to step in any way back toward the design of combat in ME1. I'm not saying combat was perfect in ME2, it wasn't and combat design still needs a lot of help. But it is so much better than what they did in ME1, and I would cry at the thought of them returning to ME1 combat design. Now, someone out there is reading this and thinking I should just go somewhere and cry right now because ME2 combat was nothing but a play to the FPS shooter games and it had no place in a BioWare game.

At some point, one man's criticism is another man's praise. Who's kung fu is better in regards to the developers?

[Therion942]

Pacifien wrote...

In a way, I'm going to agree with Shandepared here, just because I like the opportunities to say when I'm in agreement. But the developers did obviously try to address many issues people had with ME1 to varying levels of success in ME2. And with each DLC, I see them addressing issues people have had since ME2's main release.

People wanted the squadmates to acknowledge each other's existence. Lo and behold, Kasumi does that. People wanted the return of explorable landscapes. That's what Overlord tries to give us. With Lair of the Shadow Broker, Liara addresses people's romances. She banters with you during battle. The fight into the Shadow Broker's base was one of the better designed combat sequences. They even made a measly attempt to have a fellow squadmate comment on the situation. But each DLC is obviously addressing people's various concerns.

Of course, there are some situations that the developers have addressed that are going to polarize the fanbase. I would never in a million years want the developers to step in any way back toward the design of combat in ME1. I'm not saying combat was perfect in ME2, it wasn't and combat design still needs a lot of help. But it is so much better than what they did in ME1, and I would cry at the thought of them returning to ME1 combat design. Now, someone out there is reading this and thinking I should just go somewhere and cry right now because ME2 combat was nothing but a play to the FPS shooter games and it had no place in a BioWare game.

At some point, one man's criticism is another man's praise. Who's kung fu is better in regards to the developers?

The problems I have with the things that are "fixed" you bring up, is that they are things that should have been in the primary game in the first place, while I thoroughly enjoyed the DLC and the "fixes" they brought, there is always going to be a niggle in the back of my mind that essentially says "Hmm, did I just get suckered into paying $10 for exposition"

Just feels... wrong, I'm not saying it is wrong, BioWare exists to make money as I said before. Maybe not wrong, perhaps disengenuous.

[Nightwriter]

I think someone does need to state that it's pretty damn amazing and incredible that BioWare listens this closely at all. LotSB floored me. They addressed so many things. So many things. But they actually make you go, "I wish this was the game."

Which kung fu will they listen to? I'd use both so they could escape neither. I'd probably tell BioWare story is combat.

A satisfying battle is one you are intensely emotionally invested in. I believe combat is tied into the psyche, and videogames should reflect that. Battle is about struggle and struggle is about story. Why divorce the two?

[Jonathan Shepard]

Do we truly perceive everyone who criticizes the game as a hater?



No. I criticize ME2 all the time. And God, I love this game so much.



Is BioWare going to let sales results justify its decisions? Or does it actually listen to the disappointment threads?

BioWare listens. Just look at LotSB. Perfect DLC. Well... close enough, anyway.



Can every criticism be tossed up to ME1 nostalgia? Are the days of constructive criticism gone?



Nope. People like myself, Shandepared, Pacifen, The Angry One, and a bunch of others have been extremely constructive and critical. smudboy's closer to critical, but he too has some great points.



Why do people say “If you didn’t like it, don’t play it”?



Because they're not die-hard fans and/or don't feel like explaining issues they've already explained in their heads and to other forumites a dozen times.

[cachx]

Nightwriter wrote...
Okay so tell me: what did you enjoy about ME2's story? And "story" refers to the Collectors here, rather than the characters.

"tell me all the parts you liked except for the parts you liked."
I pretty much played 2 or 3 days non-stop when me2 first came out.

I went through the opening scenes, then Martin Sheen is talking to me, I got a big smile when Tali first came up, I cheered when Garrus reveals himself, I jumped happily between recruitments and later loyalties. I didn't miss a single conversation on the normandy, I kept hitting "investigate" dialogue options  to hear more about anything, I didn't miss a single interrupt, I laughed at every joke, every ME1 reference earned a "that was so cool". I took the team through the SM, possibly one of the best sequences in videogame story, finished the game. Loved it.

Do I feel the Collectors needed more characterization? Yes.
Did the prothean reveal fell flat on it's face? Yes.
Did that reduced my enjoyment of the game? NO. 

[Haventh]

 If people are purely negative, with little reason behind their dislike, and repeat this patter often, i think "is this person for real?". I have no interested in discussing, in fact i have no interest in reading post of people who can't write anything constructive, this is the reason why i don't spend my time on forums, i am tired of people who can't write anything cosntructive and are 100% negative.

I love Mass Effect 2, i love the majority of the game, but there are also things i don't like (which i won't get into, since it isn't the purpose of the thread).

Modifié par Haventh, 27 octobre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
I think someone does need to state that it's pretty damn amazing and incredible that BioWare listens this closely at all. LotSB floored me. They addressed so many things. So many things. But they actually make you go, "I wish this was the game."

Which kung fu will they listen to? I'd use both so they could escape neither. I'd probably tell BioWare story is combat.

A satisfying battle is one you are intensely emotionally invested in. I believe combat is tied into the psyche, and videogames should reflect that. Battle is about struggle and struggle is about story. Why divorce the two?

Thing about DLC is that a good deal of their development was made after the initial game. While we knew there was supposed to be a twelfth squadmate named Kasumi and people found the cut dialogue for Liara and the Shadow Broker, the effort put into the design of their stories and their gameplay is done after the developers started getting feedback from players on the main game itself. We might wish they had been a part of the main game, but the truth is that they would have been fundamentally different had they been designed and released at the same time as the rest of the game.

Part of the problem I have with criticism about ME2 is that it doesn't take into account that the main game is done, it's over. Developers are not going to go back and fix issues people had with Jacob's loyalty mission. Conrad Vernor is never going to be fixed. What people want in ME2 is wishes and horses. All criticism now can only affect DLC and the development of ME3 itself. Every time a DLC comes out and people go "now why wasn't that in the main game" isn't taking the time to realize that it is their feedback of the main game that made the DLC as good as it is.

Anyway, I think my combat statement might have been misunderstood as I don't recall mentioning the emotional investment involved with battle. It's really just a comment that some people can really like a change about ME2 while others yearn for the return of ME1 -- it's a situation where saying "why don't they just design something they BOTH like" is a little bit of a... wishful... thinking... thing.

[gadna13]

Therion942 wrote...


The problems I have with the things that are "fixed" you bring up, is that they are things that should have been in the primary game in the first place, while I thoroughly enjoyed the DLC and the "fixes" they brought, there is always going to be a niggle in the back of my mind that essentially says "Hmm, did I just get suckered into paying $10 for exposition"

Just feels... wrong, I'm not saying it is wrong, BioWare exists to make money as I said before. Maybe not wrong, perhaps disengenuous.

I understand that your opinion is that these things should have been in the game in the first place (I completely agree witht that too, should have been more squad banter) but saying you got suckered in paying $10 doesn't make too much sense to me. Bioware obviously listened to our complaints and added many things people wanted in the DLC. Just because I feel like more of it should have been in the game previous to DLC, I don't feel like Bioware excluded these things just so I would buy future DLC and spend more money. I feel like they overlooked certain things they didn't feel fans would care about, and when we complained about it, they decided to listen and try to give us what we wanted.

This fact leads me to believe many things people have been upset about will be changed in ME3 as we have seen in the DLC.

[Iakus]

gadna13 wrote...

I understand that your opinion is that these things should have been in the game in the first place (I completely agree witht that too, should have been more squad banter) but saying you got suckered in paying $10 doesn't make too much sense to me. Bioware obviously listened to our complaints and added many things people wanted in the DLC. Just because I feel like more of it should have been in the game previous to DLC, I don't feel like Bioware excluded these things just so I would buy future DLC and spend more money. I feel like they overlooked certain things they didn't feel fans would care about, and when we complained about it, they decided to listen and try to give us what we wanted.

This fact leads me to believe many things people have been upset about will be changed in ME3 as we have seen in the DLC.

I think it's less a question of being "suckered" so much as wondering why this was left out to begin with.  Great though these features are, they only exist within the DLC that provided it.  Why couldn't we have more of this stuff in the regular game?   Bioware is usually way more story-concious than this.  What went wrong? And worst of all, could it happen again in ME 3?

See, I like Bioware and its products.  Just not this product

Modifié par iakus, 27 octobre 2010 - 01:35 .

[Nightwriter]

Well, I don't really consider the characters part of the story, cachx. Maybe that's the problem, when people say they liked the story they really mean they liked the characters, we're arguing about two totally separate things and don't even know it.

But, Pacifien... well... why couldn't they just give us both? I thought ME1 did that. I guess I'd like someone to explain to me why ME1's combat was so bad, I've got no idea why it's treated like torture.

[mopotter]

Nightwriter wrote...

cachx wrote...

I can only speculate. I was part of the "industry" for a brief time, and I got to see a lot of stuff that goes behind the scenes during game production. My guess would be that they do pay attention, but "hardcore fans" are only a very small portion of all the stuff they need to consider. That's why I tend to get angry with people that seems to believe that a game gets put together by magical creatures, ponies and wishes of little children. Or with people that just come up with idiotic statements like "you only care about the money!"

I like to hope BioWare cares about more than money. I've always sort of gotten the impression they do. I've always loved them for it. ... Am I naive?

I don't think so.  I agree with you.   As one who took a pay cut and lost 4 weeks vacation to take a job I enjoy, I've always gotten the impression they also enjoy their jobs, and while money pays the bills, if your working somewhere you hate, doing something you dread then money isn't worth it and you'll probably die before you can retire.  Like any job, I'm sure they have bad days, but if they are all doing this just for the money, they have my deepest sympathy.   

The whole "if you didn't like it, don't play it" reminds me of too many political statements.  I try not to use it, but probably have.  

Personally what I get tired of are the personal jabs to people they disagree with and general rudeness, on either side of the equation.  And I don't think there is a lot of that, just a few who show up often. 

But on the other hand, I had some serious problems with DA ending options, ranted a lot.    I did stop playing it for quite a while.  But even at my worst, I think I was polite, though maybe not.  
 

[Collider]

Nightwriter wrote...
 I guess I'd like someone to explain to me why ME1's combat was so bad, I've got no idea why it's treated like torture.

Clunky controls, glitches, and imbalances.
One of the reasons why it's particularly noticeable for people is that they've played other shooters, as I have, and compared to them ME1 is poorly designed.

[Nightwriter]

Clunky? What was clunky about it?

mopotter, I don't really think you're in the minority about the end choices of DA:O.

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
But, Pacifien... well... why couldn't they just give us both? I thought ME1 did that. I guess I'd like someone to explain to me why ME1's combat was so bad, I've got no idea why it's treated like torture.

I think that's really a better question to ask the people in the strategy forum as it could sustain a lengthy thread on its own.

[mopotter]

Mesina2 wrote...

BTW when I play ME1 again I'm incredibly BORED.
Why?
Gameplay suffers few technical problems and is slow while I already know whole ME1 plot.
While in ME2 gameplay is very good and fast paced and even though I know ME2 story I don't get game boring.


I have 7 Shepard's, all imported from ME1( only 1 has edited ME2 face) with all classes while 2 of them are Soldiers( since my canon Shep uses Widow and I wanted to see how Revenant is like), 10 ME1 playtrough's and 15 ME2 playtrough's.

Just in case you think I'm shootem'up type gamer only.

 and I'm not bored.  I have 6 current Shepards also imported, but those are just the 6 I kept.  I'm been playing since it first came out and I've trashed more finished games than I've kept.  

I enjoy playing ME1 much more than ME2.  I like ME2, it's fun.  But the only Shepards I'm going to have are the ones I've transferred.  If some awful thing happend and I hated ME3, I would continue to play ME1.  I might play ME2.    

Trying to bring this back, ---  I can sort of understand how someone who loves the game play would tell me - if I don't like it, don't play it -- but that's saying I can only enjoy it if I enjoy it their way and negates the idea that for me the story and all over feeling of the game is more important even if I do enjoy the game.

[mopotter]

Mesina2 wrote...

^ME3 will have both.

This would be nice.

[cachx]

Nightwriter wrote...
Well, I don't really consider the characters part of the story, cachx. Maybe that's the problem, when people say they liked the story they really mean they liked the characters, we're arguing about two totally separate things and don't even know it.

Well, I guess that's a valid point. I can only speak for myself here. I guess I considered every character as a "mini-plot" of sorts, and I really didn't felt the need of having them united quite so tightly as some people expected. What I'm trying to say is that I enjoyed every little moment of it and when it was over I was happy with the results.
I guess the fact that I never ranked ME1 so highly as other people is also a factor. And not only speaking of gameplay, I could get into details, but I don't wish to be booed out of the forums right now.

I thought ME1 did that. I guess I'd like someone to explain to me why ME1's combat was so bad, I've got no idea why it's treated like torture.

That could take a lot of time to respond, and I'm not sure it belongs in this thread. But it was not really about combat alone (that I would rank as amateurish compared to other games of the same time, but still passable).It was more about the really clunky inventory and UI, the Mako and the technical side of things (slow load times, overall feeling of "heavyness", etc).

[Terror_K]

I complain about ME2 more because I loved ME1 than because I hated ME2. I just hated the overall direction BioWare took with ME2 and the way they went about it, and I continue to tell them this in hopes that they'll bring back what was lost in the transition. I don't want them to go backwards and make it all like ME1 again, I just want them to bring back many of the factors that ME1 brought to the table. Overall I feel ME2 failed to fix the issues at all in its approach, since it instead tended to simple avoid the issues by completely redesigning everything and giving us new problems instead, and ones I feel are generally far worse than the ones in ME1, mainly because ME1's issues to be were bad execution of a good concept while many of ME2's issues are things I feel are bad concepts overall and should never have been implemented. Also, I just personally don't think Christina Norman is a very good lead game designer, at least not for Mass Effect. I don't like her attitude and way of going about things and "solving" problems. She embraces oversimplicity too much, IMO.

[mopotter]

cachx wrote...


Considering the whole package, ME2 is my pick for Game of the Year (even though RDR will probably get all the awards anyway), and I'm sure I'm not alone on that sentiment. (cue a bitter and angry person saying that all 'pro' critics in existence were bought by EA).

This thread is actually really good, by the way <3

Mine too.  I do and probably always will, enjoy ME1 more than ME2, but I have a very limited number of games that I play and haven't bought, and kept, anything since ME2 came out, so ME2  would definitely be my choice for game of the year.

[Pocketgb]

Nightwriter wrote...
And I want to know: how seriously does BioWare and the Mass Effect community take those people who were really disappointed with ME2?

You probably could've said the same thing to those disappointed with ME1.

And in this case, if I had to make a guess, I'd say it's "serious".

Much of what they've done for ME2 - for better or worse - has been in response to many fan criticisms raised in response to ME1. I'd expect no different a treatment for ME3.

It's not like they're doing it to 'make deh monies', either. Two things clash against this: 1. They'd do a better job of that if they cut 90% of the dialog and 2. Dragon Age was an awesome success.

Nightwriter wrote...
Why do people say “If you didn’t like it, don’t play it”?

They're ignorant jerk-offs, dude. Simply put. Don't try to comprehend the stupid.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 27 octobre 2010 - 02:41 .