393 réponses à ce sujet

[DoctorPringles]

Orogenic wrote...

Dude, spoilers???

Seriously.

To what? Star Wars?

Nobody reads those books anyway.

*runs away from tomato-throwin' SW freaks*

[Marhkus]

I agree with the NYT guy but it doesn't change the fact that I think it is by far one of the greatest games out there. I guess he just sucks at shooters lol!

[Bigeyez]

The books are indeed horrible. Cloning, repeated story arcs, bad writing, the Force was so not with them. I read the wiki.

[Orogenic]

DoctorPringles wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

Dude, spoilers???

Seriously.

To what? Star Wars?

Nobody reads those books anyway.

*runs away from tomato-throwin' SW freaks*

No... in your post you name the ME counterparts in my analogy.

[Orogenic]

Marhkus wrote...

I agree with the NYT guy but it doesn't change the fact that I think it is by far one of the greatest games out there. I guess he just sucks at shooters lol!

rabble rabble....

some of us do not suck at shooters and were still expecting more form ME 2 : )

[sedrikhcain]

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?

not really, but I'm not seeing the parallels you're trying to draw between your scenario and mass effect 2 -- other than superficial stuff like the fact that the protagonist has been resurrected.

ME's storyline, so far, is a classic myth following the Joseph Campbell outline -- crossing the threshold, atonement w/the father, etc. These kinds of alliances with the characters established as the villains in the first part of the story are part and parcel of that. And so far, to me anyway, I think the way it's been done is far more compelling than how you portray it. I'm not finished w/a playthrough yet though (man, i thought i played a lot. don't know where you people who have been through it 2 and 3 times already get the time or energy. do you sleep?)

I also agree w/the poster who pointed out that Cerberus has hardly been turned into a warm and fuzzy organisation. 

There's a saying: the enemy of my enemy may be my friend.

edited because this is supposed to be a spoiler-free thread. My apologies.

Modifié par sedrikhcain, 03 février 2010 - 04:17 .

[Ahglock]

Caion wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

Reviewers are people like you and me, everyone has different tastes and opinions

How easily people seem to forget or ignore this. I also find it puzzling how people hold up more negative/critical reviews as "honest" in comparison to more favorable ones. Nearly all reviews are honest. Simply saying what one wants to hear doesn't make it more "honest" than someone who says something that one doesn't agree with. In the end it's just one guy with an opinion, and that he or she shares that opinion in a blog or a written publication doesn't change this.

Well a 8.5 out of 10 is not what I'd call negative.  Whenever I see a 10/10 I find it hard to beleive the review is being honest.  Nothing is perfect, giving a perfect score for a unperfect game seems a bit dishonest.  If the Ny times reviewer had given a 5-6 I'd say he was being dishonest, it is clearly a good game a 5-6 is most liekly do to biased bashing or a pet peve gone haywire. 

No matter how much you like a game it will have flaws the inability to see these flaws or disregard them does seem to make a review dishonest, just like giving too much weight to a flaw would. 

[Sunstar]

I tend to agree with OP review fragment -=- it's a fun game
-  I don't mind first person shooters.   But it's NOT mass
effect.  



Give me my inventory and all the weapons and the upgrades
from mass effect 1 and I could live with the twitch FPS style game play quite
happily.  (though most fps have less bullet spread on automatic weapons or
maybe it’s just the lack of shields in most FPS games so the bad guys are dead
before you notice it…)  the first mass
effect had a flow - a feel to the game play that Mass effect 2 is missing IMO  having limited ammunition is a huge part of
that as is the FPS type gaming.



With an Inventory etc even with the fewer skills etc It would have felt like
mass effect.  As it is it's nothing like what I was expecting and frankly
I think the fact it was built for consoles is the main reason it doesn't have
the options and complexity that the first game had.  Not that I blame Bioware for cashing in on the console market as, lets face it, thats where the cash is and they are a bussiness.




Nothing wrong with consoles I own a Xbox 360.  But
managing inventories and skills isn't as easy with an Xbox control as it is
with a keyboard and mouse.  I also hate the lack of bound keys - like J
for Journal and no Map - kind of like having a map.  etc.  having to go into a main menu page (menu wheel)  and then navigate by making a selection and
then going to "choose" - Or "select"  that button instead of double clicking it cumbersome
and should have been done better for the PC version. 



Don’t get me wrong – I’m still enjoying the game – not as
much as Mass effect 1 – but I think really hard core Role Players who don’t
like FPS style games are going to be spitting chips…

[sedrikhcain]

Sunstar wrote...





I tend to agree with OP review fragment -=- it's a fun game
-  I don't mind first person shooters.   But it's NOT mass
effect.  



Give me my inventory and all the weapons and the upgrades
from mass effect 1 and I could live with the twitch FPS style game play quite
happily.  (though most fps have less bullet spread on automatic weapons or
maybe it’s just the lack of shields in most FPS games so the bad guys are dead
before you notice it…)  the first mass
effect had a flow - a feel to the game play that Mass effect 2 is missing IMO  having limited ammunition is a huge part of
that as is the FPS type gaming.



With an Inventory etc even with the fewer skills etc It would have felt like
mass effect.  As it is it's nothing like what I was expecting and frankly
I think the fact it was built for consoles is the main reason it doesn't have
the options and complexity that the first game had.  Not that I blame Bioware for cashing in on the console market as, lets face it, thats where the cash is and they are a bussiness.




Nothing wrong with consoles I own a Xbox 360.  But
managing inventories and skills isn't as easy with an Xbox control as it is
with a keyboard and mouse.  I also hate the lack of bound keys - like J
for Journal and no Map - kind of like having a map.  etc.  having to go into a main menu page (menu wheel)  and then navigate by making a selection and
then going to "choose" - Or "select"  that button instead of double clicking it cumbersome
and should have been done better for the PC version. 



Don’t get me wrong – I’m still enjoying the game – not as
much as Mass effect 1 – but I think really hard core Role Players who don’t
like FPS style games are going to be spitting chips…

the first game was also made for consoles. pc came out later. I think this game is less a console port than the first one, from what I can see. Anyone else know for sure?

[sedrikhcain]

Bigeyez wrote...

The books are indeed horrible. Cloning, repeated story arcs, bad writing, the Force was so not with them. I read the wiki.

The Thrawn cycle is pretty good -- so far anyway -- but I read one of the Clone Wars books and thought it was some of the worst crap I'd ever seen published.

[Mezinger]

Woot! A commercial reviewer with a brain!

[Mezinger]

Sorry double post.

Modifié par Mezinger, 03 février 2010 - 04:34 .

[sinosleep]

Meh, first review I've seen out of dozens to want anything back from ME 1. Clearly the minority opinion.

[dolphin1329]

sinosleep wrote...

Meh, first review I've seen out of dozens to want anything back from ME 1. Clearly the minority opinion.

Don't you know EA paid off all the other reviewers 

[robotnist]

perfect review and deep down inside bioware knows it.

[Crackseed]

etherhonky wrote...

perfect review and deep down inside bioware knows it.

Can you show me your degree in mind reading? >.>

[SphereofSilence]

novaseeker wrote...

Yes, the NYT is not a gaming publication, but its game reviewer, Seth Schiesel, is quite good, generally, in his appraisal of games.  I think it was a balanced review and well worth reading:

 http://www.nytimes.c...effect.html?hpw

Money quote:

"Hybrids are certainly possible. The original Mass Effect was a role-playing game that BioWare was ambitiously, almost rambunctiously, trying to cram into the form of an action game. With Mass Effect 2, by contrast, BioWare clearly decided to build the game as a shooter type first, leaving in only the lightest of customization options for each character — with far fewer skill options than in the first game — and fuse them with a combat system that can be played almost entirely as a real-time shooter. In terms of the combat dynamics, imagine Gears of War lite with some science-fiction magic powers.
There’s nothing wrong with that; it works well. But it leaves Mass Effect 2 feeling a bit generic. By role-playing-game standards, it is unacceptably thin in its core play systems. ...

Mass Effect 2 is a wonderful example of what a world-class developer can produce when it wants to create a comfortably popular and profitable sequel in an established mass-market franchise. It is not, however, an example of what a world-class developer can produce when it challenges itself to new heights. BioWare, we’re waiting."



 

I have to disagree with the bolded points. ME2's RPG elements may seem fewer, but ME1's may be numerically more but were far less meaningful. Having more options and granularity in the character skills progression, weapons and armor loot can be deceiving. For example, there were loads of crap weapons that functions exactly the same way, just reskinned and with slightly different stats. It's the same for armor as well. Removing weapons skill  progression may seem like dumbing down, but it actually encourages the player to switch arsenal according to situations and thus, have more variety, instead of just using only a  single weapon that the player is proficient in in ME1. New abilities like cloak, adrenaline rush, charge, tech armor, combat drone, directional pull and push adds to the combat a lot. There's more but the point is I found myself enjoying the combat in ME2 far more than ME1. So whatever the changes made, the game is better for it.

IMO, any discussion on whether or not ME franchise is or is not an RPG or should it be made more as an RPG or shooter, is pointless. Casey has said it himself that they're going to make a game that may not fall squarely within any genre and that many will enjoy, and they're just going to let others decide for themselves whether it's an RPG or shooter.

Modifié par SphereofSilence, 03 février 2010 - 04:56 .

[dal8523]

I think you people are putting too much weight into the reviewer's mention of the combat systems; I don't believe he gave this game the score he did because of the shift in the game's mechanics.

Rather, he gave Mass Effect 2 a lower score because of the fact that he found the story little more than a prologue to Mass Effect 3.

[HawkeyeB55]

Would anyone know why I'm not able to post in the spoiler section?

And yeah, I know this has nothing to do about the topic.

[sinosleep]

dolphin1329 wrote...
Don't you know EA paid off all the other reviewers 

They also paid off metacritic to not include the reviewers they couldn't buy off. I'm just stunned as to why they don't give their NBA Live series the same amount of buy off power, allowing it to rate below the 2k series pretty much since it's inception.

Modifié par sinosleep, 03 février 2010 - 05:24 .

[kingthrall]

Just starting to play it, already i get the sense this review is spot on. If bioware wants to release a new type of game that will breach this generic and generalised approach. Why dont they release a fantasy version of the Total war series.

However that said, i would not want to see a lord of the rings/Warcraft approach to it. Somthing compleltey new with origonal races somthing that bioware seems adept at constructing

Modifié par kingthrall, 03 février 2010 - 05:28 .

[Veex]

HawkeyeB55 wrote...

Would anyone know why I'm not able to post in the spoiler section?
And yeah, I know this has nothing to do about the topic.

Register yo game.

[HawkeyeB55]

Veex wrote...

HawkeyeB55 wrote...

Would anyone know why I'm not able to post in the spoiler section?
And yeah, I know this has nothing to do about the topic.

Register yo game.

Thanks for the help.

[Veex]

HawkeyeB55 wrote...

Thanks for the help.

You're welcome. To be more thorough, under your portrait there is a "My Games" tab which expands and gives the registration option.