77 réponses à ce sujet

[Frraksurred]

The team did an excellent job with the distinctive classes, they are one reason I would want to replay the game.  The lighting and graphics updates are also very nice.  Our ability to arc biotics and bind teammate powers... all good things.

However, for many of us it is not enough to overcome the games other short falls.  Customizable armor sounded great when we thought it was going to be on top of the selection ME1 already offered, but it's not.  Varied weapons are in the same boat.  The new additions are nice, but not at the expense of all the old ones.  The OP is spot on when it comes to upgrades feeling as though they make no difference.  The ability to tailor our squad, mod our equipment and look forward to that potential new find, have all been neutered in this installment.  We simply want back more of the elements that made ME1 great (and the utter and eternal banning of planet scanning, lol!).

We are not trying to say the game is terrible, it is not... but it is incomplete.

[Xaenn]

I think the ultimate problem is people confusing opinion with fact. People also feel that because they bought the game they're entitled to some hidden right to claim direction or where it's going and gone, where their opinions are above everyone else's. I'm guilty of it myself, sometimes I lose perspective.

Hard when you loved a game so much and it gets flopped upside down when its sucessor comes out, guess your logic is overwriten by confusion and anger, natural reaction.  Have to let go of what once was to embrass the new, hopefully they can work out in three a combination to make majority happy, knowing everyone will never be.

Happy to see that mature debate or ideas can be performed still though.

Modifié par Xaenn, 03 février 2010 - 01:19 .

[Kalfear]

Xaenn wrote...

Only issues I would say I had with Dragon Age Origins was it felt like a mmo being played on a console, I feel they could of done much more with it. I also felt the immersion with teammates was shallow, you always had options on what to say, but why make your teammates mad? Why not always choose the perfect choice to gain their bonuses and if you did choose to make them mad you could shove a gift in their face and say LOVE ME. Haha. I did enjoy the game though, don't get me wrong. However the two points did lose almost any replay value for me.

I think I'm the only one who enjoyed the hell out of the inventory from one, it was great, so much customization, customization is a key note, more the better, through my though perspective which could mean little. I'm not saying inventory was perfect, but with some modifications, such as more unique guns, mods ammunition and ways to sort your inventory out while selling it so it wasn't tedious it would of been a perfect system. Down side beyond selling being tedious was Spectre gear > all and it wasn't hard to obtain for how good it was.

And thats the difference between a RPGer and a normal player
RPGer does make them mad to see the outcome and see whats different in that game!

Choosing the perfect choice is fine for the first playthrouhgh but then its time to play a DIFFERENT ROLE. Play the good, the bad, the theif, the assassin, the mage, the noble, marry the queen, sleep with the witch, love the bard, save the anvil, destrooy the anvil, helop the werewolves, help the elves, screw them both, the choices were endless and thats what ME2 is missing, the choices.

Modifié par Kalfear, 03 février 2010 - 01:19 .

[Xaenn]

Kalfear wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

Only issues I would say I had with Dragon Age Origins was it felt like a mmo being played on a console, I feel they could of done much more with it. I also felt the immersion with teammates was shallow, you always had options on what to say, but why make your teammates mad? Why not always choose the perfect choice to gain their bonuses and if you did choose to make them mad you could shove a gift in their face and say LOVE ME. Haha. I did enjoy the game though, don't get me wrong. However the two points did lose almost any replay value for me.

I think I'm the only one who enjoyed the hell out of the inventory from one, it was great, so much customization, customization is a key note, more the better, through my though perspective which could mean little. I'm not saying inventory was perfect, but with some modifications, such as more unique guns, mods ammunition and ways to sort your inventory out while selling it so it wasn't tedious it would of been a perfect system. Down side beyond selling being tedious was Spectre gear > all and it wasn't hard to obtain for how good it was.

And thats the difference between a RPGer and a normal player
RPGer does make them mad to see the outcome and see whats different in that game!

Choosing the perfect choice is fine for the first playthrouhgh but then its time to play a DIFFERENT ROLE. Play the good, the bad, the theif, the assassin, the mage, the noble, marry the queen, sleep with the witch, love the bard, save the anvil, destrooy the anvil, helop the werewolves, help the elves, screw them both, the choices were endless and thats what ME2 is missing, the choices.

My point was you could choose the bad option and still come out as the good guy by buying them off with gifts, even if you didn't you could save it, try it reload the game if you didn't like the outcome.  I believe the counter would be they arn't real role players, but who really sets the standard of a role player?

I suppose logically it doesn't make sense to me, but I don't like being an **** in real life, I don't find it to be practical which influences my perspective on the subject.

Modifié par Xaenn, 03 février 2010 - 01:23 .

[bconk55]

ME1 wasn't any deeper than ME2, it was just inflated. If game A has x options, and game B has x+1 options, that does not automatically make game B a deeper game. That is the relationship between ME1 and ME2. Sure, there were more armor choices, sure, there were more skill choices, but when you ended up picking the same, clearly superior ones each playthrough, it really doesn't matter. When you get down to it, there really isn't any difference between upgrading Armor II to Armor III and researching an x% upgrade back on the Normandy.

[NineInchNall]

GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...

I can't say I enjoyed Dragon's Age as much as I hoped I would, but it does have more in terms of complexity and that does give it better longevity. I can't say I enjoyed the story or the characters, but I like the potential variety the game gives you. It's a game i'd play again for that reason.

Yeah, the excessive need to micromanage your party members due to absolutely terrible AI made DAO a bit of a pain to play.  It was still fun, but damn it all, squishies should NOT decide to rush off into a group of melee brutes!  And why is focused fire not the default behavior?  GAH!

The same can said of ME2's AI, which is probably another reason it bugs me compared to the first game.  In the first installment, your team mates will toss powers out left and right and help bring down your target.  In the sequel, though, they often sit on their fully charged powers and wait for me to direct them.  Worse than that, their pathing is so bad that they often end up running down the hall away from the fight.

What the crap is that?

[Taiko Roshi]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Taiko Roshi wrote...

Agreed. There is no real in depth character builds in this game, which means very little replay value for me. Whoever thought that bullet damage types should be a "skill" needs to seriously look for another job in another industry. You could be forgiven for mistaking this game for a shooter. The game length is that short it really feels like a FPS game.

And ME1 had in depth character builds? Give me a break. A load of passive skills that hardly do anything. At least in ME2 the fewer skills really make a difference.

Hmm nice logic there. So for you the fewer choices in skill development means the game has more depth in builds than ME 1 because, according to you, "the fewer skills really make a difference". Sure, having three different ammo skills makes a huge difference to being able to swap out ammo clips and developing both passive and active skills as in ME 1. Give me a break! At least in ME 1 they tried to provide some depth. In ME 2 if you take out the "ammo skills" you are left with 1-2 'active' skills per class. Wow that has replayability and the ability to develop different builds written all over it.

Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 03 février 2010 - 02:01 .

[smore006]

Taiko Roshi wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Taiko Roshi wrote...
Agreed. There is no real in depth character builds in this game, which means very little replay value for me. Whoever thought that bullet damage types should be a "skill" needs to seriously look for another job in another industry. You could be forgiven for mistaking this game for a shooter. The game length is that short it really feels like a FPS game.

And ME1 had in depth character builds? Give me a break. A load of passive skills that hardly do anything. At least in ME2 the fewer skills really make a difference.

Hmm nice logic there. So for you the fewer choices in skill development means the game has more depth in builds than ME 1 because, according to you, "the fewer skills really make a difference". Sure, having three different ammo skills makes a huge difference to being able to swap out ammo clips and developing both passive and active skills as in ME 1. Give me a break! At least in ME 1 they tried to provide some depth. In ME 2 if you take out the "ammo skills" you are left with 1-2 'active' skills per class. Wow that has replayability and the ability to develop different builds written all over it.

Character builds: They are called 'classes'...? What's the point of playing through the game with 3 "different soldier builds"? Go play an Adept and then a Vanguard. They are 'siblings' but play so much differently. Almost as differently as the "builds" of ME1...

Game length: ME1 i played through in under 30 hours, including exploration of *all* planets. In ME2, i was over 50 hours till everything said and done. That's the superior length of ME1, right there.

Depth: Would you mind explaining the "depth" ME1 provided by flooding the player with like...5 different ammo types and on a I-X power scale? It added so much depth to the game, scrolling through endless inventory screens till you found the newest flavor and/or converting them to omni-gel, one could easily forget (s)he had a galaxy to save. The modding (inventory) "minigame" should have been released a separate game, it was so much fun, having that "depth" thing to it!

Small amount of skills: Well, well. I suggest to go and try playing an adept, then rant about the skills. Soldiers having no active skills? Last time i checked they were supposed to be the mighty (mindless) tanks who swept the enemy away with firepower... Behold my might AR! Whatever. Gone are the times when an engineer was required to open a bloody locker, sure.  On the other hand, the bypassing/hacking minigames are much less boring and much more fun.
The only slightly annoying feature of skills is that they share their cooldown, but then again, it's within the lore and makes sense.

I having trouble understanding why people complain about these changes. When we had ME1, the same people cursed the very same features they now idealize. Bioware actually listened to the complaint, fixed most of the broken stuff, and still, people are complaining about getting the stuff they asked for. Strange...but i guess that's the way it is, nowadays.

Modifié par smore006, 03 février 2010 - 07:47 .

[Stofsk]

NineInchNall wrote...

GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...

I can't say I enjoyed Dragon's Age as much as I hoped I would, but it does have more in terms of complexity and that does give it better longevity. I can't say I enjoyed the story or the characters, but I like the potential variety the game gives you. It's a game i'd play again for that reason.

Yeah, the excessive need to micromanage your party members due to absolutely terrible AI made DAO a bit of a pain to play.  It was still fun, but damn it all, squishies should NOT decide to rush off into a group of melee brutes!  And why is focused fire not the default behavior?  GAH!

The same can said of ME2's AI, which is probably another reason it bugs me compared to the first game.  In the first installment, your team mates will toss powers out left and right and help bring down your target.  In the sequel, though, they often sit on their fully charged powers and wait for me to direct them.  Worse than that, their pathing is so bad that they often end up running down the hall away from the fight.

What the crap is that?

I don't know, probably a figment of your imagination, because when I played through the game if I didn't order my team mates to use their active powers they would nevertheless use them. Often I would select them to use a power, only to discover that they had used it a second before and it was in cooldown.

Maybe you accidentally selected 'no squad power usage' in the options menu. Which incidentally, was an option for the first game as well.

The pathing isn't as bad as you describe either. I've only had a handful of times where I noticed one member of my team had gotten stuck. Otherwise, they kept up with me. But pathing is complicated, maybe you had bad luck in your playthrough whereas I didn't. *shrug*

[Aratham Darksight]

smore006 wrote...

Depth: Would you mind explaining the "depth" ME1 provided by flooding the player with like...5 different ammo types and on a I-X power scale? It added so much depth to the game, scrolling through endless inventory screens till you found the newest flavor and/or converting them to omni-gel, one could easily forget (s)he had a galaxy to save. The modding (inventory) "minigame" should have been released a separate game, it was so much fun, having that "depth" thing to it!

I'm honestly beginning to believe that Bioware would get half the complaints about depth, if they had simply put 25 completely identical copies of the every gun into the game, with no difference is stats, just different awesome names with big numbers at the end.
Choosing between completely meaningless options is strategic and sophisticated!

Modifié par Aratham Darksight, 03 février 2010 - 08:14 .

[sinosleep]

In ME 1 any two level 50 vanguards would be identical, in ME 2 any 2 level 25 vanguards have a far higher chance of being completely different due to a.) inability to max all skills b.) branching. So in effect, ME 2 is quite clearly the deeper game. Sheer number doesn't mean squat, it's the end result. That's all I'm going to say on this topic.

[Massadonious1]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

smore006 wrote...

Depth: Would you mind explaining the "depth" ME1 provided by flooding the player with like...5 different ammo types and on a I-X power scale? It added so much depth to the game, scrolling through endless inventory screens till you found the newest flavor and/or converting them to omni-gel, one could easily forget (s)he had a galaxy to save. The modding (inventory) "minigame" should have been released a separate game, it was so much fun, having that "depth" thing to it!

I'm honestly beginning to believe that Bioware would get half the complaints about depth, if they had simply put 25 completely identical copies of the every gun into the game, with no difference is stats, just different awesome names with big numbers at the end.
Choosing between completely meaningless options is strategic and sophisticated!

And then we can bring back omni-gel.

Then we can research technology to make us omni-gel those weapons faster.

I'm salivating at the thought.

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

I just wonder, what would have happened if they made ME1 in the style of ME2 first, then made ME2 in the style of ME1. I reckon we'd end up with people complaining as much as they are now.



My only complaint about complexity would be that it felt like a series of mini-stories (like a tv series) and some overarching plot in the background. And even them I'm not sure whether I preferred it like this or the more movie-like plot of ME1.

[sinosleep]

Aratham Darksight wrote...

I'm honestly beginning to believe that Bioware would get half the complaints about depth, if they had simply put 25 completely identical copies of the every gun into the game, with no difference is stats, just different awesome names with big numbers at the end.
Choosing between completely meaningless options is strategic and sophisticated!

This is actually the most irritating thing I see on these forums. I don't have an issue with someone saying they want deeper inventory/research features in the next ME, but to actually imply that ME 1 was some sort of juggernaut of choice is beyond ridiculous.

In actuality you had LESS choice in ME 1 than you do in ME 2. In ME 1 you had FOUR weapons to choose from, the spectre gear. Of those 4 weapons you character could max at best two, even as a soldier, so that whittled yourchoice down even more.

With armor you wore whatever you could manage until you got colossus gear on everyone. So your choice of armor was all of ONE, being as anything other than colossus was garbage and depending on who you brought along armor never dropped for them any way (Tali) so it was definately just colossus.

In ME 2 while your main weapon selection is usually 2 at best (your standard weapon or your collector ship weapon) you can actually use ALL OF YOUR WEAPONS to equal degree. Meaning even if you only have access to a few weapons, at least you truly do have the choice of using them all.  Also your heavy weapon choice is actually fairly varied as they can pretty much all serve a purpose without becoming completely obsolete other than the grenade launcher.

As for armor, you again, actually have to choose between different leg/shoulder/chest/head pieces that actually all serve a purpose. You aren't stuck with wearing garbage until unlocking X. I just can't believe how many people look at ME 1 through rose colored glasses.

Modifié par sinosleep, 03 février 2010 - 08:34 .

[RhythmlessNinja]

ok, this is just my opinion and i wanna make sure that sinks into everyones heads before i say this. ME1, the things people keep saying ME2 is missing is the boring & annoying aspects of the old game & nice rebalancing (aside from adepts getting no love in harder modes), minus the custom weapons -heat +dmg to synthetic etc. I don't miss the extremely annoying inventory, I don't miss riding around a baren planet just to find a small crate/crashed pod or occasional building copy with same inside as all the other buildings, I don't miss how overpowered I could be with vanguard or any other class for that matter, I dont miss needing skill to hack terminals and other stupid things, and no I'm not under the illusion that there was some huge selection of armor & guns because lets face it, most everyone chose the best armor & weapon they could get and there were only so many actual good ones. I like the way they did the armor upgrading on here just need alot more pieces added...not enough variety besides the the helms.



I can safely say I only changed armor a few times on myself and teammates in ME1. It was not a huge factor to me. I dunno what you guys have been playing but the AI in ME2 is much better than in ME1, I no longer feel like im the one doing all the work which was definately the case. No longer have to constantly set them up to do anything, mainly cover...but intense fights vs a mech or group of sentinels I do have to take control. Anyway all that aside, I like the route they took with abilities in ME2. Especially the class specific ones, makes them feel a bit more unique than each other. And the respec option they give you was a great idea that a few other games I could name that should of had it in also. I could go on...but I'm goin to bed.

[Stofsk]

sinosleep wrote...

*snip*

I just can't believe how many people look at ME 1 through rose colored glasses.

Neither can I. I loved ME1, I played it again and again, but after getting two characters to 60 and wanting to start a third and a fourth, I found that all these little things that I noticed got to be so unbelievably annoying that I don't understand how people look back at it like it was better than ME2. ME2 streamlined a lot of things - because it had to. I completely agree with you regarding weapons and armour selection. Sure, there were heaps of different weapons in the game - all of them were completely useless. You had the master spectre gear and collossus (or predator L./M/H) armour, and you had the savant tool/amp, and that was it. Everything else was garbage you wore/used until you could get that gear.

It is honestly unbelievable to me how people can regard ME1's system as excellent and ME2's 'simplistic' or 'dumbed down'. I felt ME1 was an insult forcing me to play the exact same cookie cutter build with the same gear regardless of class. Whether I was a soldier or sentinel, the goal was to get enough money to buy master spectre gear. Everything else was just trash.

[n4d4n]

I totally agree with the OP, in addition to what others have added.

[n4d4n]

RhythmlessNinja wrote...

ok, this is just my opinion and i wanna make sure that sinks into everyones heads before i say this. ME1, the things people keep saying ME2 is missing is the boring & annoying aspects of the old game & nice rebalancing (aside from adepts getting no love in harder modes), minus the custom weapons -heat +dmg to synthetic etc. I don't miss the extremely annoying inventory, I don't miss riding around a baren planet just to find a small crate/crashed pod or occasional building copy with same inside as all the other buildings, I don't miss how overpowered I could be with vanguard or any other class for that matter, I dont miss needing skill to hack terminals and other stupid things, and no I'm not under the illusion that there was some huge selection of armor & guns because lets face it, most everyone chose the best armor & weapon they could get and there were only so many actual good ones. I like the way they did the armor upgrading on here just need alot more pieces added...not enough variety besides the the helms.

I miss all those things

[xSHAD0WENx]

i agree with the OP. need to bring back the RPG in ME3

[Gaddmeister]

Orkboy wrote...

Why the tiny assortment of weapons we have have no stats?  - Seriously a role playing game with no weapon stats, how the hell am I supposed to know which is better.  At least in ME1 I could choose weapons based on wether they did more damage or how many shots before overheating, now in ME2 it's WTF does this do?

Well, the description says which is an upgrade. Also, check your magazine. That's how many shots you have until overheated. I ended up using both my sniper rifles as an infiltrator, because I liked them both. That would never have happened in ME1, because all weapons felt the same way.

Orkboy wrote...

Why have they replaced the mission briefings from ME1 with the "oh crap I keep forgetting to check my emails" system in ME2?  I realise it's for making it easier to include DLC, but when I don't even realise I have missions to do then I have to question if the system is working properly.

No, you have debriefings with the Illusive Man. You also have debriefings when you get some new squad members (can't remeber if it's for everyone). You didn't have debriefings after side quests in ME1.

Orkboy wrote...

UCWs, they just needed to be smaller and have more in them so they were more like Bring down the sky, instead they get replaced completely with the "Can't be arsed looking for them and are over in 30 seconds" N7 missions.

The side quests are much more diverse and fun to play this time around. Sure, they're not that long, but one is not a copy of another, like in ME1. And BDTS was a dlc, not an ordinary side quest, so I don't think it's fair to compare that one to ordinary side quests in ME2. And it still had three of those standard warehouses. The standard ME1 sidequest was also over in "30 seconds", only you had to drive there first and then go through one of those copy-paste bunkers, warehouses, mines or derelict ships all the time. In ME2, the side quests are actually fun to play!

[Gaddmeister]

Kalfear wrote...

No, Im talking about changing the game around me!

In ME1 (and DA:O) everythiung you do results in a different outcome for the game and a different gamoing experience!

Its not all about playing a different class.
Its about effecting the world around you so you not follwoing a preset linear path

I gotta say, anyone that thinks ME2 has same replay value as ME1 (or
DA:O) has probably never played ME1 (or DA:O) because the differences
or so appearent even a blind bias shooter fan couldnt ignore them.

In
ME2, you have ZERO effect of your surroundings and universe. Every
playthrough will be exactly the same and the only choice you have is at
the very end of the game. Period.

No it doesn't, ME1 is just as linear. I've played ME1 ten times and the whole game plays out
the same way each time. Sure, you can choose who lives and who dies at
certain places or choose whom to help. I haven't finished ME2 yet, but
the only thing that's been better in ME1 is that so far I haven't had
these Virmire/Noveria type of choices yet, where you stop for a minute
and thinks on how to answer. But the game still plays out pretty much
the same regardless of which choice you make.

Kalfear wrote...

Oh sure you might lose or save a few more squadmates in the final mission but having no emotional connection to them makes that rather unimportant or meaningful!

Morrigan walking away after you proclaim your love for her in DA:O, now that had meaning and screamed emotional connection! ME2 has nothing that comes even remotely close to that in their game.

A matter of tastes I guess, but having the side quests makes me more attached to the characters in ME2 than ME1... by far.

[Kalfear]

hey, no one argueing the side quests in ME1 sucked, they did, but there was more of them. I liked the Side quests in ME2 but they were to few for amount of planets there were to scan.



And anouther thing is in ME1 it wasnt all combat, you fight your way to Peak 15 but still had none combat missions involved that added to the story. Im ME2 its all combat, no puzzles, no thinking, just all combat which made it linear and boring to a certain degree.



Also, at a certain point in ME2, the combat started to feel identical to every other fight. Sure it was different locations but it was exactly same duck and cover combat which got boring to be honest.



BDtS was a work of art IMO and is the type of DLC we should be getting for ME2 but from what I hear all we getting is armor (I will not pay for more armor, period) and some hammerhead vehicle (wont pay for that either), give me indepth DLC thats got story and characters and combat and puzzles and everything combined! Even the DLC of this game is to combat orientated!

[Kalfear]

Gaddmeister wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

No, Im talking about changing the game around me!

In ME1 (and DA:O) everythiung you do results in a different outcome for the game and a different gamoing experience!

Its not all about playing a different class.
Its about effecting the world around you so you not follwoing a preset linear path

I gotta say, anyone that thinks ME2 has same replay value as ME1 (or
DA:O) has probably never played ME1 (or DA:O) because the differences
or so appearent even a blind bias shooter fan couldnt ignore them.

In
ME2, you have ZERO effect of your surroundings and universe. Every
playthrough will be exactly the same and the only choice you have is at
the very end of the game. Period.

No it doesn't, ME1 is just as linear. I've played ME1 ten times and the whole game plays out
the same way each time. Sure, you can choose who lives and who dies at
certain places or choose whom to help. I haven't finished ME2 yet, but
the only thing that's been better in ME1 is that so far I haven't had
these Virmire/Noveria type of choices yet, where you stop for a minute
and thinks on how to answer. But the game still plays out pretty much
the same regardless of which choice you make.

Kalfear wrote...

Oh sure you might lose or save a few more squadmates in the final mission but having no emotional connection to them makes that rather unimportant or meaningful!

Morrigan walking away after you proclaim your love for her in DA:O, now that had meaning and screamed emotional connection! ME2 has nothing that comes even remotely close to that in their game.

A matter of tastes I guess, but having the side quests makes me more attached to the characters in ME2 than ME1... by far.

If you played ME1 even once you would know of all the different paths that can be taken so Im not going to feed a troll that lies to make some imaginary point thats not relevant!

If you want to talk FACTS and TRUTHS, fine. But dont make false crap up like every playthrough of ME1 is the same! Thats just pure BS that anyone and everyone can see through for the trollish taunting that it is.

[Marhkus]

Loved DA:O, was an awesome game...But Sci-Fi just gets to me...It touches me in my special places many different ways so overall, even though they did dumb it down > Characters, story, fast paste action gameplay hooked me from the start. And!!!! Their going to add DLC like DA:O so, i'm loving it. PEW!PEW!

[sinosleep]

You know what's funny Kalfear, here you are saying the game is too focused on combat, while in other threads you've got people complaining about missions like the Normandy Crash or that N7 mission where you check out the crashed ship that's teetering off of a cliff that feature no combat whatsoever. It seems that at the end of the day when it comes to these forums bioware can't make anyone happy.

Kalfear wrote...

If you played ME1 even once you would
know of all the different paths that can be taken so Im not going to
feed a troll that lies to make some imaginary point thats not relevant!

If you want to talk FACTS and TRUTHS,
fine. But dont make false crap up like every playthrough of ME1 is the
same! Thats just pure BS that anyone and everyone can see through for
the trollish taunting that it is.

 I've played through ME 1 about 5 times, please enlighten me as to how it was any less linear than ME 2. Cause ths is what I remember.....

Eden Prime
Citadel
side missions
recruit liara
feros, noveria, virmire
side missions
return to citadel
end

seems like a pretty similar structure to ME 2.

Modifié par sinosleep, 03 février 2010 - 11:00 .