246 réponses à ce sujet

[TopUSGun]

 I like more dialog than shooting tbh.

Never play any Pheonix Wright game then.

[Malsumis]

No. ME2 struck a much better balance between combat and dialogue then ME1 did IMO. But it comes down to what someone wants in a RPG. The OP obviously enjoys stat building DnD type of RPG, where many that post here enjoy Bio's focus on story and characters.



Neither choice is wrong it's just taste. What the OP has to realize is that ME was never meant to be DnD in space. Either the OP accepts that and enjoys ME for what it is or moves on to other games that are more in line with their taste.

[Kolaris8472]

What cut-scenes felt bloated? Granted the first one might have been skippable or with a face-creator save point afterwards.



But dialog, killing my ME experience? If anything, it was the lack of non-romantic dialog with potential romantic interests that went the farthest in detracting from it.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Malsumis wrote...

No. ME2 struck a much better balance between combat and dialogue then ME1 did IMO. But it comes down to what someone wants in a RPG. The OP obviously enjoys stat building DnD type of RPG, where many that post here enjoy Bio's focus on story and characters.

Neither choice is wrong it's just taste. What the OP has to realize is that ME was never meant to be DnD in space. Either the OP accepts that and enjoys ME for what it is or moves on to other games that are more in line with their taste.

This.

The "over-bloated" cutscenes are definitely NOT killing ME... maybe for the OP it is, but not for the majority of fans.

[Archilochos]

Part of the OP's point seems to be getting lost here ... he likes DAO; he's not opposed to RPGs.  It seems he just doesn't like the balance of combat vs. dialogue.  Like many others posting here, I like dialogue.  A lot.  So much that I wish there was more of it in ME2.  But the OP doesn't say he dislikes dialogue, he just doesn't care for the amount of dialogue present.

I think the core problem here is that the OP is only thinking of combat as gameplay, meaning he isn't thinking of dialogue that way.  Dialogue is part of the gameplay in a good RPG - those branching dialogue choices are no different from headshotting geth; they're both gameplay elements, and should be equally engaging.  FPS, TPS and JRPGs, however, have mostly used dialogue in cutscenes the player can't interact with.  I think one result of this has been a reflex reaction in some to dismiss dialogue as boring or as something to sit through to get back to the action.  It's a matter of perspective - if a game has well constructed conversations, figuring out what a character wants to hear and whether or not your character is prepared to compromise him/herself to say it is just as exciting as a perfectly centered headshot-while-cloaked.

[nijum]

Malsumis wrote...

No. ME2 struck a much better balance between combat and dialogue then ME1 did IMO. But it comes down to what someone wants in a RPG. The OP obviously enjoys stat building DnD type of RPG, where many that post here enjoy Bio's focus on story and characters.

Neither choice is wrong it's just taste. What the OP has to realize is that ME was never meant to be DnD in space. Either the OP accepts that and enjoys ME for what it is or moves on to other games that are more in line with their taste.

i agree, to an extent.
but I think bioware let themselves down.

there are too many cutscenes.
the cutscenes are poorly placed, ruining the flow of the game.
the character development is lame. theres no stats, skills, weapons etc, and as someone said earlier, the speaking options dont actually change anything.
the way that bioware only allow 3 or 4 enemies onscreen at a time, sucks. its pandering to xbox boys again. its ridiculous by the end of the game, the enemies come in groups of 3 and wait till the last group is dead before entering. softcore and lame.
the story really isnt that good. ill let you in on something. analyse the story and youll find a specific pattern, time and time again, the story focuses on supplying reasons (bull**** reasons) for atrocities to occur.

did samara really need to kill her own daughter? why is your whole team a bunch of murderers? the game tries normalise this behaviour and glamourise it, even. why, again and again, are you given the option to attack before you are provoked? its political, its so when our governments go and attack iraq or iran, you feel that the behaviour is more understandable. social manipulation. if you dont think bioware are funded by political interests, your sadly mistaken.

almost every major developer is politically funded. this is why there are now only a few bigs games developers left (theyre the only ones getting money because they pander to the gov), its also why, more and more recently, games have very dubious, dark stories, which teach questionable morals.

what was the other biggest game out recently? MW2? remember the airport mission?
that mission taught you that massive killing of innocent people, is okay, aslong as your really working for the 'good' guys. again, it reflects real life. british SAS have been caught planting roadside bombs in iraq, murdering civilians, the excuse being that they were under cover, when really theyre doing all they can to extend the war.


the geophenage actually reflects whats occuring at the moment IRL, a bunch of you will realise it in a few years. games like this prepare you mentally to excuse the atrocities that will occur IRL. thats why it spends a whole time trying to explain and convince you that killing off races/people without skills etc, is a good thing. it is political meddling, and ive no doubt that ME2 was atleast inpart, funded by political causes.

Modifié par nijum, 08 février 2010 - 01:41 .

[ExSturminator]

I can't figure out which cutscenes felt "overbloated."  The intro was
obviously a little long, but it really made me feel connected
to...well, I can't say or that's be a spoiler.  Other than that though,
the game flowed with a strech of fighting and traveling, a quick
cutscene to analyze the situation of make a choice, then more of said
fighting and moving.  I'm not sure what people expect from a game whose
story is such a central focus.

As for choices not making a differnece as above people complained, yeah, there was a little linearity, but Mass Effect
is not DnD or Elder Scrolls.  You can't just say, "you know what, screw
the alien menace; I'm going to a beach world and chilling.  This is MY
story after all."  You're roleplaying, hence, you act the part.  Some
scenarios in life limit viable choices.  Bioware is telling a story
here, and there's a start point A and end point B.  They've dome an
incredible job letting you decide how to move between the two, but some
thingshave to happen, hence, you have no choice or your choice doesn't change anything.

@ Nijum: not to bash or anything, but I think you're a little too paranoid about some of the plot elements.  The point of the game is that Shepard is recruiting a team of bad-**** mercenaries to get a job done for a shadowy organization.  Of course they're a band of crazy killers.  Well, mostly anyway.  Only a few really came off as crazy killers.  Everyone else seemed pretty rational, if not actually nice (i.e. Tali and Jacob).  As for real life connections, I don't buy it.  First, Bioware is based in Canada.  Even the english language option entering these forums had a Canadian flag.  How do the genophage or excessive violence even relate to Canada or its government?  Or is the US funding EA to create a game with reference to a plague that reduces fertility rates of aggressive races?  Second, I can't speak for the renegade option, but paragon actually argues that the plague was wrong and wants to fix it.  In fact, none of the secondary characters wound up killing anyone in their loyalty quests in my playthrough.  The game is only dark and evil if you are yourself in the game.  Sure, some people have to die by your hand and choice, but for the most part you can determine how dark your team really is by your own choices.

@Taiko Roshi:  Yeah, you bought the wrong game.  Mass Effect isn't supposed to be a 3:1 combat ratio.  Your view on a "GAME" as you put it is also off.  A game is just interactive entertainment.  If you don't like ME2, that doesn't make it not a game, just not a game you like, which is fine.  You didn't play the first ME, did you?  Funny thing is, most complaints I see complain that this one has more combat than the first, too much in fact for a lot of RPG palyers' tastes.  Sorry you didn't like Mass Effect 2, but I think the problem's not with the game, just with your choice in buying it, since you'd obviously have preffered CoD, Halo, GoW, etc.  Oh, and never play Metal Gear Solid 4 or any JRPG if you like a heavy 3:1 action:cutscene/dialogue "GAME." lol
In conclusion, I'd just like to add that I personally felt Mass Effect 2 was an improvement on its predecessor in every way, and as long as they bring back the original romances in the third and have a more understandable explanation for the final boss (a little odd I admit), Bioware's done right by me.  

Modifié par ExSturminator, 08 février 2010 - 02:06 .

[TSamee]

@Nijum

Mate, government funding? Brainwashing? Even if you're right, then I still look down on everything you just said.

Honestly, I agree, there ARE plot-holes in ME2, but normalising murderers? Look at any squad member, and you find that they're a person. Ever considered that, deep down, many of our murderers are people as well? I'm not asking you to forgive them for what they do, as quite a bit of it's genuinely evil and contemptible, but just try and understand that before saying ME "glamourises" them by making them seem okay. Fine, Mordin helped perfect the Genophage; look how much it weighs on his mind. But it was the safe option. It was deemed what "had to be done", and Mordin realised that. Believe it or not, there are times in life where you'll have to make a tough choice. Choices that seem appropriate at the time, but compromise you as a person. Pretending otherwise and living in black-and-white is plain escapism.

Dubious, dark stories "teach" questionable morals, then? Sorry to disappoint, but I don't look to games to teach me morality. ME2's premise is that you're dealing with an organisation that you can't trust, that the only reason you're recruiting these people is because, chances are, you're going to die. Cerberus resurrected Shepard, and he works for them because he understands that, sometimes, morals must be cast aside for the greater good. Do you find it surprising that SAS troops are planting bombs, that there's a drone over northern Pakistan at least once a month, that villages in the North of forty people are blown to bits just to take out a couple of Taliban? Someone, whether it's the bloke with a goddamn remote in his hand in the Pentagon, or the man ordering the strike, thinks that they have the right reasons for doing this. Their "greater good" is all that's in their mind, and if a few locals get in the way, so what?

I'm not saying that this is the right attitude to take. But whenever a "greater good" is involved, whether in a game or real life, then compromise is necessary to achieve it. Is it worth it? That's a different matter entirely. The dropping of the atomic bomb, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they're all the products of people's choices. There weren't always good intentions behind them. Whoever decided it was a good idea to drop two nukes within a few days of each other in order to end a war was probably in a similar state of mind to a kid playing with a new toy, anxious to see what it did. But that's still a motivation. Someone still made a choice.

I've blown the head off a merc in Mass Effect. It felt good. I've also seen a whole load of broken, post-Guantanamo Taliban, the supposed "bad guys", and I'm filled with disgust and rage every time I think about it. They were fighting for their beliefs, or to benefit themselves. The US is fighting for the same reasons. I, for one, haven't become desensitised by this at all. Want to know why?

Mass Effect doesn't shrug off dubious choices, or make light of them. The repercussions can be severe, and the game doesn't shy away from them. It shows you that some choices can alienate people, that they can kill thousands, and yet those choices seemed like a good idea at the time. It shows us the full horrors caused by our decisions, and thus makes us think before deciding. It makes us think of consequences, not just pick a choice because the game'll toss us a cookie for it. And because of that, I think that Mass Effect's choices have helped me to understand the difficulties faced by people with power, but also to remember that they're gambling with human lives and should face whatever punishments they recieve.

So yeah, my morals are pretty clear after playing that game, can't say too much about yours.

Modifié par TSamee, 08 février 2010 - 02:42 .

[termokanden]

I don't think the cutscenes and dialogue is killing anything. Some people actually like it that way.



I personally enjoy the dialogue but not so much the cutscenes.



Still, there are times where I'd rather just shoot stuff. Luckily, there are other games that let me do just that. For the moment, I am enjoying Borderlands very much. I can recommend that if you like action RPGs and hate dialogue.

[Stompi]

The characters and dialogues are the number one reason (with story and game length) why I prefer Bioware games over most other games. That's why you will see no "everything has been dumbed down" threads from me, unless they decide to remove them.
Setting, combat mechanics, inventory system and especially graphics are FAR less important to me.

[beermilk]

I agree, should be more shooting and maybe some fist bumping with your cool bros after a awesome killing spree or a perfect headshot.

[Nozybidaj]

Not only did I enjoy the number of cutscenes and dialogue in ME2 I thought their overall quality in atmosphere, digital acting, and the voice acting was the best BW has ever done.  Superior to both ME1 and DA:O.  It is one of the things BW did right in ME2 and a real bright spot for the game.

To the OP as far as the focus on combat, it is obvious a major effort was put into the combat aspects of ME2.  I really enjoyed the combat and found it far better than ME1 at least.  I'm not a big follower of shooter type games, so I would be remiss to comment on how it stacks up to other games, all I can say is I enjoyed.

There are a lot of things BW got wrong with ME2, it is by no means a perfect game or "teh bestest gamez evah!!!" but personally I found these aspects to be some of its stronger points.

[nijum]

TSamee wrote...

@Nijum

Mate, government funding? Brainwashing? Even if you're right, then I still look down on everything you just said.

Honestly, I agree, there ARE plot-holes in ME2, but normalising murderers? Look at any squad member, and you find that they're a person. Ever considered that, deep down, many of our murderers are people as well? I'm not asking you to forgive them for what they do, as quite a bit of it's genuinely evil and contemptible, but just try and understand that before saying ME "glamourises" them by making them seem okay. Fine, Mordin helped perfect the Genophage; look how much it weighs on his mind. But it was the safe option. It was deemed what "had to be done", and Mordin realised that. Believe it or not, there are times in life where you'll have to make a tough choice. Choices that seem appropriate at the time, but compromise you as a person. Pretending otherwise and living in black-and-white is plain escapism.

Dubious, dark stories "teach" questionable morals, then? Sorry to disappoint, but I don't look to games to teach me morality. ME2's premise is that you're dealing with an organisation that you can't trust, that the only reason you're recruiting these people is because, chances are, you're going to die. Cerberus resurrected Shepard, and he works for them because he understands that, sometimes, morals must be cast aside for the greater good.  [6] Do you find it surprising that SAS troops are planting bombs, that there's a drone over northern Pakistan at least once a month, that villages in the North of forty people are blown to bits just to take out a couple of Taliban? Someone, whether it's the bloke with a goddamn remote in his hand in the Pentagon, or the man ordering the strike, thinks that they have the right reasons for doing this. Their "greater good" is all that's in their mind, and if a few locals get in the way, so what?

I'm not saying that this is the right attitude to take. But whenever a "greater good" is involved, whether in a game or real life, then compromise is necessary to achieve it. Is it worth it? That's a different matter entirely. The dropping of the atomic bomb, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they're all the products of people's choices. There weren't always good intentions behind them. Whoever decided it was a good idea to drop two nukes within a few days of each other in order to end a war was probably in a similar state of mind to a kid playing with a new toy, anxious to see what it did. But that's still a motivation. Someone still made a choice.

I've blown the head off a merc in Mass Effect. It felt good. I've also seen a whole load of broken, post-Guantanamo Taliban, the supposed "bad guys", and I'm filled with disgust and rage every time I think about it. They were fighting for their beliefs, or to benefit themselves. The US is fighting for the same reasons. I, for one, haven't become desensitised by this at all. Want to know why?

Mass Effect doesn't shrug off dubious choices, or make light of them. The repercussions can be severe, and the game doesn't shy away from them. It shows you that some choices can alienate people, that they can kill thousands, and yet those choices seemed like a good idea at the time. It shows us the full horrors caused by our decisions, and thus makes us think before deciding. It makes us think of consequences, not just pick a choice because the game'll toss us a cookie for it. And because of that, I think that Mass Effect's choices have helped me to understand the difficulties faced by people with power, but also to remember that they're gambling with human lives and should face whatever punishments they recieve.

So yeah, my morals are pretty clear after playing that game, can't say too much about yours.

i will reply to the bold statements in order:

1:
exactly my point, the game focused on creating 'valid' (used very loosely) excuses for murder. it didnt have to, it chose to. you can tell me its an isolated case, but it isnt, youll find the same plot lines in most games and films nowadays. please research new world morality.

2:
yup, but ill avoid murder and race specific plagues.

i quote from "the project for the new american century", written by bush and his chronies pre 9/11:

"... the art of warfare ... will be vastly different than it is today ...
“combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific
genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a
politically useful tool."

http://www.newameric...casDefenses.pdf


yes, this game does  its upmost to normliase this eugenicist thinking.


3:its irrelevant what you want. your mind absorbes and correlates information and ideas all the same. this is why advertising works. you dont think you need the product, you may not even like the advert, but your chances of buying the product will be far greater after viewing. the only difference here is that your arent buying a product, your buying into a morality.


4: nope, whether you trust them or not is your decision, and interesting info for the powers that be.

5: doublethink much? morals dictate the greater good. you cannot disregard morals for 'the greater good' its deeply flawed 'new world' logic.

6: ridiculous proposition. the reason we're at war is for oil and power. 9/11 was an inside job. we've killed over a million iraqis for **** all. the war serves a few reasons, not just oil.

-absorb the wealth from middle class (this is why theres no plan for its end. the more wealth absorbed from the middle class the less resistance to 'elite' dominance. its the same reason our government lets all the illegal aliens in, and why the british government gives all its money to people benefits who dont work, why every politcal structure in the western world is pushing for a 'carbon tax', why the banking crash occured, etc etc etc)
-give rise to the consideration of 'world police, world army, and world government', to counter, ofcourse 'world terrorism'.
-oil
-money
-arms

yes, i find it suprising and sickening.

8: most of them dont fight because of a set belief, they fight because we blew their family to peices, wouldnt you do the same?
keep in mind, the original 9/11 'suicide bombers' , were plants, and most of them have been found alive in other countries. the suicide bombings since 9/11, have either been false flag, or by someone who has had their family blown up and has nothing else to live for.

9: why would the game, be trying to show you, that? most of us are never going to weild the power to kill thousands of people, so who does this serve? again, theyre just trying to make us empathize with political ****'s. i appreciate that you find it interesting to even discuss the morality of killing thousands of people. i think your foundation knowledge is missing. there is never an excuse. its that simple, and anything which tries to make an arguement otherwise, is deeply disturbing brainwashing.

Modifié par nijum, 08 février 2010 - 03:57 .

[TSamee]

Sorry, some of my "greater good" statements were a bit BS. By "greater good", I mean that somebody who had a hand in deciding what action to take chose what they did because they felt it would benefit their country, or them as individuals in some way. I agree with your statements on the US being in it for oil and power (sadly), but what I'm pointing out is that they plan to use the money and power gained from a petrol monopoly largely to benefit who-ever's on top of the pay-chain as an individual. The reasons behind Iraq aren't just or even worth considering as valid, I'm just saying that someone thought it would benefit them, and that Iraqi deaths didn't matter. Their choice. It is abuse of power, but it's still their choice.

In a pathetic attempt to dig myself out of this, I'll explain what I meant about morals and the greater good (screwed up there, I'll admit, badly). What I mean, definitions of each term notwithstanding, is that there will be times when, in order to benefit our own causes, whether those are becoming richer, avoiding wars, ending them, gaining power, etc., we will have to make a choice that is against our morals as people. I guess it's quite similar to the whole "easy thing and right thing" statement. My use of "greater good" there was probably affected by Mordin's references to it in ME2, sorry about that.

Regarding the Taliban, I'd just like to explain how it started (or what I know about it). The Soviets entered Afghanistan in 1979, and, in 1980, the US, China, Saudi Arabia and other countries acted by training locas as mujaihedeen (freedom fighters). Though the programs were funded by these countries, they were apparently told that they were fighting to protect Islam, and that it was their duty, and thus they should repel the Soviets. In 1988/89, this happened. However, the US had one, small problem. They'd gone and trained locals to use guns, supplied them with large amounts of them and told them they were fighting for their religion and must protect it. After supposedly offering shelter to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban came under fire from the US, with missile strikes being sent in, and troops entering Afghanistan. Bin Laden has made himself out to be a strong follower of Islam, and thus attacks on him and Afganistan are regarded as attacks on the religion. Taliban forces retaliate.

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), over the years, has been training terrorists on the Indian border, since there're some strong anti-Indian sentiments within this branch of the military. The ISI have access to intelligence (they gather it) and resources, and have been using it to train anti-Indian terrorists who also believe they're fighting for Islam, and thus must destroy the Hindus next door. The strong Islamic elements in the military have existed since Zia ul Haq's time, and I don't want to explain them right now, as it'd take too long. There are, of course, other motives within the military and the Taliban, but the exact nature of those is unknown to me (for example, the man who supposedly planned the Lal Masjed siege of 2007 was an Oxford graduate with seemingly no extremist inclinations, so there may have been unknown motives at work)

Naturally, the ISI are also working with existing Afghan/northern Pakistani Taliban forces, and I believe that ISI assistance was given to those responsible for the Mumbai bombings. In short, the Pakistani military is clearly linked to Afghan and Pakistani terrorism, and has thus increased the resource window of these operations substantially.

The Taliban were, effectively, a problem created by the US not wanting to fight with their own troops. And now they're the whole planet's goddamn mess.

As far as 9/11 being an inside job goes, I can't comment. I'm a Pakistani, I know that some of our terrorist groups are more than driven enough to do it, but I don't know enough about the US government at the time to say anything.

Oh, and on my "excuses for murder", I'm sorry that it seemed like that. I don't think that it's an excusable act, just stating that, for a variety of reasons, people kill, and that doesn't strip them of their humanity. It doesn't make them animals. For the sake of safety, a murderer might be kept apart from others, and this makes perfect sense, but they're still human beings. If you kill for a reason that seemed to be okay to you at the time (but, in retrospect, obviously isn't), then do you think that you should be shunned from normal society for the rest of your life? Perhaps you'd feel you deserve it, but would you honestly resign yourself to that prospect? I don't know how to deal with that argument, but saying that "they've killed all their chances, screw 'em" doesn't seem to me like the right thing to do. Perhaps the easy thing. Perhaps the safe thing, and the better thing to do for the good of others. But, in itself, not right.

True, there are no excuses for killing thousands. For whatever reason you did it, it is, in every sense, wrong, and there's no redemption from it. I was just stating that there are always reasons, and that sometimes they can be viewed in a positive light. Denying this is blinding yourself to the issue. Sometimes, however, positive outcomes can arise from dubious morals and choices. Take a look at post-Mao China.

In regard to the New American Century extract, I'm not too sure about where I stand regarding genetics and related topics. The amount of progress in non-military fields that could be made is great, but there's so much room for abuse that it could become our worst nightmare. And it's guaranteed to be abused once it's reached a certain level. But should that halt scientific progress? Seeing that, as human beings, we've abused new technology for military purposes time and time again, is that a reason to stop progressing? I just don't know. Honestly.

Well... idiotic discussion on my part over? Sorry Nijum, my earlier statement was deeply flawed, I'll admit, and I put it down without too much though. To you, your views, to me mine, and we're all good. Just my two cents up there, I think I'll stop clogging the thread now.

EDIT: I feel that I, for one, am taking the things ME could represent a bit too seriously. If it's government propaganda, screw it. For me, it's gone and showed me an epic storyline and one of the greatest casts I've ever seen in a game. Personally, I like darker, more mature storylines. Maybe I've got some kind of power-hungry itch that the game tickles, I don't really care. As a piece of entertainment, it's absolutely top-notch, so I'm all good with this stance as long as it stays like this. Still, when the "The Alliance is Our Friend..." mini-game comes out, it's war

Oh, and EA haven't been meeting their projected profit quotas, and John Riccitiello's coming under fire for it. If they're recieving government funding, the government's doing a pretty bad job of it XD

Modifié par TSamee, 08 février 2010 - 04:46 .

[Sailears]

TopUSGun wrote...

 I like more dialog than shooting tbh.

Same here. The thing I enjoy most about Mass Effect is the dialogue, so the more the better.

[Legbiter]

Does ME 2 have too much story? Discuss.

[Traumacrazy]

Legbiter wrote...

Does ME 2 have too much story? Discuss.

...

[TSamee]

Even if it does, It'd be inferior if it had less. BW do epic stories, and ME2's combat is just good (nothing bad about it, but it's not awesome). So doesn't it stand to reason that we should have more epic story than good combat?

[aauxraydar]

I think that ME1 and 2 both have an issue where it's easy to become tired of the dialogue before the combat. If all you want is to have some more action rpg fun, it's like eating a cake for the frosting, others might like the whole thing but you will quickly become tired of the filling and probably start to complain about it off even if you like the story. The mass effect series is particularly prone to this because the new game plus feature means your character only becomes truely great if you start over, so in order to expericene the combat at its best you have to basically double the dialogue

Modifié par aauxraydar, 08 février 2010 - 10:17 .

[Orogenic]

Haven't read the thread. Just responding to the title.



The dialogue and cutscenes are what MAKE ME 1 and ME 2. If anything the second game could have used more dialogue to develop the characters. The story must come first for me... otherwise I could care less about running around shooting stuff. If I wanted to do that I'd go play HALO or CoD.

[noobzor99]

No, I think its more of the other way around- the lack of dialog and plot (in comparison to ME1) is what hurts this game.