174 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Nightwriter wrote...
More importantly, the game does not play as though the goal is to gather allies, and whatever ally gathering you do get done on the side gives you no sense of accomplishment from the game overall.

Umm, it's based entirely around recruiting and loyalty missions.  The topic comes up constantly in conversations with TIM, Joker, Miranda, Kelly, etc.  The Collector events are set up as intrusions, things that forcibly derail the team-building process.   How does it not play that way? 

And, I can easily say that yeah, seeing my team, the team that is mine, every last one  of 'em alive, cohesive, and ready for whatever came next after I'd led them through a wildly successful improvised assault to total victory gave me a sense of overall accomplishment. And I gave a crap about every one of them because I knew them and had done all sorts of crazy stuff with them and for them throughout the galaxy.  Well, except for my stupid fish, which I'd already replaced by the time Miss Scale Itch finally started doing something useful.  And Jacob.


ETA: OK, I misread the sense of "ally" you were using, but regardless, the point about a sense of accomplishment still stands.

Modifié par didymos1120, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:49 .

[Nashiktal]

A rather hollow accomplishment considering how little you actually did. Killing a baby reaper has its own merits, but how much closer are you to stopping the reapers? Keeping the base will do little if the galaxy isnt prepared for war.

[BoogieManFL]

I think both games have their pros and cons..



Ammo sucks, I'd rather deal with a slightly more friendly heat system like ME1.

Or better yet, combine the two. Thermal clips cool down and you get more shots if you don't shoot like a madman. You need only eject them when they get really hot from excessive firing. Then you lose overall shots. This would make the concept of them being thermal clips feasible. It's clearly just ammo now in ME2.



Not a lot of side missions in ME2. The game is like 80% companion related.

ME1 felt larger and more expansive, and more free. ME2 feels more enclosed and linear.



Planet Scanning isn't horrible.. Not great. I think it should still be an option, but provide other productive ways of getting resources. Combine it with vehicle exploration.



Mako: Was a pain at times and overall got tedious, but I enjoyed the exploration aspect and seeing the terrain, the planets/star in the sky and such. Just not so much of it and it'd be good. Replace it with a Firewalker for ME3. I liked the weapons on the Mako much better. The pea shooter rocket of the firewalker sucks and makes you stay in enemy fire longer since it takes so many shots to do damage. Also, it's about as durable as a butterfly.



The combat system in ME2 relies, 100%, on cover and I think that is extremely lame. You can get killed so easily it's a must. Toughen up the player and companions so we can have more varied combat areas that aren't conveniently dotted with crates and all nonsense.



I dislike the difficulty being just enemies are insanely durable, and you're a wet paper bag. Give us more enemies, ambushes and other creative things..



I could go on but those are what first come to mind.

[Teknor]

BoogieManFL wrote...

The combat system in ME2 relies, 100%, on cover and I think that is extremely lame. You can get killed so easily it's a must. Toughen up the player and companions so we can have more varied combat areas that aren't conveniently dotted with crates and all nonsense.

Realistic squad combat relies on cover, what else did you expect ? Artillery strikes, siegecraft and trench warfare ?

[Da_Lion_Man]

ME2 just doesn't have the magic ME1 had. I'm not saying ME1 was flawless or was the pinnacle of gaming but I still like it much more than ME2. The storyline for one was much better in the first game, a bit cliché but it was still interesting and fun. The fact that it's the second instalment in a trilogy shouldn't be an excuse, there are tons of games out there that improve on the original in every way. Some that come to mind are God of War II and Uncharted 2.



Despite what the majority says, I also miss the exploration, inventory and the modding of weapons. There was room for improvement but they should not have completely removed all of that. That is just taking the easy way out and it ruins the feel of the game for me, but only slightly.



The music of ME1 was also much better, it worked and it was nice to listen to. ME2's sounded like Jack Wall wanted to copy Hans Zimmer and I really dislike it when componists do that...



ME2 does some things right like the characters and the shooting is improved over ME1. But overall it's inferior to ME1 if you ask me.



/Opinion.

[didymos1120]

Nashiktal wrote...

A rather hollow accomplishment considering how little you actually did. Killing a baby reaper has its own merits, but how much closer are you to stopping the reapers? Keeping the base will do little if the galaxy isnt prepared for war.

Yes, well, your criteria aren't my criteria.  It was worth doing, even if it doesn't win the war.

[SithLordExarKun]

The Spamming Troll wrote...


things like ME1s background related quests like the mindoir survivor or calling your mother. those small things made shepard personable.

They barely give shepard any personality.

[The Smoking Man]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...


things like ME1s background related quests like the mindoir survivor or calling your mother. those small things made shepard personable.

They barely give shepard any personality.

Yeah, that's supposed to be your job.

[DylanZeppelin]

You know, I have always said that I liked ME1 more than 2 previously and like many, posted about  that in detail, but going back now and playing ME1 (I did yeaterday) I couldn't help but fall in love again, there was so much that I have forgot about playing ME2 , now don't get me wrong I love ME2, I just love ME1 much more (reasons known and mentioned before by me or others), but I was away from ME1 for some time that I actually forgot the magic and beauty of that game.

One thing I noticed though are the character builds, I forgot how they played a big part in your character customization in comparision to ME2, it was much more technical and of coarse affected the gameplay (taking an Infiltrator with AI hacking build on insanity), people keep saying that the combat is better in ME2, but to be honest I never had a problem with it (PC version), but then again thats just my opinion. Hopefully ME3 will triumph both games.

I am not going to mention everything in detail as I and others have done so previously, even on this thread people gave a lot of good points but I just wanted to share that feeling I was reminded of playing ME1

Modifié par DylanZeppelin, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:28 .

[SithLordExarKun]

The Smoking Man wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...


things like ME1s background related quests like the mindoir survivor or calling your mother. those small things made shepard personable.

They barely give shepard any personality.

Yeah, that's supposed to be your job.

Yeah and i suppose 3 dialogue options equate to great character development. Shepard isn't our character like the warden is. Like it or not its bioware's character.

Seriously, do you have the option to defy cerberus despite being forced to work for them after getting your ship blowed up? Everyone in that situation would break in some way and Shepard showing absolutely no reaction to that makes her look like a plastic character.

[BoogieManFL]

Teknor wrote...

BoogieManFL wrote...

The combat system in ME2 relies, 100%, on cover and I think that is extremely lame. You can get killed so easily it's a must. Toughen up the player and companions so we can have more varied combat areas that aren't conveniently dotted with crates and all nonsense.

Realistic squad combat relies on cover, what else did you expect ? Artillery strikes, siegecraft and trench warfare ?

I don't care about realism as much as I care about fun gameplay. You know when enemies are going to attack you the moment you see crates and chest-high walls scattered around a room. There is never surprise, and it's always exactly the same. Take some shots, duck down, reload, take shots. It leaves little room for variation in where you fight and what the environment is like.

[didymos1120]

BoogieManFL wrote...

I don't care about realism as much as I care about fun gameplay. You know when enemies are going to attack you the moment you see crates and chest-high walls scattered around a room.

"[C]hest-high walls are the key to victory."

Modifié par didymos1120, 03 janvier 2011 - 05:12 .

[levannar]

I see some really good points have been stated on both sides so far. I approve of this thread--it's one of the few civil pro/con discussions I've seen so far on the boards.

I'd like to address only one of the concerns about ME2: the one about the lack of real options that would be relevant to the gameplay. What I'd like to say in the game's defence is that, like the OP stated, being the middle part of a trilogy has some unfortunate downsides regarding the plot. Please hear me out before posting how that point can be argued--I've read through the thread and like I said, you've all made some excellent points. I'd like to explore this issue from a different angle.

The thing is, comparing Mass Effect to Star Wars, LOTR or any other book or movie trilogy is rather pointless, simply because unlike these, ME is interactive. There are only so many possible outcomes you can stuff into the game,.and their number rises exponentially with each new decision the developers put in. I won't elaborate on this further as I'm sure you all know what I mean and are going 'well, duh' right now.

The point I'm getting at is that unlike with the middle part of a book, movie or even a non-decision-based game trilogy, the middle part of the Mass Effect trilogy has to handle what is an issue for an RPG: it needs to keep the number of possible outcomes down. The devs can't have each decision you made back in ME1 drastically change the events of ME2--if they did, the many subtly different possible plotlines and outcomes would be impossible to handle in ME3. Imagine the plot as a tree--it starts out from the root, but as you go higher you eventually lose count of all the little branches.The same thing was going on in ME1: you didn't get to significantly change the outcome of the game with your decisions, for this very same reason.

ME2 didn't make me lose faith in Bioware--what happens to that faith will be determined by ME3, the only part of the trilogy that can go wild because it doesn't have to worry about a next installment. Warning: the following is pure speculation on my part, and my personal opinion. I do not present it as fact.

I say those 700 variables in your imported save file won't go to waste. What you saw in ME2--the emails, cameos, etc--were like a shout from the devs, a sign saying 'Yes, we still remember what you did. We didn't forget that you killed/saved the Rachni queen, killed/saved the Council, and so on. Don't worry, these decisions are not lost, they carry on to ME3.' Those things are there to help you remember all that happened and that IMO is going to matter in ME3--storytelling-wise, it wouldn't make sense any other way. Even though I said it didn't make sense to compare ME to any of the aforementioned great franchises, LOTR comes to mind--more precisely, one of the interviews about the Two Towers movie where they talked about how they had to include Arwen so that the audience wouldn't forget about her by the time she appears in The Return of the King. I feel something similar about ME2.

I won't say this is satisfactory, or that having our decisions alter the game we're playing wouldn't be beyond awesome, but sadly we have to take into account what is physically possible for the devs to achieve. Not even DA:O delivered fully what you say is missing from ME2, and they were working on that for what, six years? Unfortunately, the most an RPG can provide currently is the illusion of decisions. I seriously hope that the more freedom the writers have in ME3 will allow for a far less linear game with many possible conclusions. This is what I'm going to expect unless I'm proven wrong.

Anyway, this is how I see this particular issue. Everyone who bothered to read this mile-long post (I can't seem to make a point without writing an entire essay apparently) is free to disagree and raise arguments. I just hope I provided a new or at least less common viewpoint and perhaps something to think about.

[Nightwriter]

didymos1120 wrote...

ETA: OK, I misread the sense of "ally" you were using, but regardless, the point about a sense of accomplishment still stands.

*nods emphatically to the first part*

*... furrows brow in confusion at the second part*

Modifié par Nightwriter, 03 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[didymos1120]

Nightwriter wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

ETA: OK, I misread the sense of "ally" you were using, but regardless, the point about a sense of accomplishment still stands.

*nods emphatically to the first part*

*... furrows brow at the second part*

You had raised the question of whether we were supposed to get a sense of accomplishment from ME2.  So, while I didn't get your meaning on the ally deal, I still say there is a sense of accomplishment to be had in building that team and seeing them through the SM intact.  It may not have worked for you as well as it did for me, but I think it's hard to argue that wasn't the intention. 

I do think upping the difficulty of the fights a bit (another praetorian fight in those confines would have been a nice "OH CRAP" moment.  For real evilness, they could have hit us with two) as well as making it trickier to keep everyone alive, and adding in something like the potential (or even inevitability) for some squad members to be injured on the way and become unusable would have made the "total victory" path sweeter, but I think it basically works for me and a lot of other people as it is.  And let's face it: ME1's final battle with Robospectre could have used some help too.

[Nightwriter]

Ah, I see. There is no argument that we were intended to get satisfaction from our game, and that that game was about building a team.

To the rest... I suppose my response is that building a team is more than just recruiting people. I picked up characters, and I made them loyal to me, but I never got a sense that I made them care about each other or my mission. This is probably only due to how little screen time the mission gets.

The sense of accomplishment I refer to doesn't come from the difficulty of the final battle, but in the plot nature of that battle and everything that led up to it.

[hawat333]

"and a universe shaped solely on your decisions makes an RPG what it is supposed to be."

And

"The sole purpose of ME2 was to set up your playthrough for the ultimate conclusion of the trilogy."



Both sentences have a point, and that's my only problem with ME2. It should have be more RPG like as a sole episode too. Too few decisions on a larger scale.



On the other hand, we can never know the consequences of minor decisions until we meet them.

So when ME3 is released will we know the answer.

[Stephanis_mirabar]

sumoaltus wrote...

I honestly have to reiterate this point again. For some reason the "plot" is still being called sub-par and weak. Again, this is a middle of the road point in a trilogy, this is the filler story within the three titles.

The role of "filler" is to add length without actually advancing the main story.  By referring to ME2's story as such you basically admit the game did nothing to advance the overall story.  This is one of the more widely cited points of dissatisfaction with the game.

Pick your favorite trilogy.  Did the second part of it advance the story?  Or develop the characters that were introduced in the opening act?  ME2 didn't really accomplish any of those.

At the end of ME1 you have a state of the art ship, a crew of elite warriors, and have delayed the Reaper invasion.
At the end of ME2 you have a state of the art ship, a crew of elite warriors, and might have delayed the Reaper's plans, but you're not really sure.

Not only do you seem no closer to stopping the Reapers, but it feels like you're exactly where you were at the end of the first game, which is why I feel it fails as a sequel.

[didymos1120]

Nightwriter wrote...
The sense of accomplishment I refer to doesn't come from the difficulty of the final battle, but in the plot nature of that battle and everything that led up to it.

Yeah, but I'm saying that by upping the difficulty of the fight, sticking you with out-of-the-fight wounded, etc. it would help you feel even more like you'd led your team through a hell of battle, and there'd be much more a "We kicked their asses!" vibe.  Or if it almost got away from you, a "Damn.  That was crazy, but I got 'em all out and I still won." feeling.  That would color your perception of all the stuff you had to do to get them there in the first place and, ideally, make all those strange, personal adventures seem worth the effort.  I mean, that was the conceit: this was gonna be tough, and you needed these guys, as many as you could get, to stand a chance. 

And for myself, it doesn't really matter that the long-run value of the mission is uncertain.  I actually rather like that aspect of it.  It's not always clear that today's fight will truly matter to the big picture. But you still did something good by stopping the Collectors right here and now, you still scored another victory against the enemy, and the Big Huge Looming Problem can and will be dealt with some other day.  Today, however, a winner was you and everybody gets at least a chance to go home, or find one, as the case may be.  Works for me.

Modifié par didymos1120, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:44 .

[Lee337]

I just missed the crouch from ME1 when I played ME2. Moving round the outside of a wasit height square shape cover object required me to stand up to move to the next side and I died a few times doing that on Insanity! That's my only complaint, as far as I'm concerned with the story, since it's a trilogy I will wait for part 3 before I start saying part 2 was pointless. The weapon system didn't bother me in either game, as long as my gun fired it was all good.

[Nightwriter]

didymos1120 wrote...

Yeah, but I'm saying that by upping the difficulty of the fight, sticking you with out-of-the-fight wounded, etc. it would help you feel even more like you'd led your team through a hell of battle, and there'd be much more a "We kicked their asses!" vibe.  Or if it almost got away from you, a "Damn.  That was crazy, but I got 'em all out and I still won." feeling.  That would color your perception of all the stuff you had to do to get them there in the first place and, ideally, make all those strange, personal adventures seem worth the effort.  I mean, that was the conceit: this was gonna be tough, and you needed these guys, as many as you could get, to stand a chance. 

I understand. This would've been a big improvement. It wouldn't have cured everything that bothered me about the game, but if the final fight had been a titanic and rewarding effort like you describe I think it might have overshadowed all else and redeemed my game experience.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Ah, I see. There is no argument that we were intended to get satisfaction from our game, and that that game was about building a team.

To the rest... I suppose my response is that building a team is more than just recruiting people. I picked up characters, and I made them loyal to me, but I never got a sense that I made them care about each other or my mission. This is probably only due to how little screen time the mission gets.

The sense of accomplishment I refer to doesn't come from the difficulty of the final battle, but in the plot nature of that battle and everything that led up to it.

Bolded for truth.

Building a team without teambuilding.  Fighting the Collectors by shooting mercs. Good characters, good mission, but nothing holds the game together beyond the hope for answers in ME 3.

[Fiery Phoenix]

iakus wrote...

Building a team without teambuilding.  Fighting the Collectors by shooting mercs. Good characters, good mission, but nothing holds the game together beyond the hope for answers in ME 3.

I think Smudboy put it perfectly well when he said it once: "Great characters in the wrong story."

[albertalad]

ME1 to me signified the scope and grandeur of space itself. Here the Mako on various planetary excursions one could look up and see the vastness of space and time - the isolation, the magnificence of just being there experiencing exactly what space looks like from here on earth. You also experienced other races who were present on the universe before mankind left their caves - throughly thought provoking. How beautiful planets were despite their extremes - and sometimes you really wanted to see something green again - a living planet populated by people.



Perhaps that scale of vastness made my companions seems so much closer to me - I wanted to know them. Furthermore, Saren was a great character - a worthy foe - with a real Reaper worthy of fighting. You experienced the harshness of command especially on Vermire from both species who were willing top lay down their lives side by side - its always a hard blow to have to sacrifice your own companion - you don't forget that call. At the same time both Ashley and Liara were far more real - and who felt competition between them.



Whereas ME2 lacked all of the above - its only purpose appeared to be adding more bodies for a wimpy battle of no feeling of accomplishment what-so-ever. Most you never wanted to have anything to do with any of them ever again. To me is all seemed to be and ad-hoc storyline with common criminal gangs as your target through the entire ME2. The Collectors were bit player added on to the end.



I am currently replaying ME1 again and its amazing all over again - everything that ME2 is NOT!

[Nightwriter]

Do you really dislike the ME2 characters that much, al? I hold them in great affection. Each one seems inactive for 90% of the game, and they are not connected well to the plot or each other, but the characters themselves I thought were very well done.