684 réponses à ce sujet

[Ricinator]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

You didn't actually define what you thought made ME1 so good. I'd argue that it was the setting, the characters, the interaction with said characters and the cinematic apporach to storytelling it took  - all things ME2 kept - but if you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think a Mass Effect game is.

Agreed. Of all the things I typically go to Bioware for, gameplay isn't one of them.

Which is why ME2 was so good - it had all the best hallmarks of Bioware games while also having the best gameplay Bioware has ever created. Everything that makes Bioware games good was in both ME1 and ME2. People just become stuck up the moment the word shooter is mentioned. 

i disagree with you entirely about ME2... Everything else i agree with. ME2 wasn't Mass Effect it was Gears Effect.

[Seboist]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

That's a fabulous idea, Kaiser.

Except for the Cerberus fandorking.

What Cerberus fandorking? This is me in "Choices actually mattering mode", as I have been long before Cerberus started to grow on me.

Choosing to align your Shepard with a faction? What do you think this is,  a real man's RPG like the Witcher?

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

So you just want to bump into some old faces and you're happy?

Krogans uniting vs. Krogans NOT uniting was a pretty big difference to me.

[AdmiralCheez]

Ricinator wrote...

i disagree with you entirely about ME2... Everything else i agree with. ME2 wasn't Mass Effect it was Gears Effect.

So you hated it because it had shooter combat?

But... it has GUNS!

[Ricinator]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I'm not reading ten pages but: "Who cares what happened during the season" sounds a lot like "who cares what happened during ME1 & 2."

well thats the 10 pages in a nutshell

[Nashiktal]

onelifecrisis wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Really?

Because those little things made me go apesh*t.

WHO IS THIS HACK?  WHERE IS WREX?  TUCHANKA SUCKS.

WHAT THE HELL.  WHAT IS UP WITH THIS COUNCIL?  IT SUCKS.

WHY IS NOS ASTRA SO EMPTY?  THIS SUCKS.

It felt absolutely empty and impersonal.  I quit before finishing the second round of dossiers.

So you just want to bump into some old faces and you're happy?

I will say that the wrex cameo is one of the few, to me, that had any significant difference to me. You get more than five minutes with him, he is tied into grunts loyalty, and you even get to learn just a teency bit more about him.

I think bioware could have done much more to differentiate wrex and wreave, perhaps by altering missions that involve them, but whats done is done. All we can do is criticize, suggest, and hope for the best while preparing for the worst.

[onelifecrisis]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I have, and I don't know what you mean. I didn't notice any differences. I mean, Wrex gets replaced by Wreave, which made absolutely no difference to anything (though there is obvious potential for this to make a big difference in ME3). Council got replaced by humans, which made absolutely no difference to anything. Minor characters like Rana Thanoptis and that Noveria chick were absent, which deprived me of a fetch quest or two (thank god). I'm struggling to think of any other differences...

Really?

Because those little things made me go apesh*t.

WHO IS THIS HACK?  WHERE IS WREX?  TUCHANKA SUCKS.

WHAT THE HELL.  WHAT IS UP WITH THIS COUNCIL?  IT SUCKS.

WHY IS NOS ASTRA SO EMPTY?  THIS SUCKS.

It felt absolutely empty and impersonal.  I quit before finishing the second round of dossiers.

I agree. People ignore all the little differences that ME1 makes in ME2, but I think they really add up. I guess some people want to see colossal differences from the smallest actions rather than taking the effort to notice the differences that are there.

They add up to small world syndrome, but that's about it. And I don't want small actions to matter. Quite the contrary. Big decisions (like saving the council) should have a bit more impact though, IMO.

[Candidate 88766]

Ricinator wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

You didn't actually define what you thought made ME1 so good. I'd argue that it was the setting, the characters, the interaction with said characters and the cinematic apporach to storytelling it took  - all things ME2 kept - but if you disagree then I'd love to hear what you think a Mass Effect game is.

Agreed. Of all the things I typically go to Bioware for, gameplay isn't one of them.

Which is why ME2 was so good - it had all the best hallmarks of Bioware games while also having the best gameplay Bioware has ever created. Everything that makes Bioware games good was in both ME1 and ME2. People just become stuck up the moment the word shooter is mentioned. 

i disagree with you entirely about ME2... Everything else i agree with. ME2 wasn't Mass Effect it was Gears Effect.

Why? Did ME2 not have strong characters, or a focus on character interaction, or the same setting as ME1, or a cinematic approach to storytelling? I'm pretty sure it did.

You've also clearly never player Gears of War. Just a hunch, but I don't think you'd like it. 

[Ricinator]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ricinator wrote...

i disagree with you entirely about ME2... Everything else i agree with. ME2 wasn't Mass Effect it was Gears Effect.

So you hated it because it had shooter combat?

But... it has GUNS!

i really like the combat in ME2, but when everything that makes Mass Effect 1 so great gets stripped it makes it into an entirely new game.

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

They add up to small world syndrome, but that's about it. And I don't want small actions to matter. Quite the contrary. Big decisions (like saving the council) should have a bit more impact though, IMO.

Kind of hard to make two completely different games for the middle chapter of a series.

[Candidate 88766]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ricinator wrote...

i disagree with you entirely about ME2... Everything else i agree with. ME2 wasn't Mass Effect it was Gears Effect.

So you hated it because it had shooter combat?

But... it has GUNS!

I know right!

Its set in the future for crying out loud - the only way to do combat is with shooter mechanics, and without combat you have no challenge and it wouldn't really be a game - more a string of interactive cutscenes.

[AdmiralCheez]

Ricinator wrote...

i really like the combat in ME2, but when everything that makes Mass Effect 1 so great gets stripped it makes it into an entirely new game.

Like Ashley's undying love and loyalty?

[FluffyScarf]

Just ignore clowns like Ricinator, Ghost, G9, S4S and TK. They spout the same 'ME1 was teh best!' line in every post. Amazing what time and rose-tinted glasses can do to one's memories.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 02 novembre 2011 - 12:30 .

[Candidate 88766]

Ricinator wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ricinator wrote...

i disagree with you entirely about ME2... Everything else i agree with. ME2 wasn't Mass Effect it was Gears Effect.

So you hated it because it had shooter combat?

But... it has GUNS!

i really like the combat in ME2, but when everything that makes Mass Effect 1 so great gets stripped it makes it into an entirely new game.

Tell you what, just list the features you thought actually made ME1 so great and then have a long hard think at whether they really were stripped out of ME2. Most of the things that made ME1 so great are actually still there.

[Candidate 88766]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Just ignore clowns like Ricinator, Ghost, G9, S4S and TK. They spout the same 'ME1 was teh best!' line in every post. Amazing what time and rose-tinted glasses can do to one's memories.

I know I know, I just can't help it...

[onelifecrisis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

They add up to small world syndrome, but that's about it. And I don't want small actions to matter. Quite the contrary. Big decisions (like saving the council) should have a bit more impact though, IMO.

Kind of hard to make two completely different games for the middle chapter of a series.

I said "a bit more impact" not "two different games". Still, BW have claimed that divergence will be easier to do in ME3. Unfortunately, articles like the one in the OP make it sound like divergence really isn't a priotity.

[AdmiralCheez]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Just ignore clowns like Ricinator, Ghost, G9, S4S and TK. They spout the same 'ME1 was teh best!' line in every post. Amazing what time and rose-tinted glasses can do to one's memories.

Hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinions.  It's perfectly okay to like ME1 and not like ME2, or vice versa.

It's only a problem when we start belittling each other and acting like our opinions are gospel.

[Ricinator]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Ricinator wrote...

i really like the combat in ME2, but when everything that makes Mass Effect 1 so great gets stripped it makes it into an entirely new game.

Like Ashley's undying love and loyalty?

well i got her back in me3 so continue your rant about that good sir...

RPG was stripped bare, accept it or not, its true.
Combat was the only feature in ME2 the devs cared about, and with their 150 game of the year awards i dont expect them to change that game design.

[FluffyScarf]

But I liked taping down Mouse 1 to take out enemies on Insanity. Don't you remember how amazing those hexagonal blue shields? They looked ridiculous and completely out of place, and it was never explained how they worked in the lore. But it was in ME 1, so it was perfect. And who didn't enjoy sorting through piles of identical weak weapons? Or pressing 'Convert to Omni-gel' hundreds of times. I believe that took about 5 of the total 30 hours. Those features made ME 1 great.

[Iakus]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I'm not reading ten pages but: "Who cares what happened during the season" sounds a lot like "who cares what happened during ME1 & 2."


Edit: Another ME1 vs. ME2 thread? IS that what I'm seeing? *sigh*

INdeed.

It also sounds like "Mass Effect Three is the best place to start"

and 

"You're not going to remember all the details from when you played that game, right?

And I agree.  This should be something ME1 and ME2 fans both should unite about.

[AdmiralCheez]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I said "a bit more impact" not "two different games". Still, BW have claimed that divergence will be easier to do in ME3. Unfortunately, articles like the one in the OP make it sound like divergence really isn't a priotity.

I am expecting ME3 to pay more attention to past decisions than ME2 did, yes.

I'd be more concerned about Alan Flynn and David Silverman if they were actually writing and programming the damn game, but they're not.

[FluffyScarf]

Meh. Play ME 1 and 2 once. Watch the other endings on YT. I already uninstalled both games anyway. Once 3 comes, there's little incentive to go back and play the other 2 since you know how everything ends.

[Nashiktal]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

So you just want to bump into some old faces and you're happy?

Krogans uniting vs. Krogans NOT uniting was a pretty big difference to me.

But did we really see that? Not much physically changed. You alter a few lines of dialogue, then go on your business as usual. Seeing wrex was great, but it didn't change much TANGIBLY. 

Now I am going to ramble into what ifs here... but if say not saving wrex caused the krogan to not unite, while out on your missions you fought more krogan of different clans, maybe opening up new missions like helping wreave to consolidate his power in order to make other missions there easier, or for a smaller scale gain bounty credits for killing certain enemies. Conversely it is easier to get grunt to do the rite, as wreave needs all the krogan he can get and you won't face resistance at the end of said rite.

If wrex is alive, things are much more stable and as such less money is to be had. Instead you get to explore more into wrex's life, but largely the same as we saw it. WE get the usual resistance to grunts right because of his birth, etc.

Now this is just me blowing smoke out there, me2 is done and gone, but can't you see the potential that could have been? Cameo's make sense for small sidequest character (and parasini's sidequest was fun) but all the major (and semi major in the case of wrex) just wasn't satisfying given the choice and consequence promises given. Wrex's great changes just are not tangible, especially when compared to wreaves world.

I can see why bioware doesn't do this, but something more than emails and short cameos would be nice.