152 réponses à ce sujet

[Ramirez Wolfen]

I don't know about ME2 ruining the series, but I do admit it kind of annoyed how 80% of the game was Loyalty/Recruitment missions. I know you can skip them, but there should have been more than that.

[JeanLuc761]

I personally disagree in almost all respects. I'm a huge fan of both games and I'm actually quite content with the direction they took Mass Effect 2, even if it wasn't what I was expecting. The decision to focus the story on the characters rather than the Reapers was an extremely welcome for me, as it allowed me to connect to my squadmates even more than I could in the first game.

As for your points, let me respond to them directly:
1) Mass Effect 2 started the series over.

No it didn't, it simply took the series in an unexpected direction. It absolutely continued the story, but it was more focused on the personal aspect of the upcoming war (something that I imagine will be very important to players in Mass Effect 3, assuming the squadmates remain the same). It also allowed for the expansion of multiple important substories (geth/quarian conflict, genophage, etc) that were touched upon in Mass Effect 1, but were brought strongly to attention in Mass Effect 2.

2) Everyone abandons Shepard after he dies and nobody believes the Reapers are a threat.

- With the exception of the idiot Council, this one is flat-out wrong. Every single person on the Normandy SR-2 knows the Reapers are real, and they know that the Collectors are agents of the Reapers. Your squadmates from ME1 are intelligent enough to remember the coming threat as well, even if Wrex and the Virmire Survivor never directly say it.


Now, Mass Effect 2 wasn't perfect. I desperately wanted more squad interaction (everything felt disjointed in that respect), the plot points dealing with the Reapers were competent, but nowhere near the level of tension that the first game gave, and the combat, while improved, still needs some refining.

Beyond that, I think Mass Effect 2 was an incredible game. The characters were better written and even more believable than the first game, the combat was more intuitive and fluid, the "interrupts" was a very welcome addition to the conversation system, the visuals and sound design were heavily upgraded, and the story as a whole (squadmates included) was still a joyous and profound experience.

Mass Effect 2 wasn't what everyone expected...but I still think it's the best game I've played in a very, very long time.

Modifié par JeanLuc761, 21 janvier 2011 - 08:47 .

[Ramirez Wolfen]

LOLZ Also, I wished they didn't take away the grenades, ability to buy better armor and weapons, and upgrades.Bioware took away the RPG feel of it and almost turned it into a cover shooter. On the plus side, it's wicked fun to play.

[PrinceLionheart]

You're not the only one who feels that man, You should take a look at the "Characters were the Story" thread in the Mass Effect 2 discussion board.



In my opinion, ME2 didn't really start the story over, it just didn't really advance it either. Plot-wise, it felt more like an "Expansion Pack" than a true sequel. We learn that The Reapers turned the Proteans into Collectors and they seem interested into doing the same to humans.



Other than that, save for a few side missions concerning the Krogan, Geth, and Quarians, we're exactly back to where the first game left off. The reapers are coming and we have to find some way to defeat. Although the big problem though is that unlike the first game, where you finally seemed to have Council's support, here they're back to playing dumb.



Mass Effect 2 was just too "New Player" friendly.

[JeanLuc761]

mangeo wrote...
I agree.....sorta..
Although dont you think that everything from Mass Effect 2 would have been better suited for the first game?

Not necessarily.  The first game had to serve a few different purposes:
1) Introduce the mythos of the Mass Effect universe.
2) Introduce the primary antagonist (and potential for secondary antagonists)
3) Introduce a cast of characters that will follow you through the trilogy.

The sequel was tasked with something different:
1) Continue the story, both overaching (Reapers) and personal (squadmates)
2) Introduce and eliminate the secondary antagonist (Collectors)
3) Leave the player feeling uncertain about final victory against the upcoming menace (Final scene)

The absolute best thing that Bioware could have (and should have) done would have been to introduce the Collectors in Mass Effect 1 so they didn't just come out of nowhere.  Think of the structure kind of like the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.

1st movie: Introduces characters, primary and secondary antagonist, and the workings of Middle Earth.
2nd movie: Continues the story on an extremely personal level, and elimination of the secondary antagonist (Saruman).
3rd movie: Finishes the story by uniting all the seemingly disjointed substories, and by eliminating the primary antagonist.

Mass Effect is following this structure almost to the letter so far, with a couple variations (secondary antagonist in ME1 being a fine example).  I won't fully judge Mass Effect 2's place in the complete story until I've played Mass Effect 3.  But so far...I'm pretty damn confident in how things are going.

Modifié par JeanLuc761, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:39 .

[JeanLuc761]

mangeo wrote...

All Bioware cares about is their wallets
so look forward to Gears of wa......Oh i mean Mass Effect 3.

And this analogy doesn't actually make all that much sense, when you think about it.  The ONLY thing Mass Effect shares with Gears of War is the fact that it has a cover-based combat system (even the first game had this).

Absolutely everything else is different.  Different art style, different (and better written) story and characters, different combat tactics.  The games are literally nothing alike.

[bjdbwea]

mangeo wrote...

Although dont you think that everything from Mass Effect 2 would have been better suited for the first game?

Yes, I think so. Sure, the graphics in ME 2 look better and run smoother, so in that regard of course it's more polished. And many people seem to prefer the combat in ME 2 over that in ME 1. But apart from that? ME 2 feels at times like the first game of a newly founded developer. Whereas ME 1 feels much more refined, deeper, more complex and of course better written, like a game from an experienced RPG developer that has learnt through experience.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 21 janvier 2011 - 10:00 .

[JeanLuc761]

mangeo wrote...

Just wait untill Mass Effect 3 comes out then.....

It will still be nothing like Gears of War

Gears of War is an entirely separate game, and a damn good one at that.  It celebrates the ludicriousness of the "meathead" stereotype, and combines that with a surprisingly compelling story and mildly endearing characters, all paired with the best third-person combat system I've ever seen. 

Mass Effect, on the other hand, is a throwback to the glory of '80s sci-fi with a dark and compelling story, extremely well writen and lovable characters, and many of the sci-fi tropes that make the genre succeed.  The very design of the game prevents it from becoming anything remotely similar to Gears of War.  As I said, the only thing they share is the combat system, and even then Mass Effect is different.

I'm not sure why you're so worried.

[JeanLuc761]

mangeo wrote...

Hope you like turd person shooters!

Mass Effect has ALWAYS been a hybrid of third person shooters and an RPG.  

Besides, why are we judging the game on the combat system? 

Did Mass Effect 2 still have the same great gameplay? Yes
Did Mass Effect 2 still have the great art design?  Yes
Did Mass Effect 2 still have some great writing?  Yes, though focused on characters this time.

[Execute]

I was annoyed at how there was no feeling of progression from ME1 to 2, but then again, I wasn't able to come up with a better way of continuing the story.They did do a great job with the game in my opinion, barring the lack of continuity and the small number of missions that were not side quests or for loyalty/recruitment. Jeanluc, you make very good counter points, and i agree with you.

[Alphyn]

mangeo wrote...

Hope you like turd person shooters!

I like how you diss third-person shooters dispite the fact that ME1 and 2 are just that with RPG elements.

[Alphyn]

mangeo wrote...

Did Mass Effect 2 have any respect for the first games story?   NO!

[JeanLuc761]

mangeo wrote...
-snip-
Did Mass Effect 2 have any respect for the first games story?   NO!

It absolutely did!

It expanded upon the universe introduced in the first game by not only giving us an entirely new part of the galaxy to explore, but also using the characters to bring substantial attention to some of the subplots introduced in the first game. 

In Mass Effect 2, we learned a great deal about the moral implications of the genophage project, and it was because of Mordin's very existence and the ability to travel to Tuchanga that we were allowed to do so.  We also learned an incredible amount about the quarians and the geth, thanks to Tali and Legion and our visit to the Flotilla.  We learned about the true fate of the Protheans.  We learned why the Reapers seek to exterminate all life.

Mass Effect 2 took a lot from the first game; I'd even argue it held the first game to a very high level of respect.

[TheMiroHa]

mangeo wrote...

Did Mass Effect 2 have any respect for the first games story?   NO!

That comment makes no sense, how come it didn't have any respect for the story of ME1? It followed the same plot and there weren't any conflicts with the stories and universes of the two games.

[JeanLuc761]

mangeo wrote...

It completely abandoned the 1'st game.

No it didn't.  Not even remotely.

The only questionable decision I can think of was the fact that the council are a bunch of idiots in Mass Effect 2, and even that was fairly well justified (Thank you Donnelly and Anderson!)

[H383]

mangeo wrote...

It completely abandoned the 1'st game.

The first game is over. Why would you want continue with it? Even if you could, it'd probably just be Citadel clean up duty.