617 réponses à ce sujet

[atheelogos]

TechnoBuffalo reviews ME2
www.youtube.com/watch

[jkstexas2001]

jjkrogs wrote...

I also am still hung up on the whole Ashley segment. I figured your character would have some 'splainin to do , but her reaction was odd, and then to followup with an email instead of getting a chance to recruit her for my team? You mean I can break people out of prison ships, get foreign alien governements to transfer their people to me, fight my way through any number of situations-- but I can't convince an Alliance sargeant who apparently loves me to at least give me a chance and join the crew?

They really dropped the ball here.  The "email" thing says "hurried".  They chose not to build any complexity, any chance to use dialog to convince her, it was like "we have two hours to finish the game, lets tie up that loose end".  The writers really did the ME1 fans a disservice here, and they know it.

[ME2Shephard]

jkstexas2001 wrote...

jjkrogs wrote...

I also am still hung up on the whole Ashley segment. I figured your character would have some 'splainin to do , but her reaction was odd, and then to followup with an email instead of getting a chance to recruit her for my team? You mean I can break people out of prison ships, get foreign alien governements to transfer their people to me, fight my way through any number of situations-- but I can't convince an Alliance sargeant who apparently loves me to at least give me a chance and join the crew?

They really dropped the ball here.  The "email" thing says "hurried".  They chose not to build any complexity, any chance to use dialog to convince her, it was like "we have two hours to finish the game, lets tie up that loose end".  The writers really did the ME1 fans a disservice here, and they know it.

You my friend had the best argument here that I have seen. I couldn't agree with you more. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post because it was a well written arguement and tastefully done. I really hope that Bioware moderators take a look at your post when determining how ME3 is going to be designed. I feel like the first game just gave me a better experience than the second. As you stated, the one thing I was really disappointed on was the fact of how short the missions were, how linear they were, and how they were completely unrelated to anything in the story aside from one mission. Secondly many of the systems you went to had no point except for the aweful scanning and probing system implemented. At least in the first game, I knew when I traveled to a new system, I would be landing somewhere. Bioware took a major part of the "exploration" factor out of the game.

Somebody posted that they were advid ME1 fan and how they felt disappointed in the game. Many people out there are right there with you. I feel the same way aswell as do many of my friends. Although I thought it was a better game than the score jtexas gave for it I still only think it deserves a 7.5.

I give it that score because of the small amount of story progression, the lack of RPG element in the game, and how linear the game is. Its been said before but the only choices that mattered in ME2 came towards the end. The missions weren't open to different endings... There was only one way to end it. Bioware made the side-quests relatively pointless aside from earning credits, which were very limited in the game.

I enjoyed the game, don't get me wrong, mainly due to the story. Even though it is a very limited story, I enjoyed it for that but other than that.... It was tedius and not as well thought out or designed as the first game was.

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 06 février 2010 - 03:09 .

[Tennyochan]

4PlayerPodCast feedback/firstimpressions/complaints.(starts about 1/4 way in Or 1/2 way in)
[Direct link to episode 154]

(i disagree with their views of the dialouge and mako *evil eye*)
hopefully bioware listens/reads all these point of views for ME3. Quite interesting.

Modifié par tennyochan, 06 février 2010 - 10:47 .

[Ozymandias23]

jkstexas2001 wrote...

I agree. The storyline in ME1 was far more compelling. I think it may all go back to Drew being more involved in ME1.  The small amount of time spent on the ME1 characters (aside from Tali) ESPECIALLY in the case of the ME1 love interests other than Liara makes you wonder if there is something to the "canon" argument..

Even though Liara got slightly more of a role in ME2 her 'character development' was really more a case of 'character assassination', that and the feeling that they are setting the scene for her to be killed off by the Shadow broker I really wish they hadn't put her character in the game at all.

[Ozymandias23]

jkstexas2001 wrote...

Review by MJEmirzian
"A mediocre WRPG/TPS hybrid with a meagre plot"

This review is spoiler free. Mass Effect 2 is an RPG/TPS hybrid. It strips out the customization of an RPG while keeping the mindless resource grinding, and tries to be an TPS yet fails with clunky controls/terrain and boring combat.

Plot, Character Development

Mass Effect 2s plot is dull, lacking in direction and narrative. The main enemy group are the vaguely defined Collectors, and the plot reveals about them are hardly surprising or dramatic. The majority of the game is one large side quest dealing with recruiting teammates then helping with their personal issues to gain their loyalty so they don't die in the final mission. The recruits are just not that compelling to warrant taking up 75% of the games main content. There is no nemesis like ME1s Saren to drive the plot, and if you cut out all of the recruiting and loyalty quests, you're left with a 5 hour game at most. Even worse, the final boss and new plot reveals are shockingly corny and just plain 'jumped the shark' silly, even for a mainstream sci-fi tale. The game feels like one big diversion, with the final mission payoff being a laughably corny and just plain bad plot reveal.

The main content of the game is incredibly boring - recruiting your allies almost always involves taking out color coded merc cannon fodder, and the loyalty quests are either mercs or parent/daddy issues. Compare that to the epic scale of the missions on Feros, Noveria, the Prothean ruin, Virmire, the final ME1 mission, or other top WRPG plots. ME2 is a boring soap opera in comparison.

There are rarely any big decisions that make the player feel like they've made a large impact on the game world (I counted two total, both near the end of the game). None of the quests are open ended with multiple methods of completion, unless you count failure of the quest. Fans of WRPGs who enjoy the open ended quest options of classics like Fallout 3 will be highly disappointed in the braindead, decision-less missions here. The one compelling and plot-heavy character (the last one recruited) could have had a much more involved presence in the game, instead of being dumped in your lap during a mission. There's plenty of wasted potential to go around. Almost all of the quests involve Shepard going around taking out bland color coded merc groups that have no plot presence other than to be cannon fodder. Even ME1 was better in this regard.

The side quests, or should I say side-side quests, are meaningless and empty. They consist of the same short segments of running around blasting generic mercenaries or robots, with almost nothing in the way of plot development, moral based decision making, or even voice acting. Once again even ME1 wasn't this bad, even though it re-used room layouts.

Combat

The combat is a fairly dull TPS affair, even on an Insanity New Game. Enemies scale poorly vs your gear and ability upgrades, to the point where formerly threatening enemies are cannon fodder by mid-late game. 95% of the games fights are 'take cover far back enough that you don't get flanked', and the other 5% are 'kite the husks'. A good 2/3 of the fights in the game can be won just by putting your squadmates behind cover and letting them kill everything. Due to auto-regenerating health, the only way to die is to be caught out of cover, so once you find a good spot it usually doesn't matter how long you take, you are going to win eventually. The game lacks any sort of scoring system to encourage the player to perform more efficiently in combat.

The cover system is clunky and glitchy. Bioware tried to shoehorn TPS combat onto an RPG engine and the results are predictably under par. For example you have to crouch behind something before you can leap over it, which is a pain when there is no other way around the barricade. Further adding to the irritation, the run and crouch buttons are the same, meaning you can be trying to move somewhere quickly in close quarters and suddenly find Shepard cluelessly attaching him/herself to a structure you didn't intend. I assume this is because they ran out of buttons on the 360 controller. In addition there are quite a few pieces of terrain or objects that are impossible to use as cover, even though you should be able to. Not to mention that it's common to get stuck on terrain, due to the clunky movement and terrain boundaries that hinder the TPS experience. On Insanity if Shepard is out of cover for more than 2-3 secs he/she will die, so it can be frustrating to lose in an unfair manner due to poor cover controls and poorly coded cover areas.

There is very little creativity in any of the games battles. This is made worse by the lack of abilities and character customization. It's all endlessly running from cover point to cover point, using the same 1-2 abilities and shooting the same looking/behaving enemies. Boss battles are similarly boring and uninspired. The lack of creativity is so apparent that you can tell exactly where enemies will pop up ahead of time just by looking ahead and spotting the next rows of conveniently placed rows of cover. The TPS genre has seen far more exciting, creative, and strategic battles before, and you won't find any of them in this game.

The planet scanning and resource farming is a complete waste of time. Players will not enjoy the tendinitis that ensues from fighting the controller/mouse drag. Having to fly the Normandy around using fuel is similarly pointless. Why they kept the time wasting elements of the RPG genre while snipping the character customization remains a mystery.

There are better open ended morality based WRPGs and far better TPSs out there. Go play the best of either of those genres and avoid this mediocre hybrid.

Reviewer's Score: 6/10, Originally Posted: 02/02/10, Updated 02/03/10

Game Release: Mass Effect 2 (US, 01/26/10)

I'm afriad I agree with every word of this. ME1 was a game I recommended to friends. I certainly would not do the same with ME2, quite the opposite.

[tryguy]

Oh, I like most of MJEmirzian's review. I think it's pretty thorough and honest. It brings up most the the failings of ME2, and doesn't sugarcoat things just because it's ME.



I love the ME universe. And the first game was excellent. I really liked all the companions. And the story was great and moving, and villians were worth your trouble.



The second game is a disappointment. I really don't know how the official reviews could give it so many 10s. It just means that most of the reviews you can see from the popular sources are worthless. I think 6/10 is a bit cruel, but I think 7/10 feels about right. That might change when I finally finish the game. But... it might not. It certainly isn't 10/10. Not even close.



But, thanks for writing up your thoughts, MJEmirzian. They match my own. So, at least I know I'm not crazy in thinking this "fantastic" game isn't all that it was meant to be. I mean... the end of ME1 left things so wide and SO kick-ass, that I fully expected the second chapter to be really enjoyable. Aside from all the gameplay mechanic issues, the plot is just lackluster. Why waste the clear majority of the game on recruiting nobodies?



And I'm not impressed with how the former characters are represented. My former lover barely gives me the time of day. Well... it's not that hard to see why Bioware thought most people would "cheat" in the second game. Not surprising at all. After that meeting, it's clear that my Shepard will leave that one behind. And I don't care what that might mean for the third installment.



Anyway, some people love ME2. That's not me. But life goes on.

[NerdiestKid]

 www.Nerdiest-Kids.com Give ME2 5/5 feel free to read the review here http://nerdiest-kids...ffect-2-review/  

[SolaFide03]

commander_chung wrote...

i dont konw about anyone else but this game couldnt be any better in my books
(job well done bioware)

Games can always be better in hindsight, but I agree with you.  Stayed away from ME1 due to the activation stuff, but when I saw retail ME2 would only have a disk check, bought a copy of ME1 to prepare for ME2 (Dragon Age got my interest up in ME2).

....and then I fell in love with the story....wow.  ME is a great story - especially if you import your character into the 2nd installment.  ME1 In my opinion seemed less RPG as far as inventory goes then ME2.  Felt a bit primitive having just come off of Dragon Age.  ME2 seems to at least polish the inventory a bit more, even though it's nothing like classic inventory management systems.  You just aren't carrying the entire cargo of the Normandy around on your back - and I get it for realism reasons.

I must be a sicko, but I am really enjoying the mining in ME2.  The galaxy music carryover from ME1 is great after you have had a couple of pretty intense combat missions, and taking an hour to mine is somewhat cathartic for me - down time.  Perhaps I get too tied up in the story (thanks Bioware!) and use mining to "gather my thoughts".  Absolutely love getting emails on the Normandy thanking me for stuff I did in ME1.  Barely remember some of them but some planet side missions I remember.  Still remember running into the undercover agent in Illium - completely forgot about her and actually recognized her before we talked.  That's pretty cool in my book.   

I cannot get the Afterlife Bar music out of my head....

Biggest complaint? - audio for the passing through a mass relay cinematic - the audio for the old one would just about crack my skull with headphones on - not so much with the new one.  The lower frequencies appear to have been compressed a bit now.  I didn't like the mini - game hacking with the code matching, but now that I'm about 2/3 through the main mission I'm starting to get a rhythm for it.  Thanks for PF5!

Game feels alot like life at times - althought I'd like to hang out with the old team a bit more, 2 years have passed and life moves on.  I get that.  Th game story is about real highs and real lows - at the very same time.  Joy and suffering.  Only done this well by Bioware IMO.

Modifié par SolaFide03, 07 février 2010 - 07:05 .

[SL22]

Ozymandias23 wrote...

jkstexas2001 wrote...

Review by MJEmirzian
"A mediocre WRPG/TPS hybrid with a meagre plot"

This
review is spoiler free. Mass Effect 2 is an RPG/TPS hybrid. It strips
out the customization of an RPG while keeping the mindless resource
grinding, and tries to be an TPS yet fails with clunky controls/terrain
and boring combat.

Plot, Character Development

Mass
Effect 2s plot is dull, lacking in direction and narrative. The main
enemy group are the vaguely defined Collectors, and the plot reveals
about them are hardly surprising or dramatic. The majority of the game
is one large side quest dealing with recruiting teammates then helping
with their personal issues to gain their loyalty so they don't die in
the final mission. The recruits are just not that compelling to warrant
taking up 75% of the games main content. There is no nemesis like ME1s
Saren to drive the plot, and if you cut out all of the recruiting and
loyalty quests, you're left with a 5 hour game at most. Even worse, the
final boss and new plot reveals are shockingly corny and just plain
'jumped the shark' silly, even for a mainstream sci-fi tale. The game
feels like one big diversion, with the final mission payoff being a
laughably corny and just plain bad plot reveal.

The main content
of the game is incredibly boring - recruiting your allies almost always
involves taking out color coded merc cannon fodder, and the loyalty
quests are either mercs or parent/daddy issues. Compare that to the
epic scale of the missions on Feros, Noveria, the Prothean ruin,
Virmire, the final ME1 mission, or other top WRPG plots. ME2 is a
boring soap opera in comparison.

There are rarely any big
decisions that make the player feel like they've made a large impact on
the game world (I counted two total, both near the end of the game).
None of the quests are open ended with multiple methods of completion,
unless you count failure of the quest. Fans of WRPGs who enjoy the open
ended quest options of classics like Fallout 3 will be highly
disappointed in the braindead, decision-less missions here. The one
compelling and plot-heavy character (the last one recruited) could have
had a much more involved presence in the game, instead of being dumped
in your lap during a mission. There's plenty of wasted potential to go
around. Almost all of the quests involve Shepard going around taking
out bland color coded merc groups that have no plot presence other than
to be cannon fodder. Even ME1 was better in this regard.

The
side quests, or should I say side-side quests, are meaningless and
empty. They consist of the same short segments of running around
blasting generic mercenaries or robots, with almost nothing in the way
of plot development, moral based decision making, or even voice acting.
Once again even ME1 wasn't this bad, even though it re-used room
layouts.

Combat

The combat is a fairly dull TPS affair,
even on an Insanity New Game. Enemies scale poorly vs your gear and
ability upgrades, to the point where formerly threatening enemies are
cannon fodder by mid-late game. 95% of the games fights are 'take cover
far back enough that you don't get flanked', and the other 5% are 'kite
the husks'. A good 2/3 of the fights in the game can be won just by
putting your squadmates behind cover and letting them kill everything.
Due to auto-regenerating health, the only way to die is to be caught
out of cover, so once you find a good spot it usually doesn't matter
how long you take, you are going to win eventually. The game lacks any
sort of scoring system to encourage the player to perform more
efficiently in combat.

The cover system is clunky and glitchy.
Bioware tried to shoehorn TPS combat onto an RPG engine and the results
are predictably under par. For example you have to crouch behind
something before you can leap over it, which is a pain when there is no
other way around the barricade. Further adding to the irritation, the
run and crouch buttons are the same, meaning you can be trying to move
somewhere quickly in close quarters and suddenly find Shepard
cluelessly attaching him/herself to a structure you didn't intend. I
assume this is because they ran out of buttons on the 360 controller.
In addition there are quite a few pieces of terrain or objects that are
impossible to use as cover, even though you should be able to. Not to
mention that it's common to get stuck on terrain, due to the clunky
movement and terrain boundaries that hinder the TPS experience. On
Insanity if Shepard is out of cover for more than 2-3 secs he/she will
die, so it can be frustrating to lose in an unfair manner due to poor
cover controls and poorly coded cover areas.

There is very
little creativity in any of the games battles. This is made worse by
the lack of abilities and character customization. It's all endlessly
running from cover point to cover point, using the same 1-2 abilities
and shooting the same looking/behaving enemies. Boss battles are
similarly boring and uninspired. The lack of creativity is so apparent
that you can tell exactly where enemies will pop up ahead of time just
by looking ahead and spotting the next rows of conveniently placed rows
of cover. The TPS genre has seen far more exciting, creative, and
strategic battles before, and you won't find any of them in this game.

The
planet scanning and resource farming is a complete waste of time.
Players will not enjoy the tendinitis that ensues from fighting the
controller/mouse drag. Having to fly the Normandy around using fuel is
similarly pointless. Why they kept the time wasting elements of the RPG
genre while snipping the character customization remains a mystery.

There
are better open ended morality based WRPGs and far better TPSs out
there. Go play the best of either of those genres and avoid this
mediocre hybrid.

Reviewer's Score: 6/10, Originally Posted: 02/02/10, Updated 02/03/10

Game Release: Mass Effect 2 (US, 01/26/10)

I'm
afriad I agree with every word of this. ME1 was a game I recommended to
friends. I certainly would not do the same with ME2, quite the opposite.

Surely you can't agree with all of that? The review consisted of nothing but bashing the game, even bashing the things Bioware improved on, the combat was overhauled massively and works much better. The loyalty missions (IMO) are great and make you connect with the characters more and there are far more missions then what the reviewer stated that are ME3 game changing.

Overall it just seemed like an incredibly biased opinion.

Modifié par SL22, 07 février 2010 - 10:11 .

[a3a3eJIb]

Just played mass effect 2 for 2 days. Difficulty level is insane of course, no spoilers, fingers crossed. But honestly, I should include some, so that u don't waste your money...



I have to start by saying I haven't played ME1 or any similar games for a long time.

I'm not a game freak, meaning I play a lot, but I don't hang in forums, fan groups or stuff like that.

I'll try to keep it short and watch my language, I promise... Excuse me my grammar, English is not my mother tongue.



I don't think I need to go through the good stuff, it has been gone through a 1000 times before me.

But hearing that this might be the best game of the year, of THE YEAR 2010(!!!), I wish to say: what a piece of ****.

The whole game so far follows every plot cliche from old 90's. Some good guys that turn out to be bad, that turn out to be good and so on. The whole game process is very monotone, you do the same stuff in 2-3 different environments over and over and over again.

Endless labyrinths with no variation WHAT SO EVER, there is practically not a single time you can get from point A to any point B in 2 different ways. How retarded does that sound? Imagine, "huge" colonies, alien worlds, and you never can take a **** reroute.

There's a single time I encountered there was possible to take different paths from one point to another, it was in a city (thanx god, imagine a CITY, where you can't take a reroute), but even then they screwed up, making a location theoretically accessible for NPCs avoiding a guard, while they eternally stand an whine in queue to get in to that place.

All locations look unnatural and made up. In cities and colonies NOBODY MOVES. Imagine a space city full of humanoids, and NOBODY TAKES A STEP. Imagine how fun would any game of GTA series be, with pedestrians all standing still.

There are some elements of RPG, but they're simplified beyond all reasonableness.

But so are the elements of FPS, I guess.

Enemies represent the essence of stupidity, but even more do so your henchmen. As early as the first Brother in Arms game had better team control, when team mates STAYED behind the cover if they were to do so and ATTACKED enemies in sight. Somehow, they also managed to focus on the guys, who managed to get behind the cover and bash their heads against the wall, instead of trying to fish out some distant enemies from their cover. How did they managed to do that in other games - most certainly, by pure magic.

You know, I noticed games started to be dumber and dumber every year, designed probably for the utterly retards out there, starting with Halo giving warning messages to reload, and now this... This is the bottom line of it, I guess. Game even HIGHLIGHTS with label which crates are explosive ("explosive crate" or container) and which a breakable ("Fragile crate"). In all galaxies they use same models of crates, so thanx - after seeing 2-3 of them you don't need this label across your screen, unless you have a brain of a bowl fish.

I don't even mention all the small stuff in detail, like thousands of bugs, keeping you hold one hand on quick save button all the time; mentioning save - game loads in some predefined state, so you need to change all henchmen weapons from their defaults, they spawn following you, not in cover spots. Btw, in future they won't have any grenades or their likes, so you'll be often caught in pathetic situations, where some meters separate your cover and the enemy's and you'll have a long and bitter shooting duel.



To finish this off, please tell me, how the **** did this game managed to get one of the best scores in history of gaming from all this critics?!?!? How could this mario party remake get all the high scores? EA sent free samples of euphoria drugs to all of them together with the copy of the game?

The best you can do after getting this game is get your money back, and do so fast.

Yeah, game uninstalled while I was writing this, so all take care and live in peace.

[1in1class]

Well i was new to the Mass effect game only bought the 2nd one did not even play the 1st, but the game is way to short to even be called an RPG game. In ME1 it looked like you have more option on going places and more fighting, also more customization of your characters. In ME2 you dont get to land on most of the planets nor do that many side quests. I vary much enjoyed playing it, but was an vary short game. Cant even replay the game cause not much freedom to explor or fight. More landing on planets that are hostel with enemys would make the game more replayable. RPG games are know for the hours of play and all its open world options. Thinking of trading this in for ME1 maybe.

[Madodaz]

marshalleck wrote...

I tend to automatically discount 100% scores. There's no way any game will ever be perfect.

Cleary never tried " Herion Hero"

a3a3eJIb wrote...

Just played mass effect 2 for 2 days.
Difficulty level is insane of course, no spoilers, fingers crossed. But
honestly, I should include some, so that u don't waste your money...

I have to start by saying I haven't played ME1 or any similar games for a long time.
I'm not a game freak, meaning I play a lot, but I don't hang in forums, fan groups or stuff like that.
I'll try to keep it short and watch my language, I promise... Excuse me my grammar, English is not my mother tongue.

I don't think I need to go through the good stuff, it has been gone through a 1000 times before me.
But hearing that this might be the best game of the year, of THE YEAR 2010(!!!), I wish to say: what a piece of ****.
The
whole game so far follows every plot cliche from old 90's. Some good
guys that turn out to be bad, that turn out to be good and so on. The
whole game process is very monotone, you do the same stuff in 2-3
different environments over and over and over again.
Endless
labyrinths with no variation WHAT SO EVER, there is practically not a
single time you can get from point A to any point B in 2 different
ways. How retarded does that sound? Imagine, "huge" colonies, alien
worlds, and you never can take a **** reroute.
There's a single time
I encountered there was possible to take different paths from one point
to another, it was in a city (thanx god, imagine a CITY, where you
can't take a reroute), but even then they screwed up, making a location
theoretically accessible for NPCs avoiding a guard, while they
eternally stand an whine in queue to get in to that place.
All
locations look unnatural and made up. In cities and colonies NOBODY
MOVES. Imagine a space city full of humanoids, and NOBODY TAKES A STEP.
Imagine how fun would any game of GTA series be, with pedestrians all
standing still.
There are some elements of RPG, but they're simplified beyond all reasonableness.
But so are the elements of FPS, I guess.
Enemies
represent the essence of stupidity, but even more do so your henchmen.
As early as the first Brother in Arms game had better team control,
when team mates STAYED behind the cover if they were to do so and
ATTACKED enemies in sight. Somehow, they also managed to focus on the
guys, who managed to get behind the cover and bash their heads against
the wall, instead of trying to fish out some distant enemies from their
cover. How did they managed to do that in other games - most certainly,
by pure magic.
You know, I noticed games started to be dumber and
dumber every year, designed probably for the utterly retards out there,
starting with Halo giving warning messages to reload, and now this...
This is the bottom line of it, I guess. Game even HIGHLIGHTS with label
which crates are explosive ("explosive crate" or container) and which a
breakable ("Fragile crate"). In all galaxies they use same models of
crates, so thanx - after seeing 2-3 of them you don't need this label
across your screen, unless you have a brain of a bowl fish.
I don't
even mention all the small stuff in detail, like thousands of bugs,
keeping you hold one hand on quick save button all the time; mentioning
save - game loads in some predefined state, so you need to change all
henchmen weapons from their defaults, they spawn following you, not in
cover spots. Btw, in future they won't have any grenades or their
likes, so you'll be often caught in pathetic situations, where some
meters separate your cover and the enemy's and you'll have a long and
bitter shooting duel.

To finish this off, please tell me, how
the **** did this game managed to get one of the best scores in history
of gaming from all this critics?!?!? How could this mario party remake
get all the high scores? EA sent free samples of euphoria drugs to all
of them together with the copy of the game?
The best you can do after getting this game is get your money back, and do so fast.
Yeah, game uninstalled while I was writing this, so all take care and live in peace.

Okay boy, Don't get you knickers in a twist. Yes you have listed some very good points. It is repetitive. Crates are used alot I've noticed. And you a fairly entilteled to your opinion.

Aright, first I'd like to say that I'm a Mass effect fan for years and you need to get in the story line to be enganged in the game. You compare this game to GTA. How would that work. GTA is a totally differant gaming experience, I found it quite ****. If you winge about crates you might as well winge that GTA uses the same cars over and over again, the same model people reapetitly. Or the fact it's story line has been writhin by a 12 year old with ADHD.

Now I would fairly understand your complains about the " OMFG GAME OF TEH YEAR AWARD GUYS". If we set our minds back, didn't Portal get allot of that attention? Who plays that game now?

Now envoments. Okay you have good point here, It's allways go into mission, shoot talk, shoot talk end. But you can't ignore the well desngined scenery. (I my self map for source). And even if this is a different engine. I hardly see a corridoor repeatded the a certain extent.

NCP. Yepp my number one probleme too, just like ME1, it's poor. With a sniper rifel no enermy is to well hidden. They run in your path (Friends and foe). It's bloody annoying.


Mass effect isn't a game as much as it is a story. Look at the forums and see how people are talking about team members and the story plot. I bet almost half the people on this forum didn't notice the grenades were gone from ME1.

Modifié par Madodaz, 08 février 2010 - 04:12 .

[Finnroth]

Personal rating:

Before i pull an arbitary number out of my arse, i'll go through the different categories i myself would want to be rated.

Sound: 10 - i don't think there were improvementes possible in my subjective opinion.

Graphics: 10 - again , i don't think there's much more possible with that engine. Art style and detail were superb imo.

Immersion:
8.5 - they did good work with that, with some minor glitches and a
little too much or too little detail on some thinks (nothing major, i
guess ME3 will make that even better).

Charaters: 10 - i didn't
give it a ten because it's perfect but because the effort that was made
is well appreciated. They covered alot, and even though there's alot of
room for improvement, the general cast inculding the main charater were
enjoyable to get to know and see in action. They also included close to
all characters of the first game in some or other way. This is highly
subjective though and i wouldn't much argue about another opinion on
this matter.

Story: 7 - If you're into sci-fi, the story isn't
that innovative, but it's told in a solid manner, and astonishingly
well fleshed out for a basically humanised alien galaxy.

Athmosphere
and storytelling: 9 - again, they made quite alot of something we (the
sci-fi geeks) have seen quite often over the years, i am very glad to
see it's possible to still merge ideas into something new and enjoyable.

Replayability:
6 - The classes are not that much fleshed out and the game mechanics
allow only so much options. The core mechanics are well made, but
there's alot of room for improvement.

Minor random stuff
(subplots, side missions, cut scenes, detail, bugs, glitches, mechanics
etc): overall an 8, not much to say about that i guess. Huge
improvements over the first game, probably further improvements with
DLC (Hammerhead) and a major enjoyment after the bland side missions
and the mediocre combat system of the first.

Everything around
immersion will get 100% weight, where graphics + replayability will get
only 50% each as i don't see tham as important.

Result: 8.65 (actually worse than i would've rated with just my intuition)

Again, this is highly subjetive and not very in-detail but it's at least somehow broken down.

[noobzor99]

Quick review:



Pros:

Combat much improved

Engine much improved

Epic ending



Cons:

No elevators- they are infinitely more interesting than a loading screen, and my squad had interesting conversations in them.

Vary little squad banter- I like to talk to my squad or listen to them talking. They didn't do that outside of loyalty missions really.

Very little squad conversations on the Normandy- I want to hear more from these characters, like in the first game!

Short plot- yes the game took me 25 hours to complete, but only 4-5 were on the main plot. Great job on the loyalty quests though.

Oversimplified inventory system- I'd like some more gun variety...



And not considered:

No mako- I'll reserve judgment on this until the DLC is out.

Liara- really? Two years dead and all I get is an awkward kiss? Again, rumors of DLC.





I give ME2 an 8 out of 10. Yes, it was quite fun, but all the little things hold it back. ME1 got a 9.5 for me.

[Tennyochan]

Noobtoob review discussion Part 1
[1:47- 21:38]
no score but are these types of reviews counted? all feedback is good right?

Modifié par tennyochan, 08 février 2010 - 11:28 .

[Palathas]

I just got my little hands on the March issue of Australian PC PowerPlay and they have a four page review and have scored ME 2 10/10 with the final comments being -

PCPowerPlay wrote....
A stunning example of cross-game persistance, genre-blending and adaptive narrative.
10/10

I haven't seen too many games that PCPP have given 10 so a big cheer to Bioware.

Modifié par Palathas, 09 février 2010 - 01:54 .

[otakugumi]

hmm my 2cents with on ME2

Great Story and Game

I hope that in ME3 that the character choices apply a bit more from ME2

I felt it was missing more a RPG element of the game and was more a action shooter but in saying that,

looking at the story in ME2 your already a expereinced SPectre from ME1 and a expert in all the weapons needed in each class





here is my list of Pro's & Cons of the game so far



Cons

Weapons and Armour - there isn't any choice when it comes to weapons and armour bring back all the different brands and models you had in ME1

Weapon and Armour Stats - I want to see what the advantages that some guns have over other etc

Weapon Customisation - Half the fun was finding the right mod and modifing the gun for the right character or mission

Looting dead enemies - None at all

Romance from ME1 was a bit lacking not unless it applies in ME3



Pro's

COmbat system is good and using cover is good too

INventory is improved - but my con about lack of equipment there isn't much to scoll through to worry about it..

Armour customisation

Normandy - Moving around the ship is great even the small customzation you can get for the Captain Cabin

- Ship Upgrades are good

Researching upgrades

Interrupts - good addition for conversation





In-betweens

Resource hunting - it's fun for a while but can get a bit annoying for a while, I'm also not sure if I miss using the Mako or not.

thou I don't missing using the mako to travel to a location, but I do miss the fights you can have planet side and using the guns and cannon

ALso the Sensor upgrade - I don;t know if it made that much of a difference

Hacking Mini game - Don;t hate nor do I mind it..

NPC COntrol in combat situation would be good eg in DA you have tactic slots I'd like to tell my NPCs go for specific targets

[Fhaileas]

ME2 is an abysmal disappointment compared to its predecessor. The story isn't as deep, the RPG elements are gone, there is literally no exploration, and the combat is repetitive. Corridor shooting is boring, and even though there is a bigger diversity in backgrounds, every level is just a sprawl of convenient cover locations. None of the characters feel unique during combat and the missions feel like a bunch of DLC episodes put together.



I would rate ME2 as a 'C-' (5.5/10) whereas ME1 was a solid 'A' (9/10) experience for me.

[Kane Redron]

Gametrailers' score : 9.7

Gametrailers' community score : 9.5



Review you missed

[AtreiyaN7]

I've been a long-time BioWare fan, not to mention an RPG gamer long before Baldur's Gate. However, I've never been a stickler about narrow definitions. I don't judge a game by whether or not it fits perfectly into a specific box; I judge it based on its story, its gameplay, and how much of an emotional impact it has on me. If you're the kind of person who's hung up on carrying around 150 items and want your I-X weapons/armor/mods/ammo because that's what it takes for you to accept a game as an RPG, then ME2 is not for you.  If you care about the characters, the story, the universe, the dialogue and the choices you make and consider those things the most important parts of a role-playing game, then ME2 is for you.

First off, in ME2 the RPG elements are definitely stripped down, but they ARE still present and the game is the better for it in my opinion. This statement is coming from someone who ordinarily will try to open every chest and every item that is not nailed down in any given RPG by the way. In fact, if you could visit my character's Megaton shack in Fallout 3, you'd be astounded by the amount of junk I have stored in my lockers, which brings me to inventory management. In ME2 inventory management is reduced to your weapons loadout and your personal armor (customizing your armor and swapping pieces out for different bonuses). After omni-gelling hundreds of items, in ME1, I consider it a blessing and a relief. Other people may not find it to their taste, but how much I can carry or what I can carry isn't vital to my enjoyment. Could we do with more weapons and armor? Yes, more variety in armor pieces in particular would be welcome as there is a limited number of items.

On to skills/abilities/classes: I think that classes are more unique now, and as in ME1, you have biotic abilities/tech abilities/soldier abiltiies (depending on your class) to put points into. The only things that got yanked (in my opinion) were the less used or redundant skills and abilities, which ended up being rolled over into research . As a result, you focus on your main ones. I liked getting Charge and Shockwave, along with Pull for my Vanguard. In ME1, it was basically Lift, Push, and Barrier. As far as biotics go, it was an interesting change for me, and I liked it. I even liked the faster cooldown, despite it being global. Some people complain about this because they can no longer spam abilities (although as Vanguard, going Champion helps lower your cooldown), but I like that you actually have to work with your team mates and use their abilities to complement your own. Some people just don't like having to do that, so if you don't, you are forewarned.

Mini-games: On the whole, I found them a vast improvement over ME1. Those who complain about hacking are being ridiculous in my opinion. In ME1, all you did was play a game of leapfrog when opening a container. It took a few seconds tops? In ME2, both types of hacking involve memory and observational skills and are not complete cakewalks, unlike ME1 - not that ME2 hacking is rocket science, but at least it's somewhat more challenging and different. Planet scanning is vastly superior to doing that horrendous mineral survey quest in ME1. If you learn how to do it efficiently, it really shouldn't be a problem for you, but it can rub some people the wrong way (all I can say is that if you need help, maybe you should check threads with planet-scanning tips - all I know is that I can get it done quickly and painlessly myself).

Side quests: The quality of the side quests is superior to those of ME1, even if there are fewer of them overall in ME2 (DLC will likely address that issue). Personally, I prefer quality over quantity in any event, and the layouts are all unique and beautiful. In ME1 you had a handful of different layouts. The interiors of building were all the same in ME1, save a few random obstacles/objects here and there! In ME2, the outdoor settings and interiors were all different, every single one of them as far as I could tell. Heck, I was even impressed by the waterfalls on one mission.

Combat: Combat is now more fluid and shooter-like than in ME1. It's much more challenging, and if you try to face off with a giant mech out in the open, you'll die. I like the fact that combat is more dangerous. In ME1, I could stand out in the open on my Vanguard and spam enemies to death with my Spectre pistol. I don't know, if people want to be totally god-like, then ME2 is not for them. While I think that the maps could be worked on a bit to be less obvious about the cover or more diverse, I still find the combat more enjoyable than ME1 (nothing's more fun for my Vanguard than Charging an enemy and knocking them off a ledge). Some people might not like the new heatsinks (aka ammo) because of the lore, but I think it improves things by making you more judicious about firing your weapon (no more spamming  ).

Story/scope: Story-wise I think ME2 really is, as someone pointed out in another thread, much more character-driven. Is that bad? No, it's just different. There's still an overarching plot (stopping the Collectors and finding out their purpose), but your focus is on building that team of yours up and striking when opportunities present themselves (through the Illusive Man's intel). Personally, I felt that the main enemies should remain largely mysterious, and so I was not bothered by the number of appearances or lack thereof. I considered the focus to be gathering my team and forging ties with them to prep for the suicide mission. It's not as tightly/narrowly focused as ME1 was in terms of plot, so if you're expecting it to be just like that, well, it's not. As the middle episode in the trilogy, I think it does a solid job of setting the stage and I enjoyed some of the revelations along the way. If you like strong, indvidual character-driven stories (vis a vis recruiting & loyalty missions) then you will probably find it enjoyable. I still think it has that cinematic feel to it that ME1 did, even if the scope is on a more intimate scale in some ways (also found the suicide mission pretty exciting - try NOT prepping for it and it might actually be more exciting though *chuckle*).

Characters/dialogue: Here's where the game really shines in my opinion. The characters are much more fleshed out than they were in ME1, and I felt connected to each one of them, some more so than others of course. The team members, and even the other NPCs, are capable of emotions that I haven't seen in other games. They do feel alive if you get to know them. I could rather keenly feel Tali's pain in a certain situation (have to keep spoilers out). I felt the pain of several NPCs too (uh, trying to keep spoilers out so no specifics, but I was moved by their situations). I very much enjoyed Tali's and Garrus' growth and development as individuals in particular.

In this game, people actually do shed tears and it feels pretty real to the situation when you see them cry. In terms of the romances, I can only talk about Thane specifically, but I found the romance scene with him emotional even though it was short - there was anger, sorrow, tears and some passion to it. I think some people are set on not giving the characters a chance or just have some kind of vision about what they want/expect, so maybe they won't like any characters or will feel that they're "shallow." I certainly didn't - I thought they were all fairly deep for the most part.  I actually enjoyed the meeting with my ME1 LI, largely because it wasn't what I was expecting. Some people are hung up on how they WANT the LI to behave rather than whether or not the LI's behavior was realistic. I found the ME1 LI's reaction (vis a vis Kaidan in my case) to be perfectly valid and human. Besides, it should all come to a head in ME3, so I look forward to seeing the outcome of what happened in ME1 and ME2.

The dialogue was more mature and well-written for the most part, and there was a lot of humor in the game (Mordin & Joker are standouts). The swearing and grittiness was appropriate to the setting, and the voice-acting was top-notch. One improvement would be more interaction between team members a la the party banter of DA:O as has been suggested in several threads. Oh, and the Cerberus Network news updates are pretty amusing in and of themselves (and they change pretty regularly) - found that a rather nice touch. I would also like more dialogue with my team members in normal chats in addition to the DA:O-style party banter I mentioned. You should especially be able to talk more to your LI in my opinion..

Overall, I enjoyed the game very much and thought it was excellent. I have already started a second playthrough myself. Is it everyone's cup of tea? Nope, especially not if you're dogmatic about what is/isn't an RPG - for anyone who is fairly open-minded however, you'll probably enjoy the game too. Personally, I'd give it ME2 a 9/10 myself. There are things that could be improved on, and it's not perfect, but it is a good game.

As for those who complain about the Mako being yanked and the lack of more open exploration, I don't miss the old exploration terribly after multiple ME1 playthroughs (I now and forever hate the mineral survey quest to death). However, it should be pointed out that we are getting the Hammerhead eventually, so we'll see how that works out when the DLC is finally released (keeping my fingers crossed that it'll be good - I enjoy world exploration so long as it doesn't involve mineral surveys - see above *cough*).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 09 février 2010 - 10:18 .

[newcomplex]

RPS did a review on ME2

http://www.rockpaper...-mass-effect-2/

I hope it ends up in Biowares ears, it probably will, Bioware seems to like RPS, theirs a reference to a RPS article in ME2 (The couple discussing abortion in the citadel was a parody of a RPS parody)

I like the review.     I also like how they point out flaws even in great games, then leave you without a score, letting you judge for yourself its flaws and its merits.     

Modifié par newcomplex, 09 février 2010 - 10:36 .

[Phaedra Sanguine]

commander_chung wrote...

 nothing like classic inventory management systems.

Ok, I understand this isn't exactly taken from a negative post, but the next person who attributes having an inventory management system to having a solid RPG is going to get my virtual foot up their virtual nostril. (left or right, your choice)

Modifié par Paxcorpus, 10 février 2010 - 02:09 .

[arni3]

@all

err, this is my review of mass effect 2.......... :happy:

http://www.gamexeon....effect-2-a.html

and..............sorry2, this is my review for dragon age origins..........

http://www.gamexeon....ins-review.html

Modifié par arni3, 10 février 2010 - 05:36 .

[atheelogos]

sxephil reviews Mass Effect 2!

www.youtube.com/watch