326 réponses à ce sujet

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

kiyyto wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

I see the complaints on this board and I agree with many of them, even though I find ME2 reasonably enjoyable it is so much less than I expected given the first game.

The thing that strikes me is that many of the reasons for complaint appear to be the result of a game that was pushed out the door, before it was done.

I think we all agree that BioWare has made great games and we all agree that ME2 has some great aspects to it, most notably the story, but isn’t it obvious that the cause of the problems here is a game that has simply been forced to market before it was done?

Before it was done to BioWare’s previous level of standard and design?

Does this reflect poorly on the EA BioWare merger, from the gamers point of view?

I totally agree but at least they have tried to remedy the situation with the Cerberus network, I think that the Cerberus network is meant mostly for the content that should have been released with the game but they just diddnt have time to develop. It is obvious that the hammerhead was meant to be released with the game, they even mention it that there is a hammerhead docking bay in the normandy that we just cant access yet. Even the info about Zaeed Messani and Kasumi are already in the game like they were meant to be released with the game.

Sure they really should have delayed the launch of ME2 to really get this content in the game but at least with the Ceberus network they are giving it to us for free, unlike DA:O with the Wardens Keep that we had to pay for.

Personally I think the EA Bioware merger was bad news, we have already seen a lot of EA influence in their games and a lot of it isnt good, hopefully EA eases up the leash a bit on Bioware and gives them the freedom they need to create their games but we have already seen in the past EA ruining good game developers, hopefully this wont be the case with Bioware.

I hope you are right about cerberus... but I don’t think that dlc will fill the holes.
No one really releases DLC like Bethesda did with Fallout 3.
I don’t think we are getting that kind of DLC with this game.

Hmm actually I think I may have been too hasty in my previous post to blame EA. We all know that the Hammerhead should have been released with the game but at least we know they are taking their time to make sure the Hammerhead is incorporated properly instead of like the rush job they did with the Mako, in fact many of the gameplay mechanics in ME2 show much more polish than they did in ME1.

We are all blaming EA for rushing Bioware but we forget how much of a rush job the first Mass Effect was, and when they made that they were not even a part of the EA empire. Sure we have less guns and armour in ME2 than in ME1 but the ones that are there show much more polish and are much more unique than any of the ones in ME1. Sure we are missing gameplay mechanics like the Hammerhead but all the gameplay mechanics that are included in ME2 show a high degree of polish and are implemented well.

I still think they should have delayed the release so they could add in the Hammerhead (among other things), but we can hardly blame EA considering the rush job that was ME1.

[LumpOfCole]

Mass Effect 2 is an improvement on just about every level (except maybe with regards to how the final boss looks, but that's just my opinion) than Mass Effect 1. I just don't see how these complaint threads even exist.

[gosensgo88]

Veex wrote...

gosensgo88 wrote...

Where did I say that the game was too difficult? Difficult =/= complicated, and I clearly remember numerous people complaining about how complicated the first one was to start and how they didn't get a good tutorial and whatever.

Not to mention that it wasn't my complaint, yes I found omni gelling everything annoying, but in my opinion the first game was as close to perfect a game can get.

Complicated, by definition, implies difficulty, but I digress. I am glad that you enjoyed Mass Effect so immensely. BioWare clearly had a different vision for the franchise and changed it accordingly. This obviously has grated with many of the fans who preferred some of the more traditional RPG elements, but in the end it was their decision. Whether that will expand their fanbase remains to be seen.

Yes I know that's what the story is about, and to me it's not as good as the first game's story. Most of your squad has nothing to do with the collectors in the first place and only join you because you helped them out with their problems that are irrelevant to the main story.

In ME1 you were a human who became the first human spectre and then kicked some major ass against an enemy that threatened the whole galaxy and was supposed to be almost invincible, making some tough decisions in the process. In ME2 you collect your squad and go beat up the guys who destroyed your ship and are now abducting humans. Maybe the first game just built up the hype too much for me, but I expected the story of ME2 to rival ME1's and IMO it didn't.

I don't agree that a galaxy wide threat has no effect on your squad members, but if you feel that way I can respect that. I do contend that many of them, especially Thane and Samara distinctively mention fighting for that cause because of the importance of it, perhaps you simply overlooked it. The threat in this game is the same threat that persisted throughout Mass Effect, the looming Reaper invasion is still there.

You're doing more than just beating up the guys who stole your ship. The collectors are in lieu with and directly controlled by the Reaper threat. The overarching theme is still there and present. I also loved Mass Effect's story and can understand your point though, I just don't think the sequel's plot is as simple as contrived as you're implying.

I guess it would've been worded better if I said complicated does not always equal difficult. I found the first game complicated at the start as well since I did not know all the controls and the process of learning them was basically trial and error for the most part(the key bindings screen helped but some things, like getting out of the mako, I had to find out myself), but the game, overall, was definitely not difficult.

But I guess we can agree to disagree. Atleast you can see where I'm coming from in regards to the story, whereas most diehard ME2 fans would just tell me to stop posting and go away

From my posts it may seem like I don't like ME2, which would be incorrect since I'm itching to replay it as renegade but can't due to lack of time these days, but I was a little disappointed in it and felt that Bioware catered more to the people that hated the first game rather than the ones that loved it.

[OasisForever1991]

NO Bioware's Mass Effect 1 was a RPG WITH SHOOTER ELEMENTS WITH A GREAT STORY AND yes indeed okay?

Mass Effect 2 is a RPG WITH EVEN BETTER SHOOTER ELEMENTS WITH A GREAT STORY AND what more do you want?

There is nothing wrong.

It was not pushed out early. Bioware put their time and everything else into ME2.

I'm sick of looking at these threads just the title is wrong. I didn't even read the post. Am I the only person who watches and listens to Hudson and the great Dr.'s at Bioware and the whole team who have done perfect interviews about what excatly what Mass Effect 2 is.

Obviously people are too picky. It's Mass Effect. So what? You're not running around Noveria with everything that you miss or your dissapointed in what Bioware has done with the Mass Effect trilogy.

It's MASS EFFECT ALL THE WAY.

Questions, thoughts or just a beating with a sock filled with soap.

You decide.

[EatinMcRib]

I feel it's the opposite. It's damn obvious they poured a lot of love and polish into this game, even a little too much. As a result it allowed a bunch minor oversights to slip through. Like the DLC armor helmet brainfart, and shredder ammo giving off inexplicable green puffs of gas without it mentioning poison/radiation in it's flavor blurb. Apparently flechettes and hollowpoints are EXTRA stinky!

Modifié par EatinMcRib, 02 février 2010 - 05:31 .

[Veex]

gosensgo88 wrote...

From my posts it may seem like I don't like ME2, which would be incorrect since I'm itching to replay it as renegade but can't due to lack of time these days, but I was a little disappointed in it and felt that Bioware catered more to the people that hated the first game rather than the ones that loved it.

Which is a tricky line to walk for a developer. If you only make games for the crowd who already loves them you don't expand your market. Without making changes you're going to be secluded to the same crowd over and over because you're making no attempt at expanding your fan base. The only thing BioWare can hope for is that the new fans they've brought in with Mass Effect 2 will be more numerous than the fans they've alienated with the changes. BioWare simply can't continue to make just turn based RPGs for the rest of their tenure. The market as a whole is moving away from that style of gaming, as you can see by making the comparison of sales between Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, or even Mass Effect 2 and the original.

I don't think they'll stop making games like Dragon Age, but they're not going to make only games like Dragon Age.

[Bigeyez]

What parts of the game made you believe it was rushed out?

There was nothing there that seemed incomplete or unfinished to me. Taking out the inventory, mako, etc were design choices, not time constraints if thats what you are referring to.

Edit: Every element in the game appears at the same level of quality I'd expect from a Bioware game. I saw no unfinished sections, major glitches, or just obviously rush sections of game. Everything that was there was polished to that same quality anything else they do is.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 02 février 2010 - 05:34 .

[EatinMcRib]

Veex wrote...
I don't think they'll stop making games like Dragon Age, but they're not going to make only games like Dragon Age.

I'm still waiting for MDK 3.

[Veex]

EatinMcRib wrote...

I'm still waiting for MDK 3.

**Crosses Fingers**

Soon, very soon!

[shawn1979]

i don't know if it was pushed but here are a list of my thoughts.

The story was solid but but a little short. (played it twice already)
To few Weapons.  (Need More)
I liked the way they did armor.  (but need more options)
one of the missions needs an extra option at the end of it.

Those are my thoughts. 

i liked it but there is room for improvement.  form what i can see the game has alot of potential and if more addons come out it will just make it better.  Just my thoughts.

[Bigeyez]

shawn1979 wrote...

i don't know if it was pushed but here are a list of my thoughts.

The story was solid but but a little short. (played it twice already)
one of the missions needs an extra option at the end of it.

The main storyline runs me around 25 hours to complete now. I have 4 playthroughs on my belt so I'd say I do it pretty quickly. After a few playthroughs I got the first ME to under 10 hours...how does it seem shorter to you?

Which mission? I R CURIOUS

I wouldn't complain if they added in more weapons and armor, so nothing to say there.

[millt110]

]It fails in the character customization aspect. It's literally a direct copy paste from the first game. There are also A LOT less varities of armors/weapons.

I agree there.  The only part of the game I was disappointed with.

[gamergamergamer]

i think this game came out earlier than it should have, things like the ''mission complete'' screen, lack of exploration, lack of npcs and hardly any armor parts and character customisation make it seem like bioware was keen to get this out rather than spend a lot of time on it. that said it is by no means rushed, if you want to see what a rushed rpg looks like play kotor 2 and see how they compare. i think maybe half a year to a year more on this and it would have been the perfect game. without the need for a ****load of dlc

[TuringPoint]

It's a flawed game, but it was not pushed out as far as I can tell.  I think it's more polished.

I think they were definitely catering to the people who hated the first game.  That seems like a good assessment.  

There were a lot of things they changed that they said they'd never change, which had nothing to do with their first game.  Like, location based damage.  They also made the game more of a shooter, and part of the philosophy behind the first game was to make it as much or as little twitch-gameplay as the player desires.  

It was also a very unusual story, where the main conflict couldn't be summed up with an icon - the first game had Saren.  I loved it, thought that it was fantastic what they chose to do with the story, but it is different and in a way less satisfying.  

I think the main problem is just how different they made the two games.  It set peoples' expectations for the sequel to ME1 at a certain place, and ME2 completely ignored those expectations as set up in its predecessor.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 02 février 2010 - 06:58 .

[Solid N7]

kiyyto wrote...

KalReegar wrote...

EA has a habit of ruining good franchises. Mercenaries, Command and Conquer, to name a few.

And if the studio they assimilated fails, they get the ax. Pandemic, Bullfrog, Westwood, all got the ax when they produced games that were markedly different from the games they produced pre-EA.

I would not be surprised if EA pushed this out the door early.

Exactly.
How to define what EA does is tricky, but they are the vampires of the video game industry. It feels like everything they produce could just have easily been the next Simpsons game. (look at the game mechanics, not the dialogue or story)

What happened to C&C?
I really liked that game when it was Westwood and they released Red Alert.
How does EA so uniformly take a good product, a successful formula, and distill it until it is no more fun than skip jacks.

Well, hopefully the real guys at BioWare can get out of EA and start another company, do good work again. Mass Effect 2 was a must buy for me, based on ME.

ME3 is a rental based on ME2.

Cool story bro

[Solid N7]

FlurryJK2 wrote...

People are so ungrateful.... Cant make everyone happy sadly. It is good to make problems you have with the game known so the devs can take player feedback and build upon it, but I dont think mocking the publisher or developers will get you anywhere

This

[RetrOldSchool]

kiyyto wrote...

I see the complaints on this board and I agree with many of them, even though I find ME2 reasonably enjoyable it is so much less than I expected given the first game.

The thing that strikes me is that many of the reasons for complaint appear to be the result of a game that was pushed out the door, before it was done.

I think we all agree that BioWare has made great games and we all agree that ME2 has some great aspects to it, most notably the story, but isn’t it obvious that the cause of the problems here is a game that has simply been forced to market before it was done?

Before it was done to BioWare’s previous level of standard and design?

Does this reflect poorly on the EA BioWare merger, from the gamers point of view?

I think people are too caught up in the "Big bad EA" conspiracy theories. ME1 had a lot more technical issues, so it would be way more accurate to believe ME1 was the game that was rushed. 

I think EA still make good games, FIFA10 is the best FIFA ever, IMO Mercenaries 2 is better than Mercenaries 1. Brutal legend was a good game too. I'm sure there's a lot to dislike about EA (there's probably a lot to dislike about most of the biggest gaming companies, Activision etc) but I don't think they rushed ME2. 

ME2 is very polished compared to ME1. I can understand if some people don't agree with the changes to leveling and loot (even though ME1, a fantastic game nonetheless, didnt do neither of them very well) but that's hardly a result of pushing out the game prematurely.

Modifié par RetrOldSchool, 02 février 2010 - 07:03 .

[bulletfrank]

kiyyto wrote...

Plasma Prestige wrote...

This game is definitely not rushed, and I don't see how you could draw that conclusion. The only way you could make such a poor assumption is if you base this completely off what you think is bad, rather than what is actually bad. Such an enormous game with virtually no screen-tearing, pop-in, or framerate issues is NOT rushed. That would take months of technical editing. Mass Effect 2 is a phenomenal game, and although it may not be as hefty in some RPG aspects as the first, it is better than the first in almost every way.

You are blind.
Just because a game has no visible bugs doesn’t mean it wasn’t rushed. It means that it was bug tested.
Have you noticed how level design was minimized, to such a degree that exploration is completely dead?
These planets feel like levels, not planets.

The mini quests are a joke. They feel like 1 year ago EA said to BioWare - “We need this game out in 2010. No exceptions.”

Instead of making the Mako better and improving the side quests so the relate to the story, they threw something entirely irrelevant together, boring even, and pasted it into the holes in the story board where more development time was needed.

NPC quests are ridiculous. You actually only walk across the other side of a room to finish the quest!

The inventory system was murdered and we have a very simple system pasted in its place. This didn’t happen because it is better for the player.

Look at all the things that people complain about and you’ll see, if you’re a gamer, that you’d also like them if they were improved, not removed. Mass Effect had problems but it was cohesive. This game is not cohesive.

Finally, level complete screens?
Are you kidding me?
This game was pushed out the door.

Everything you just said was a design choice. And if it was rushed out the door, why was it bug tested? If it was rushed they would not do as much bug testing as they should. I am a gamer. I like this game. It was not rushed.

[kiyyto]

RurouniSaiya-jin wrote...

If Mass Effect 2 was rushed, it's because it was necessary. They're aiming for a trilogy with full continuity. Unfortunately, one of their target platforms has a limited lifespan so succeeding in their goal is currently a race against time. They have to wrap up the trilogy before the 360 goes the way of the dinosaur, which unfortunately probably means cutting a few corners here and there. The price of trying to do something ambitious I suppose.

Interesting thought.

[kiyyto]

bulletfrank wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

Plasma Prestige wrote...

This game is definitely not rushed, and I don't see how you could draw that conclusion. The only way you could make such a poor assumption is if you base this completely off what you think is bad, rather than what is actually bad. Such an enormous game with virtually no screen-tearing, pop-in, or framerate issues is NOT rushed. That would take months of technical editing. Mass Effect 2 is a phenomenal game, and although it may not be as hefty in some RPG aspects as the first, it is better than the first in almost every way.

You are blind.
Just because a game has no visible bugs doesn’t mean it wasn’t rushed. It means that it was bug tested.
Have you noticed how level design was minimized, to such a degree that exploration is completely dead?
These planets feel like levels, not planets.

The mini quests are a joke. They feel like 1 year ago EA said to BioWare - “We need this game out in 2010. No exceptions.”

Instead of making the Mako better and improving the side quests so the relate to the story, they threw something entirely irrelevant together, boring even, and pasted it into the holes in the story board where more development time was needed.

NPC quests are ridiculous. You actually only walk across the other side of a room to finish the quest!

The inventory system was murdered and we have a very simple system pasted in its place. This didn’t happen because it is better for the player.

Look at all the things that people complain about and you’ll see, if you’re a gamer, that you’d also like them if they were improved, not removed. Mass Effect had problems but it was cohesive. This game is not cohesive.

Finally, level complete screens?
Are you kidding me?
This game was pushed out the door.

Everything you just said was a design choice. And if it was rushed out the door, why was it bug tested? If it was rushed they would not do as much bug testing as they should. I am a gamer. I like this game. It was not rushed.

People are less likely to gripe about a bug free game that is less cohesive or with less content as they are about a cohesive game that isn’t completely bug tested.

[kiyyto]

RetrOldSchool wrote...

kiyyto wrote...

I see the complaints on this board and I agree with many of them, even though I find ME2 reasonably enjoyable it is so much less than I expected given the first game.

The thing that strikes me is that many of the reasons for complaint appear to be the result of a game that was pushed out the door, before it was done.

I think we all agree that BioWare has made great games and we all agree that ME2 has some great aspects to it, most notably the story, but isn’t it obvious that the cause of the problems here is a game that has simply been forced to market before it was done?

Before it was done to BioWare’s previous level of standard and design?

Does this reflect poorly on the EA BioWare merger, from the gamers point of view?

I think people are too caught up in the "Big bad EA" conspiracy theories. ME1 had a lot more technical issues, so it would be way more accurate to believe ME1 was the game that was rushed. 

I think EA still make good games, FIFA10 is the best FIFA ever, IMO Mercenaries 2 is better than Mercenaries 1. Brutal legend was a good game too. I'm sure there's a lot to dislike about EA (there's probably a lot to dislike about most of the biggest gaming companies, Activision etc) but I don't think they rushed ME2. 

ME2 is very polished compared to ME1. I can understand if some people don't agree with the changes to leveling and loot (even though ME1, a fantastic game nonetheless, didnt do neither of them very well) but that's hardly a result of pushing out the game prematurely.

Maybe.
Maybe not.

[Jackal904]

Out of the last 10 games I've bought, ME2 is the last game I would say was rushed. In fact I think they took there time. You cannot make a game as good as ME2 and rush it. I have no idea why you think it was rushed. Usually people try to explain their comments with logic and reason...

[HAGA NAGA]

It was totally pushed and misdeveloped in a lot of ways. i feel bad for bioware and a lot of the naive forum members who don't understand the animosity other members are presenting. however, give it some time and everyone will see this game for what it is: a good game that could have been a whole hell of a lot better and should have been.

[kiyyto]

Jackal904 wrote...

Out of the last 10 games I've bought, ME2 is the last game I would say was rushed. In fact I think they took there time. You cannot make a game as good as ME2 and rush it. I have no idea why you think it was rushed. Usually people try to explain their comments with logic and reason...

You mean, like you?

“You cannot make a game as good as ME2 and rush it.”
...

You having no idea why I think it was rushed isn’t reasoning.

[Roros5e]

As a PC user, I felt ME2 was a lot more polished than ME1, save having to edit inis to fix the mouse accel and sensitivity.



While I'm a big RPG nerd, I felt the new slimmer inventory and skill system suited the game a lot better. I don't play Mass Effect for the loot and stats, but character interaction and story. I strongly felt that especially the new inventory helped facilitate that instead of hampering it.