Great post, agree 100%
ME2 - too much fragmentation, a less than believable whole
Débuté par
Ieldra
, févr. 04 2010 02:48
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 04 février 2010 - 05:57
haberman13
-
- Members
- 418 messages
I find the people that don't agree with the points the OP make are arguing for something the OP would agree with.
Example: OP acknowledges the mako driving sucks, and the planets are dull - but the point is add that component back; but flesh out the driving and the planets. Instead people are saying "I would rather have the planet scanning than the mako". False: you would rather have the Mako with good driving and interesting planets. right?
Example: OP acknowledges the mako driving sucks, and the planets are dull - but the point is add that component back; but flesh out the driving and the planets. Instead people are saying "I would rather have the planet scanning than the mako". False: you would rather have the Mako with good driving and interesting planets. right?
#28
Posté 04 février 2010 - 06:41
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 178 messages
It seems some clearing-up of misunderstandings is due:
I should mention that I have not said anything about the Mako in my original post. I have also not said that the game levels do not serve their purpose of making combat more interesting than in ME1. Combat *is* more interesting than in ME1, I appreciate the new talent system, the lack of vendor trash and one or two other improvements, even the role of the game levels in their function for combat gameplay.
What I did criticize is that they - the indoor levels - mostly do not appear as believable places, in spite of their vastly improved looks and functionality. They were designed for playing a combat-oriented game, but at the expense of immersion. As a result, the mood these levels are made to convey often does not come across, and the particular story chapter in which this mission plays a part suffers.
The mood - as someone above mentioned, "more Blade Runner than Star Trek" - comes across in places like Omega or Illium, or in some of the outdoor levels where there is a sense of place. I do not criticize this mood, no, I like it as a welcome contrast to ME1. But again, in most indoor levels you have no sense of place, and as a result the intended mood does not come across as well as it would have been, were those levels places instead of mere levels. Sometimes it does not come across at all.
I have also critized the unnecessary fragmentation of the world, in form of fragmented missions where the game teleports you between very small locations you can't ever revisit. Which makes the universe seem smaller without any necessity. While I did say that the game levels basically make exploration impossible because you can't miss anything in an area this linear, this has nothing to do with the ME1 planet explorations, which I do not miss much (not that scanning is any more interesting, but that's another topic). I'd like more in-mission exploration opportunities, not exploration as a separate game element, all in all, I wish for a more integrated game environment, where game functionality does not come at the expense of immersion.
I should mention that I have not said anything about the Mako in my original post. I have also not said that the game levels do not serve their purpose of making combat more interesting than in ME1. Combat *is* more interesting than in ME1, I appreciate the new talent system, the lack of vendor trash and one or two other improvements, even the role of the game levels in their function for combat gameplay.
What I did criticize is that they - the indoor levels - mostly do not appear as believable places, in spite of their vastly improved looks and functionality. They were designed for playing a combat-oriented game, but at the expense of immersion. As a result, the mood these levels are made to convey often does not come across, and the particular story chapter in which this mission plays a part suffers.
The mood - as someone above mentioned, "more Blade Runner than Star Trek" - comes across in places like Omega or Illium, or in some of the outdoor levels where there is a sense of place. I do not criticize this mood, no, I like it as a welcome contrast to ME1. But again, in most indoor levels you have no sense of place, and as a result the intended mood does not come across as well as it would have been, were those levels places instead of mere levels. Sometimes it does not come across at all.
I have also critized the unnecessary fragmentation of the world, in form of fragmented missions where the game teleports you between very small locations you can't ever revisit. Which makes the universe seem smaller without any necessity. While I did say that the game levels basically make exploration impossible because you can't miss anything in an area this linear, this has nothing to do with the ME1 planet explorations, which I do not miss much (not that scanning is any more interesting, but that's another topic). I'd like more in-mission exploration opportunities, not exploration as a separate game element, all in all, I wish for a more integrated game environment, where game functionality does not come at the expense of immersion.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 février 2010 - 06:46 .
#29
Posté 04 février 2010 - 07:11
Mikey_205
-
- Members
- 259 messages
(1) Linearity becomes boring
I don't agree this felt almost the same as ME1, I don't remember massive areas explorables in any of the missions.
(2) No sense of place (in indoor combat missions)
I don't agree once again. I had a huge sense of location in every mission. Almost all the missions felt like they belonged where they did. Think Omega missions and it looked completely different to Illium missions. Every place felt unique. Now in ME it was the exact opposite every bunker looked the same, so if I was in a bunker I could have been in any bunker on any planet in the game which means less sense of place. Exploring unique looking areas and diving into indoor areas that all looked different and unique made ME2 so much better in this area.
(3) Lack of tactical opportunities
Yet how does this compare to ME, you had doors you had to enter areas you had to pass. The only place I can think of that did away with this was Virmire. If you try to argue that uncharted planets were a tactical sandbox I'd have to punch you for stupidity and ask what the hell tactics you came up wit
(4) No exploration
Right I honestly don't get this at all. In ME yes there were a ton of planets and exploration. But honestly what side areas were there in Dragon Age. There were some miscellaneous areas in Denerim and some random encounters. This is nothing compared to the planets of Mass Effect. Its also nothing compared to the albeit fewer yet infinitely more unique and interesting locations in ME2. When I explored in DA every side area felt like a side area, when I did quests in ME every sidequest felt tacked on. When I explore the galaxy in ME2 I find locations just as well designed as the main areas on interesting, unique and beautiful looking planets.
B. Mission fragmentation – world dis-integration
I'd argue that the corridors linking some of the areas in ME were pretty dead. I find the hubs have had so much life injected into them. Why would I want to wander through dead corridors.
C. Characters, their quests and the big picture.
Somewhat valid. I don't feel the main quest has been compromised as much as in Dragon Age. I forgot what I was doing towards the end of the side missions there. Mass Effect always kept me updated and ME2 does that too with periodic main missions.
Conclusion:
This is what I wish for ME3:
1) Build on the team members we have
2) Larger hubs but I like the "fragmented" missions
3) Main story and side stories in epic measures
I don't agree this felt almost the same as ME1, I don't remember massive areas explorables in any of the missions.
(2) No sense of place (in indoor combat missions)
I don't agree once again. I had a huge sense of location in every mission. Almost all the missions felt like they belonged where they did. Think Omega missions and it looked completely different to Illium missions. Every place felt unique. Now in ME it was the exact opposite every bunker looked the same, so if I was in a bunker I could have been in any bunker on any planet in the game which means less sense of place. Exploring unique looking areas and diving into indoor areas that all looked different and unique made ME2 so much better in this area.
(3) Lack of tactical opportunities
Yet how does this compare to ME, you had doors you had to enter areas you had to pass. The only place I can think of that did away with this was Virmire. If you try to argue that uncharted planets were a tactical sandbox I'd have to punch you for stupidity and ask what the hell tactics you came up wit
(4) No exploration
Right I honestly don't get this at all. In ME yes there were a ton of planets and exploration. But honestly what side areas were there in Dragon Age. There were some miscellaneous areas in Denerim and some random encounters. This is nothing compared to the planets of Mass Effect. Its also nothing compared to the albeit fewer yet infinitely more unique and interesting locations in ME2. When I explored in DA every side area felt like a side area, when I did quests in ME every sidequest felt tacked on. When I explore the galaxy in ME2 I find locations just as well designed as the main areas on interesting, unique and beautiful looking planets.
B. Mission fragmentation – world dis-integration
I'd argue that the corridors linking some of the areas in ME were pretty dead. I find the hubs have had so much life injected into them. Why would I want to wander through dead corridors.
C. Characters, their quests and the big picture.
Somewhat valid. I don't feel the main quest has been compromised as much as in Dragon Age. I forgot what I was doing towards the end of the side missions there. Mass Effect always kept me updated and ME2 does that too with periodic main missions.
Conclusion:
This is what I wish for ME3:
1) Build on the team members we have
2) Larger hubs but I like the "fragmented" missions
3) Main story and side stories in epic measures
Modifié par Mikey_205, 04 février 2010 - 07:12 .
#30
Posté 04 février 2010 - 07:27
Coldcall01
-
- Members
- 270 messages
Excellent critical review. I agree with most points.
I was hoping ME2 would be sort of a modern day Deus Ex, perhaps even more non linear, with multiple routes to final objectives/missions.
Unfortunately ME2 has ended up as a series of shooter levels/maps.
I was hoping ME2 would be sort of a modern day Deus Ex, perhaps even more non linear, with multiple routes to final objectives/missions.
Unfortunately ME2 has ended up as a series of shooter levels/maps.
#31
Posté 04 février 2010 - 07:34
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 178 messages
@Mikey_205:
Regarding linearity: things that were somewhat less than satisfying in ME1 don't become better if ME2 does them even worse but better looking.
Regarding exploration, read my post above yours. It's in-mission exploration that I miss, not exploration as a tacked-on element like the planet explorations.
Regarding fragmentation:
You write: why would I like to wander through long dead corridors? Here's my short answer: because it's more immersive than being teleported to the other end by the game. I agree the balance may not be so easy - make the corridor too long and it's boring. But a level fragment I spend about five minutes in, being teleported in, and out, that's the opposite of immersion. For instance on the Normandy during the final chapter: I want to run the hell where the danger is, not being teleported there and back. Use a time limit to convey the sense of urgency! And I want that place to be part of the world, before and after that fight. I want a consistent world, not one where places mysteriously vanish just because nothing happens in them.
Ah, and while I'm at it: Who the hell decided that Legion, of all team members, can get into the AI core before I can? Do the people who kept that door locked suddenly trust Legion more than me? Why can't I go into the observation room before Samara gets installed there? I feel constrained by the game. Shoehorned. At the expense of immersion. Occasionally, even at the expense of consistency. That makes it a flaw.
Regarding linearity: things that were somewhat less than satisfying in ME1 don't become better if ME2 does them even worse but better looking.
Regarding exploration, read my post above yours. It's in-mission exploration that I miss, not exploration as a tacked-on element like the planet explorations.
Regarding fragmentation:
You write: why would I like to wander through long dead corridors? Here's my short answer: because it's more immersive than being teleported to the other end by the game. I agree the balance may not be so easy - make the corridor too long and it's boring. But a level fragment I spend about five minutes in, being teleported in, and out, that's the opposite of immersion. For instance on the Normandy during the final chapter: I want to run the hell where the danger is, not being teleported there and back. Use a time limit to convey the sense of urgency! And I want that place to be part of the world, before and after that fight. I want a consistent world, not one where places mysteriously vanish just because nothing happens in them.
Ah, and while I'm at it: Who the hell decided that Legion, of all team members, can get into the AI core before I can? Do the people who kept that door locked suddenly trust Legion more than me? Why can't I go into the observation room before Samara gets installed there? I feel constrained by the game. Shoehorned. At the expense of immersion. Occasionally, even at the expense of consistency. That makes it a flaw.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 février 2010 - 07:42 .
#32
Posté 04 février 2010 - 08:15
spernus
-
- Members
- 334 messages
haberman13 wrote...
I find the people that don't agree with the points the OP make are arguing for something the OP would agree with.
Example: OP acknowledges the mako driving sucks, and the planets are dull - but the point is add that component back; but flesh out the driving and the planets. Instead people are saying "I would rather have the planet scanning than the mako". False: you would rather have the Mako with good driving and interesting planets. right?
The problem is always the same.
Giving feedback is nice and all,but ultimately user feedback cannot guarantee who's actually designing the game and what are his strength or weaknesses.
Is there someone within Bioware who can actually design great boss battle? I have my doubts and I think the Old republic will prove this (mmorpg are loaded with boss battles and this is not one area where Bioware has proven they excel).
Having a mako with good driving is one thing,but there's someone who has to make it happen actually.
#33
Posté 04 février 2010 - 08:21
spernus
-
- Members
- 334 messages
Ieldra2 wrote...
@Mikey_205:
Regarding linearity: things that were somewhat less than satisfying in ME1 don't become better if ME2 does them even worse but better looking.
Regarding exploration, read my post above yours. It's in-mission exploration that I miss, not exploration as a tacked-on element like the planet explorations.
Regarding fragmentation:
You write: why would I like to wander through long dead corridors? Here's my short answer: because it's more immersive than being teleported to the other end by the game. I agree the balance may not be so easy - make the corridor too long and it's boring. But a level fragment I spend about five minutes in, being teleported in, and out, that's the opposite of immersion. For instance on the Normandy during the final chapter: I want to run the hell where the danger is, not being teleported there and back. Use a time limit to convey the sense of urgency! And I want that place to be part of the world, before and after that fight. I want a consistent world, not one where places mysteriously vanish just because nothing happens in them.
Ah, and while I'm at it: Who the hell decided that Legion, of all team members, can get into the AI core before I can? Do the people who kept that door locked suddenly trust Legion more than me? Why can't I go into the observation room before Samara gets installed there? I feel constrained by the game. Shoehorned. At the expense of immersion. Occasionally, even at the expense of consistency. That makes it a flaw.
Purely subjective and I don't agree with most of your game designing ideas.
Immersion is not absolute in a videogame,as you can start losing something in terms of fun factor.Gran theft auto IV is the most immersive and realistic in the serie,but it also bored a lot of people.In fact,one of the main complaints from people was the lack of arcade like controls for vehicles ( no power sliding).I won't even start talking about maintening relationships...
#34
Posté 04 février 2010 - 08:24
Gorn Kregore
-
- Members
- 636 messages
haberman13 wrote...
I find the people that don't agree with the points the OP make are arguing for something the OP would agree with.
Example: OP acknowledges the mako driving sucks, and the planets are dull - but the point is add that component back; but flesh out the driving and the planets. Instead people are saying "I would rather have the planet scanning than the mako". False: you would rather have the Mako with good driving and interesting planets. right?
ohohoho haberman13 hardcore dictator brainwashing individuals maybe if he wasn't so closed minded he would allow others to express their opinions on the current subject no?
#35
Posté 04 février 2010 - 08:37
Psython
-
- Members
- 229 messages
I agree with the original poster Ieldra2 with her thoughts on the main issues with ME2. There are so many wierd logical things about the way the story unfolds it gets on my nerves. At first I thought the AI core would be locked because the the invisible man wanted to keep Shepard from messing with EDI's data core. The all of the sudden there is a geth in there and I can all of the sudden go in. Why do I need to "unlock" areas of my own ship if I am the commander. The way recruiting unlocks areas of the ship makes me feel like I am playing a game and makes me lose immersion.
In dragon age, you went on with the main story and picked up squad mates realistically as you went and could make different choices about how loyal they would become. In DAO, it was main story first and help second. Then those characters would actually effect the outcome of the plot. In ME2, you spend 80-90% of the entire game rounding up these people and in the end they make no real difference on the plot anyways. They are just meatbags with guns, none of there story comes through on the suicide mission so why bother to put in all that story to begin with. Some of the people in this thread commented that the emphasis is on building a team to take on a suicide mission. Ok well if thats true than why could dragon age origins have the same suicide mission mechanic and get away with having most of the game be about the real story. In DA, the suicide mission felt like a culmination of the storyline and everything. In ME2 it feels like they are finally after 30-40 hours going to let you play the game and figure out who this mysterious enemy is and then nope. In fact, there is about 10 minutes of exposition in the whole game. I learned more and had more of an exchange with the enemy on Virmire in ME1 than in the last mission of ME2. In the first game the galactic manhunt for a psychotic traitor that was possessed was so much more interesting than the collectors. At least there was a face and a name. Saren was a real nemesis.
Also, I agree about the mission fragment and linearity, but thats another topic I dont have time for. Also, the disagreable people in this thread might want to reread the OP because it seems like there is a reading comprehension issue here. I think that if bioware actually reads these posts than this is a good one for them to read. If they can combine the good in ME1-2 than ME3 will be awesome. I do love ME2, its just more of a collection of short stories than the middle chapter in a novel.
In dragon age, you went on with the main story and picked up squad mates realistically as you went and could make different choices about how loyal they would become. In DAO, it was main story first and help second. Then those characters would actually effect the outcome of the plot. In ME2, you spend 80-90% of the entire game rounding up these people and in the end they make no real difference on the plot anyways. They are just meatbags with guns, none of there story comes through on the suicide mission so why bother to put in all that story to begin with. Some of the people in this thread commented that the emphasis is on building a team to take on a suicide mission. Ok well if thats true than why could dragon age origins have the same suicide mission mechanic and get away with having most of the game be about the real story. In DA, the suicide mission felt like a culmination of the storyline and everything. In ME2 it feels like they are finally after 30-40 hours going to let you play the game and figure out who this mysterious enemy is and then nope. In fact, there is about 10 minutes of exposition in the whole game. I learned more and had more of an exchange with the enemy on Virmire in ME1 than in the last mission of ME2. In the first game the galactic manhunt for a psychotic traitor that was possessed was so much more interesting than the collectors. At least there was a face and a name. Saren was a real nemesis.
Also, I agree about the mission fragment and linearity, but thats another topic I dont have time for. Also, the disagreable people in this thread might want to reread the OP because it seems like there is a reading comprehension issue here. I think that if bioware actually reads these posts than this is a good one for them to read. If they can combine the good in ME1-2 than ME3 will be awesome. I do love ME2, its just more of a collection of short stories than the middle chapter in a novel.
#36
Posté 04 février 2010 - 08:39
Psython
-
- Members
- 229 messages
Gorn Kregore wrote...
haberman13 wrote...
I find the people that don't agree with the points the OP make are arguing for something the OP would agree with.
Example: OP acknowledges the mako driving sucks, and the planets are dull - but the point is add that component back; but flesh out the driving and the planets. Instead people are saying "I would rather have the planet scanning than the mako". False: you would rather have the Mako with good driving and interesting planets. right?
ohohoho haberman13 hardcore dictator brainwashing individuals maybe if he wasn't so closed minded he would allow others to express their opinions on the current subject no?
Wow, hypocritical much Gorn? Maybe you should follow your own advice.
#37
Posté 05 février 2010 - 07:29
Wintermist
-
- Members
- 2 655 messages
haberman13 wrote...
I find the people that don't agree with the points the OP make are arguing for something the OP would agree with.
Example: OP acknowledges the mako driving sucks, and the planets are dull - but the point is add that component back; but flesh out the driving and the planets. Instead people are saying "I would rather have the planet scanning than the mako". False: you would rather have the Mako with good driving and interesting planets. right?
Yeah, but you know. Some people just don't think lol.
#38
Posté 05 février 2010 - 10:32
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 178 messages
^^Again, I wasn't talking about the Mako, although yes, a bit of planet exploration with better driving and a few interesting planets would be nice. But on the topic of world disintegration: however planet landings are done, I highly resent not being able to return to them. These places don't vanish into thin air, do they? At least those that don't explode when we leave them.
As for the question: "Did you ever revisit a minor planet in ME1"? Yes, I did. For instance, I went back to Chasca as a tourist, so to speak - to make some screenshots of my Shepard near the Prothean pyramid before going off to Ilos. One of the best scenic views of ME1
As for the question: "Did you ever revisit a minor planet in ME1"? Yes, I did. For instance, I went back to Chasca as a tourist, so to speak - to make some screenshots of my Shepard near the Prothean pyramid before going off to Ilos. One of the best scenic views of ME1
#39
Posté 05 février 2010 - 11:29
rumple4skn
-
- Members
- 1 messages
I think the OP summed up ME2 and its minor shortcommings really well.
ME2 is an grand piece of entertainment, I cant remember the last time i lost 40 hours of my life to fiction and felt so satisfied. So although there are some complaints about the difference between ME1 and ME2 they are not things that in any way ruin the title. More like things that players would like to see improved in ME3 to make the universe even more engaging.
The side quests are now alot better being fully fleshed out unique adventures as opposed to generic 3 room bases, this adds greatly to the realism. But also this extra work from BW has taken more time/effort so the planets are alot smaller, infact only as big as the mission needs. This is where the closeness/fragmentation is most evident. Because even though there may not be anythng else of interest outside the mission area it is still nice to be able to have a look around so you have the feeling there is more to the world than just you and what you are doing.
Finding a way of bringing the vastness of the universe into the game and still making if fun will be a hard balance for BW to get perfect in ME3. We all want to feel like we are part of the ME universe, but i'm sure nobody wants to sit on a 15 min shuttle ride from the normandy to the planet everytime we start a mission (although it would be a great oppertunity to bring back all the old elevator banter ) the current method of just appearing at the start of a small level has greatly diminshed the feel for the great openess of space.
The other aspect the OP mentioned that i also felt could have been improved was the pacing of the main storyline. I understand that this is really a story about your crew, and the crew characters/mission are excellent and really added alot of detail and depth to the lives of those serving with shepard. But the crew's story greatly outweighted the plot story of ME2 which was a shame becuase at no point was there a feeling of urgancy to stop the collector threat.
Maybe a few more plot missions added between recruiting characters would have helped keep the story moving, currently it feels like there is a great threat that then seems to be put on hold for a very long time while you get your people together. I certainly would not want the character missions reduced in anyway to make room for this added plot though. So again its more an issue of balancing the characters story with that of the bigger ME plot.
I hope this post reads as an observation of small problems rather than a negative rant as i do truly think the game is fantastic and done so many things really well especially the voice acting / graphics / music / cinematic angle added to conversation / interupts / added combat variety and depth added to the normandy crew.
Thanks for a great game, im eagerly looking forward to the final part
ME2 is an grand piece of entertainment, I cant remember the last time i lost 40 hours of my life to fiction and felt so satisfied. So although there are some complaints about the difference between ME1 and ME2 they are not things that in any way ruin the title. More like things that players would like to see improved in ME3 to make the universe even more engaging.
The side quests are now alot better being fully fleshed out unique adventures as opposed to generic 3 room bases, this adds greatly to the realism. But also this extra work from BW has taken more time/effort so the planets are alot smaller, infact only as big as the mission needs. This is where the closeness/fragmentation is most evident. Because even though there may not be anythng else of interest outside the mission area it is still nice to be able to have a look around so you have the feeling there is more to the world than just you and what you are doing.
Finding a way of bringing the vastness of the universe into the game and still making if fun will be a hard balance for BW to get perfect in ME3. We all want to feel like we are part of the ME universe, but i'm sure nobody wants to sit on a 15 min shuttle ride from the normandy to the planet everytime we start a mission (although it would be a great oppertunity to bring back all the old elevator banter
) the current method of just appearing at the start of a small level has greatly diminshed the feel for the great openess of space.The other aspect the OP mentioned that i also felt could have been improved was the pacing of the main storyline. I understand that this is really a story about your crew, and the crew characters/mission are excellent and really added alot of detail and depth to the lives of those serving with shepard. But the crew's story greatly outweighted the plot story of ME2 which was a shame becuase at no point was there a feeling of urgancy to stop the collector threat.
Maybe a few more plot missions added between recruiting characters would have helped keep the story moving, currently it feels like there is a great threat that then seems to be put on hold for a very long time while you get your people together. I certainly would not want the character missions reduced in anyway to make room for this added plot though. So again its more an issue of balancing the characters story with that of the bigger ME plot.
I hope this post reads as an observation of small problems rather than a negative rant as i do truly think the game is fantastic and done so many things really well especially the voice acting / graphics / music / cinematic angle added to conversation / interupts / added combat variety and depth added to the normandy crew.
Thanks for a great game, im eagerly looking forward to the final part
