268 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

Da Mecca wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

This is amazing. Several of you are defending the bad writing with "Bioware said". Really? Are you serious?

Some people in this fanbase really think Bioware cannot do any wrong and will defend them to the death.

But whatever.

Some people in this fanbase also think that it's BioWare's game, that it's BioWare's writing, and that whining because BioWare didn't make the game YOU specifically wanted is asinine.

This is BioWare's game, I will trust the information they give, the plan they have, the story they're telling, and the mechanics they're implementing over some half-baked fanfic writer's claims that BioWare can't be trusted and that they're scum.

Has BioWare messed up before? Yes, absolutely, but just because they made something counter to what YOU were demanding them or expecting them to make, does not mean it's a BAD game, or that BioWare needs to come grovelling back on hands and knees. If you hated ME2 so much that you won't buy ME3... they won't care. Because a lot more people WILL.

I get being frustrated, I do. But don't sit there and try to tell us that BioWare can't be trusted. They're the "Word of God" in that particular trope, not you.

[Gterror]

Im really happy for you FrostedFlake84 imma lets you finish,but Smudboy had one of the best arguments for being dissapointed of all time.One of the BEST ARGUMENTS all time.

[HTTP 404]

Gterror wrote...

Im really happy for you FrostedFlake84 imma lets you finish,but Smudboy had one of the best arguments for being dissapointed of all time.One of the BEST ARGUMENTS all time.

haha!  more people here need to have a sense of humor

[Gterror]

I think that ME2 is great especially combat side

[FrostedFlake84]

Gterror wrote...

I think that ME2 is great especially combat side

I never disagreed with ME2 being a good shooter. But dont you think they focused more on making shooting better than better story or better conversations?

[SkittlesKat96]

I think its just the way trilogies work. I know some people found the fifth Star Wars movie a bit uninteresting.

EDIT: I suppose the story and enemy/villain in ME 2 was a bit lacking though even for a middle part of a trilogy.

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 04 juin 2011 - 03:14 .

[Weiser_Cain]

What? The Empire Strikes Back was awesome.

[SkittlesKat96]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

What? The Empire Strikes Back was awesome.

True, I think ME 2 is a little different cause it breaks away from the main plot a little bit more and your kinda doing the same thing most of the game.

[sp0ck 06]

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

Gterror wrote...

I think that ME2 is great especially combat side

I never disagreed with ME2 being a good shooter. But dont you think they focused more on making shooting better than better story or better conversations?

I don't see how the conversations in ME2 are "worse" than ME1.  If anything, they're much better, in terms of cinematic quality (characters moving around, interrupts, camera angles, etc).  As for the story...many people have complained about ME2's story.  This never made much sense to me.  That's like saying, "The Two Towers story sucked compared to Fellowship."  Its the same story, just a different chapter.

With that being said, it's fair to say the story missions in ME1 were larger in scope and vision.  The storyline of ME2 was fine, and the missions were (IMO) awesome.  The problem was, main story missions comprised 2 - 2 1/2 hours, in a 35-40 hour game.  

But complaining about the writing or drama?  Have you played Overlord?  Legion's loyalty mission?  Tali's trial?  Anything involving Mordin (the greatest character BioWare has ever created besides HK47)?  I mean, come on.  I love ME1 and it does a have a certain "feel" ME2 lacked but they are both fantastic games and the 2nd really improved tangibly from the first.

[Iakus]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

With that being said, it's fair to say the story missions in ME1 were larger in scope and vision.  The storyline of ME2 was fine, and the missions were (IMO) awesome.  The problem was, main story missions comprised 2 - 2 1/2 hours, in a 35-40 hour game.  

And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

Modifié par iakus, 04 juin 2011 - 04:45 .

[Gterror]

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

Gterror wrote...

I think that ME2 is great especially combat side

I never disagreed with ME2 being a good shooter. But dont you think they focused more on making shooting better than better story or better conversations?

Yeah,they losed some RPG elements and tried to make the game for wider audience.Story wasn't bad but ME1 had better and i think that conversations is the same level as ME1 had,but ME2 did lacked outcomes,which had several outcomes(in ME1 Noveria you had several choices to get garage pass and Parasini and Anoleis situation had more outcomes too then most choices in ME2).

Dialogue wasn't bad between squad members tho probably i wanted to hear more Garrus dialogue.
Overall i say that its good game with some flaws, but has much potential to improve certain aspects in ME3.
The one thing i want the most is squad banter,it makes more sense storywise and see characters opinions on certain things.

This only my opinion tho.

Modifié par Gterror, 04 juin 2011 - 04:47 .

[sp0ck 06]

iakus wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

With that being said, it's fair to say the story missions in ME1 were larger in scope and vision.  The storyline of ME2 was fine, and the missions were (IMO) awesome.  The problem was, main story missions comprised 2 - 2 1/2 hours, in a 35-40 hour game.  

And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

I agree that not enough time was spent on main story missions, but I don't think its fair to say nothing was holding the game together.  There was the common goal of building a team for this one impossible mission, and I thought the pacing was actually handled quite well (do a few squad missions, TIM finds a lead, do a few loyalty missions, hit collector ship, etc).  There just should have been 3-4 more main story missions.  

And even if you believe the game was just a bunch of unrelated content thrown together, at least it was great content for the most part.  

BioWare isn't dumb.  Look how willing they were to take a flaws from ME1 and aggressively go at them in ME2, in some cases too much (elevators!).  This gives me high hopes that in ME3 they will really nail the best parts of the first 2.  

[Halo Quea]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

This is amazing. Several of you are defending the bad writing with "Bioware said". Really? Are you serious?

Some people in this fanbase really think Bioware cannot do any wrong and will defend them to the death.

But whatever.

Some people in this fanbase also think that it's BioWare's game, that it's BioWare's writing, and that whining because BioWare didn't make the game YOU specifically wanted is asinine.

This is BioWare's game, I will trust the information they give, the plan they have, the story they're telling, and the mechanics they're implementing over some half-baked fanfic writer's claims that BioWare can't be trusted and that they're scum.

Has BioWare messed up before? Yes, absolutely, but just because they made something counter to what YOU were demanding them or expecting them to make, does not mean it's a BAD game, or that BioWare needs to come grovelling back on hands and knees. If you hated ME2 so much that you won't buy ME3... they won't care. Because a lot more people WILL.

I get being frustrated, I do. But don't sit there and try to tell us that BioWare can't be trusted. They're the "Word of God" in that particular trope, not you.

That's not a good attitude either.    A good way to try to understand what I mean is to look at the film industry.   A director is basically giving us HIS vision, but at the same time he shouldn't forget that an audience has to sit through HIS vision for 90 mins or more.   If that director is so caught up in his own perception that he forgets about the people sitting in the theater then he fails the very people who came to enjoy his creation.  The question that has to be asked is how much is that director willing leave his audience behind just to complete his vision?  And if he does, should he blame them for not getting it?

Gaming requires a much larger investment of time and money.   But you're absolutely correct, this IS Bioware's game, but they can't forget about us just because it's THEIR game.   Sure they can shrug their shoulders at our dashed expectations, but they should also listen to our criticism for better insight into what we find entertaining or what's motivating the complaints.  After all, we're the ones spending dozens of hours playing their games. 

[Lady Olivia]

iakus wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

With that being said, it's fair to say the story missions in ME1 were larger in scope and vision.  The storyline of ME2 was fine, and the missions were (IMO) awesome.  The problem was, main story missions comprised 2 - 2 1/2 hours, in a 35-40 hour game.  

And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

Hm. I usually agree with the things you're saying, iakus, but this here is a bit suspicious. Is this a complaint to the story (as in, the script), or the way the game tells it? Because comparing the relative duration of primary, secondary and side missions definitely falls in the later category. Nobody would mind having longer primary missions, but how would that change the summary?

I'm also not sure if we're talking about ME2 as compared to ME1, or just ME2, and it's important to know because these are very different topics.

There are many logical (and other) flaws in the script for ME2. But there are easily as many in ME1, if nothing else, because of its intended (and in my opinion, unattained) complexity.

Someone said that people put ME1 on a pedestal because it was the first, and I'm inclined to believe that. For me, ME2 was the first, and there isn't a single aspect, story-wise or otherwise, where ME1 can surpass it.

Modifié par Lady Olivia, 04 juin 2011 - 05:35 .

[Iakus]

Lady Olivia wrote...

iakus wrote...

And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

Hm. I usually agree with the things you're saying, iakus, but this here is a bit suspicious. Is this a complaint to the story (as in, the script), or the way the game tells it? Because comparing the relative duration of primary, secondary and side missions definitely falls in the later category. Nobody would mind having longer primary missions, but how would that change the summary?

I'm also not sure if we're talking about ME2 as compared to ME1, or just ME2, and it's important to know because these are very different topics.

There are many logical (and other) flaws in the script for ME2. But there are easily as many in ME1, if nothing else, because of its intended (and in my opinion, unattained) complexity.

Someone said that people put ME1 on a pedestal because it was the first, and I'm inclined to believe that. For me, ME2 was the first, and there isn't a single aspect, story-wise or otherwise, where ME1 can surpass it.

I think the complaint is a little bit of both

I believe that if the Collectors are the primary villains of this chapter, we should have had more exposure to them, direct or indirect.  But aside from Freedom's Landing and the three missions we fight them, where do we feel their influence?  I count two spots:  Mordin's recruitment mission and having Okeer's dossier.  Shepard spends almost the entirety of the game fighting various Terminus forces that have nothing to do with his primary mission whatsoever.  Which leads to the second point:

I mean, yeah we're supposed to be building a team and preparing for a trip through the Omega IV Relay.  But how much preparation is being done?  Basically we just upgrade the Normandy.  A little mining takes care of that.  Everything else is a personal mission to bring some kind of "closure" to the squad.  Finding Kolyat is fine, but what does it have to do with the Collectors?  Rescuing Maelon is great (and may be important later) but what does it have to do with missing colonies?

Don't get me wrong, these are good missions.  But they're good side missions.  Again, they have nothing to do with actually preparing for the mission.  We are not learning any more about the Collectors.  We aren't ironing out differences among the squad.  We aren't getting any new weapons or other technology (except what we happen to stumble over)  Even the personal armaments we can develop like Jack's amp and Grunt's shotgun are gained purely through conversation and mining.

These are what I mean by nothing holding the story together.  The missions don't really connect to the main plot, and we don't seem to be doing what Shepard was brought back to do.  

[FrostedFlake84]

iakus wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

With that being said, it's fair to say the story missions in ME1 were larger in scope and vision.  The storyline of ME2 was fine, and the missions were (IMO) awesome.  The problem was, main story missions comprised 2 - 2 1/2 hours, in a 35-40 hour game.  

And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

My personal ME 2 story criticism:  social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/  What you put here was everything I felt.

[Weiser_Cain]

Making the Collectors the Protheans was a big mistake, I mean unless there's some great reveal in ME3 it was solving a mystery with a mystery and then pushing the whole thing out an airlock.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

How'd you feel about BG2?

[Eshaye]

iakus wrote...

I think the complaint is a little bit of both

I believe that if the Collectors are the primary villains of this chapter, we should have had more exposure to them, direct or indirect.  But aside from Freedom's Landing and the three missions we fight them, where do we feel their influence?  I count two spots:  Mordin's recruitment mission and having Okeer's dossier.  Shepard spends almost the entirety of the game fighting various Terminus forces that have nothing to do with his primary mission whatsoever.  Which leads to the second point:

I mean, yeah we're supposed to be building a team and preparing for a trip through the Omega IV Relay.  But how much preparation is being done?  Basically we just upgrade the Normandy.  A little mining takes care of that.  Everything else is a personal mission to bring some kind of "closure" to the squad.  Finding Kolyat is fine, but what does it have to do with the Collectors?  Rescuing Maelon is great (and may be important later) but what does it have to do with missing colonies?

Don't get me wrong, these are good missions.  But they're good side missions.  Again, they have nothing to do with actually preparing for the mission.  We are not learning any more about the Collectors.  We aren't ironing out differences among the squad.  We aren't getting any new weapons or other technology (except what we happen to stumble over)  Even the personal armaments we can develop like Jack's amp and Grunt's shotgun are gained purely through conversation and mining.

These are what I mean by nothing holding the story together.  The missions don't really connect to the main plot, and we don't seem to be doing what Shepard was brought back to do.  

These are really good points, as much as I love ME2 and I like better then ME1, story flow and relevance was really pushed aside.
I always roleplay my RPG's so I've solved this deficiency in my own head by saying that the Illusive Man is holding all the strings and telling Shepard what to do. He holds ALL the important intel and doesn't share this stuff with his minions until he needs them to do something specific. So while he says to Shep that they have the control of the mission, they really don't. Illusive Man keeps Shep distracted by telling them to help their squad resolve their issues while he's busy going through his information network and figuring out where to send Shep and his other underlings. In effect keep control of everything and benching Shepard while making it look like the crew of the Normandy is doing something. 

However I will admit that I shouldn't have to fill these reasons myself BioWare really went to an odd direction with this one. Perhaps they focused too much on personal story and ran out of time... 

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
And that's the big problem.  We spent the vast majority of the game playing as Conrad Verner, wandering the galaxy righting wrongs rather than focusing on what was the main story:  missing colonies, Collectors, Omega IV Relay.

The individual missions were fine, but nothing was holding the game together.  It was a dozen DLC packs stitched together. 

How'd you feel about BG2?

Baldur's Gate 2?  Probably the best game Bioware ever made.

Yes you go around helping other people, Including missions for your party members.  But the game doesn't pretend that they prepare you for facing Jon Irenicus.  They're simply quests to do or not do.  Once you have the money to go to Spellhold, you could let D'Arnise Keep or the Umar Hills or teh Cult of the Unseeing Eye rot if you so chose.  Heck some of the quests out there you shouldn't do if maintining a particular alignment or reputation is important to you 

[efrgfhnm_]

Well both games are regarded as some of the best of this generation, but Mass Effect 2 was a vast improvement on the first. The first could be forgiven for the awful vehicle sections and clunky inventory and combat because of the amazingly detailed universe and the memorbale characters. Mass Effect 2 improved on almost everything but story, as many people have said, but since it is exceedinly rare that the sequel beats the original in that regard (Empire Strikes Back being the only one I can think of), that didn't take away from the experience, especially when everything else was taken into consideration

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Yes you go around helping other people, Including missions for your party members.  But the game doesn't pretend that they prepare you for facing Jon Irenicus.  They're simply quests to do or not do.  Once you have the money to go to Spellhold, you could let D'Arnise Keep or the Umar Hills or teh Cult of the Unseeing Eye rot if you so chose.  Heck some of the quests out there you shouldn't do if maintining a particular alignment or reputation is important to you 

Itals mine. Pretend? How so?

Edit: Of course, the SM is so easy that you don't need much help with it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 juin 2011 - 07:43 .

[FrostedFlake84]

It almost feels like ME2 was really ME1.5 to me.

[sp0ck 06]

I think the complaint is a little bit of both

I believe that if the Collectors are the primary villains of this chapter, we should have had more exposure to them, direct or indirect.  But aside from Freedom's Landing and the three missions we fight them, where do we feel their influence?  I count two spots:  Mordin's recruitment mission and having Okeer's dossier.  Shepard spends almost the entirety of the game fighting various Terminus forces that have nothing to do with his primary mission whatsoever.  Which leads to the second point:

I mean, yeah we're supposed to be building a team and preparing for a trip through the Omega IV Relay.  But how much preparation is being done?  Basically we just upgrade the Normandy.  A little mining takes care of that.  Everything else is a personal mission to bring some kind of "closure" to the squad.  Finding Kolyat is fine, but what does it have to do with the Collectors?  Rescuing Maelon is great (and may be important later) but what does it have to do with missing colonies?

Don't get me wrong, these are good missions.  But they're good side missions.  Again, they have nothing to do with actually preparing for the mission.  We are not learning any more about the Collectors.  We aren't ironing out differences among the squad.  We aren't getting any new weapons or other technology (except what we happen to stumble over)  Even the personal armaments we can develop like Jack's amp and Grunt's shotgun are gained purely through conversation and mining.

These are what I mean by nothing holding the story together.  The missions don't really connect to the main plot, and we don't seem to be doing what Shepard was brought back to do.  

These points really nail the only major problem with ME2.  I love it, and think it is a far superior game to the first, but I really hope the third plays out like ME1 in the storyline progression department.

[Iakus]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]iakus wrote...
Yes you go around helping other people, Including missions for your party members.  But the game doesn't pretend that they prepare you for facing Jon Irenicus.  They're simply quests to do or not do.  Once you have the money to go to Spellhold, you could let D'Arnise Keep or the Umar Hills or teh Cult of the Unseeing Eye rot if you so chose.  Heck some of the quests out there you shouldn't do if maintining a particular alignment or reputation is important to you 
[/quote]

It's the best way I could think of to put it.

The loyalty missions are "required, but not" in that they are part of the main quest line (they are "missions", not "assignments") But they are skippable.  Of course, skipping such a mission greatly increases the chances they die, as they don't get their plot armor.

The problem is, their missions really don't do anything to "prepare" for the SM, save wrapping up unfinished business.  Now like I said, I have no problem with the mission as such.  But I do find it rather silly that you could theoretically get zero upgrades for weapons, shields, amps, omnitools, and not have it affect the SM one way or the other, but find a squadmate's long lost father/daughter/sister/lstudent/son will ensure survival.

I would have expected"preparing" to run  more along the lines of gathering equipment, acclimating the team to working together (no, I don't consider the loyalty missions to do that, as the third squaddie is a fifth wheel.  Nothing to say, nothing to contribute)  And maybe giving the Collectors a couple of more punches in the nose.  I mean, they are stalking Shepard, right?