366 réponses à ce sujet

[Pauravi]

The second you said that half the depth and fun in an RPG went out with the inventory system, you lost me.

The new inventory system is simultaneously less cumbersome and more realistic (you can't carry around 48 assault rifles), and although the weapons are fewer they are also more distinct from each other. The weapons in ME1 were IDENTICAL (even usually in form) except for the numbers, and strategic "inventory management" amounted to nothing more than doing some simple math to figure out what weapon/ammo did the most damage for what you were fighting. In ME2 the weapons handle very differently, and you could conceivably have a favorite that didn't have the best DPS just by preference.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, and a lot of people agree with that sentiment, I just happen to think that it is completely wrong, and that the "real fans" you describe are completely missing the point of what makes an RPG compelling and interesting. I have been playing Bioware games since before they were Bioware -- I still have my original set of BG1 CD's. Over the years they have learned a lot about what people like, and don't like, in their RPGs, and ME2 is one of the best expressions of that expertise to date.

[Sageless Ranger]

 This be OP

[Peregrinus842]

TOTALLY AGREED AND i think they took the RPG out of ME2 and now all it is is action
There is no real reason to explore or to open crates or anything it is bla
Theysaid more customization which realy ment one ****g outfit with different colors WOW
There is no reason to get new gear because there isn;t any and they make it clear to me they neglected the RPG community. The loyalty outfits are lame different colors and textures for what they still look  the same.

ME1 What does everyone remember?
For me it is how epic me Garris,and wrex look like in high end gear Beserker X FTW
But understand the RPG side of you action fellas that for us we are getting another ****g Halo

Modifié par Peregrinus842, 05 février 2010 - 08:49 .

[Pauravi]

Peregrinus842 wrote...
ME1 What does everyone remember?
For me it is how epic me Garris,and wrex look like in high end gear Beserker X FTW

See, and this is why I think all the "OMG WTF ITS NOT AN RPG ANYMOAR" people miss the point.

Of everything that happened in ME1, your favorite part was showing off your nifty armor?  Not Wrex's wisecracks or his stories about past battles, or the chill you got when you first talked to Sovereign, or the sadness of having to choose which of your friends was going to get killed?

Instead you liked opening boxes and sifting through scores of items so that you could carry around 27 suits of armor, play paper-dollie dress-up, and feel good about having a gun and armor with the biggest numbers under them.

I dunno.  Having a cool-looking character is nice, but it ISN'T what makes a game compelling or good.  ME2 has great characters, great dialogue, and real moral dilemmas, and all those things make the game far more interesting, and far more dedicated to ROLE-PLAYING than it would if it had people spending hours calculating which weapon gives the best DPS and which stats are the most optimal.

[Rilke21]

Shady314 wrote...
Because if you pay attention "loyalty" is really the wrong word to use. It should have been called focus.

Oh come on. If you were going to your death, how unfocused would you be?

[Comguard2]

ME2 is even more of an RPG than ME1 was.



More interaction with the characters, more influence of the player on the story, more in-deepth characters, and a RPG-like combat system (resistances).



People forget that the main game in ME1 was surprisingly short, but you didn`t realize it because of the side quests and the time consuming planet exploration.

[MajFauxPas]

To the OP: well put. You said two very important things about what ME1 was and ME2 could have been:

Tactical, which reminds me of games in which it pays to be sneaky, and a good shot with quick reflexes and a sense of where things are on the battlefield... which was very ME1 but not at all ME2. This is because in ME2:
- Radar is not as informative,
- Map is usually disabled in combat,
- No sneaking into cover before opening fire, you're always shot at first in ME2 and forced into whatever cover the game gives you,
- Player Point Of View is too narrow of an angle, giving unrealistic feelings of tunnel vision and cramped spaces;
- Aiming doesn't help, you either hit or miss based on whether the target is in cover or not. But, aiming doesn't matter anyway because all the combat is insanely up close and personal. Again, you either hit or miss no matter how well you aim your weapon.
- Enemies are just too hard to kill. Five clips into someone's armor and he's still coming at me is not my idea of fun in an FPS.

FPS are not usually tactical, they are usually pray-and-spray with some objectives thrown in for replay-ability, especially for online matches. But there are some fantastic FPS games which have a tactical side allowing for more realistic squad based combat in various settings. You could say that a single player version of such a game would be a waste of time, but not if there's a story to tell. ME2 has a story....

Second, Diablo II items... God that game was fun, all because of the items.
I really miss my ME1 "+7 Incendiary Assault Rifle of Accuracy"... instead I get "little pistol with not enough ammo" or "big pistol which makes everyone scream in terror." Where'd the cool items go?
As a side note, in ME1 I noticed a slight damage and rate of fire bonus when my assault rifles were equipped with incendiary rounds, but could never confirm it. A hidden item combination bonus? So cool. Alas, that thought of potential... any potential of ME2 fulfilling or exceeding my expectations has been dashed, never mind the original fun itself having been taken away.

I'd like to say I'm not condemning ME2 or the developers at all, I'm just being critical due to my love for ME1.
Kudos OP.

Modifié par MajFauxPas, 05 février 2010 - 10:27 .

[Rilke21]

Pauravi wrote...

The second you said that half the depth and fun in an RPG went out with the inventory system, you lost me.

It's not the inventory itself I was equating with fun. Getting rid of the inventory is a symptom of the real problem with the game: a general lack of depth.

[DeathCultArm]

The game was good, but not what it could have been. With the high sales, and acclaim it seems they did what they set out to do. But there was just to many faults, and omissions. Getting rid of aspects that could have easily been fixed. To much focus on shooting, and not roleplaying. Makien "cool" charaters, while making the main story little more than a "recurit soliders, to kill big bad guy" mission.



It just seems every part that made ME1 so great was broken down in way one, shape or form, There really wasn't one true improvement, just revisions. The choices from ME1 had very little impact, while combat, inventory, exploring, stoy-telling, everything seems to take a step back to make it mroe accessiable for new comers.



It was a good game, but it doesn't compare to the first, and and 9. whatever ratings are baffling.

[Daveastation]

Mass Effect Episode 2: Attack of the Fanbois.

[Rilke21]

Daveastation wrote...

Mass Effect Episode 2: Attack of the Fanbois.

I wish I could disagree.

From what I've read, it seems like the people who are disappointed by Mass Effect 2 are also the ones who were moved the most by Mass Effect. We might be in the minority, but I'd say this is pretty telling.

[Rilke21]

Comguard2 wrote...

ME2 is even more of an RPG than ME1 was.

More interaction with the characters, more influence of the player on the story, more in-deepth characters, and a RPG-like combat system (resistances).

People forget that the main game in ME1 was surprisingly short, but you didn`t realize it because of the side quests and the time consuming planet exploration.

hum. There were definitely more characters, so I suppose that means there was also more interaction with characters. And since the entire story was based on optional find-this-character quests, you technically did have more influence on the story. Two resistances is also quite rpg-like. (?)

The main story of the first Mass Effect was quite short (about 10-15 hours if you didn't stop for coffee.) The main story of Mass Effect 2 spans three missions, each of which can be completed in half an hour. You do the math.

Modifié par Rilke21, 07 février 2010 - 07:07 .

[Vince986]

Loyalty vs Focus vs ?: Having a gun pointed at you WILL focus your attention - that's from personal experience.  Loyalty implies there's another option - your on a suicide mission - what other option would that be? Wait in the ship for the collectors to come get you?  - Trust on the other hand is earned over time and lost in an instant.    In any case, Tali & Garrus should done before you even find them.  And one mission doesn't seem like enough to build trust on.   But then every game has a budget and a timeline so .....

Some of the characters were interesting and I'm pretty sure if you ask any 10 of us, you'll get 10 different lists of "my top 3 team mates".  That's probably a good thing.  Some loyalty missions where better than others (no surprise). But they pretty much all felt contrived and very isolated.

For the most part the Dialog was much better - that has a downside - it's good so you want more, and you start to notice that you've run though it pretty quickly. 

Character choice carry over - well I'll give you one option that should have been there but wasn't.   I saved the council, and had maxed paragon - yet the obvious choice to me - "Hey thanks for the resurrection but take your cigarettes and go screw yourself.  I'll get the the council to back me"  Never appeared.  Even an Idiot politician can see that the cost of outfitting one specter (especially since the alliance would be footing the bill) is cheap insurance.   Which opens the question of how much does Cerberus interfere and try to get control, without making things worse (budget again?).

Once I got far enough along with Liara it proved sort of satisfactory - a second character with Ash - not so much.  But the big decisions seem to have fairly minor consequence - that could still change in ME3.

Inventory - Ok I admit it, I like having more options on appearance (I've no idea why since I actually have those options in real life and don't chose to exercise them).   Weapons - well the real issue here for me was a lack of metrics - the game gives you no real indication of relative advantage.   The thing with weapons - well any gear is that there needs to be some sort of recognizable tradeoff  cost vs performance vs cool factor, and again with out metrics you're never really sure what that tradeoff is.   The only weapon I ever "selected" was the heavy.  In ME1 I often opted for a lower damage and higher accuracy weapon - although the metrics that were available were vague (I'm not sure that accuracy number really did anything - I just took it on faith).   It sure simplified inventory, I'm just not sure it simplified it in a useful way.   On the other hand, I don't miss the omni-gel / sell business, and I sure don't miss the equipment lockers.

Economy - neither game had a viable economy.  I suspect that's because it's very hard to do, and in a single player universe there's not much incentive.  Where ME2 failed is that you don't know enough to make intelligent choices about how upgrades work until you've gone though the game at least once (maybe twice). 

Combat - I have, with 1.5 plays found this to be an improvement.   Although I agree with a lot of the previous comments - the team AI needs work.   I typically play a soldier, and am only now trying an infiltrator - I'm afraid I'm still treating him as a soldier though

I like RPG's,  and a few FPS's - while I don't feel ripped off with ME2, I was disappointed - mostly stemming from paradigm shifts when I expected evolution - taken on it's own, I think ME2 is closer to right in mechanics but still has a way to go.   What it most resembles is an interactive movie rather than any standard genre of game - and as a movie it was pretty transparent, fragmented, and formulaic.  There was never any doubt about where you were gong, or how you'd get there.  The only surprises for me were the opening scene (as I avoided any and all info about the game except release date) Garrus, Ash, Tali, Liara, the foundation of the Collectors and the Geth. 

[Cowboxe]

I too was rather disappointed in a number of things/changes that Bioware had made to ME2. But I also enjoyed the game quite thoroughly.

Im conflicted on how I feel about the game in an overall sense. The are very few things I hate, a couple of things annoy me, a lot of things I like, and a select amount of things I absolutely love. It runs the whole gamut.

One thing I am definitely, 100% behind is the scope of the material. 

[Targonis1]

The real downside for me in ME2 is the areas are far too linear, with almost zero complexity to it. Aside from a ROOM here and there, you can ONLY go in one direction, and there is pretty much only one path to get to your objective. That to me is a real negative, and the way the path behind you is always closed the moment you go through certain doors is also a bit weak since it makes each new section of an area too self-enclosed and makes everything feel smaller. Why close off the way behind the player, just for those who might get lost in a large map?



The inventory system, or lack of it does make sense, but as others have pointed out, there really isn't much variety in what you can pick up in ME2. What there is is very different from each other when it comes to weapons and armor, but there were a LOT of different brand names in ME1 for items. I suppose most of them were useless, so could have been trimmed, but it DID feel more like there were MANY different, competing companies out there making weapons and armor.

[Popcorn Avenger]

I also think of myself as part of that "old cadre" of Bioware fans and agree a great deal with the OP. I loved ME-1, and while I like ME-2, I do think their approach of "Less is More" turned what could have been a great game into simply a good game. Lack of inventory, lack of items, inability to control what items your squadmates are wearing and wielding, reducing the character levels a stunning 50%, handcuffing biotics and tech abilities . . . . . . tactics really went out the window and encounters aren't much more of a simple shoot fest. ME2's replayability is far far less than ME1's.



They took the first game, and instead of improving problem areas (or parts simply perceived as problems; I, for one, liked the Mako just fine), they cut them out entirely. ME-2 also suffers from "console-itis", probably the most dramatic examples being the mind-numbingly simple Bypass and Hacking minigames.



Some things were improved. Dialogue is snappier and flows better, not many NPC's hit with a "wall of text" containing their entire life histroy anymore. The new squadmates are interesting and fun to adventure with. Humor is ubiquitous throughout. The story is a bit less original and not the equal of ME-1, but it's at least coherent and handily picks up the threads layed down by its predecessor. Unfortunately the improvements are outshadowed by the large number of unfortunate design decisions present throughout ME2.



As I said before, I liked ME2 (read: "liked"). I love some of the new characters and the cinematics. There's no question, however, that it is a lesser product than what came before. Less is NOT more. Here's to hoping ME-3 reverses this trend.

[Taleq]

Having played Baldur's gate 1 and 2, icewind dale 1 and 2, NW nights, DA O, KOTOR just about every Bioware game, Masseffect 2 was the first and only one that I didn't immedietly want to play a second time after beating it (to check out different choices). I was very disapointed with alot of the developer choices in the game (Dont know why they tried to reinvent the wheel with ME 2, ME 1 was great)

I loved ME 1 and played it many times, I fell in love with the characters. I like the new characters they're great, but there are too many of them that they feel watered down. I am not happy about this reliance on downloadable content. Why should we pay 10 dollars at a time to expand our game when the majority of it should of been in the game from the begining. Think of the amount of choices and customization you had in BG 2, and that game cost the same as ME 1.

I know I'm ranting but this is the first Bioware game that I didn't say "wow" while playing, its still a good game, but just not a full Bioware game, I dont know maybe EA has done what we worried about when they bought out Bioware, maybe they're forcing them to rush things out sooner.

[Rilke21]

I'm with you, Popcorn. I can grudgingly say that I liked the game, but only about as much as I like an old zombie movie. It's fun for a while (if you turn your brain off completely,) but the chances of re-watching it until you can recite half the dialogue probably aren't great.

[Schurge]

My question is... why on earth does the lack of experience or the presence of 'gun_1_a_clr_3' under crate 'x' take away your incentive to play the game? I want those lore unlocks just to have them and be able to read them, not because I get 25 xp for examining a box with a letter opener on it! I scour the maps because I want to see whats there not because of any reward... I get to know the characters because they are interesting not because responce 'a' gets me a stat boost. I explore certain conversation options because I roleplay, not because I get access to a widget.

You get my point...

[Rilke21]

Schurge wrote...
You get my point...

Actually I don't.

The point of an experience system isn't to watch with glee as +50 pops up on your screen. My point is that an experience system is an indication of the general depth of gameplay. When you remove an experience system, you tend to remove everything that went with...the interesting details that make a game worth coming back to. If the maps, characters and roleplaying are interesting, then the experience system can go out the trash without much of a loss. However, my experience (and yes, I read every possible dialogue cue on my first play through) was that the more I tried to get into the world of Mass Effect 2, the more shallow it seemed. The only way I can play this game is by skipping through every cut scene and ignoring every element of "story." When I do that, it's a very pretty and entertaining shooter. But it doesn't deserve the name Mass Effect.

[Jzadek72]

Great. Another person thinking they are intellectually superior because they like inventory systems.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

People who hate ME2 are just wearing nostalgia glasses and forgot what ME1 really was like, I love ME1 but ME2 is an improvement in nearly every way.



Only disconnect I feel is some character dialogues and Garrus "calibrating weapons". But it was the welcome back I dreamed of and more.

[Rilke21]

Jzadek72 wrote...

Great. Another person thinking they are intellectually superior because they like inventory systems.

Nah. But intellectually superior because I don't get bored after reading one paragraph?

Definitely.

[lord magnious]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

People who hate ME2 are just wearing nostalgia glasses and forgot what ME1 really was like, I love ME1 but ME2 is an improvement in nearly every way.

Only disconnect I feel is some character dialogues and Garrus "calibrating weapons". But it was the welcome back I dreamed of and more.

Totally this!