366 réponses à ce sujet

[Bibdy]

ZennExile wrote...

Unfortunately in the real world ME1 had a much larger fan base than ME2 has and it accomplished this with far less marketing.  Bioware would have made more money had they created a true sequel that addressed the minor conserns with the original with innovation.  They would have appealed to a much larger audience.

Here's how addition and subtraction work:

Original Fanbase = Millions
Old Mecahnics fixed = Original fanbase+ New Fanbase

New game = New Fanbase
New Fanbase = Millions
New Mechanics = New Fanbase...

Get this idea?  If they would have made ME2 a true seqel to ME1 and simply "improved" the weak mechanics in the game rather than "amputate" them, they would have had more customers and made more money by actually appealing to more people.  The approach they took resulted in New Customers at the cost of old customers instead of adding to the total?  You get it?

Original + New > New
X + Y > X

Math?  

So your supposition is that a lot of ME1 fans outright refused to buy ME2 because they THOUGHT they were going to be disappointed in the sequel? And that there were enough of them, to overcome those that Bioware enticed through the stronger advertising campaign, AND that this installment was released after the christmas holiday, as opposed to the run-up to it is not a factor?

Interesting theory on sales figures, there, but I wouldn't recommend getting a job in the marketing industry.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 février 2010 - 05:13 .

[Rilke21]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Rilke21 wrote...

Mak89 wrote...

I love how everyone feels so betrayed. They got rid of ****ty ****ty ****ty inventory, overheating, and mako. My deal is why they didn't make a new and better mako. There's no inventory with hundreds of useless and pointless items that we have to turn into omni-gel! It's not an RPG! WAAAA!!! WAAAAA!!!! WAAAA!!! There's no ammo for 2 seconds till I get more right after I kill this guy! WAAAAA!!!!!! WAAAAAA!!!! WAAAAAAA!!!! Okay, I'm done now.

Surface, this is what I was talking about

Well BW wanted to pull in the shooter crowd.  They got what they wanted.

lol. Agreed

(I actually play quite a few shooters myself, but there's definitely a shooter "type" that I wouldn't want to be associated with.)

[Aisynia]

ZennExile wrote...

The cinematic interupts are fluff and mean nothing in this context.  Availible content and the feeling that there is "no right or wrong" answer was the point.  The actual points have nothing to do with in.  In ME1 you could take renegade missions even if you were a paragon.  In ME2 you are either on the paragon path or on the renegade path.  There is no grey area.  Random meaningless triggers for a couple points of Paragon or Renegade mean nothing.  They have no meaningful effect on the experience.  None of them are more than fluff and NONE of them change the course of play.  They are simply there for free points if you want them.

Mass Effect is not just a technology the universe is based around.  It's an ideology based on the freedom of choice.  ME2 takes a massive leap away from that ideology and in effect away from the IP itself.

And I survived but my house didn't.  She started a fire in the middle of my bed and made sure to do it in the middle of the day when everyone was at work.  There was nothing left but the fridge.  I ate my cold pizza out of a blackened charred fridge surrounded by what was the rest of my life.   The real journey started when the insurance check arrived. 

I was only browsing and haven't read the thread. Sorry to hear about your house. Feel lucky and blessed that you had insurance at all. My house burned down when I was 14, and we didn't have the insurance to really do anything. Combined with only owning half our property (other half owned by an evil **** who tried to hit my mom with a 2x4 when she was pregnant with me), and well.. we spent 5 1/2 years homeless. The possessions meant nothing once it was all said and done, it was the aftermath.

Modifié par Aisynia, 17 février 2010 - 05:14 .

[FlyinElk212]

OP: I do agree with your post to some extent, but I really feel that you're really not being fair to ME2 by comparing it to the original. Now while that almost assuredly sounds illogical, here me out on this:

Mass Effect 2 has an incredible amount of disadvantages that the first game didn't have to deal with. To start, Mass Effect 2 has to live up to the first game's hype. ME1 didn't have another game in the series to set its bar--part of the first game's intrigue was how little we were prepared for ME universe. It was imaginative, mystifying, incredibly unpredictable. Experiencing the joys of this universe for the first time is something ME2 will never be able to duplicate.

Mass Effect 2 also has the distinct disadvantage to being the second chronological story of the series. While Mass Effect 1 began the tale, it had a definite storyarc that concluded nicely with Sovereigns death. It was a tale akin to Star Wars IV: A New Hope, in that it was a story that could stand on its own.

Mass Effect 2 not only has to take elements from the first story, but it has to properly set up events that occur in the THIRD story as well. This story arc-ial "sandwich" really limits the writers in terms of creativity. A more modest writing approach HAS to be taken as to not upset the overall ME trilogy's flow--it's got to make references to the first while setting up the third, something ME1 didn't have to worry about.

In ME2, I'm sure the writers wanted to accomplish a sense of "this game can stand on its own storywise" similar to their accomplishments in game 1. Therefore, the new threat that arises HAS to be defeated by the end of this game: in this case, the Collectors. Besides, would you really want a game that ends on a cliffhanger?

The storyline isn't terrible--it's just limited in what it can accomplish. So because of its story barriers, ME2 chooses to focus on other aspects--deeper character development, writing wittier dialogue, and portraying the shadier sides to the galaxy.

As for overall gameplay, how can you possibly state that ME1 has the better battle system? It's true that the typical RPG has an inventory and a ton of items, but in ME1, how many of those Phoenix armors you amassed did you use? And how many omni-gel conversions did you have to sit through to clear up inventory spaces? Was that 5% increase to shield damage really worth the the trouble of equipping, or would you rather have an ability that takes care of that and provides an even GREATER boost?

When it comes down to it, ME2 is the better system simply because it's MORE FUN TO PLAY. Did everyone seriously like the interrupts in the battle to bring up the wheel, set up your squad, and trudge through your huge list of skills that mostly accomplished the same thing anyway? In ME2, the battle pace is frantically fast, and fortunately with the new system, I can keep up with it without having to interrupt my battles all the time.

Here's where comparing ME2 to ME1 isn't fair again--ME1 gave off the FACADE of a more complex battle system due to its incredulous amount of useless items and skills, but in actuality I find the battle systems to be equally complex, just in their own different ways. While the problem in ME1 is determining which skill/gun to use in situations (Singularity, Shotgun. Done), ME2's is determining how can I place my squadmates and use everyone's skills in a successful combination to down my enemies?

Whew! Sorry for that wall of text. Hope at least one person actually decides to read it, or else I just wasted a perfect good 20 minutes/6 cookies.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Aisynia wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

The cinematic interupts are fluff and mean nothing in this context.  Availible content and the feeling that there is "no right or wrong" answer was the point.  The actual points have nothing to do with in.  In ME1 you could take renegade missions even if you were a paragon.  In ME2 you are either on the paragon path or on the renegade path.  There is no grey area.  Random meaningless triggers for a couple points of Paragon or Renegade mean nothing.  They have no meaningful effect on the experience.  None of them are more than fluff and NONE of them change the course of play.  They are simply there for free points if you want them.

Mass Effect is not just a technology the universe is based around.  It's an ideology based on the freedom of choice.  ME2 takes a massive leap away from that ideology and in effect away from the IP itself.

And I survived but my house didn't.  She started a fire in the middle of my bed and made sure to do it in the middle of the day when everyone was at work.  There was nothing left but the fridge.  I ate my cold pizza out of a blackened charred fridge surrounded by what was the rest of my life.   The real journey started when the insurance check arrived. 

I was only browsing and haven't read the thread. Sorry to hear about your house. Feel lucky and blessed that you had insurance at all. My house burned down when I was 14, and we didn't have the insurance to really do anything. Combined with only owning half our property (other half owned by an evil **** who tried to hit my mom with a 2x4 when she was pregnant with me), and well.. we spent 5 1/2 years homeless. The possessions meant nothing once it was all said and done, it was the aftermath.

Wow. If I was there I would have done a Paragon interrupt. Sorry to hear that.

[Nozybidaj]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
I think both fit the game for what they were trying to do.  ME1 was supposed to be more of an epic space opera where as ME2 is more focused on gunfire and explosions and chicks with large breasts.

I would say that ME1 set up the ME universe as well as the plot of the Reapers, while ME2 was exploring that all. You said how you didn't like how the game felt so episodic in a lot of ways, and I agree it was VERY episodic, but there is no better way to really explore the intricacies of the ME universe with all its varied locations and inhabitants than by breaking away from an overarching storyline for a few anthological excursions to really hammer the setting together.

The analogy between Star Wars and Star Trek is a fitting one in this example. Star Wars does feel a hell of a lot more "epic" than Star Trek. But Star Trek always has been a more intellectually stimulating and contextual show that really explored human relations with science and other races (and by extension, humanity's relationship with itself). It was a much more personal game.

I don't diagree with that at all.  What they actually put in the game is very good.  Its all the missing stuff that makes me rank it far below ME1 overall.

[Rilke21]

SurfaceBeneath wrote.

Every fanbase has it's.... unmentionables. Need I remind you that the Tali thread is nearly 1000 pages long?

And almost 25 thousand posts... ye gahds.

[Pocketgb]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Well BW wanted to pull in the shooter crowd.  They got what they wanted.

If they wanted to do that they would've made the "happy ending" impossible to miss. As is, someone who just wants to "bang bang bang" while completely ignoring the other elements of the game will receive a terrible end.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 février 2010 - 05:19 .

[Revan312]

Bibdy wrote...

If you take that kind of definition for an RPG, then you're going to find almost every video game in existence counts as an RPG. That's a very broad generalisation.

Its obvious that by RPG people mean the traditional RPG, of say, the last 40 years they've been developed (in table-top format and video game format).

You play a dude. You get to customise that dude in appearance and in history/career (character class). Your dude advances in power as the game progresses. You get to make choices which affect the world.

In that sense ME1 and 2 fit the bill, in my opinion. Inventory and character stats management is just fluff to appease the math-nerds (who are, let's face it, the creators of such games). Don't get me wrong, I've got a degree in Physics/Electronics, so I'm not taking any moral highground against math-nuts. I'm all for theorycrafting and the tetris-esque inventory minigame every now and then, but I don't think it has to be absolutely integral to the RPG experience.

ME2 was a very welcome break from that fluff and gave me a very enjoyable pick-your-own-blockbuster-movie experience. It was fantastic.

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of stat based gameplay or an inventory that's a mile long.  Personally I just think the game was as shallow as a cup of soup. It has zero meaning within the universe or trilogy.  All it amounted to, story wise, was a half baked explenation about how reapers are made..... that's it...something I didn't care about in the first place.  I'm not sure why they couldn't leave that sort of ambiguous, ya know, leave something a mystery.  Instead we get mega super terminator with laser breath that can't shoot through a halfwall and dies to pistol fire...

Customization was reduced to decking shep out in superficial (stat wise) armor and deciding whether or not you want that one ability to be aoe or hvy damage.  Character progression was about as complex as "hey...ya know you should be good" or "give in and be a bad guy" both on loyalty missions and shep him/herself.  Exploration was the most boring thing I've ever done, I would literally rather play mine sweeper etc.

I don't miss any of the elements removed from ME1, it's just that their replacements are laughable.  Each bit of customization seems like a good idea, it's just that theres soooo little of it.  I mean there's 3 patterns for armor, why even have it if it's so few?  The fishtank, the model ships, the emails and even the loyalty squadmate outfit recolors are just redundent.  For as much programming that went into thiings like that, even armor parts, they seem pointless, really, how long has anyone looked at the fishtank or annalyzed the crappy model ships.  I would have rather they expanded on the story, fleshed out characters or added more dialogue, anything that would have immersed the player more rather than giving me what amounts to glimpses of cool additions that never seem even halfway realized.

I really think that releasing DA:O right before ME2 was a bad idea, they should have reversed the order.  DA:O was an actual rpg, had an actual dynamic cast and likable characters and had enough gameplay to keep a person satisfied.  Barely 30 hours compared to 80 seemed like a joke.  It feels like I had more dialogue with three of the DA:O team mates than I did with ALL of the ME2 squadies.  After DA:O I got really jazzed for ME2 and was expecting something on that same level, instead I got a watered down Gears of War combat system and a role playing experience akin to a semi interactive movie.  I'll be careful not to feed into the hype machine next game as I have yet to do the final mission in this one for the second time. Really not worth my 60 bucks imo...

[Nozybidaj]

Rilke21 wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote.

Every fanbase has it's.... unmentionables. Need I remind you that the Tali thread is nearly 1000 pages long?

And almost 25 thousand posts... ye gahds.

Hard to call most of that actual posts though.   There is probably only about 15 pages of actual topic discussion, the rest is pictures, youtube vids, and lots of "bumping this".

[Nozybidaj]

Revan312 wrote...

I really think that releasing DA:O right before ME2 was a bad idea, they should have reversed the order.  DA:O was an actual rpg, had an actual dynamic cast and likable characters and had enough gameplay to keep a person satisfied.  Barely 30 hours compared to 80 seemed like a joke.  It feels like I had more dialogue with three of the DA:O team mates than I did with ALL of the ME2 squadies.  After DA:O I got really jazzed for ME2 and was expecting something on that same level, instead I got a watered down Gears of War combat system and a role playing experience akin to a semi interactive movie. 

I agree, ME2 characters and interactions would have at least seemed much deeper if it hadn't come on the heels of DA:O.  As far as depth of characters and their ability to interact with the world and the player DA:O is in an entirely different league than ME2.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nozybidaj wrote...
I don't diagree with that at all.  What they actually put in the game is very good.  Its all the missing stuff that makes me rank it far below ME1 overall.

You know enough about my posts that I obviously wasn't "expecting" the same things in ME2 that you were I think, so I doubt there's any more to say than that. Certainly there wasn't anything missing that effected my overall opinion of the game.

Curiously, I'd love to see what people on this forum's opinions are of the stories of KOTOR vs KOTOR 2. I think you'd get a lot of the same divide among those two games as you would ME1 and ME2.

[ZennExile]

Bibdy wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

Unfortunately in the real world ME1 had a much larger fan base than ME2 has and it accomplished this with far less marketing.  Bioware would have made more money had they created a true sequel that addressed the minor conserns with the original with innovation.  They would have appealed to a much larger audience.

Here's how addition and subtraction work:

Original Fanbase = Millions
Old Mecahnics fixed = Original fanbase+ New Fanbase

New game = New Fanbase
New Fanbase = Millions
New Mechanics = New Fanbase...

Get this idea?  If they would have made ME2 a true seqel to ME1 and simply "improved" the weak mechanics in the game rather than "amputate" them, they would have had more customers and made more money by actually appealing to more people.  The approach they took resulted in New Customers at the cost of old customers instead of adding to the total?  You get it?

Original + New > New
X + Y > X

Math?  

So your supposition is that a lot of ME1 fans outright refused to buy ME2 because they THOUGHT they were going to be disappointed in the sequel? And that there were enough of them, to overcome those that Bioware enticed through the stronger advertising campaign, AND that this installment was released after the christmas holiday, as opposed to the run-up to it is not a factor?

Interesting theory on sales figures, there, but I wouldn't recommend getting a job in the marketing industry.

Oppertunity cost isn't a new concept.  To appeal to the shooter croud Bioware had to create a shooter experience.  But that new shooter experience was brought about at the cost of depth in the RPG elements.  ME1 is an RPG.  It has some shooter in it but just barely.  The most purely shooter element in ME1 was the Mako, but somehow even that was stripped from the experience.

The cost for making ME2 more like a shooter and less like an RPG was a loss of RPG fanbase.  Since there was a larger RPG fanbase for ME1 than there is currently for ME2 you can also assume that a large portion of that original audience didn't make the mistake I did.  And now unlike ME1, ME2 is being refered "ONLY" to shooter fans.   Remember ME1 grew based on word of mouth.  It was successful because so many people liked it.  ME2 sales are mainly based on an extremely agreesive marketing and targeted at players who prefer shooters.  Those original RPG fans aren't going to play it and tell their friends how great an RPG it was.  So that growth potential is calculated into loss.

It's really quite simple.  ME2 appeals to a "New" market instead of trying to expand on the "Original".  And since it has obviously not been as successful as the first was, you can see an overall loss of possible income as a result.  10 years ago when gamers weren't forum addicts and any game that spent a few million on marketing would sell 2 million copies this tactic might have been valid.  But now you can't market one thing and put another in the box.  Communication is faster than distribution.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Revan312 wrote...

Bibdy wrote...

If you take that kind of definition for an RPG, then you're going to find almost every video game in existence counts as an RPG. That's a very broad generalisation.

Its obvious that by RPG people mean the traditional RPG, of say, the last 40 years they've been developed (in table-top format and video game format).

You play a dude. You get to customise that dude in appearance and in history/career (character class). Your dude advances in power as the game progresses. You get to make choices which affect the world.

In that sense ME1 and 2 fit the bill, in my opinion. Inventory and character stats management is just fluff to appease the math-nerds (who are, let's face it, the creators of such games). Don't get me wrong, I've got a degree in Physics/Electronics, so I'm not taking any moral highground against math-nuts. I'm all for theorycrafting and the tetris-esque inventory minigame every now and then, but I don't think it has to be absolutely integral to the RPG experience.

ME2 was a very welcome break from that fluff and gave me a very enjoyable pick-your-own-blockbuster-movie experience. It was fantastic.

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of stat based gameplay or an inventory that's a mile long.  Personally I just think the game was as shallow as a cup of soup. It has zero meaning within the universe or trilogy.  All it amounted to, story wise, was a half baked explenation about how reapers are made..... that's it...something I didn't care about in the first place.  I'm not sure why they couldn't leave that sort of ambiguous, ya know, leave something a mystery.  Instead we get mega super terminator with laser breath that can't shoot through a halfwall and dies to pistol fire...

Customization was reduced to decking shep out in superficial (stat wise) armor and deciding whether or not you want that one ability to be aoe or hvy damage.  Character progression was about as complex as "hey...ya know you should be good" or "give in and be a bad guy" both on loyalty missions and shep him/herself.  Exploration was the most boring thing I've ever done, I would literally rather play mine sweeper etc.

I don't miss any of the elements removed from ME1, it's just that their replacements are laughable.  Each bit of customization seems like a good idea, it's just that theres soooo little of it.  I mean there's 3 patterns for armor, why even have it if it's so few?  The fishtank, the model ships, the emails and even the loyalty squadmate outfit recolors are just redundent.  For as much programming that went into thiings like that, even armor parts, they seem pointless, really, how long has anyone looked at the fishtank or annalyzed the crappy model ships.  I would have rather they expanded on the story, fleshed out characters or added more dialogue, anything that would have immersed the player more rather than giving me what amounts to glimpses of cool additions that never seem even halfway realized.

I really think that releasing DA:O right before ME2 was a bad idea, they should have reversed the order.  DA:O was an actual rpg, had an actual dynamic cast and likable characters and had enough gameplay to keep a person satisfied.  Barely 30 hours compared to 80 seemed like a joke.  It feels like I had more dialogue with three of the DA:O team mates than I did with ALL of the ME2 squadies.  After DA:O I got really jazzed for ME2 and was expecting something on that same level, instead I got a watered down Gears of War combat system and a role playing experience akin to a semi interactive movie.  I'll be careful not to feed into the hype machine next game as I have yet to do the final mission in this one for the second time. Really not worth my 60 bucks imo...

[Nozybidaj]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
I don't diagree with that at all.  What they actually put in the game is very good.  Its all the missing stuff that makes me rank it far below ME1 overall.

You know enough about my posts that I obviously wasn't "expecting" the same things in ME2 that you were I think, so I doubt there's any more to say than that. Certainly there wasn't anything missing that effected my overall opinion of the game.

Curiously, I'd love to see what people on this forum's opinions are of the stories of KOTOR vs KOTOR 2. I think you'd get a lot of the same divide among those two games as you would ME1 and ME2.

Wasn't KOTOR 2 done by a different development house though?

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nozybidaj wrote...
I agree, ME2 characters and interactions would have at least seemed much deeper if it hadn't come on the heels of DA:O.  As far as depth of characters and their ability to interact with the world and the player DA:O is in an entirely different league than ME2.

As much as I do love the characters in ME2.... DA:O did party interaction undeniably better. By leagues. I think the loyalty missions made Shepard feel really close to each team mate, however when it comes to team mates interactions with each other, ME2 felt like each squaddie was its own island that had nothing to do with one another. In a lot of the ways, while each squad member of ME2 was a very deep and complex individual, as a squad it all just felt very shallow.

I hope ME3 actually makes the squad feel like a cohesive unit with the relationships between NPCs explored.

[ZennExile]

Aisynia wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

The cinematic interupts are fluff and mean nothing in this context.  Availible content and the feeling that there is "no right or wrong" answer was the point.  The actual points have nothing to do with in.  In ME1 you could take renegade missions even if you were a paragon.  In ME2 you are either on the paragon path or on the renegade path.  There is no grey area.  Random meaningless triggers for a couple points of Paragon or Renegade mean nothing.  They have no meaningful effect on the experience.  None of them are more than fluff and NONE of them change the course of play.  They are simply there for free points if you want them.

Mass Effect is not just a technology the universe is based around.  It's an ideology based on the freedom of choice.  ME2 takes a massive leap away from that ideology and in effect away from the IP itself.

And I survived but my house didn't.  She started a fire in the middle of my bed and made sure to do it in the middle of the day when everyone was at work.  There was nothing left but the fridge.  I ate my cold pizza out of a blackened charred fridge surrounded by what was the rest of my life.   The real journey started when the insurance check arrived. 

I was only browsing and haven't read the thread. Sorry to hear about your house. Feel lucky and blessed that you had insurance at all. My house burned down when I was 14, and we didn't have the insurance to really do anything. Combined with only owning half our property (other half owned by an evil **** who tried to hit my mom with a 2x4 when she was pregnant with me), and well.. we spent 5 1/2 years homeless. The possessions meant nothing once it was all said and done, it was the aftermath.

You know all I can really remember about that day was how good that cold pizza was.  Thanks though

[SurfaceBeneath]

Nozybidaj wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
I don't diagree with that at all.  What they actually put in the game is very good.  Its all the missing stuff that makes me rank it far below ME1 overall.

You know enough about my posts that I obviously wasn't "expecting" the same things in ME2 that you were I think, so I doubt there's any more to say than that. Certainly there wasn't anything missing that effected my overall opinion of the game.

Curiously, I'd love to see what people on this forum's opinions are of the stories of KOTOR vs KOTOR 2. I think you'd get a lot of the same divide among those two games as you would ME1 and ME2.

Wasn't KOTOR 2 done by a different development house though?

It was done by Obsidian (formerly Black Isle), yes. However it was actually very similar in that KOTOR had a much more grand epic story with a clear antagonist figure while KOTOR 2 was a more personal, ambiguous, and explored the nature of the Force and Jedi in much more grey terms than we'd ever seen before. Unfortunate that Lucas forced KOTOR 2 out of the doors before it was done.

Reportedly George Lucas hates KOTOR 2. Which instantly scores it a few points with me.

[BobbyTheI]

Gaudion wrote...
Calling yourself a "true fan" while the rest of us are, I assume, beer-ponging frat boys who only stop to play video games between courting slam pieces at the weekend social bar crawls was not exactly the best way to end this either.

Came in to say something similar, and yeah, this attitude really annoys the hell out of me.  With that said, the manifesto of the Untrue Fan:

I apologize that I actually enjoyed this game.  I'm sorry that I'm obviously not a "true fan" because I didn't choose to spend weeks after its release complaining about everything they left out, and how it makes the game completely botched and unplayable.  

Obviously, even though I've been playing BioWare games since the original Baldur's Gate, I don't know a thing about what makes a good RPG, and so my enjoyment of this game just proves how completely dumb I am.  I'm just a Halo-loving, Gears-of-War adoring fanboy (even though I found both games tedious and never bothered to finish them) because I prefer a game that doesn't feature 1000 possible inventory items, 950 of which I will never even use.

I'm sorry that, even though I agree with about 99% of all professional game reviewers, I am totally misguided, and have lost sight of what makes a truly good game.  Because as we all know, game reviewers don't know a thing about what makes a game fun, unless they actually give a middling review of the game, in which case we must enshrine them as if they were prophets.

I'm sorry that I actually trust BioWare, a company whose games I have consistently enjoyed (although Jade Empire was a bit of a chore, but now I digress), and don't have an image in my mind of a bunch of sinister, cackling villains, just waiting for the chance to go, "Hey, I know what let's do!  Let's make a game that every single one of our 'true fans' will completely hate!  We'll strip out everything they love just because we HATE our fans so much, and fill it up with mindless shooting action!  Man, do I hate those people!"

For all these sins against true fandom, I apologize.  I pledge to continue playing Mass Effect 2 until such a time as I've found enough things to hate about it that I become a true fan again.  Or until Mass Effect 3 comes out and I lap it up like the mindless fanboy I am, whichever comes first.

[Nozybidaj]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
I agree, ME2 characters and interactions would have at least seemed much deeper if it hadn't come on the heels of DA:O.  As far as depth of characters and their ability to interact with the world and the player DA:O is in an entirely different league than ME2.

As much as I do love the characters in ME2.... DA:O did party interaction undeniably better. By leagues. I think the loyalty missions made Shepard feel really close to each team mate, however when it comes to team mates interactions with each other, ME2 felt like each squaddie was its own island that had nothing to do with one another. In a lot of the ways, while each squad member of ME2 was a very deep and complex individual, as a squad it all just felt very shallow.

I hope ME3 actually makes the squad feel like a cohesive unit with the relationships between NPCs explored.

Meh, the characters overall in ME2 didn't feel any deeper than the ME1 characters.  The format for interaction was exactly the same pretty much as ME1 with a tacked on loyalty mission (though I thought that were done acceptably well).

The DA:O characters though I felt had much more story and depth.  Hearing Leliana sing to the group, listening to Morrigan tell tales of her mother, watching Oghren tell jokes and fall over drunk.  They felt much more like real people, more distinct personalities and richer stories.  I don't really think you can compare character depth between ME and DA (yes even for the characters I do like).

[Rilke21]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

OP: I do agree with your post to some extent, but I really feel that you're really not being fair to ME2 by comparing it to the original. Now while that almost assuredly sounds illogical, here me out on this:
Mass Effect 2 has an incredible amount of disadvantages that the first game didn't have to deal with. To start, Mass Effect 2 has to live up to the first game's hype. ME1 didn't have another game in the series to set its bar--part of the first game's intrigue was how little we were prepared for ME universe. It was imaginative, mystifying, incredibly unpredictable. Experiencing the joys of this universe for the first time is something ME2 will never be able to duplicate.
Mass Effect 2 also has the distinct disadvantage to being the second chronological story of the series. While Mass Effect 1 began the tale, it had a definite storyarc that concluded nicely with Sovereigns death. It was a tale akin to Star Wars IV: A New Hope, in that it was a story that could stand on its own.
Mass Effect 2 not only has to take elements from the first story, but it has to properly set up events that occur in the THIRD story as well. This story arc-ial "sandwich" really limits the writers in terms of creativity. A more modest writing approach HAS to be taken as to not upset the overall ME trilogy's flow--it's got to make references to the first while setting up the third, something ME1 didn't have to worry about.
In ME2, I'm sure the writers wanted to accomplish a sense of "this game can stand on its own storywise" similar to their accomplishments in game 1. Therefore, the new threat that arises HAS to be defeated by the end of this game: in this case, the Collectors. Besides, would you really want a game that ends on a cliffhanger?
The storyline isn't terrible--it's just limited in what it can accomplish. So because of its story barriers, ME2 chooses to focus on other aspects--deeper character development, writing wittier dialogue, and portraying the shadier sides to the galaxy.
As for overall gameplay, how can you possibly state that ME1 has the better battle system? It's true that the typical RPG has an inventory and a ton of items, but in ME1, how many of those Phoenix armors you amassed did you use? And how many omni-gel conversions did you have to sit through to clear up inventory spaces? Was that 5% increase to shield damage really worth the the trouble of equipping, or would you rather have an ability that takes care of that and provides an even GREATER boost?
When it comes down to it, ME2 is the better system simply because it's MORE FUN TO PLAY. Did everyone seriously like the interrupts in the battle to bring up the wheel, set up your squad, and trudge through your huge list of skills that mostly accomplished the same thing anyway? In ME2, the battle pace is frantically fast, and fortunately with the new system, I can keep up with it without having to interrupt my battles all the time.
Here's where comparing ME2 to ME1 isn't fair again--ME1 gave off the FACADE of a more complex battle system due to its incredulous amount of useless items and skills, but in actuality I find the battle systems to be equally complex, just in their own different ways. While the problem in ME1 is determining which skill/gun to use in situations (Singularity, Shotgun. Done), ME2's is determining how can I place my squadmates and use everyone's skills in a successful combination to down my enemies?
Whew! Sorry for that wall of text. Hope at least one person actually decides to read it, or else I just wasted a perfect good 20 minutes/6 cookies.

Great post Flyin, and thanks for taking the time to write it.

Believe it or not, after playing through ME2 a second time, I agree with almost everything you've said! But I can't let the weak story go...espically since there WERE some brilliant writing moments in ME2 that simply weren't expanded on.

Nobody bit on this suggestion the first time I made it, but what if the story of ME2 had focused on the Geth/Quarian conflict and eliminated the Collectors and the Governator Reaper entirely? In my opinion, Legion was the only excellent character in ME2, and the plot twist he threw in was the only interesting addition to the Mass Effect universe. I can imagine a far more compelling story (not to mention far more relevant Paragon/Renegade choices) in a game that focused on the Geth.

Thoughts? (Maybe this calls for a new post...)

[Dracotamer]

I completely agree with OP.

[Bibdy]

ZennExile wrote...

Oppertunity cost isn't a new concept.  To appeal to the shooter croud Bioware had to create a shooter experience.  But that new shooter experience was brought about at the cost of depth in the RPG elements.  ME1 is an RPG.  It has some shooter in it but just barely.  The most purely shooter element in ME1 was the Mako, but somehow even that was stripped from the experience.

The cost for making ME2 more like a shooter and less like an RPG was a loss of RPG fanbase.  Since there was a larger RPG fanbase for ME1 than there is currently for ME2 you can also assume that a large portion of that original audience didn't make the mistake I did.  And now unlike ME1, ME2 is being refered "ONLY" to shooter fans.   Remember ME1 grew based on word of mouth.  It was successful because so many people liked it.  ME2 sales are mainly based on an extremely agreesive marketing and targeted at players who prefer shooters.  Those original RPG fans aren't going to play it and tell their friends how great an RPG it was.  So that growth potential is calculated into loss.

It's really quite simple.  ME2 appeals to a "New" market instead of trying to expand on the "Original".  And since it has obviously not been as successful as the first was, you can see an overall loss of possible income as a result.  10 years ago when gamers weren't forum addicts and any game that spent a few million on marketing would sell 2 million copies this tactic might have been valid.  But now you can't market one thing and put another in the box.  Communication is faster than distribution.

And I suppose you think it wouldn't have made a ton more sales, had it actually been released on the 20th of November, in the run-up to Christmas, like ME1 did? Or that it being an actual sequel itself having nothing to do with it?

History dictates that sequels sell worse than their predecessors. It also dictates that releasing a game in January is best avoided. You'd make more sales by avoiding doing some polish and getting it out the door a few weeks before Christmas.

I think the evidence is there that they tried to, what with all the cut content and lack of depth, but still couldn't get it out the door by Christmas.

ME1 only sold 1.6 million copies after 2 months. For a sequel to sell 0.6 million in the first month, and be released in January, that's pretty remarkable.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 février 2010 - 05:42 .

[Revan312]

BobbyTheI wrote...

Came in to say something similar, and yeah, this attitude really annoys the hell out of me.  With that said, the manifesto of the Untrue Fan:

I apologize that I actually enjoyed this game.  I'm sorry that I'm obviously not a "true fan" because I didn't choose to spend weeks after its release complaining about everything they left out, and how it makes the game completely botched and unplayable.  

Obviously, even though I've been playing BioWare games since the original Baldur's Gate, I don't know a thing about what makes a good RPG, and so my enjoyment of this game just proves how completely dumb I am.  I'm just a Halo-loving, Gears-of-War adoring fanboy (even though I found both games tedious and never bothered to finish them) because I prefer a game that doesn't feature 1000 possible inventory items, 950 of which I will never even use.

I'm sorry that, even though I agree with about 99% of all professional game reviewers, I am totally misguided, and have lost sight of what makes a truly good game.  Because as we all know, game reviewers don't know a thing about what makes a game fun, unless they actually give a middling review of the game, in which case we must enshrine them as if they were prophets.

I'm sorry that I actually trust BioWare, a company whose games I have consistently enjoyed (although Jade Empire was a bit of a chore, but now I digress), and don't have an image in my mind of a bunch of sinister, cackling villains, just waiting for the chance to go, "Hey, I know what let's do!  Let's make a game that every single one of our 'true fans' will completely hate!  We'll strip out everything they love just because we HATE our fans so much, and fill it up with mindless shooting action!  Man, do I hate those people!"

For all these sins against true fandom, I apologize.  I pledge to continue playing Mass Effect 2 until such a time as I've found enough things to hate about it that I become a true fan again.  Or until Mass Effect 3 comes out and I lap it up like the mindless fanboy I am, whichever comes first.

I smell an



1.) try and read a bit further into the thread, this has been apologized for by Rilke already.

2.)Next time I dare you to try and act MORE butthurt, I could almost feel the tears hitting the keyboard...

Modifié par Revan312, 17 février 2010 - 05:50 .

[Mak89]

Rilke21 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

Rilke21 wrote...

Mak89 wrote...

I love how everyone feels so betrayed. They got rid of ****ty ****ty ****ty inventory, overheating, and mako. My deal is why they didn't make a new and better mako. There's no inventory with hundreds of useless and pointless items that we have to turn into omni-gel! It's not an RPG! WAAAA!!! WAAAAA!!!! WAAAA!!! There's no ammo for 2 seconds till I get more right after I kill this guy! WAAAAA!!!!!! WAAAAAA!!!! WAAAAAAA!!!! Okay, I'm done now.

Surface, this is what I was talking about

Well BW wanted to pull in the shooter crowd.  They got what they wanted.

lol. Agreed

(I actually play quite a few shooters myself, but there's definitely a shooter "type" that I wouldn't want to be associated with.)

So because I like this game and don't care whether it is called a RPG or not and that it lacks some RPG aspects of the first you automatically assume I'm a dumb shooter fan? Way to jump to conclusions ass clown. Am I possibly bitter that this game has been marketed to dumb shooter fans? Yeah, a little, but I like this game and recognize the flaws and the greatness of both games.