393 réponses à ce sujet

[kiyyto]

Orogenic wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

Spin****e wrote...

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

Veex wrote...

BioWare challenging itself to new heights would be to repeatedly make single player RPGs?

YEAH MASS EFFECT 2 SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOAR LIEK FALLOUT 3 THAT IS TRU RPG COS I HAV ITEMZ

Lol, that's what I think anytime someone complains about ME2.

If this is true then it is clear that none of you understands some of our criticisms of the game on even the most basic levels.

You are, however, quite good at rude and stupid insults that make you look worse than the intended targets.

This is actually both good and funny, so keep up the good work.

wow...

I heard acting like a pretentious douchebag is going to make Bioware address your concerns legitimately.     

And that my friend, is a personal attack.    

What is the proper response to being called a douchebag? Get back to me on that one.

The proper response is, YOU'RE a douchebag, douchey.

[kiyyto]

[quote]Marek_Kail wrote...

[quote]Orogenic wrote...

[quote]Cloaking_Thane wrote...

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.
[/quote]

This makes sense, what you said about ME, but they made you do the same thing over again in ME2 only just a little differently. In fact, it is even more absurd to gain weapon skills in ME2 since you already saved the galaxy by shooting a million times in ME. Not that I really care, but your argument doesn't hold water.

[kiyyto]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Exactly as a critic he is a walking contradiction

Someone who gets their vocabulary from dookie, as in poop, not Green Day.

I'm just kidding because I don't give a ****.

[kiyyto]

LyonVanguard wrote...

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.

EXACTLY.
Not that the game is horrible, because it isn't.
But this is BioWare and we know they could have done more... combined ME with ME2, instead of cut a lot of ME from ME2.

So, why didn't they?

I heard someone mention that they thought it might be because the company has a contract to release all three in the series on the xbox, and in order to do that before the console dies they have to get the games out in an orderly fashion, one every two years.

[God_Emperor]

So what is it exactly that most players are mourning, the loss of variety when it comes to inventory, weapons, etc or the loss of the illusion of variety? Personally I'm disappointed in the lack of skills and smaller safe areas to explore more than loot or weapons changes. Two of the greatest components of RPGs are still present within ME2 which is choice and consequence and character/story development,



I've been playing RPGs since the early-mid 80s and when it comes to loot and inventories all I know is that every weapon is basically exactly the same as the next one you pick up. There is no real diversity in weapons in most RPGs, at least none that impact the game in any actual manner.



In Mass Effect there's barely a difference between a human assault rifle and a Krogan assault rifle, both look and do exactly the same thing; even worse a human assault rifle and another human rifle of a supposedly superior class is even worse. Yeah a few more points of damage here and there but the way the differences between weapons is reflected ingame is barely noticeable if at all. So I wonder where the actual loss is with the reworked system of ME2?



It's not like a specific ammo type or weapon class is the only weapon effective against a specific enemy. I can kill a Krogan with anti-armor rounds just as easily as I can kill a Geth with toxic rounds or use a rocket launcher's missile as easy as a sub-machinegun's "bullets" to same effect. Sure there are few exceptions with bosses where this weapon makes it easier than that one but these are so few and far between that it doesn't really count for anything. So again what's the point of collecting 600 different guns and ammo types and then staring at the screen for a half hour deciding on the proper loadout to use? Because in my experience it doesn't make a lick of difference in the actual game anyway as you play it.



The guns all look pretty much the same and I doubt the point would be because of the joy of aesthetic differences were they present. Same thing goes for armors or any other type of inventory,



I know ME2 changed the formula the way that RPGs traditionally handle equipment and weapons and people hate whenever you change anything in the old formula. I'm currently replaying ME1 to make a different playthrough for my second ME2 character, most of the time I just spend selling the majority of the loot I picked up or turning it into gel. There is no strategy to choosing loot or how it functions ingame, I had all my squad carrying toxic ammo and using assault rifles (Even if they didn';t know how to use them) and I simply update their weapons with higher damage versions when I pick up a newer model and everything else I sell. And My guys rip through every enemy exactly the same way they would if I were choosing this weapon type or that armor type. So to me all that has been lost is the illusion of diversity more than actual inagme diversity with ME2's tech tree.



As to the review by the NYT everything is relative to the tastes of the player. In Time Magazine's website of don't miss games of 2010 it names ME2 as "The Avatar of video games except better written". I guess it all depends on what you were expecting versus what you are willing to live with once those expectations are not present.



Anyway, my two cents...whatever they are worth to the discussion

[kiyyto]

newcomplex wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

Just because the reviewer didnt say ME2 is the best game ever made like many other reviews, many of them "exclusive" which makes them instantly biased doesnt mean that hes a whining RPG fan. Infact the reviewer said nothing wrong, nothing which can be considered a lie or wrong perception and the overall tone wasnt really negative.

Bashing the review or even putting it on the same line as dissappointed RPG purists or "the vocal minority" (which isnt that minor actually) is simply not fair or objective.

The issue here is that a lot of the people (not all) who thought mass effect 2 was disapointing have to dramatasize their complaints, rather then make them on face value.

I've defended Mass Effect 2 a lot of times, and its not that I think ME2 was perfect.   In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer, in all aspects except the part where he states that ME2 was a lazy cashgrab by bioware.     The issue is that people can't realize that ME2 is a ****ING VIDEO GAME, so they feel the need to sensationalize their concerns with the game (zomg ME2 is like gears of war, zomg ME1 was such a good RPG, zomg ME2 was a cash grab by EA to get halo fans etc etc etc)

They would wholeheartedly get a better reception if they just acted in a less sensationalist (and just not right) fashion, and objectively pointed out their dislikes with the game (And many of them do, but their are equally many of them who are too busy raging at it to do so)

I disagree with you.

[kiyyto]

National_Cause wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

respected publication like the NYT.

The NYT is a respected publication? I'd list all the reasons why it isn't, but this isn't the place for a debate about journalistic integrity.

As far as the game review is concerned, meh. The guy has his own opinions. Other reviewers have different opinions. Everyone who has played the game has different opinions. Who cares? Why do people feel the need to post links to different reviews, positive or negative, to validate their own opinions on the game?

EDIT: Also, while the two games are different in many ways, better in some and worse in others, I think people are getting caught up in the nostalgia of the first game. I remember the first time I played the original Everquest back in 99. It was like a drug. Years later when I tried to get back into MMOs with Everquest 2, it just wasn't the same. The high from the first experience just couldn't be recaptured. That wasn't the developers fault. Hell, in many ways EQ2 was much better, but I was chasing that first high and I never caught it.

I think you are way off base.
Mass Effect looks pretty much the same as ME2, I just played it a few weeks ago in prep for ME2. The reason people are shocked at ME2, the people who discount it, is because ME2 is lacking some of the basic structure that made people enjoy ME.

It is not the same scenario that you are proposing.

[kiyyto]

trope wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

WarlockSoL wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Huh??/

Every character had more than 1 dialogue sequence, after every major quest you could retalk to everyone and get more conversations from them.  Nothing massive sure, but it was there.  I think ME2 has more character building conversations with each teammate, but Tali did have more than 1 in ME1.  Since she wasn't a love interest it wasn't as large as Ash or the other love interests.

Tali stops giving out conversations after 1 mission after recruiting her.    Garrus stops after two.   you can try it yourself.   

This is correct.  I think Wrex may have been 3.  Kaiden, Ashley and Liara were the only ones that had a real significant amount of dialog since all three were romance options. 

I just finished the game again a couple weeks ago, I got more than 1 conversation out of Tali.

See I didn't like Fallout 3.  The writing was horrible and the voice acting was so sub-par.  Sure the graphics we're cool, but honestly Bethesda's whole 1st-person RPG thing is not for me.  I guess people are really into that game but I never understood why.  

The writing is not horrible, not to me.
The voice acting is horrible.
The graphics are alright, but not the best, even for a console - see Killzone 2 grfx for comparison.
Fallout 3 was a lot of fun, but not as good as oblivion for my money. I found both better than ME2, but that is my opinion. I prefer a FPS with RPG.

I'm hoping for great things now that Bethesda and Id are under one roof.
Imagine the next Bethsoft game with Id tech 5... woot!

[ODST 3]

novaseeker wrote...
 By role-playing-game standards, it is unacceptably thin in its core play systems. ...
 

What a ****head. Using formulas to create expectations is never a good idea when evaluating art.

[kiyyto]

SphereofSilence wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Couldn't agree with this review more.

ME2 is fun, but its a corridor shooter with story (basically)

ME1 felt more open, had deeper systems. (could have been much deeper of course, but wayyy more deep than ME2)

I would like to see an in-depth analysis from you on why ME1 is way deeper than ME2. 

I'd like to see an in depth analysis from you on why it isn't.

[kiyyto]

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 like exploring too.
I don't significantly more loot, but there isn't any here.

[kiyyto]

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 >.>

That is fine, but your argument may likely be the same as many people here. Instead of tossing the lapped on and shakey loot system (your words), they should have simply improved it and made it better.

[kiyyto]

God_Emperor wrote...

So what is it exactly that most players are mourning, the loss of variety when it comes to inventory, weapons, etc or the loss of the illusion of variety? Personally I'm disappointed in the lack of skills and smaller safe areas to explore more than loot or weapons changes. Two of the greatest components of RPGs are still present within ME2 which is choice and consequence and character/story development,

I've been playing RPGs since the early-mid 80s and when it comes to loot and inventories all I know is that every weapon is basically exactly the same as the next one you pick up. There is no real diversity in weapons in most RPGs, at least none that impact the game in any actual manner.

In Mass Effect there's barely a difference between a human assault rifle and a Krogan assault rifle, both look and do exactly the same thing; even worse a human assault rifle and another human rifle of a supposedly superior class is even worse. Yeah a few more points of damage here and there but the way the differences between weapons is reflected ingame is barely noticeable if at all. So I wonder where the actual loss is with the reworked system of ME2?

It's not like a specific ammo type or weapon class is the only weapon effective against a specific enemy. I can kill a Krogan with anti-armor rounds just as easily as I can kill a Geth with toxic rounds or use a rocket launcher's missile as easy as a sub-machinegun's "bullets" to same effect. Sure there are few exceptions with bosses where this weapon makes it easier than that one but these are so few and far between that it doesn't really count for anything. So again what's the point of collecting 600 different guns and ammo types and then staring at the screen for a half hour deciding on the proper loadout to use? Because in my experience it doesn't make a lick of difference in the actual game anyway as you play it.

The guns all look pretty much the same and I doubt the point would be because of the joy of aesthetic differences were they present. Same thing goes for armors or any other type of inventory,

I know ME2 changed the formula the way that RPGs traditionally handle equipment and weapons and people hate whenever you change anything in the old formula. I'm currently replaying ME1 to make a different playthrough for my second ME2 character, most of the time I just spend selling the majority of the loot I picked up or turning it into gel. There is no strategy to choosing loot or how it functions ingame, I had all my squad carrying toxic ammo and using assault rifles (Even if they didn';t know how to use them) and I simply update their weapons with higher damage versions when I pick up a newer model and everything else I sell. And My guys rip through every enemy exactly the same way they would if I were choosing this weapon type or that armor type. So to me all that has been lost is the illusion of diversity more than actual inagme diversity with ME2's tech tree.

As to the review by the NYT everything is relative to the tastes of the player. In Time Magazine's website of don't miss games of 2010 it names ME2 as "The Avatar of video games except better written". I guess it all depends on what you were expecting versus what you are willing to live with once those expectations are not present.

Anyway, my two cents...whatever they are worth to the discussion

 

I can basically agree with this.
I'd just like to see more depth SOMEWHERE. I'm not shouting, but emphasizing.
More skills, more loot, more exploring, more depth please. At least one of them and not a constant point click cover

[kiyyto]

ODST 3 wrote...

novaseeker wrote...
 By role-playing-game standards, it is unacceptably thin in its core play systems. ...
 

What a ****head. Using formulas to create expectations is never a good idea when evaluating art.

what formula?
Aren't you being a bit figurative in your interpretation?
I don't think he had an RPG slide ruler, but was simply citing the past 20 years of gaming history as a guide.
Are you saying using history as a guide makes one a ****head?
How do you judge something if not by the past?

Oh, and you are a douche.

[jtd00123]

I guess I was one of the few that played ME1 once and never came back to it. I liked it, just not enough to play it again. (The only Bioware game that did that to me) I'm already on my second run in ME2.

I managed to pop in ME1 again to find out why it never clicked with me, plus an overview of the many youtube videos.

With regards to the "is less more?" argument. In fiction, it usually takes at least several chapters to flesh out the characters. Few authors have the talent to do this in pages, and the ones working on ME1 weren't one of them. There just weren't enough lines of dialogue in ME1 for some of the characters to give any sense of development. In ME1, Tali seemed to serve as exposition to explain Quarian life rather than actual character. In ME2, we see her weaknesses, fears about her immunity, her shyness, etc. We actually see more actions as well via in-game cutscene. It has more impact than a rambling about the Migrant Fleet.

Garrus in ME1 is a derivative bends-the-rules officer, of course we would never know that if he didn't say it in exposition-land. Never really felt any development beyond that (yes, even after his sidequest). We see more of Garrus exposed in ME2. We actually see more his tough-guy persona in action. (first rule of fiction, show don't tell. )He is a fumbler with women apparently, and his moment of weakness during his romance revealed more of him in 5 seconds than ME1 did throughout the game.

Kaiden and Ashley. I could replace these 2 with half a Mordin and ME1s character development would have increased two-fold. They were that plain. This might get me some flames, but throw in Liara there as well.

Storywise, my biggest complaint in ME1 was not just that the characters were underdeveloped, but that they weren't original. None of them even step past any boundaries beyond what we see in games, especially since we knew Bioware was more than capable. Hell, even though many were repulsed by Jack, I'd say the writers at least tried to make her go beyond a common videogame archetype.

That isn't to say ME2 doesn't have unoriginal characters, they just don't make up your entire squad. (I take that back, Wrex was at least interesting)

Modifié par jtd00123, 04 février 2010 - 06:24 .

[loboME2]

Marek_Kail wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

ScroguBlitzen wrote...

This review was right on the money. It seems to be the only review I've read that was written by someone that really loved ME1.

There is no question that ME2 is a great game. The problem is it does not feel like a spiritual successor to ME1 which was awesome.

I will probably go back and replay ME1 a couple more times, but I doubt I'll even bother with a second playthrough of ME2.

I don't really follow this. The "spirit" of ME1 was undoubtedly in its storytelling. ME2, for whatever differences it has, certainly continues telling that great story.

Ponder this...

After Luke Skywalker was awarded his medal for blowing up the Deathstar, he died in a freak landspeeder accident.

Darth Vader found his dessicated remains a couple years later and reconstituted him (sort of like a sea monkey).

After his revitalization, Luke decides that Darth and his Empire buddies really aren't as bad as he thought....

In fact, they actually have the best interests of the human race at heart. 

It turns out Han Solo really WAS a two-bit criminal and Princess Leia is a tree-hugging space hippie.

Luke gets his own star destroyer and heads out to show the galaxy what human domination is all about.....



Sound like a story you'd like to hear?

I know that analogies are rarely perfect, but this one is laughable. At no point does Shepherd join the equivalent of the Empire. To do so, in SW mythos, would require him to begin working directly for the Reapers.

Let me draw a picture with words

Alliance = Rebel alliance/New Republic
Cerebrus = Empire
Reapers = Yuuzhan Vong (in novels only). p.s they also came from outside the galaxy

[SphereofSilence]

God_Emperor wrote...

So what is it exactly that most players are mourning, the loss of variety when it comes to inventory, weapons, etc or the loss of the illusion of variety? Personally I'm disappointed in the lack of skills and smaller safe areas to explore more than loot or weapons changes. Two of the greatest components of RPGs are still present within ME2 which is choice and consequence and character/story development,

I've been playing RPGs since the early-mid 80s and when it comes to loot and inventories all I know is that every weapon is basically exactly the same as the next one you pick up. There is no real diversity in weapons in most RPGs, at least none that impact the game in any actual manner.

In Mass Effect there's barely a difference between a human assault rifle and a Krogan assault rifle, both look and do exactly the same thing; even worse a human assault rifle and another human rifle of a supposedly superior class is even worse. Yeah a few more points of damage here and there but the way the differences between weapons is reflected ingame is barely noticeable if at all. So I wonder where the actual loss is with the reworked system of ME2?

It's not like a specific ammo type or weapon class is the only weapon effective against a specific enemy. I can kill a Krogan with anti-armor rounds just as easily as I can kill a Geth with toxic rounds or use a rocket launcher's missile as easy as a sub-machinegun's "bullets" to same effect. Sure there are few exceptions with bosses where this weapon makes it easier than that one but these are so few and far between that it doesn't really count for anything. So again what's the point of collecting 600 different guns and ammo types and then staring at the screen for a half hour deciding on the proper loadout to use? Because in my experience it doesn't make a lick of difference in the actual game anyway as you play it.

The guns all look pretty much the same and I doubt the point would be because of the joy of aesthetic differences were they present. Same thing goes for armors or any other type of inventory,

I know ME2 changed the formula the way that RPGs traditionally handle equipment and weapons and people hate whenever you change anything in the old formula. I'm currently replaying ME1 to make a different playthrough for my second ME2 character, most of the time I just spend selling the majority of the loot I picked up or turning it into gel. There is no strategy to choosing loot or how it functions ingame, I had all my squad carrying toxic ammo and using assault rifles (Even if they didn';t know how to use them) and I simply update their weapons with higher damage versions when I pick up a newer model and everything else I sell. And My guys rip through every enemy exactly the same way they would if I were choosing this weapon type or that armor type. So to me all that has been lost is the illusion of diversity more than actual inagme diversity with ME2's tech tree.

As to the review by the NYT everything is relative to the tastes of the player. In Time Magazine's website of don't miss games of 2010 it names ME2 as "The Avatar of video games except better written". I guess it all depends on what you were expecting versus what you are willing to live with once those expectations are not present.

Anyway, my two cents...whatever they are worth to the discussion

I totally agree.

[DomesticatedPizzadog]

I, personally, have reserved my right to enjoy and TOTALLY-FREAK-OUT from my fanboyism, but I respect the well-written opinions of those who do not agree with my unhealthy obsession around the sequel.



Case-in-point, I do not agree with the overall review, but I won't abstain from giving my virtual hugs and teddy bears to those that do.



I also reserve the right to popcorn. They taste so good when people get angry.

[yuncas]

I think Seth Schiesel is my soul mate. Uh-oh. I don't like where these thoughts are leading. Time to go get blind drunk to forget that weirdness.