Ricinator wrote...
crackseed wrote...
Define how ME1 had bigger choices then ME2 for me please Rici. I'm anxious to see this one.
just because ME2 has big choices doesnt mean it had a lot of them... in ME1 you could do a fair deal of side quests and feel you handled it a specific way that you wanted it done. you get a good amount of back and forth between the people you meet around the galaxy. Even the rachni queen decision had a good amount of dialogue to chew through before you had to make a choice between life or death. In ME2 the greatest example of an RPG fail i found was the ash/kaiden scene. you were forced to say the same stupid line 8 different ways and all i wanted to say was i was rebuilt by cerberus and i am not with them.... Insteed i am forced over and over to hear the same crappy lines no matter which way i choose to say them. happy i just want the good old 5 - 6 answers i could have given instead of the crappy 2 different ways.
You are kind of reaching for anything you can get in your post here. Let's take a look at some of the points.
ME2 had big choices but there wasn't alot of them compared to ME1? Considering just about every major plot mission, squad member mission and even some of the post follow-ups were big choices? ME1 provided you a couple major choices at critical plot points whereas ME2 did the same but actually adding more due to the amount of squadmates and loyalty missions.
Horizon couldn't have had much choice - you were with Cerberus and both Ash/Kaiden hated them. You got to say what you felt was the best response and you'll get to see that play out in ME3, especially if you romanced them. How does it show ME1 had more choice? What did you do with Morinth vs Samara? Tali's loyalty mission data? Rewriting or destroying the heretic Geth? Keeping or destroying the base? Are these not major decisions that YOU as the player drive?
I would actually agree with you that ME2 had less choices to make in the side missions, but beyond a handful of relevant side missions in ME1, most of them were generic repeats of Hulk infestations or killing Geth. I think ME2 could use the exploration element back, but there were enough N7 missions in ME2 that gave you choice in how you handled something. Keeping data versus forwarding it on, yada yada. Or even the DLC missions with the end of the Overlord.
Given the length of ME2, I would argue it had more choices and player driven results then ME1 - however, I think it's fair to say that given the nature of ME1's story, the "fewer" major choices felt immensely dramatic, because, well - it was the start of the trilogy and we were basically looking at facing a game over if we failed. Whereas in ME2, we haven't reached the culmination of ME3 yet - we're having to make major choices that are leading UP to more major decisions with the ultimate ramifications for the end of the story.
So I don't buy the logic, especially given there's no real substantial evidence otherwise, that ME2 has failed because it gave you less choice. ME1 started the 3 response tree and ME2 continued it, adding interrupts. The only flaw I could put on ME2's system is that persuasion became tied in directly with Paragon/Renegade status whereas at least in ME1 you could sometimes pull of good persuasion regardless of your alignment.
Modifié par crackseed, 07 juin 2011 - 06:56 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
.
It's pretty late over here so I'll probably be heading off anyways. 
