194 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

ME2 is nothing like gears of war to play, barring superficial impressions of the 3rd person cover/combat systems - in practise, however, these play nothing alike, so please stop comparing the two because you all make yourselves look like complete ignoramuses when you do.

that said, this thread is not about that, or whether ME2 had enough rpg in it compared to the first (it did, it was just more refined), so keep it OT - which is in the thread title for those hard of thought.

[Banzboy]

I thought ME2 didn't have as good of a story like ME1 (ME2 felt like one big recruit mission from the start) and RPG elements were downplayed. But I love that the combat was way more fluid, I used Adept and it was insanely fun to play. ME1 had some irritating stuff in too, than dumb 150 item limit, converting items to omni-gel was a pain and the cover system was horrible. ME2 improved some stuff from ME1 but ultimately went too far and simplified it. I just hope that ME3 will take the best from two games and make the ultimate one.

[moneycashgeorge]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[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.

[/quote]

All your arguments are way off base. 

First off you act as if the stat based accuracy in ME1 was somehow a bad thing. This is where the RPG comes in, it makes it so you can have a readily appreciable growth of your abilities over the course of the game and forces you to make choices as to your areas of expertise (i.e. gun accuracy vs. biotics or w/e). Removing this makes further removes character progression, as the player is likely to be as good at placing a cursor at Lvl. 1 as he is at Lvl. 30.

Fireballs and Ice blasts are indisputably a huge step down from tech mines. How do flying balls of fire or enemies turning to Ice even remotely make any sense? Its just a fantasy trope moved into a sci-fi setting, while tech mines were atleast a reasonably believable tool in an imagined future battlefield.

It IS much less scientifically plausible. Mass Effect 1 had a clear intention of being as realistic as possible while allowing a SINGLE fantasy device (the mass effect, its the damn title), and basing everything else off of that. That gave the original an authenticity that the sequel wholly discarded. Suddenly people could be brought back to life after years with no brain damage, signs in alien places were in English (a subtle difference not often mentioned, ME1 has alien characters on signs, very telling in my opinion). BioWare just stopped caring about realism, they stuck with the rule of cool and catered to the braindead masses. 

Your comments then become almost unbelievably far from reality. You actually state that ME1 had no innovations in conversation! It revolutionized it! Full voice acting for every character, camera angle changes, line option shortening (I know many dislike this, understandably, but it allows conversations to flow naturally). Mass Effect 1 set a new standard for conversation, almost anybody would agree. 

Mass Effect 1 was the true RPG/TPS hybrid. It had inventories and stats, and it had aiming and cover. It had all the elements from both genres. ME2 is a shooter with a basic skill tree. ME1 was exactly 50:50, ME2 was 90:10, shooter over RPG.

You say ME2 had innovations in voice acting which was only marginally better than in ME1 thanks mostly to Martin Sheen and Trinity. It was a production value matter, nothing more. The music was worse than the original. The sound effects were equal, both games shone in the same areas (geth mostly). Story was far far far worse than the original, as I said ME2 has no story, just a long series of irrelevant episodes of varying quality. Some are very good, others very bad.

Then you say your stupidest comment, that ME2 made advances in player choice. ME2 threw out all of the choices presented in the original, and had very little new consequences. 

(too tired can not finish, might later)

[Fixers0]

I think Mass effect 2 deserves these awards because it's efficient game, and the developers proved that they were knowing what they were doing (to a certain degree) and they created a game that does achieve what they were trying to accomplish so in that regard Mass effect 2 is a succes.

My issues with Mass Effect aren't those of Plot holes, Retcons or inconsistencies, and even though I know there are some, but the are not the real problem here. I thought after completing the game how it was too easy, and i'm not meaning game difficulty i'm saying here that the story resolved rather simply, without any great struggles or any complicated events with a lot of depth to them (like Noveria or Feros)

If you break the game down to events and actions you can uncover a lot of flaws, some might be small an other might be huge, but fortunately most of these things don't affect the overall experiance, and that's the point of this game anyway.

That's it really, i think most people (including me) just have a hard time getting over the fact how simple and manipulatively the game was yet how effective and enjoyable the game actally is.

[CroGamer002]

theSteeeeeels wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

theSteeeeeels 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.

how can it be a subplot if it takes up 80% of the game

Since they're skipable maybe?

right and then i'm left with 2 hours of gameplay

Your math sucks.

[Nashiktal]

I consider ME2 the superior game out of the two in the serious. While I will love ME1 with the full force of rose tinted glasses,ME2 made just enough improvements that I am still playing it today. (Preordered and played day 1)

However it is NOT without its flaws. I have had many complaints about story, presentation, and a few gameplay issues. However from what little information we have had about ME3 those have been addressed in some form so i'm happy.

[Phaedon]

[quote]moneycashgeorge wrote...
All your arguments are way off base. 

First off you act as if the stat based accuracy in ME1 was somehow a bad thing. This is where the RPG comes in, it makes it so you can have a readily appreciable growth of your abilities over the course of the game and forces you to make choices as to your areas of expertise (i.e. gun accuracy vs. biotics or w/e). Removing this makes further removes character progression, as the player is likely to be as good at placing a cursor at Lvl. 1 as he is at Lvl. 30.[/quote]
Are you serious.

Not having direct control over your character is easily the worst part of RPGs and the best part of shooters.
Now, about making choices as "to the your areas of expertise". It's good to know that RPG fans believe that it makes more sense to shoot people with a shotgun and gain XP which you use on the pistol skill, and not to practice on the pistol to get better.

Because you know? Why does your character suck with the pistol?
Because they are inexperienced with it, I get. And what do they do? Do they practice with it to get better or do they just do something completely different that gives them XP that they can assign to it?

Nice to see roleplaying at work.

[quote]Fireballs and Ice blasts are indisputably a huge step down from tech mines. How do flying balls of fire or enemies turning to Ice even remotely make any sense? Its just a fantasy trope moved into a sci-fi setting, while tech mines were atleast a reasonably believable tool in an imagined future battlefield.[/qoute]
Liquids that release/absorb energy on impact?

[quote]It IS much less scientifically plausible. Mass Effect 1 had a clear intention of being as realistic as possible while allowing a SINGLE fantasy device (the mass effect, its the damn title), and basing everything else off of that. That gave the original an authenticity that the sequel wholly discarded. Suddenly people could be brought back to life after years with no brain damage, signs in alien places were in English (a subtle difference not often mentioned, ME1 has alien characters on signs, very telling in my opinion). BioWare just stopped caring about realism, they stuck with the rule of cool and catered to the braindead masses. [/quote]
Wait what.
Are you saying that future scientists won't be able to revive people? It's good to see that you can already tell what kind of technolodgical advances we'll have in 2 years. About the signs thing, you are wrong.

Digital surfaces are the ones with human characters, whereas painted ones, such as the ones in the Migrant Fleet have alien characters.

[quote]they stuck with the rule of cool and catered to the braindead masses.[/quote]
Yes, everyone who has a different taste than you is braindead, congratulations.

[quote]Your comments then become almost unbelievably far from reality. You actually state that ME1 had no innovations in conversation! It revolutionized it! Full voice acting for every character, camera angle changes, line option shortening (I know many dislike this, understandably, but it allows conversations to flow naturally). Mass Effect 1 set a new standard for conversation, almost anybody would agree. [/quote]
Uhhh, the only innovation I see are the camera angle changes because I can't think of another RPG that had those, unlike the rest of the "innovations".

[quote]Mass Effect 1 was the true RPG/TPS hybrid. It had inventories and stats, and it had aiming and cover. It had all the elements from both genres. ME2 is a shooter with a basic skill tree. ME1 was exactly 50:50, ME2 was 90:10, shooter over RPG.[/quote]
Lol, it's the "A deep RPG experience is about stats argument again".
ME2 does have an inventory and an actually functional one. What it doesn't have is a centralized one.

1. Squad armour ---> Character selection
2. Player armour ----> Wardrobe
3. Upgrades ----> Lab Terminal
4. Weapons ----> Weapon selection screen/armoury
5. ??? ------> Shepard Upgrades

[quote]You say ME2 had innovations in voice acting which was only marginally better than in ME1 thanks mostly to Martin Sheen and Trinity. It was a production value matter, nothing more. The music was worse than the original.[/quote]
Your claims about the music are absolutely ridiculous, and you should feel bad for commenting on the effort of others as just a "higher production value matter".


[quote]The sound effects were equal,[/quote]
No.

[quote]both games shone in the same areas (geth mostly).[/quote]
What?

[quote]Story was far far far worse than the original, as I said ME2 has no story, just a long series of irrelevant episodes of varying quality. Some are very good, others very bad.[/quote]
Your credibility is completely lost.
Not only is the storytelling far better in ME2, but ME1's story is full of uncovered plot devices, and the tropes that it uses aren't exactly covered either. The characters, although, they are better than your regular videogame, are completely uninteresting compared to the ones in ME2. The themes are also not subtle at all. Moral values? Underlying motives? Ah yes, we have dismissed that claim. You should learn that ME1's story, while great, is significantly overrated. It is what it is, a textbook first act, but that's just it. It provides with nothing new.

[quote]Then you say your stupidest comment, that ME2 made advances in player choice. ME2 threw out all of the choices presented in the original, and had very little new consequences. 

(too tired can not finish, might later)
[/quote]
Where?

[Lady Olivia]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Fireballs and Ice blasts are indisputably a huge step down from tech mines. How do flying balls of fire or enemies turning to Ice even remotely make any sense?

These are explained in the codex in the same manner as everything else. How are biotics any less "magical" than cryo/incinerate?

moneycashgeorge wrote...

It IS much less scientifically plausible. Mass Effect 1 had a clear intention of being as realistic as possible while allowing a SINGLE fantasy device (the mass effect, its the damn title), and basing everything else off of that. That gave the original an authenticity that the sequel wholly discarded. Suddenly people could be brought back to life after years with no brain damage, signs in alien places were in English (a subtle difference not often mentioned, ME1 has alien characters on signs, very telling in my opinion).

You start with how ME2 "IS much less scientifically plausible" and all you have to offer as evidence is the Lazarus project and signs in English? How do the signs figure as 'scientific' anyway? As for Lazarus, how is that less plausible than, say, indoctrination?

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was the true RPG/TPS hybrid. It had inventories and stats, and it had aiming and cover. It had all the elements from both genres. ME2 is a shooter with a basic skill tree. ME1 was exactly 50:50, ME2 was 90:10, shooter over RPG.

I wish I had your eyes on when I played ME1. The inventory was a joke and the stats were as unimportant there as they are in ME2. I'd go for hours without even noticing I leveled up, and then I'd find 30 points to distribute, which then gave me a chance to open a high-level crate and find Striker XIV inside. Oh, the joy!

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Story was far far far worse than the original, as I said ME2 has no story, just a long series of irrelevant episodes of varying quality. Some are very good, others very bad.

It's true that ME1 had a more complex plot than the sequel, but it was a pretty failed plot. Most of it was summarized to you after you'd get back from a mission, and then you'd be like, WTF? When did that happen? Not to mention that all the major plot points were packed into the conversation with Vigil instead of being enacted by the player. Yes, there was more of a story, but it wasn't a very good story, and you didn't get to participate in it. The illusion of enactment is much stronger in ME2.

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Then you say your stupidest comment, that ME2 made advances in player choice. ME2 threw out all of the choices presented in the original, and had very little new consequences.

Why the insults? You started your argument rationally, but to finish it like this is pretty much to throw it into rubbish.

In ME1, like in ME2, the "important" or "real" choices are heavily concentrated towards the ending. The "little" choices have been addressed properly by the sequel, and then some. Some may seem to be missing, and we'll probably find them in ME3. I'd really like to see you try and defend what you said here with some examples.

To me personally, it's not at all a problem to get how some people dislike ME as a whole - it's a matter of taste. But I don't get why anyone would put ME1 above ME2 - it's such a rare and beautiful example of how a sequel actually evolved from the prequel. Not as a shooter or as an RPG. As a great game.

[Phaedon]

Chaos Gate wrote...
I wasn't trying to derail anything, and I don't see why I should be banned. I was simply replying to something you said that I disagreed with.

Secondly, please don't misquote me. I said that stats are a part of the RPG experience, not all of it. It's been that way since Dungeons and Dragons. You say it like it's a bad thing, trying to paint everyone who points this out in a negative light, and I have no idea why. I stand by my view, and I am unashamed. And anyway, why did you bring up stats to begin with?

Incorrect. Stats have been there either as limits to god-modding, if you are talking about board games, and because of the lack of control in CRPGs. While the shooter component itself abolishes most of the lack of control in combat, I will have to admit that the ME2 team should have invested more in stats in areas that you can not control (such as speed, powers etc.)

ME1 is most definitely a hybrid, in my view, because it brough shooting mechanics and RPG elements together. It wasn't perfect, but it was still quite harmonious and a joy to behold and play. ME2, on the other hand, was more shooter than RPG - and that's obvious, IMO. Not just for a want of stats, but storyline, exploration, available skills, game world, and lots of other things that it just felt deficient in. In comparison to ME1, it's much more shooter than RPG, without question. ME2 is not very much of a hybrid, as you say, because it's too skewed to one side, to the detriment of the other.

Nope.
ME1 lacks the most serious element of a shooter. Full control over the combat.
The storyline has nothing to do with the genre.
And neither does exploration, which it did, however lack.
Available skills? Now, what do you mean by that?
Game World? ME1 presents the Council world, whereas ME2 presents the Terminus world.

Why is justification needed when comparing ME2 to Gears of War? I only ask this because, to me, the similarities are undeniable. I don't know how others can miss this. As I said, ME2 just doesn't have enough RPG in it to dance with its rugged gunplay, and so it feels more like a shooter than an epic adventure.

The similarities are very deniable, and the comparison to GoW is done in most cases, to underrate ME2. The only thing that they share is the cover system, which most modern TPSs also have. Yes, ME2 is also a TPS, big surprise...

Fixers0 wrote...
My issues with Mass Effect aren't those of Plot holes, Retcons or inconsistencies, and even though I know there are some, but the are not the real problem here. I thought after completing the game how it was too easy, and i'm not meaning game difficulty i'm saying here that the story resolved rather simply, without any great struggles or any complicated events with a lot of depth to them (like Noveria or Feros)

This paragraph, you need to explain more about it.

Lady Olivia wrote...
To me personally, it's not at all a problem to get how some people dislike ME as a whole - it's a matter of taste. But I don't get why anyone would put ME1 above ME2 - it's such a rare and beautiful example of how a sequel actually evolved from the prequel. Not as a shooter or as an RPG. As a great game.

I have no problem with people putting ME1 above ME2, and I can see some valid reasons.
As a first act it has a much more interesting concept, and the Terminus systems -along with the artistic design it brings- may be a bit harsh for some people, who vastly prefer the Council world.

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 mai 2011 - 05:46 .

[PlumPaul93]

Deservingly so. ME2 improved on just about every aspect of ME.

[Gravbh]

vendo_23 wrote...

ebevan91 wrote...

But it isn't their best game ever.

That one belongs to Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield 2 for the PC.

I'll have to agree in a sense, at least with Battlefield 1942.  It seems like BF1942 introduced the whole concept of taking vehicles, which, for me, was an astounding achievement.  I LOVED that game, my friend and I would take turns playing it for hours.  I could still play it today, simply for the playability of it.

The ME franchise obviously beats most anything else in terms of sheer story & immensity, but I agree with you on BF1942. Great game.

Starsiege: Tribes would like a word with you. BF1942 was a classic, don't get me wrong.

[Phaedon]

Battlefield 1942 has actually a 89% rating on metacritic.

[Xeranx]

Phaedon wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...
All your arguments are way off base. 

First off you act as if the stat based accuracy in ME1 was somehow a bad thing. This is where the RPG comes in, it makes it so you can have a readily appreciable growth of your abilities over the course of the game and forces you to make choices as to your areas of expertise (i.e. gun accuracy vs. biotics or w/e). Removing this makes further removes character progression, as the player is likely to be as good at placing a cursor at Lvl. 1 as he is at Lvl. 30.

Are you serious.

Not having direct control over your character is easily the worst part of RPGs and the best part of shooters.
Now, about making choices as "to the your areas of expertise". It's good to know that RPG fans believe that it makes more sense to shoot people with a shotgun and gain XP which you use on the pistol skill, and not to practice on the pistol to get better.

Why is it that when it comes to weapons it's a problem to not have direct control, but in regards to biotics/tech it's fine to have to level up that area?  Selective much?  As many reference, Shepard is an N7 operative and should be able to fire a pistol or any weapon they're using competently.  The same goes for biotics and tech.  If you do not agree then you really shouldn't be discussing anything along this subject.

Also, not everyone believes that using a shotgun means they get better at using a pistol.

they stuck with the rule of cool and catered to the braindead masses.

Yes, everyone who has a different taste than you is braindead, congratulations.

Ironically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is an elitist troll and you'll have a moderator (who's supposed to be objective in regards to how someone comes across on the forum so that they know the difference) agree with you.  

Mass Effect 1 was the true RPG/TPS hybrid. It had inventories and stats, and it had aiming and cover. It had all the elements from both genres. ME2 is a shooter with a basic skill tree. ME1 was exactly 50:50, ME2 was 90:10, shooter over RPG.

Lol, it's the "A deep RPG experience is about stats argument again".
ME2 does have an inventory and an actually functional one. What it doesn't have is a centralized one.

1. Squad armour ---> Character selection
2. Player armour ----> Wardrobe
3. Upgrades ----> Lab Terminal
4. Weapons ----> Weapon selection screen/armoury
5. ??? ------> Shepard Upgrades

A deep RPG experience is within the narrative and not the stats (actually the stats can be part of the narrative).  That being said his point was that ME was more of a Hybrid than ME2 was.  I don't necessarily agree that ME was 50:50, but it was a lot closer than ME2 was.

Story was far far far worse than the original, as I said ME2 has no story, just a long series of irrelevant episodes of varying quality. Some are very good, others very bad.

Your credibility is completely lost.
Not only is the storytelling far better in ME2, but ME1's story is full of uncovered plot devices, and the tropes that it uses aren't exactly covered either. The characters, although, they are better than your regular videogame, are completely uninteresting compared to the ones in ME2. The themes are also not subtle at all. Moral values? Underlying motives? Ah yes, we have dismissed that claim. You should learn that ME1's story, while great, is significantly overrated. It is what it is, a textbook first act, but that's just it. It provides with nothing new.

In what way is "the storytelling far better in ME2"?  I should remember I paid attention to Extra Credits and call it by it's actual name: narrative.  

The narrative is a jumbled mess in ME2.  All the promotional spots regarding ME2 state (even CHud says this) you're supposed to convince these people to join you.  That never happens.  You don't get to choose who you want or discard who you want until specific points in the game.  In order for the aforementioned scenarios to happen there has to be a chance to fail and with the absence of failure you get people with no real reason to join up just about sign their life away.

Then there's the group you're supposed to be investigating which you don't and only encouter three times during the entire story.  To drive the point home of how the narrative doesn't do it's job I'll refer to something Iakus made note of in his blog: "The Collectors are the real threat.  Death to the Blue Suns!"

[Phaedon]

Xeranx wrote...
Why is it that when it comes to weapons it's a problem to not have direct control, but in regards to biotics/tech it's fine to have to level up that area?  Selective much?  As many reference, Shepard is an N7 operative and should be able to fire a pistol or any weapon they're using competently.  The same goes for biotics and tech.  If you do not agree then you really shouldn't be discussing anything along this subject.

Uh, how can you have direct control over powers?

Shepard is not perfect, and you still progress, through experience. Unfortunately, the powers don't become stronger by experience, but you get more effective because you know how to use them. 

Also, not everyone believes that using a shotgun means they get better at using a pistol.

They game has you do that.
Unless you are counting the XP you gain by using the pistol in order to upgrade your skill accordingly, I don't what the point you are tryign to make is.

Ironically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is an elitist troll and you'll have a moderator (who's supposed to be objective in regards to how someone comes across on the forum so that they know the difference) agree with you.  

Hah, yes, because I claimed that a different direction which I didn't like was done for elitists. I never said, for example, that the aforementioned flaw over protagonist control was done in order to cater to elitists. The other poster did, therefore your insult goes to him, not me.

A deep RPG experience is within the narrative and not the stats (actually the stats can be part of the narrative).

Huh?

That being said his point was that ME was more of a Hybrid than ME2 was.  I don't necessarily agree that ME was 50:50, but it was a lot closer than ME2 was.

Justifications are so overrated nowadays, I suppose.

In what way is "the storytelling far better in ME2"?  I should remember I paid attention to Extra Credits and call it by it's actual name: narrative.  

Storytelling =/= Story

The narrative is a jumbled mess in ME2.  All the promotional spots regarding ME2 state (even CHud says this) you're supposed to convince these people to join you.  That never happens.  You don't get to choose who you want or discard who you want until specific points in the game.  In order for the aforementioned scenarios to happen there has to be a chance to fail and with the absence of failure you get people with no real reason to join up just about sign their life away.

And that makes the story worse in what way? The whole point of the "quest" which you have been assigned is to recruit these people and take down the Collector Base. That was what TIM told you to do.

Then there's the group you're supposed to be investigating which you don't and only encouter three times during the entire story.  To drive the point home of how the narrative doesn't do it's job I'll refer to something Iakus made note of in his blog: "The Collectors are the real threat.  Death to the Blue Suns!"

Count how many Reaper-related missions that are in ME1 and how many Collector-related there are in ME2.




Oh, I also forgot to mention something.

You literally speak to a Reaper for no more than 3 minutes, and you only actually see him on screen twice.

Self-contradiction much?

[Computer_God91]

Soahfreako wrote...

I do believe I have won this arguement! Mwuahaha! 

You see what you did by blocking my post javierabegazo? lol.

Phaedon wrote...

Computer_God91 wrote...

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.

Actually I've never been a fan of the Call of Duty as a series. FPS's aren't my thing really, I play some but I don't spend alot of time with them. The first Call of Duty I bought was Call of Duty 4, I'll admit I loved it and played it quite often. That was my first experince into the series and I refused to buy CoD: World at War and bought Modern Warfare 2, because naturally if you like a game and want more of it then you buy the sequel and I'll tell you I wasn't very happy with it. I only played it for a few weeks before selling it. Since then I have never enjoyed another CoD as much as 4 and have only bought both Modern Warfare's. I was furious at its over price maps and since those I refursed to ever buy another CoD game.

No, I will not buy Modern Warfare 3, I refuse to even read anything of it. The only reason I touched CoD4 was for the simple fact that it didn't feel like a CoD game. I remember praising it and saying "I love this game it doesn't even feel like I'm playing CoD."

So maybe you shouldn't be so certain that I'm this big CoD fan who has turned to hate the series only recently because in fact I have never liked it, CoD4 was the exception. So don't lump me into the group of people here who are on the ME2 hate bandwagon or any hate bandwagon for that matter. I am not a weak minded foul who goes with the group think because it's the popular opinion or for recognition. My feelings are my own. If I was the only one who hated ME2 I wouldn't say I loved it because its the "cool" thing to do.

[Savber100]

I'm loving all the obligatory ME2 bash whenever people comment on ME2's critical reception,

Why does ME2 have soo many GOTY awards? Obviously because the reviewers were either BOUGHT or they are dumb consoletards!

Seriously?

[Anihilus]

ME2 is EAs highest-rated game.... what about ME1? That's just as deserving of the award.

[Ragnarok521]

Phaedon wrote...


Oh, I also forgot to mention something.

You literally speak to a Reaper for no more than 3 minutes, and you only actually see him on screen twice.

Self-contradiction much?

The thing with that is that in ME1 Saren and his Geth were your primary nemesis', not Sovereign. Heck, you didn't even know Sovereign was in fact a Reaper until past halfway through the main plot.The whole game was framed around stopping Saren, and by association, the Reapers. There are only a few instances where you meet him face-to-face but a good chunk of the game is having to contend with the effects of his actions (Noveria, Feros, Eden Prime, even uncharted worlds where his Geth try to ambush you). In ME2 your primary nemesis is supposedly the Collectors, but you don't really ever feel their presence save for a few missions most of which being the main-story missions. It's usually just "Mercs this mercs that" for the majority of the game.

Really, another good way to look at this is that Sovereign was a much more effective character because he wasn't as exposed; Along with that one key conversation he made his intentions and what he's wililng to do for them clear through his actions via Saren and his Geth, and at that point in the overarching story I don't believe we were supposed to actually know too much about the Reapers. However, the Collectors don't have this same mystique about them, as they're essentially filling the "Saren" role for ME2 which is being the Reapers' tool acting on their behalf. If one of the main objectives in the story is to defeat them, then they should make up more of the actual game than just 3 missions and a few outside mentions. The Collectors are after Shepard? Then show it! Make them ambush Shepard with a false beacon or something along those lines like the Geth did!

Anyway, long story short Sovereign had an excuse to have so little screen time; Collectors not so much.

Modifié par Ragnarok521, 20 mai 2011 - 08:33 .

[KainrycKarr]

Mesina2 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

But Mass Effect 2, a game that tries to be Gears of War but ends up just being a linear walk from one waist-high wall to the next, that lacks the RPG the box claimed was inside, and has huge consistency problems with it's story is the greatest game of the year?

I challenge you to play Mass Effect 2 for 30 minutes and then Gears of War for 30 minutes and say to me same thing again.

This.

[RunicDragons]

This doesn't surprise me... Not at all!

[KainrycKarr]

People, Mass Effect 2 was a stellar game. Get over it.

[Fixers0]

Phaedon wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
My issues with Mass Effect aren't those of Plot holes, Retcons or inconsistencies, and even though I know there are some, but the are not the real problem here. I thought after completing the game how it was too easy, and i'm not meaning game difficulty i'm saying here that the story resolved rather simply, without any great struggles or any complicated events with a lot of depth to them (like Noveria or Feros)

This paragraph, you need to explain more about it..

Well of course this is just my personal observation but I will try to be objective,

I think that after completing the game and you look back at the events that happend it all went to a little bit too simple and easy,

This is what happend:
Shepard goes along the Galaxy recruiting characters, helping them with problems with problems and at convient moments TIM shows up with a new piece of data that helps progress the plot, het mines some plantes, presses a few upgrade buttons and voila, we are prepared for A suicide mission.

While the Majority of this was all good content, the context is a bit to static if you ask me, there where only two conflicts along the preperation process which hapens after they trust shepard, upgrading the ship only requries you having a enough resources so that you can push a button, its also strange that we never actally prepared our squad  in the profession, like setting training program, or using their unique abilites during missions, like having potentional tech expert to hack doors and systems, using a powerfull biotic to manipulate objects and create new paths for us to go,

See where this going, it's good that a game uses themes lilk Trust, Preparation for the unknown and Leadership, but when it all hapens to come down on things like ' Do mission A, then  character B will be loyal and will not screw up in situation C'

Again this is just my observation, it's entirly possible that you interpreted this differently, i'm trying to stick to the facts.

Back the main point . the primary cause for this problem is the seemingly abscense of a real battle plan or even a checklist and the fact that the entire plot and is provide by TIM with no real initiative or curiosity from Shepard, this leads me to believe that for the entire game is was just a pawn for TIM and i was supposed to execute the plans that he thought up and we never get to see, this also leads me to believe that Shepard is passive protaganist in which the events come down on the Protagnist, and though he/she does interact with them,  he/she always playing along.

Example
We are going to recruit jack we need a powerfull biotic in out team, so we blast our way through the purgatory and we discover that she is mentally instable, rude, hates the organisation we are working, extermly violent, unpredictable, these are not the people i want on my crew which is suspossed to composed of people i can trust and rely on, so why not just let leave her on the ship, she is going to be more trouble than help, also coming back on an earlier point why is this mental instability never showcased during gameplay or while on the normandy, we just have to put her into the  under deck and she shuts up.

 
Also this just minor point , it seems that TIM seems to know the plot on beforhand, he knew that we are going to need a ground team for whatever is past the Omega 4 relay, what if a ground teams wasn't the right solution to the collector problem, then the plot would be in danger, again this is just a minor issue so don't get on this, but i just wished we had a more natural reason as to why we need a ground team.

So in conclusion, the high amount of convience and the simple solutions to problems, and the fact the plot is rather passive on shepard's part leads me to believe that it all went a little bit to simple.

I have a feeling that this was partiality done intentional because this game has a more clearer  and a more fast paced nature, and the developers didn't want to distract to much from the action and rapid progression which i can understand , this was the same thing as with planet scanning, many people didn't liked it because it was boring a requires a lot of time.

Again this is all my observation. if you have different opinion then please show my your light, but please don't create an quote pyramid, i just gave my personal observations backed up with my arguments  as you requested 

Modifié par Fixers0, 21 mai 2011 - 12:51 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Not having direct control over your character is easily the worst part of RPGs and the best part of shooters.
Now, about making choices as "to the your areas of expertise". It's good to know that RPG fans believe that it makes more sense to shoot people with a shotgun and gain XP which you use on the pistol skill, and not to practice on the pistol to get better.

Because you know? Why does your character suck with the pistol?
Because they are inexperienced with it, I get. And what do they do? Do they practice with it to get better or do they just do something completely different that gives them XP that they can assign to it?

Nice to see roleplaying at work.

First,  RPGs use the experience point system to abstract overall character growth.

Second,  use-based systems fail.  The TES series has been the poster-child for why they fail for over 10 years.  When I can be a master of fire spells in combat because I spent 4 real world hours shooting flame arrow at a tree,  your system is broken.

Third,  honestly,  if you hate RPGs,  why would you play them?

Fourth,  Roleplaying isn't equivalent to a Roleplaying Game.  I believe I've covered this with you before,  and I believe you completely ignored it last time as well.  Roleplaying is what someone does when they dress up like a cop and play with their spouse.  A RPG is where you create a character and play his Role,  limiting your direct effect through the use of Stats to represent your character's abilities and not yours.

Or to put it another way,  in Roleplaying your ability to hit the dragon is determined by if you can punch your DM in the nose.  In an RPG,  it's determined by your character's ability to hit the Dragon.

Incorrect. Stats have been there either as limits to god-modding, if you are talking about board games, and because of the lack of control in CRPGs. While the shooter component itself abolishes most of the lack of control in combat, I will have to admit that the ME2 team should have invested more in stats in areas that you can not control (such as speed, powers etc.)

You're pretty much wrong on all counts there.  We definitely have been over this before.

1.  Stats are there to represent your character's abilities,  and minimize your personal impact upon his efforts.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "God modding".

2.  RPGs AREN'T BOARD GAMES.  This is the third time we've been over this.

3.  In an RPG,  lack of control is actually the intent,  it's the whole goal of the system.  You're playing a Character,  not self-inserting you into the world. 

The similarities are very deniable, and the comparison to GoW is done in most cases, to underrate ME2. The only thing that they share is the cover system, which most modern TPSs also have. Yes, ME2 is also a TPS, big surprise...

A game is still defined by it's gameplay.  You spend almost the entire game playing a reasonably bad copy of Gears of War,  interspersed with an occasional few minutes of talking,  and the occasional fed-ex quest that has been widely regarded as crappy design since somwhere around the mid-90's.

Hah, yes, because I claimed that a different direction which I didn't like was done for elitists. I never said, for example, that the aforementioned flaw over protagonist control was done in order to cater to elitists. The other poster did, therefore your insult goes to him, not me.

Not really,  you were deep into (And still are) derailing the thread,  and then you started with the "Mods should ban you people!" thing.  "Appeal to the Gods" is a very bad debating tactic to take,  as is making someone restate the same thing 8 times because you don't seem to read it.  Disagreeing is one thing,  but when you consistently mistake RPGs as board games,  despite being told otherwise several times,  it becomes very obvious you do not read the responses to your posts.

I'm loving all the obligatory ME2 bash whenever people comment on ME2's critical reception,

Why does ME2 have soo many GOTY awards? Obviously because the reviewers were either BOUGHT or they are dumb consoletards!

Seriously?

Yes,  actually.  There's a fair bit of research being done at this point,  and a good bit of what's really happening coming out,  in general not ME specific.

A good example would be DA2's reception.  Day 1 a bunch of 10/10 reviews,  and some other even more iffy stuff that people got caught doing.

At this point,  it's pretty much a certainty that nothing on a gaming related site is done objectively.  Heck,  Someone even did a statistical analysis around DA2's launch that showed compelling evidence that big-name studio's games only fall into the top half of the scale.

[Xeranx]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Xeranx wrote...
Why is it that when it comes to weapons it's a problem to not have direct control, but in regards to biotics/tech it's fine to have to level up that area?  Selective much?  As many reference, Shepard is an N7 operative and should be able to fire a pistol or any weapon they're using competently.  The same goes for biotics and tech.  If you do not agree then you really shouldn't be discussing anything along this subject.[/quote]
Uh, how can you have direct control over powers?

Shepard is not perfect, and you still progress, through experience. Unfortunately, the powers don't become stronger by experience, but you get more effective because you know how to use them. [/quote]

I know Shepard isn't perfect, but behaving like a weapon should be more of an extension of self than a power that emanates from your own body is silly to me.  If I should be able to get kill shots, like many expect, just because I can point and shoot I should be able to do more with biotics because that is a true extension of self.  I'm going to retract what I said about tech because that can always be tweaked much like any weapon.

[quote]
[quote]Also, not everyone believes that using a shotgun means they get better at using a pistol.[/quote]
They game has you do that.
Unless you are counting the XP you gain by using the pistol in order to upgrade your skill accordingly, I don't what the point you are tryign to make is.[/quote]

You stated that roleplayers believe using a shotgun means they should get better at using a pistol or something to effect.  I said that doesn't apply to everyone.


[quote]
[quote]Ironically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is an elitist troll and you'll have a moderator (who's supposed to be objective in regards to how someone comes across on the forum so that they know the difference) agree with you.  [/quote]Hah, yes, because I claimed that a different direction which I didn't like was done for elitists. I never said, for example, that the aforementioned flaw over protagonist control was done in order to cater to elitists. The other poster did, therefore your insult goes to him, not me.[/quote]

My response to this wasn't an insult in any way, shape, or form.  An example of an insult would be if I said: "You must be stupid not to see how hypocritical you're being."
 
As to whether or not my response is to you I'm quoting this: [quote][quote]Phaedon wrote...
[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
But Mass Effect 2, a game that tries to be Gears of War but ends up just being a linear walk from one waist-high wall to the next, that lacks the RPG the box claimed was inside, and has huge consistency problems with it's story is the greatest game of the year?

Yeah, in a few years when the gaming press and gaming companies get ripped apart for anti-consumer behavior, we'll be reading about how ME2 and DA2 got the ratings they did.[/quote]
Try to appear less subjective,extreme, elitist and non-factual when you attempt at dropping the "EA is paying the reviewers omg" bomb next time.

[/quote][/quote]
Gatt offered a post that disagreed with the rating of the game, but you wanted to hand wave it away.  One of the first things people compared it to was Gears of War because of the veiny oncoming death screen change and waist high walls.  It comes very close to being a Gears of War clone and that doesn't mean that Gears of War is bad.  It's a statement to the lack of originality the Mass Effect 2 team had in terms of dealing with the combat experience.

ME2 is linear.  You can't start and leave and then come back later and resume if you want.  As soon as you enter an area for a quest you have to finish it even if you're at the beginning of said quest.  It has consistency issues.  There is no flow to what goes on in the narrative.  It's disjointed.  I mean people are giving DA2 grief over that right now, but you're saying that in ME2 it's fine.  Great even.

The thing is people will defend Bioware when they decide they want a new market with a current IP, but will try and shut someone up about how ratings on review sites and in magazines can be fixed.  If good business sense for a game developer involves trying to attract new people why is it unthinkable that a review site or magazine would prefer to have everything in their reviews be rosy considering their business is reviewing games?  The ratings don't have to be bought, but when you function like a newspaper and need to be part of the elite covering the hottest story, you're going to cut corners.  That's what Gatt said, and you said he's wrong.

[quote]
[quote]A deep RPG experience is within the narrative and not the stats (actually the stats can be part of the narrative). [/quote]
Huh?[/quote]

Player stats can be woven into the narrative.  They don't have to be visible on screen, but so long as they add to the world and help the player experience more of it it works.  That's what I meant.

[quote]
[quote]That being said his point was that ME was more of a Hybrid than ME2 was.  I don't necessarily agree that ME was 50:50, but it was a lot closer than ME2 was.[/quote]Justifications are so overrated nowadays, I suppose.[/quote]

I guess so is hand-waving.

[quote]
[quote]In what way is "the storytelling far better in ME2"?  I should remember I paid attention to Extra Credits and call it by it's actual name: narrative.  [/quote]Storytelling =/= Story[/quote]

Are you saying bad storytelling doesn't mean that a story is bad?  If that's the case then no, bad storytelling doesn't mean the story is bad or that there's no story, but it is in the execution of the storytelling that allows someone to state whether the story is good or not.  In order to tell if the storytelling is bad you'd have to disect the story to see where things were going.  This is one of those cases where bad storytelling can ruin a good story or good storytelling can only minimally salvage a bad story and it'll use whatever it has at its disposal to get the job done.  Even then you can still see a bad story for what it is.  If the plot is to stop the Collectors, then the story needs to revolve around that.  If it doesn't do that or doesn't do it seamlessly enough then it doesn't do it's job.  So yes, the characters are an aspect of the story, but because they don't have any stake that we can see it falls apart.  

[quote]
[quote]The narrative is a jumbled mess in ME2.  All the promotional spots regarding ME2 state (even CHud says this) you're supposed to convince these people to join you.  That never happens.  You don't get to choose who you want or discard who you want until specific points in the game.  In order for the aforementioned scenarios to happen there has to be a chance to fail and with the absence of failure you get people with no real reason to join up just about sign their life away.[/quote]
And that makes the story worse in what way? The whole point of the "quest" which you have been assigned is to recruit these people and take down the Collector Base. That was what TIM told you to do.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
[quote]Then there's the group you're supposed to be investigating which you don't and only encouter three times during the entire story.  To drive the point home of how the narrative doesn't do it's job I'll refer to something Iakus made note of in his blog: "The Collectors are the real threat.  Death to the Blue Suns!"
[/quote]
Count how many Reaper-related missions that are in ME1 and how many Collector-related there are in ME2.[/quote]
Our task wasn't to stop the Reapers.  It was to stop Saren and only when doing the UNC missions did you get the feeling that you weren't trying to stop him.  If you didn't do any UNC missions (apart from the Geth preparing for their assault) you felt like you were always at his heels just missing him. 


[quote]
Oh, I also forgot to mention something.

You literally speak to a Reaper for no more than 3 minutes, and you only actually see him on screen twice.

Self-contradiction much?

[/quote]

Not a contradiction at all.  As I said earlier, in the first game your job was to stop Saren.  When Sovereign revealed himself you had two people to worry about, but seeing as Saren was the gateway to Sovereign he was the greater threat.  So your goal developed another dimension, but it never changed.