393 réponses à ce sujet

[robotnist]

theres one fact i can rest on. ME1 was retro-fitted into ME2.



they ripped out a bit of the RPG interactions, they ripped out 80% of the reward via gear and upgrades and they ripped out 30+ levels of XP and about 75% of the talents and powers you could upgrade while developing a character and replaced it with a solid shooter mechanic with decent physics.



they dumbed down shepard and ripped out the pleasure of exploring space by being shot down to a planet surface with a badass, space dune-buggie.



anyone here that acts like its not a huge change going from ME1 to ME2 is full of ****.



now, as far as ME2 being good or bad, thats a debate of opinions. no one will win that argument. i happen to like ME2 but unfortunately to the detriment of what the mass effect series could have been for me.

[Guaritor]

Elanareon wrote...

One more thing, to the guy who was comparing the number of skills of me1 v me2. LOL did you know all the bullet skills of me2 was the customizable bullet mod in me1? So your comparison is LAME! Bullet mods is so much better that those bullet skills...

Did you know you can evolve powers to fit your character in ME2!

Or that i didn't even count the bullet skills in my list of comparisons!

!

they ripped out a bit of the RPG interactions, they ripped out 80% of the reward via gear and upgrades and they ripped out 30+ levels of XP and about 75% of the talents and powers you could upgrade while developing a character and replaced it with a solid shooter mechanic with decent physics. 

Really?

I listed all the powers in both games earlier in this thread and ME2 had ~25% MORE powers then ME1.  Not including ammo powers or evolutions.  Not to mention that each squad point spent in a power feels like a significant upgrade instead of 1.5% more duration on a 10 second lift.  

Just because you can't have 12 abilities and max 10 of them doesn't mean theres less powers, in fact it adds to the diversity... when im playing a vanguard i dont feel like an adept with a shotgun.  Different squad members have different abilities that mesh differently with different classes...

Modifié par Guaritor, 03 février 2010 - 09:38 .

[Erakleitos]

Like if someone actually play a game / watch a movie / listen to music before writing a review...

[runab0ut]

etherhonky wrote...

anyone here that acts like its not a huge change going from ME1 to ME2 is full of ****.

It's never a secret that they're making A LOT of changes to the game and improving it in some ways.

[Massadonious1]

Kalfear wrote...
Appearently NYT didnt get their cheque in the mail to give it a 10/10 rating

[Adeph]

DarthCaine wrote...

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

We have a winner, people have opinions and those differ.

For example the Guardian newspaper in the UK, another very respected broadsheet, gave Mass Effect 2 5/5. I guess the reviewer got paid then? it's impossible, like an awful lot of other people, he simply thinks ME2 is a stunning game.

[screwoffreg]

This thread is awesome as it is quite literally the same people who argue over D&D pen and paper games claiming that ME 2 is dumbed down, less RPGish, less intense, etc.

Yet, they cannot produce one objective point in ME 1 that was somehow MORE emotionally evocative or deep than anything in ME 2. It is a FACT that there are more lines per squad member than in ME 1. Do you remember having any worthwhile conversation with Tali? Garrus other than saying "being good, good or being bad bad"? Only really the romances had some depth to them, but even then they weren't exactly Oscar worthy.

If your opinion is that you find ME 2 not fun or less fun than ME 1, then you are entitled to that. Just don't make arguments from that on facts that don't exist. I was pleasantly surprised that each of the characters, minus Zaeed, were fleshed out. More than that, ME 2 is in a difficult position of being a middle sequel, being without a clear and satisfying ending by default.

Overall, I enjoyed ME 2 as one of my best gaming experiences. If it matters, I have played most all of the "classic" RPGs on both PCs and consoles, so I am coming from the background of having lived in the nostalgic era of gaming.

Another major point that the purists miss.  By ME 2 selling so damn well, it means that Bioware is going to have a A LOT of room to maneuver in ME 3 to, with the developers going so far as to say so.  Sales and success grant people liberty to explore and try things.  Failure doesn't.  People forget Bioware is a business, and if it wants to have the freedom to do what they want, they have to prove they can sell games.

Modifié par screwoffreg, 03 février 2010 - 09:58 .

[jamoau]

Yay, an objective review from a respected publication. Hopefully Bioware will stop patting themselves on the back and have another look at their game. In general I'm finding the game a little boring. Bioware went the safe route, which I suppose when the plan is too make a lot of money, that's a good option.

[Massadonious1]

People are throwing out "objective" a lot here. I don't think the word means what people think it means.

[For Humanity]

Adeph wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

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

We have a winner, people have opinions and those differ.

For example the Guardian newspaper in the UK, another very respected broadsheet, gave Mass Effect 2 5/5. I guess the reviewer got paid then? it's impossible, like an awful lot of other people, he simply thinks ME2 is a stunning game.

Anyone that gives out a perfect score has zero credibility and needs to look up the definition of perfect before reviewing again.

[Massadonious1]

And obviously people who trash the game ooze credibility.

[Adeph]

For Humanity wrote...

Adeph wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

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

We have a winner, people have opinions and those differ.

For example the Guardian newspaper in the UK, another very respected broadsheet, gave Mass Effect 2 5/5. I guess the reviewer got paid then? it's impossible, like an awful lot of other people, he simply thinks ME2 is a stunning game.

Anyone that gives out a perfect score has zero credibility and needs to look up the definition of perfect before reviewing again.

This is where you people go so very wrong and if you read these publications you would know that they don't use 5/5 or 10/10 to denote a 'perfect' game as there will never be any such thing they use it to highlight brilliant games which have that extra something in them.

GamesTM

The Illusive ten is reserved for games of incredible, irrefutable quality, but please be aware that a score of ten in no way professes to mean perfection. Perfection is an unattainable goal, and on a ten point scale nothing should be unattainable 

Anyone that aims to give such sweeping generalisations without even reading the piece they are criticising has zero credibility and need to research what they are dismissing out of hand.

See what I did there? isn't the internet fun!

[nader911t]

I hope Bioware read this review.

[BiancoAngelo7]

Kalfear wrote...

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."

 

Pretty much agree fully!

Appearently NYT didnt get their cheque in the mail to give it a 10/10 rating

lol why do you say that its not like Game review sites/mags have bias or get "incentives".... to give good reviews.....

(even though this time it was deserved)

[AtreiyaN7]

You know what I find fascinating in this thread? The level of immaturity displayed by a whole lot of people. I was checking the review and initial arguments on the first page, and then...the rest of it devolved into an awful lot of flaming/personal attacks for the most part. I don't agree with things being "dumbed down" or that the new characters are "one-dimensional" at all.

As I recall from ME1, I had a handful of major conversations with each team member, most of which took place on the Normandy, and then there really wasn't all that much interaction with them except at certain critical junctures like Virmire (Wrex confrontation and Ashley/Kaidan) and MAYBE a few comments here and there. I think some of the exchanges I had with team members in ME2 were decidedly more meaningful, like when I did Tali's and Garrus' loyalty missions. Regarding a few items that some people equate with having fewer choices/dumbing things down:

• Armor mods have been replaced by research.
• Weapon mods have been replaced by research (or ammo abilities).
• Different powers give classes a unique feel, and you actually have team members whose powers you should utilize to complement your own instead of being some biotic god (regardless of your class, barrin soldiers) able to mow everything down on your own as you did in ME1.

You achieve exactly the same things through research that you would have accomplished by swapping mods in ME1. I find it at least somewhat silly that people make out as if the degree/nature of our "choice" of weaponry in ME1 was vastly superior. Maybe there were a few unusual pieces that might motivate you to use them for looks like that Geth pulse rifle (or whatever it was), but (and be honest) were you ever really going to switch to a Lancer X or Kessler X or something equally crappy from HMW Spectre gear once you had it?

This "choice" only means something if you're doing a single run, in which case there are a few weapons that might come close to Spectre gear that you would have to pick from. What happened when I did three playthroughs on my Vanguard to hit 60 is this: I ended up with the exact same weapons equipped on every single team member because it was logical to give them all the bets gear that I could. By level 58 after my second run, every single person had the same set up and most of the armor was the same (or the best for the character''s species). I had the same mods in each weapon (having determined to stick to three specific types of ammo). *shrug* I couldn't sell even a small fraction of the junk I had because my credits were maxed, and I couldn't buy anything either after I had all the HMW weapons I would ever need, which meant I suffered through omni-gel hell as I like to refer to it.

Oh well, to each their own - if you don't like it, that's your choice. I've been a longtime RPG/BioWare fan, so I've been around since Baldur's Gate. I never made the mistake of thinking ME1 was a serious RPG, because it never was - it was an RPG-shooter hybrid. I enjoyed it primarily for the story and the setting (definitely not for the clunky combat). Combat in ME2 is most assuredly more tactical and strategic. You are deluding yourself if you think things were better in ME1 in terms of combat. What happens at a certain point in ME1 is that you become so utterly overpowered that you need some sort of caffeine IV drip to stay awake while fighting (at least I did). I killed enemies with my pistol only - even on Insanity. I didn't bother with my shotgun as a Vanguard at all except on the rare occasion that an enemy overloaded my weapon of choice. I tossed abilities one after the other without thinking, and then I just essentially hit reset to start over again. *snort* When you can take out heavy turrets on the Citadel with JUST your pistol...don't you think that's a tad unbelievable? I did - sure, it was fun for a while, but then it became deadly dull. Anyhow, that's my perspective on it, but whatever floats your boat. *shrug* If BioWare had only tweaked things, that wouldn't have been innovation or change...it would have been exactly that: tweaking. Hypothetically, if they had people would probably then complain that they hadn't gone far enough and played it safe. BioWare went in a very different direction, and well, it's just going to rub some people the wrong way.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 03 février 2010 - 11:00 .

[n4d4n]

screwoffreg wrote...

Yet, they cannot produce one objective point in ME 1 that was somehow MORE emotionally evocative or deep than anything in ME 2. It is a FACT that there are more lines per squad member than in ME 1. Do you remember having any worthwhile conversation with Tali? Garrus other than saying "being good, good or being bad bad"? Only really the romances had some depth to them, but even then they weren't exactly Oscar worthy.

If you took some time exploring and talking to Tali and Garrus, then yes you could have a very worthwile conversation with them. Onboard the Normandy in ME1, if you went to go find and talk to Tali or Garrus you could find out a lot of interesting information and converse with them. For instance with Tali, you could find out about Quarians and their culture, including on what role they played in engineering the Geth.

[sedrikhcain]

Permutation wrote...

Things that really irked me in ME2.

No inventory. (Omni-gel was stupid in ME1, but they didn't have to scrap the inventory alltogether)
No custom weapon mods. (Replaced with static "upgrades" in ME2. Dumb. No customization.)
No custom armor mods. (Armor and armor drops replaced with static pieces. No customization.)
No power stacking. (Reduced cool-down is great and all, but it's useless when ALL your powers have to cool down as well. No strategy, and just as bad as the weapon cool-down in ME1)
Armory is required to equip/change weapon load out. (Who decided this? Now players have to board the Normandy and wait through two cutscenes or find one half-way into the mission just to change armor or weapons. Dumb.)
Weapon Locker is required to equip/change armor. (Read above.)

Overall, the combat is better, the story is great, the graphics are better, but a lot of functionality has been removed. It's a very claustrophobic and linear experience compared to ME1, in my opinion.

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?

[TeamRyan]

MY main gripe with mass effect 2 is that it feels smaller compared to the original mass effect. sure it may be longer in playtime, but the world felt short chopped up and disjointed. Every loyalty mission felt like an episode outside of the main plot, essentially there was no main plot compared to the loyalty quests. there are the first two missions then horizon then the last two missions, only then does anything story related happen and even the first of the last two missions was lacking in plot advances.



Don't get me wrong i liked the game i just wished the loyalty missions tied into the main story just a bit more strongly. I guess i kinda missed the feeling that the story was progressing because of my actions.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Hmmm...



The guy really goes out to put in"world class developer" twice in the closing comment.

[Iron Ranger]

Good review, thanks for shaeing.

[wolfwarp]

Interesting how people quote something and influence the thoughts of others. I could also quote the same article in a different way to say how awesome ME 2 is.



"Of course, the result of BioWare’s playing it safe is still more interesting and impressive than most developers’ most inspired efforts. And the most interesting and impressive aspect of Mass Effect 2 is how intelligently the game melds the combat systems of a third-person action game with the storytelling and characterizations of a traditional role-playing game. The term “role-playing shooter” may have been coined by the creators of 2009’s Borderlands, but the phrase almost perfectly describes Mass Effect 2."

[jtd00123]

The reviewer's belated assessment for some reason reeks of bitterness. Not sure why, maybe he is just upset that the game is doing so well.

I keep hearing the phrase respectable publication in this thread. The NYTimes as a respectable publication (which is debatable) does not exactly give it more merit. It is a person's opinion that works for the NYTimes, a publication that specializes in telling the news. Most of the good reviews come from sources that specialize in gaming. Is this reviewer really more reliable in EGM, Gamepro, etc.? C'mon, use your head, it's one person. And based on the content of what he is downgrading the game on, he is really not any more credible than the rest of us.

Don't get me wrong, the game does have its flaws, but the reviewer is criticizing a path that Bioware has took since it hit the consoles. The "RPG" elements that have been dumb down have been expanded in other areas (conversation and story-branching). As a member here has pointed out, the simplification of inventory and leveling has already been done in the original Mass Effect, and IMO every console RPG Bioware has done. If you hate ME2 based off that logic, you should probably hate every Bioware game since KOTOR.

Modifié par jtd00123, 03 février 2010 - 02:11 .

[Bigeyez]

Whats funny is that some people in here are trying to use this article as an example of someone who hated the game...when if you actually read it you'll see the guy clear likes the game, he just wishes some mechanics and aspects of it were different. It's still very much a positive review of the game. He basically says it just wasn't as good as HE THOUGHT it was going to be, NOT that the game was a horrible piece of trash/rubbish that some people in here are trying to say.

[spock06]

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.