The Interloper wrote...
You're repeating similar things to an earlier thread whose topic I forget, and I just don't agree here. In ME1 you shoot things alot, skill plays a major role regardless of stats, you use powers to thin things out, talk to people, and can bed aliens-just like ME2. You accuse ME2 of dumbing things down with regenerating health, gaint pop-ups and expositiond dumps, but ME1 had all of these things.
ME1 didn't have regenerating health except outside of combat, while ME2 had the modern shooter method of "hug a wall for 5 seconds for health" mechanic. ME1's pop-ups were small and subtle, telling and showing you only what you needed to know as efficiently as possible, while ME2 was like a kid's pop up book: giant pop-ups taking up almost the entire bottom left quarter of the screen that made a loud sound every time and had big colourful pictures attached to them. I'm not sure what you mean by "expistion dumps" when I never even mentioned that. Unless you were referring to my complaints about ME2 over explaining itself and babying me, in which case I didn't mean in the dialogue, but in the whole way the game was presented, from those aformentioned pop-ups, to the giant kiddie interfaces, "Mission Complete" screens, loading screen messages, "Press and hold "F" to exit" prompts, etc.
You accuse ME2 of turning away from the "mature" homage to the 70's and 80's and while ME2 was a bit more explody it still had plenty of mature themes. Also I recall you accusing ME2 of being more "o look ******!" but the romances were similar in tone to ME1, the sex was less explicit, and it had no nude lesbian sex scene (or two actually). I notice you keep holding up the 70's and 80's as a model for (relative) maturity and complexity, but then who are the Asari deconstructions of? They were inspired by something....
Again, it's in the presentation. The way some of the characters dressed to rub their sexuality in your face, the way they wore stupid outfits in dangerous places where they should be more protected, the lingering camera shots on Miranda's ass, and the way the whole thing felt more tacky and juvenile and less mature. Yes, ME1 had nudity, but that was actually done with some class, and managed to be sensual without being crass. ME2's love scenes were tamer, but also somehow managed to be tackier and less mature for the most part. They seemed more like "cheap porn, but covered in clothes" as opposed to ME1's more "sensual love scene in an otherwise not pornographic movie" style. There were rare exceptions, such as Garrus' which does seem more emotional and less about "it's sex!" than the others, but overall the love scenes in ME2 were cringingly bad for the most part.
As for rpg mechanics, ME1 had lots of clutter (by which I mean plenty of stats and such)but a level of complexity (the results in gameplay) that was much lower in proportion to that. ME2 had much less clutter and ( IMO, don't know if you agree) still at the same level of complexity, if not more, when it comes to gameplay.
I don't agree at all. It didn't have the same level of complexity at all. There was no real cusomisation or modding, no trade-offs or thought required from the play because everything was so linear and easy to God-mod to the max without any real effort. Character builds were less varied within the classes themselves, and it was pretty much impossible to screw a build. No armour classes, no non-combat related skills, no omni-tools or biotic amps, etc. The player never really got to play as much because the game either did it for you or simply didn't give you the option. I don't really see any complexity at all to ME2's system. Perhaps I'd list the armour being an exception if it wasn't mostly cosmetic since the armour didn't actually act like armour and protect you at all.
Powers do not fit every lock, classes feel more unique, and wheras 90% of ME1's powers were shared with other classes, causing them to blend together, less then half of ME2's are shared and they had at least some branching. I get that it would have been best to make it less cluttered and even more complex at the same time, but ME2 was still an improvement IMO. You seem to think that clutter is inseperable with complexity but when it comes down to it isn't the result more important then what's behind the hood? (For instance I remember you saying earlier that ME2's linear progression of weapon upgrades was insultingly simple, but wasn't ME1s chain of marginally better weapons and the linear weapon skills do the exact same thing with more confusion?)
Clutter is not inseperable from complexity, and that's why I largely took issue with ME2's approach. Instead of making it work it took the easy way out and went for the simplest answer. It technically "works" better because it's so simply it can't really go wrong. You have guns, you find the gun and can use the gun, and you can then upgrade it with a linear method with no trade-offs or limitations to the max without even really putting any effort or thought at all. That's it. It works, but it's both simple and unsatisfying. A good RPG has systems that allow you to play with things and customise, and give you limitations and trade-offs, so you have to make a choice. ME1's main problem was the way it went about it was clumsy and the trade-offs and limitations weren't strong enough, so most times the choices were obvious. Had the items been more varied and not suffered from "the next one up is always better across the board in 90% of cases" then it wouldn't have been so bad. ME1's system wasn't linear because the system was linear, it was linear because the items mostly were. With better items and some tweaking, ME1's system could have had depth, functionality, customisation and versatility. ME2's system is doomed to linearity from the get-go because it's just a bad system built around simplicity and linearity.
I don't care what model engine my car technically uses as much as the speed, milage, etc I get when I actually drive it. You say ME2 replaced a faulty motercycle engine with bicycle pedals. I think that's a false analogy. That implies that ME1 provided much more meaningful choice and customization ME2. It didn't. It had lots of bright point boxes and tons of weapons, and if you think that looking complex is vital to making the experience go ahead. But that all meant very little in application, and while ME2s mechanics were technically oversimplified in many cases it still did more then ME1.
I don't see how they did more. At all. I'm actually curious as to how you think they did, because I just don't see it. ME2 just didn't really let you customise and truly play with your stuff at all. All upgrades were linear, no modding, no different armour classes, no omni-tools or biotic amps, limited class builds, no non-combat skills, etc. and on top of it all, most of what remained was completely linear and done for you.
Also, I personally disagree with the sentiment that ME1 painted a more convincing universe then ME2. Instead of exploring empty landscapes inhapited by random pirates and settlers who all live in the same three types of buildings (not that there isn't some charm to that) I actually felt I was going to places were people lived, people who came from somewhere and actually did things. I got a better sense of active society and political organization (which is vital to fleshing out a world) that I didnt' feel was present in ME1's hodgepodge of corporations and entrance lobbies.
See, to you that's a strength, but to me that's a weakness. We're supposed to be exploring space. And what is space supposed to be? Vast. Epic. Seemingly never-ending. Mostly empty and dead. And that's a feeling ME1 actually managed to capture. Most places were large and open, and many felt sparse, vast and lonely. ME2 on the other hand made everything feel small, busy, populated and over-designed. Almost everywhere was teeming with life, the areas feel cramped and small, and we stumble across sidequest items unavoidably in conveniently the same places we have to go on missions. The places feel purposefully designed and conveniently laid out instead of seeming natural, and never seem vast and epic. On Illium alone we stumble across Liara, Shiala, Gianna and Conrad Verner within 50 metres of each other, and Nassana Dantius not much further. It didn't even feel big at all until LotSB came along and gave us a car chase through the skyscrapers. Even the sidequest worlds felt fake, mostly involving small, linear areas on class M worlds as we performed some gimmicky little experiment silently with out equally silent companions looking on. Probably even given to us via an email or random scan rather than a mission contact who actually spoke to us and gave us a dialogue option here or there.
You can't really have that feeling of exploration and vastness when everywhere you go is small and greatly populated, and you never really get to wander beyond a set path.
Retour en haut
You only went to the Citadel, if you don't count ALL THE OTHER PLACES.
