393 réponses à ce sujet

[Crackseed]

A fair opinion Kara but I do have to raise a particular counterpoint - ME1 having more "skills" to me was an illusion. You had to pump twice as many skills just to get your gunnery/weaponry up to where it STARTS out as in ME2. Nevermind your skills were never quite as potent as their ME2 versions, plus the evolutions. It's a matter of perpsective [and opinion] in the end.

[Orogenic]

newcomplex wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

In the first game Shep, the best human soldier in the galaxy couldnt aim a sniper rifle or hit anything else 2/3rds of the time.

I love progression and char dev as much as the next person, but for a game involving guns where a soldier is already the Elite of the Elite it makes little sense to progress Accuacy of Stability

So once again, by your logic all combat soldiers are snipers?  I thought it added a bit of realisim that your character had to "develop" familiarity with different weapon types to be skilled with them... and that spending points on these skills would take away other potential benefits.  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.

To each his own.

All soldiers recieve basic training in sharpshooting, as well as the art of feild craft and reconaissance within a year in the military, all backgrounds for shepherd set him/her up as an elite and warworn soldier.     The core differentiate between an experienced soldier is not the former value of sharpshooting, but the latter values of feildcraft, camoflauge and recon expertise.  

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.     I suggest you drop the pretentious know-it-all condescending attitude you put on yourself, and join a legitimate discussion, instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you flamers, and ignoring refutations of your points, or leave.

You're not championing your case to bioware that ME3 should cater towards your gameplay tastes by acting like a sophomoric douchebag, who dismisses any opposing point as a troll or a flame, while dishing out condescending remarks at the same time.     If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free to address the dozen of so perfectly valid points which you've dismissed as flames.   

Orogenic wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

newcomplex
wrote...

 Your literally imagining themes and complexity where
none existed.   

Were you dropped on your head as a
child?

For the love of god, please look up delusional and apply
said definition to your above statement. 

I'm leaving this
thread before my  IQ starts to drop.

Have a nice day.

Specifically responded here.

I said he was being insulting, specifically by insinuating that I was delusional.  I referenced the definition of
delusional and provided a specific example of his behavior.  How could I respond in a more precise fashion?

No, I was not insinuating you were dillusional.   Imaginings and Delusion carry different heft in the language we call english.   Just because words are synonyms of each other does not mean they are analogues of each
other.   When I say you are imagining things because of nostalgia, that in no way shape or form infers you are delusional.    All civility on my part goes out the window when you suggest I was mentally damaged as a child, then flame me four consecutive posts, without actually referencing in any way shape or form my original points.

You've gotten people who actually agree with your core points to dislike your posts.   Good job!   That requires effort.


Second of all, regardless of your percieved level of insult, which clearly IS a delusion, because nobody seems to agree with you, debasing my argument because I "insulted you" (by saying you were imagining things), you fail to respond to my points on that basis alone.   That is literally the textbook definition of the fallacy "Ad hominem"

Finally, as a previous poster posted, are you DENYING that you imagined things?   Because the fact that Tali only has one formal dialogue sequence is in no way shape or form a falsehood.    That can only result in one logical conclusion.    That you did, indeed, imagine having more then one conversation with tali.    I don't understand how I can put that any nicer.   

You can of course, continue to flame me, say I'm insulting you, troll, whatever.    The point is irrelevent to me.    The point of a public forum isn't to gain smug self satisfaction from trying to insinuate you're more civil, more mature, and intellectually superior to everyone who disagrees with you, and to try to gain pleasure from that (rather pathetic) mode of thinking.   

The point of this forum as it relates to physical events is its a means to shape public opinion, especially in regards to the development of ME3, and the public opinion about the state of ME2, and to try to influence bioware in those regards as well.     (its also a place to socialize, but I don't think any of that is going on here lol).      By acting like a pretentious douchebag, without actually addressing any of the concerns raised against your argument, all you're doing is ensuring none of your concerns are being looked at legitimately by bioware, or the community as a large.     

newcomplex- very nice post.  Well written, and your arguments are well constructed.  You still call me a pretentious douchebag... but I can live with that (largely because I frequently AM a pretentious douchebag).

As for the specific points in your argument:

1) The DSM IV defines delusion as follows:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that
is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and
despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence
to the contrary.

Based on this definition, you are definitely accusing me of being delusional because you claim that there is only one conversation with Tali in ME 1 and I maintain that there were at least three... two in engineering, and one with Anderson and Udina etc. 

2) As for soldiers and sniper rifles- the Navy SEAL and E2 pilot that live on my hall both insist that, while elite military units all have trained snipers within their ranks, it is absurd to expect all of them to be proficient with a highly specialized weapon like a sniper rifle. It is entirely possible that you know more about this than I do.


You say that there is no socializing going on here- actually I disagree wholeheartedly.  Everything I've posted here is in the spirit of fun (I'm pretty sure you were not dropped on your head as an infant, and I'm also pretty sure that you know damned well I was kidding when I wrote that.  If you WERE dropped on your head, please accept my sincere apology).  The only reason I'm bothering to post ANYTHING here is to address and discuss the tendency I've seen on these boards to immediately attack anyone presenting an opposing viewpoint.  I could not care less about whether someone likes or dislikes ME 2 vs ME 1... I came here to vent initially after I first played ME 2 and found the game to be very different than what I had expected/ hoped for... I was hoping to connect with like minded people.

What I got instead was a giant raft of crap from people calling me a hater/troll/whiner just for voicing my opinion.

Please refer to your first post in this thread where you wrote:


"No, your not that important.    You don't warrant your own special thread. "


This is dismissive and rude.  Although this was aimed at the OP and not at me, I take issue with this type of attitude which is RAMPANT on this forum and seems to be MUCH more common in those attacking "critics" of ME 2.  I actually ended up LIKING this game, but I still maintain that it lost quite a bit of the "magic" that ME 1 had.

While you may disagree with my point of view, that does NOT give you the right to accuse me of "hating, " "trolling," "spewing crap," or any of the other rude and dismissive euphemisms you have used here for generally being an idiot.

Try not to take this so seriously... forums provide great entertainment by allowing rather direct anonymous interaction between people that sometimes hold violently conflicting disparate viewpoints...

My crusade is all about encouraging that exchange of ideas while maintaining standards of respect for your peers.  If you accuse me of spewing crap, I am not above asking you if you were dropped on your head as an infant however ; )

I say this with all sincerity:  I look forward to your reply : )

Modifié par Orogenic, 04 février 2010 - 12:23 .

[sedrikhcain]

Khavos wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

In ME1, you can choose between various makes/models of guns and choose your ammo. In ME2, you choose which gun you want to use per mission (and have 1 chance to to change it, usually) but also choose which upgrades you want and alter your ammo in mission based on the skills of your crew members. How does the first offer so much more customization? Especially since by the time you are halfway done w/one playthrough of ME1, 90% of the weapons you have to choose from become obsolete AND the differences between many of the different makes are somewhat insignificant?

I just don't get why anyone misses ME1's inventory system. I would love to understand why, I really would. That's why I'm taking the time to read and post here. But at this point, I just don't get it. What did you do in ME1, ditch spectre gear and go back up pick up a Katana VII just for the challenge? What am I missing?

Well, no, you don't get to choose which upgrades to put in weapons - you can choose to research/buy upgrades or not.  The only areas where I've seen ME2 weapon choices actually become even remotely difficult is with the higher-end items; Revenant versus Vindicator, mostly.  If you can use the Widow, you will, as there's absolutely no reason to use the other two.  Same with Tempest.  Same with the shotties.  The Carnifex is massively superior to the heavy pistol, but holds less ammo; I class it with Revenant versus Vindicator. 

People miss ME1's inventory system because a lot of people, myself included, like loot.  Doesn't matter if it's a marginal upgrade or a massive upgrade; loot's cool.  Loot's also been an integral part of most WRPGs for a long time.  That's what people are really getting at.

Does ME2 play better than ME1?  Yeah, it does.  But it sacrified - err, streamlined - a lot of its traditional RPG aspects and became much more of a level-based shooter in the process.  The RPG elements of ME1 oftentimes were clunky and overwrought, not fitting in all that well with the combat style.  Instead of refining them and figuring out a way to integrate into a true hybrid, they just threw them overboard. 

Case in point: you mentioned switching ammo and powers and whatnot based on your squad skills.  I'm playing on Insanity and I don't bother with any of that crap, because you're just as efficient, if not moreso, topping out Tungsten rounds or Warp ammo and just playing it like a standard TPS.  Sure, I could sit there and micromanage squad powers, slinging tech and biotic abilities around, but honestly?  Shooting is much faster and much more efficient.  "Oh, man, he's got Barrier, and then armor, so I need to go to Disruptor and then Incendiary and then..."  No.  Tungsten.  Headshots.  Dead faster with less mucking around with the power wheel. 

The game's a great RPG until you enter combat.

Khavos, from reading this post, it honestly sounds like you want to collect tons of stuff, then go into combat and not use any of it and the fact that ME2 makes this harder to do is a problem for you. Have I read this wrong?

I suppose it's true that your choice is to upgrade or not. You can switch out ammo and alter your squad to change the effects of your weapons, however.

also, you said: "People miss ME1's inventory system because a lot of people, myself included, like loot.  Doesn't matter if it's a marginal upgrade or a massive upgrade; loot's cool."

Wow. just, wow. I've been playing PC games for 10 years now, off and on but never has a release revealed more to me about the gaming community than this one. I guess that's because I've never played MMORPGs (for the same reason I don't do crack). Your post was very enlightening. Thank you. 

[haberman13]

I love loot, games without loot feel shallow. Even if we are talking about 1% incremental upgrades, the option, and the knowledge that out there somewhere is gear that will make you stronger are a great mechanic (carrot on a stick if you want).

It also gives incentive to explore every nook and cranny.

In ME2 if I don't see a square around something I just move on, and miss a lot of cool little details on the way; sure I can still slow down and investigate, but there is no incentive.

Removing loot from ME2 is my biggest complaint, that and the immersion breaking plaquards that pop up every 10 minutes.

Modifié par haberman13, 04 février 2010 - 12:44 .

[sedrikhcain]

Orogenic wrote...

spock06 wrote...

I'm beginning to think all these idiots whining about how ME1 was this great, deep RPG and ME2 has been "dumbed down" have not actually played ME2. All your "deep" RPG elements are still there, just in a different form. Instead of putting 1 skill point per skill into useless, +1.5% damage, they have made only important skill advances. As Shepard goes through the game he gets more skills. The weapon upgrade system is actually much better, more interesting, and much more realistic than the horrendous inventory from the first game. And how is it any different? In ME1 you had 100 million guns, 1 of which you used. In ME2 they've simply gotten rid of the useless s**t so we can focus on PLAYING THE GAME.

The review makes some good points, however, I wouldn't call the NY Times a respectable publication where games are concerned.

Thanks for calling anyone with a different opinion an idiot.

I have played through ME 2 and I will confirm that the game, while quite good in many ways, is extremely linear, the storyline is thin, and YES... the game has been dumbed down for people with short attention spans.  Sorry if the truth hurts. (I shouldn't have to say this, but this is MY opinion and I do not fault anyone for not sharing it)

For the record I couldn't care less what "genre" a game falls into.  ME 1 was simply more fun and engrossing than ME 2 for me.  Interestingly, I also find zero desire to replay ME 2... as many have stated in this forum, the first game was still fun after 10 playthroughs. I know many of you love the new combat mechanics, but every fight ends up being pretty much the same.

I'm glad you like ME 2 better than ME 1 honestly.  I have to ask though, is there a reason that all of the "new" ME 2 fans have to be so rude and insulting to those with different opinions? Is it an age thing? Hard to understand.

I think it's pretty rude and insulting to say that ME2 is "dumbed down", and I think you are getting a reaction to that -- at least in part. I enjoyed ME1 and now I'm enjoying ME2. The inventory system in ME1 was neither complex nor challenging. It was simply a linear progression of weapons that resulted in you carrying around endless piles of crap because every single new weapon level made everything before it obsolete. If you like that, fine. But don't try to act like that made ME1 a brainiac challenge and ME2 is somehow Mass Effect for Dummies because it got rid of that system.

[Crackseed]

@ haberman13

Except ME1 nor 2 were really about loot. ME1's loot system was slapped on and shakey. There's no way around it. I am a huge loot gamer - Diablo 1/2 are some of my all time fave games and I relish D3 arriving in the next...millenia or so >.>

But pinning a lack of inventory system as a weakpoint of ME2 by using ME1's against it is, with all due respect, utter fallacy. ME1's loot system was a sham. The illusion of "differing" weapons was...oh hey, 1-10 models, they all look 1 of 2 ways, operate no differently and basically are just upgraded stats with a few mods to slap in. Everyone gravitated to the same mods. There was no choice in what you used.

ME2, while I would LIKE to have seen a bit more out of it customization/modding wise, did away with the pointless nature of the inventory system. I love ME1 - I am a big fan of loot - but I do not miss ME1's loot/inventory at all and applaud ME2's take on it. It's not perfect, so please don't take me as saying so, but of the 2 games, it's the better and more robust of the 2. Even if the weapon totals seem small, we've still walked away with more options and actual weapon differences in ME2 then ME1 and it's 150 limit inventory ever gave.

Modifié par crackseed, 04 février 2010 - 12:52 .

[sedrikhcain]

BiowareAZ wrote...

Re: Loot - I think the feeling or need for loot is to feel like my character is progressing in power, in any RPG you start out with a pistol/rusty sword, then eventually you build your character into gleaming engine of destruction.

Which is what happens in ME2, and it actually happens at a slower rate, despite having fewer steps than in ME1

[sedrikhcain]

Mezinger wrote...

BiowareAZ wrote...

Re: Loot - I think the feeling or need for loot is to feel like my character is progressing in power, in any RPG you start out with a pistol/rusty sword, then eventually you build your character into gleaming engine of destruction.

Absolutely it's a core piece of character progression along with skills, attributes, levels and they've all been brutally down sized in one way or another in ME2.

If meaningful loot was in issue for you, I have a hard time understanding why you like ME1 so much in the first place. That's the real trouble I'm having with so many of the complaints.

[Orogenic]

sedrikhcain wrote...

I think it's pretty rude and insulting to say that ME2 is "dumbed down", and I think you are getting a reaction to that -- at least in part. I enjoyed ME1 and now I'm enjoying ME2. The inventory system in ME1 was neither complex nor challenging. It was simply a linear progression of weapons that resulted in you carrying around endless piles of crap because every single new weapon level made everything before it obsolete. If you like that, fine. But don't try to act like that made ME1 a brainiac challenge and ME2 is somehow Mass Effect for Dummies because it got rid of that system.

Fair enough.  Please feel free to substitute "oversimplified" for "dumbed down."

I never gave much thought to whether or not ME 1 was complex or challenging actually- I just thought it was fun and emotionally engaging.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but wouldn't you agree that they went just a tad too far in "streamlining" ME 2? Perhaps not... 

The important thing is that we are all entitled to our opinions.

[GrimmjawJin]

I completely agree with the review. Its a great game, however some rpg elements are missing or limited. I would say ME2 is 70% action and 30% rpg. It would be great if they evened out both these aspects.

[haberman13]

crackseed wrote...

@ haberman13

Except ME1 nor 2 were really about loot. ME1's loot system was slapped on and shakey. There's no way around it. I am a huge loot gamer - Diablo 1/2 are some of my all time fave games and I relish D3 arriving in the next...millenia or so >.>

But pinning a lack of inventory system as a weakpoint of ME2 by using ME1's against it is, with all due respect, utter fallacy. ME1's loot system was a sham. The illusion of "differing" weapons was...oh hey, 1-10 models, they all look 1 of 2 ways, operate no differently and basically are just upgraded stats with a few mods to slap in. Everyone gravitated to the same mods. There was no choice in what you used.

ME2, while I would LIKE to have seen a bit more out of it customization/modding wise, did away with the pointless nature of the inventory system. I love ME1 - I am a big fan of loot - but I do not miss ME1's loot/inventory at all and applaud ME2's take on it. It's not perfect, so please don't take me as saying so, but of the 2 games, it's the better and more robust of the 2. Even if the weapon totals seem small, we've still walked away with more options and actual weapon differences in ME2 then ME1 and it's 150 limit inventory ever gave.

I guess that is my point, regardless of the illusion of gear in ME1 it still propelled me to search and loot everything.

The actual quality of the gear system was besides the point, though if it were on diablo 2 level I would declare ME1 the best game of all time!

[sedrikhcain]

haberman13 wrote...

I love loot, games without loot feel shallow. Even if we are talking about 1% incremental upgrades, the option, and the knowledge that out there somewhere is gear that will make you stronger are a great mechanic (carrot on a stick if you want).

It also gives incentive to explore every nook and cranny.

In ME2 if I don't see a square around something I just move on, and miss a lot of cool little details on the way; sure I can still slow down and investigate, but there is no incentive.

Removing loot from ME2 is my biggest complaint, that and the immersion breaking plaquards that pop up every 10 minutes.

I do agree w/you about those plaquards. They're way too big. That is one thing I would definitely change about 2, if I could. I still don't get the loot thing, though. You loot dead bodies in other games, they have markers. ME2 has squares that denote upgrades or cash loot. I don't see the difference.

[jtd00123]

I do like RPGs, and grew up with some of the PC ones in the old 80s. That being said, I also like a lot of other genres, shooters included.

As an RPG, I will admit ME2 is lacking in many areas.   However, as a game, it was one of the most enjoyable experiences I had in a long time.

Modifié par jtd00123, 04 février 2010 - 01:17 .

[sedrikhcain]

crackseed wrote...

@ haberman13

Except ME1 nor 2 were really about loot. ME1's loot system was slapped on and shakey. There's no way around it. I am a huge loot gamer - Diablo 1/2 are some of my all time fave games and I relish D3 arriving in the next...millenia or so >.>

But pinning a lack of inventory system as a weakpoint of ME2 by using ME1's against it is, with all due respect, utter fallacy. ME1's loot system was a sham. The illusion of "differing" weapons was...oh hey, 1-10 models, they all look 1 of 2 ways, operate no differently and basically are just upgraded stats with a few mods to slap in. Everyone gravitated to the same mods. There was no choice in what you used.

ME2, while I would LIKE to have seen a bit more out of it customization/modding wise, did away with the pointless nature of the inventory system. I love ME1 - I am a big fan of loot - but I do not miss ME1's loot/inventory at all and applaud ME2's take on it. It's not perfect, so please don't take me as saying so, but of the 2 games, it's the better and more robust of the 2. Even if the weapon totals seem small, we've still walked away with more options and actual weapon differences in ME2 then ME1 and it's 150 limit inventory ever gave.

Bingo. I've tried to say the same thing but you've done it better, in fewer words. This is exactly why I don't get why so many people are "disappointed" who played the first game. Unless, as one person posted earlier, they're just into loot for sake of loot.

[Inquisitor Recon]

To be fair ME was always a short of shooter-RPG hybrid. Bioware for good reason tried to streamline the shooter aspects which was sometimes rather clumsy in ME1, but perhaps too much was cut in terms of unique abilities and customization.

[sedrikhcain]

Orogenic wrote...



I'm not trying to be argumentative, but wouldn't you agree that they went just a tad too far in "streamlining" ME 2? Perhaps not... 

The important thing is that we are all entitled to our opinions.

Hey, we're here to discuss, so argue away. I'm fine w/the level of weapons customization as it is. ME was never about that sort of thing for me. The emotional engagement elements of RPGs are more important to me than gear customization and loot. That said, I would take it as an improvement if they added some actual MEANINGFUL complexity to the gear. That way, you'd have more choices that actually made a real difference. More of that is usually a good thing, yes. It's just that IMO, ME1 didn't provide that, it just added ballast and I'm glad that ballast is gone.

[For Humanity]

crackseed wrote...

@ haberman13

Except ME1 nor 2 were really about loot. ME1's loot system was slapped on and shakey. There's no way around it. I am a huge loot gamer - Diablo 1/2 are some of my all time fave games and I relish D3 arriving in the next...millenia or so >.>

But pinning a lack of inventory system as a weakpoint of ME2 by using ME1's against it is, with all due respect, utter fallacy. ME1's loot system was a sham. The illusion of "differing" weapons was...oh hey, 1-10 models, they all look 1 of 2 ways, operate no differently and basically are just upgraded stats with a few mods to slap in. Everyone gravitated to the same mods. There was no choice in what you used.

ME2, while I would LIKE to have seen a bit more out of it customization/modding wise, did away with the pointless nature of the inventory system. I love ME1 - I am a big fan of loot - but I do not miss ME1's loot/inventory at all and applaud ME2's take on it. It's not perfect, so please don't take me as saying so, but of the 2 games, it's the better and more robust of the 2. Even if the weapon totals seem small, we've still walked away with more options and actual weapon differences in ME2 then ME1 and it's 150 limit inventory ever gave.

Except in Mass Effect I could set the difficulty to casual and play with guns that knock enemies around but do little damage or that one shot before overheating gun mod. In Mass Effect 2 after playing a Vanguard with inferno grenades I've already had the most varied combat I can.

[newcomplex]

Orogenic wrote...

newcomplex- very nice post.  Well written, and your arguments are well constructed.  You still call me a pretentious douchebag... but I can live with that (largely because I frequently AM a pretentious douchebag).

As for the specific points in your argument:

1) The DSM IV defines delusion as follows:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that
is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and
despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence
to the contrary.

Based on this definition, you are definitely accusing me of being delusional because you claim that there is only one conversation with Tali in ME 1 and I maintain that there were at least three... two in engineering, and one with Anderson and Udina etc. 

2) As for soldiers and sniper rifles- the Navy SEAL and E2 pilot that live on my hall both insist that, while elite military units all have trained snipers within their ranks, it is absurd to expect all of them to be proficient with a highly specialized weapon like a sniper rifle. It is entirely possible that you know more about this than I do.


You say that there is no socializing going on here- actually I disagree wholeheartedly.  Everything I've posted here is in the spirit of fun (I'm pretty sure you were not dropped on your head as an infant, and I'm also pretty sure that you know damned well I was kidding when I wrote that.  If you WERE dropped on your head, please accept my sincere apology).  The only reason I'm bothering to post ANYTHING here is to address and discuss the tendency I've seen on these boards to immediately attack anyone presenting an opposing viewpoint.  I could not care less about whether someone likes or dislikes ME 2 vs ME 1... I came here to vent initially after I first played ME 2 and found the game to be very different than what I had expected/ hoped for... I was hoping to connect with like minded people.

What I got instead was a giant raft of crap from people calling me a hater/troll/whiner just for voicing my opinion.

Please refer to your first post in this thread where you wrote:


"No, your not that important.    You don't warrant your own special thread. "


This is dismissive and rude.  Although this was aimed at the OP and not at me, I take issue with this type of attitude which is RAMPANT on this forum and seems to be MUCH more common in those attacking "critics" of ME 2.  I actually ended up LIKING this game, but I still maintain that it lost quite a bit of the "magic" that ME 1 had.

While you may disagree with my point of view, that does NOT give you the right to accuse me of "hating, " "trolling," "spewing crap," or any of the other rude and dismissive euphemisms you have used here for generally being an idiot.

Try not to take this so seriously... forums provide great entertainment by allowing rather direct anonymous interaction between people that sometimes hold violently conflicting disparate viewpoints...

My crusade is all about encouraging that exchange of ideas while maintaining standards of respect for your peers.  If you accuse me of spewing crap, I am not above asking you if you were dropped on your head as an infant however ; )

I say this with all sincerity:  I look forward to your reply : )

First of all, I appreciate the fact that you address my arguments at face value, thats pretty cool.   

Regarding tali, perhaps its a misunderstanding.   She does have an opening dialogue, 3 investigations, and one formal "about me" dialogue.    I didn't include the first two because the first one reveals nothing about her, while the investigations do not allow you to make diverse comments about her, so it isn't a "conversation", its fairly one sided.    I have no idea what your talking about with Udina and Anderson, but if its not on the ship, I probably forgot about it.    Either way, Tali has 3 dialogues prior to her special mission, and 3 dialogues afterwards, three seperate investigations, and a confrontation with Legion in ME2.     A lot of fans seem to (somewhat irrationally), love Tali, probably due to construction of her voice and body type, her shroud of mystery, and her "cuddly" quips she makes in missions rather then any actual substance in her personality.    Prior to ME2, we really knew absolutely nothing about tali's personality or background.     ME2 reveals us a lot about her, and really, the only argument that you could make about how she was less deep is if the depth in her personality in ME1 was purely a construction of your own imagination (NOT a delusion.    Its imagining within the context of a RPG, thats hardly abnormal).   

A lot of people do think that the ME1 characters were more deep, despite the fact that is more or less verifiably false for most of the cases (though you can make an argument that lhiara, kaiden or ashley are more complex, and we couldn't argue that).     And its probably due to the length of time since they actually played ME1, combined with the fact that they clearly liked the original characters.   

Its reminescent of people complaing how L4D2 characters are shallow, while the originals were super deep.     People cling and defend familiar things.     

2)In regards to "basic soldiers not being proficient at sniping", the "gap" between your sniping abilities at the beginning and end of the game are inconsistent, or even close to what normal soldiers experience.     Actually, the proficiency you have at sniping in the beginning of the game is actually extremely consistent with what you would expect of a vet soldier trying to snipe in those situations.    The problem is by the end of the game, you are sniping at a level that exceeds any possible human standard of accuracy 10 folds.   

I also never accused you of hating, trolling, or anything other then being a pretentious douchebag , and dodging my posts .

A lot of hate your crowd recieves is because the crux of your argument is that ME2 is "too simple".    This is kind of a pretentious argument, because it inherently implies anyone who enjoys ME2 is intellectually inferior to you.    People don't like that.    It gets even worse when people liken it to stuff like Gears of war with dialogue, so their are people who have never touched a FPS in their life, and Bioware fans for fifteen something years being called a shooter kiddy.      And then you have people who are genuinely good at shooters tired of having their favorite genre likened to kiddy-play, when games like counterstrike are incomparably more complex then any role playing game perhaps save EvE, with its pushing mechanics, the split second decisions, the teamplay tactics.      

In regards to the my response on the OP, I think its perfectly valid.   Their is clearly a sticky at the top of the forum that says "reviews".     The OP obviously knew that, and ignored it because he wanted to incite a reaction (which he obviously succeeded in).     He purposely ignored posting rules to gain attention.   I think that warrants a little bit of verbatim.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 04 février 2010 - 01:32 .

[mcsupersport]

1) ME2 has loot, you just find it in different places than ME1, and it looks different. Loot is what you pick up from hacked terminals and off dead bodies laying around like new rifles, and upgrades. But it is still there, just not piled to everywhere, so you have to omni-gel 20+ pieces so you can change your ammo selection.



2) Skill choices are still there, and they are even more important now, because you get less points and they can do so much more for your play now. What to upgrade, tech armor or cryo, choose the wrong one and you will die, whereas ME1 it didn't really matter all that much, just put the points into something and it will probably work.



3) RPG is about more than skills and loot, it is about choices and having them mean something. ME2 is great about making a choice you made mean something, not just, "Oh, well, lets let them make a choice and then let them shoot their way out." If you make bad choices throughout you may not have the ability to get your companions to survive, or have a harder time in the mission. Your choices matter, look for people having trouble with Jack after fight, and see what your choices can mean.



5) You have a right to your opinion, but mine thinks ME2 while different than ME1 is a better game, and well worth the time. I am glad they didn't come out with a recycled ME1 and call it ME2, because if I want to play ME1 then I will just fire it up. But I like the continued characters with a slightly altered game to make it fresh.



6) Glad the combat is harder than in ME1, because I just got done playing a 60 level Soldier in ME1 and he was basically a god--untouchable, unstoppable.

[Orogenic]

newcomplex wrote...

A lot of people do think that the ME1 characters were more deep, despite the fact that is more or less verifiably false for most of the cases...

Thank you again for another excellent response.

I'm not sure that you can call any subjective experience "verifiably false."  You can't equate quantity with quality to be sure.

Observe the following Haiku (Matsuo Basho):

Here where a thousand

captains swore grand conquest

Tall grasses their monument.

This has more depth and emotion than a 1000 page Danielle Steel novel : )

Modifié par Orogenic, 04 février 2010 - 01:53 .

[Crackseed]

haberman13 wrote...

crackseed wrote...

@ haberman13

Except ME1 nor 2 were really about loot. ME1's loot system was slapped on and shakey. There's no way around it. I am a huge loot gamer - Diablo 1/2 are some of my all time fave games and I relish D3 arriving in the next...millenia or so >.>

But pinning a lack of inventory system as a weakpoint of ME2 by using ME1's against it is, with all due respect, utter fallacy. ME1's loot system was a sham. The illusion of "differing" weapons was...oh hey, 1-10 models, they all look 1 of 2 ways, operate no differently and basically are just upgraded stats with a few mods to slap in. Everyone gravitated to the same mods. There was no choice in what you used.

ME2, while I would LIKE to have seen a bit more out of it customization/modding wise, did away with the pointless nature of the inventory system. I love ME1 - I am a big fan of loot - but I do not miss ME1's loot/inventory at all and applaud ME2's take on it. It's not perfect, so please don't take me as saying so, but of the 2 games, it's the better and more robust of the 2. Even if the weapon totals seem small, we've still walked away with more options and actual weapon differences in ME2 then ME1 and it's 150 limit inventory ever gave.

I guess that is my point, regardless of the illusion of gear in ME1 it still propelled me to search and loot everything.

The actual quality of the gear system was besides the point, though if it were on diablo 2 level I would declare ME1 the best game of all time!

If they developed ME1 with a loot system like D1/D2's I dunno if we've have let go of it long enough to play ME2...

Well, ok, unless they continued that system in ME2... Let's not even think about this just yet. I know that once D3 launches my free time is going out the nearest airlock and I suppose I'm glad that there will only be one game every...10 years [haha] that induces loot lust and craziness in the manner Diablo does. I'll keep my ME experience for it's story instead of wanting it to have Diablo/Borderlands level loot xD

Your point is certainly noted though and I cannot fault your logic in that regard

[Cloaking_Thane]

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 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!

WTH are you talking about?

1. I never once said anything about (not) being treated w/ respect, let alone whined about it, dont know where you pulled that from.

2. This is an internet forum, not exactly real life. Me and bigeyes seem to generally agree about ME 2, but I have no idea what that has to do w/ anything other than we share similar opinions.

If you dont agree w/ our opinion...fine, but youre just spouting out nonsense at this point.

[FireSarge]

Marek_Kail wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

In the first game Shep, the best human soldier in the galaxy couldnt aim a sniper rifle or hit anything else 2/3rds of the time.

I love progression and char dev as much as the next person, but for a game involving guns where a soldier is already the Elite of the Elite it makes little sense to progress Accuacy of Stability

So once again, by your logic all combat soldiers are snipers?  I thought it added a bit of realisim that your character had to "develop" familiarity with different weapon types to be skilled with them..

If you started out picking one or more weapon which you already excelled, then perhaps. The problem I have with it is that when you start ME1, you suck at all of the weapons. Fact of the matter is you suck all around, like the typical lowbie in all "rpgs" 

The irony is that the setup for ME2 would have me more understanding of a "don't know how to aim a pistol/shotgun/rifle effectively" than ME1. 

ME1 was far less immersive for me simply because you were supposed to be one of "The best of the Best", but still seemed to lack stuff you would learn in basic training.

actually i understand what you are saying to a point. but i alos know from a soldiers perspective that even trained on a weapon doesnt make you good with it. we train on marksmenship on static targets at set ranges. now not to sound stupid but moving targets while being shot at are harder to hit.

did they start you off as if you are a BCT newbie fresh out of training yes. but if you started off as an uber soldier like master chief from halo there would have been no point to adding roleplaying to the game. the game starts you off low to make yourself into the elite soldier you want to be.

[kiyyto]

H3avyM3tal wrote...

The real problem I see with reviews are that they all put too much consideration into making us think that gameplay machanics are what makes or breaks a game, while in ME2's case it clearly isn't.

This game has a soul in it like very few other games out there. We can all complain that there is too little in the item department (a valid claim, and one that I support), but in my case, the story and characters are what keeps me coming back.

The first game is the best example: it had one of the worst item managment ui, but I kept coming for the story and for the characters. But most of all because sheperd is the best of them all. Story telling from bioware is aces. And not having str, dex, vit and the likes don't take even one friggin' bit from the experience.

So people should stop reviews that treat the game like an RPG\\\\TPS and start treating it like the game it is.

The management UI wasn't much of a problem in ME, certainly not the worst.
Agree about the soul of the series, it is there.
The game mechanics in ME2 are fine, but they are too obvious, in that sense they become boring. There isn't anything wrong with them, but they should be hidden more.

Example - it'd be very nice to know that in order to get resources I wouldn't be scanning 100 planets exactly the same boring way, or in order to get loyalty I wouldn't have every character tell me a sob story and then have a medium mission with a boss. The mechanics need to be hidden better, more surprises throwing up the plot and making you think you don't know what is going to happen next, maybe everything isn't as it seems.

[kiyyto]

WarlockSoL wrote...

I do think the review is slightly unfair in criticising BioWare for these changes as "playing it safe" when in fact they shook up the design quite significantly here. Love them or hate them, these are not "safe" changes. They are refinements of the original design, based on feedback and new ideas (well, new for the series anyways).

OK.
The game feels safe to me because although I cannot tell where the main story is going to go, all the rest of the game is known after the first scanned planet and the first loyalty quest. What is daring about that?