38 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

(So, now it should be readable. This is a strange editor...)

This is about some things I feel are less than optimal to badly realized in gameplay. Mostly it’s about the fact that, while many aspects of ME2 are enjoyable and noticeably improved from ME1, that does often not improve the whole. The complete package seems dis-integrated, a whole made from badly-fitting parts, and a bit lackluster as a result of it. It fails to engage. The missions are fragmented, large parts of the world consist of game levels instead of believable places, and the main plot is underrepresented in gameplay. Most fights are fairly enjoyable, but many combat missions as a whole are not, all team members  are very well done, but their role in the main story is not, and so on. I’ll get to the details below.

A. Combat scenes, combat missions and “level” design

As I said, once combat is under way, it is fairly enjoyable. But almost all combat missions suffer from an overdose of linearity and design for the game only and not for a believable place. The results are as follows:

(1) Linearity becomes boring

Mainly, almost all combat missions consist of following the single possible path to your goal, killing everything you meet on the way. After the 10th of this kind, this becomes very boring. Admittedly, some efforts are made to make them more interesting, such as dialog opportunities, bits of information, sometimes even a cutscene etc.., but on the whole you just follow the single possible path. There are no alternate paths, and optional locations to explore within a level are almost non-existent – limited to a locked room here and there, not more than a dozen distributed over the whole game, or so it felt.

(2) No sense of place (in indoor combat missions)

So, you might say, most missions of ME1 were much the same. But at least in ME1, you had a sense of place. The “level” layout, at least within the main plot missions, resulted in a reasonably believable location of a certain type, within the limits a game always suffers from. When you were in the Citadel near the end of ME1, everything was as linear as things can get, but it was still a believable location introduced nicely, btw, by the cutscene where you leave the elevator. The linearity made sense at least as much that you had no problem with suspension of disbelief. In almost all ME2 indoor missions, there is absolutely no sense of place, and the lack of a map in these missions only underscores this instead of hiding it as it is probably intended to. It seems the “levels” were made without imagination, without even remotely considering the bigger picture of the place you’re supposed to run through.  One exception is the ship you must re-capture in a side quest near Omega. Here you have a sense of place. Also, the mood sometimes comes across as intended, as in Jack’s loyalty quest. But, good-looking as they are, mostly we don’t have places in ME2, we have levels.

(3) Lack of tactical opportunities

What is tactics? Not being acquainted with the military, I can’t present a technical definition. But even so, I consider it reasonably correct to say that combat tactics consists of selecting an approach and allocate resources in order to solve a certain combat situation in an optimal way. The hyper-linearity of the levels results in a total lack of approach options. You always come through the same door, you must always leave through the same door, and within a scene the only tactical decisions you’ll probably make are to select where to take cover in a way that almost no enemies can shoot at you, and whether or not to use your heavy weapon.  Sadly, the situation with
the geth armature presents a highlight of tactical decision making in ME2. A traditional RPG can get away with this, but a TPS game without tactically interesting locations becomes boring.  

(4) No exploration

Not only do we have no alternate paths, we don’t even have branch-offs. Which means that you essentially can’t
miss anything. You can’t miss rooms because you must almost always run through them, with the exception of a dozen or so in the whole game. And once in a room, everything you can “explore” there is blaringly apparent. Compare this with, for instance, Dragon Age: you can (on the PC) still always see everything worthwhile in a room (and no, I wouldn’t have it any other way), but you must at least enter the room to see it all, and while the way through most indoor locations is still very much apparent, there are lots of rooms left to explore. In ME2, within a mission, there is almost nothing to explore.

B. Mission fragmentation – world dis-integration

This is about the fact that all too often, you don’t travel to the locations where you must fulfil a certain task, no, the game puts you there. And all too often, you don’t have the option of leaving a place, no, the game decides for you. And, as if that weren’t enough, you can *never* revisit any place where any mission had taken place.

Most indicative of this is Garrus’ loyalty quest. You meet "Fade"n, then the game places you on a walkway above a Citadel hallway. The mission fragment commences, and then the game puts you back into the Citadel dock. Now, where was that location when you visited the Citadel earlier? Now you know about it, why can’t you revisit it?

The result of this is, again, that you have no sense of place. The locations you visit do not come across as real, they’re micro-universes that vanish after you have done what’s to do there. The ME1 universe seems quite a lot bigger than the ME2 universe, just because of this. That there isn’t anything to do with these locations after you visited them is beside the point. If you can revisit (or previsit) them, they’re part of the world, if not, they’re not any more. This is OK – if they’re destroyed. If they’re not, it’s needlessly making the world dis-integrate.

C. Characters, their quests and the big picture.

ME2, as it presents itself to me, is not a game about an epic story as ME1 was, it’s a game about your team. You spend the majority of your playing time recruiting your team members and doing their loyalty quests. These characters are very well done, and apart from the flaws mentioned above, their missions are, too.

The problem is, the main storyline did not get the same attention. Or rather, it may have gotten the same attention as two of the characters combined, but that’s not enough to make an epic story. At least the first main plot missions are outdoor missions so you have a reasonable sense of place in spite of their linear design and their depressing (lack of) length. But they’re rather short, shorter than the longer recruiting or loyalty missions, and there are only two of them (the next missions place you, again, not in places but in levels - very disappointing).

The result of this is that you don’t get the impression that a story takes place. You get the impression that the characters’ stories take place, and that the so-called main plot is only an afterthought. Well-done as the characters are, that’s not enough.

Conclusion:

This is what I wish for ME3:
(1) Fewer team members, more screen space for the main plot.
(2) Less linearity within missions.
(3) A less fragmented world, and less fragmented missions.

Comments welcome.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 février 2010 - 03:00 .

[Rogue-Element]

Interesting read, I agree with allot of your points. Especially the linear aspect of missions. It was the first thing I noticed and I tried real hard not to let it bother me but it's way too obvious not to.



On the mission where you recruit Grunt, I remember being anxious to see the krogan planet. And even though you get to see some incredible vista's the mission is linear as hell. It felt more like going down the military training course taking one obstacle after another.



The sense of place is also a really important aspect. Like it or not missiona in ME1 where fairly linear as well. But because they gave you a better sense of place it felt more complete. For example on Feros, it feels like an entire colony build in this half destroyed skyscraper. Most of the missions in ME2 feel to "set up" simple example being the fact that you can guess when enemies are going to pop up because the cover as already been neatly laid out for you.



Last but not least the overall quest, Gamespot has an achievement "better than the sum of its parts" ME2 feels like completely the opposite. Althought the individual missions are good put them all together and the whole thing is a lot less coherent. While playing I didn't get the feeling of "darn I need to work hard/quick" because collectors are taking human colonies. For some reason that overarching threat is allot less viable then Saren was in ME1.



Despite my comments I do really like the game, allot of improvements are for the better but in the end a combination of ME1's story driven gameplay and the enhanced feautes of ME2 would make the perfect game.

[Wintermist]

You know, this was a very good read and I find that I agree with it wholeheartedly.

[Twinkiegorilla]

Good read. Though I have to say re: #'s 3 & 4, I don't agree entirely. I know exactly where you are coming from...but I get the impression the developers either thought they were doing this, or attempted to. The difference between an attempt and a complete lack of attempt is the difference in a dead end street or no street at all.



I'd hope the developers go back to these streets and pave them all the way through next time.

[Bronxboy]

I agree with you on sooooo many points. I absolutely love the higher quality of visuals in ME2 but do often find myself feeling like so much more could have been done to create a sense of where we are. I would also like to see less squadmates, with each one being extremely deep in terms of content and powers and combat AI, even animations.



There's nothign they can do with ME2 but hopefully ME3 will take a step back towards the strengths of ME1 which was atmosphere & immersion. (I also hope ME3 gives us bigger setpieces to explore and cities are all available with the choice to take the long route to places or quick travel (being able to walk everywhere on the Citadel or quickly trevel if we chose to do so)!

[smudgedhorizon]

Fantastic read, and mirrors my feelings on it exactly.

Oh and I *hate* that mission complete screen...

[Odd Hermit]

Agree with all points. I'd say that the side missions in ME 2 were more interesting than ME 1, but the maps were just not well designed.

I'd add these two additional issues -

Too much focus on providing cover in almost every combat situation.

Very non-static enemies, they seem to just come out of the woodwork a lot of the time.

[Aesdriel]

I have to second some points. At least for the sake of ME3.

I enjoy the game but it lacks the immersion the first one gave me. The game is too 'split' between 'levels' it makes the game more predictible and less surprising. Secondly the different environments, even if they are really well done, are too small. I don't feel like i am in one giant city while in the Citadel. It could be a small remote space station. I would love to get lost in the streets and levels of the citadel...

EDIT:
"Oh and I *hate* that mission complete screen..."

Oh yes, it's a shame...

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

[Mezinger]

Ieldra2 wrote...
B. Mission fragmentation – world dis-integration

This is about the fact that all too often, you don’t travel to the locations where you must fulfil a certain task, no, the game puts you there. And all too often, you don’t have the option of leaving a place, no, the game decides for you. And, as if that weren’t enough, you can *never* revisit any place where any mission had taken place.

Most indicative of this is Garrus’ loyalty quest. You meet "Fade"n, then the game places you on a walkway above a Citadel hallway. The mission fragment commences, and then the game puts you back into the Citadel dock. Now, where was that location when you visited the Citadel earlier? Now you know about it, why can’t you revisit it?

The result of this is, again, that you have no sense of place. The locations you visit do not come across as real, they’re micro-universes that vanish after you have done what’s to do there. The ME1 universe seems quite a lot bigger than the ME2 universe, just because of this. That there isn’t anything to do with these locations after you visited them is beside the point. If you can revisit (or previsit) them, they’re part of the world, if not, they’re not any more. This is OK – if they’re destroyed. If they’re not, it’s needlessly making the world dis-integrate.

This is totally bang on.... add in mission complete screens and it's like... what? hello? what happened the to big sprawling universe of ME1... Why has everything been turned into levels instead of areas... major blow to the games immersion / role play credibility. 

[Ieldra]

@Free Gobble:
Well yes, I enjoy the many team members as well. Given the option for many team members *and* a better main plot, of course I'd take it. What I meant is that having 10 team members (how many are there exactly?) is nice, but if it comes at the price we see in ME2, I'd rather have 7 and a better main plot in ME3.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 février 2010 - 03:36 .

[ninnisinni97]

I agree about that "Mission Complete" screen, it really sucks! Perhaps they should have hired a cheaper actor for th Illusive Man so they could afford him speaking directly to you after missions. It just kinda feels like the mission complete screen is there because they couldn't record all those lines with Martin Sheen...

Modifié par ninnisinni97, 04 février 2010 - 03:52 .

[Matrices1]

I sympathize with the complaints - but I don't agree with them.



By which I mean this: if you were expecting ME2 to be more of ME1, you're going to be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you found ME1 to be quite flawed and enjoyed it only for the story, then you're likely going to love ME2. I'm in the latter camp.



The differences between the games is best summed up this way: more Blade Runner, less Star Trek. The experience is supposed to be tight, intense, dark, and focused. And it was, precisely for all the reasons ME1 was not.



1. On level design: Roaming around random, generic levels and planets aimlessly does not contribute to the atmosphere Bioware was gunning for with ME2. The levels and the worlds in this game were designed with a specific intent - not to awe you with a sense of open space - but to convey the grittiness and darkness of the game world. The level design is therefore not a failure but a success in achieving a different end goal.



2. On side missions versus story: I think that this is a superficial assessment, though one that is easy to make. When I realized that the game was essentially "recruit/make loyal team members, then do a handful of story missions" I was also initially disappointed. But that's the wrong approach. As Illusive Man and your own teammates repeatedly emphasize, this is a suicide mission. People will die. Therefore it's important - integral - to recruit the best people and clear their minds of distractions as much as possible to be prepared for the mission. The character missions are not "side" missions at all - they are preparation for the impending suicide mission that you're broadly aware of pretty early on.



Finally, most of those character missions do shed light on what's going on in the universe at large. You just need to pay attention. The missions all but telegraph to the player what forces are going be in play in ME3. The interactions you have with the Geth, Krogans, Quarrians, and genophage clearly forecast upcoming events and give you a great sense of the major conflicts going on in the universe.



I think that those clever and sometimes subtle intimations about the major struggles among various factions convey a much greater sense of the epic scale of the galaxy than running around all of the citadel or roaming pre-fab facilities in the Mako.

[NuHPgn]

Wow, what a very good read and I have to agree with many things Ieldra2 said. There's room for improvememt in ME3 and you summarized it to the point in the first paragraph. Please allow me to quote:



"The missions are fragmented, large parts of the world consist of game levels instead of believable places, and the main plot is underrepresented in gameplay [...] all team members are very well done, but their role in the main story is not."

[FlintlockJazz]

I'm not going to argue whether ME2 is epic or not, we each have our own opinions and for something like that what we think is really the only thing that matters to each of us, but what I will say is what is wrong with having a set of individual stories that show what's life is like in this awesome galaxy? It's kinda like the Stories of Life on the Frontier book you got with the old Frontier Elite 2 game, it contained a bunch of short stories about people living in the universe, and it gave you a taste of what life was like there.

By giving us a taste of life in this galaxy we now know where the characters are coming from with their beliefs and attitudes, we know what we are defending or not defending, and so can be better invested in the epic third act that everyone seems to just want.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 04 février 2010 - 04:31 .

[kloggson]

Something that really bothered me much was, to qoute Yahtzee(zero-punctuation), chest-high walls!



There were way too many chest-high walls in the game, just like in gears of war.

[Lvl20DM]

They were trying a different structure with ME 2. The story is the recruitment of a team, and given its size, the game is fairly chaotic. I think that is what they were going for. The Mission complete screen doesn't bother me, but I do think they could have imparted most of this information with a dialogue box at the corner of the screen and an e-mail. Saving the XP until the end of a mission was a good move - it keeps the game moving.

[ifander]

I more or less agree with everything the OP wrote. The combat itself is great, but as stated by the OP, the game lacks overall immersion. Ever since I first played this game, I've felt underwhelmed for some reason, and I think it's because the game doesn't build up enough momentum going into the suicide mission. The mission itself was great, but when the credits rolled, I was like "is that it?" In contrast, when the credits rolled in ME1 you had this great sense of accomplishment. Too little emphasis is placed on the actual threat in ME2, so the urgency and "epicness" is never there...



Still, great game nonetheless.

[bjdbwea]

I agree with everything the OP said. I'd add that the Mako missions are missing too. People complained about the controls and the lack of diversity, but I don't think many people wanted it completely removed. It's certainly better than scanning planets, and most of all it added much to the feeling of actually travelling through a huge galaxy. And some planets with their skies were just beautiful to look at. In a game that's about space exploration, we should see more of it.

[Jebel Krong]

points 1&2 i agree with - the linearity everywhere is disappointing, but perhaps more technical, and at least a lot of planets have open spaces adding to the depth and immersion (at least for me, the latter), but nowhere was as large as the citadfel and the loading screens make it more obvious, unlike the slow elevators of 1, opposite of what was intended. i have already lamented the "combat zones" as arbitrary warehouse/crate-fests, as a lot of them are - some are better - the tower on illium, for example, and the collector vessel disguised it's linearity well with some very nice and creepy design.



overall though the linearity can be forgiven given how the missions are set up and the way smaller side-quests and, especially, upgrades etc are handled - the player needs to be able to find them relatively easily or will lose interest roaming samey streets/whatever on the off chance of finding something interesting. borderlands this is not. mass effect is much more story-driven and, if you get distracted, that can distract from the effectiveness of the central core to overall detriment more than these problems.



combat levels are marred by the need for plentiful cover, hence the plethora of crates. this is made worse by the complete contrast in design of these areas with the normal ones, and not being able to draw your weapon except in these zones (benefit on one hand, detriment on the other).



in conclusion, i think the central story is strong, and it's certainly well-told. the core of the game - gathering your team (again) is perhaps overused now, but again is strong, and i got more of a feel of the universe, certainly from places like omega/illium (more than tuchanka) being adarker and more dangerous this time, so BW certainly succeeded in that. and the characters are just so well done.

[Master Smurf]

Why does it always seem to be mutually exclusive ???

@ Matrices1 - love the game or not you have to agree that the "worlds" feel very small - The citadel now is practically an apartment complex (there isnt really a need to fast travel), Illium maybe comparable to Noveria but there isnt the extended research facility and the combat areas overall are poorer than ME - my main problem in ME was that there were not enough combatants in each skirmish but the environments you were fighting in I think were much more realistic.

The fights on Haestrom (in the open) are pretty sweet though - more of that please.



I also mentioned that BW should have gone with less characters - That way the could of fleshed them out more and made the universe larger - The only way to accomplish it with right now is to double the disc count (no argument here).

I think that when posters pour their self into a great post like that you should acknowledge what the want to accomplish - a deeper fuller experience in the game where both types of player can enjoy and complete the "mission" using their style for resolution.



It shouldnt be ME vs ME2 but an amalgamation of the two for a better experience. Maybe we are spoiled and expect too much of this generation - I hope BW can pull it off and end the trilogy with an excellent conclusion.

[Gaddmeister]

Well written, but I don't agree at all. The level design for combat in ME2 is far superior than in ME1 imo. Sure, there is only one way to get from point A to point B regarding when it comes to which areas you must pass, but in many places there are multiple ways you can go and choose to approach the enemy, good flanking opportunities. In ME1 there were much less tactical choices you could do regarding positioning. And I really like the overhauling the combat has received, what with individual skills for squad mates and classes, mapping to hot keys for the controller (playing on the xbox) etc, So the level design and improved combat diversity have made this game more varied and increased replayability for me much more than ME ever did.

Modifié par Gaddmeister, 04 février 2010 - 05:07 .

[thompsonaf]

Compaint 1) ME2 is too linear.



Well, so is ME1. Exact same indoor building and rooms. The planets were almost always the same, except for sometimes they're red, white, or green.



Complaint 2) ME2 lacks tactical opportunities.



ME1 combat = spectre weapon + frictionless X mod + ammo mod + shoot someone in the face for 5 minutes. I'd say ME2 is leagues better than ME1, but to each their own.



Complaint 3) No exploration.



Mako driving sucks, no exception. Driving around planets in that science experiment was painful, I do not miss it.



Complaint 4) World fragmentation



Your last sentence " That there isn’t anything to do with these locations after you visited them is beside the point." That is the point, once you did your side quest the planet was useless. Wasted generic space. Bioware did a 180 and made each side quest unique.



Complaint 5) ME2 is not as epic, but about your team



Bioware intentionally designed it that way. ME2 is a the second act of the trilogy. The entire game is about recruiting a team, gaining their trust, and then going on a suicide mission. It's not about saving the galaxy. Your expectations were for ME1 Part 2, which this not.

[muleo]

I agree with Matrices1 but don't have the time or inclination to write such a massive essay. 
Personally I thought the levels (especially the planets) in ME1 where mundane and far too mountainous with the indoor sections being one of about 4 generic models with different cover dotted about. Now each levels has a very individual look and every time i walk into Omega i get a overwhelming feeling of going into Mos Eisley. 

I really appreciate the effort bioware have made to tighten the fighting as well, with each class having fewer abilities and a more tactical approach to taking enemies down. Im loving number 2 as much as the first.....long live bioware!