454 réponses à ce sujet

[OfTheFaintSmile]

Dude, I absolutely LOVE this game. I used to be weaned on JRPG's but after trying out many of Bioware's delicious western RPG fare I won't be going back, even FF13 doesn't look as good to me anymore (same homoerotic male characters with same boring predictable gameplay)



So to each his own opinion I guess

[A1337tangerine]

Gatt9 wrote...

There's a number of misconceptions that need clearing up on this thread.

1.  The reviews are honest and accurate,  and this is a classic: 
Reviews aren't honest,  nor are they accurate.  Gamespot got nailed firing people for not skewing reviews to the advertising dollars.  Another website went on record stating what the rules are to previews,  and if you break said rules,  you get denied previews and review copies.  The rules,  as one might expect,  are basically "Review it like it's the greatest game ever and don't say a negative word." 

The sites are not,  and have not been on the consumer's side for years.  There's a reason why every "Blockbuster" game gets incredible reviews and very little criticism,  and it's not because they're great.  There's no greater sign of this than Oblivion.  The reviewers praised it as the greatest thing ever,  narry a negative word...until Fallout 3 was announced,  then these same people had loads of negatives which "Fallout 3 fixes!".  Interesting isn't it that this game could be so flawless,  right up until there was a new game coming?  It's simple.  The game always had the problems,  it just wasn't in their best interests to tell you about it.  It was in their best interests to tell you to buy it.

Which makes you wonder,  if there's evidence that the sites are willing to make sure reviews are positive,  how valid are the "User reviews" on those sites? 

Mass Effect 2 isn't a classic.  It has none of the qualities that would make it so.  As a shooter,  it fails,  it's AI is sub-par,  it's weapons are vanilla,  it doesn't present any interesting and challenging situations,  it has no scripted elements.  It's walk into a room and shoot stupid.

As an RPG,  it fails,  mainly because it's not at all an RPG.  Which I'll explain...

2.  Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG,  and there is no way to define it as such.

An RPG is a digital conversion of a Pen and Paper Role Playing Game.  Just like digital Monopoly is a conversion of a board game.  It requires the same qualties that make a PnP RPG at it's heart.  It requires Character Based Skill.  An RPG is a game in which you take on the role of some other Character,  and solve challenges and progress story based on that character,  NOT YOU.  Your skills are irrelevant,  or to be very blunt,  your ability to aim a mouse/controller is irrelevant.  It is about the character,  and his skills,  not your ability to point at something on screen.

The rules are very well defined.  Your character is not you.  Your character's skills are not yours.  Mass Effect 2 fails that,  ME2 is all about your skills,  even to the point of having moral decisions being a matter of pushing a button quickly.

Having experience points and skills is irrelevant if the deciding factor of all things is your reflexs.  You can completely remove the whole thing from Mass Effect 2 and the game still functions pretty much without issue,  as is extremely obvious,  because you can play the thing without using any of it. 

Does not matter what it says on the box.  It's not an RPG.  If Player Skill is all that the game is based on,  it's not an RPG.  The word Role in the acronym means you take on the Role of the Character,  and *his* skills.  Not the other way around.  The word for the other way around is Avatar,  and the type of game is not Avatar Playing Game.

3.  "The people on the forums don't matter"/"Everyone who's happy never posts".

There's no evidence of this.  All it is,  is a long standing strawman thrown up by the defenders on any given board when they can't actually counter-point the arguements.  There's no super-secret poll site that shows that everyone is in fact happy,  and that only 2 people are unhappy with the game.

I've seen it on every board,  for every game that has controversy,  and there's never been a scrap of evidence that it's valid.  Mainly because it's absolutely impossible to prove,  because the only way to prove it is to contact every single person who bought the game.

AGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! You sir, are a smart gentleman

[daguest]

Im disapointed by a lot of thing in ME2. I never said it is a bad game.
It's one of the best action game i have never played. Well, probably the best. Im still disapointed by the lack of RPG choices in conversation, action,... Or the shared cooldown.
We can think it's not a perfect game and still enjoy it.
I just hope the ME3 will not be more action than RPG, or we will have MW2 with romance options and cool story.

Modifié par daguest, 01 février 2010 - 02:22 .

[A1337tangerine]

daguest wrote...

Im disapointed by a lot of thing in ME2. I never said it is a bad game.
It's one of the best action game i have never played. Well, probably the best. Im still disapointed by the lack of RPG choices in conversation, action,... Or the shared cooldown.
We can think it's not a perfect game and still enjoy it.
I just hope the ME3 will not be more action than RPG, or we will have MW2 with romance options and cool story.

Feel the same way right now

[coinop25]

Probably this has been driven into the ground already, but I figured as long as this thread serves as a sort of impromptu poll, I might as well chime in to agree that I loved ME1, but I love ME2 at least as much. You can't just declare that "most" people feel a certain way with only a glimpse at griping on a couple forums.

[DeadJediJamie]

Gatt9 wrote...

1.  You must've just started playing video games in the last 2 years.  The controls were perfectly fine.

2.  Hand-crafted and poor quality.  Go look at the normandy wreckage quest.  Wanna tell me why it is that they couldn't find the 20 missing people,  5 of whom hid in boxes during an alien attack instead of getting in an escape pod?  Was the entire rescue team handicapped and unable to open a box?  Was Normandy's crew insane and thought a box would protect them from destruction?  No.  Someone just thought it'd make it harder to go collect the trinkets if they put them in a box,  never mind it makes absolutely no sense.

3.  Seriously?  The game is better because the "Normandy is better"?  It's got like 3 more rooms,  none of which actually do anything.

4.  No,  now there's no inventory system.  Just a pretty standard FPS system which occasionally lets you choose a gun.

5.  Character Development?  Um,  only if you consider random unrelated bits and pieces character development.  The other night I broke into an apartment and looted it,  then broke into another apartment and looted it in front of it's owners without them saying a word.  Then I broke into a third apartment,  and gave some NPC's heck for breaking into apartments and looting them.  Except that's what I'd been doing,  and why I was in there,  and that was the "Good people" response.  I'm sorry,  Character Development would've required them to actually have something sensical in there.

I'd strongly recommend you go take another look,  you appear to be having some delusions about what's actually in the game...

To counter your nonsense, I say this.

1) I'm 32, I've been playing games likely before you were a twinkle in your mother's eye, so please shut up. With that aside; the controls for the Mako were terrible. It bounced around and was generally not fun to drive, but then again nothing about what you used the Mako (with the exception of the main missions)  was fun after the initial novelty of exploring planets.

2) I'm not sure what the wreckage of the old Normandy has to do with anything, that was just DLC and a nice little addition to round out the tale of the old Normandy and its missing crew members, you did it one time and at least you got some form of acknowledgment for it.

For the collection missions that were present in ME 1 there was no explanation for why Shepard was finding these trinkets from Turians, Salarians and Matriarchs.

3) Yes, the Normandy feels more like a Starship, it is better designed and more realistic. The first Normandy didn't look like it could accomodate even a handful of crew.

4) Scrapping the inventory system was the best option. Why? Because it required so much needless micromanagement and I'm not even talking about swapping modifications to weapons. It invariably required emptying due to all the useless vendor trash and duplicate items.

That brings me to another problem with the system, you never needed money - you could get just about everything for shooting up a few Geth. Not to mention that Shepard never appeared to loot them, it just materialised in his inventory. Yep... makes sense.

You could argue that money isn't a necessity now since you do get free upgrades and stuff from missions. However, without purchasing equipment, certain upgrade trees can't be completed, making money a lot more useful. Unlike ME 1 where the best equipment (Spectre weapons not withstanding) could be obtained for free.

5) No idea what the hell you're talking about here. Care to elaborate who's quest you were doing?

Long story short, you are probably speaking bollocks for no good reason whatsoever. I can't think of any compelling reason in anything you've said, to go back to the system Mass Effect 1. Enjoy your bland planets and recycled bases, I guess.

[Thompson family]

"Most are disappointed at the very least"



In the words of Shepard: "I don't know what drugs you're on ..."



Yes, review sites are under pressure to boost sales so they can sell ads. However, there hasn't been a game able to universally gather this level of praise — we're talking worldwide here — since "The Orange Box/Portal."



The LOWEST score given was an 88 by a game magazine in Germany.



Not one honest critic, published any where in the world; That's not credible.





==========



Ironically, the people seriously upset by this game are the "collectors" — those who like to gather stuff and micromanage their upgrades.

[Beoweasel]

Personally, I was a huge fan of ME1, but you know what? I think ME2 is an improvement. I prefer the combat of the second, and I'm a huge RPG nut.

[Thompson family]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

Ironically, the people seriously upset by this game are the "collectors" — those who like to gather stuff and micromanage their upgrades.

Bull. Read the entire thread.

No thanks. This is a whinefest where people resort to worldwide conspiriacy theories where all critics everywhere are paid off. Whatever grain of truth this parinoia might contain, not even Metal Gear Solid for PS3 or Halo was able to get that kind of mindless cooperation.

I will, however, agree to a revision:

Ironically, the people upset the most by the changes from ME1 are the "collectors" — those who like to gather stuff. They also like to micromanage their upgrades.

Modifié par Thompson family, 01 février 2010 - 02:47 .

[LolaRuns]

WTF there is vast conspiracy to make ME2 sound awesome when it secretly isn't? I must tell that to all the people who mistakenly think they actually like it and that they had a great time. Yes game mags overhype stuff. But that doesn't change that ME2 is genuinely good in this case. Besides, usually game sites have a user vote option underneath the review that yes, even though those can be maniupulated too, are usually a pretty reliable pointer when there is a huge difference, to the positive or negative, between the reviewer score and the fan vote score.

Having experience points and skills is irrelevant if the deciding factor of all things is your reflexs.

That is true though. Tons of action/shooter games now employ some limited stat points or weapon upgrade or movement upgrades (imo not all that different from skill trees). That doesn't mean that Batman Arkham Asylum or Bayonetta or Bioshock are RPGs because of that. Just having some skill points an RPG does not make. ME2 is more like a hybrid. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Thompson family]

LolaRuns wrote...

Besides, usually game sites have a user vote option underneath the review that yes, even though those can be maniupulated too, are usually a pretty reliable pointer when there is a huge difference, to the positive or negative, between the reviewer score and the fan vote score.

Amen.

That "gap" is what I look at  — after a worthwhile number of fan submissions have built up.

[Schurge]

I want to go ahead and respond to the reactions of the shared cooldown and say that in my opinion, it was necassary and probably implemented due to the abilities being very powerful. You pop on a barrier and you are invincible long enough to get out of enemy fire, even if you are in the middle of a flat space with no cover... fireballs can oneshot mobs other abilities can invalidate entire squads for a good amount of time, etc. If there were a wider range of weaker abilities then yes the shared cooldown would be kind of rediculous, but that is not the case. I appreciate the shared cooldown, adds another layer of strategy that so many people seem to hate... without it, the game would be way to easy.

But thats just my take.

Modifié par Schurge, 01 février 2010 - 03:02 .

[Thompson family]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...


The fourth are RPG fans who above all else feel games live and die by story and character interaction.

I and another forum member Nozy fall into the latter group. Fans from this latter group feel the combat overshadowed the plot and "dumbed down" the sequel compared to ME. This is the popular consensus on other
boards as well when it comes to people from the latter category. Here's to hoping I explained myself better this time.

Fair enough, SkullandBonesmember, but you acknowledge that "Most are disappointed at the very least" is very misleading topic title, at the very least. You're speaking for one segment here.

Not reading 17 pages? Guilty as charged. But I read the latest page of posts to see where the thread was going, and the comment about how critics are total sheep was just ludicrous. Posts like that do your argument much more harm than sniping from me.

Modifié par Thompson family, 01 février 2010 - 03:05 .

[AlexWBoyd]

A1337tangerine wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

There's a number of misconceptions that need clearing up on this thread.

1.  The reviews are honest and accurate,  and this is a classic: 
Reviews aren't honest,  nor are they accurate.  Gamespot got nailed firing people for not skewing reviews to the advertising dollars.  Another website went on record stating what the rules are to previews,  and if you break said rules,  you get denied previews and review copies.  The rules,  as one might expect,  are basically "Review it like it's the greatest game ever and don't say a negative word." 

The sites are not,  and have not been on the consumer's side for years.  There's a reason why every "Blockbuster" game gets incredible reviews and very little criticism,  and it's not because they're great.  There's no greater sign of this than Oblivion.  The reviewers praised it as the greatest thing ever,  narry a negative word...until Fallout 3 was announced,  then these same people had loads of negatives which "Fallout 3 fixes!".  Interesting isn't it that this game could be so flawless,  right up until there was a new game coming?  It's simple.  The game always had the problems,  it just wasn't in their best interests to tell you about it.  It was in their best interests to tell you to buy it.

Which makes you wonder,  if there's evidence that the sites are willing to make sure reviews are positive,  how valid are the "User reviews" on those sites? 

Mass Effect 2 isn't a classic.  It has none of the qualities that would make it so.  As a shooter,  it fails,  it's AI is sub-par,  it's weapons are vanilla,  it doesn't present any interesting and challenging situations,  it has no scripted elements.  It's walk into a room and shoot stupid.

As an RPG,  it fails,  mainly because it's not at all an RPG.  Which I'll explain...

2.  Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG,  and there is no way to define it as such.

An RPG is a digital conversion of a Pen and Paper Role Playing Game.  Just like digital Monopoly is a conversion of a board game.  It requires the same qualties that make a PnP RPG at it's heart.  It requires Character Based Skill.  An RPG is a game in which you take on the role of some other Character,  and solve challenges and progress story based on that character,  NOT YOU.  Your skills are irrelevant,  or to be very blunt,  your ability to aim a mouse/controller is irrelevant.  It is about the character,  and his skills,  not your ability to point at something on screen.

The rules are very well defined.  Your character is not you.  Your character's skills are not yours.  Mass Effect 2 fails that,  ME2 is all about your skills,  even to the point of having moral decisions being a matter of pushing a button quickly.

Having experience points and skills is irrelevant if the deciding factor of all things is your reflexs.  You can completely remove the whole thing from Mass Effect 2 and the game still functions pretty much without issue,  as is extremely obvious,  because you can play the thing without using any of it. 

Does not matter what it says on the box.  It's not an RPG.  If Player Skill is all that the game is based on,  it's not an RPG.  The word Role in the acronym means you take on the Role of the Character,  and *his* skills.  Not the other way around.  The word for the other way around is Avatar,  and the type of game is not Avatar Playing Game.

3.  "The people on the forums don't matter"/"Everyone who's happy never posts".

There's no evidence of this.  All it is,  is a long standing strawman thrown up by the defenders on any given board when they can't actually counter-point the arguements.  There's no super-secret poll site that shows that everyone is in fact happy,  and that only 2 people are unhappy with the game.

I've seen it on every board,  for every game that has controversy,  and there's never been a scrap of evidence that it's valid.  Mainly because it's absolutely impossible to prove,  because the only way to prove it is to contact every single person who bought the game.

AGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! You sir, are a smart gentleman

You realize this post is riddled with contradictions, right?

1. The whole game review sites are out to get us thing us entirely unfounded as a generalized statement. Yes, there has been and instance of 1 site getting in trouble for "fixing" reviews. But to assume this happens at all outlets is so horribly pessimistic. The reason stuff like "Oblivion is the best thing ever, no one could beat it. Oh, actually this game does fix some of the small gripes we had with Oblivion, and we enjoyed it more" happens is because new games come out that do things in different ways, ways that often the reviewer doesn't think about when writing a review. If you bother to actually read an entire review for a game, there are always parts where they tell the reader things they didn't like, even if the game got a 99/100. The reason it still got a 99/100 would probably be because the reviewer felt that the problems they had with the game didn't take away all that much from the overall experience.

2. His definition of RPG eliminates any past RPG where the player makes any sort of decision or has an effect on the story. Since we're supposed to apparently be watching the story unfold and occasionally push a button to attack, without making any sort of decision. If this is the case, ME1, Dragon Age, KoTOR, Fallout just off the top of my head, are not RPG games. Since in all of those the player guides how the character interacts with the game, and how the game ultimately ends. In truth, you are taking the role of Shepard, galatic badass, how Shepard behaves and what he does is up to the player to decide, we are shaping the character.

3. The notion of a loud minority is actually fairly well founded outside of the video game message board world and it's fairly logical to say it could carry over to it. Think about it like this, you buy a car and you enjoy the car, you like how it looks, drives, how reliable it is, you're not necessarily in love with it, but you like it . You also buy another car, and you hate it, it handles like crap, is falling apart and generally sucks. Which are you more likely to go around talking about? The car you hate, why? Because you're happy with the first car and don't feel the need to vent about anything. When people are upset they feel the need to vent about their frustrations, it happens on the opposite end as well, but not nearly as much. If you want another example, ask anyone that has to deal with customers in any business. I work for a software service company and we have 10k+ customers, ~60% of all the calls and emails I get are people that are either mad or frustrated because something doesn't work right for them. I'd say maybe 35% of the calls are people that just have a problem, aren't upset but just want help, and maybe 5% are people that just email me to say everything is awesome. Even with most of my support work being people that are upset, in reality these people make up maybe 10-15% of our customer base.

Now, don't get me wrong. If you didn't enjoy the game, you didn't enjoy the game. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Some people were expecting more of a traditional RPG game and they can be upset about that. But don't discount ME2 from the genre completely, and if you're going to argue for that, at least use an argument that works.

[Legbiter]

I'd explain in great detail why the OP is full of it but I have to go play ME 2 some more.

[DreDk]

I am deeply disappointed by Mass Effect 2.



THEY CALL IT..... EA EFFECT....

[_KTA_]

DeadJediJamie wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

1.  You must've just started playing video games in the last 2 years.  The controls were perfectly fine.

2.  Hand-crafted and poor quality.  Go look at the normandy wreckage quest.  Wanna tell me why it is that they couldn't find the 20 missing people,  5 of whom hid in boxes during an alien attack instead of getting in an escape pod?  Was the entire rescue team handicapped and unable to open a box?  Was Normandy's crew insane and thought a box would protect them from destruction?  No.  Someone just thought it'd make it harder to go collect the trinkets if they put them in a box,  never mind it makes absolutely no sense.

3.  Seriously?  The game is better because the "Normandy is better"?  It's got like 3 more rooms,  none of which actually do anything.

4.  No,  now there's no inventory system.  Just a pretty standard FPS system which occasionally lets you choose a gun.

5.  Character Development?  Um,  only if you consider random unrelated bits and pieces character development.  The other night I broke into an apartment and looted it,  then broke into another apartment and looted it in front of it's owners without them saying a word.  Then I broke into a third apartment,  and gave some NPC's heck for breaking into apartments and looting them.  Except that's what I'd been doing,  and why I was in there,  and that was the "Good people" response.  I'm sorry,  Character Development would've required them to actually have something sensical in there.

I'd strongly recommend you go take another look,  you appear to be having some delusions about what's actually in the game...

To counter your nonsense, I say this.

1) I'm 32, I've been playing games likely before you were a twinkle in your mother's eye, so please shut up. With that aside; the controls for the Mako were terrible. It bounced around and was generally not fun to drive, but then again nothing about what you used the Mako (with the exception of the main missions)  was fun after the initial novelty of exploring planets.

2) I'm not sure what the wreckage of the old Normandy has to do with anything, that was just DLC and a nice little addition to round out the tale of the old Normandy and its missing crew members, you did it one time and at least you got some form of acknowledgment for it.

For the collection missions that were present in ME 1 there was no explanation for why Shepard was finding these trinkets from Turians, Salarians and Matriarchs.

3) Yes, the Normandy feels more like a Starship, it is better designed and more realistic. The first Normandy didn't look like it could accomodate even a handful of crew.

4) Scrapping the inventory system was the best option. Why? Because it required so much needless micromanagement and I'm not even talking about swapping modifications to weapons. It invariably required emptying due to all the useless vendor trash and duplicate items.

That brings me to another problem with the system, you never needed money - you could get just about everything for shooting up a few Geth. Not to mention that Shepard never appeared to loot them, it just materialised in his inventory. Yep... makes sense.

You could argue that money isn't a necessity now since you do get free upgrades and stuff from missions. However, without purchasing equipment, certain upgrade trees can't be completed, making money a lot more useful. Unlike ME 1 where the best equipment (Spectre weapons not withstanding) could be obtained for free.

5) No idea what the hell you're talking about here. Care to elaborate who's quest you were doing?

Long story short, you are probably speaking bollocks for no good reason whatsoever. I can't think of any compelling reason in anything you've said, to go back to the system Mass Effect 1. Enjoy your bland planets and recycled bases, I guess.

watch out this guy's making sense, Mass Effect 2 is a great evolution in everything ME1.  The inventory system wasn't an inventory system in ME1... it was an equip screen.   You never got any actual "items" just useless junk to sell.

Haters, read this: http://gamedesignrev...rt-ii/#more-999

And stop crying, actually don't it's sort of funny at this point.

[HedStr8EyesTite]

the game is amazing, even if not as a "true RPG," if only as a game, it is amazing. one of the best if not the best TPS of all time.

[Orfinn]

3. All reviews I have seen have been 9/10 or better. Most people agree.

Of course they they are! its mass psychology 101. Or else business would be hard to land in a skeptic po0pulation. Its like a priest brainwashing someone to believe in gods, not the best paralell but still.

[Trigonous]

I would like to at least say that I thoroughly enjoyed the game, and have beaten it twice already. That would be why I wasn't on the forums posting about how amazing it was.

[phimseto]

I have my complaints, but the good far, far, far, far outweighs the bad. By every storytelling standard (the most important standard), ME2 blows ME1 out of the water.