270 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

eldav wrote...

Mass effect 2 is boring, no intresting dialog and no immersivness, no continuation and no logic.
To say otherwise is unlogical, so it is a fact that ME1 is a better game.
I wont tolerate fanboys who cry out loud that the sequel is better and we who dont get it is just stupid morons.

I lol'd.

You saw the Irony there too eh? lol

[Zubie]

I don't think either game is better than the other. ME2 was a massive improvement in many areas but was step backward in others.

In the end, ME2 has more re-playability for me because the gameplay is simply more fun.

Really, as stated many times before they just need to blend in the strengths of the two in ME3 and make a ****in epic game.

Modifié par easygame88, 14 avril 2011 - 10:13 .

[TheOtherTheoG]

I have to disagree with you when talking about morality based choices - there were more in Mass Effect 2. For example, give Veetor to Tali or take him in for questioning, spare the batarians holding Daniel hostage or kill them, kill Sargeant Cathka, who had treated you nicely, unlike all of the other mercs, or spare him, at the cost of having more gunship to shoot later, kill or spare Elnora, the misguided Eclipse merc, let Miranda kill Niket or stop her, either send Ronald Taylor to prison, leave him to starve and die on the island or make him commit suicide, choose between Samara and Morinth, let Kolyat kill Joram Talid, stop him or kill him yourself, shoot Harkin or just headbutt him, let Garrus murder Sidonis or stop him, convince the Quarians to start war against the Geth or ceasefire, release the evidence from the Alarei or not, kill Maelon or spare him, destroy the genophage cure or save it, rewrite Heretics or kill them, destroy or spare the Collector Base, trust the terrorist organisation that brought you back to life or don't - I felt ME2 was far more morality-based than the first game, whilst the choices in ME1 were certainly very important, ME2's choices felt far more personal and close to the player. Just my opinion.

[rmann]

My main problem with Noveria was the massive use of elevators. Getting the garage pass from Lorik was a pain in the ass: take an elevator up to talk to Lorik, take the elevator back down to the main floor, take an elevator up to Lorik's apartment, get the evidence and take the elevator back down to main floor, take an elevator up to give Lorik his stuff, take an elevator back down to the main floor. Finally you can leave!

[N7Infernox]

Subjective thread is subjective. No amount of logic can prove to me that ME1 was better than ME2, b/c the second will always be more fun to me.

/thread

[didymos1120]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

It's hypocritical because they would have just gone into the room and shot Aresh since he was the one that ordered the mercs to kill Shepard, Jack, and Squadmate.

-NSB

No, it's not: mercs were attacking you, not giving you any choice but to fight.  Aresh was not attacking, but talking. He was also unarmed.  See the difference?

[Siansonea]

I like both games. Both have great characters and interesting stories. The overall story of the first game was better in my opinion, I always felt like the Collectors were a rather lackluster enemy compared to Saren and Sovereign. But the second game has some of the most interesting characters in the franchise. I hope ME3 combines the best of both games, while omitting the most troublesome elements of each.

[didymos1120]

Commander_Adept wrote...


I wasn't talking about find Lorik himself, that was simple as dicks. Finding his office, on the other hand, was a **** and a half.

Oh, alright.  I can see getting a bit lost on that part.  Still...45 minutes?

The Mako run is quite long and would take forever to walk through

Not if you just gun it through in the Mako and run over whatever is in your direct path (most stuff isn't).  And I wasn't saying walking would be short.  I'm just saying it's possible to do.

Also, I didn't have like any omni-gel for the puzzle, thus I had to do it

Well, OK. Still didn't find it to be a difficult puzzle. 

And circling not as backtracking. Backtracking is fine. Circling around in the peak trying to find the next plotpoint, only to end up in the same place you were in the first place. It's like the Mako part of Virmire, where you easily miss the turn you need to take unless you look at the map very repeatedly

Well, don't know what to tell you.  I didn't have that issue.  Talk to people and maybe use the map.  And Virmire?  That, like all the Mako parts on the main missions, was basically a straight corridor.  There was precisely one fork, and both branches join back up at the same place.

Modifié par didymos1120, 14 avril 2011 - 10:27 .

[NoSoyBueno]

TheOtherTheoG:
While I acknowledge that all of the cases mentioned involve morality, many of them do nevertheless have the alternative problem of consistently coming at the end of missions, as I've mentioned before. Too many missions seem to have this format of (arrive --> told there are several dozen enemies in the way --> kill enemies --> make abstract moral choice). Instead, I believe that there should be moral decisions throughout missions - Feros may have an ending in which the player must decide whether to spare or kill Shiala, but there are also many decisions leading up to that.

Also, I apparently have to state that I do like Mass Effect 2. I figured you would all realize that I was pointing out things that I consider deficient in Mass Effect 2, and that their valuations are necessarily subjective. Apparently, Captain Obvious and team have made this a means of attacking my thread. The reason I gave it the title I did, and the reason I did not have further explanation for many of the points that would have made my stance clearer is because I have consistently seen on this forum that people will use TLDR as a reason not to bother examining these things for themselves. I was trying to keep it simple and straightforward.

Now, would you not say that Mass Effect 2 could have been (or Mass Effect 3 could be) improved by improving on the elements I have stated?

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 14 avril 2011 - 10:34 .

[Commander_Adept]

didymos1120 wrote...

Commander_Adept wrote...


I wasn't talking about find Lorik himself, that was simple as dicks. Finding his office, on the other hand, was a **** and a half.

Oh, alright.  I can see getting a bit lost on that part.  Still...45 minutes?

The Mako run is quite long and would take forever to walk through

Not if you just gun it through in the Mako and run over whatever is in your direct path (most stuff isn't).  And I wasn't saying walking would be short.  I'm just saying it's possible to do.

Also, I didn't have like any omni-gel for the puzzle, thus I had to do it

Well, OK. Still didn't find it to be a difficult puzzle. 

And circling not as backtracking. Backtracking is fine. Circling around in the peak trying to find the next plotpoint, only to end up in the same place you were in the first place. It's like the Mako part of Virmire, where you easily miss the turn you need to take unless you look at the map very repeatedly

Well, don't know what to tell you.  I didn't have that issue.  Talk to people and maybe use the map.  And Virmire?  That, like all the Mako parts on the main missions, was basically a straight corridor.  There was precisely one fork, and both branches join back up at the same place.

I was probably being a little over-estimative with the 45 minutes thing. Still, it took far longer than necessary.

The part that was annoying is the part where you have to pull a U Turn, I miss it every time unless I look at the map constantly

[Tony Gunslinger]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

TheOtherTheoG:
While I acknowledge that all of the cases mentioned involve morality, many of them do nevertheless have the alternative problem of consistently coming at the end of missions, as I've mentioned before. Too many missions seem to have this format of (arrive --> told there are several dozen enemies in the way --> kill enemies --> make abstract moral choice). Instead, I believe that there should be moral decisions throughout missions - Feros may have an ending in which the player must decide whether to spare or kill Shiala, but there are also many decisions leading up to that.

Also, I apparently have to state that I do like Mass Effect 2. I figured you would all realize that I was pointing out things that I consider deficient in Mass Effect 2, and that their valuations are necessarily subjective. Apparently, Captain Obvious and team have made this a means of attacking my thread. The reason I gave it the title I did, and the reason I did not have further explanation for many of the points that would have made my stance clearer is because I have consistently seen on this forum that people will use TLDR as a reason not to bother examining these things for themselves. I was trying to keep it simple and straightforward.

Now, would you not say that Mass Effect 2 could have been (or Mass Effect 3 could be) improved by improving on the elements I have stated?

-NSB

Dialog-based missions, or avoiding combat, should be there because there is a good reason to do so, no different than combat should be there because there is a good reason to do have combat.

Most LM missions make you deal with hostile environments and situations. Miranda is escorting her secret sister while her father is hunting her down. Jack is going to an abandoned Cerberus base, Jacob is looking for his father in an unknown planet, etc. Having Thane's and Samara's LM being dialog-based makes them special and meaningful because these characters are considered as the best warriors, and so it is ironic that their biggest conflicts have nothing to do with combat, but dealing with personal demons.

You're also using a lot of strawman arguments, and they're laced with insinuations regarding "smart RPGers vs. stupid shooter kids", and that's going to naturally ****** people off. You could have written something like this instead:

"I didn't feel ME2 had enough non-combat missions, if they had (provide your great idea), wouldnt that make the game so much better?"

^That's a constructive conversation. It talks about ideas without attacks or a hidden agenda (ie: lobbying BW to remove ammo clips because you can't admit you suck at shooting), and it invites real investigative conversation to solve a real identifiable issue, such as "Well if you add X, then Y would happen, and therefore Z is your result, so does Z accomplish the shared goal?" Your OP does not do any of that, and even your title is inflammatory.

[Gibb_Shepard]

chester013 wrote...

A lot of these points have been poured over to no end so I'll add my thought in a very brief manner.

Noveria - boring. Yep having all that dialogue to wade through before I could shoot something bored the hell out of me.

ME2 isn't perfect but it was better than ME1, I get the impression you rushed though and have yet to explore the game fully.

How can you explore a game fully when you just want to shoot ****?

[Mylene]

The combat in me2 is much more fun.That's enough for me.

[NoSoyBueno]

and they're laced with insinuations regarding "smart RPGers vs. stupid shooter kids", and that's going to naturally ****** people off

I can't let this one go. It's simply not true. I play shooters myself (I've played Bad Company 2 more than I've played Mass Effect, and that is just one). The reason I play Mass Effect is because I want an RPG. The reason I make issue with it is that it is very easy to find shooters, but difficult to find something like Mass Effect (1).

I am also not arguing that there should more non-combat missions - just more options to deal with these that might not necessarily result in mass slaughter.  You say that it is just the nature of the missions that they are hostile, but that is not immutable.  The developers could alternatively have written Miranda's mission such that you could confront Niket peacefully, and then make a decision about whether to pursue the violent path - such a mission would make sense and introduces a much more troubling moral dilemma than killing a guy who is about to die anyway.

The point is, they didn't HAVE to make the missions demand lots of violence.

Your OP does not do any of that, and even your title is inflammatory.

My post DID invite conversation.  If the title is inflammatory, it's because the nature of this forum demands it.  Like I said, I kept it short and titled it as such so as to keep things clear and not just let people off with 'TL;DR'.  I am not just making that up, either, because some weeks ago, I posted a thread in which I elaborated on many of the same grievances, but it was long and aptly titled so nobody paid any attention.

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 15 avril 2011 - 01:24 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

and they're laced with insinuations regarding "smart RPGers vs. stupid shooter kids", and that's going to naturally ****** people off

I can't let this one go. It's utter nonsense. I play shooters myself (I've played Bad Company 2 more than I've played Mass Effect, and that is just one). The reason I play Mass Effect is because I want an RPG. The reason I make issue with it is that it is very easy to find shooters, but difficult to find something like Mass Effect (1).

One example, this is what you said:

However, to disagree with the first four is to say that an RPG should not have dialogue, morality, or exploration, and simply have combat.

(for the slow ones: dialogue, morality, and exploration are the cornerstones of RPGs)

First sentence is a strawman argument. And in the parentheses, who are the slow ones?

I am also not arguing that there should more non-combat missions - just more options to deal with these that might not necessarily result in mass slaughter.  You say that it is just the nature of the missions that they are hostile, but that is not immutable.  The developers could alternatively have written Miranda's mission such that you could confront Niket peacefully, and then make a decision about whether to pursue the violent path - such a mission would make sense and introduces a much more troubling moral dilemma than killing a guy who is about to die anyway.

BW could have made every single mission to have non-combat options, but would that be a better game? Which missions should have non-combat options? Who gets to decide? You? Me?

The point is, they didn't HAVE to make the missions demand lots of violence.

Well they did, and let me tell you, it was a lot of fun. Miranda's mission on insanity has a mix of CQC and complex flanking routes. The layout and enemy types made it difficult to camp in one place and cheese out. You must know when to rush in and use the right powers and weapons, and good sense of timing to get past their defensive positions to strike at their vulnerable points. I thoroughly enjoyed it from a strategic standpoint. I did a lot for Miranda, and because I did it the hard way, I deserve her loyalty. That's the payoff.

I wouldn't know if NOT fighting on that mission would have been made ME2 a better game than ME1. I just know that the current version is pretty fun and challenging.

My post DID invite conversation.  If the title is inflammatory, it's because the nature of this forum demands it.  Like I said, I kept it short and titled it as such so as to keep things clear and not just let people off with 'TL;DR'.  I am not just making that up, either, because some weeks ago, I posted a thread in which I elaborated on many of the same grievances, but it was long and aptly titled so nobody paid any attention.

You're responsible for the tone and direction of your conversation, and if you don't like the trolled-out atmosphere, do something about it instead being part of the problem.

If your real issue after all these pages was really just about having more non-combat options, then don't post something about ME1>ME2 and post a thread called "More Non-Combat Options Would Have Made ME2 Better." Then people will talk about things like "OK, what kinds of options are you think of? Should Miranda's mission been better if you didn't have to fight?" etc etc. It's a perfectly legitimate issue. Samara's LM is one of my favorites, and I would have loved to have more missions like it. It does not however, automatically make me believe ME1>ME2.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 15 avril 2011 - 01:58 .

[Gingi]

even though second game lacking a bit rpg features its still way better than the first.better grafics and sound,alot better combat system,better paragon/renegade,more celebrities giving voice to npc s(personally love aria),complex and darker approach to story

[NoSoyBueno]

Like I said, I posted a thread here in which I attempted to do it according to your rules. This was demoted from the first page before anyone could reply - how can I 'do something about it' when there is no response?  In contrast, this thread has reached six pages in as many hours, and I think that this thread has shown that there are people out there who
agree at least somewhat with some of the points I have made.

And in the parentheses, who are the slow ones?

The ones who repeatedly ignore the concepts I am trying to emphasize and simply write off my comments as being unreasonable requests. All I mean to point out is that it is an RPG, and an RPG (normative statement ahead) should be at least somewhat like an RPG, not just like a shooter. If Bioware wants to make a shooter, fine, but that's not what I would like Mass Effect to be as long as we can honestly call it an RPG.

BW could have made every single mission to have non-combat options, but would that be a better game?

When did I suggest that?  I just want more of the missions to have player choices that actually affect the way they play.

If your real issue after all these pages was really just about having more non-combat options

That was not the only issue - all the points mentioned in the first post, except point 5, are things that I consider deficient in ME2. The fact that this one came up frequently is a result of it first being the easiest to demonstrate and second being the one most brought up by the detractors (aside from the characters one, but my views on that were not as strong).

then don't post something about ME1>ME2 and post a thread called "More Non-Combat Options Would Have Made ME2 Better."

And nobody would have posted here because that title drives them away - even if there were people who had opinions on this out there, the thread would be demoted from the first page almost immediately.

My goal was to put into words what many people have had difficulty expressing. I have found, in the past, that people have issues and concerns about Mass Effect 2, but cannot quite put their finger on what is wrong. A significant part of the issue is that what they have objections with is not tangible. It's quite easy to say that the interface is good, and the combat is fluid, or even alternatively criticize the story, but what about something that is unique to the game over superficially similar alternatives?

Now, I invite you to review the statements made in this thread.  I am confident you will find that it is the detractors who have made my arguments sound extreme.  Also note that I have recanted on what were once points 6 and 7.

-NSB

Modifié par NoSoyBueno, 15 avril 2011 - 03:01 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

NoSoyBueno wrote...
My goal was to put into words what many people have had difficulty expressing. I have found, in the past, that people have issues and concerns about Mass Effect 2, but cannot quite put their finger on what is wrong. A significant part of the issue is that what they have objections with is not tangible. It's quite easy to say that the interface is good, and the combat is fluid, or even alternatively criticize the story, but what about something that is unique to the game over superficially similar alternatives?

Now, I invite you to review the statements made in this thread.  I am confident you will find that it is the detractors who have made my arguments sound extreme.  Also note that I have recanted on what were once points 6 and 7.

To me ME1's tangibles were the byproduct of being a new game with a refreshing idea at the time. A sci-fi action RPG that combined workable action elements and great story telling. The art direction and music invoked that classic sci-fi optimism that we haven't experienced much at the time. The facial expressions, dialog, and motion really brought out the personalies of the NPCs. The cutscenes were render very cinematic and epic. I think that tangible feeling is the feeling of 'newness.' These things are in ME2, but they're not new anymore.

Keep in mind that ME1's main story was NOT about the Reapers. The Reapers were an overarching plot that was revealed late in the game. The actual main story was really about a space marine named Shepard becoming the first human Spectre fighting a rogue agent Saren and the Geth. And because of that, it was appropriate to introduce the ME universe and make it explorable, and allows you to take your time to immerse yourself with it as you please.

In ME2, the main story is about stopping the Collectors from kidnapping humans before it's too late. You're under a clock. The Reaper conflict is just a backdrop, much like a WWII movie doesn't need to be always about how to defeat the Axis powers, much like the Rebel-Empire conflict is just a backdrop to Luke's internal character buildup and Han and Leia's romance in ESB... if you had to describe it, Empire Strikes Back's plot is actually just one really long and dragged-out car chase in space.

And because of ME2's main story, I think its overall art direction, music and visual designs had to be more gritty, urgent, darker. Things like exploration, spending time getting loot and money would not have necessarily have helped invoking that sense of urgency. So yes, ME2's atmosphere is purposefully different, it is more violent, the characters are more sinister, they don't waste their time to tell you their culture and history of their race. If they had kept the same atmosphere and tone of speech as the first game, ME2's story would seem out of place behind a 70's-inspired electro soundtrack and bright shiny vehicles and armor, and the 'intangibles' would have tired out its welcome by the 3rd game.

I think ME2 beats out ME1, but not by much. ME1 has that special feeling, but it was a flawed game in a lot of ways, and its mechanics are outdated. ME2 improved in pretty much every way as a game and have more replayability, but it has lost its innocence.

[NoSoyBueno]

In ME2, the main story is about stopping the Collectors from kidnapping humans before it's too late. You're under a clock.

This is an interesting point, but I would like to introduce a consideration: Mass Effect's overarching plot, at least after you become a Spectre, is self-described as a 'race against time', as well. That is, Shepard is supposed to be trying to reach the Conduit before Saren.

While I nevertheless recognize this as a valid argument against having extensive exploration elements, I still feel like the experiences could have been more immersive if not exploratory. A very good example of immersion, which is actually in Mass Effect 2, is Omega. If one goes directly from playing Mass Effect to playing Mass Effect 2, the change in setting from the Citadel to when one lands on Omega is shocking - there are Batarians and Vorcha lying in the streets, with people trying to get by in an extortionist business environment, and the only sign of affluence is a club operated by some morally questionable people.

While I appreciate the variety of the hubs that Bioware has provided in ME2, I still feel like they could be a bit more developed. I am certainly not demanding that everything be the size and scale of the ME1 Citadel, but more flavor would be nice.

-NSB

[bald man in a boat]

NoSoyBueno wrote...

While I appreciate the variety of the hubs that Bioware has provided in ME2, I still feel like they could be a bit more developed. I am certainly not demanding that everything be the size and scale of the ME1 Citadel, but more flavor would be nice.

-NSB

The hubs in ME2 were a lot more flavourful than the empty train station that was Noveria.

[Iakus]

I dunno if it's a good idea to get involved in this thread, but...

The problem with ME 2 is that while it has an ultimate "goal" in defeating the Collectors, you spend most of the game pretty much ignoring it.

Upgrading the Normandy consists of firing enough probes at planets and shoveling platinum into the fabber.

Getting people ready for the mission consists primarilly of slaughtering random mercs to solve their personal problems. And here I thought it would be something l ike aclimating them into working as a team, equipping them, and whatnot.

There's nothing like "Let's make sure we have the best weapons, the best armor, and learn as much as we can" Most of the upgrades and weapons you do get are either tripped over on missions, or Shep finds on mall runs. What kind of preparation is that?

There's more to a game than AWESOME!!! combat..

Modifié par iakus, 15 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[chester013]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Teknor wrote...

ME>ME2>ME3. Problem Bioware ?

It's all been utter trash since Baldur's Gate 2.

And yet you continue to play them.  Seems to me if it bothered you that much you wouldnt even bother playing them.  

I figure the only way to make Bioware a better company is to buy all their games and then spend years on the forums pointing out every flaw. Unfortunately most people disagree with me and think I'm derranged but I will never give up. Bioware is complete garbage and I will expose them.

Thank you for your attention.

I concur!

You people see these owls? Get out of here owls, I will not buy your encyclopedias! I can't read your language I can only speak it, hooo hooo hooo hooo!

[Fixers0]

To the OP, I agree with you, but i would like to add something.

The Real problem with the Mass Effect 2 characters is not  really themselfs, but the story their in, aside from three characters (Miranda, Legion and Jacob) who were introduced via the main plot, all other characters are experianced in the same way, they have cannend recruitment and loyalty missions and some onboard dialogue, this system is repeated over and over again with each character.
 
What's even worse is that none of these characters are relevant to the progression of the plot, there just along for the ride and to tell their own self containded story, which has nothing to do with story's of other Characters, well aside from legion in Tali's loyalty mission, and there it works fine.

One question i'm constantly asking myself is why i even recruit these characters , without a proper introduction through the plot or further relevance there is abo****ly no reason to take recruit any of these people.

One small gripe i also have, is to why every squadmate has to be some to have a background of murder and violance, and why they all had to be a bunch of cool badasses.

[tonnactus]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
Things like exploration, spending time getting loot and money would not have necessarily have helped invoking that sense of urgency.

But 12 "loyality missions",most about "daddy issues",did?

[tonnactus]

didymos1120 wrote...


You could fail both (your choice) and in Samara's you could choose to kill her. 

It doesnt matter. Both mission are no combat missions.(the killing is just a cutscene)
There is no choice unlike with Major Kyle for example(kill or talk/ or giving anoleis the mods of the hanar)
Mass Effect 2 is complete railroading.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 avril 2011 - 08:07 .