194 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

Origins was better

[CroGamer002]

Harmless Crunch wrote...

archurban wrote...

Emelligos wrote...

Not even EA can destroy Bioware.

they can't because two Dr., who founded Bioware, are Vice presidents in EA. EA can't just remove them. they are very effective people in gaming industry today.

Somebody forgotten about the Infinity Ward's heads being fired by Activision...

Didn't they quit?

[roflchoppaz]

GodWood wrote...

Origins was better

That game was only for the fans of the genre. I, myself, didn't like it much. It was clumsy as hell.

[Phategod1]

Take that Madden 5959

[Phaedon]

Computer_God91 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...

That's one way to completely own a troll.

I like how any opinion that disagrees with your own is considered trolling. I'm with these "trolls" ME2 was a complete disappointment shot out at the masses who drool themselves to bed with every $60 update they pay for  CoD. Of course it'll be the highest rated when the masses tend to have a low intelligence level or just like the kind of game that is a cut and paste from every other one on the market.

Was this post solely to ****** people off? Yes. Would I openly debate my opinion in a non-insulting mannor? Yes.

Yes, I am sure that you have played a lot of COD games, and you aren't just jumping on the bandwagon hate of the last two.

Yeah, I am certain 'bout that.

Nashiktal wrote...

I always chuckle when people say ME is trying to be gears.

Personally I think its more that ME is using the shooting mechanics that Gears (and killswitch before it, and the game Gateway before that) introduced to the game industry at large. Which is the cover system of course. ME honestly doesn't use anything else from gears, not that its copying gears at all. Just using an introduced mechanic.

Whoever pulls the Gears card dismisses their argument for me.

I doubt most of the have played GoW, and while the only similarities are the cover system, they seem to think that it's "dumbed down".

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 mai 2011 - 10:47 .

[Chaos Gate]

Well, I've played Gears of War - it's one of my favourite franchises. And I feel that the likening of Mass Effect 2 to Gears of War is completely justified, IMO. Because while the ME series has always been a shooter/RPG hybrid, ME2 completely threw this balance out of sync. It was about 85% action, 15% RPG (and that's being generous). And so yes, I believe ME2 was more akin to Gears of War than Mass Effect.

roflchoppaz wrote...

That game was only for the fans of the genre. I, myself, didn't like it much. It was clumsy as hell.

Origins was pretty smooth for me - I don't recall anything clumsy about it. I definitely liked it better than ME2, because the story, the lore and the characters were deeper and more developed. The only thing I didn't like about it was the overly hard boss battles.

Phategod1 wrote...

Take that Madden 5959

LOL. I've always hated recycled EA sport games. Serving up the same old trash since 1994.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 20 mai 2011 - 10:58 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]moneycashgeorge wrote...
I do love the series, but I have to agree with the people here saying that ME2 isn't that great, especially when compared to the original. The truth is that is was dumbed down and mass marketed. To the people saying "EA can't hurt bioware", well they obviously already did.[/quote]
If you are going to call ME2 dumbed down, then you are calling ME1 dumbed down as well.

ME1 assumes that you have little shooter skill and proceeds by having player-configured stats affect your direct control over the shooting/protagonist.

[quote[Gameplay was definitely less clunky than the original, but also less ambitious. It stuck too closely to the Gears of War formula, and severely downplayed the Biotics/Tech. While the original had the believable Tech Mines, ME2 has ice blasts and fireballs. And suddenly most Biotic abilities do nothing in most situations. It makes combat simpler and more shooty. Just like, you guessed it, gears of war. [/quote]
You are incorrect. The biotics are more balanced, because ME1 was a fest of imbalanced stats and godly weapons and powers. I have yet to see why ice blasts and fireballs are 'unbelievable', and I think that most will agree with me that the shooting is only the backdrop, the one used to maintain yourself until you get into some real action, aka powers.

[quote]The story was made much less scientific,[/quote]
BS. Shepard's revival makes as much sense as modifying the mass of an object by using neutronium and then folding space. You don't know what future science can or can not do, so stop claiming otherwise.

[quote]and also much more episodic.[/quote]
And your point is?

[quote]There is hardly any over-arching story in Mass Effect 2, and the end result is basically of no consequence. What good is stopping the creation of one thing when there are "legion" of that same thing right around the corner? The fact is that Mass Effect 2 was very well presented, it has possibly the best story presentation and visual design of any game ever made, but its story has no significance in relation to its predecessor. [/quote]
What are you on about. Mass Effect 1 had 4 themes, the trilogy overreaching plot, hunting for Saren, the Protheans and species relationships.

Mass Effect 2 has morality (Very powerful, yet subtle theme, grey morality, synthetic morality etc), the relationship with Cerberus, inter-family relationships, the abduction of human colonists AND the overreaching trilogy plot.

[quote]I can not know this, but I suspect that the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Mass Effect 2 was for the same reason as the reaction to GTA4. The previous games had cemented a legendary reputation, and the critics were "wow"ed by their initial reactions and gave the games overly high scores without really considering the merit of the game or assessing its flaws.[/quote]
ME1 never cemented a legendary reputation. A good one, yes. You can't believe how many people were let down because it wasn't KOTOR. The technical issues, the short and sloppy story, the flawed interaction of RPG and shooter mechanics, the streamlined shooter mechanics, all of these made ME1 come off as a great game, but not as the definitive game of this generation.

[quote]From an objective perspective, I would have to say that Red Dead Redemption was last year's best game. It knew what it wanted to be and achieved that goal perfectly. Every gameplay aspect was fleshed out perfectly. It took a risky and creative setting and realized it beautifully. It made great strides in random events, horseback riding, large cohesive worlds, realistic fauna and flora, skybox design and thematic depth that are far ahead of both Rockstar's catalog and the entire industry. Mass Effect 2's only stand out features were cinematic camera work (rarely) and aesthetic armor customization (for the player character). [/quote]
Voice acting, graphics, music, sound effects, story, actually having choices, very deep character development, interesting themes, visual style etc.

[quote]I'd say that Mass Effect 2's scores are far more a reflection of the growing appreciation for Mass Effect 1's conversation innovations, shooter/RPG hybrid approach, lore depth, and realism for a sci-fi setting. Compared to those massive strides, Mass Effect 2 was a relative failure.[/quote]
Wait....what!

Conversation innovations? None- ME1's dialogue is severly... "dumbed down" in comparison to other RPGs.
Shooter/RPG hybrid? Not even close. ME1 is an RPG with a couple of shooter elements, it doesn't deserve being called a hybrid. No, it's not because the RPG features are meh, or that the shooter combat is badly made, it's because it actually has RPG features dominating over the shooter ones.


In reality, ME2 is the first real hybrid.

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
Whoever pulls the Gears card dismisses their argument for me.

I doubt most of the have played GoW, and while the only similarities are the cover system, they seem to think that it's "dumbed down".

Yeah, I have played all the Gears games, and I must say that ME2 is nothing like them. In fact, ME3 could benefit from adopting some of the movement mechanics from Gears 3.

[Phaedon]

Chaos Gate wrote...

Well, I've played Gears of War - it's one of my favourite franchises. And I feel that the likening of Mass Effect 2 to Gears of War is completely justified, IMO. Because while the ME series has always been a shooter/RPG hybrid, ME2 completely threw this balance out of sync. It was about 85% action, 15% RPG (and that's being generous). And so yes, I believe ME2 was more akin to Gears of War than Mass Effect.

Yes, I remember how you think that a deep RPG experience is about stats.
Why don't you check the interview the TES creators had about RPG elements?

ME1 is not a hybrid, not even close, it has RPG mechanics defining shooter mechanics. The most important part of a shooter is to have direct control over the protagonist in combat. ME1 limits that. A lot.

In fact, you don't even justify how it's anything like GoW there. It has enhanced shooter combat, therefore it is GoW? Heh

While ME2 could invest with more stats on things that the player can't control, these stats are still there, and the shooter elements are seperate than with the RPG ones, hence a true hybrid.

I love how in every one of these threads that has positive news about ME2, the same people come and try to derail them, each time. And yet, this isn't ban-able, somehow.

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 mai 2011 - 11:07 .

[Someone With Mass]

I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

I also love how they claim that ME2 squadmates are not integral to the plot. Collecting them is an objective.

Collecting ME1 squaddies? Tali is an obvious plot device, Ashley just transfers to your ship for some reason, Wrex and Garrus offer no real explanation of why they should come with you, etc.

[GodWood]

Someone With Mass wrote...
I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

And ME2 was made up of these 'subplots' that had no real impact or relevence to the Reapers so people see this as a valid thing to complain about.

Modifié par GodWood, 20 mai 2011 - 11:28 .

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
I also love how they claim that ME2 squadmates are not integral to the plot. Collecting them is an objective.

Collecting ME1 squaddies? Tali is an obvious plot device, Ashley just transfers to your ship for some reason, Wrex and Garrus offer no real explanation of why they should come with you, etc.

And they're clearly important and good to have in ME3, when you have to rally and help the different races.

[Phaedon]

GodWood wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

And ME2 was made up of these 'subplots' that had no real impact or relevence to the Reapers and people see this as a valid thing to complain about.

No, you are wrong. There are as many missions in ME1 about the Protheans and the Reapers, as there are in ME2 about the Collectors and the Reapers. There are just additional missions (that are the central point of the game) that are about your squadmates.

[candidate88766]

1. Congrats to Bioware, its a great game and a great series - make sure the 3rd lives up to it!

2. Why do people think that GoW and CoD are bad games? They are good for what they are. If you want a mentally stimulating story with emotional and moral complexity you don't play them, you play games like ME or ME2. If you just want to blow **** up you play GoW or CoD - they provide a different form of entertainment and do so brilliantly. Their gameplay is the best of their respective genre (TPS or FPS) and above all else they are fun. The Mass Effect games are fun, but in a different way.

Its the difference between reading a novel or watching a film. The Mass Effect games are like reading good novels: they take a fair investment of time and have engrossing stories that build slowly towards the conclusion, introducing many subplots along the way. Playing GoW or CoD is like watching a Michael Bay film. Its entertainment where you can just turn your brain off for a bit and have some fun. You may not like that sort of entertainment, but that doesn't make it bad or derivative.They have fantastic gameplay and they aren't afraid to let their hair down and just have some fun, so to speak. The community of CoD could definitely be better, but people who dismiss it as terrible just seem to leap on the hate bandwagon because they don't want to like something mainstream. Yes, they're mindless but they're fun because of that. Mainstream doesn't mean bad as some people here seem to think - theres often a reason so many people like something.

3. Arguing that ME2 is just GoW doesn't make a huge amount of sense as an argument against ME2. They are both third person and involve shooting, but by that logic any game with guns can be likened to any other game with guns. If ME3 has gameplay as smooth and refined as GoW it'll be a great game. Of course it needs the story and characters to go with it, but I think the Mass Effect games already have these and its just the gameplay that has let it down, but that has already been significantly improved in ME2.

4. Finally, I'm well aware that many people on these forums don't like ME2s story, and thats their right not to. I just think that dismissing it as 'terrible' or 'lazy' is taking it a bit too far. I don't think the Collector plot was as good as ME1s main plot, but that doesn't instantly make it bad. Besides, I think the character subplots were often much better than anything in the first game. Particularly the moral grey areas explored in some of them, such as the Genophage, the Heretic Geth, Samara's loyalty and Garrus' loyalty. But thats just my opinion.

Modifié par candidate88766, 20 mai 2011 - 11:32 .

[Phaedon]

candidate88766 wrote...

1. Congrats to Bioware, its a great game and a great series - make sure the 3rd lives up to it!

2. Why do people think that GoW and CoD are bad games? They are good for what they are. If you want a mentally stimulating story with emotional and moral complexity you don't play them, you play games like ME or ME2. If you just want to blow **** up you play GoW or CoD - they provide a different form of entertainment and do so brilliantly. Their gameplay is the best of their respective genre (TPS or FPS) and above all else they are fun. The Mass Effect games are fun, but in a different way.

Its the difference between reading a novel or watching a film. The Mass Effect games are like reading good novels: they take a fair investment of time and have engrossing stories that build slowly towards the conclusion, introducing many subplots along the way. Playing GoW or CoD is like watching a Michael Bay film. Its entertainment where you can just turn your brain off for a bit and have some fun. You may not like that sort of entertainment, but that doesn't make it bad or derivative.They have fantastic gameplay and they aren't afraid to let their hair down and just have some fun, so to speak. The community of CoD could definitely be better, but people who dismiss it as terrible just seem to leap on the hate bandwagon because they don't want to like something mainstream. Yes, they're mindless but they're fun because of that. Mainstream doesn't mean bad as some people here seem to think - theres often a reason so many people like something.

3. Arguing that ME2 is just GoW doesn't make a huge amount of sense as an argument against ME2. They are both third person and involve shooting, but by that logic any game with guns can be likened to any other game with guns. If ME3 has gameplay as smooth and refined as GoW it'll be a great game. Of course it needs the story and characters to go with it, but I think the Mass Effect games already have these and its just the gameplay that has let it down, but that has already been significantly improved in ME2.

4. Finally, I'm well aware that many people on these forums don't like ME2s story, and thats their right not to. I just think that dismissing it as 'terrible' or 'lazy' is taking it a bit too far. I don't think the Collector plot was as good as ME1s main plot, but that doesn't instantly make it bad. Besides, I think the character subplots were often much better than anything in the first game. Particularly the moral grey areas explored in some of them, such as the Genophage, the Heretic Geth, Samara's loyalty and Garrus' loyalty. But thats just my opinion.

I agree with all of your points.

[CroGamer002]

GodWood wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

And ME2 was made up of these 'subplots' that had no real impact or relevence to the Reapers so people see this as a valid thing to complain about.

You do know you can just skip them all, right?

Also Legion's LM is connected to Reapers.

Geth Heretics work for Reapers and not doing his LM will probably have huge consequences.

[GodWood]

Phaedon wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

And ME2 was made up of these 'subplots' that had no real impact or relevence to the Reapers so people see this as a valid thing to complain about.

No, you are wrong. There are as many missions in ME1 about the Protheans and the Reapers, as there are in ME2 about the Collectors and the Reapers. There are just additional missions (that are the central point of the game) that are about your squadmates.

No, you are wrong. The number of prothean/reaper related main missions in ME1 may be the same as ME2 (though I honestly have no idea, I've never bothered to count) but the percentage of non-reaper related main quests in ME2 is larger.
And to further the game one must complete a chunk of these non-related missions.

[Chewin]

candidate88766 wrote...

*snip*

People should pay attention to this guy.

[candidate88766]

Phaedon wrote...

I also love how they claim that ME2 squadmates are not integral to the plot. Collecting them is an objective.

Collecting ME1 squaddies? Tali is an obvious plot device, Ashley just transfers to your ship for some reason, Wrex and Garrus offer no real explanation of why they should come with you, etc.

I'd disagree a bit: Garrus joins you as he is investigating Saren and Liara is clearly integral to the plot with her Prothean knowledge. I'd agree that Tali and Wrex are only vaguely tied to the storyline though, and Kaiden and Ashley are just kinda, well, there but not doing a lot.

[candidate88766]

Phaedon wrote...

I agree with all of your points.

Chewin3 wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

*snip*

People should pay attention to this guy.

Thanks 

Modifié par candidate88766, 20 mai 2011 - 11:36 .

[Phaedon]

GodWood wrote...
No, you are wrong. The number of prothean/reaper related main missions in ME1 may be the same as ME2 (though I honestly have no idea, I've never bothered to count) but the percentage of non-reaper related main quests in ME2 is larger.
And to further the game one must complete a chunk of these non-related missions.

That still does not make your correct.
ME2 was as much relevant as ME1 was, it just centered more on character development.

So yeah "Ur wrong!" 

[CroGamer002]

candidate88766 wrote...
Playing GoW or CoD is like watching a Michael Bay film. Its entertainment where you can just turn your brain off for a bit and have some fun.

That's an insult for any video game.


Black Ops story, for example, is superior to ANY Micheal Bay's movie.

Except for Pear Harbor, only good movie from Micheal Bay, they're on same level.

[GodWood]

Mesina2 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
I hate every time someone says that the character missions brings nothing to the plot with the Reapers.

It's called subplots, you morons.

And ME2 was made up of these 'subplots' that had no real impact or relevence to the Reapers so people see this as a valid thing to complain about.

You do know you can just skip them all, right?

No you cannot, you have to at least complete some.
But that's not even the issue.
Having to do them isn't the problem, it's the fact that we are doing these missions instead of missions that could have a more direct relevence to the plot.

Also Legion's LM is connected to Reapers.

Geth Heretics work for Reapers and not doing his LM will probably have huge consequences.

And Jack's, Miranda's, Samara's, Jacobs, Thane's, Garrus', Zaeed's and Grunt's are not.

[Phaedon]

candidate88766 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I also love how they claim that ME2 squadmates are not integral to the plot. Collecting them is an objective.

Collecting ME1 squaddies? Tali is an obvious plot device, Ashley just transfers to your ship for some reason, Wrex and Garrus offer no real explanation of why they should come with you, etc.

I'd disagree a bit: Garrus joins you as he is investigating Saren and Liara is clearly integral to the plot with her Prothean knowledge. I'd agree that Tali and Wrex are only vaguely tied to the storyline though, and Kaiden and Ashley are just kinda, well, there but not doing a lot.

Why would one of C-Sec's finest detectives abandon his job and join a Spectre all of a sudden. Sure, there are some reasons, but when Garrus joins you, he does that in order to hunt for leads, he shouldn't follow you aboard the Normandy. Or at least, he should "update" his explanation.

Liara is integral to the plot, yes, but so is everyone in the ME2 team as well. They are all part of the team that TIM told you to recruit, and for a character-based game, I would like to think that their character development is a major part of the plot as well.