119 réponses à ce sujet

[Seraph666]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Seraph666 wrote...

Stephenc13 wrote...

I read the post, and he says teammates dont change armor at all, i'm pretty sure they upgrade throughout the game

They don't, only change you'll see is that at a certain point you're allowed to change between 2 sets of colors on their costume.

As for the general ME2 disappointment, I'd say it's an overblown reaction to the fact that instead of fixing and improving alot of the faults of ME1 they've gone to work with a hatchet and just removed stuff that didn't work. So you're left with a loot system so stripped down it barely makes sense keeping it, character progression which basically is just a "pick 1 of 2" choice, and planet exploration that is even more monotonous and repetitive. Yes, everyone agrees that these systems needed changing, but the approach they've taken doesn't make for a better game. All it does is make a game with less features.

You speak as if you've already played through Mass Effect 2. Is this the case?

Not through, but pretty far in.

[izariluneh]

Anyone knows how many gameplay  hours has the main quest line in me2?

Modifié par izariluneh, 24 janvier 2010 - 10:44 .

[Angel of Love]

After you locate the Prothean (or Collector if you wish since they are now Reaper controlled) base within a black hole in the center of the galaxy where they have taken all the humans from the colonies (and your crew after the attack on the second Normandy) and you use the Omega 4 Mass Relay to reach the base. And after you discover they were using the captured humans to build a human Reaper and you destroy it and blow up the base possibly leaving team mates behind (team mates die from plot choices you make like what position you assign them to and what upgrades you install on the Normandy), you get the ending with you escaping back to known space and you have this huge army of hostile Geth ships.

[T0paze]

I wouldn't say it's disappointing. Maybe because I didn't expect to be the best RPG ever made. In fact, it's not even an RPG - it's an FPS with RPG elements.

However, the (already) rudimentary RPG system of the first installment has indeed been dumbed down even further.

Anyway, if there's anything I'm disappointed with, it's the review(ers)s. Either they used a completely different set of criteria or they are simply biased. Either way, I'm not gonna trust their judgement anymore. This game is good, but it's certainly not 10/10 or even 9/10. Back to good old 'try before you buy' strategy, I guess.

And no, I haven't completed the game, since I'm going to start playing for real when my Digital CE code arrives. However, I seriously doubt that the rest of the game will be much better.

Modifié par T0paze, 24 janvier 2010 - 11:07 .

[AlbertoAquilani]

T0paze wrote...

I wouldn't say it's disappointing. Maybe because I didn't expect to be the best RPG ever made. In fact, it's not even an RPG - it's an FPS with RPG elements.

However, the (already) rudimentary RPG system of the first installment has indeed been dumbed down even further.

Anyway, if there's anything I'm disappointed with, it's the review(ers)s. Either they used a completely different set of criteria or they are simply biased. Either way, I'm not gonna trust their judgement anymore. This game is good, but it's certainly not 10/10 or even 9/10. Back to good old 'try before you buy' strategy, I guess.

YES! DAMN THEM FOR HAVING AN OPINION! HEATHENS.

[Mox Ruuga]

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

T0paze wrote...

I wouldn't say it's disappointing. Maybe because I didn't expect to be the best RPG ever made. In fact, it's not even an RPG - it's an FPS with RPG elements.

However, the (already) rudimentary RPG system of the first installment has indeed been dumbed down even further.

Anyway, if there's anything I'm disappointed with, it's the review(ers)s. Either they used a completely different set of criteria or they are simply biased. Either way, I'm not gonna trust their judgement anymore. This game is good, but it's certainly not 10/10 or even 9/10. Back to good old 'try before you buy' strategy, I guess.

YES! DAMN THEM FOR HAVING AN OPINION! HEATHENS.

Lol! Lots of "heathens" around, these days. Some are so vile they dare to have less than fawning opinions about ME2! Can you imagine, the nerve!

[lord magnious]

I apologize ahead of time for any grammar or spelling errors as I'm very sick and
tired and I should be in bed.

There were some poins I didn't completely agree with:

(I'm assuming that you have already read the review)



1. Weapons stats actually went against in-game lore. I won't go into any detail here, but just for now, I'm happy that they removed weapon skills.

1b. This whole party armor thing is pretty upsetting; I have to agree.

2. You can't slot upgrade weapons, because there's no inventory to upgrade them on, and, most upgrades were passive ME1 as well, so I don't know what he/she's talkin' about there.

2b I'll have to wait and see how this ammo skill works out, but other party members having special ammo types gives them uniqueness to some degree.

3. While ME1 had more ranks, it would upgrade just a little and you would slowly see the effects. In ME2 there aren't as many ranks because you will see the effects once rank is upgraded.

4. Killing enemies for xp and receiving xp for completing a mission would level you up too quickly. One had to be taken out based on their new system to balance it out

4b. I don't know what to say to that. ME1 had mission complete screens, but cheesy? Huh, I’ll just have to see for myself.

5. I'll have to play the game to judge the VA. Yet, what I've seen so far from the trailers makes me believe that this not the case.

5b. Every Dev has confirmed that there's more dialogue options; like twenty per cent more if I'm not mistaken.

5c. I have to agree on this point as well.

6. I'll really have to play the game to see how much more /less item variety had been introduced.

6b. the reduction of models might tie into armor customization, but once again this armor this had me a bit bumbed :-(

7. All those items sound cool; and really all the items from ME1 shops were crap so...yeah.


8. If there’s no Mako why would the mission maps be exceedingly huge? Yeah... if I'm on foot I would a smaller map, this is not FO3.

8b. Again, mission critical maps were not that big either unless the Make was involved. Would people actually want to walk those distances?

9. I'm not going to go into any specific details due to ME1 spoilers. But I'll have to play it to see how the past choices mechanic works

10. His/her opinion, I, personally found (aside from planetary details) galaxy exploration very boring. But, once again I'll have to play it to get a better idea.

Though he/she didn't number it; it was his last point.
11. If the combat is as fun as before (which it was pretty dull) than that's a bad sign, I expect better
combat.

So...yeah, he/she is not a ME junkie, but a ME1 junkie. Which I mean, that is not a bad thing. ME1 was a damn good game, but it had diffrent mechanics.

Modifié par lord magnious, 24 janvier 2010 - 11:26 .

[KainrycKarr]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

T0paze wrote...

I wouldn't say it's disappointing. Maybe because I didn't expect to be the best RPG ever made. In fact, it's not even an RPG - it's an FPS with RPG elements.

However, the (already) rudimentary RPG system of the first installment has indeed been dumbed down even further.

Anyway, if there's anything I'm disappointed with, it's the review(ers)s. Either they used a completely different set of criteria or they are simply biased. Either way, I'm not gonna trust their judgement anymore. This game is good, but it's certainly not 10/10 or even 9/10. Back to good old 'try before you buy' strategy, I guess.

YES! DAMN THEM FOR HAVING AN OPINION! HEATHENS.

Lol! Lots of "heathens" around, these days. Some are so vile they dare to have less than fawning opinions about ME2! Can you imagine, the nerve!

You do realize the guy who was dissing the reviewers was pretty much saying the game isn't as good as a 10/10 or 9/10, right?

Man, you know i understand having an opinion. But you just seem to outright hate the game.

[Thozi]

LucidStrike wrote...

As an Adept, I'm puzzled as to how ME2 is just a shooter now.

As an Adept you shoot blue fireballs... ?  

Modifié par Darth_Pete, 24 janvier 2010 - 11:53 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Darth_Pete wrote...

LucidStrike wrote...

As an Adept, I'm puzzled as to how ME2 is just a shooter now.

As an Adept you shoot blue fireballs... ?  

BTW, the biotics are now much more like magic too. All those pulls and shockwaves and telep... *crap!*... charges are supposed to be explained in terms of gravity fields somehow, aren't they?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 24 janvier 2010 - 12:07 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

KainrycKarr wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

AlbertoAquilani wrote...

T0paze wrote...

I wouldn't say it's disappointing. Maybe because I didn't expect to be the best RPG ever made. In fact, it's not even an RPG - it's an FPS with RPG elements.

However, the (already) rudimentary RPG system of the first installment has indeed been dumbed down even further.

Anyway, if there's anything I'm disappointed with, it's the review(ers)s. Either they used a completely different set of criteria or they are simply biased. Either way, I'm not gonna trust their judgement anymore. This game is good, but it's certainly not 10/10 or even 9/10. Back to good old 'try before you buy' strategy, I guess.

YES! DAMN THEM FOR HAVING AN OPINION! HEATHENS.

Lol! Lots of "heathens" around, these days. Some are so vile they dare to have less than fawning opinions about ME2! Can you imagine, the nerve!

You do realize the guy who was dissing the reviewers was pretty much saying the game isn't as good as a 10/10 or 9/10, right?

Man, you know i understand having an opinion. But you just seem to outright hate the game.

He thinks by going to a game forum and posting an opinion against the mainstream that he's showing himself to be an intelligent and unique individual, far above those "fawning idiots" who just relentlessly praise the game without knowing what a truly horrible piece of sh** it is.

Of course, the irony is that he is on a forum for a video game he doesn't "like" (he hasn't actually played it, so he doesn't actually have an informed opinion to begin with) trying to make himself feel better about his intelligence. I can't think of too many more stupid wastes of time personally.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 24 janvier 2010 - 01:27 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Speaking as someone who has always viewed the original ME as a "RPG with FPS elements" as opposed to an "FPS with RPG elements" (which automatically seems to separate me from 90% of the game's audience, it would seem), and as someone who has relatively little skill or tolerance for traditional fast-paced shooters, reviews like this make me nervous. Enough so that ME2 has just moved out of my "buy it sight-unseen" category: given how much I adored the original, my intention was to spring for the sequel almost immediately. Now, I'll probably rent the 360 version, take it for a test drive, and if I like it, I'll plunk down the cash for the PC version.

Honestly, this debate reminds me too much of the old Parasite Eve games for the PlayStation. The original was one of my favorite console-style RPGs, melding aspects of both the RPG and old-school survival horror. The sequel, though, massively changed direction, dropped most of the RPG elements, and was greeted with a lot of the same prerelease hype I see surrounding ME2: it's just being streamlined, and eliminating the elements that no one liked in the first place. The final product basically fizzled out: it no longer how anything compelling to set it apart from Resident Evil or Silent Hill. If anything, the tattered remnants of the first game's hybrid-RPG elements actually hurt the title: there was no longer enough meat to attract RPG fans like myself, and what remained only served as an annoyance to the survival horror fans who were the intended audience.

I'm not entirely turned off from ME2, mind you: I fully intend to give it a try. And I'm also not suggesting that the changes will be objectively bad, or even unpopular. But as I mentioned before, I enjoyed the original ME as an RPG, and it was the RPG elements that carried me through the FPS elements that I found either boring or frustratingly difficult. It might well be a sound business, or even creative, decision for BioWare to remove or refine some of the more obvious RPG-like elements from the first game, but it doesn't sound especially appealing to me. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary, of course, and what with the new Dragon Age expansion, I can't complain too much. 

[Yadrathe]

when your inventory was full and you had maxxed out omni-gel and cash, I'd have to agree with jidnis and also say The inventory system in the original Mass Effect was a complete disaster....

[SurfaceBeneath]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

Speaking as someone who has always viewed the original ME as a "RPG with FPS elements" as opposed to an "FPS with RPG elements" (which automatically seems to separate me from 90% of the game's audience, it would seem), and as someone who has relatively little skill or tolerance for traditional fast-paced shooters, reviews like this make me nervous. Enough so that ME2 has just moved out of my "buy it sight-unseen" category: given how much I adored the original, my intention was to spring for the sequel almost immediately. Now, I'll probably rent the 360 version, take it for a test drive, and if I like it, I'll plunk down the cash for the PC version.

Honestly, this debate reminds me too much of the old Parasite Eve games for the PlayStation. The original was one of my favorite console-style RPGs, melding aspects of both the RPG and old-school survival horror. The sequel, though, massively changed direction, dropped most of the RPG elements, and was greeted with a lot of the same prerelease hype I see surrounding ME2: it's just being streamlined, and eliminating the elements that no one liked in the first place. The final product basically fizzled out: it no longer how anything compelling to set it apart from Resident Evil or Silent Hill. If anything, the tattered remnants of the first game's hybrid-RPG elements actually hurt the title: there was no longer enough meat to attract RPG fans like myself, and what remained only served as an annoyance to the survival horror fans who were the intended audience.

I'm not entirely turned off from ME2, mind you: I fully intend to give it a try. And I'm also not suggesting that the changes will be objectively bad, or even unpopular. But as I mentioned before, I enjoyed the original ME as an RPG, and it was the RPG elements that carried me through the FPS elements that I found either boring or frustratingly difficult. It might well be a sound business, or even creative, decision for BioWare to remove or refine some of the more obvious RPG-like elements from the first game, but it doesn't sound especially appealing to me. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary, of course, and what with the new Dragon Age expansion, I can't complain too much. 

Mass Effect 2 plays mostly the exact same as 1. You still look for cover, use your abilities, aim and fire. It's just that the shooter elements are a ton more streamlined and refined than in 1. If the combat in ME1 didn't completely turn you off from the game, there's no reason the combat in ME2 should either.

As for RPG elements, this has been discussed to hell and back, but don't discount ME2's RPG additions. Things like interupts, more developed squaddies, enemies that are vulnerable to specific attacks, the research system and armor customization, more in depth class customization, and a story that actually hinges on your actions in game are not RPG elements to write off... and when considered with the RPG elements that were taken out actually make me think that the RPGers definitely did not get the short end of the stick here. In fact, I think the RPG improvements kept pace with the shooter improvements quite well. I mean, those are gigantic additions and what did the game lose? An inventory system that was obtrusive and utterly useless once you bought your specter weapon, being chained to one weapon which arbitrarily limited you in combat, and a decryption system that tried (and failed) to shoehorn a tech specialist of some kind in to your party (and since the chances of getting something worthwhile in any given hack were about 1 in 100, it was a dumb implementation).

Anyways, food for thought.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:03 .

[newcomplex]

Let me address some of those...some are valid, but some are rather clueless.   (note:   I bought the game, pre-ordered.   Just pirated for early access)

1)

Mass Effect one didn't have any weapon depth. Items were either upgrades, or were not. In mass effect 2, every weapon handles differently. In mass effect, picking up weapons, were always, bar the geth assault rifle, "If damage=Green Colored, equip, else sell". In Mass Effec2t, it gives you a lot of decision behind every single weapon. In the original Weapon stats were effectively meaningless. So were armor stats. Armor stats were "if armor=light green, equip, else sell". In ME, you have to weigh in the relative benefits of 10% health, 10% sprint, 10% persuasion, 10% biotic damage, 10% shield regen...the list is endless. I do however agree, that the game does not give you nearly enough weapons to play with.   

2)

Their essentially the same thing, except in the current system you don't have to spend 20 minutes after every mission upgrading your "Rails Vii" with your newly acquired "Rails viii"

3)

You also gained levels twice as frequently in mass effect. Not only has nothing changed, its gotten better because you can specialize skills in their max rank.

And while you do have more skills, skills in ME2 are more complex. In the original, a large amount of your skills were just "press to do damage".

4)

How does this change anything about ME2 as a RPG except it becomes paced better because your not in a massive firefight thats incredibly intense, and then you bring up your skills menu and think "Hey, what skills should I get"

5)What?  No. Its his imagination.   The conversations are the same.  Removing charm was removing a useless stat that nobody got, and made it so roleplaying didn't gimp your character.

6)The item models were just changes in color? Their are literally only 2 models for every gun in mass effect, recolored. In ME2, their are 4-6 models. And each model requires you to choose which one to pick, as opposed to "If damage stat=green, get it"

7)That doesn't change anything, because their was no point in shopping for obvious upgrades anyway, from a RP perspective.


8)He just SAID this was a plus. Then he complains about it. Seriously? He may need to consult a doctor.

9)It was fine. It recognized almost all my choices, including minuscule things like specific lines I said to random people. What were you expecting, that random choices would alter the storyline significantly?


10)How does this detract from the game as an RPG? wtf? Thats the most illogical statement ever made, I bet if ME1 had you guide a ship and ME2 reversed it, he would be ranting about it.

Modifié par newcomplex, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:06 .

[laststarfighter]

TileToad wrote...

Ever since I've heard there is no inventory at all anymore, I fear disaster.
How can anything call itself a RPG (light) if it doesn't even have the most basic RPG element??

exactly

[newcomplex]

Mass Effect 1 didn't have a inventory in anything except name. All it contained were weapons, and you didn't need anymore then the weapons you had equipped because weapons and armor had no special abilities. The only purpose the inventory served was to sell things. Getting weapon upgrades was when you saw a weapon that did more damage then your current weapon, easily indicated by color coding.

In ME2, instead of bombarding with you with thousands of weapons for you to sell, it just gives you cash. And that increases realism because your not going to be collecting 40-50 weapons your person when you go out on a mission. Weapons are sparsely put throughout the missions (around 1 weapon per mission). This roughly equals how often you find weapon upgrades in the original ME. Then, finding these weapons, you now have a huge amount of choices to make, as every weapon is tailored towards a special situation.   (Burst fire, sustained fire, semi-automatic, accuracy, clip size, good versus sheild, good versus biotic barriers, good versus armor, good versus health, full automatic....tons of choices)

Inventories THEMSELVES are often a relic.   In DND, and early era adventure games, you collected a large variety of items which you would need to use for specific situations.   Ropes to help cross pits, or to tye up a horse.    Lamps, enchanted skulls, and of course actual weapons.     An inventory system made a lot of sense.   In games like WoW even, when you need to store a wide variety of crafting components, misc items that preform specific functions (teleporters, quest items, engineering gimmicks, hearthstone), and of course, weapons.  

In a pure roguelike RPG, an inventory is POINTLESS.   Their isn't a point in storying items if all they are are weapons.   And ESPECIALLY when its immediately obvious which ones are upgrades and which ones are not, and thiers no reason to carry around weapon swaps.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:33 .

[mewarmo990]

Based on my own playtime:



RPG storytelling and character development aspect still there and better than ever. Skills and inventory have been streamlined/butchered/whatever you want to call it. Shooter gameplay improved, though you might not notice as much if you played ME1 on PC.



And why is there bullet travel time now? Hand cannon rounds are precious, I shouldn't have to lead targets -__-

[Christina Norman]

spoilers