85 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

TekFanX wrote...
<snip>

I want to ask you: What is this part of your post supposed to tell me? The phrase ''See how easy that is?' makes me think you just want to try to discredit all things I mentioned by picking out things randomly.
In that case I must say you share a rather ignorant attitude towards opinions differing from your's.
If that's not the case and I mistook your words, I apologize and want to answer on the things you don't seem to like about the ME1-citadel:
On the consort and her 'club': The whole thing is about influence. The consort means a lot to many people and knows a lot of secrets some people might fear the consort could make public. In short: She has a lot of influence towards the people deciding how the rooms of the presidium are used.
And I don't know if you read the me1-codex, but as far as I remember, it states that only the most important races get an ambassy at all.
Some wait hundreds of years for an ambassy(something that represents the importance of humanity in the me-universe).
You mention the Volus and Elcor as important, I won't argue on that, since it's subjective for your case.
But given the facts from ME1 they aren't important enough to give each race it's own embassy.
On the council-chambers: Take Ashley, Wrex or Garrus with you, they will state some facts which might interest you.
Also the first ME-novel gives some architectic background on that.
In short: The whole council-chambers are made to dwarf anyone who comes in, showing how small you are and how important the council is. In this role it's also easy to defend.
You now could say this should apply to the urdnot-camp as well, I won't argue on that. But for me this implies a political strategy I don't really think the krogan prefer(again, this is all subjective from my point of view).

<snip>

I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying. If we were sitting around debating level design in ME1 and ME2, you bring up good points.

My point is that people are using trivial detail like this to say ME1 good, ME2 bad. However, in my opinion, its like saying your surgeon is bad because I hate the wallpaper in his office.

Sure, Wrex's base had holes in the ceiling. Sure, the Volus who were the 2nd race on the citadel, one of the most powerful races in citadel space, and who have been there before the Consort was even born was shoved into a broom closet while C-Sec officer gets a huge office and a prostitute is given an entire club. Maybe we can rationalize explanations for each. Maybe we can't. How important is it really? Is it really pertinent to the debate ME1 good, ME2 bad?

People make arguments that ME1 good, ME2 bad saying things like ME1 had more dialogue. Only to be proven it doesn't. Johnny talks about the great ME1 level design on Novaria, only I can point to very similar design on Thane's recruitment mission. I'm sure he'll come back and talk about how its really very, very different because this twisted left and that twisted right, but you really don't feel the conversation is ridiculously trivial at the point?

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

There are more lines of dialogue in ME2 than ME1. And apparently since you hate all shooter game play and see zero difference between fighting and runing back and forth then you are clearly playing the wrong series. Both ME1 and ME2 are shooters. Both have mini-games. Both have cover systems. If you hate that then you're playing the wrong games.

There's two times as much squad members, I hoped so! Well, if all shooters would be alike, I'd have only one shooter in my game collection. Thing is, in ME2 they took the all-shooter way, but Bioware aren't shooter veterans and it shows. Each mission are designed the same way - shoot through corridor, semi-open space to shoot through, dialogue, shoot through corridor, etc... - with the same encounters, it's even more obvious at Insanity when you realize each type of enemies are introduced in encounters the very exact same way all the time, thus making you use always the same tactics. It's easy to bypass that on easy since you can just bulldozer your way through, but when you actually need to do tactics, you realize you always need to do the same in the same sequence. And when the level design is the same throughout long sequences of shooting with nothing to break up the action a bit - in ME1, the level design was superior, while the shooting wasn't the best, at least you weren't introduced enemies the exact same way in the same sequence, them always getting reinforcements in every damn engagement. There was more dialogue scattered across, there were real assignments, they made things varied, a vehicular sequence, etc. Not always the same corridor/open space/corridor thing for 20 minutes.

As far as shooter levels go, the prison had 3 levels just like you describe in Novaria.

I don't remember the prison bit, but all I remember is I kept going
forward. If there are indeed 3 levels which you can explore and which
are not all of the 3 connected to each other by a way you just go
through them like a normal corridor, then it must be the only place like
this.

Horizon had a couple areas where you could run in circles and find yourself trapped in deadends as well. The thane officer tower had a couple areas where you could take a second corridor and come up beside your enemies. Have you even played the game?

You missed my point. That second corridor gets you to the same damn place, it's a parallel corridor, nothing else. Plus, it's something used in every shooter, that doesn't mean the level design is good. And I did say there were dead-ends in case you didn't read. Like I said, those dead-ends have nothing but a case of element zero or something else. In ME1, the dead-end may be an objective, and usually the way to go there isn't simply a corner to turn where you already see the dead-end itself. If I can rephrase what I wanted to mean, it's that you don't miss ANYTHING if you just keep going forward, because that's basically all you need to do. In ME1, you just can't always go forward like an idiot, you actually need to do something. Even if you can get inside all those little houses in Horizon, they are all along the road and you can't go somewhere else significant in the least. On Feros, You can go until the dead end where you kill all the Geth for the first time, you can go below to go do different things, or you can go up on the highway to the Binary Helix place. You have to talk to people in order to do that and know where to go, in ME2, all you need to do is run through the mission.

[Whatever42]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

There are more lines of dialogue in ME2 than ME1. And apparently since you hate all shooter game play and see zero difference between fighting and runing back and forth then you are clearly playing the wrong series. Both ME1 and ME2 are shooters. Both have mini-games. Both have cover systems. If you hate that then you're playing the wrong games.

There's two times as much squad members, I hoped so! Well, if all shooters would be alike, I'd have only one shooter in my game collection. Thing is, in ME2 they took the all-shooter way, but Bioware aren't shooter veterans and it shows. Each mission are designed the same way - shoot through corridor, semi-open space to shoot through, dialogue, shoot through corridor, etc... - with the same encounters, it's even more obvious at Insanity when you realize each type of enemies are introduced in encounters the very exact same way all the time, thus making you use always the same tactics. It's easy to bypass that on easy since you can just bulldozer your way through, but when you actually need to do tactics, you realize you always need to do the same in the same sequence. And when the level design is the same throughout long sequences of shooting with nothing to break up the action a bit - in ME1, the level design was superior, while the shooting wasn't the best, at least you weren't introduced enemies the exact same way in the same sequence, them always getting reinforcements in every damn engagement. There was more dialogue scattered across, there were real assignments, they made things varied, a vehicular sequence, etc. Not always the same corridor/open space/corridor thing for 20 minutes.

As far as shooter levels go, the prison had 3 levels just like you describe in Novaria.

I don't remember the prison bit, but all I remember is I kept going
forward. If there are indeed 3 levels which you can explore and which
are not all of the 3 connected to each other by a way you just go
through them like a normal corridor, then it must be the only place like
this.

Horizon had a couple areas where you could run in circles and find yourself trapped in deadends as well. The thane officer tower had a couple areas where you could take a second corridor and come up beside your enemies. Have you even played the game?

You missed my point. That second corridor gets you to the same damn place, it's a parallel corridor, nothing else. Plus, it's something used in every shooter, that doesn't mean the level design is good. And I did say there were dead-ends in case you didn't read. Like I said, those dead-ends have nothing but a case of element zero or something else. In ME1, the dead-end may be an objective, and usually the way to go there isn't simply a corner to turn where you already see the dead-end itself. If I can rephrase what I wanted to mean, it's that you don't miss ANYTHING if you just keep going forward, because that's basically all you need to do. In ME1, you just can't always go forward like an idiot, you actually need to do something. Even if you can get inside all those little houses in Horizon, they are all along the road and you can't go somewhere else significant in the least. On Feros, You can go until the dead end where you kill all the Geth for the first time, you can go below to go do different things, or you can go up on the highway to the Binary Helix place. You have to talk to people in order to do that and know where to go, in ME2, all you need to do is run through the mission.

ME shooter design is not top-grade as shooters no. I won't argue that in both ME1 and ME2, the level design and boss battles are short of great, absolutely. Its good but pretty generic. Frankly, I love the game because of the RPG elements, the shooter elements are just fun enough to keep it going.

But arguing that ME1 has great level design because you run into the basement to open up the water mains and come back makes it that much more interesting? So its a straight corridor where you fight to your objective but then... and this is where the awesomeness apparently comes in... you run back!

There is a level in Thane's recruiment with a dead corridor with a sniper rifle design but that's just a short one and no quest so I guess you're right... that Feros basement makes ME1 awesome beyond ME2, despite the mission after mission of cookie-cutter, crate filled building and mines. I'm sorry, buddy, but you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel here.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME shooter design is not top-grade as shooters no. I won't argue that in both ME1 and ME2, the level design and boss battles are short of great, absolutely. Its good but pretty generic. Frankly, I love the game because of the RPG elements, the shooter elements are just fun enough to keep it going.

But arguing that ME1 has great level design because you run into the basement to open up the water mains and come back makes it that much more interesting? So its a straight corridor where you fight to your objective but then... and this is where the awesomeness apparently comes in... you run back!

There is a level in Thane's recruiment with a dead corridor with a sniper rifle design but that's just a short one and no quest so I guess you're right... that Feros basement makes ME1 awesome beyond ME2, despite the mission after mission of cookie-cutter, crate filled building and mines. I'm sorry, buddy, but you're scrapping the bottom of the barrel here.

I'm not saying ME1 was perfect and design, nor that it was that much better than ME2, not at all, I'm just saying ME2 took a step down. There's was a lot of refinements and advancements ME2 could have did over ME1, but I think they went the other way around. Yes ME2 looks great and is quite detailed in its looks - more than ME1 - but as far as the fundementals go? I find it to be a step down, and since it wasn't perfect in ME1, it's all the more obvious to me that the ME2 design isn't very good.

[TekFanX]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

TekFanX wrote...


snipedy-snip-snip

I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying. If we were sitting around debating level design in ME1 and ME2, you bring up good points.

My point is that people are using trivial detail like this to say ME1 good, ME2 bad. However, in my opinion, its like saying your surgeon is bad because I hate the wallpaper in his office.

Sure, Wrex's base had holes in the ceiling. Sure, the Volus who were the 2nd race on the citadel, one of the most powerful races in citadel space, and who have been there before the Consort was even born was shoved into a broom closet while C-Sec officer gets a huge office and a prostitute is given an entire club. Maybe we can rationalize explanations for each. Maybe we can't. How important is it really? Is it really pertinent to the debate ME1 good, ME2 bad?

People make arguments that ME1 good, ME2 bad saying things like ME1 had more dialogue. Only to be proven it doesn't. Johnny talks about the great ME1 level design on Novaria, only I can point to very similar design on Thane's recruitment mission. I'm sure he'll come back and talk about how its really very, very different because this twisted left and that twisted right, but you really don't feel the conversation is ridiculously trivial at the point?

I'm not saying either one of the games is bad. I just say what I think regarding the design of the hub-worlds.
As far as I got it, it's the topic of the thread.
I know this sounds picky, but I've got to correct you on the volus: The Salarians discovered the Citadel after the Asari, forming the council with them. This makes the Volus the third race(sometimes I just doom my selective photographic memory for holding up to such trivial things as ingame-history).
Refering to the consort(please stop calling her a prostitute, it sometimes makes me think you're talking about Cora's Nest) and the room-allocation on the Presidium, I don't want to say they define the quality of either one of the ME-games.
But they are a factor in the hub-design, given their subjective credibility.

Also I think we both differ in the definition of hub-worlds.
For me this doesn't mean everything on that world, but the hub you can visit repeatedly to do whatever business.
I'm not refering to the mission-level-designs.
I loved the hotel in the SB-DLC and I liked the construction-site in Thanes recruitment-mission. I think I stated at least my opinion of the SB-DLC in previous posts.

I'm not picky about corridors going left or right or up or down...or transdimensional in scifi-games.
The things I'm picky about are the details I see in ME2's hub-worlds that make them less credible in my subjective oppinion.
As for your example with the surgeon(I think you meant the whole game-design, but I refer to the hub-design):
There's no problem with a poster, but I would choose another surgeon if he performs his operations on a table on an open balcony. And I would at least be a bit scared if he's a direct neighbor to a funeral-business.
This would be misplaced and wouldn't be appropriate for a surgeon. 
The example from above may be a bit extreme, but it refers to my subjective impression of Omegas design in ME2.
For my impression of Illium I might use the example for visiting New York and being stuck in the Wall Street.
These example might be a bit exaggerated, they don't have to be taken literally.

[Whatever42]

Johnny and TekFanX, I can accept from both of you that you like the ME1 hub worlds more. I'm just bickering with you because you're trying to objectively prove that ME1 hub worlds are better.  I personally enjoy Illium much more than the Citadel, you feel the opposite, can't we just agree that its all subjective, that it doesn't make one game objectively better than the other, that both opinions are valid, and move on?

TekFanX wrote...
Also I think we both differ in the definition of hub-worlds.
For me this doesn't mean everything on that world, but the hub you can visit repeatedly to do whatever business.
I'm not refering to the mission-level-designs.
I loved the hotel in the SB-DLC and I liked the construction-site in Thanes recruitment-mission. I think I stated at least my opinion of the SB-DLC in previous posts.

Fair enough. I think this is a very legit point. IMO, neither ME game really supported the concept of hub worlds. I never go back to Feros/Novaria. I only go back to the citadel twice, once to pick up quest later, and once to wrap up everything before Ilos. There is no reason for me to revisit it - the merchants don't sell anything worth anything and while new quests open up once, its only once.

After the missions, I only go back to Illium a few times as well, but only to pick up some upgrades I can't afford right away.

So by this definition, the Citadel is marginally a better hub. But is it really a big deal? At least the way it was done in ME1? That said, I would love more reason to hang out on the Citadel or on Illium. I'd love to hang out there and play pazaak (KotoR reference) or have some other reason to hang out there. It would be awesome if there was chatter story lines that evolved over the game, brining you back, just to soak up the atmosphere. 

Actually, thinking about this, perhaps the big hubs in both games were really the ships. You always went back, you picked up new quests, characters and stories evolved there. Lets compare the SR1 to the SR2.

TekFanX wrote...
For my impression of Illium I might use the example for visiting New York and being stuck in the Wall Street.
These example might be a bit exaggerated, they don't have to be taken literally.

While in the Citadel you could go to Harlem and Manhattan only to find that they looked almost exactly like Wall Street.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 20 février 2011 - 12:33 .

[Papa John0]

Taris and Manaan from KOTOR remain the best hub worlds I've seen. I loved Manaan. It had such a cool atmosphere and there was plenty to do (the same applies to Taris, perhaps moreso).

I thought Illium was great, especially with the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC. One reason the hubs felt watered down in Mass Effect 2 was that you were automatically transfered to the Normandy after story missions. This was frustrating to finish, for example, Miranda's loyalty quest on Illium and be immediately transfered back to the Normandy rather than stay planetside. It really takes you out of the immersion of the hub worlds.

Modifié par Papa John0, 20 février 2011 - 01:00 .

[TekFanX]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

TekFanX wrote...
For my impression of Illium I might use the example for visiting New York and being stuck in the Wall Street.
These example might be a bit exaggerated, they don't have to be taken literally.

While in the Citadel you could go to Harlem and Manhattan only to find that they looked almost exactly like Wall Street.

Please refer to which Citadel you mean. ME1 or ME2?
I would get the example better if I knew it .

About other parts of your post:
I can agree completely in declaring everything subjective, but let me just bring up one more thing for understanding each other better.

As you mentioned in one of your posts earlier, you get the idea, Johnny hates shooters.
You say ME was always a shooter. In my oppinion that's as much right as it's wrong.

For me the ME-series understood it mixing up both shooter as RPG in a way that makes it almost impossible to categorize.
You won't find another shooter with that much roleplaying regarding the dialouge-wheel.
And you won't find many RPG's with such shooter-mechanics AND such an immersive gameplay as ME.

I think we can agree that ME2 sacrificed a lot of the RPG-elements like inventory or item-customization(customization, not upgrading;)), while the shooter-mechanics have been radically improved.

I find myself in the situation of likeing shooters and RPGs equally and seeing both in ME.
I can feel the enthusiasm shooter-players feel when playing ME2 and I can also feel the impression of loss many RPG-players feel when they play ME2 without inventory or customization as deep as ME1 offered.
Of course I speak of subjective impressions.

[Whatever42]

Well, ME2 only had the shopping mall so definately ME1. Not that I didn't like parts of the Citadel but the wards felt very... generic. But then again, the slums on Omega felt very generic too.

ME1 mixed RPG with shooter mechanics and there was a lot of clutter in there that didn't really contribute so, imo, they rightfully stripped it out. I will 100% agree that there was less personalization in ME2 and I was disappointed in that. The locker system is fine. Having only 3 guns in a category not so much. The DLCs helped but having to pay for it was just bad.

Truth is, I'm an RPG player, I don't play FPS or TPS games as a rule. And I do prefer the story elements in ME1 to ME2; I mean, visions, rogue spectres, introduction to the Reapers, it was all awesome. Collectors... while the plot is sound, its less than awe-inspiring.

The only reason I like ME2 better is because I don't feel the gameplay gets in the way of the story - in ME1 the generic missions and annoying mechanics detracted from the story for me. And I enjoyed more time with the characters in ME2, although I would have prefered more depth and fewer characters.

In reality, I think almost all of us agree in what makes a great ME3. Oh sure, we bicker over ammo-clips versus cooldown and other such mechanics but in reality, that doesn't matter to me. I just want combat to be fun and to not detract from the story.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 20 février 2011 - 01:19 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
I only go back to the citadel twice, once to pick up quest later, and once to wrap up everything before Ilos.

Just nitpicking, but I'd be surprised you did every quest. In each of my playthrough I was going back to the citadel between each mission and there was always something - ie. more than one quest each time - to do. A lot of questlines require you to go to the citadel more than 2 times. Some not only require you so, but don't show up until a certain point, so you might get the first quest of a series in your last Citadel visit if you only got there twice. I remember spending a couple of hours doing quests and talking to people in one of my visits on the Citadel, I could do everything in the hub place of any ME2 planet for that same amount of time.

[TekFanX]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Well, ME2 only had the shopping mall so definately ME1. Not that I didn't like parts of the Citadel but the wards felt very... generic. But then again, the slums on Omega felt very generic too.

I don't think the shopping-district or the C-Sec in ME1 were wards.
But I get what you mean.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
ME1 mixed RPG with shooter mechanics and there was a lot of clutter in there that didn't really contribute so, imo, they rightfully stripped it out. I will 100% agree that there was less personalization in ME2 and I was disappointed in that. The locker system is fine. Having only 3 guns in a category not so much. The DLCs helped but having to pay for it was just bad.

I don't know what you mean with the non-contributeing parts.
All I found annoying in ME1 was the flood of items you got in from looting. Piling Omni-gel up and pulling a crap-load of junk to the shops was boring.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Truth is, I'm an RPG player, I don't play FPS or TPS games as a rule. And I do prefer the story elements in ME1 to ME2; I mean, visions, rogue spectres, introduction to the Reapers, it was all awesome. Collectors... while the plot is sound, its less than awe-inspiring.

Couldn't agree more. ME2's story felt round all around, but the main-plot with the collectors felt a bit like it was just for showing us what would happen to humanity if the reapers win.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
In reality, I think almost all of us agree in what makes a great ME3. Oh sure, we bicker over ammo-clips versus cooldown and other such mechanics but in reality, that doesn't matter to me. I just want combat to be fun and to not detract from the story.

I agree completely about that.
Except for one story/presentation-factor linking indirectly to the experience I had about the gameplay:
I think the story-cutscenes should stay true to the powers we can use in the missions.
Characters wielding weapons they shouldn't be able to use or impressing with biotic powers and combat-abilities way beyond anything we will see with them on the field is disappointing. 
Samara flying with biotics, Jack crashing down three YMIR's with biotics while ingame she fails to stand against one. ME1 didn't need that exaggerated firework for each character, ME2 shouldn't as well.