144 réponses à ce sujet

[Admoniter]

Almostfaceman wrote...
Well it's pretty obvious that Casey Hudson is in denial.  It's why they threw in that goofy ME1 "comic" for PS3 users.  The simple truth is ME2 is part of a larger story that isn't finished.  Learn it.  Love it.  Live it.  So the whole book thing really does work, unless you've turned off your brain.

Don't get me wrong I would have said the same thing during ME2s development. But ME2 goes out of its way to drive the point home that it is a standalone game, so maybe CH isn't in as much denial as we think. Whether it be killing you off at the first chance, and using the resurection machine as a way to justify forcing yourself to start from scratch or breaking up the band. ME2 more less was a reboot of the franchise.

And I disagree the book analogy doesn't work, the Mass Effect trilogy is just that a trilogy it is not one single entity. In the same way the Matrix Trilogy or SW OT/PT is composed of individual parts that all stand on there own, each ME game is cleary designed as its own game. Sure you may miss out on some fluff here and there and sure if you didn't play the first you are railroaded down a path so you will miss out on somethings in ME3 but if ME2 is any indication all it will be is emails. So once again I will say in the trilogy of ME I find that ME2s stroy fall short both as an individual story but as part of a larger narrative.

[Akizora]

RPG to me means roleplaying a character, it does not mean loot. Mass Effect 1 and 2 offer you choices through dialogue, story and missions. Just because you happen to have a gun instead of a bow/sword does not mean it's not an RPG, too many people draw a thick line and stand way too firm about what is and isn't an RPG.

The gaming world is all about progress and if games stagnate, well you get what you do with JRPGs these days. The same over and over and over and we all know how that turned out. I still do wish ME2 had items in it and not just research or "outfits", but it didnt feel dumbed down at all.

[Terror_K]

I'd say the best way to put it would be that ME2 overcompensated for ME1's failings by taking things too far and over-streamlining to the point of dumbing things down. ME2 had a few good concepts that were simply taken too much to the extreme basically. The right idea in many cases, but too much of it. It also tended to ramp things up action wise and modernise things style wise, while also being rather too willing to throw logic, reason and consistency aside in favour of "The Rule of Cool" and immaturity, but whether that's a step down is personal taste (IMO, it was a bad move). There were also a few cases of ME2 "fixing" things that weren't even broken.

Overall things tended to be stripped and replaced rather than actually fixed, so problems and issues were simply avoided rather than tackled properly and made to work, which in the end resulted in new problems replacing them. ME1 tended to often be "too much" of something, while ME2 tended to be "not enough" of it as a result. ME1 was overly complex and cluttered for what are essentially simple mechanics, while ME2 tends to be overly simple and anaemic instead. ME1 made the player do too much to the point of tedium, ME2 does too much for you and takes away choice. ME1 had clumsy mechanics, ME2 had shallow ones.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 mars 2011 - 11:49 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

You know, there are many games out there with even less RPG in them and nobody complains about them being called "Action RPGs." It's only ever Mass Effect that I've heard "it shouldn't be called an RPG" complaints about (barring the usual "JRPGs aren't RPGs" bollocks, which always leads to the "Well, what genre ARE they?" response).

It is fairly "dumbed down" in a sense, but I find it a more solid package than ME1 in every sense except plot cohesion and exploration. It's a fair bit more disjointed than ME1 due to the emphasis on sideplots over the overarching story. Not bad, but your mileage may vary.

As for the gameplay, although a lot of aspects from ME1 have a LOT of untapped promise, ME2's delivery on what it's attempting to be is just better. The only unquestionably worse aspect of the gameplay is the town aspect, which may as well be an assortment of mini-malls, and, of course, the gods-awful mining minigame.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 20 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[Vyse_Fina]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

You know, there are many games out there with even less RPG in them and nobody complains about them being called "Action RPGs."

That's because they had no 1st part that was a RPG. Nobody will complain about Gears of War not being a RPG because it never was one. Mass Effect on the other hand attracted a lot of RPG players who then got disappointed by the amount of RPG elements left in ME2. If ME1 would have been like ME2 already in that regard there wouldn't have been any problems since it most likely wouldn't have attracted as many RPG purists to begin with.

Modifié par Vyse_Fina, 20 mars 2011 - 12:12 .

[Terror_K]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

You know, there are many games out there with even less RPG in them and nobody complains about them being called "Action RPGs."

That's because they had no 1st part that was a RPG. Nobody will complain about Gears of War not being a RPG because it never was one. Mass Effect on the other hand attracted a lot of RPG players who then got disappointed by the amount of RPG elements left in ME2. If ME1 would have been like ME2 already in that regard there wouldn't have been any problems since it most likely wouldn't have attracted as many RPG purists to begin with.

Yeah, pretty much this. That's why I actually think Jade Empire is better than ME2 and don't feel it's a disappointment, despite having even less RPG elements, because Jade Empire wasn't trying to be as much an RPG in the first place. It's about consistency and staying true to the roots. That's why I also feel DA2 was a bigger disappointment than ME2 also, despite DA2 being a stronger RPG technically, because DA2 deviated from and became far more shallow than it's predecessor more than ME2 did (i.e. it was a bigger fall). There's also a lot about ME1 I really loved that is just gone in ME2, or is just no longer satisfactory, fun or interesting because of how it's been done in ME2.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 mars 2011 - 12:19 .

[Auts]

If you call the lack of loot and the later selling it to shop core part of the rpg, then yes, ME2 is extremely dumbed down.

[Tarek]

I will copy and paste one of my posts it might help:

as a gamer since 1990 I think, NO I know that ME 2 is a better game than ME 1 all around

BUT that does not mean that ME1 did not have some pretty awesome stuff that ME2 should have kept/evolved better.

1-
what ME2 lacked is the huge "feel" of the universe which ME1 had, the
prove for this is that ME2 actually has more missions yet it felt
smaller somehow, the MAKO missions were pretty great although the maps
needed a little variety, and the whole experience needed more polish.

2-
ME2 has more variety in weapons although ME1 had "more" of them they
were all just same modules with different stats, in fact here I feel
that ME2 is far superior to ME1 and my only gripe is that some weapons
(like guns) need more ammo .

3- ME2 is just a more polished
game with a great variety in missions, the robot factory the rocking
ship to name a few and these are just side missions.

4- ME2 has tons of characters, yet it should have kept the squad "chatting" for sure.

5- ME2 Normandy is way more awesome than the old one, although the loading time between levels can get lame.

6- ME2 has loading screens, ME1 had elevator rides which are better and more immersive.

7- ME1 combat system was a spam fest, ME2 combat was way better in every way and form.

8- ME1 citadel was great, ME2 citadel had more style yet it was smaller which is not good.

9-ME1
had more variety in armor, BUT in ME2 after the DLC content you can get
just as much because of the mixing and matching that you can do,
although the armor in ME2 needs a buff because some bonuses are just too
weak.

10- weapon and armor mods in ME1 were a great way to buff
and customize further I hope we see something similar with the ME2
system.

11- armor coloring in ME 2 is awesome

in short
ME1 sure had a larger "scale" yet in reality ME 2 was bigger and much
more polished, what ME2 needed was some MAKO style missions (polished), a
bigger citadel, more armor and weapon customization for you and your
squad mates, more squad interactions, more ammo

Sure ME2 main
mission seemed less important but its not, its the foundation for ME3,
we learned where reapers come from and it was important, sure it had a
"smaller" feel but again it was more polished and had an epic-er boss
.

anyway hope that was helpful.

Modifié par Tarek, 20 mars 2011 - 12:29 .

[candidate88766]

If you think 'streamlined' and 'dumbed down' are synonymous then sure.

Also, does it really matter what genre the games are? I didn't view ME1 as an RPG, just a very good interactive story. I sometimes found its looting and inventory mechanics got in the way of the story. I felt ME2 was more honest about what it was - it didn't try to bury the player under stats to give the illusion of more choice, it simply got on with telling the story (which, granted, wasn't as good as ME1's story but was my no means a bad story). At their heart the Mass Effect games have always been action games, just with far more depth than your average action game.

At least, that's my opinion. I just don't think it matters whether it has lots of RPG elements - its all about the story and the characters, not the stats.

[Terror_K]

Tarek wrote...

3- ME2 is just a more polished game with a great variety in missions, the robot factory the rocking ship to name a few and these are just side missions.

I actually felt ME2 was less polished overall than ME1, though overall I'd say the polishing was rather schizophrenic. For example, we got loads of polish for things that didn't really matter like stuff aboard The Normandy (apparently according to dev Jesse Huston this was due to the people working on this working overtime and in spare time to give it a little more love and polish, and it shows). However, compare the sidequests in ME2 to ME1. In ME2 we have a silent Shepard running around linear little worlds with just-as-silent companions doing gimmicky little quests that are overall meaningless and except in one rare case don't really have moral choices and don't have interesting stories or NPCs or even let you explore and deviate that much. ME1 may have a lot of samey worlds and bases, but most planet textures and skyboxes are different and have carefully been crafted, while the missions themselves are interesting and varied storywise, are properly set-up and ended with dialogue most times, have chosen dialogue here and there, have some interesting NPCs and moral choices, have your companions weighing in on situations and commenting, etc. To me ME2 sidequests felt lacking and immerstion-breakingly gamey, coming across more as little gimmicky experiments in the clothing of missions and locales. ME1's missions felt more story-driven and more like they fit in with the world and were part of it, even if the worlds were a bit samey and repetitive. ME2's worlds also felt too artificial and alive, and this made the entire universe feel small and fake, IMO (we really do need at least a few more dead, realistic planets to visit that are more open, since real space is mostly like that). Ideally ME3 would have a good blend of the strengths of both and weaknesses of neither (i.e. more unique locations to visit ala ME2, but more polish presentation/mission wise ala ME1).

7- ME1 combat system was a spam fest, ME2 combat was way better in every way and form.

I never understood this personally. I didn't play that way in ME1, even if others did. To me it makes more sense to choose your use of powers wisely at the right time rather than spam them at the start of every encounter. I can see how that would serve well on lower difficulties, but not the higher ones. The secondly reason I don't understand it is because ME2's cooldowns are so massively short that instead players can now simply spam the same power repeatedly far too fast and rely on on that if they choose to, which IMO is worse.

[Epic777]

7- ME1 combat system was a spam fest, ME2 combat was way better in every way and form.

I never understood this personally. I didn't play that way in ME1, even if others did. To me it makes more sense to choose your use of powers wisely at the right time rather than spam them at the start of every encounter. I can see how that would serve well on lower difficulties, but not the higher ones. The secondly reason I don't understand it is because ME2's cooldowns are so massively short that instead players can now simply spam the same power repeatedly far too fast and rely on on that if they choose to, which IMO is worse.

From my perspective both games are guity of spamming. Me1's short and seperate cooldownw tended to allow for spamming. Me2 the special abilities tended to be spammed.

Modifié par Epic777, 20 mars 2011 - 12:55 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

I'd say the best way to put it would be that ME2 overcompensated for ME1's failings by taking things too far and over-streamlining to the point of dumbing things down. ME2 had a few good concepts that were simply taken too much to the extreme basically. The right idea in many cases, but too much of it. It also tended to ramp things up action wise and modernise things style wise, while also being rather too willing to throw logic, reason and consistency aside in favour of "The Rule of Cool" and immaturity, but whether that's a step down is personal taste (IMO, it was a bad move). There were also a few cases of ME2 "fixing" things that weren't even broken.

Overall things tended to be stripped and replaced rather than actually fixed, so problems and issues were simply avoided rather than tackled properly and made to work, which in the end resulted in new problems replacing them. ME1 tended to often be "too much" of something, while ME2 tended to be "not enough" of it as a result. ME1 was overly complex and cluttered for what are essentially simple mechanics, while ME2 tends to be overly simple and anaemic instead. ME1 made the player do too much to the point of tedium, ME2 does too much for you and takes away choice. ME1 had clumsy mechanics, ME2 had shallow ones.

I'd say this, in a nutshell.

[Anihilus]

ME2 doesn't seem "dumbed down" to me, because for me an inventory system and selling stuff to a store, while a PART of a RPG doesn't define "RPG" for me. Just my opinion

[Almostfaceman]

Admoniter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
Well it's pretty obvious that Casey Hudson is in denial.  It's why they threw in that goofy ME1 "comic" for PS3 users.  The simple truth is ME2 is part of a larger story that isn't finished.  Learn it.  Love it.  Live it.  So the whole book thing really does work, unless you've turned off your brain.

Don't get me wrong I would have said the same thing during ME2s development. But ME2 goes out of its way to drive the point home that it is a standalone game, so maybe CH isn't in as much denial as we think. Whether it be killing you off at the first chance, and using the resurection machine as a way to justify forcing yourself to start from scratch or breaking up the band. ME2 more less was a reboot of the franchise.

And I disagree the book analogy doesn't work, the Mass Effect trilogy is just that a trilogy it is not one single entity. In the same way the Matrix Trilogy or SW OT/PT is composed of individual parts that all stand on there own, each ME game is cleary designed as its own game. Sure you may miss out on some fluff here and there and sure if you didn't play the first you are railroaded down a path so you will miss out on somethings in ME3 but if ME2 is any indication all it will be is emails. So once again I will say in the trilogy of ME I find that ME2s stroy fall short both as an individual story but as part of a larger narrative.

I'm not sure I can help you, because yes, you've turned off your brain.  In the Matrix stories, we follow the story of Neo.  We don't find out what ultimately happens to Neo until the third part.  In the Mass Effect stories, we follow the story of Shepard.  We don't find out what ultimately happens to Shepard until the third part.  If you stop reading or watching or playing or caring at part 2, you'll never, ever, find out what happens to Neo or Shepard.  Just like if you stop at Chapter 2 in a 3 chapter book, you'll never find out how the story ends.  Mass Effect 2 is not designed to complete the story of Shepard, thus many plot points in Shepards story are not going to be resolved until the final chapter, which is Mass Effect 3.

[Tazzmission]

UndercoverDoctor wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

Admoniter wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...
the one real major gripes i had with me2 was the me1 decisions you import. i hope bioware really corrects it for mass effect 3. other than that and a non real threat  i still say the whole crew loyalty missions was well done. its like getting multiple stories from people and i thought it was great..

Well I agree on the decisions part, I will be incredibly disappointed if emails don't go the way of the dinosaur. As for the story I won't deny the loyalty missions were cool (well done.) That said I felt that the overall plot was not up to snuff.

i understand that me2 was in a way a stand alone game but the collector threat couldve been 100 times better. i still love the game but i just pray to god that me3 go's back to me1 roots with the reapers and i pray to god the ending is better than me2s

It was the ending to the middle chapter of a trilogy, what were you expecting?

they couldve done an epic decision making ending when it came to cerbrus and the alliance. the final battle was just to transformerish for my taste. i even feel that they missed a huge plot hole when it came to realising who the collectors once were.

Modifié par Tazzmission, 20 mars 2011 - 04:11 .

[Tarek]

actually the selling in ME1 was shallow and I always end up with 9999999999 credits even after buying every specter weapon in the game.

buying was lame also because I only buy specter weapon cause they are the best.

[ashwind]

I do not feel that ME2 is dumbed down at all - it is different. It is one of the best games I have ever played. Would definitely recommend it to anyone.

Then again, I am not what you call a "RPG purist" who believes that a complex inventory and dressing up companions to be an essential part of RPG.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

I love these threads. How many of these do we get a week? 5-6? I lost count.

[Obrusnine]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

ME2 sucked hardcore. It is a bad CoD clone liked only by the stupid and those critics who undoubtedly took bribes. Everyone who likes it is a drooling moron.

CoD is a first person single and multiplayer first person shooter with lazy designers who don't give a damn about designing the game much because EVERYONE IS GOING TO BUY IT ANYWAY.

How is that in any way related to CoD? Which is a third-person shooter RPG hybrid with an epic storyline (not to mention much better graphics and music).

[Admoniter]

Almostfaceman wrote...
I'm not sure I can help you, because yes, you've turned off your brain.  In the Matrix stories, we follow the story of Neo.  We don't find out what ultimately happens to Neo until the third part.  In the Mass Effect stories, we follow the story of Shepard.  We don't find out what ultimately happens to Shepard until the third part.  If you stop reading or watching or playing or caring at part 2, you'll never, ever, find out what happens to Neo or Shepard.  Just like if you stop at Chapter 2 in a 3 chapter book, you'll never find out how the story ends.  Mass Effect 2 is not designed to complete the story of Shepard, thus many plot points in Shepards story are not going to be resolved until the final chapter, which is Mass Effect 3.

And even without the third Matrix we could still say that the second one was disappointing. See the thing is you can still judge every ME games story as an individual story, hell even if we were to use your book analogy and ME2 is the second act in said book, ME2 just comes off as a more hamfisted contrived story where the overarching plot is not only suspended but completely diverted. I mean just on individual merits ME1s plot is superior and overall ME2 has made it so that ME3 has to play a lot of catchup for just one game. Yes the main plot points are still there the Reapers are coming, what do they want from us, why, how do we stop them, how are they getting here? This is the overarching story, but the fact is each has there own self contained story. Upon completetion of ME1 sure Shepards story is still ongoing  but we had finished the first arc, we stopped Saren, destroyed Sovereign, delayed the return of the Reapers. Just like how ME2 is the second arc and can be judged as such. I'm not saying the overall plot is a writeoff at this point, I will still stick around to finish things off, all I'm saying is that so far the second arc was disappointing. But you know what maybe I'm wrong, perhaps Bioware designed it so that while ME1 was perfectly capable of standing on its own; while ME2 was designed to be ME3 part 1 and cannot stand without it. If that is the case ( well I won't be particularly pleased) but I will eat my hat.

[Drake_Hound]

thrasher64 wrote...

Today I traded in Dragon Age 2 for Mass Effect 2 on PS3. I thought DA2 was a rushed, stupid borderline hack-n-slash game very unlike Origins. I've never played Mass Effect 1 but I've read some reviews and all the reviews go on and on about how ME2 is an improvement in everyway. But as we all know reviewers are ****** who wouldnt know a good game if it face-****ed them. So give it to me straight, is ME2 a RPG-shooter or a third person action game.

Easy question, is it more or less of an RPG than Fallout 3?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

Sorry don´t know if it has been said before and if I am repeating meself , apologies for it .

It´s more of a RPG then fallout last vegas ... in ways you still can level your toon and apply the last ability differently.
It´s sadly not the RPG it was in ME1 . in outfits or talents or leveling .

But it makes sense in the ME universe , while in DA universe i feelt it was a setback , since fantasy has been overdone , and you can still call DA2 a RPG game , but its a watered down RPG game .
More a action slash game with rpg elements DA2 .
While in the ME unvierse it does make sense .

[Almostfaceman]

Admoniter wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...
I'm not sure I can help you, because yes, you've turned off your brain.  In the Matrix stories, we follow the story of Neo.  We don't find out what ultimately happens to Neo until the third part.  In the Mass Effect stories, we follow the story of Shepard.  We don't find out what ultimately happens to Shepard until the third part.  If you stop reading or watching or playing or caring at part 2, you'll never, ever, find out what happens to Neo or Shepard.  Just like if you stop at Chapter 2 in a 3 chapter book, you'll never find out how the story ends.  Mass Effect 2 is not designed to complete the story of Shepard, thus many plot points in Shepards story are not going to be resolved until the final chapter, which is Mass Effect 3.

And even without the third Matrix we could still say that the second one was disappointing. See the thing is you can still judge every ME games story as an individual story, hell even if we were to use your book analogy and ME2 is the second act in said book, ME2 just comes off as a more hamfisted contrived story where the overarching plot is not only suspended but completely diverted. I mean just on individual merits ME1s plot is superior and overall ME2 has made it so that ME3 has to play a lot of catchup for just one game. Yes the main plot points are still there the Reapers are coming, what do they want from us, why, how do we stop them, how are they getting here? This is the overarching story, but the fact is each has there own self contained story. Upon completetion of ME1 sure Shepards story is still ongoing  but we had finished the first arc, we stopped Saren, destroyed Sovereign, delayed the return of the Reapers. Just like how ME2 is the second arc and can be judged as such. I'm not saying the overall plot is a writeoff at this point, I will still stick around to finish things off, all I'm saying is that so far the second arc was disappointing. But you know what maybe I'm wrong, perhaps Bioware designed it so that while ME1 was perfectly capable of standing on its own; while ME2 was designed to be ME3 part 1 and cannot stand without it. If that is the case ( well I won't be particularly pleased) but I will eat my hat.

If you want to take this approach that's your call.  I'd rather wait to judge the story once I've seen it all put together.  I'm glad you still seem to be interested in seeing what happens.  What I'm saying is that ME3 can actually enhance what happens in ME2, so I take that into account when deciding how much I enjoy ME2.

[Terror_K]

Nyoka wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
However, compare the sidequests in ME2 to ME1. In ME2 we have a silent Shepard running around linear little worlds with just-as-silent companions doing gimmicky little quests that are overall meaningless and except in one rare case don't really have moral choices and don't have interesting stories or NPCs or even let you explore and deviate that much. ME1 may have a lot of samey worlds and bases, but most planet textures and skyboxes are different and have carefully been crafted, while the missions themselves are interesting and varied storywise, are properly set-up and ended with dialogue most times, have chosen dialogue here and there, have some interesting NPCs and moral choices, have your companions weighing in on situations and commenting, etc.

I think you have a point to an extent, but I have to disagree. I'd say that Jack loyalty mission for instance has more depth than any ME1 sidequest, and it also ended with a decision and dialogue (in fact I'd say all loyalty missions are side quests since you aren't really forced to do them. All of them feel unique, and they are definitely not meaningless). I remember some really tedious ME1 sidequests, like the one in the moon, where you had to do exactly the same thing three times, or those three planets with geth preparing an offensive (the ones you get the data Tali wants from).

I agree with you about the openness and exploration bit, but not because there are no generic planets to drive around (honestly I didn't miss those), but because there are places, like Horizon or Freedom's Progress, where the pathway was strictly predetermined even though they are supposed to be open, outdoors areas.

Well, to be fair, I wasn't considering loyalty missions as sidequests here, because they're actually listed as main ones, even though they're optional. I tend to think of them more as either "optional main quests" or "secondary quests" personally. In either case, I was comparing the likes of ME1's UNC world quests to ME2's N7 missions in this case, because they are far more the equivalent of each other. And overall the N7 missions felt very lazy and unpolished presentation wise.

[Admoniter]

Almostfaceman wrote...
If you want to take this approach that's your call.  I'd rather wait to judge the story once I've seen it all put together.  I'm glad you still seem to be interested in seeing what happens.  What I'm saying is that ME3 can actually enhance what happens in ME2, so I take that into account when deciding how much I enjoy ME2.

That's all well and good, but no matter how connected each ME game is they still do have to be able to stand on their own. IMO if the merit of ME2s plot turns out to be "Well its significantly better when you factor in ME3" well that isn't exactly a point in its favor.