Cainne Chapel wrote...
Sure the worlds weren't as big (or as empty) But there were still great scenes on the ones you could go too and while the environment wasn't as big in say the Citadel, it DID feel more alive.
More alive, yes, but smaller. That's not exaclt an improvement, that's a change. Personally, I'd take bigger rather than more alive, at least in this context. I never found the ME1 citadel like a teaser of sorts, I never felt like I was missing something. Omega must be the worst. It looks great and all, but after walking for 2 minutes you saw everything. I felt disappointed less than an hour after I landed there, hell less than that I think. It felt cramped and small. Cramped is good since it goes with the design of the city, but so small that I felt like playing a demo rather than the real deal. If you're going to bother create such extenisve aesthetics for a city, better use it as much as possible, and not 80% of it for empty corridors to shoot through, rather than areas to actually do some RPG stuff like the Afterlife.
I also dont see how the game went in the wrong direction when most every major outlet (not to mention sales) think the game improved vastly and there are number to support that (awards, yada yada).
Yeah sure, because that stuff actually means something... You know, CoD sells MORE than ever after countless iterations of the same damn thing, the games never made any real improvements besides fancier graphics, addition of small bits here and there or significant change. The CoD series is the ultimate proof that lazyness is rewarded by awards and sales. PLUS, most of the sales are made in the first week, ie. people have no idea how the game actually plays, people are not able to actually judge the game. So sales is hardly a way to properly show how people like the game, it's only because of the hype. I bought ME2 and was disappointed, yet me buying the game is counting towards the game being good? Nonsense. That's why creating incredible hype like Bioware or Bungie does, along a strong marketing campaign is more important than actually making a good game. And it shows. If anything, sales only prove how good the last game was, but then there's plenty of new people who come in because of the marketting campaign.
And reviews are obviously biaised. I recently read IGN's Brink review, and it was complete unproffesional trash. There were contradictions with sentiments they share with other games everywhere. Or, the reviewer was dumb enough to not get what the game was about. Reviews are not made to inform us, they are made to sell a product. Teamxbox stopped reviewing for months after they gave FFXIII two very low scores in a row when they sent a complete copy of the game. A gamespot dude got fired after giving Kane and Lynch a low score. Plus, you just have to actually READ the review, to realize there's far better ones written by non-professional people. That, and reviewers having to be productive means they won't play through ME2 more than one time to see if the various mechanics are actually well made and all. I loved ME2 on my first playthrough, but started to be more disappointed the more I played it. You just can't accurately judge a game when playing it a bit like reviewers do, and that's another reason why you shouldn't trust ''professional'' reviewers. And awards is just a way to get post-release sales. That may be an exaggeration, but I wouldn't be surprised. Anyway, you could already guess the winners based on the score the games got, these people giving awards haven't played much more the game. I'm not saying ME2 would have necessarily got lesser scores if reviewers played more the game, but it would definitely be more accurate. Some games would get the same scores, other lower or higher.
Could the game have been better? OF COURSE. But it not bad enough to say that one would worry about 3 (especially since the devs said they want to inject more RPG into it).
Imo, by scrapping so many aspects and rebooting others, they couldn't actually IMPROVE on pre-existing stuff, so they get to release again stuff that could be improved on subsequent games. That, and I found most changes to be bad ones. Only the combat itself actually got better. But the level design is a massive step down if you don't count the bases on the planets to explore.
Retour en haut
.
