309 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Terror_K wrote...

iakus wrote...
Then there's the new Miranda armor...

Though any progress that made was completely neutered by the fact that they didn't even give her a proper helmet to go with it in hazardous areas and she was stuck with the same retarded breathing mask she always had. Not to mention that despite many calls for "no face-obstructing things" after the first AAP, we still get silly visors and huds on her and the others.

It's funny how despite BioWare's claims of listening and saying that AAP2 came about because of what was said on the forums they completely miss the point with two major things. It's like they only quickly glance at the comments and pay no real attention. It was the same thing when they decided to release that ME2 Art Book on the store due to popular demand and completely missed the point that what fans were really calling for was a larger, more in-depth one along the lines of the original "Art of Mass Effect" book and not just a blown up version of the dinky CE one.

Let's be honest. Miranda's new outfit is the best there could have been done within the frame of ME2. Despite having to manually "undress" her now after missions (and, it is my understanding the new outfit is unavailable for the Freedom's Prrogress mission), she now must be at least not so immersion-breaking on non-space missions. And a full helmet would probably recquire a second head mesh. And I prefer that they concentrate on completing such complex tasks for ME3 now. Although, I think, a Lazarus Project on the ME1 inventory could save them a lot of trouble in making ME3 a decent game.

[Obadiah]

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

Modifié par Obadiah, 16 février 2011 - 12:01 .

[Thompson family]

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

Now the "gazillion" argument is a fair criticism. Frankly, killing Shepard was a gimmick. Much of the complaint about the story probably stems from the fact that the biggest emotional punch was delivered at the beginning.

In ME1, every time people were looking through the wreckage, thinking Shepard was dead, and that music swelled from sad to triumphat as s/he emerged, I choked up every single time. However, ME2 is a sequel, and the middle of a trilogy at that. I never expected the same experience.

Such an expectation is unjustified.

If ME1 had flopped, the game could have ended right where it did. That's not true in ME2.

[Obadiah]

Emotional punch is nice, but, as others have said, what I really missed was the compelling over-arching story with the mystery to be solved. In ME1 Shep is scouring the galaxy trying to find something - picking up parts of the puzzle here and there. In ME2 he kills time with some really cool missions and team banter before stuff happens to him.

Modifié par Obadiah, 16 février 2011 - 12:39 .

[Iakus]

Thompson family wrote...

Now the "gazillion" argument is a fair criticism. Frankly, killing Shepard was a gimmick. Much of the complaint about the story probably stems from the fact that the biggest emotional punch was delivered at the beginning.

In ME1, every time people were looking through the wreckage, thinking Shepard was dead, and that music swelled from sad to triumphat as s/he emerged, I choked up every single time. However, ME2 is a sequel, and the middle of a trilogy at that. I never expected the same experience.

Such an expectation is unjustified.

Agreed that it was a gimmick, but I think it was less an emotional punch than an intellectual one.  I mean, Shep clearly can't die in the opening scenes of the game.  Not after seeing him recruit Thane in the previews.  Something's gonna save him.  So there's not a lot of emotional investment in that scene.  I got more choked up about the SR 1 than Shep (man I miss that ship.) But the whole Cure for Death thing provided emotional punch, but not the good kind.  A cheap handwaving "space magic" answer that fits better in a comic book than than any serious (note: not necessarilly realistic) sf novel.  Not without a major examination into the nature of that technology and where it came from.

It was only the first of many such feelings.  I suppose it was the strongest, but that could simply be the same way the first punch to the face hurts the most.  With later hits,, you already hurt, so it's just a matter of intensity.

If ME1 had flopped, the game could have ended right where it did. That's not true in ME2.

Very much so.  ME 1 is a complete game all on its own.  ME 2 requires ME 3 (as demonstrated by all the "you need to see ME 3 to decide if it's worth it" posts)  I think that's a mistake.  I didn't pay full price for half a game.  Especially a game that isn't gonna be necessary for ME 3. 

[Zulu_DFA]

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

Incorrect.  The need to make a big deal out of a gameplay change plot-wise broke the story.

[Obadiah]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

Incorrect.  The need to make a big deal out of a gameplay change plot-wise broke the story.

Ah yes, and the oh-so-important "thermal" clips. That made so much sense after shotguns with frictionless materials... NOT.

Modifié par Obadiah, 16 février 2011 - 02:07 .

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

Incorrect.  The need to make a big deal out of a gameplay change plot-wise broke the story.

Incorrect. You can't tell a smart story and have a dumb gameplay. ME2 gametlay is dumb (even for a shooter). At the end of the day? A GoW clone, 3D arcade, which I can barely call a shooter without facepalming each and every time I have to do it.

But there is another problem. Shooter gameplay is unsuitable to telling the kind of story ME is supposed to be. Like, in principle.

That said, I played a bit of ME1 today (something I hadn't done since ME2 came out), and I even roved in the Mako around Chaska for a bit... And I must say, I feel like I've been subjected to an evil Ceberus experiment over the last year, and now I'm rescued!

[KenKenpachi]

Ehh I get bogged down in the just I don't know the mundane asspects of the game thats why I have yet to finish my 2nnd play through on 2 I just go....meh *restarts* now I didn't mind the clips however I wish it were more in line with the books as in eash one held like 4000 rounds or so. and fired them all really fast given it took litterally around 100 to take a barrier down if I remember correctly.

[DTKT]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

Incorrect.  The need to make a big deal out of a gameplay change plot-wise broke the story.

Incorrect. You can't tell a smart story and have a dumb gameplay. ME2 gametlay is dumb (even for a shooter). At the end of the day? A GoW clone, 3D arcade, which I can barely call a shooter without facepalming each and every time I have to do it.

But there is another problem. Shooter gameplay is unsuitable to telling the kind of story ME is supposed to be. Like, in principle.

That said, I played a bit of ME1 today (something I hadn't done since ME2 came out), and I even roved in the Mako around Chaska for a bit... And I must say, I feel like I've been subjected to an evil Ceberus experiment over the last year, and now I'm rescued!

Would you care to elaborate on how the gameplayer/shooter elements broke the story for you? 

It could be interesting.

[Zulu_DFA]

DTKT wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

Incorrect.  The need to make a big deal out of a gameplay change plot-wise broke the story.

Incorrect. You can't tell a smart story and have a dumb gameplay. ME2 gametlay is dumb (even for a shooter). At the end of the day? A GoW clone, 3D arcade, which I can barely call a shooter without facepalming each and every time I have to do it.

But there is another problem. Shooter gameplay is unsuitable to telling the kind of story ME is supposed to be. Like, in principle.

That said, I played a bit of ME1 today (something I hadn't done since ME2 came out), and I even roved in the Mako around Chaska for a bit... And I must say, I feel like I've been subjected to an evil Ceberus experiment over the last year, and now I'm rescued!

Would you care to elaborate on how the gameplayer/shooter elements broke the story for you? 

It could be interesting.

There are a couple of 500-pages long "Disappointment with ME2" threads, so you may dig all that up, if you're really interested.

In short, the extent of the reqiuired suspension of disbelief was so immersion breaking, and the "gameplay vs. story segregation" so vast, that I couldn't help but nitpick on every and each of "it's just a game" moments. It wasn't a game telling a story, it was a story to give you an excuse to push them buttons in pattern. And the pattern of buttons to be pushed was so repetitive that of itself it became zero fun before the end of the first playthrough.

And even before that pushing the buttons was godawful, compared to ME1. No hotkeys for menus, Sprint/vault/interract keyed to same button,  dragging the Normandy around "space"... What the f*ck were they thinking???

I hate ME2 all afresh now, so keep away from me, people!!!

[DTKT]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DTKT wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

The game-play in ME2 was better than ME1. Fix the story and get away from this you're-so-awesome-we'd-spend-two-gazillion-dollars-resurrecting-you silliness, and I'll be happy.

The problem: it's your "better gameplay" that broke the story in ME2.

Incorrect.  The need to make a big deal out of a gameplay change plot-wise broke the story.

Incorrect. You can't tell a smart story and have a dumb gameplay. ME2 gametlay is dumb (even for a shooter). At the end of the day? A GoW clone, 3D arcade, which I can barely call a shooter without facepalming each and every time I have to do it.

But there is another problem. Shooter gameplay is unsuitable to telling the kind of story ME is supposed to be. Like, in principle.

That said, I played a bit of ME1 today (something I hadn't done since ME2 came out), and I even roved in the Mako around Chaska for a bit... And I must say, I feel like I've been subjected to an evil Ceberus experiment over the last year, and now I'm rescued!

Would you care to elaborate on how the gameplayer/shooter elements broke the story for you? 

It could be interesting.

There are a couple of 500-pages long "Disappointment with ME2" threads, so you may dig all that up, if you're really interested.

In short, the extent of the reqiuired suspension of disbelief was so immersion breaking, and the "gameplay vs. story segregation" so vast, that I couldn't help but nitpick on every and each of "it's just a game" moments. It wasn't a game telling a story, it was a story to give you an excuse to push them buttons in pattern. And the pattern of buttons to be pushed was so repetitive that of itself it became zero fun before the end of the first playthrough.

And even before that pushing the buttons was godawful, compared to ME1. No hotkeys for menus, Sprint/vault/interract keyed to same button,  dragging the Normandy around "space"... What the f*ck were they thinking???

I hate ME2 all afresh now, so keep away from me, people!!!

So, to an extent, because the core gameplay mechanics (shooting, cover, movement, puzzles, minigames, mining) were weak, they undermined and prevented you from enjoying the game since your every move reminded you that you were playing a video-game.

What is incredibly interesting to me, is that even when I knew that the mechanics were flawed: I disliked the mining minigame, the hacking puzzles were tedious, the map movement with fuels/probes wasnt really well designed, I was able to put all of these gripes aside to enjoy the ME2 stories.

I do agree that the main drive behind ME2 was not well developped and didnt feel as fulfilling as ME1, but every side stories amazed me. The fables "emotionnal" engagement that marketing kept pushing just before the release actually felt real...

But hey, everyone plays and experience a game in different ways. I appreciate the discussion. :happy:

Modifié par DTKT, 16 février 2011 - 04:50 .

[WrestlesWithKernels]

Thompson family wrote...
I'd like to know whether INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE survives. And if it does, HOW? If ME2 was a book, it would be a page turner.

Well, of course it does!  Intelligent life quite definitely survives.

I mean, Reapers are intelligent, right, and they are alive, right . . . ?

[Chaos Gate]

Thompson family wrote...

However, ME2 is a sequel, and the middle of a trilogy at that. I never expected the same experience.

Such an expectation is unjustified.

If this is the "Mass Effect 2 was inevitably going to be poor because it takes place in the middle of the trilogy/series" argument, then I strongly disagree.

If this was indeed the case, then Harry Potter books 2-6 would all suck and fail at the bookshops, Terminator 2 would have flopped dismally, and The Empire Strikes Back wouldn't be regarded as the best of the Star Wars films.

It's an argument that just doen't hold any weight.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 16 février 2011 - 10:35 .

[abaris]

And even before that pushing the buttons was godawful, compared to ME1. No hotkeys for menus, Sprint/vault/interract keyed to same button,  dragging the Normandy around "space"... What the f*ck were they thinking???

I hate ME2 all afresh now, so keep away from me, people!!!

I don't know when you last played ME1. In my case it was pretty recently and I would say, both games have their strengths and weaknesses.

In ME1, the AI acts very weak, compared to ME2, the side missions are tedious and only evolve around three sets of buildings with crates stacked differently and the combat system was very weak - mostly due to a weak AI acting like suicide bombers.

The overall story arc of ME1 on the other hand was much more gripping than it is with ME2.

On a personal note, I could do without mini games in both instalments. I for one hate them with a vengeance and when it comes depending on a mini game to get to a certain story point, I make sure to have a walkthrough at hand, so as not to waste too much time over pushing buttons.

[Fiery Phoenix]

iakus wrote...

My great hope for ME 3 is based on how LOTSB was presented:

There was banter between Shepard and Liara
Events in ME 1 were directly referred to; past Cerberus crimes, Ilos, the rachni, the Council, etc
Liara asks Shepard how he's handling things, and wants a serious answer
There were files about your sqquadmates that added a whole new layer of depth to them.
Liara was not dressed as a stripper (okay this shouldn't have been a surprise, but after ME 2 it kinda was)

All of these, among other things, had been gone over (at length) on the boards.  Were these weaknesses in the game that reviewers ponted out? (serious question, I don't read game reviews)  Or does Bioware actually listen to feedback from fans and actually take them under advisement?

Exactly this.

[didymos1120]

Chaos Gate wrote...
Terminator 2 would have flopped dismally, and The Empire Strikes Back wouldn't be regarded as the best of the Star Wars films.

T2 was never intended as the middle chapter of a pre-planned series.  tESB was in fact subject to many of the same complaints on its release that ME2 has been getting. 

[eldav]

I have stopt playing ME2 and seriosly thinking of trhowing it away, when ME3 is released i wont buy it directly before reading a in depht review of it, and if ME3 meets my requierments i will buy it and play it in this order ME1

[eldav]

then ME3, skipping gladly ME2. (damn u keyboard)

[Phaedon]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Incorrect. You can't tell a smart story and have a dumb gameplay. ME2 gametlay is dumb (even for a shooter).

Raus.

You don't like a genre and a game, so it's gameplay has to be dumb. Cool story, bro. 

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 février 2011 - 11:55 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

I read about these "ME2 is not an rpg, ME2 is shallow" type of arguments with defenders and detractors of ME2 well before I played either game (I just recently finished both), and knowing my very RPG oriented tastes, I was fully expecting to be in the ME2 detractor camp. I am not.



I loved ME2. I don't get the "story is weak" arguments at all - the writing is as good as ever. I didn't like every change - like the much more limited customization of equipment, and a whittled down talent list - but the game was well balanced; I ended up using a wider variety of companions in my missions, wheras in ME1 I generally stuck with Tali and Wrex, and the heat clip introduction, that I initially hated, made me actually use a wider variety of weapons as well.



The planet scanning didn't bother me - I'm a patient kind of a guy, and tasks that most find tedious I don't have a problem with. I like that in ME2 there was actually purpose to mining the elements - you could put them to use.



This doesn't mean that I don't like ME1 - to my surprice and satisfaction, given these discussions, I love both games, and am eagerly waiting for ME3.

[spacehamsterZH]

Oh hey look, it's this thread again. Hey, thread. Haven't seen you in a while. Good to have you back.

And by "a while", I mean 12 hours. And by "good", I mean "I'd rather poke my eyes out with knitting needles than read this %&$#ing £?&$ for the eleventy-frickin'-kazillionth time."

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 16 février 2011 - 12:00 .

[Phaedon]

 So... this thread started from the OP saying that ME2 was boring and is now a place for debate over how good or bad ME2 was? Isn't that one of the reasons to lock a thread?

What's the point of this originally, there is nothing the OP has set as a discussion topic, just his opinnion on how the game was boring (and then he proceeded by making himself disappear). Is that not a bit inflammatory?

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 février 2011 - 12:13 .

[spacehamsterZH]

Phaedon wrote...
Is that not a bit inflammatory?

I wouldn't say it's inflammatory, it's just redundant. Speaking of which, though, where's the "disappointment/open discussion" thread? Was that locked at some point?