457 réponses à ce sujet

[SuperMegaWolf]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Characters keep people focused in a story. Why did I watch the Avengers? Why watch Firefly? Star Wars? Simple: investment. Give me a stake in caring about happens. Then worry about plot progress.

The problem is, in ME2 the threw out plot progress almost entirely....and everyone thinks it's great because they get to make a bunch of avatars play audio files.

[KotorEffect3]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Well, I consider ME1 to be the worst in the series. It's still amazing, just ME2 and ME3 are better. Think about the 6 squadmates in ME1. How bland were they compared to ME2 and ME3's roster?

Garrus and Tali only became fan-favorites through ME2, that's when they became awesome.

Tali showed more personality on Freedom Progress than she did in the entirety of ME 1.

It seems all anyone cares about is character interaction and candy. No one wants any substantial plot progress.

Um good characters make you care about what happens to them and that is pretty important for any plot

[De1ta G]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Characters keep people focused in a story. Why did I watch the Avengers? Why watch Firefly? Star Wars? Simple: investment. Give me a stake in caring about happens. Then worry about plot progress.

The problem is, in ME2 the threw out plot progress almost entirely....and everyone thinks it's great because they get to make a bunch of avatars play audio files.

IT. DID. NOT. THROW. THE. STORY. OUT. ENTIRELY!!!

Not even almost entirely. You know those collectors. They were being controlled by Harbinger. A reaper! What was he doing? Harvesting humans to make a human reaper! 

Obviously the alliance and council weren't going to believe you about the reapers, there was no reason to even bother trying to get them to prepare.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Characters keep people focused in a story. Why did I watch the Avengers? Why watch Firefly? Star Wars? Simple: investment. Give me a stake in caring about happens. Then worry about plot progress.

The problem is, in ME2 the threw out plot progress almost entirely....and everyone thinks it's great because they get to make a bunch of avatars play audio files.

And the problem is I didn't care about what was happening. Again, what is plot progression if I'm not invested in the ones being affected by the plot? ME2, along with DA:O, introduced Bioware's best set of characters to date. That more than makes up for what I consider to be a very simplistic premise, in both cases. That suicide mission? My first playthrough I was tense as hell because I loved the entire squad and didn't know which decisions would and would not kill them.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:00 .

[SuperMegaWolf]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If it was always that why did they put loot, exploration, stats, and exp for each enemy kill in the first game? Seems like that's how they started out and then they changed it to what you're describing in the second game.

Great question. Let's also consider why they decided to make it a realtime tps built on the unreal engine, if it was meant to be a traditional RPG in the first place.  

Edit: Of course, I don't remember much freeform explanation ever taking place in pen and paper. Sure, your DM might let you decide between going left and right, but on the scale of Mass Effect? Hardly.

Don't know if you heard but mass effect doesn't really change that much based on decisions. Survival Kids for the gameboy has more divergent outcomes.

[JeffZero]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Characters keep people focused in a story. Why did I watch the Avengers? Why watch Firefly? Star Wars? Simple: investment. Give me a stake in caring about happens. Then worry about plot progress.

The problem is, in ME2 the threw out plot progress almost entirely....and everyone thinks it's great because they get to make a bunch of avatars play audio files.

Regardless of your... somewhat rarer opinions on ME2, it's going to enjoy something of a renaissance again right now, because historically, whenever a big game comes out, people flock to its predecessor as the shining example and spit all over the most recent entry.

In ME2's case, it's been the overall buyer base's darling from the get-go, but as far as the more hardcore BioWare fandom is concerned, that's only been the case to a certain extent. ME1 has held that honor for a long time, whereas outside of sites like BSN you'd be hard-pressed to find a hundred people who would agree with such an assessment.

Now, with ME3 out and free to be trash-talked into the gates of Oblivion and beyond, ME2 is going to be prodded and groped as the best thing since corned beef on rye. But this too shall pass. Unfathomable though it may be to many who gripe endlessly over ME3 as-is, if a fourth game arrives, there's every bit the chance people will suddenly begin praising London as "appropriately somber", the reduced roles of their favorite ME2 squadmates as "befitting a war epic", and the endings as "the stuff of legends, and loads better than ME4's simple-and-clean victory conditions."

It may sound like hogwash, but I've seen it happen with too many gaming franchises to doubt its potential. For now, just sit back and ignore the ME2 love circle as best you can, since you obviously disagree with it. 

[Fixers0]

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If it was always that why did they put loot, exploration, stats, and exp for each enemy kill in the first game? Seems like that's how they started out and then they changed it to what you're describing in the second game.

Great question. Let's also consider why they decided to make it a realtime tps built on the unreal engine, if it was meant to be a traditional RPG in the first place.  

Edit: Of course, I don't remember much freeform explanation ever taking place in pen and paper. Sure, your DM might let you decide between going left and right, but on the scale of Mass Effect? Hardly.

Don't know if you heard but mass effect doesn't really change that much based on decisions. Survival Kids for the gameboy has more divergent outcomes.

I'm afraid it doesn't. This goes for the original, as well as its future installments.

[JeffZero]

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

You prefer ME1's UI over ME2's and ME3's? Wow, how so?

[ZLurps]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If it was always that why did they put loot, exploration, stats, and exp for each enemy kill in the first game? Seems like that's how they started out and then they changed it to what you're describing in the second game.

Great question. Let's also consider why they decided to make it a realtime tps built on the unreal engine, if it was meant to be a traditional RPG in the first place.  

Edit: Of course, I don't remember much freeform explanation ever taking place in pen and paper. Sure, your DM might let you decide between going left and right, but on the scale of Mass Effect? Hardly.

While I agree that computer or console games can't get even close the freedom of PNP. However, I really wonder what kind of PNP RPG you were playing?

I mean, I used to be a DM and if I were went to forcing players to take this or that path, they were revolted, and for a good reason.

Modifié par ZLurps, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:13 .

[De1ta G]

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

lol wut? 

u trollin bro?

[KotorEffect3]

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

And I get accused of being a blind fanboy.  I'd like to know how ME 1 has superior music and gameplay.  The only difference between that and ME 2's UI is the color.

[tonnactus]

JeffZero wrote...

You prefer ME1's UI over ME2's and ME3's? Wow, how so?

Mass Effect 2 dont even display a bar to compare different weapons...(weapon damage per shot, fire rate, accuracy)
And lets not waste words on the "journal" of the third game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:07 .

[Ozida]

Ozida wrote...

De1ta G wrote...
Inconvienent is one way of describing the combat systems, but that's just if you want to be nice about it.

OK, I just have to ask: is this because I played it on PC? Because, honestly, I had no problems with combat system in ME1. In ME2 & 3 it was improved, I will not argue with that, but it didn't bothered me that much in ME1 either.

Sorry for double-post, but I am actually curious if different platforms made it better/ worse for people to play the game. If you, guys, could share your experience with ME1 gameplay/ combat, maybe it would help me to understand what is such big  fuss over it about.  Because, once again, I experienced much worse control issues in my life with other games comparing to ME1.

Modifié par Ozida, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:08 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ZLurps wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Great question. Let's also consider why they decided to make it a realtime tps built on the unreal engine, if it was meant to be a traditional RPG in the first place.  

Edit: Of course, I don't remember much freeform explanation ever taking place in pen and paper. Sure, your DM might let you decide between going left and right, but on the scale of Mass Effect? Hardly.

While I agree that computer or console games can't get even close the freedom of PNP, I really wonder what kind of RPG you were playing?

I mean, I used to be a DM and if I were went to forcing players to take this or that path, they were revolted, and for a good reason.

Depends on how you're orchestrating the choice. Our DM gave us a good amount of freedom on how to handle any scenario (Ex: Moral choices), but if you're stuck in a dungeon with only one path going forward, you don't really have much room to revolt, do you? In that sense, Mass Effect's approach to exploration (freeform) is something not all that common in pen and paper.

[Fixers0]

JeffZero wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

You prefer ME1's UI over ME2's and ME3's? Wow, how so?

Yes, The Original Mass Effect performed much better on Controls, HUD, Mini-Map and hotkeys then the it's two successors did.

[Hogge87]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Story was awesome, ability to customize, emphasis on exploration/discovery, loot, unique universe based mechanics, forced to make hard choices, hidden/integrated loading screens, random cow-alien that robs you.

The only cons were the combat and the lame sad piano music.

As someone who grew up playing rpg's I didn't mind the clunky combat. There was a lot that made it unique. It would have been great if they tried to improve it instead of turning it into a generic 3rd person cover shooter. Plenty of those exist already. There aren't any othe good scifi action/rpg's that I know of.

It went downhill in ME2. I was hoping they'd make ME3 more like 1...but no luck.

While I love ME1, I think it's flawed in many many ways.
Beyond the clunky combat, there were the technical issues (drop in framerate, textures loading and unloading) and the difficulty was often completely broken (Lady Benezia constantly stunning you, rocket drones which one shot you regardless of level or equipment, then fly off and regenerate health). The Mako being more difficult to use than a real friggin' tank, all guns looking and feeling the same, the copy pasted dungeons...
And despite the copied dungeons, ME1 is still the shortest game in the trilogy if you want to complete 100%.


But yes, the weapon customization was great and the story was great.

[Fixers0]

De1ta G wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

lol wut? 

u trollin bro?

No.

But you obviously are.

[Pitznik]

tonnactus wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

You prefer ME1's UI over ME2's and ME3's? Wow, how so?

Mass Effect 2 dont even display a bar to compare different weapons...(weapon damage per shot, fire rate, accuracy)
And lets not waste words on the "journal" of the third game.

Maybe because ME2 weapons were actually different from each other, and different values in 3 stats weren't the only difference? They tried to do it in ME3, show how different weapons compare in few bars, it doesn't work, at all.

[tonnactus]

Pitznik wrote...


Maybe because ME2 weapons were actually different from each other, and different values in 3 stats weren't the only difference?

These stats are still needed despite the difference  to know if one weapon is better then another. I dont want to find out in gameplay by looking at shield- and healthbars. And yes,actual numbers like in the first would be far better then bars. Thats why pages like this are created:

https://docs.google....bWc&output=html

[De1ta G]

Ozida wrote...

Ozida wrote...

De1ta G wrote...
Inconvienent is one way of describing the combat systems, but that's just if you want to be nice about it.

OK, I just have to ask: is this because I played it on PC? Because, honestly, I had no problems with combat system in ME1. In ME2 & 3 it was improved, I will not argue with that, but it didn't bothered me that much in ME1 either.

Sorry for double-post, but I am actually curious if different platforms made it better/ worse for people to play the game. If you, guys, could share your experience with ME1 gameplay/ combat, maybe it would help me to understand what is such big  fuss over it about.  Because, once again, I experienced much worse control issues in my life with other games comparing to ME1.

Oh, didn't see that. It's hard to explain. I'll try though.

Starting with biotics. Specifically lifting biotics such as singularity and lift. Whenever used, the enemies would start flying around all over the place(bit of an exaggeration). It was hard to shoot them and my game would lag a little. Also getting hit by a throw was very annoying. It would knock me on the ground and paralyze me completely for like 5 seconds.

Health/taking damage. It is sometimes hard to tell if you are about to die. Your character doesn't react to getting shot and the controller doesn't vibrate. Also, enemies don't react to getting shot either, when they charge you can't stop them without killing them or a successful biotic(which can be difficult to do sometimes).

Assault rifles: Very, very inaccurate to where they are almost just weak weapons and overheat too fast(the spectre assault rifle doesn't but that's the only one.

Movement: You could print for like 3 seconds. They way you moved made it to where, once combat starts, your shields are down before you can even get to cover. And you didn't even know you were taking damage because you didn't react to it.

Overall it just didn't really feel as though you were acutally engaged in combat. 

[ZLurps]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Great question. Let's also consider why they decided to make it a realtime tps built on the unreal engine, if it was meant to be a traditional RPG in the first place.  

Edit: Of course, I don't remember much freeform explanation ever taking place in pen and paper. Sure, your DM might let you decide between going left and right, but on the scale of Mass Effect? Hardly.

While I agree that computer or console games can't get even close the freedom of PNP, I really wonder what kind of RPG you were playing?

I mean, I used to be a DM and if I were went to forcing players to take this or that path, they were revolted, and for a good reason.

Depends on how you're orchestrating the choice. Our DM gave us a good amount of freedom on how to handle any scenario (Ex: Moral choices), but if you're stuck in a dungeon with only one path going forward, you don't really have much room to revolt, do you? In that sense, Mass Effect's approach to exploration (freeform) is something not all that common in pen and paper.

Dungeos are, well dungeons but what if you had some sort of teleport spell or tech?

Some thing I recall from way back (we were playing AD&D).

There was a something bad happening in border area of one city state players visited earlier. I had designed adventure to be a start of longer campaign which would start from players defending the village, where they would get information about bigger scheme behind that all, either from prisoners or then some NPC's would give them hints.

All fine, except when the news arrived for players, they didn't depated about it for a while, then had their characters drink couple of days in city were they were at the moment and then, decided to go investigate mountains few weeks from city, because they heard rumours earlier about gold treasure to be hidden there.

Modifié par ZLurps, 24 juillet 2012 - 06:22 .

[Fixers0]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

And I get accused of being a blind fanboy.  I'd like to know how ME 1 has superior music and gameplay.  The only difference between that and ME 2's UI is the color.

The Soundtrack of Mass Effect 2 is decent, but fails to impress me, and on certain occasians the music (or the lack thereof) even becomes intrusive.

Gameplay-wise i find the second game to be too restrictiveand uninteresting, and too repetive, as well as the fact the whole point of the game seems to be limited to gun down PMC mooks and occiasonally space-bugs and space-zombies. 

[legion999]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Thread is not subjective. ME1 is Best=Fact

ME1 is one of my favorite games of all time. But no.

[De1ta G]

Fixers0 wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed, the original Mass Effect, despite it faults, was the only game that properly handled writing and art, furthermore i'd also consider it to be superior in the area of music, gameplay and user interface.

lol wut? 

u trollin bro?

No.

But you obviously are.

Music: The only really, really awesome piece plays when you are becoming a spectre. I know everyone loves Vigil but really, that's because of nostalgia. It plays in the main menu of Mass Effect. First song you heard when you first started playing Mass Effect. The song is very slow, maybe uses 2-3 instruments, uses less than 10 different notes and is less than 2 min long. It never builds up or anything or has any epic parts in it. Music became far better in ME 2, starting with Suicide Mission playing in the main menu.

Gameplay: No, just no.

UI: Not much different. Added how much ammo you have and changed your squad from names on the left hand side of the screen to faces in middle.