204 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

candidate88766 wrote...

From reading a comment a couple of posts above which mentions that ME2 is the more 'mainstream' game, is that the real reason that some of you don't seem to like it that much? Simply because you view it as more mainstream? Like virtually any band that makes a sudden breakthrough into the market, the 'original' fans will often accuse them of 'selling out' simply because they're no longer the only person in their social circle who's heard of them. Based on a lot of comments on these forums (not necessarily this thread) there are plenty of people hating on ME2 seemingly out of jealousy (probably not the best word) of the fact that their favoured franchise has suddenly become rather well known. Admittedly not known to the level of games like CoD, but still.

No, that would be quite foolish. And with that assumption you seem to imply that the games or music didn't change at all, so that actually there would be no reason for the original fans not to enjoy them anymore, which of course is simply not true. I for one dislike the changes in ME 2 not because they make the game more popular with the mainstream, but for the simple reason that they make the game more shallow and simple and less atmospheric and diverse, and therefore less enjoyable to me. If games like ME 1 and DA would sell (even) better, I would have nothing against that at all.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 février 2011 - 01:54 .

[crazyrabbits]

bjdbwea wrote...

No one questions that a movie or a game that focuses on characters and how they work together as a group can work and be interesting. There is more than one movie that shows this, and games too. BG 2 for example, DA, or even ME 1. The problem with ME 2 is not the idea, but the execution. It tries to focus on the characters, but it fails.

First of all, film and video games are two different mediums. One is a straight piece of work that has to be watched, start to finish, without any deviation or choice in the narrative. A video game can be changed by actions or decisions during the course of the game, which lends itself to a much deeper, immersive and replayable experience.

Is ME2 supposed to be the same as Seven Samurai? No. It was never supposed to be, I would argue. Trying to code a group of characters (12 in all) that roam over the ship and interact with each other in between missions would likely be a time-intensive process and coding nightmare. There is no game that I know of that uses a process where the supporting cast is integrated into the story at this level. Perhaps in the future, but not as it currently stands.

Because every companion only exists in their own small world. They only
come to life during their recruitment and loyalty quests. They don't
care about their companions. They don't talk with each other, they don't
work together. They don't care about the main mission. They have no
opinions. And there's too little dialogue between them and Shepard, even
less if they aren't romanced.

Anyone who argues this either hasn't played it fully or ignored most of the cues over the course of the game. I would argue that ME2 is much more interactive, from a purely character-to-character standpoint, than the original. You can visit them after each loyalty mission to unlock new conversations and character options, during which time they talk about their thoughts on the main mission. Taking certain combinations of characters to different planets will result in unique conversations between squadmates (Grunt and Mordin on Tuchanka, Garrus and Tali on Ilium, etc). In ME1, the conversations were largely relegated to cutscenes and elevator rides.  The sequel uses a much more involved process of characterization that forces the player to go and visit their teammates often, building a level of trust that speaks to the concept of loyalty.

Between their comments, the in-game cutscenes and the between-mission banter, I'm fairly sure that each squadmate gets at least a good half-hour of dialogue, if not much more.

As for the concept of "teamwork", the squadmates work well enough together. To ask Bioware to have them bark commands at each other and move in tandem against other groups of enemies attacking on a per-unit basis is a whole other matter altogether.

Modifié par crazyrabbits, 05 février 2011 - 02:04 .

[ianmcdonald]

bjdbwea wrote...

No, that would be quite foolish. And with that assumption you seem to imply that the games or music didn't change at all, so that actually there would be no reason for the original fans not to enjoy them anymore, which of course is simply not true. I for one dislike the changes in ME 2 not because they make the game more popular with the mainstream, but for the simple reason that they make the game more shallow and simple and less atmospheric and diverse, and therefore less enjoyable to me. If games like ME 1 and DA would sell (even) better, I would have nothing against that at all.

Gameplay-wise yes. The action sequences play more like a blockbuster shooter than an RPG.

As far as settings go, I couldn't disagree with you more. Every uncharted world sidequest felt exactly the same except for the planet's climate. Snowy planet, volcanic planet, rocky/desert planet, grassy planet, repeat. There were even less variations on enemy bases. Each world in the second game had much more of a unique identity. Very few planets in ME2 felt remotely similar (to me, anyway). Also, the second game was much dirtier and grimier. It largly took place in the Terminus systems and the locations actually felt seedy and dangerous, as opposed to the reletively bright locales of the first game.

[bjdbwea]

ianmcdonald wrote...

As far as settings go, I couldn't disagree with you more. Every uncharted world sidequest felt exactly the same except for the planet's climate. Snowy planet, volcanic planet, rocky/desert planet, grassy planet, repeat. There were even less variations on enemy bases. Each world in the second game had much more of a unique identity. Very few planets in ME2 felt remotely similar (to me, anyway). Also, the second game was much dirtier and grimier. It largly took place in the Terminus systems and the locations actually felt seedy and dangerous, as opposed to the reletively bright locales of the first game.

I agree that hand-crafted levels are good. But the planet exploration should not have been cut out completely. I liked the Mako, and I liked that the planets in ME 1 weren't unrealistically filled with "cool" stuff behind every corner. Ideally, we should have been able to explore planets like in ME 1, and the actual mission should have taken place in unique levels like in ME 2. If anyone wants to skip the planet exploration, a simple option for that would have been sufficient to please almost everyone.

I disagree with your opinion about the actual side quests in ME 2. I found most of them very boring and shallow. What good does a hand-crafted level, if the actual things to do there are just walking from A to B and hacking two terminals? Or clicking a button several times to feed a mech with batteries? If I had to choose between that or generic levels that at least offer interaction with NPCs and actual choices, then I would always choose the latter.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 février 2011 - 02:24 .

[M.AlphaShadow]

damn those vids are nitpicky...all I got from those vids was this was wrong, that was wrong and not a lot of how you would go about fixing things. He picks on the genophage, about how it's not a sterility plague but he doesn't give a proper term to call it.



Don't get me wrong I'm all for critiques and review but the point of those terms is to not only point out flaws but also point out way to improve and I'm sorry those vids don't offer improvement tips at all.