393 réponses à ce sujet

[Cloaking_Thane]

I dont think I've posted one irrational or rabid attack against an ME2 detractor.



Simply stating my opinion on matters and backing them up sufficiently.



We can agree to disagree on some points, but none of the points you have made are more right or wrong than any of the points ive made.

[trope]

Oh here's another quote from him so we know where he's coming from:



"Rather than World of Warcraft, I've spent the most time this year playing the online science-fiction game Eve, precisely because it is built to give its players maximum agency in determining their own story lines. For my personal taste, the best games are not single-player experiences, no matter how meticulously constructed, but are more akin to Mr. Petursson's sandbox—parameters within which the players, whether in competition or collaboration, create their own experiences."



http://www.slate.com.../entry/2179592/

[Orogenic]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

I dont think I've posted one irrational or rabid attack against an ME2 detractor.

Simply stating my opinion on matters and backing them up sufficiently.

We can agree to disagree on some points, but none of the points you have made are more right or wrong than any of the points ive made.

Thank you for a sane and well written response.  I agree with you 100%.

Well, I'm off to plug in the overlord... see you gents later.

[Bigeyez]

Orogenic wrote...


Cloaking Thane, which point do you feel that I've ignored?  You seemed to be saying that there was no need to ever put points into charm or intimidate  and you yourself admit that this is only true with multiple playthroughs and/or exploits.  Seems you responded rather effectively to yourself there.

Wrong person, but ok. You said and I quote " For instance, I liked the fact that you couldn't have an expert marksman who was also a master of conversation with maxed out charm."

I then responded with this post

Familiarity and being able to hold a weapon without the thing rocking back and forth as if you were in a car with blown shocks driving down a dirt road are two very different things. I certainly don't mind weapon skills that make characters better as they put more points into them, but you have to at least see how the sniper rifle int he first game was a bit dumb.

Even someone with no knowledge of firing weapons can at least *hold* the gun steadier then what was in the first game. That was just a bad way to go about implementing a weapon skill. Taking it out completely may not have been the *best* option for ME 2, but you have to admit the way it was implemented in ME 1 wasn't the best either.

As far as "an expert marksman who was also a master of conversation with maxed out charm" goes, you certainly could. In fact you never even needed to spend a single point into either Charm or Intimadate. You simply needed to spend enough time with the game to get those points for free. Hell once the Noveria bug became widespread knowledge you could get full charm/intimadate in one playthrough.

You ignored the first two paragraphs there and responded with

I see... I should have used the exploit.

My bad.  I didn't do it right.

And by the way, if you wanted to resolve certain situations in ME 1 peacefully then you did need to spend points in charm (never got past 25% renegade so I can't speak for intimidate.  Every time I started playing renegade I started hating my Shep so much I was rooting for the geth and the reapers : )

I then posted

If you wanted to do that on your first playthrough then yes, yes you did need to spend points. With New Game + however you didn't need to spend a single point in charm or intimidate. Paragon/Renagade points gave you skill points Charm/Intimidate. I started many characters in ME 1 where I didn't spend a single point in either persuasion skill and by my third playthrough I was max charm/intimidate. It wasn't that hard.

Your saying it can't be done when it obviously can.

Edit: In fact on the old mass effect forums the thread that listed the most efficient builds for the different classes went into a lengthy discussion on exactly this. The consensus was that putting points in charm/intimidate was a waste, because it would take you multiple playthroughs to hit level 60 and by then you'd get charm/intimidate for free.

Instead of replying to anything I said you said this. (Which is funny because you're constantly saying you can't find a good discussion on these boards when you definitely aren't supplying any.)

Got it.  Just need to play through 3 times on the same character and use exploits as required.  Thanks for the heads up!

Whats the point with all this? You stated something. I then told you twice that what you said wasn't correct. Instead of engaging in a discussion you blew everything that was said off.

Trying to discuss anything with you is pointless, because you simply ignore any arguement you can't come up with some witty reply to. You come on these forums and play the victim role, quote people, post witty remarks, say that people are attacking you, and that you can't find a single poster that you can have a discussion with, and yet when people DO try to talk with you all you post are one-liners that make you seem like a hypocritical douchebag and no better then the "zomgz liek bo0m headsh0t kiddies" you seem to hate so much. Whats even funnier is that people on your side of the arguement have even called you out on all this. Got it? Good.

Edit: To conclude this wall 'o text I'd just like to reaffirm my position on Pie. It is Good.
Edit 2: Oh and you sir are a Towel. GOOD DAY.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 03 février 2010 - 05:07 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

Exactly as a critic he is a walking contradiction

[unda647]

Come on now, I just read the review and he definitely did not call the game "middling". It's a mostly positive review, the OP is taking way to much out of context.

[screwoffreg]

For the person who said there hasn't been a challenging last boss in a Bioware game in awhile, I agree. The last one I can remember was Amelyssan in BG II, that was primarily because she wore you down with wave after wave of demi-god level enemies.

[trope]

As per my previous post, well he did say about ME1 that "In its choice of milieu — science fiction — Mass Effect is not ambitious at all." So I think he's hung up on something... maybe playing too much EVE online.

[jtd00123]

trope wrote...

O.k. so here's what Seth Schiesel, seemingly the new hero on these forums, said about his game of the year in 2007:

http://www.nytimes.c...=th&oref=slogin

GAME OF THE YEAR: MASS EFFECT Story and characters aren’t everything, but these components of narrative have always been the weakest part of video games. For decades games have made up in frenetic action what they have lacked in dramatic depth. And that is a big reason why games have traditionally appealed most strongly to the demographic group that most enjoys frenetic action: young men. In its choice of milieu — science fiction — Mass Effect is not ambitious at all. But with its focus on character development, personal growth and moral tension, all fueled by a graphics system created to evoke emotional empathy, Mass Effect points the way forward. It may be a harbinger of a time when story and character are as important to video games as explosions.

"In its choice of milieu — science fiction — Mass Effect is not ambitious at all." Excuse me? Really? So Character development, personal growth and moral tension, he sites as the biggest reason why ME1 was chosen as game of the year. And now... he's ragging on ME2 for a lack of RPG elements? I'm sorry but this dude is lame. Oh also, I'm sorry but ME1s "milieu" as he calls it I thought was totally ambitious. "Not ambitious at all," give me a break. This guy is so full of himself.

Wow... so many of the things he praises ME1 for are largely present or even enhanced in ME2.  You have to admit the dialogue and choice options are all there, the interupt system is new, and the squad members are better developed.  (the only one I liked in ME1 was Wrex, and previously uninteresting characters from the original were more fleshed out, especially if you pursue the romances.)  This only confirms my earlier suspicions that this reviewer was nitpicking simply to stand out from the rest of the crowd.   Frankly, based on these quotes, this reviewer seems flaky.  

If this was supposed to give me an idea of where he is coming from, I'm still left befuddled.

Modifié par jtd00123, 03 février 2010 - 05:03 .

[ODST 5723]

Here's my take on the +/- in the game

+Shooting mechanics
+Combat intensity
+Enemy classes
+Physics
+Environments
+AI
+Depth in interaction with NPC's and teammates
+Inventory managerment
+Modular armor customization
+Scale of loyalty missions

-Inventory management
-Depth of character skill progression
-Depth of inventory management
-Depth of modular armor customization
-Depth of weapon customization
-Number of levels
-Mission screens
-Scanning
-Depth of side missions

IMO, there was room for certain aspects to be implemented a bit better. More levels, a couple more skills and a tweak to the point system would have provided a more dynamic approach to the various classes and subclasses. This is a good example of a main issue that I have and which I suspect that many have are the ones that deal with customization or a perceived lack thereof. Some of the things that I wanted and expected to be able to do aren't there. Some of the interactions I expected from other characters aren't there. And the depth of customization issues aren't things that I expected either. These are the types of things that I think RPG fans are missing and wanted included and fleshed out more in the same way that the overall combat system was retooled and refined.

Many may have felt that the old system provided significantly more custom approaches that fit their particular tastes and preferences. Stripping some of that out, coupled with the dramatic imrprovements in the action-oriented sections could leave a bad taste in some mouths.

The combat is fun and engaging. The depth in the main characters here, IMO, it much improved. Yes, a lot of the side-chatter that existed in the previous game is gone, but it went along with the much complained about elevator system that hid the loading system that was in place. It was a forced opportunity to gain bits of game-specific lore. The choppy effect that many have referrenced, is from my perspective, partially due to the removal of this system and in introduction of load screens and the mission summary screens. Those were a stark contrast for me from the first game.

The acquisition and loyalty missions I found to be fantastic. I found some of the N7 missions to be lacking in depth and I truthfully would have liked to have had more of them as well as more side missions. I like that I had to make choices regarding what weapons I could carry because I have a limited loadout. It doesn't make sense that I should be able to carry around all these different weapons, armors and mods and swap on a whim, and luckly, now that extra-dimensional pocket is gone and has been replaced by something that seems plausible.

I like the new cooling system, though I agree with many that a hybrid approach would have been better with a mix of active cooling and the rods. I find scanning and the Mako to be about on par with giving us tedious busy work. I would have liked for some more variety in the scanning/hacking minigames, especially if it the ME1 versions would have been included.

Realistically looking at the game, I can't say that it's bad. I also can't say that it's perfect. It's a solid overall game with some strong presentation and improved mechanics over its predecessor. It's quite fun and very satisfying even if it can't get into some of the minutia of what I might want it to do. If DLC finds a way to fill in some of the gaps I identified and add some levels and skills along with some more variety in terms of armor and weapons I could easily see myself not picking up another game aside from Halo: Reach this year. Borderlands included. IMO, Borderlands is the polar end of the spectrum compared to Mass Effect 2 as far as shooter-RPG's go.

One is excessively loot heavy, dependent upon co-op, and focued so much on first-person combat that any semblance to a coherent storyline cannot be found regardless. sure, you can invest your points into 3 types of classes to tweak your gameplay more to your liking and you can loot **** to your heart's content, but the story itself is shallow.

The other is highly character driven with a deep story, strong characters, significant options and is a single-player game with 3rd person combat. It's squad-based and gives you more control of the action. It allows you to talk your way into or out of combat. It presents strong moral choices. It allows for significant character development and what you do or do not do in the game has an impact on who lives, who dies and that will carry over into the next game.

But both are fun. But the way some people here have been talking I'd think they were playing Borderlands instead of Mass Effect 2 with some of the things they're focusing on.

Granted, I'd love a bit more customization myself, but I'd struggle to rate Mass Effect 2 as any lower than a 9 out of 10. What it does right more than overcomes what it doesn't do and what it does wrong.

JMO

Modifié par ODST 5723, 03 février 2010 - 05:01 .

[Shallina]

Hard to admit by bioware lover than BIOWARE did a very good mainstream game that would earn lot of money without trying to set the bar highter.



Memory leaks when you push the graphics to the max, Walkmesh issue. Very basic construction in gameplay (no real surprise). ME2 is a very good game. But it's a game build on convention. There is no innovation.



Basically it's a cash cow. A good cash cow, but not a legend. Wich deasapoint poeple, beceause BIOWARE is a top develloper, and usually they are the one who push video gaming forward and takes some risk while doing it.



ME2 is a very good game, but BIOWARE can do better. Beceause BIOWARE is not some random dev studio.

They made BG1, BG2,NWN, KOTOR, ME1. Each of those game brought something new and pushed video gaming forward.



ME2 does nothing new. It's just a very generic game with an awesome story.

[Orogenic]

trope wrote...

Oh here's another quote from him so we know where he's coming from:

"Rather than World of Warcraft, I've spent the most time this year playing the online science-fiction game Eve, precisely because it is built to give its players maximum agency in determining their own story lines. For my personal taste, the best games are not single-player experiences, no matter how meticulously constructed, but are more akin to Mr. Petursson's sandbox—parameters within which the players, whether in competition or collaboration, create their own experiences."

http://www.slate.com.../entry/2179592/

How is the fact that he plays the best MMO ever created related to this discussion?

[screwoffreg]

Shallina wrote...

Hard to admit by bioware lover than BIOWARE did a very good mainstream game that would earn lot of money without trying to set the bar highter.

Memory leaks when you push the graphics to the max, Walkmesh issue. Very basic construction in gameplay (no real surprise). ME2 is a very good game. But it's a game build on convention. There is no innovation.

Basically it's a cash cow. A good cash cow, but not a legend. Wich deasapoint poeple, beceause BIOWARE is a top develloper, and usually they are the one who push video gaming forward and takes some risk while doing it.

ME2 is a very good game, but BIOWARE can do better. Beceause BIOWARE is not some random dev studio.
They made BG1, BG2,NWN, KOTOR, ME1. Each of those game brought something new and pushed video gaming forward.

ME2 does nothing new. It's just a very generic game with an awesome story.

I actually had as much fun playing ME 2 as I did when I played some of the games you listed.  Then again, I didn't play it hoping to compare it to the past, but rather for its own experience.  Each game is unique and fun in its own way.  I have already replayed ME 2 twice, for example.  As much as I LOVE Baldurs Gate II, i usually replay it once every year and a half or so since it is so time consuming, yet a great game.

[Orogenic]

Bigeyez, rather than pyramid post that wall of text I'll respond with this:



I can only assume from your post that you haven't handled firearms much in the real world. You are making most of your assumptions based on the way weapons are treated in other games- that is both understandable and fine.



Everything else in your post I think I've already responded to. We simply have different opinions- I respect your rights in this regard, I only ask that you do the same.

[trope]

Orogenic wrote...

trope wrote...

Oh here's another quote from him so we know where he's coming from:

"Rather than World of Warcraft, I've spent the most time this year playing the online science-fiction game Eve, precisely because it is built to give its players maximum agency in determining their own story lines. For my personal taste, the best games are not single-player experiences, no matter how meticulously constructed, but are more akin to Mr. Petursson's sandbox—parameters within which the players, whether in competition or collaboration, create their own experiences."

http://www.slate.com.../entry/2179592/

How is the fact that he plays the best MMO ever created related to this discussion?

I'll quote again, "For my personal taste, the best games are not single-player experiences, no matter how meticulously constructed."

[Orogenic]

trope wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

trope wrote...

Oh here's another quote from him so we know where he's coming from:

"Rather than World of Warcraft, I've spent the most time this year playing the online science-fiction game Eve, precisely because it is built to give its players maximum agency in determining their own story lines. For my personal taste, the best games are not single-player experiences, no matter how meticulously constructed, but are more akin to Mr. Petursson's sandbox—parameters within which the players, whether in competition or collaboration, create their own experiences."

http://www.slate.com.../entry/2179592/

How is the fact that he plays the best MMO ever created related to this discussion?

I'll quote again, "For my personal taste, the best games are not single-player experiences, no matter how meticulously constructed."

So he thinks that MMOs have more potential than single player games... I'd say this borders on matter of fact territory.  What is the point that you are trying to make?

[Cloaking_Thane]

That the critic is slightly bias and it shows in his reviews is my guess.



Speculating here.



But the NYT critic has very much his own ideas on what makes an RPG.



If you read the ME1 review, The DA:O review and the ME2 review in sucession it shows,

[Orogenic]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

That the critic is slightly bias and it shows in his reviews is my guess.

Speculating here.

But the NYT critic has very much his own ideas on what makes an RPG.

If you read the ME1 review, The DA:O review and the ME2 review in sucession it shows,

I see what you are saying, but everyone (including critics) has some bias.  To pretend otherwise would be absurd.

I think many of us were just glad to see a review that didn't outright call the game perfect.

In reading over the endless list of near perfect reviews quite honestly the first thing that came to mind was the Asch experiment (related to conformity in groups).  It is fascinating stuff, I recommend checking it out.

Check out the Emperor's sweet new threads!

[Kalfear]

Bigeyez wrote...

In fact you never even needed to spend a single point into either Charm or Intimadate. You simply needed to spend enough time with the game to get those points for free. Hell once the Noveria bug became widespread knowledge you could get full charm/intimadate in one playthrough.

Wait a sec, its not bad enough every shooter player had the exact same gun build to exploit that in ME1 rather then build didfferent guns to enjoy the game as it was meant, now you whining that enough people didnt flat out cheat?
It might shock your prepuberty world kid but some gamers play by the rules and dont use game cheat on their character so yes there was EVERY REASON to put points into Charm or intimidate because you only actually got like 5 free ones when you PLAYED BY THE RULES!

Man, the "game is perfect, quit thinking" crowd grasps for more and more straws everyday.

Oh and Thane, if this is the type of person you agree with openly, how can you whine your not being treated with respect! Who one surrounds themselves with matters in life!

Modifié par Kalfear, 03 février 2010 - 06:07 .

[pedal2metal]

Fhaileas wrote...

I'm so glad to see a more rational and objective perspective emerging amongst some of the newer reviews. Lends credence to not only the true nature of the game but also to the repute of a respected publication like the NYT.

Yes, I thought the review was even-handed as well.  He didn't bash ME2, he simply pointed out the differences & the tradeoffs made.  I'm ok w/ME2.  I'm confident that ME3 will be unique synergy of ME1/ME2 + new ideas & given the increased audience that ME2 has provided, they should be able to do something pretty amazing.  ME1 & ME2 are different in style but both still great games.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Ozymandias23]

Orogenic wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

That the critic is slightly bias and it shows in his reviews is my guess.

Speculating here.

But the NYT critic has very much his own ideas on what makes an RPG.

If you read the ME1 review, The DA:O review and the ME2 review in sucession it shows,

I see what you are saying, but everyone (including critics) has some bias.  To pretend otherwise would be absurd.

I think many of us were just glad to see a review that didn't outright call the game perfect.

In reading over the endless list of near perfect reviews quite honestly the first thing that came to mind was the Asch experiment (related to conformity in groups).  It is fascinating stuff, I recommend checking it out.

Check out the Emperor's sweet new threads!

You hit the nail on the head.

[Kalfear]

pedal2metal wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

I'm so glad to see a more rational and objective perspective emerging amongst some of the newer reviews. Lends credence to not only the true nature of the game but also to the repute of a respected publication like the NYT.

Yes, I thought the review was even-handed as well.  He didn't bash ME2, he simply pointed out the differences & the tradeoffs made.  I'm ok w/ME2.  I'm confident that ME3 will be unique synergy of ME1/ME2 + new ideas & given the increased audience that ME2 has provided, they should be able to do something pretty amazing.  ME1 & ME2 are different in style but both still great games.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Yup petal, I think the grow ups have commented enough that Bioware will look for that (as you say) synergy to be found somewhere between the two games!
Should be more then appearent the majority of folks had many issues outside of the combat area (which was fine, redundant but fine) and those areas should be the focus of the next game.

[Bigeyez]

Kalfear wrote...

Bigeyez wrote...

In fact you never even needed to spend a single point into either Charm or Intimadate. You simply needed to spend enough time with the game to get those points for free. Hell once the Noveria bug became widespread knowledge you could get full charm/intimadate in one playthrough.

Wait a sec, its not bad enough every shooter player had the exact same gun build to exploit that in ME1 rather then build didfferent guns to enjoy the game as it was meant, now you whining that enough people didnt flat out cheat?
It might shook your prepuberty world kid but some gamers play by the rules and dont use game cheat on their character so yes there was EVERY REASON to put points into Charm or intimidate because you only actually got like 5 free ones when you PLAYED BY THE RULES!

Man, the "game is perfect, quit thinking" crowd grasps for more and more straws everyday.

Oh and Thane, if this is the type of person you agree with openly, how can you whine your not being treated with respect! Who one surrounds themselves with matters in life!

LOL Yes I am a 20 years old and still in puberty. Mhm. Where in the post you quoted am I whining about a cheat? I'm saying that it was possible to get max charm/intimidate either via playing New Game+, or yes by exploiting a glitch.

Again you can get max charm/intimadate simply by playing New Game+ enough times.

At least Orogenic makes all this back and forth fun, you are just spouting nonsense and sounding like one of those prepuberty kids you like to talk about.

Edit: Oh wait so your the guy that takes himself waaaay too seriously on these forums. I thought your name was familiar.

Modifié par Bigeyez, 03 février 2010 - 06:15 .

[LyonVanguard]

I completely agree. Bioware could have made characters more costumizable and still do the combat system. Bioware has the brains and money to pull this off. Makes you think why they didnt.

[jtd00123]

Lets be fair. Most of the positive reviews of the game were being released online at around the same time.  The others were in magazines in circulation.  (a little hard to edit opinions in this case)  It is hard to believe they all changed their scores last minute.  This one, on the other hand, is a week late. 

It is tough to take the reviewer seriously when he clearly contradicts himself. As shown previously, all the elements that he liked in the original that made him ignore its shortcomings are present in its sequel.

 Thane's walking contradiction comparision is pretty appropriate.  While there is a danger in groups jumping the bandwagon, there are also subgroup of people that purposely go against the grain just for the hell of it.  Methinks the reviewer is guilty of the "lets be different than everyone else" syndrome. Blind individuality is no better than conformity.

Modifié par jtd00123, 03 février 2010 - 06:33 .